Nuclear Bombs and Nuclear Energy
Executive Summary:
Nuclear technology,
especially those involving nuclear weaponry and nuclear energy, has always been
a highly contentious subject. This paper will look at some of the biggest
moments of nuclear technology so far. Historical events will be looked into to
comprehend the maintainence of usage of nuclear weapons today. Contemporary
developments such as recent disasters and news will be covered to better
understand the nature of nuclear energy. Overall, this paper seeks a balanced
perspective on the continued use of both nuclear weaponry and nuclear power in
today’s society.
Why I chose this topic.
There was recently a lot of ruckus created when North Korea
was initially testing its nuclear weapons. The South Koreans were worried and
the United States of America was putting pressure on the People’s Republic of
China and the people in general were enjoying an international drama unfolding.
What makes nuclear weapons so desirable? Are they really that much of a trump
card that it allows people to enter some sort of exclusive Nuclear Club? One of
the key points of this paper is to look at the global implications of nuclear
weapons.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are two grim reminders of the
potential disasters waiting to happen should nuclear power plants face
problems. Defenders of nuclear power report that health hazards are not really
linked to these incidents but can we trust them if they clearly have a stake in
this industry? In this paper we are also briefly going to look at the bright
and dark sides of nuclear power. The paper will not touch lightly on some of
the historical events centered around nuclear developments and seeks to
evaluate their effects on the past and what they hold for the future.
Introduction:
For a matter to be considered world-changing it must have
been disruptive to a certain industry or a way mankind gets something done. The
most notable disruption in history brought about by the discovery of nuclear
power would be its application in nuclear warfare. In this section of the
paper, the author will be focusing solely on nuclear bombs for past effects and
nuclear energy for present day applications.
Historical Perspective:
Nuclear power is derived from the energy released from
splitting the atoms of certain elements. Initial research on nuclear power was
centered around creating nuclear bombs during World War II before research
focused on using nuclear power to provide energy for the country. Nobody would
forget the devastation that the two nuclear bombs: Fat Man and Little Boy on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II. Among the notable
nuclear-armed political powers today are the United States of America, Russia
and China. Submarines and aircraft carriers also run on nuclear power from on
board nuclear generators.
Warfare:
Scientists in the 1930’s discovered nuclear fission and
learned of the vast amounts of energy released from such a reaction. Many of the developments causing and caused
by nuclear technology was centered around fear. World War II was a desperate
time when both the Allies and the Axis forces were trying newer and more
creative ways to gain advantages on the battlefield. In an effort to create a
bigger explosion and gain an advantage in the war, the United States of America
began Project
Manhattan.
The result of Project Manhattan was the conception of
nuclear bombs. Fat Man and Little Boy are the names of the two bombs that would
forever be etched in mankind’s history. Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima and
Fat Man on Nagasaki. The effects were devastating. By December 1945, the estimated
dead in Hiroshima was 135,000 and in Nagasaki the estimate was 64,000 dead
according to the Manhattan Engineer District (1946).
To put things in context, a comparison between the nuclear
bombs and another powerful bomb made in the United Kingdom will be made. The
United Kingdom had also developed a powerful bomb called the “Grand Slam”/
Tallboy bomb which was capable of driving itself into the ground, detonating to
cause a camouflet, or a cavern underground, shifting the ground to undermine
the opposition. Germany had been the victim of many such Tallboy bomb attacks
but continued resisting the Allies until its eventual demise in 1945 (UK Bomber
Command – Campaign Diary, 1945). As for the Japanese, after facing the horrors
of the two atomic bombs, lost the will to continue fighting as they would face
a “rain of ruin” as warned by President Henry Truman (New York Times, 2010).
The development of new weapons is nothing new in the context
of war. The typical reaction of other warring factions that fall victim of
these new technologies is to adapt or find new technologies to compete with
their enemies. However, few have been so great as to force entire nations into
submission as is seen in the aftermath of World War II. The Japanese are shown
to be fiercely loyal to their emperor and are even willing to sacrifice
themselves literally through Kamikaze Plane crashes. Seeing such a proud nation
bow down to the devastation of such a weapon is truly a turning point when it
comes to warfare technology.
Politics: The Cold War
“I begin to believe in only one civilizing influence, —the
discovery one of these days of a destructive agent so terrible that War shall
mean annihilation and men's fears will force them to keep the peace"
-Wilkie Collins, 1870
From a political perspective, the sheer potential carnage
that could be caused by the bomb would be enough to make anyone afraid of it
being used on them. This much could be seen in the likes of the Cold War.
The Cold War saw the world being split into Eastern and
Western blocs, one bloc being aligned to the Communist Soviet bloc and the
other to the United States of America. The role that nuclear weapons
effectively played in this war was as the catalyst in an international game of
chicken. This fear was eventually known as the doctrine of Mutually Assured
Destruction (MAD) as both sides armed with nuclear weapons would effectively
eradicate the other should the need to retaliate ever arise. The Doctrine of
MAD was based on the belief that if both sides could destroy each other, it
would function as a deterrent from starting a war in the first place. (NuclearFiles.org,
n.d)
As if nuclear bombs dropped from planes weren’t bad enough,
the development of the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile had the warhead
deliver itself to you. Multi-stage rockets would carry the warhead between
continents making an already deadly threat deadlier (Atom Central, n.d).
Tensions were highest when it came to the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1962. Russia was intending to place missiles in Cuba and in exchange
gave Cuba economic and military aid. The US laid a naval blockade to stop the
delivery of the missiles in response.
The confrontation between the America and the USSR saw the two blocs
just a hair’s breadth away from sparking a nuclear conflict. Instead of opening
fire, both sides came to an agreement: the US will not invade Cuba and the USSR
will remove said missiles. Subsequently, the US removed its missiles from
Turkey as well. (May E.R., 2011) We can see here that nuclear weapons played a
crucial role in the war. First, its existence was the basis for preparation for
retaliation and eventually that same fear would be the factor that prevented
the conflict from brewing any further.
Today’s Concerns for Nuclear Weapons:
Nuclear weapons represent power. The power to cause massive
harm and damage at the push of a button guarantees a fear and respect that can
be used for international power-play. The nukes will be used to threaten and
pressure other countries to their will. Another point to consider from all of
this is that if any country tries hard enough, they too can be nuclear armed. These days, as shown in the reaction to North
Korea’s recent nuclear tests, the world is trying all it can not have any more
nuclear armed countries. Unless the world sees no more need for nuclear bombs
will there be an end to their manufacturing.
This same behavior also could be the spark of potentially
bloody conflicts. Reactions to the recent North Korean Nuclear tests, were one
of expectant retaliation, with South Korea and America performing military
exercises close to North Korea following the tests. The world has seen enough
war and especially with the current state of the global economy, cannot afford
another one.
Possible Future Consideration for Nuclear Weapons:
While we are seeing a gradual reduction in the number of
nuclear weaponry around the world, nuclear weapons are likely to be maintained
by the countries who own them. Nuclear weapons’ symbolism of power and its
proven ability to deter nuclear attack make it a viable option for most
nations.
Signs Pointing Toward it:
Hans M. Kristensen (2011) stated on the Federation of
American Scientists Strategic Security Blog that the American government had
plans to modernize its nuclear arsenal. This includes a $6.3 billion dollars’
worth of expenditure on the warheads in the stockpile through to fiscal year
2016 (Kristensen, 2011).
Nuclear Reactors Today
Introduction:
Nuclear sabre-rattling will continue so long as there is a
country that believes that owning and testing nuclear weapons is a valid method
of getting attention. However, the power of nuclear fission can be used for
more than just genocidal purposes. Nuclear reactors can harness the energy from
the nuclear fission reaction to generate large amounts of power for
comparatively long periods of time. Despite the all these facts, nuclear power
has gained infamy over the years due to accidents such as Chernobyl and The
Three Mile Island incident. The most recent accident at Fukushima is a reminder
that nuclear power still has effects on the world. These effects will be
discussed in this section of the paper.
These days, 13.5% of the world’s energy is provided by
nuclear energy from more than 430 nuclear power reactors across 31 countries
(World Nuclear Association, 2012).
Nuclear energy is touted as a clean and efficient source of energy as it
does not release greenhouse gases during the production of power as no fossil
fuels are burned and uses less land space in comparison to other energy
production methods such as wind farms and solar paneling. However, seeing the
long term health effects of nuclear bombs, the nuclear waste produced from the
power production process would have to be disposed of effectively or else, this
method may not be as “clean” as is advocated.
Social impacts:
Nuclear power has been seen as boon to some countries.
During the oil price shock of 1973, many countries were left reeling from the
sudden price hike. Many of these countries were reliant on the fossil fuels to
power their countries and some of them did not have much in the way of local
fossil fuel re. To curb their reliance on a commodity that was subject to
volatile prices, countries such as France and Japan turned to nuclear
power. Prior to Fukushima, Japan sourced
30% of its power from nuclear reactors and was planning to raise this to
40%. France generates 75% of its power
from nuclear plants thanks to government policy that focused on energy security
after the oil price shock of 1974. (World Nuclear Association, 2013)
Some negative social effects of nuclear power are attached
to concerns over health and safety. Anti-nuclear movements cite risks of
nuclear accidents, especially the current case of the Fukushima Daiichi Power
Plant incident, and nuclear waste disposal as some of their reasons for
disliking nuclear power. The Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters all saw thousands of people being
evacuated from their homes due to the high levels of radiation found in the
areas surrounding the power plants.
The relocation of the people from their homes is one of the
greater negative social impacts brought about by nuclear power. In Chernobyl,
more than 330,000 people had to be relocated after the disaster. Some of the
people who left their homes behind felt a sense of injustice and also felt that
out-of-place in society. The ones who
choose to stay behind ended up faring better psychologically. The migration of
the people also caused a distorted demographics curve, having more elderly
people and fewer professionals. This raises the death rates of the area while
hampering economic recovery.
After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant in
2011, which saw 160,000 people evacuating the surrounding area, Japan has seen
a rise in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Mari Saito and Sophie Knight (2013)
recently reported from Reuters that more than 15,000 people attended a protest
urging the government of Japan to reject nuclear power. A recent poll stated
that 70% of Japanese intended on eventually phasing out nuclear energy.
From the information gathered, it can be said the social impact of nuclear energy is
reliant on the circumstances of the time. People welcomed it for the benefits
it brought and rejected it when the detriments were brought to light. Public
perception is a fickle thing. Now that the world is facing a grim reminder that
nuclear technology is not 100% fool-proof, we can expect there to less public
support for nuclear energy in times to come.
Environmental Effects:
Nuclear power has been touted as a clean energy as it does
not contribute to carbon dioxide emissions during the generation of power (US
Environmental Protection Agency 2013). Especially during a time when the world
is aware of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into, the has been
taken into account by powerful countries
such as China. According to LiveMint (2013), China plans on building 200 more
nuclear power plants, reaching a pace of 10 new plants a year. This is to
counter the high amounts of pollutants generated by its coal-fire power in its
industries.
Nuclear power plants require a lot of water in the
production of its electricity. The water is used to both create steam to move
the turbines and to act as a coolant to the systems. Apart from the power
plant’s use of water, waste water contaminated with heavy metals and salts are
the by-product of many types of power plants, including nuclear ones.
Radioactive water from cooling purposes when it comes to
containing nuclear power plant accidents are also an environmental hazard. The
water pumped into the Fukushima facility to cool down the facility becomes
irradiated. Aljazeera (2013) reported that leaks from the power plant have
caused the radioactive water to seep into the ground and some of it may even
have reached the Pacific Ocean. Nicholas Fisher, a marine biologist at Stony
Brook University in Stony Brook, N.Y., told LiveScience that for seafood caught
160 km away from the site would be safe but the same cannot be said for the
seafood caught closer than that; this pollution is affecting Japan’s marine
life. (Lewis, 2013) All these
developments would lead to the increase of radioactivity of the site, delaying
cleanup efforts.
Nuclear power plant accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster
release large quantities of radioactive material into the air. This fallout
travels and affects areas downwind, spreading its radioactive substances to the
neighboring areas. From Chernobyl, “(a)bout 4300 km2 are in the no-go zone. Another area of
about 7000 km2is considerably contaminated by 137Cs. In Belarus, Ukraine
and Russia, a further 130.000 km2 were
less severely contaminated. Similar levels also occurred in 60.000 km2 in other parts of Europe.”
(Euronuclear, 2006)
Nuclear power plants must change their fuel every 18-24
months. The spent fuel released from these processes form radioactive waste
that must be disposed of. Concerns arise as this radioactive waste is dangerous
to living beings as it may cause cancer. At the moment, most of the spent fuel
is kept on site at the nuclear power plants.
Seeing how these are dangerous, many people adopt the NIMBY (Not In My
BackYard) style of thinking. For
instance, in November 2010, an anti-nuclear group “Wiedersetzen” attempted to
block a shipment of nuclear waste from France to Germany that was to be placed
in a salt deposit in Gorleben. (Public Intelligence, 2010)
Nuclear power is a double-edged sword when it comes to
environmental impact. On one hand, it is seen as one of the “cleaner” sources
of energy as it releases no carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during energy
production. On the other hand, its nuclear waste and waste water pose serious
problems to the environment. Unless we are able to develop a fool-proof way of
safely disposing of the waste could nuclear power truly be called a clean
source of power.
International political effects:
The effects of nuclear power on international politics is
once again about fear. One prominent example of this is Iran’s uranium
enrichment program. Iran’s nuclear program attracted a lot of international
attention during its height in 2002. A clandestine operation by an opposition
group exposed that Iran also had uranium enrichment in progress. Uranium used
for civilian purposes may be enriched further to supply weapons grade uranium
for warheads. Iran’s government has been defending the program and claiming
that the program is being used for peaceful purposes. The world however, is not
so convinced of Iran’s government’s honesty.
(BBC, 2013)
Iran had hidden the uranium enrichment program for 18 years.
The UN stepped in and demanded that unless Iran can convince the Security
Council that the enriched uranium would only be used for peaceful purposes, it
should shut down its uranium enrichment operations. A report by the
International Atomic Energy Association claimed that Iran has been performing
acts indicative of building nuclear weaponry including “The acquisition of
nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine
nuclear supply network “ and “Work on the development of an indigenous design
of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components” .(IAEA, 2011) Iran
still continues to enrich uranium under the justification that it is within its
rights provided by the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
to do so. (BBC, 2013)
In this case, Iran may or may not have enriched uranium for
the purpose of creating nuclear warheads, but that is not the point. The point
here is that the UN is afraid that Iran could be making a bomb and is taking
steps, such as economy-crippling sanctions, to stop Iran from carrying out its
uranium enrichment program. Once again, we are seeing two sides that refuse to
back down, which may bring us to conclude that there is a vicious cycle. Did
the UN consider that perhaps their sanctions in retaliation to Iran carrying out
their enrichment program is the same thing that is driving Iran to continue it?
Future Considerations for Nuclear Energy:
Nuclear power’s infamy arises from the harmful effects of
its radiation. To summarize, Fukushima’s radioactive water leaks pollute the
ocean and the area around it, Chernobyl and Fukushima’s disasters caused the
people to be evicted from their homes which then caused numerous social
effects. These effects have caused some countries such as Spain, Germany, Italy
and Japan itself to reconsider nuclear energy (Wikipedia, n.d).
This may not spell the end for nuclear energy as countries
such as China and India have considered nuclear energy as a viable alternative
source of energy. China’s reason for doing so is to begin reducing its carbon
emissions from its coal power dependency (Reuters, 2013). Just like nuclear
weapons, as long as people see good reason to apply such technology, that
technology will continue seeing use, regardless of public perception.
Conclusion:
Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy will continue being a
part of our lives. This strain of technology has seen many momentous moments in
history originally in war and later in accidents occurring close to home. Nuclear
energy gives people many reasons to fear and despise it, yet may even be one of
the better solutions offered in today’s challenges such as global warming.
Perhaps nuclear technology will continue to be part of the technology’s family,
the black sheep of the family.
Bibliography:
Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency (2011) Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the
Islamic Republic of Iran
