RD Reflection [ May Issue ] : Loose Nukes

Done By: Zhang Hua’An 3F (43)
Article: Loose Nukes (Pg. 28-33)

“Terror” in a Terrorism?

Indeed, what we see in our world today, is an increasing tendency of terrorism attacks, that we as peasantry cannot elude from. Primarily, these attacks are known to be more hazardous, with the presence of nuclear arms.

Essentially, this article can be encapsulated in three main issues. Number 1, how effective the country is, to safeguard the true intent of nuclear weapons. Number 2, how cardinal is it for one country to dominate a nuclear weapon. While fundamentally, are the people mentally and physically prepared to face a terrorism attack.

On the first issue, which is how effective the country is, to safeguard the true intent of nuclear weapons. The author revealed that plutonium or uranium fuels nuclear weapons. This can be potentially arduous to make, as it has to go through complex refining and enriching process. Also the fact that such materials can either be retrieved under the ground or to run through a nuclear reactor, thus making it more difficult to be located. Gradually, the terrorists percepts this, and thus, they are aimed at bargaining or embezzling, through underhand means. These may include stealing from warehouses and military bases guarded by underpaid military police with poor security procedures and ramshackle infrastructure, purchasing of nuclear weapons through unauthorized means or to illicitly shipped nuclear blueprints and enrichment technology from unlawful companies to Islamic extremists, etc.

Basically, I observe that this is mostly occurring in third world countries, for example, Iran and Russia. Tentatively, the regulatory frameworks of the law in their countries are morally weak, which can be the root of the problem. Adding on, the local government of these countries spares diminutive effort to maintain the condition of the nuclear weapons, which directly led to such unprecedented events. Assessing on the several aftermaths, it is important that we have to set up immediate rules and regulations, to minimize and to eradicate such happenings. Unfortunately, we do not see it.

I suppose it is substantial for most of the first world countries (America, Singapore) to step in and give necessary recommendations to such countries. The fact that such nuclear weapons pose a great threat to the world and its commoners, this must be done without delay. Also, fixed meetings have to be held so those country leaders are informed of the progress of the implemented rules and regulations. If there is a suppressing need, the country leader should further evaluate the effectiveness of such rules. This can be done by perpetually reviewing the number of nuclear weapons or the workers convoying the weapons itself.

On the second issue, which is how cardinal is it for one country to dominate a nuclear weapon. It is lucid, that most countries would like to dominate a nuclear weapon, so as to be able to defend its country efficiently. Apparently, if more countries are planning to adopt nuclear arms, what we have to recognize is that it also increases the probability for terrorist to lay hands on it. While security measures can be preventive, we are still risk of having events when nuclear arms are stolen and ultimately, terrorists will still be able to exercise nuclear bombs in terror attacks. Surprisingly, this amount stolen is limited for nuclear arms to be made.

Subsequently, the author relates to us how detrimental it is for another country to have nuclear arms. It said that France, Britain and Germany are backed by the United Nation’s resolutions, have tried to negotiate to end Iran’s atomic ambition, but was unsuccessful. Also, United States, China, Russia, South Korea and Japan have also persuaded North Korea to freeze and ultimately dismantle its nuclear ambition, and it was a terrific accomplishment.

So what are mainly the themes of this issue today? Is it the lesser countries possessing a nuclear weapon, the better and the safer the world will be? Or is it the better security you can provide with the nuclear arms, the more you should deserve to possess a nuclear weapon? I beg to differ that both themes are clearly mistaken. What we have to understand the author is trying to bring about is that a nuclear weapon can be devastating, and it should only be adopted when a country has faces 3 main enigmas; power, land and energy resource.

First And foremost, is the issue of power. In this context, power basically refers to the possession of control or command over others. This context is referred as a positive intention. However, this can only be agreed on with two conditions. Firstly, when a smaller country may face an outer invasion at any point of time, that is when nuclear arms may be own. Secondly, when power comes in adhesion with several complicated political issues with other states or countries, that is when nuclear arms may also be own so as to be able to procure a stronger stand.

Secondly, is the issue of land. By land, we are basically revolving around two main issues. Firstly, nuclear bombs should only be owned when a government has to rule over a large area, so that the defence of the country will not be compromised. A good example can be America or China. Secondly, the fact that nuclear bombs require several tests before it can be equipped into the army; the country requires a large land, so that such tests will not influence the masses.

Lastly, is the issue of energy resource. While considering nuclear energy to only be a vacuum to make bombs, this can be mistaken. Nuclear energy, can also be an alternative to generate electricity. Germany, for example, has a high consumption of electricity. For that reason, there is a need for them to search for other forms of energy. Europe has also been searching for alternative energy sources other than resorting to natural energy, or diesel. Currently, both countries have adopted nuclear energy, which provides 61% of their island wide energy demand. Tentatively, only when a country is in need of energy resource, then nuclear energy can be legal.

Last but not least, is the issue if people are mentally and physically prepared to face a terrorism attack. We have to acknowledge the fact that even if there are many posters, advertisements or videos to remind the public about terrorism, we see that they are unreactive, and ultimately, there will still be people remaining ignorant if danger approaches them or to the extent, feeling lost when they are met with pressing problems. This includes injuries or death.

We have to constantly remind the public that the threat of terrorism is real, and to stay vigilant at all times. As the article in the Reader’s Digest has brought up, we can review what will exactly happen when a country faces terrorism. Under this context, we see Brussels is an example being brought up. Simply, it talks about how an atomic reaction affects thousands of life, and across buildings and cities. We also see how commerce in the country ceases, or even the recession of economy. Indeed, the destruction can both be brutal and critical.

In my opinion, I believe that across the globe, we can classify the people into two types of genera; the majorities and the minorities. Explicitly, the majorities I refer to are the people who will not know how to react in a terrorism attack. While on the other hand, I refer the minorities to people who will know how to react effectively at times in danger. I personally believe that only people, who had experienced the danger itself and managed to escape successfully, are people who will know how to react well in terrorism attacks. For the adverse to be taking over, this can only occur in two levels. Firstly, when society is well informed; when society is well grounded of the instructions to do when we are in danger, then the majorities will be the people who will know how to react in a danger. Secondly, through more effective talks to the young and providing more valuable information to the public via different types of media, people will then be well informed of the precautions to take. That is quintessentially, when will the adverse take over.

On the whole, we have to understand that the road to hell is always paved with good intentions. The problem of our society today is that the people are merely intending to do good, without actually doing it, which defeats the purpose. Take for example, Bali. There had been twice bombing attacks since 2002. That being said, the casualties, which includes the injured and the death totals up to more than 1 million. Though after the first bombing attack, vigilance has increased significantly, and people started putting up posters and announcements to inform people of the threat against terrorism, but the bombing in 2005 happened again. So, three questions. Firstly, will the people be more vigilant after two bombings? Secondly, are the people really well informed and equipped with such life-saving skills? Lastly, will the bombing attack repeat itself? It is ironic to say but fortunately, only “normal bombs” are used, and they are not nuclear bombs.

That being said, I hope people will know how to respond effectively when they are faced with imminent danger. Like mentioned, we are facing an increasing tendency for terrorist to exercise nuclear bombs in their attacks.

To conclude, I wish for a world, which is free from terrorism attacks!