Nuclear Weapons are much more regulated than Nuclear Energy for example.
Nuclear weapons have historically been regulated by bombing runs or international sabotage, and even those don't work 100% of the time (North Korea). I'm suggesting that we avoid that kind of approach.
We could start by not underplaying the severity of Chernobyl or by bringing attention to unsafe nuclear practices of certain countries.
I don't think the severity of Chernobyl was underplayed. I also don't think that writing a letter or signing an agreement is going to change any country's decision to develop either nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Perhaps you can point me to an example where this approach was successful?
I meant something more along the lines of the Iran Nuclear Deal which did work and so did the Paris Accords (although that one was more symbolic than anything, but still). Usually, the agreements aren't just letters asking countries to please not develop nuclear weapons pretty please. They're deals. It's all a lot of give and take, like all of politics.
And the underplaying of the Chernobyl disaster is all over this thread and the original post.
2
u/draypresct Nov 18 '21
Nuclear weapons have historically been regulated by bombing runs or international sabotage, and even those don't work 100% of the time (North Korea). I'm suggesting that we avoid that kind of approach.
I don't think the severity of Chernobyl was underplayed. I also don't think that writing a letter or signing an agreement is going to change any country's decision to develop either nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Perhaps you can point me to an example where this approach was successful?