I had the opportunity, on Aug. 6, to attend the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While I sat listening to lectures about the horrors of that tragic event, I could not help wondering why the world is not addressing the entire nuclear question. This remarkable technology that has resulted from the splitting of an atom has been used to create the most dangerous weapons ever known to mankind and given rise to an ever-increasing arms race and alarming fears.
During the past US presidential election both President Bush and John Kerry said they considered the threat of a terrorist group obtaining nuclear materials to be the number one concern they would face in office. Touring the museums and hearing the first-hand accounts of survivors of the Hiroshima bombing creates an undeniable image of the mass scale death and destruction these weapons can cause.
Yet, the United States, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan and Britain all maintain arsenals of nuclear weapons. North Korea claims to have entered this elite group and Israel is believed to have between 100 to 200 nuclear explosive devices. Fear that Saddam Hussein was close to developing a nuclear weapons program was the major justification for the United States invasion of Iraq. The “Cold War” resulted in the Soviet Union’s stand off against the United States and was the reasoning behind the arms race that those two countries participated in for decades. But the combination of the Start I Treaty and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty of Moscow has drastically reduced the Russian nuclear weapons stockpile. In 1991 the then Soviet Union had approximately 35,000 weapons. It is currently estimated that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is now down to 20,000 weapons and they have committed to a reduction of the number of their deployed strategic warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012.
Although this is encouraging, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is continuing in spite of the well-intended Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has never signed the non-proliferation treaty and countries that are developing nuclear weapons programs may choose not to agree to the treaty, as well.
The objective regarding nuclear weapons should be their total elimination not partial controls. It should be obvious that the time has come to collectively address this critical issue. If a program of universal and verified disarmament was to be implemented, no country including the United States should refuse to participate. Only with the elimination of these weapons can the world be assured of freedom of fear from the use of nuclear weapons from either a state of a terrorist group.
There is another side to this issue and that is the important and positive use of nuclear technology, which is nuclear energy. The US Congress just passed a new energy bill and nuclear energy is a key component of this energy portfolio. In that country there are more than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states. One out of every five homes and businesses receives their energy from nuclear power. In a survey conducted in May of this year, 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy because of it’s clean air benefits, efficiency and reliability. In a survey conducted by the European Unions Commission in 2001, of the then 15 EU members, 51 percent of Europeans agreed that, if managed safely, nuclear power should remain an option for electricity production.
The two major objections to increasing the use of nuclear energy are the concerns regarding the safe handling of “nuclear waste” and fear of nuclear power plant accidents. Most countries depose of this waste into landfills in out-lying, sparsely populated areas. However, there is a sound argument for developing better programs for recycling used nuclear fuel. This was the plan in the United States but in 1979 a ban was placed on the commercial use of nuclear fuel reprocesses due to concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As for nuclear power plant accidents, there have been 17 reported from 1951 until 1999. All of these were minor and most did not result in any deaths with the exception of Chornobyl and Three Mile Island. Most experts agree that Chornobyl was the result of the type of reactor in use. In the case of Three Mile Island, a 20-year follow-up study has shown no increase in overall deaths from cancer.
The desire by countries such as Iran to develop a nuclear energy program should be encouraged by other countries. In fact, the development of nuclear energy in Third World countries would provide both improved economic and living conditions. The elimination of nuclear weapons from various countries arsenals would not leave any of them defenseless. On the contrary, it would represent a substantial cost savings in military expenditures. It would be a fitting legacy if this splendid technology was finally put to use for the benefit not the destruction of mankind.
— Adrienne McPhail is an American journalist located in Yokosuka, Japan.
