THE NUCLEAR capacity of aggressive rogue states can no longer be tolerated by a sensible global polity, as such a continuation represents the largest and most real threat to peace and security the world has ever known. An ever-growing number of aggressive and rogue states have been allowed to develop nuclear programs, while other equally dangerous states are expanding their weapons delivery capacity. Though the United States has stepped up its self-defense efforts under President Bush, such as his recent stance against Iran receiving nuclear fuel materials, there is still a long way to go before the world can be a free and safe place.
Many economically and/or politically struggling countries such as Pakistan, India and China have developed strong nuclear programs rather than use the massive funding towards the betterment of their people. Equally wavering and far more dangerous states, such as Iran and North Korea, are suspected or known to be moving towards joining the nuclear club, while states such as Libya and the former Soviet republics have thankfully agreed to give up their programs. This group is an interesting combination because it includes many of the world's most dangerous, unstable dictatorships, completely aside from their nuclear potential.
How these thoroughly dangerous powers came to possess such destructive power is a long and winding story. What must be done now, though, is to analyze existing programs and protocol, fix them, and create new alternatives.
For starters, there is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, sponsored by the leading nuclear powers of the time: the United States, Britain, France and the then USSR. It stipulates that existing nuclear powers agree not to share nuclear weapons technology with other nations, and that non-nuclear powers agree not to develop such programs. In addition, nuclear power facilities in countries without nuclear weapons technology must be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
At face value, this treaty has done a lot to prevent nuclear proliferation. The problem, however, is that the treaty is entirely voluntary and not very enforceable. In recent years new information has developed regarding secret nuclear weapons programs in a number of rogue states, most ominously North Korea. In addition, China has developed new missile delivery systems, something uncovered by the treaty, which are capable of reaching the United States. Other aggressor nations are on their way to a similar position.
This, too, is on top of more recent crises in which North Korea left negotiations for the dismantling of its nuclear program and in which China has pressed the issue of its supposed right to rule over the island of Taiwan. Finally, Russia has recently stepped back from its role in stemming the tide of proliferation and has considered selling nuclear fuel materials to Iran -- materials that could then be refined and used in a weapons program. Though it is unlikely this deal with go through, that it can even arise shows the weakness of the existing system.
In order to fix this situation, we can do nothing less than draw a firm line on proliferation among our supposed partners as well as the aggressor states. We must do whatever is necessary to stop this colossal threat before the unthinkable happens. Thus, we must support the initiatives President Bush has already begun.
First, we must make the NPT stronger and must hold member states accountable for their actions. Nuclear weapons are not enough; we must restrict delivery systems and crack down on illicit transfers of weapons material, such as diversions of spent fuel rods from legitimate power plants. National sovereignty is itself in question when, at the push of a button, a dictator can destroy a peaceful city over 10,000 miles away, knowing full well that we will not respond in kind against the dictator's own innocent citizens. Therefore, the United States must consider stronger military, political, and economic action. Our commitment to enforce the NPT -- renewed by President Bush's leadership in the Russia-Iran deal and on treaty violations by North Korea -- must be continued. Future violations, such as those possibly resulting from Russia's deal with Iran, must be prevented through similar political channels.
The second step is to develop defenses and economic programs outside the political arena. This has already begun under President Bush's renewal of missile defense systems. It can only be continued by further research and by deploying such systems worldwide. There is also the of imposing economic sanctions on non-cooperative nations, though helping the oppressed peoples to create a freer state and to develop a more productive, less military-oriented economy would have far better long-term results. Finally, though controversial, our last option is direct military intervention by US or UN forces.
The world's nuclear-capable rogue nations cannot continue to pose such an enormous threat. President Bush has taken the first steps in this battle, yet unfortunately he has only slowed the tide. The United States must take a stronger stance against proliferation in both developing and current nuclear powers. Without such action there is no telling what future these aggressive, nuclear-toting dictators will force upon us.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Dailyviewpoint writer.
Read More
SHRAUGER: We must fight against transportation deregulation
By Alex Shrauger | YesterdaySpecifically, the reduction of funds in public transportation may leave University students stranded without convenient means of transport. But more broadly, the environmental impacts which deregulation may have are long-lasting.
Letters to the Editor: The resignation of University President Jim Ryan
4 days agoFollowing this resignation, The Cavalier Daily has received letters from the University community which provide various perspectives on what this moment means to them and to the University’s future.
U.Va. Medical Students: Defend academic freedom
By U.Va. Medical Students | June 29, 2025To yield in the face of federal pressure does more than betray the University’s core values — it encourages future attacks on academia.
