"Controversial” is the word to describe nuclear power, a very political and sensitive subject. You can almost tell who is talking and what is going to follow when you pay attention and look closely at the wording of any written article, or listen carefully to any spoken issue regarding nuclear power.
Countries like Iran tend to use less provocative terms like “nuclear technology” or “nuclear energy”, to attract less sensitivity from the public and the international community worldwide.
Westerners, however, have a tendency to use a wider vocabulary. They use terms like “nuclear ambitions” or “nuclear program”, when referring to an issue regarding unsuitable or”undemocratic” regimes, which are not on their side
At the same time, if it’s a friendly project, in the so called free world, the language changes considerably. Then the terms are “nuclear deterrent” and “nuclear power”, from which I like the terms “nuclear deterrent” very much.
I have heard that war is the continuation of diplomacy and we know perfectly well of so many wars between countries around the world, simply for the lack of deterrent. If it wasn’t for the nuclear capability of both sides at the time of the “cold war”, humanity might have suffered many millions of casualties for third time in a row. The conflict between Pakistan and India could have ignited again in recent times, had it not been for the nuclear deterrent.
Technology is the only way forward and it’s funny to think that it’s a good idea for some and bad or dangerous for others. It doesn’t matter why certain countries are developing "nuclear technology", when we can clearly see the result as a good deterring factor.
Ramin
