[Rou]

Once the balance in power is equal once there are fears on both sides of nuclear attack only then will the balance be equal..dont get me wrong nuclear over all is a bad idea but the fact that the capabilties are there saudi will not be so quite...he says "hopefully"

i see this as not a good thing nor a bad thing they have these weapons and think they rule earth if we all have them then no one can push anyone else around and majority are afraid to use them...at least a better balance...not so great for the earth but bush has it so how more dangerous can it get!?

Six more countries to go nuclear​

Six Arab states have announced they are embarking on programmes to master atomic technology, sparking fears of a nuclear race.

The Times said the move, which followed the West's failure to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, could see the rapid spread of nuclear reactors in one of the world’s most unstable regions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) named the countries involved as Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. Tunisia and the UAE had also shown interest.

The group wanted to build civilian nuclear energy programmes, as they were permitted to under international law. However, there were fears a bomb would eventually be made.


http://news.aol.co.uk/world-news/six-more-countries-want-to-go/article/20061104032309990010

 

[Woodrow]

It is just a matter of time before most industrilized countries have nukes. Sadly it is a stagnating thing to happen to any nation. Once a country goes nuclear it is as if progress ceases, there is too much cost involved in the upkeep. I believe we will envy the countries that avoid the temptation of falling into the trap of entering into the nuclear age.

For a nation to fall into the trap of using nuclear power for strength is no different then for a man to use drugs and/or alcohol for courage. A nation and it's people are inseperable. When one falls into the dependance of substance abuse all will fall. A nation as a whole structure can be a drug/alcohol addict as much as an individual can. It is no less wrong for the country to be as addicted as it is for any of it's citizens.

The countries with wise leaders will use their resources to promote education and health care. A nation that uses their resources to benefit their people will have soon have healthy, peaceful citizens that will be able to dedicate their lives to Allah(swt).

Those of us who have become addicts of the drug of nuclear energy, need to fight to break the addiction. as long as we use the drug the further we fall from Allah(swt) and the more we become an example for others to follow the same path. It is a destructive desire that only leads to sorrow.

 

[Bittersteel]

IMO every nation should have nuclear tech.

 

[Woodrow]

IMO every nation should have nuclear tech.

Why would you wish such a horrible burdan upon any people?



I doubt if it can be stopped.

However, with hope and Guidance from AllaH(swt), perhaps there may still be a nation that is rightous and will have the courage to avoid the curse of nuclear addiction.

When I see nations pleading to get into the nuclear race I am reminded of drug dealers on a play ground. Approaching those who look like they are most in need of security and give them the false hope of drugs.

 

[Abdul-Raouf]

The countries who are in the panel(the panel which is against nuclear bombs) sholud not posses nuclear bombs... they should set example by dismantling those nuclear bombs...

unless these super powers(modern-disciplined-cultured) follow the rules .... how can we expect others to do....

make world free from nuclear weapons....... use nucler energy only for peaceful purpose

 

[Muezzin]

Sadly that won't happen. Nukes are out there now. They can't be un-invented.

 

[Kidman]

I agree that it should be used for peaceful purposes and those who tell others to get rid of their nuclear technology shouldn't be hypocrites... I don't think people will really understand how terrible this is until something bad happens.

Kidman

 

[Keltoi]

The main thing to consider is whether many of these countries that have or are seeking nuclear weapons are stable enough. Stable enough to stop a military coup, proliferation, accidental meltdown, etc. I'm afraid many of these countries aren't ready for the responsibility.

 

[Woodrow]

Both the US and Russia ran into the problems of dismantling the critters. They are a logistic nightmare to get rid of. In our heyday of the 1960s the US was producing over 20,000 nuclear weapons annualy. Russia was probably producing more. The US has dismantled most of it's Nukes however there is still a huge stockpile. I don't think any new ones have been built since the 1980s. No nuclear reactors have been built since the 1970s and quite a few of the old ones have been shut down. The big problem is the mega-tons of nuclear waste we still have not figured out how to dispose of.

Check this link:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/index.html?fs=www7.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Keltoi]

That is another good point. Will many of these new nuclear powers have the regulation and infrastructure capable of handling nuclear waste disposal. Or will they just dump it in the sea?

 

[Woodrow]

That is another good point. Will many of these new nuclear powers have the regulation and infrastructure capable of handling nuclear waste disposal. Or will they just dump it in the sea?

Pakastan is already learning the pleasures of getting rid of it.



The blasted waste costs more to get rid of than any savings in the production of electricity. The only cost effective means to get rid of it has been to make it into unusable bombs, that end up costing a fortune to keep in storage.

This is just the waste from one of the mines that was mining uranium to fuel the reactors. I lost my links to the sites pointing out the even worse problems with the reactor waste itself.

Baghalchur mine
Concern over radioactive waste left at former Baghalchur uranium mine
Speakers at a seminar held on July 17, 2006, did not rule out the possibility of health hazards out of nuclear activities in Dera Ghazi Khan. However, they said, no such scientific evidence could be found there. The seminar on "nuclear waste management" was organized by Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) . (Dawn July 18, 2006)
Prof. Khalid Rashid, a former PAEC employee who currently teaches Mathematical Modelling and Simulation at the Bahria University, in Islamabad, says what is important is to carry out a survey that would reveal "the effects on health of the people of Baghalchur". Looking at the records for the last 30 years, that are kept in the district hospital, would give some clue, says Rashid. He added that, as far back as in 1982, a medical doctor at the hospital had told him that the incidence of leukemia among Baghalchur residents was about six times higher than the national average. (IPS May 31, 2006)

On May 19, 2006, a ruling party senator from Punjab accused the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) of dumping nuclear waste in a village near Dera Ghazi Khan without observing international safety standards, causing many deaths in the area. Speaking on a point of order in the Senate, Sardar Jamal Khan Leghari of the Pakistan Muslim League said the PAEC had been mining uranium in the village for 25 years for one of its facilities near D. G. Khan and dumping the nuclear waste in the open. He said the matter was of serious nature and it should be referred either to the standing committee on defence or environment. He said the dumping of the nuclear waste was affecting poor people from Baloch and Leghari tribes living in the area, several of whom had already died.
Later, talking to journalists, Mr Leghari said livestock mortality and diseases among people living in the Baghalchur village near D. G. Khan were on the rise due to uranium mining in the area. He said the people of the village working as mine labourers had adverse effects on their health. He claimed that life expectancy in the village had reduced to 40 years.
Replying to a question, he said some villagers had taken the matter to the Supreme Court but the court had decided to keep the proceedings secret. After publication of such reports in a section of the press, PAEC authorities had claimed that the waste was being dumped underground in tunnels and there had been no radioactive effects of it on the area population and its environs. (Dawn May 21, 2006)

Residents of Baghul Chur tribal area are concerned at the "unsafe dumping of atomic waste" in the area. Speaking at a news conference on March 18, 2006, representatives of Mubarki union council Khan Nazir Ahmed, Yaqoob Shah and Hafeezullah Shah demanded that atomic waste be removed from their land as it was causing harm to humans, animals, water and soil. They claimed that as many as 400 drums of atomic waste and other material were lying in the open.
They told the press that they had already lodged an application with the sessions court seeking preservation of atmosphere, land, water, human and animal health of the area of Mubarki Tuman Leghari. The District and Sessions Judges (D&SJ) had sent the application to the Law, Justice and Human Rights Commission, Islamabad.
Mining for uranium was started in Baghul Chur in 1977 and the project ended in 2000. The Atomic Energy Commission had asked the political assistant to dispose of the building established in Bagul Chur.
"The authorities concerned did not take required safety measures while winding up the project," they claimed. Political assistant Tariq Bokhari said there were some stores in Baghul Chur but rejected claims of their adverse affects. (Dawn Mar 19, 2006)


Pakistan closes Baghalchur mineThe existing uranium mining project in Baghalchar is to be 'wound up' from 30 November, 1999. According to Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), the project is closing because the reserves have been worked out and not because of 'foreign pressure' as some politicians have apparently alleged. (UI News Briefing 99.42)

Source:

http://www.wise-uranium.org/udasi.html

 

[IzakHalevas]

It just takes a few placed Nukes to destroy the world. And one crazy guy. I have a feeling that the countries that wish to go "nuclear" could easily provide that one crazy guy..

 

[Woodrow]

It just takes a few placed Nukes to destroy the world. And one crazy guy. I have a feeling that the countries that wish to go "nuclear" could easily provide that one crazy guy..

The fact they even think they want them should be enough evidence to show they already have the "crazy guy"

 

[Curious girl2]

IMO every nation should have nuclear tech.

Why do you feel that?

I honestly think that no country should have nuclear technology. Its expensive to set up and run and then there is the problem of storing nuclear waste which will be unsafe for thousands of years. Not to mention the possibility of meltdowns, accidents, terrorist attacks................. all very frightening thoughts. As for nuclear weapons, well I find it very sad that the international community hasnt learned from what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I can understand Middle Eastern countries wanting to plan for the future, after all the oil wont last forever. But there are better ways, cleaner and safer ways of producing power. With all the sunshine Saudi gets, why are they not considering Solar power on a grand scale?

Just my opinion
Peace
CG

 

[Woodrow]

With all the sunshine Saudi gets, why are they not considering Solar power on a grand scale?

Must be because it would be cheaper, more reliable and not produce any hazardous waste.


I'm being sarcastic. the only reson anybody wants nuclear power is for the waste material, not for the electricity. They are too many alternitives to Nuclear power for any country to even consider it.

 

[Rou]

The fact they even think they want them should be enough evidence to show they already have the "crazy guy"

"crazy guy" lol has anyone heard of bush?

 

[GARY]

.... followed the West's failure to curb Iran’s controversial nuclear programme...

So the answer is clear. The west must stomp Iran into submission, as an example to any other backwards crazy countries that might want to have nukes. Too many wackos with nuclear bombs already.

 

[Curious girl2]

So the answer is clear. The west must stomp Iran into submission, as an example to any other backwards crazy countries that might want to have nukes. Too many wackos with nuclear bombs already.

Yeah, that'll work :giggling: Just like it did in Iraq and Afganistan. Both countries are now paragons of peace arent they? <sarcasm>

Why do so many people think that the answer to the worlds problems is to start another war?

PEACE <note the caps>
CG

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Six Arab States Announce Nuclear

Today, Britain's Times Online reports that six Arab states - Morroco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, UAE, and Saudi Arabia - have announced plans to establish their own nuclear programs.

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/11/4/145357/908


OMG BUSH/BLAIR STOP THEM....... LOL :giggling:

Isn't this the prohecy of the bible too? That arab states would try to gain nuclear powers? - I say let them get on with it, what do you lot say??