By VIK () |
October 1, 2007, 3:54 pm
Politicians are not scientists, nor are they historians. Politicians can be wildly intelligent people, passionate about a commitment to public service and the overall improvement of the standard of living, but at the end of the day, the men and women we elect to office have never worked in a nuclear research facility or spent hours in a library studying the nuance of Middle Eastern history. We surround them with a throng of advisors and hope that the delicate balance of Constitutional checks prevents them from making the wrong decisions.
So tell me, ladies and gentleman, what are we going to do about Iran?
President Bush’s push for military action centers conspicuously on the development of Iran’s nuclear program, stating in an October 17th press conference, “It is in the world’s interest to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.” At what point does the development of a nuclear reactor for energy purposes turn into the creation (and, more importantly, deployment of) nuclear arms? What is the role of the United States in determining when and where that line is drawn and how does that relate to US involvement in the past? With a little bit of science and a little bit of history, alternative view points are sure to be found.
On Monday, November 17th, the FSU Public Debate Society engaged this topic head-on, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of US-involvement with Iran’s nuclear program. The resolution read:
RESOLVED: The United States Federal Government should permit the development of an Iranian nuclear program.
Kimmy Stewart, Captain of the FSU Policy Debate Team, lead the efforts to affirm the topic with teammate Dustin Daniels.
“Iran isn’t going to build nuclear weapons,” insists Stewart, “The western view of Iran as an anxious, war-hungry nation is ahistorical – nukes just aren’t their bag. As it stands, Iran has considerable nuclear technology but they depend on the West to enrich the uranium necessary for nuclear power. We are forcing them to depend on us and projecting a strictly neocolonial policy on a modern state.”
Stewart’s claim holds considerable weight when viewed in conjunction with certain scientific truths, the first of these being that a nuclear reactor is not equivalent to a nuclear bomb. While the technology of one is helpful for the development of the other, Stewart points out that “there is little incentive to fund a multi-billion dollar nuclear reactor to hide and aid a clandestine weapons program.” While I won’t pretend to understand the intimacies of nuclear physics, I do know one thing: plutonium equals bombs. Only the finest enrichment of uranium can yield the high-potency plutonium required for the creation of a nuclear warhead, a process that far exceeds the enrichment needs of a nuclear energy site. If Iran is to rebuild its most recent nuclear program, under various contracts with Russia and China since 1995, the constraints of the building agreement do not describe the kind of facility required to refine uranium for any purpose beyond the creation of energy.
On the negative side of this resolution, FSU Debater Renzo Cafferata attempted to undermine the entire concept of nuclear development. “Though the ideas behind the NPT [Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty] were good,” he says, “the Treaty itself is flawed. Reducing the number of arms while allowing for the development of nuclear energy sites is the 1970s answer to the question of nuclear war and alternative energy – better alternatives can be found.”
Engagement on the question of environmental politics is one which the Bush administration has avoided completely, focusing instead on impending war, doom, and gloom. US involvement with the initiation and development of Iran’s nuclear program since the 1960s seems to have completely departed from modern discussions of Iran’s nuclear capacity, with current leadership poised as both the innocent victim of potential assault and the defensive leader of the world police. Should the US invade Iran? Does the support of a nuclear program compromise global security, international treaties, or environmental concern? The Public Debate Society engaged each of these topics at the debate. In the future, come, get involved, get educated, and prevent catastrophe.
The FSU Public Debate Society was created to bring national and international topics to the larger public for the purposes of education, activism, and engagement. Each debate lasts approximately 45-minutes, followed by a question and answer period between audience members and the debaters. For further information regarding the debate or the team, please contact FSU’s Policy Debate Coach, Matt Grindy at mag04m@fsu.edu.