BENCHMARK III: ACTIVITY II

Nuclear proliferation with positive results

Why does everybody consider nuclear proliferation something to be afraid of? People seem to believe that once a country acquires nuclear weapons, that they will automatically use them as tools of destruction. People fear nuclear devices and believe that they need to be dismantled right away. While nuclear weapons should be dismantled, there are other ways of going about addressing Nonproliferation than simply dismantling them. People don't realize that nuclear proliferation can have positive effects on human civilization.

The first thing one must realize is that the positive effects of nuclear weapons do not come from their direct use. They come from the threat of their use. If enough countries had a supply of nuclear devices and pointed them at other nations, it would create an entire web of crosshairs. If one country pushed the button to launch a nuke, the resulting chain of events would lead to the end of all humanity. While each country may have its own quarrels with antagonizing countries, no one wants to end human existence because of one struggle, no matter how titanic the struggle may be. Therefore, mankind would have an incentive- its existence- to learn to coexist or at least dismantle all nuclear weapons. A major example of this concept is the relationship between Russia and America. The Soviet Union and the U.S. were the two nuclear superpowers in the world. They had a huge standoff, but they never directly fired at each other. Eventually the Soviet Union collapsed because of internal problems. The same basic concept would work if it were on a massive level. If every world power on earth had nukes pointed at each other, eventually someone would stand up and point out that there is no point to fighting.

Fear of death on a massive scale leads to countries beginning to listen to one another. This could lead to better foreign relations through diplomacy. When countries have no reason to fight (or a reason not to fight), the rational solution would be to have diplomats speak to one another. This threatened nuclear war would therefore lead to better communication between countries, and possibly even lead to better alliances and a time of relative peace throughout the world. The evidence of this is the current relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Russia and the U.S. were in conflict ever since the 1950's, but in 1991, when the cold war ended, Russia and The U.S. began to patch things up. This would also work if it happened worldwide. If numerous countries aimed nuclear devices at each other, when someone with power came to protest it, countries would listen to one another, tightening the bonds between nations, and possibly ending or lessening struggles between racial groups and warring nations.

These are positive results of nuclear proliferation. This proves that nuclear weapons aren't necessarily bad, and that they could benefit the people of the world if they are used correctly.

BENCHMARK III: ACTIVITY III

Fictional Political Parody with a Hypothetical Situation

Between Non-Existent Countries.

~Conjured from the dark depths of the minds of Galen Borson and Samuel Woodruff

Interview 1 with Ted Teddington and Harvey Buckets, leader of capitalist’s nuclear power The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats, on their neighbor Zoloftia's recent acquisition of nuclear technology.

T: Hello, welcome to KCIF, your only informational radio station concerning nuclear nonproliferation, my name is Ted Teddington. We have with us today the one and only Harvey Buckets, newly elected president of The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats. He’s been known to go insane at sporadic moments throughout the day, so I will approach with extreme caution. President Buckets, thank you so much for being here today.

B: My pleasure.

T: We both know why we are here today

B: I don’t. I don’t even know who you are.

T: Just call me Ted.

B: Whatever Phil, just get this over with.

T: All right, we are both here to discuss the new-found

nuclear capabilities of Zoloftia.

B: I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH - oh, continue.

T: … anyways, Zoloftia has recently received technologies that allow it to create nuclear weapons en masse. How do you react to this?

B: Well Phil, at first I didn't really react. But after careful consideration it has become my distinguished opinion that a massive pre-emptive retaliation might be effective in making it so we don't have to retaliate for anything. We haven't ruled out "peaceful" efforts in preemptive retaliation, so if we can retaliate peacefully we will be willing to consider it.

I: Wait a minute, you had no reaction to one of your greatest enemies obtaining weapons that could obliterate your entire nation?
B: Well it was announced at a very late hour, three in the morning to be exact, and I wasn't gonna bother waking up sooo early.

I: How irresponsible could you be?!

B: I've done worse. Anyways we had a fair amount of time until they gain nuclear capabilities, they just have the technology now. If we could get in contact with the UN about this situation they could take care of the problem before it really gets out of hand. Would you have done anything different, Phil?

I: Okay, so that's all cleared up, what do you plan on doing about the situation now? The UN isn't doing anything so far.

B: The UN is a bunch of wussies. That said, we haven't planned to do anything, although we are in the process of planning and reaction. Next question Phil!

I: Well, what would happen if Zoloftia were to attack The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats unexpectedly?

B: I was just messing with you. We'll probably nuke the sh** outa them the second they gain nuclear capability, thus giving them the chance to cease and desist.

I: Surely you would give them a fair warning of your attack beforehand?

B: How about ... NO.

I: As far as I can tell this is the first time you have mentioned this plan. How will they know that they have to stop their nuclear program to survive?

B: If we tell them, they may know what a flock of unstoppable missiles is coming to destroy their country. We can't have that. Besides, it's their fault they're getting nuclear capabilities. Besides, it's not our fault for our bombing them for their nuclear weapons. Yeesh, Sometimes I wonder what side you're on, Phil.

I: My name is still Ted. It always has been Ted, and it always will be, except in the highly unlikely event that I should change my name, which would be highly unlikely.

B: Look here Sandy, I’m a very busy man. I have to ahhh... I’m a very busy man. Please don’t waste my time because I’m a very busy man. Very busy. Very. Busy. A lot. Very.

I: Mr. Buckets, after your first thermonuclear test, there were rumors going around that your country had thermonuclear weapons. Is this true?

B: Absolutely not! I’m a very busy man. I don’t have time to dilly-dally around with “termo-newkular” weapons. Very busy.

I: Well, on this high note, I thank you for lending me your time to this discussion.

B: You were lucky, I’m normally a very busy man.

I: Folks, at this time it is suggested you vacate this country as The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats’s military, under the orders of General Buckets, has just declared war on Zoloftia.

Interview 2 with Ted Teddington and George Smilington, leader of Zoloftia, on their recent acquisition of nuclear technology.

(Let the record show that Mr. Smilington has a most peculiar Minnesota accent, the origins of which are as of yet unknown.)

I: Sir Smilington, thank you for lending your time to this interview, I know you have a busy schedule so this can be as brief as you desire.

S: Well, you know, ahhh, yeah. Please continue.

I: Well, everybody knows of your recent attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, and that you already have the technology to make said weapons. Please tell me, what convinced you to obtain such a dangerous item?

S: Well, ah, ya know, we kinda just like the idea of, ah, you know... Ah safety ‘n security for our fine and delightful people which we like to call citizens, in honor of those who came before us, and were not blessed with such happiness.

I: So, you have such dangerous weapons, causing fear to many people internationally just to make your citizens slightly happier?

S: Yah, well, yah know, we’re just about as happy as can be, thanks to our patron drug, Zoloft. Now, that said, we just wish to make sure our happiness continues.

I: But why would any nation want to attack Zoloftia? You are a very out-of-the-way little area, a hell-hole if you please, what do you have that’s of any value to anyone else?

S: Well, our greatest natural resource, is not in fact, ah, natural. It is in fact, the widespread genetically engineered Zoloft tree. A certain nation by the name of Prozacastan has threatened to reap our great crop. We feel, in the hope of securing our happiness, ahhh... *Smilington begins to salivate*

I: Genetic engineering? Where would you have gotten the money for such a plan?

S: Geeeeez, well obviously on our money trees. Oh and child prostitution.

I: Ooh. Wait what? Wait, WHAT?!

S: Now, you just never mind, there are more important subjects at hand.

I: *flips through papers* No, I have nothing else, but I would like to know about your child prostitution.

S: No, that’s not necessary.

I: Yes it is, I can report your administration to the U.N. and have your country shut down.

S: That won’t be needed.

I: JUST TELL ME ABOUT CHILD PROSTITUTION!

S: *reaches into pocket* You gotta relax, just take one of these and you’ll right as rain.

I: *examines it* Zoloft?

S: It’ll clear your head in a snap *snaps*

I: All right, this interview is over. Thanks for your time, get out of my sight.

*Smilington now appears to be unconscious and drooling*

Interview 3 with Ted Teddington and Muhammad Al Ibn Abdullah, former leader of Jihadistan which has recently armed Zoloftia with technology.

*Guantanamo Bay Transport has just arrived. Subject Muhammad Al Ibn Abdullah, former leader of Jihadistan will speak to us about his views on the changing word and nuclear weapons.*

I: I know that you are a very important person in the world you live in, and I highly appreciate you taking the time to speak to someone as distinguished as yourself.

M: Not a problem, my American friend.

I: My, you’re much more amiable than the last time I remember hearing you speak.

M: Yes, well I visited Zoloftia the other day, and my head cleared up in a snap *snaps*.

I: Speaking of which, Zoloftia is the subject which we are concerned with at the moment. It appears that they have recently obtained the necessary technology used to actively create nuclear weapons. Not only that, but they obtained these technologies direct from Jihadistan, so in a sense your country is responsible for this nuclear debacle. Please, tell us your side of this story.

M: Ah yes, the bright light bomb. We have many of this bomb, and to tell you the truth, we don’t need to destroy the world more than 72 times, one for each virgin. So we figure we sell the excess we no need, helping our economy at the same time.

I: But aren’t you worried that Zoloftia would eventually attack some other nation when provoked? If asked about it you could be held directly accountable for the ensuing combat, since the transactions occurred during your administration.

M: Well, as for the safety of our country, we feel that as long as the luscious child prostitution commerce continues we will be safe. As for other countries, there is no problem. We are blamed for everything else, why not this? And on top of that, why would the happiest place on earth want to attack someone else?

I: Zoloftia claims that they obtained their weapons purely for protection.

M: Yes they did.

I: But if they ever did have to use their weapons and engage in international war, how would you deal with the insurmountable blame you will receive?

M: I have no rights anyway, why should I care?

I: Hey, at least they don’t torture you.

M: That will be left for future discussion. *Army guards glance at him and he rolls down his sleeves*

I: Are those bruises on your arms?

M: THAT WILL BE LEFT FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION.

I: Anyway, don’t you think The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats will be upset that you armed another nation who could pose a threat to them?

M: Yes...

I: ...So you supplied Zoloftia with weapons just to spite The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats?

M: DEATH TO THE CAPITALIST The Democratic Republic of Republican Democrats PIGS!

*Awkward pause*

I: Save for future discussion?

M: Yes please.

I: Thank you for your time.

M: My pleasure.

World Reactions to Nuclear Capability
Kevin Varela-O’Hara

3/29/06

Countries react very differently to neighboring countries gaining nuclear capability. Countries that already posses nuclear weapons will often attempt to make a greater number of nuclear weapons, or ones that are more powerful, faster or more accurate. Countries that did not already have nuclear weapons, but are capable of developing them will, for the most part, use the neighboring country’s development as a cue to start a nuclear weapons program. There are some rare cases in which a country will announce that it has nuclear weapons, and a neighboring country will not start a nuclear weapons program itself, even if it has nuclear capability and the first country is a threat to the second one.

One example is the nuclear arms race that developed between India and Pakistan. India first tested what it called a “peaceful nuclear device” -- “Smiling Buddha” -- in 1974. By the end of the 20^th century, neighboring Pakistan had developed its own nuclear weapons. In 1998, in rapid succession, both India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, raising true concerns that a nuclear arms race had developed between the two countries, much to the dismay of many other countries. While many countries in the Middle East lauded the development of the first “Islamic bomb,” the major existing nuclear powers strategized desperately how to stem this emerging nuclear arms race without appearing totally hypocritical.

In contrast, after North Korea announced that it had nuclear weapons, Japan did not start a nuclear weapons program, even though Japan has the capability to create nuclear weapons and is the third largest producer of nuclear power in the world. Japan is the only country in the world to have experienced the horrors of a nuclear attack on its people. This resulted in a hatred of nuclear weapons and a deep resolve never to develop, manufacture or transport them. These principles are stated specifically in Japanese law. Japan has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (adopted by the United Nations Security Council in 1968).

These two examples show the differing responses that countries can make to nuclear weapons development by their neighbors. For the future of the world, one can hope that more countries will react like Japan to neighboring countries’ acquisition of nuclear weapons. After all, it is Japan that truly knows the human and environmental costs of their use.

BENCHMARK III: ACTIVITY V

The Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)

(Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
By Marc Poore

Over two score, the Non-proliferation Treaty has been tested in value as a deterrent to the spread of nuclear weapons and the technology used in their manufacture. In the present, few countries wish to honor their vow, pledged to this piece of paper. There are few things to prevent nations from breaking faith with the treaty. The other main problems are international observation of fissile material, neutralizing threats,

The NPT need not be abolished; it has a system with which to amend itself.

The first amendment of the treaty must require every partaking nation to utilize all pathways to neutralize and get rid of nuclear weapon systems in countries deemed highly dangerous by ¾ of the votes of the of the Parties to the Treaty at the assembly of Parties to the Treaty which is held every five years (or at another specified time interval – five years is a bit of a long time for ‘urgent’ matters). Countries’ oaths must be preserved by threats or bribes with economic, social, and or political affects. Threats would be embargos or imposing international political pressure upon the country.

Problem: some countries may not have the “b_ _ _ s” to gang up on the crazy nation.

The second amendment to the treaty is for all signatory nations’ programs both civilian and military involving the use, enrichment, or mining of fissile material to be transparent so that the fissile materials may be tracked, followed, and contained. The IAEA would have this system at its disposal. Such a program could be employed to follow material so it is not sold to any other nation, group of people, or individual. The program could also act to ensure there is no missing material or that any material has been used in a Non-nuclear Weapon State for the manufacture of weapons.

Problems: Nations, as people, don’t want other nations to know what they are doing.

The third is to provide for the establishment of a centralized storage facility for depleted or decommissioned uranium and plutonium open to donations from all nations of the world (but mainly for the U.S. AND Russian material). The less fissile material in circulation, the safer the world is from it.

Problem: nations like people can be a) ignorant b) lazy c) hog of “fizzile” material