Nuclear Proliferation

06/07/2010

Rafael Bardají: “If the international community doesn’t stop the Iranian nuclear programme, the world will be more unstable”

Shmuel Bar: “If Iran provides itself with nuclear arms, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is unavoidable. All countries of the region would perceive it as a threat. In fact, they already consider Iran as a ‘nuclear State’”

“Nuclear deterrence, which worked during the Cold War, wouldn’t work for a nuclear Middle East. Middle East countries lack the communication channels among them necessary to avoid a nuclear conflict. Furthermore, these countries do not have enough power for a nuclear response after an attack with atomic arms, and this works as an incentive for a ‘strike first’ policy’”

Manuel Coma: “There are now fewer nuclear arms than in the ‘70s, the time with maximum proliferation, even though there are more applicants for them”

“It’s enormously difficult for atomic arms to cease to exist”

“The really dangerous thing about nuclear arms is who has them. It’s not the same for a democratic State subject to all types of controls to have then, than for an authoritarian and expansionist State”

Carlos Echeverría: “States continue being the actors who have the nuclear arms. It’s complicated for Al-Qaeda to become a holder of nuclear arms, but it can destabilise States like Pakistan and use radioactive material in its attacks”

“There still isn’t a world inventory of nuclear material in spite of all the robberies and illegal possessions of plutonium and enriched uranium documented by the UN”

“An effort to prevent illegal traffic of nuclear material is necessary”