And we're back into business.

Iranians release British sailors'

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.

He repeated Iran's view that the British sailors and marines "invaded" Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a "gift" to Britain. They are expected to be handed to the British embassy in Tehran on Thursday morning before flying home.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the news would come as "a profound relief" to the crew and their families. Iranian media said the British crew members "shouted for joy" on hearing the news.

Link goes here.

A month or so ago, 15 British sailors were on a patrol trip when they were picked up by the Iranian Navy and held captive. We may never know whether they ever entered Iranian waters, but we very well can see the aftereffects of these actions. This incident did not help talks with Iran over the legality of its nuclear programme.

By now, the entire incident is over, and the time for judgments is apparently due. Once again this blog has entered the dangerous area of nuclear weapons and their impact on many. Another key issue here is Iran and its sneering attitude upon the Western world, especially its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who continually pushes for a 'peaceful' nuclear programme.

I believe I have expressed my opinions of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation before: while the power to destroy entire cities, perhaps countries is a bad idea to put in any one nations' hands, it is also a bad idea for those nations that already have this power to judge who should have nuclear weapons and who should not.

However, after some reflection, I have decided to add some other pointers to these beliefs. In the analysis above, I have conveniently forgotten international bodies regulating the proliferation of such destructive power, such as the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). These bodies, since they are run internationally, are less susceptible to the bias of individual nations' interests.

Nevertheless, such organisations are not perfect, and leaving authority in the hands of one organisation is still not the greatest of ideas. Once again, we must try to imagine other nations in the same uneasy position, and try to be objective in our judgment.

There is another key factor in this situation: Iran. From its independence in 1979, it has always held a confrontational foreign policy. Its relations with the United States have been strained since the Iran-Iraq war, where the US directly aided Iraqi invading forces. A pro-Israeli stand by the US government has also ensured continued hostility.

It is perhaps the fact that Iran despises the United States to such an extent so that it will vehemently do anything to irritate the US government. Perhaps that it why, even though faced with such massive pressure to shut down its nuclear programme, it does not yield. Its capture of these 15 British sailors serves to further up the ante, to heighten the tension between Iran and the Western powers.

Regardless of motivations, causes or actions, the crisis is now long over, but the status of Iran's nuclear programme will still be a continuing problem in the Middle East. It shall provide a barrier to peace for years to come, raising the nuclear tension in the region, and shall be a gun ever smoking.

The first article

BBC NEWS, 9 - 2 - 2007: N Korea talks enter crucial phase

Delegates at six-party talks in Beijing have held a second day of negotiations on North Korea's nuclear programme. They are discussing a draft agreement which reportedly calls on Pyongyang to shut down its nuclear facilities in the next two months, in exchange for aid.

Along with:

BBC NEWS, 7 - 2 -2007: Food aid key to N Korea talks

As six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programme resume in Beijing, the BBC's Penny Spiller considers whether food shortages in the secretive communist state may have an impact on progress.

Links are here and here.

North Korea, which supposedly launched a test nuke four months ago, is now being engaged in six-party talks to bring down its nuclear programme. These will supposedly be "helped" by the starving population of the People's Republic who will require large amounts of suspended food aid in order to keep alive.

While it is correct and justified to take nukes from near-insane dictators of real-life dystopias, one nevertheless has to think about the kind of workings that could even possibly lead up to a scenario as bizarre as this. Going at length about the Korean War of the 1950's, causing the emergence of the DPRK, would be facetious, along with the United States' development and controversial use of the nuclear bomb, which has led to the proliferation of nukes the world over.

However, the key point of this shall be about the presence of autocracies, and the widespread attempts to create and develop a nuclear bomb by so many "rogue states".

Why do dictatorships arise? People who, reeling from the disasters of war or internal conflict often look for strong leaders. However, many strong leaders are often power-hungry, and they reform the nation so that they alone rule the nation: and the people go along with it, believing their Big Brother capable of single-handedly ruling the nation.

Such dictatorships collapse when the dictator passes on, leaving command to an unsuitable follower. In the Protectorate (of England), and the Soviet Union, and North Korea this has happened, and now The People's Republic faces starvation.

So much for autocracies. Nuclear weapons are also another key problem of this modern age, where men seek to destroy each other with bigger and bigger missiles. Apart of the Powers of the Cold War, other nations have developed nuclear technology: India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea.

Nuclear proliferation began in the Cold War, when Allies collaborated with each other to out0gun the USSR, while the Soviet Union created thousands of nuclear weapons based on stolen technology. When the Cold War collapsed, the age of nuclear weapons did not die with it; it still flourishes, as can be seen.

The technology of nuclear weapons, once made, was not difficult to deduce, and was quickly realized as a fast means to ultimate power by other nations. Which nation does not want power, after all? Nevertheless, those who had nuclear weapons to start off with denounce this kind of behaviour, and attempt to ban other nations developing such technology.

This strikes one as unfair. Is it moral to have nuclear weapons on the basis that one had them first? Is time, then such a damning factor to those who wish to follow in such footsteps? Or is it simply yet another case of big countries bullying smaller ones? Thus when we look upon the current debacle surrounding North Korea's nuclear programme, we may well ask ourselves: Were it another nation in the People's Republic's positions, would we be so quick to impose a damning judgement on it?