When it comes to the use of nuclear power, we can't afford a few bad crops.

This is not an issue like the ones about whether a gun ownership law will cost more innocent lives or if smoking marijuana will incriminate our youth.

Nor is it close to our concerns about Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq-when the only way we may be able to go to sleep at night is to attack his country preemptively and destroy the guy.

No, those issues are containable, workable and repairable. When we make a mistake in dealing with them, we can go back and fix them.

The possibility of a nuclear attack is not.

Here is the fact-we know that damages caused by a nuclear attack can be both calamitous and permanent. But just how great the magnitude such an attack entails nobody really knows.

Sixty years have passed since our experiment on the two Japanese islands in World War II. The atomic bombs used then are primitive in comparison to modern nuclear weaponry.

What will the 21st century's nuclear war be like?

Will the effects of such a war be regional, national or even global? And how long will these effects last?

Are we talking about the first generation, the generation after that or generations well into the unforeseeable future?

The scariest part is that we will never know for sure until after nuclear warfare occurs. Needless to say, if we find such warfare globally catastrophic, we are left with no options, except going down with our enemies.

Unless we can be absolutely sure that not one person in the entire world population, which amounts to about seven billion people, will ever deploy a nuclear weapon, do we really want to make nuclear technology available to every corner of the world?

No, survival rule number one-it's better to be safe than sorry.

And there might not even be a chance for us to feel sorry in case somebody decides to press that fatal button.

Here's something else we are realizing. More and more people around the world are actively trying to obtain that power, and many have succeeded.

Leadership in countries that might otherwise have no international leverage to enhance their agendas have found a new way to be heard.

On the other hand, militant groups with extreme religious desires and a newfound willingness for self-sacrifice have also discovered what can potentially be their "ultimate" destiny-massive destruction in its most romantic form.

The contrasting fates of Saddam Hussein and North Korean dictator, Kim Jong II, in the coming weeks will serve as vital examples to other tyrants and ambitious leaders in the world.

Other leaders will learn just what can happen to them if they don't get nuclear weapons, and if they don't get them fast enough.

If North Korea can ditch the Non-proliferation Treaty and resume the development of nuclear weapons in two months, who can say that countries such as Iran, Serbia and Libya will not?

And, sure enough, intelligence around the world has shown just how much these countries are trying to catch up with the glory in North Korea.

In the summer of 1945, we watched millions of Japanese people die from a combination of blasts and fireballs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a matter of minutes. Cities in their entirety were wiped out and the hundreds and thousands who survived were subjected to life-long radioactive damage, as well as genetic diseases for their children and grandchildren.

It took only a few minutes to flatten the world of millions of people, and many decades would pass before the cities could fully recover.

We are still learning about the extent of the bombs' damages in the area's habitation, genetic changes in the species living there and the chain of global effects.

We now live in a time when our new enemies are no longer countries with definite borders and definable governments, but unmarked individuals who may be our co-workers, friends and neighbors.

U.S. senators were briefed just a couple of months ago that our homeland security might not be efficient in preventing individuals from smuggling in nuclear materials aboard.

Soon enough, a few of these people may be able to deploy a nuclear missile next to our homes.

Do we really want to take that chance?

For years we have lived with a fear of nuclear attacks because we wanted to use the cheaper, more available energy that nuclear technology provides.

Maybe now is the time to start refocusing on other natural sources to replace our reliance on nuclear technology.

It took us years to perfect the nuclear technology we have today. We should now divert all that attention to developing other energy sources that will not only satisfy our demands, but also guarantee the safety of our children.

The road to a nuclear-free society may be long and disengaging, but we have only one earth.

You do the math.