When WMD-Potential Provides More Than Deterrence

       Yesterday, in The Washington Times, an article was published titled U.S. unease about nuclear weapon-weapons fuel takes aim at a South African vault. This particular article was troublesome, because it goes back to our class discussions on how nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent. The only problem with this case is that it goes back to my concern for unaligned third parties. The United States and South Africa could be trusted to not utilize their weapons; however, an unaligned third party (i.e., the Islamic State) could become interested in such an opportunity. Because the group remains disorganized in a geographic sense; there would be no way to respond effectively following an attack. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) serves little to deter terrorist organizations that have no home state.
       The article discusses South Africa's continued reluctance to give up its enriched reserves (still non-weapons grade) on the grounds that a nation has a right to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes (in this case, energy). Despite South Africa's claims,the United States continues to dread the possibility for theft of the uranium from what it believes is in inadequately secured facility. A battle breaks out the fray of international anarchy: in a longstanding debate over security and energy, which side will win out? Given the reemergence of this topic, I would conclude this blog stating that this will be an important topic to follow over the next few weeks; especially with the talks of Iran underway too.

-Jon Stanciu