WRONGS THAT NEED CORRECTION

CONCERNING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

There is no question that mankind has made remarkable progress in the fields of scientific knbowledge and accomplishment, especially during the past half century or so.  At the same time, technological advances in communication and transportation have fashioned a global community that could not have been dreamt of a hundred or so years ago.  In fact, this oft-cited phenomenon called globalization actually happens to be more a consequence of science and technology than of trade.  Or perhaps better said, the economic aspect was brought about by the scientific and technological accomplishments.

Beyond our conscious awareness, and without purposeful effort on the part of most of us, our worlds of science and technology have woven a mesh of knowledge and capability around the entire globe, which serves to affect, assist, and unite all of humanity.  And there is still more to be expected in the future, as knowledge and accomplishments continue to exponentially increase and expand.

                                                                      * * * * *

Despite the general cautious but encouraging optimism prompted by most scientific progress, certain aspects of it have become cause for foreboding.  This is particularly true as concerns our having entered into the atomic age.  After the awesome power of atomic weapons was demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a race among certain larger powers was begun for the acquisition of such fierce and frightening weapons.

In 1947, shortly after the nuclear threat was born, Bernard Baruch devised a plan, which the United States presented to the United Nations Security Council, calling for international controls regarding atomic production, "rather than each country developing and governing its own atomic capabilities."  Russia, a member of the Security Council, used its veto to promptly thwart this hopeful beginning, reciting allegations that such acts of cooperation would imperil national independence (perhaps, better stated, "sovereignty").

In 1950, President Truman directed the United States" Atomic Energy Commission to begin to develop even more potent weapons of this sort--notably hydrogen bombs, which were anticipated to be a hundred to a thousand times more powerful than the "A-bombs" dropped on the aforementioned Japanese cities.  The purpose behind this, as advised to the American people by their President, was to be sure that our country would be "able to defend itself against any possible aggressor [country(s)]."  Since then, quite an assortment of nation-states, both large and small, have become able to produce or acquire such weaponry.  And the world thus progressed further into its current sad situation as an armed camp of fortified nations--most being suspicious of, and at times angry at, one or more of the others.

Various countries began conducting tests of their weapons.  In the United States, we detonated at least thirty five such explosions in Nevada by early 1953.  Since then, many additional tests have been conducted by numerous nations worldwide--the latest being North Korea, in 2006.  We are told that radiation levels in our atmosphere have become elevated; that the overhead content of "radioactive debris" has increased dramatically; and that "radioactive snow" has been observed to fall in places as unconnected with atomic weapons as Rochester, New York, and Cincinnati, Ohio.  A sobering account concerning the potential for harm to the human race from even a single instance of non-warfare connected nuclear mishap was disclosed in 1986, when scientific experts estimated that the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident which had then recently taken place in Russia would occasion twenty four thousand deaths from cancer.  A more recent cause for similar dread was born when the Pacific tsunami brought damage to a Japanese nuclear power plant a couple of years ago. 

As time goes on, additional nations have announced or implied the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons--still ostensibly as a "defense" against other presumed aggressor nations.  The latest has been North Korea, in 2006.  Attempts by other countries--many being themselves in possession of nuclear bombs and missiles--to persuade these newcomers to discontinue their efforts are usually paid mere lip service, or are basically ignored.  Now, attempts to acquire nuclear capability have been undertaken by Iran; and efforts to dissuade these activities have met only rejection by a defiant government.

Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn of Harvard University, co-authors of the classic Introduction to World Peace through World Law, have stated that "without total [nuclear] disarmament, genuine peace is unattainable."  In the opinion of many, said comment is absolutely true, correct, and self-evident; for, absent complete disarmament, the specter of danger, from a sudden unexpected conflict or protest becoming a nuclear holocaust will continue to cast a shadow of fear and foreboding upon the entire world.

As I have stated earlier, were there no nation-states, there would be no need for nations to arm themselves against one another.  A single body of worldwide regulation would abolish the development, possession, and use of atomic weapons for any purpose.  And worldwide vigilence could be exercised to make certain that nuclear weapons had truly become a thing of the past.  If a "splinter group" of some sort attempted to violate these worldwide laws, they would be unable to seek refuge within a particular country, because there would be no country left to protect them.  Instead, protecting them would merely constitute a group of criminals giving refuge to a group of criminals.  All of these sorts of activities would simply be termed and dealt with as law enforcement--instead of "international relations."  This would, hopefully, enable mankind to "move on," without the threat of sudden unexpected  nuclear annihilation hovering over us at every turn of political events.

                                                                       * * * * *