Iran's nuclear crisis-to-be
"Nuclear" has no doubt been a ubiquitous word recently in the papers perhaps because of the hype about it as an energy source and more alarmingly as a weapon of mass destruction. Iran is just one of the two countries officially challenging the US with the technology.
Iran has a reasonable - but I implore, not moral - case for resorting to such a desperate measure because of the intense pressure it faces from the Middle East countries and perhaps the more significant ones: US and Israel. The gaining of such a tool would certainly give Iran a much greater position in terms of negotiating the pressures off. From disasters such as Chernobyl and Hiroshima bombings, the world has learnt nuclear reaction is not at all child's play. It is an extremely potent instrument to exterminate mankind together with the planet.
Little light had been shed on the actual status quo of Iran's situation. No one has been able to prove to Iran as a country is working directly towards destructive nuclear developments. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been closely monitoring all of Iran's nuclear sites after many allegations from the US. However, US insist that there is a very high chance of Iran violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Why so? The latter had much links with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and should such technology be available to the terrorists, we can only expect massive devastation.
No doubt Iran will trump the US and other superpowers of great threat, using such a measure would not carry far. When the whole world is under the threat of such menace, they would unite to solve the problem. Iran will find itself invaded or destroyed first. The method of destruction is a double-edged blade.
As dangerous as it seems, Iran's reluctance to sign the NPT seemed to highlight its defiance and non-compliance with the rest of the world. Scrutiny would continue until they make a point to clarify their stand on the purpose of uranium enrichment. Just as it is happening to North Korea, on the verge of many tensions, Iran could face the same kind consequence if it doesn’t re-aligns itself.
However, I would say, it is not the mode of weapons developed; it is the very nature of the country that determines how the world will react. There are other countries who did not sign NPT: China and India. Did US (or other parts of the world) make a big fuss? Are there no risks at all? Nope it's just no one wants to burn their bridges before crossing.
A relevant excerpt:
"IRAN is moving faster than expected towards enriching uranium and could manufacture enough of it to build a bomb within three years.
The new information about Iran's programme comes from diplomats representing countries on the UN Security Council, who were briefed by senior staff of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
If engineers encounter no major technical problems, Iran could manufacture enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within three years, much more quickly than the common estimate of five to 10 years, the diplomats said.
...
Policymakers watching Iran's programme are making two separate assessments: a technical one based on Iran's ability to make enriched uranium and a political judgment on whether Iran is attempting to make a bomb or merely trying to enrich uranium to a low level for civilian purposes."
"Sense" of being "alive"
Should we disregard the respect for a brain-dead person for the benefit of pro-longing lives? The issue is complex because too many perspectives surrounding one who dies, partially. I am inclined to take the stand of a more utilitarian one - that brain-dead is a form of death because simply, the consciousness is irreversible. What is left perhaps is only the feeling of a loved one around.
Evaluating the issue from a more social side, the families of the patients involved. It will be that of the brain-dead person and the person who desperately needs an organ transplant to live. The choice appears simple for both. The former would wish for their loved one to be left untouched as far as possible in hope of remedies, needless to say, not to be killed for the benefit of another. The latter would definitely be hopeful for that donation that would bring back the loved one.
Certainly, the transplant produces higher success rates since it has been performed in many instances. My point may not exactly be kind on the family of the brain-dead or (if the person may still think) on the brain-dead person. But we must face the facts: once the mind dies, sensations are irrelevant and memories which we all really treasure and hope to protect is eliminated. It is not only impractical to retain the body through large-scale life support systems but frankly a meaningless effort.
Should opponents bring up the point that respect is due for the dead, brain-dead or completely dead, I feel we are looking at an inappropriate form of respect. Seriously, how do we define the respect when we have never gone into that situation? Removing that organ could be respect for that person as well. From the past till today, we haven't had a fixed way of respecting the dead; it varies from cultures to cultures. An epitome of a strayed form of respect can be found in ancient Egypt where mummification of the dead nobles requires removal of most of the dead's organs. That was considered the ultimate respect then. The point is that, respect for the dead is not like for a living human who can tell you what he/she feels when being treated or mistreated for us to classify which actions are being respectful or disrespectful. We cannot impose our living "feelings" on the dead simply because we cannot have known from them their emotions.
Respect is thus a vaguely fixed action for the dead or brain-dead, who both do not possess the ability to feel.
The author quotes the extreme measures of using heparin and phentolamine which keeps the organ alive at the expense of the patient's comforts or care but hastens their cardiac death. This way of looking at it likens the brain-dead as a normal human feeling. Who really feels the comforts or care? Will it be the 'victim' or even more inventive, the victim's family. If brain death retains its meaning, then the victim shouldn't have feeling in the first place. The family of the victim is undeniably close to him/her but that does not mean they can feel on behalf of him/her.
Personally, I feel a form of respect for the brain-dead could be sustaining his/her organs which are the last of him/her left in this world. That could be done transplanted or left on the patient's seemingly lifeless body. The former would definitely be more pragmatic. The argument will always be flawed though since no one, I expect, can come up with a determinate way of respecting the brain-dead.
WiFi networks unsecured
According to statistics given by The Straits Times, 6 out of 15 networks tested at random around Singapore were unsecured. With the small scale experiment, we probably cannot conclude comprehensively but it is worth the concern. If we were to do a nationwide test, there are chances we will get even more unsecured networks.
It is worth the concern because of the possible implications. Just one unsecured network could give some 150 other users (theoretically judging from network limits of wireless routers) access to the Internet. 6 could give rise easily to 900 users logged onto the Internet! And the problem lies in the user's anonymity. As long as there are unsecured networks, there will be chances of abuse. Therefore, the magnitude of the unsecured networks is not the case since every one of them pose serious dangers to the owners of the networks.
To reiterate, someone could do something extremely illegal and leave no tracks of themselves but all the owner's information. And when traced, we have much to deal with. Futhermore, internal hacking could take place when these unscrupulous users can steal private information belonging to the network. Certainly, it is not an exaggeration to liken leaving a network unsecured to leaving the doors of your house opened.
The main reason why people would do so could be because of the underestimating of the possible impacts. To most, it only means a slight slowdown of their connection. That would not affect most normal users who do not actually requrie the maximum speeds of their connection perpetually. Hence, they take their network security for granted. Simply, this is to some extent ignorance.
Perhaps too little emphasis have been placed on such security issue. After all, we have only 'just' moved into the era of rampant computing and it is the first time such issues are turning up. I guess we have to wait for the Government to really employ a nationwide wireless network before we can appreciate or understand what it takes to be secured and possibly how. We surely must really learn to pay attention to such issues.
China, not Taiwan, nor both.
Perhaps it is just me, with my background on the secession issues, I feel Taiwan's plight today is not self-inflicted. It is most probably a result of mere misfortune. A light reading on Taiwan's history would give you an impression of a troubled state - one that has been not treated with much importance, not until today.
A brief highlight of her past leads us back to Qing Dynasty. After being defeated, Ming Dynasty navy commnader Zheng Chenggong retreated to Taiwan. However, Qing Dynasty reclaimed the land back from the Zheng's only to lose it later to the Japanese during the Sino-Japanese war in WWII. When China again got Taiwan back, it was a retreating ground for the then failed communist party KMT. Then, the rightful ruler of the "state" became marred but the UN and Western countries regarded Taiwan as part of the Communist People's Republic of China at that time.
President Chen Shui-bian (with the Democratic Progressive Party) now governs the state and has done so for 6 years. After his marginal re-elections in 2004, he had been very temptedto falling for the concept of separating from mainland China. The latest and most controversial being his disbanding of the unification council.
IS he to be blamed for all these?
Personally, I feel the state can be compared to a disowned child. She had been housing exiled chinese, lost to Japan, and home for a couple of prominent refugees. Her rapid economic growth into one of the East Asian Tigers was not a direct result of any of the mainland's actions. She has developed her own independence as a sovereign state with an unique culture and population.
Now, the parent has found value in this child. The world would not disagree. After all, the mother who gives birth to the child is the root cause of any successes he/she has. She claims the right of at least owning him/her. Choice is not applicable to the child who grew up without the parent because he/she cannot escape the black and white genetic fact.
Moral obligations aside, there are even bonuses for all who agrees to a "rightful" unification. The parent is rich, influential and famous. Anyone with the right mind would not wish to sing the wrong tune.
And hence, "One China" is a widely accepted concept. There are simply no disagreements. The connections China has gained herself is extensive - from the US to Asia to Europe to Russia. When there is such global consensus, any challenge is futile. With China's rapidly rising economy, a sudden change in perspective is close to impossible. People will only more and more stick to China's solution to the problem: a military-free unification.
The whole world has started a trend of picking up the chinese language. Yet, we have a state-to-be of the potential superpower resisting the norm. The choice seems oddly simple but the child probably can't help but cry out his resentment.
