By Katherine Yaremko, a junior print journalism student
The perilous situations faced by regions around the world in their grasp for security appear as if they will only intensify, particularly with recent announcements in the nuclear arena. Recently, scientists in India have begun attempts to persuade their government to test nuclear weapons; if they succeed, it will be the first time the country will have conducted tests in over a decade. This development, following relatively close behind North Korea’s nuclear experiments and Iran’s uranium enrichment, marks an uncertain point in which instability and escalating regional conflicts will make the next few months and years perilous. Some fear that if India proceeds with the tests, it may prompt Pakistan and China to conduct tests of their own, with widespread ramifications.
According to The New York Times editorial “Just Say No”, “The United States should make clear that India has more to gain by focusing on economic growth and expanding global cooperation than on developing more nuclear weapons. And it should leave no doubt about how much India and the rest of the world have to lose if New Delhi makes the wrong choice.”
I do not want to see any country conduct additional nuclear tests. Unfortunately, the suggestion that the US dictate to the rest of the world how it should regulate its nuclear material is not likely to be well received. In such an attempt, America will come across as a condescending boss than a concerned country instructing those who already possess weapons from developing them further and scolding those without weapons for attempting to begin the process. The resulting image is one of a child hording a bag of chocolates and whisking them protectively under his arm at the sight of fellow children’s envious stares.
How can the US, or any other country in possession of nuclear weapons for that matter, expect other nations to obey such conditions? Some countries, America included, still firmly grasp its own stockpile of potential mushroom clouds. While one may not be able to sympathize with the desire to expand the existence of something that so cruelly and prematurely causes death, one can still understand a country’s desire to have access to such weapons. Ideally, the best situation would be one in which every nuclear-possessing nation destroyed all of its stockpiles, or even better, a way in which the very development of nuclear weapons could be undone.
Tragically, neither of these options is remotely possible; and we are left with a situation that appears to have no admirable solution. In an attempt to keep and increase their own security, nations will refuse to surrender weapons in their entirety.
The focus on nuclear arsenal development as a means of attaining security is especially tragic when some of this security can be achieved through means other than defense. Fostering economic growth is not only capable of improving conditions within countries; it can also lead to the expansion of human rights and civil liberties. A greater number of individuals will be more likely and willing to turn to global trade and harmony. I understand that in many ways this is a simplification of the world’s problems and potential solutions; but, I believe they are worth considering and implementing seriously. These ideas have been proposed before and are far from new. However, it seems that these priorities have diminished in the eyes of the international nuclear community. Perhaps America would do well to heed the same message it is pointing out to India.
