Up to 30 more countries may develop atomic weapons if the proliferation of nuclear technology is not stopped, the UN's nuclear watchdog has warned.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said there were "temptations" for countries to develop nuclear bombs.

He said the lack of international security, and the failure of existing nuclear-armed states to dismantle their own arsenals, made it hard to persuade other countries not to work on nuclear programmes.

"Unfortunately, the political environment is not a very secure one... there are a lot of temptations (to develop nuclear weapons)," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6055984.stm


Thoughts?

Perhaps their should be a world consensus that the number of nuclear weapon states should start reducing, instead of increasing, going back in the same order in which they occurred, until there are just the "Big Five" left (US, Russia, China, France, England). At that point, the "Big Five" could decide whether to reduce to zero, or keep some around to make certain no other states acquire them.

In any event, the nuclear rules for nations (IAEA) need to be enforceable and sensible, and all nations need to comply (no outlaw nations allowable).

Perhaps their should be a world consensus that the number of nuclear weapon states should start reducing, instead of increasing, going back in the same order in which they occurred, until there are just the "Big Five" left (US, Russia, China, France, England). At that point, the "Big Five" could decide whether to reduce to zero, or keep some around to make certain no other states acquire them.

In any event, the nuclear rules for nations (IAEA) need to be enforceable and sensable, and all nations need to comply (no outlaw nations allowable).

How would a world consensus (even if it is ever reached) be implemented? And by whom?

e.g. do you see it working on North Korea and Iran?

far too dangerous, if i was an isreali i wouldnt be sleeping easy knowing syria has nuclear bombs

far too dangerous, if i was an isreali i wouldnt be sleeping easy knowing syria has nuclear bombs

And if you were Syrian?

If all countries be allowed nuclear weapons it would only take one of them...

Lets say - one with a grudge against the west for some reason - They would use it.

It would be a lot easier and much more effective for one "those" countries to use a nuclear bomb - than millions of suicide bombers

A "world consensus" is a majority opinion, not a unanimous opinion. It should be done via the UN. Once the UN has a majority approval to begin reducing the number of nuclear weapon states, the Security Council (which is the 'Big 5' permanent plus rotating others) would be charged with implementing the program. It would take decades, if not centuries, to implement. Thus far, it's taken 61 years from the first nuclear state (US in 1945) to get to where we are now (2006). It might readily take that long, or longer, to get back to where we were in the 1950s with only the "Big 5" being nuclear weapon states. Nuclear medicine could play a significant role, as all states should have ready access to nuclear medicine capabilities, which require reactors, cylcotrons, and nuclear-educated technicians, which should be monitored via the IAEA to insure the reactors are not clandestinely used for weapons production, ala North Korean style.

What gives the 'big 5' any rights over other countries?

They have the Big Guns.

They have priority of discovery. If you don't like it, move to one of the Big 5 countries and become one of them. I'm sure China would enjoy more immigrants - it would be an interesting life style to live there. Persons could learn the language, and get a job teaching one's native language - or else go work in the rice fields. Russia too needs immigrants. England, France and US apparently have plenty of immigrants already. But this is changing the tone of the thread.

I read biography of A. Nobel, years ago. During his life he was often criticized for putting dynamite in the hands of anarchist (they seemed more numerous back then or perhaps the are just called terrorist now days). His standard reply was words to the effect:

I only regret that I could not invent something powerful so mankind would not dare use it.

I hope his view of what mankind will do is correct, but have my doubts.

Hi Posters

the problem with all this in my opinion is that the US is the major Proliferator of Nuclear technology as its attitude towards states it does not forces them to push for a nuclear option... at least then they wont get attacked by the US.

For example would North korea have nukes now if the US had signed a non agression pact?? Why is it that the US only attackes countries which do not have Nukes eg Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, sudan, Serbia etc.....

The question is would these countries have been attacked if they had nuclear weapons?

The leaders of these countries will obviously take note of all these actiolns and plan accordingly.

#################
take care
zak

They have priority of discovery. If you don't like it, move to one of the Big 5 countries and become one of them. I'm sure China would enjoy more immigrants - it would be an interesting life style to live there. Persons could learn the language, and get a job teaching one's native language - or else go work in the rice fields. Russia too needs immigrants. England, France and US apparently have plenty of immigrants already. But this is changing the tone of the thread.

China needs immigrants?!?! WHY? Don't they have enough people? If you're suggesting they need more cultural diversity, I don't see why.

They have priority of discovery.
So the discoverer of a technology or the inventor of an invention gets to use it exclusively? When was this precedent established?