That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
Immediately, the BBC headline caught my eye: “US and Russia announce deal to cut nuclear weapons”. At last, here was something a little more engrossing than YUSU elections or portering cuts.
So, I read it with eager eyes. My first thought – thank God that there is something going on in the world that appears to be positive and hopeful. This didn't last long: I soon got depressed. This sudden depression came about for a number of reasons - but first let me fill you in on the basic facts.
The treaty, finally arranged (after months of “negotiations” I suspect were taken up by power-wrangling on both sides), limits both parties to 1,550 warheads. It replaces earlier treaties and will be signed on 8th April by President Obama and President Medvedev. Russia is said to hold greater nuclear weapons at the present time, and this treaty will hopefully level the field, as well as reduce overall numbers.
So far, so good?
But this treaty reminded me that there is something rather wrong with our attitude to this world. Although the principles of MAD (mutually assured destruction, that I remember learning about in GCSE History), appeared to work throughout the Cold War, it is ridiculous that we should act as though our diplomatic relations have advanced today, when such measures are still necessary. No number of treaties can avoid the fact that nuclear weapons continue to exist in an absurd number – 1,550 warheads is surely enough to destroy the world many times over!
Talking about the treaty, spokespeople from the White House and the BBC have emphasised the significance of these cuts, telling us it will be a cut of 30% for the Russians, and 25% for the Americans. But when a cut of 30% still leaves such a huge number of lethal weapons, surely greater cuts should be sought?
I believe much more openness should exist on this issue. It would make much more sense if the US (or the Russians) turned round to the other and said, “look, this is how many warheads we need to destroy each other, let's just limit ourselves to this many”. It's still not sensible, but it should do. As the thing stands, there's no point reducing the number of nuclear weapons at all, if the reduction is merely from one high number to a slightly less high number that still has the capability to do exactly what the previously high number could have done anyway.
And it doesn't make sense. It costs these countries, and others with nuclear capabilities, an obscene amount of money every year to keep the weapons functional and up-to-date. In a world where energy crises will be looming and overpopulation is a very real threat, I simply can't believe the risk of nuclear war is greater than the need for financial security.
So this treaty can be seen as annoyingly futile and rather pointless. It has been suggested that both countries are attempting to assume the moral high ground before the beginning of the Washington Summit next month that will discuss nuclear security. It is also thought that the treaty is symbolic more than anything, especially in light of May's talks on worldwide reduction of the spread of the nuclear weapons.
This is fine, I guess, except that it can also be seen as slightly dangerous. It has been suggested that both the US and Russia are using the treaty to attempt to discourage smaller countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons, which while admirable, is short-sighted. International pressure has arguably had little effect on Iran's nuclear programme so far, and it can be suggested that increased pressure is unlikely to make much difference. Indeed, instead of reducing the chance of Iran entering into favourable world diplomacy, the increased pressure could even increase Iran's feelings of alienation, especially with increased positive relations between the two World Powers.
It is my opinion that despite the apparent advantages to this treaty, in actuality, it will be fairly pointless, even as a statement of good intentions. And yet I'm far from advocating a reduction in interest in nuclear issues. Nuclear weapons and disarmament is a problem that is only going to get more important as treaties like this continue to be drawn up, and it's one that affects everybody: even us students, living as we do in our little campus bubbles for most of the year.
You must log in to submit a comment.
