George Bush, who claims to be fighting for nuclear nonproliferation, has just agreed to share nuclear energy technology with India, a nation that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. This is a deal that all American Presidents since Richard Nixon have refused to make. With Bush’s aid, India can now double or triple its nuclear arsenal. Now how do you think the leaders of Pakistan feel about that?

The problem, however, goes much deeper than what Bush did in India. America has never allowed international inspection of its own nuclear facilities, peaceful or military. Why should only some countries have to have their power plants inspected?

Time out for a little science lesson: Natural Uranium contains only about 0.72% of the fissionable Uranium isotope, U-235. The Uranium that goes into nuclear power plants has only about a 20% concentration. You would need about a 90% concentration to make a nuclear bomb. However the Plutonium, produced by Uranium fission in a reactor, can be separated out by chemical means, and that Plutonium can be used to make a bomb. Plutonium is not a naturally occurring element, and can only be acquired through the fission of Uranium.

Shouldn’t we wonder how America can demand that other countries not develop nuclear weapons, while we have an arsenal of 10,000 bombs that we are continually maintaining and modernizing? How can any nation say that, yes we have them, but no, you cannot?

The Republicans and the military/industrial complex are good at picking words. If we were fighting for nuclear disarmament, then that would imply that we would have to disarm also. If we are fighting for “nonproliferation” then we can keep ours, and they cannot have theirs.

As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, how can the United States tell other countries not to build nuclear arsenals while we build (improve, modernize, maintain-whatever) ours? If we want to have at least a temporary, inspected (of course) freeze on the construction of nuclear weapons, don’t we have to participate? How can we even get the world to take this first step if the freeze would be for some nations and not others?

As far as nuclear power plants are concerned, if some countries are entitled to have them, then why aren’t all countries entitled? The Russian solution is very workable in that regard. The fissionable material is supplied by an outside country, and made in a plant that is inspected by the United Nations. The nuclear waste is then brought back to an outside country and disposed of, also under United Nations supervision. In that way, all nations can have nuclear power plants just like us. Why not?

Arguably, since John F. Kennedy, the United States has never been serious about nuclear disarmament. Now we know that Bush is not even serious about nuclear nonproliferation.

Larry Shaw