Padrão de Resposta

When Marx stated that revolutions were the locomotives of history, he probably envisaged the technical and scientific revolutions that would alter the course of human actions and thought. What he could not foresee, however, was the boundless destructive capacity of the atom bomb. While developments in nuclear technology have permitted many countries to expand an otherwise deficient energy base, the world continues to fear the prospect of a nuclear war. The end of the Cold War may have somewhat dissipated that fear, but the bellicose tendencies of political leaders are a constant source of preoccupation.
Many argue today that scientific experiments with nuclear fission have produced more good than evil. Principal in what pertains to the former is the enlarged capacity which some countries now have to produce energy. With nuclear power, it is possible to provide electricity to more people at a lower cost, especially given the rising prices of fossil fuels used in thermal plants. The environmental effects, though ultimately ambiguous, are visually pleasing: less smoke and a reduction of coal mining in what have once again become pleasant rural landscapes.
Some of these arguments, however, are difficult to sustain. On the one hand, while the European countryside seems to be regaining its idyllic wilderness, much of the nuclear waste produced is being exported to poorer countries, which have found a new, though immensely risky, source of income. On the other hand, it has not been clearly shown by world leaders that the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the dangers of stockpiling and testing nuclear warheads. One is led to question whether nuclear experiments should be banned altogether.
The problem lies in the repeated demonstrations of irresponsible behavior by Western and non-Western leaders alike. Some countries, such as North Korea and Iran, have been deemed “rogue states” for their disregard of international norms regulating nuclear experiments. Western leaders, however, also defy societal beliefs and needs, as they undermine world peace by maintaining arsenals and, at least until the 1990s, conducting explosions. This attitude seems to reflect an unchanging militaristic mindset within most governments and, possibly, a significant portion of voters.
Pacifist leaders and intellectuals are, indeed, either lacking or not given enough voice. Albert Einstein himself was a vocal critic of the military uses of nuclear technology. Post-war norms which began to govern the use of this technology were imbued with a spirit of peace and development. It is this spirit which should today prevail.