N-ambiguities of big powers

Published May 4, 2002

WASHINGTON: We live with nuclear perils of several kinds. Russia and the United States agree on reducing nuclear stockpiles, but disagree on whether to destroy them or store them, as the Bush administration proposes to do.

Many observers say that Iraq may be on its way to developing a nuclear bomb, and periodic leaks from the Bush administration suggest military intervention to abort it.

A captured ‘terrorist’ leader says that Al Qaeda is close to having a crude nuclear device that could be smuggled into the United States. We are told that one dirty bomb - nuclear fuel wrapped around a conventional detonator - could affect half of Manhattan.

Even peaceful nuclear energy can set people on edge. April 16 happened to be the 16th anniversary of the Chernobyl atomic-energy-plant explosion in Ukraine. And today, children are being born with genetic mutations. Half a world away, people in south Nevada battle against depositing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain.

A Brookings Institution report says that a successful attack on a nuclear power plant could result in 10,000 fatalities.

The Bush administration has a peculiarly ambivalent attitude about the nuclear danger. On the one hand, the president is devoting his energies to protecting us against the “axis of evil” and weapons of mass destruction.

On the other hand, his administration is moving closer to the edge of the nuclear abyss.

The most recent Nuclear Posture Review called for developing a small hydrogen bomb - an “advanced-concept nuclear weapon.” To that en end, initial studies are already in progress on something called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator that could reach deeply buried targets. The administration seems unconcerned about possibly becoming the first since Hiroshima and Nagasaki to explode a nuclear weapon in anger.

But the most mystifying of all is the way the White House is skimping on protection from nuclear danger. According to The New York Times, the Energy Department complained that budget director Mitchell Daniels cut 93 per cent of the money that Secretary Spencer Abraham had wanted for nuclear security.

The 380 million dollars request was part of a 27 billion dollars emergency bill, and it covered such items as security for weapons storage and cleanup, security for nuclear science facilities, and a National Center for Combating Terrorism.

Administration officials are quoted as saying that nuclear security is at a high level and adequate to meet the nuclear threat. Well, maybe, but you would think that an administration spending billions for tanks that the military doesn’t want might put a little extra effort into nuclear protection. —Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.

Opinion

Editorial

GB polls’ aftermath
Updated 11 Jun, 2026

GB polls’ aftermath

The new administration must address the region’s issues proactively.
Peace in retreat
11 Jun, 2026

Peace in retreat

THE ceasefire announced in April was supposed to create space for negotiations. Instead, it has been repeatedly...
A few good men
11 Jun, 2026

A few good men

IT was a brave move, no doubt. This Tuesday, in the land of the Afghan Taliban, a few good men decided to take a...
Centre vs provinces
Updated 10 Jun, 2026

Centre vs provinces

The reason the centre finds itself in this position is rooted in its failure to expand the tax net and boost revenues.
Party in crisis
10 Jun, 2026

Party in crisis

THE young KP chief minister must be starting to realise just how thorny a seat he occupies. There has been a flurry...
Varsity woes
10 Jun, 2026

Varsity woes

FINANCIAL crises affecting public sector universities across Pakistan are now having an impact on academic...