Final Version of Topical Review Paper

Nuclear Bombs and Nuclear Energy[1]

Benedict Leong Kwok Yuen (ky.leong.2013@business.smu.edu.sg)
G22 – Technology and World Change
Topical Review Paper

1^st Year Bachelor of Business Management, Singapore Management University

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 continued 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

Recently there was of commotion created when North Korea initially tested its nuclear weapons (Payne, 2013). The South Koreans were worried. The United States of America and the People’s Republic of China were among the many that publicly condemned North Korea's actions (Payne, 2013). 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 most of these defenders could have a stake in the industry and therefore be biased. In this paper we will briefly look at the brighter and darker sides of nuclear power. The paper will touch on some of the historical events centered on nuclear developments and seeks to evaluate their effects on the past and what they hold for the future.

1.0 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. Nuclear energy is one example of such a technology. From changing the way and sometimes reasons as to why nations get involved in conflicts to becoming one of the ways the world is powered, nuclear energy has seen the world through many changes. However, nuclear technology carries with it a taboo: its power that brought death and destruction and the infamous nuclear accidents that occurred throughout history have cast nuclear technology in a bad light. The question asked here is: if the world dislikes nuclear technology so much, why are we still keeping it? This paper will look at the two major fields of nuclear technology: revisiting World War II and the Cold War to discuss nuclear weapons and revisiting events surrounding nuclear power to shed more light on nuclear technology's role and effects in today's society.

2.0 Historical Perspective

Nuclear power is derived from the energy released from splitting the atoms of certain elements (World Nuclear Association, 2012a). 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 (World Nuclear Association, 2010). Nobody would forget the devastation that the two nuclear bombs: Fat Man and Little Boy wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II (“Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles”, n. d.). Among the notable nuclear-armed political powers of today are the United States of America, Russia and China (Kimball, 2013). Submarines and aircraft carriers also run on nuclear power from on board nuclear generators (World Nuclear Association, 2013d).

2.1 Warfare

Scientists in the 1930’s discovered nuclear fission and learned of the vast amounts of energy released from such a reaction (World Nuclear Association, 2010). Research in nuclear physics would then be influenced by the outbreak of World War II (World Nuclear Association, 2012). Many of the developments causing and caused by nuclear technology would then be 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 (World Nuclear Association, 2012).

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 FIRST ATOMIC BOMBS: Little Boy and Fat Man”, 2006). 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 - a cavern underground, shifting the ground to undermine the opposition (“Grand Slam (bomb)”, 2013). 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, they lost the will to continue fighting as they would face a “rain of ruin” as warned by President Henry Truman if they continued to resist (Shalett, 1945).

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 (DiGiulian, 2013). Seeing such a proud nation bow down to the devastation of such a weapon truly is a turning point when it comes to warfare technology.

2.2 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 a nuclear bombing suggested that countries that wielded nuclear weapons should tread carefully around one another out of fear that the slightest affront would set off a nuclear war. This could be evidently seen in 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 (“Cold War”, n.d.). 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 (“Mutually Assured Destruction, n.d). The Doctrine of MAD was based on the belief that if both sides ended up completely destroying each other, it would function as a deterrent from starting a war in the first place. (“Mutually Assured Destruction”, 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 (“Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles”, n.d).

 Tensions peaked when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in 1962 (“Cuban Missile Crisis”, n.d.). In exchange for economic and military aid, Cuba allowed Russia to place nuclear missiles in their country (History.com, n.d.). 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 (May E.R., 2011). 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.

2.3 Today’s Concerns for Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons represent power. The power to cause massive damage at the push of a button guarantees a fear and respect that can be used for international power-play. The nukes will continue to 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 (Payne, 2013), 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 (Aljazeera & Reuters, 2013). The world has seen enough war and especially with the current state of the global economy, cannot afford another one.

2.2.4 Possible Future Consideration for Nuclear Weapons

Despite the world's efforts to disarm nuclear weapons through the Treaty of Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it appears that nuclear weapons are here to stay (Ricking, 2013). Nuclear weapons’ symbolism of power and its proven ability to deter nuclear attack make it a viable option for most nations. 

The fear is still quite tangible and the benefits of owning such a weapon appear to be motivation enough for these countries to endure intense international pressure. As long as people see the value and need for something, nothing it seems, can stop them.

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).

There are still plenty of fear that Iran may be creating a nuclear warhead. Their continued secrecy on the matter only served to heighten the world's suspicion. The world is aware of the power that a nation stands to gain by controlling one of these warheads and Iran's possession of one would surely shift the balance of power in the Middle East in its favour (Ricking, 2013). In the author's opinion, if the world seriously is trying to stop my country (Iran) with sanctions that feel almost draconian (Salehzadeh, 2013), it would not be a surprise if Iran decided to shift development of civilian nuclear fuel to military application fuel.

North Korea is continuing with the development of its nuclear program is continuing to spark fear among the countries in the region (Payne, 2013). Despite global pressure, even from China, it is unlikely to stop.

India has recently tested its new Anti-Ballistic Missile successfully while Pakistan has tested a new nuclear capable Hatf-5 ballistic missile (Auner, 2013). India's responses here, the author feels, is because of the conflict that India has with Pakistan and the fact that it has two nuclear armed neighbors, Pakistan and China (Auner, 2013). Fear leads to preparation.

2.2.5 The Brighter Side of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear Weapons, while sparking fear in the hearts of many for various reasons, does have its silver lining. While some may be in the belief that using the bombs on the Japanese in World War II is wrong, it cannot be denied that using it helped to end the war faster. What would the future be like if America had not initiated Project Manhattan? For one, there may have been greater casualties for both sides. The Allies would have had to fight all the way to Tokyo to force the Emperor of Japan to surrender. The potential for greater loss of life, both military and civilian, would be greater. In a trade-off that may sound calculating and cold, use of the bombs helped to end the war against Japan with less cost of human life and less loss of economic capital.

From the information gathered here, it is safe to say that nuclear weapons could be a huge success as a peace keeper in a certain respect. Nuclear weapons, thanks to the doctrine of MAD actually managed to avert a potential world war. Despite being labeled “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” nuclear weapons have not seen any actual mass destruction outside its original use in World War II. In fact, it can be deduced that due to the doctrine of MAD induced by the involved parties’ access to nuclear weapons, the Cold War did not escalate to the likes of a third World War.

From this perspective, nuclear weapons have actually been doing the opposite of their intended effect. It would be an interesting world indeed if most of the great powers of the world had in their possession an arsenal of nuclear warheads. If these warheads could strike anywhere in the world, literally, there would be no more reason to have wars; anyone could trigger Armageddon and end the world. As no one would intend on ending the world (it’s economically unfeasible at the very least), the nations of the world would have to settle their differences diplomatically. Perhaps if this became a reality, the human race would be able to advance and make bloody and costly wars a thing of the past?

3.0 Nuclear Reactors Today

Introduction

Nuclear sabre-rattling will continue so long as there is a country which 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 (World Nuclear Association, 2012a). Despite this fact, 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 has sparked many anti-nuclear movements into action, continuing the vilification of nuclear energy. Is nuclear energy’s notoriety justified? Are we unfairly accusing this technology of crimes it may not be committing?

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, 2012b).  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 (World Nuclear Association, 2012). However, seeing the long term health effects of nuclear bombs, the nuclear waste produced from the power production process would have to be disposed effectively or else, this method may not be as “clean” as is advocated. Bearing all this in mind, this section of the paper will look through some of nuclear energy’s impacts on the world and see if nuclear energy truly is as bad as the activists claim it is.

3.1 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 (World Nuclear Association, 2013b). Many of these countries were reliant on fossil fuels to power their countries and some of them did not have much in the way of local fossil fuel deposits. To curb their reliance on a commodity that was subject to volatile prices, countries such as France and Japan turned to nuclear power (World Nuclear Association, 2013b).  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, 2013b). Without nuclear energy, these countries may have had an even harder time coping with the oil price shock and may have even stayed economically affected for a longer period of time.

Another interesting social impact of nuclear energy that is not frequently discussed is that nuclear power has been shown to save lives. A study conducted by Hansen and Kharecha (2013) has shown that nuclear power has actually prevented the air-pollution related deaths of 1.84 million people thanks to the fact it does not release greenhouse gases during the power supplying process. When put into perspective, despite all the bad press, nuclear energy has been a silent partner in slowing down the progress of global warming.

Some negative social effects of nuclear power are attached to concerns over health and safety. Anti-nuclear movements such as Greenpeace cite risks of nuclear accidents, especially the Chernobyl incident, and nuclear waste disposal as some of their reasons for disliking nuclear power (Greenpeace, n.d.).  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 (“Nuclear Accident”, 2013). From the research conducted, the social impact of displacement seems the most prominent.

The relocation of the people from their homes is could probably be one of the greatest challenges that some human beings have to face. In Chernobyl, more than 330,000 people had to be relocated after the disaster (“ Nuclear Accident”, 2013). Some of the people who left their homes behind due to the accidents 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 (Deconinck, 2006). The migration of the people also caused a distorted demographics curve, having more elderly people and fewer professionals. This raised the death rates of the area while hampering economic recovery (Deconinck, 2006). The author believes that fewer things are worse than feeling like an alien in one’s own homeland.

After the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant in 2011, which saw 160,000 people (McCurry, 2013) 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 (Knight & Saito, 2013).

In conclusion, 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. However, 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 be less public support for nuclear energy in times to come.

3.2 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, nuclear power's carbon footprint has been taken into account by powerful countries such as China (“China Set to Build 200 nuclear power plants: report”, 2013). 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.

The need for a global energy supply that does not add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has never been more urgent. Global warming has been confirmed by experts Hansen[2], Caldeira[3], Emanuel[4] and Wigley[5]  to be a threat to humanity in a signed letter to environmental groups (Associated Press, 2013). In their letter, they argued that the total amount of clean renewable energies would not be sufficient on their own to stave off global warming, an effort combining both nuclear power and renewable energy would be the recommended course of action (Associated Press, 2013). The power to aid in staving off climate change seems to be nuclear energy’s silver lining in environmental impact.

Nuclear power plant accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster release large quantities of radioactive material. For instance, nuclear fallout released from Chernobyl’s explosion traveled and affects areas downwind, spreading its radioactive substances to the neighboring areas. From Chernobyl, “(a)bout 4300 km² are in the no-go zone” and another area of about 7000 km² is considerably contaminated by ¹³⁷Cs (Deconinck, 2006). 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.” (Deconinck, 2006) This radioactive material had adverse effect on the wildlife in the vicinity, with plants growing strangely shaped leaves and animals showing signs of mutation (“Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions” (n.d.)).

Environmental hazards arise from the water used for cooling down the radioactive fuel. For instance, the water pumped into the facility to cool down the radioactive fuel end up becoming 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 plants must change their fuel every 18-36 months (World Nuclear Association, 2012b). 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 releases ionizing radiation that may cause cancer (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency n.d.b). 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 can nuclear power truly be called a clean source of power.

Author’s Perspective of Nuclear Power Today:

We appear to be in an interesting predicament concerning nuclear energy. The world is aware that the social and environmental impacts of nuclear power are largely negative but nuclear power does have its saving graces. Does nuclear energy really deserve its highly negative status? A good analogy of this situation can be the boiling frog example. A normal frog would immediately jump out if placed into a pot water that is already boiling. Similarly, when people immediately feel and suffer the consequences of a nuclear accident, they would react. The same frog would continue sitting in a pot of water that is heated from room temperature until it eventually dies when the water comes to a boil. It was only until recently that people have come to start realizing that fossil fuel based power supplies must go, but they don’t vilify it to the same degree as nuclear energy. Both situations can be seen to be equally harmful in different time spans but one just seems to have a worse image.

Seeing today that the world’s global warming situation is becoming ever more desperate, perhaps the world should reconsider its stand on nuclear energy. A lot of the effects surrounding our current nuclear practices are negative but it is not the technology that causes the problems but the way that technology is handled that causes problems. As we have come to learn, people learn from their mistakes and eventually a proper method to deal with the problems plaguing the industry. With more perseverance, mankind may be able to solve the woes associated with nuclear power and perhaps nuclear energy could actually be one mankind’s ways forwards.

4.0 Future Considerations for Nuclear Energy

Nuclear power’s infamy mostly 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 (“International Reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster”, 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.

There may be a solution to all these problems posed by nuclear fission if nuclear fusion's reasearch comes to fruition.  Problems such as radioactive waste disposal and threats of nuclear accidents should the power plants be damaged could become distant memories. Nuclear fusion promises a sustainable source of energy, safer reactor environments, far less waste and less complicated waste disposal than its fission counter part.

4.1 Fusion Technology

From the information gathered here, it can be surmised that the best way forward for nuclear technology is through nuclear fusion technology. Nuclear fusion technology is based on the energy released when two particles collide at high speeds to form a new atom (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). It has been touted as a clean energy that generate power from inexpensive materials regardless of weather conditions.

4.2 Environmental Issues

When energy is produced through fusion technology, no greenhouse gases are emitted. Furthermore, the fuel consumption of nuclear fusion is stated to be very efficient. According to the European Commission (2013), a nuclear fusion plant can produce energy the equivalent of 1.5 million tonnes of coal yearly using 100kg of deuterium and 3 tonnes of lithium. This data shows that nuclear fusion would be a viable option for an efficient and clean fuel.

Nuclear fusion decreases transport of radioactive substances. The fusion reaction requires two different hydrogen isotopes: deuterium and tritium. Tritium is radioactive but is produced within the reactor from lithium, removing the need to transport radioactive substances to the reactor (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). This reduces the risk of radiation leaks should any accident occur during transport of the fuel.

Nuclear fusion is not completely free from radioactive waste however. One of the components for the nuclear reaction, tritium, is radioactive but only has a half-life of 12 years (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). The short half-life of the waste, coupled with the low consumption of the fuel will ensure that waste disposal of nuclear fusion will be less complicated and will not leave long lasting environmental effects on the world.

4.3 Chances of Meltdown

The chances of a meltdown happening should something go wrong are almost non-existent as the requirements of a nuclear fusion reaction are very strict. The particles have to be heated to temperatures of 10 million degrees Celsius before a reaction can take place (World Nuclear Association, 2013a). Any breach of the containment unit would result in the particles rapidly losing heat, meaning no reaction would take place (European Commission, n.d.).

This is vital information as human error is unavoidable. In complex enough systems, small error would be overlooked as insignificant but they build up. At least when problems do arise in these new fusion reactors, the most notable damage to the public would be a blackout.  If nuclear fusion reactors become a reality, there would no longer be a threat of another Chernobyl or Fukushima incident.

4.4 The Struggle of Fusion Power

Despite all the promising benefits of nuclear fusion power, such a technology is seemingly still a distant dream. Research into nuclear fusion technology had started more than 50 years ago and has yet to achieve ignition - being able to produce vastly more energy from the reaction than the fuel absorbs (Grant, 2013). In the United States, the government is intending on cutting funding from nuclear fusion due to the fact that years of funding and research has failed to produce anything substantial (Grant, 2013).

However, there appears to be a beacon of hope for nuclear energy in light of a recent breakthrough. At the National Ignition Facility of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, a nuclear fusion reaction that created more energy than was absorbed by the fuel was finally achieved (Forbing, 2013). This breakthrough would finally enable researchers around the world to focus on making nuclear fusion a viable clean energy solution in the years to come.

4.5 Evaluation of Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fusion seems to answer many questions pertaining to our energy woes. However, research into this still has not brought the technology to fruition. The author believes that benefits of nuclear fusion far outweigh the costs of the research. With another powerful and sustainable source of energy that is not dependent on the amount of sunlight that hits it or the wind speeds, providing clean power could be done anywhere. With electric vehicles gaining popularity we could be seeing a zero-emission lifestyle throughout the world. This technology could potentially save the world from the imminent threat of global warming without the issue of nuclear waste disposal as well. With this in mind, the author reiterates that nuclear fusion is a technology well worth looking into and funding for this research should continue.

5.0 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.

References:

Aljazeera. (2013, Oct 4) TEPCO: Leak at Fukushima nuclear plant Aljazeera retrieved from: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/10/tepco-new-leak-at-fukushima-nuclear-plant-20131042347123714.html

Aljazeera & Reuters. (2013, Oct 7) North Korea warns US of 'disastrous consequences' after military exercise Aljazeera retrieved from: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/7/north-korea-warnsusofdisastrousconsequencesaftermilitaryexercise.html

Associated Press. (2013, November 3). Nuclear power needed to slow global warming: Experts. Times of India available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Nuclear-power-needed-to-slow-global-warming-Experts/articleshow/25182402.cms#write

Auner, E. (2013) Indian missile defense program advances. Arms Control Association retrieved from: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_01-02/Indian-Missile-Defense-Program-Advances

China set to build 200 nuclear power plants: report. (2013 Sep 26). LiveMint & The Wall Street Journal retrieved from: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/3s501RtDktWGT48wbF771K/China-set-to-build-200-nuclear-power-plants-report.html

Cold war. (n.d.). The History Channel website. Retrieved October 30, 2013 from  http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war

Cuban missile crisis. (n.d.). The History Channel website. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from http://www.history.com/topics/cuban-missile-crisis

Deconinck, F. (April, 2006) Word from the President. Retrieved from:  http://www.euronuclear.org/e-news/e-news-12/presidents-contribution.htm

DiGiulian, T. (2013, June 20). Kamikaze damage to US and British carriers. retrieved from: http://navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-042.htm

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 

International Atomic Energy Agency retrieved from: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

Fusion power: safe and very low carbon. (n.d.) European Commission website Retrieved November 3, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fusion&section=safety-and-environment

Forbing, J. (2013, October 2013). Nuclear Fusion Achieves Massive Energy Breakthrough. Guardian Express. Retrieved from: http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/nuclear-fusion-achieves-massive-energy-breakthrough/

Grand Slam (bomb). (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2013 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)

Grant, A. (2013). Ignition failed: how America's latest attempt at fusion power fizzled. Science News, 183(8), 26-29. doi:10.1002/scin.5591830821 retrieved from: http://ehis.ebscohost.com.libproxy.smu.edu.sg/eds/detail?sid=b4ab07ce-e566-475d-a103-e1dcc8015ea6@sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=105&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==#db=a9h&AN=86981349

Greenpeace (n.d.). End the nuclear age. Greenpeace International retrieved on 2013, November 1 from: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/

Hansen, J. E. & Kharecha, P. A. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science & Technology, 47. Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es3051197

International Atomic Energy Agency. (n.d.). Frequently asked Chernobyl questions. International Atomic Energy Agency retrieved from: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml

Intercontinental ballistic missiles. (n.d.). AtomCentral: The Atomic Bomb Website. Retrieved on 2013, November 3 from: http://www.atomcentral.com/icbm-missiles.aspx

International reaction to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2013 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Protests_and_politics

Kimball, D. (2013). Nuclear weapons: who has what at a glance. Arms Control Association retrieved from: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

Knight, S. and Saito M. (2013, March 10). Thousands in Japan anti-nuclear protest two years after Fukushima. Reuters. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/10/japan-protest-idUSL1N0C209D20130310

Kristensen, H. M. (2011, February 17). “The nuclear weapons modernisation budget” [Blog Post] Retrieved from: http://blogs.fas.org/security/2011/02/nuclearbudget/

Lewis, T. (2013, August 21). “Fukushima radiation leak: 5 things you should know” livescience Retrieved from:  http://www.livescience.com/39067-fukushima-radiation-5-things-to-know.html

May, E. R. (2011, February 17). John F Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis. BBC. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/kennedy_cuban_missile_01.shtml

McCurry, J. (2013, March 6). Fukushima residents still struggling 2 years after disaster. The Lancet. 381(9869), 791-792. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60611-X/fulltext

Mutually assured destruction. (n.d.). Nuclear Files.Org: Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Retrieved on October 14 2013 at: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured-destruction.htm

Nuclear accident. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2013 from Wikipedia: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accident

Payne, E. (2013, February 12). World leaders react to North Korea's nuclear test. CNN available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/12/world/north-korea-nuclear-reax

Public Intelligence. (2010, November 8). European anti-nuclear protest photos. November 2010 retrieved from: http://publicintelligence.net/european-anti-nuclear-protest-photos-november-2010/

Reuters. (2013, September 20). China, India indicate ambitions to expand nuclear ambitions at UN gathering.  Firstpost.World. Retrieved from: http://www.firstpost.com/world/china-india-indicate-ambitions-to-expand-nuclear-power-at-un-gathering-1122805.html

Ricking, C. (2013, February 19). The future of nuclear weapons. Deutsche Welle. Retrieved from: http://www.dw.de/the-future-of-nuclear-weapons/a-16611159

Royal Airforce Bomber Command (1945). Campaign diary April and May 1945. Retrieved from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20070706011932/http:/www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/apr45.html

Salehzadeh, A. (2013, August 22). A view from inside Iran: what sanctions do to real people. PolicyMic retrieved from: http://www.policymic.com/articles/60541/a-view-from-inside-iran-what-sanctions-do-to-real-people

Shalett, S. (1945, Aug 6). First atomic bomb dropped on Japan; missile is equal to 20,000 tons of TNT; Truman warns foe of a “rain of ruin”. The New York Times.  Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0806.html#article

THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMBS: “Little Boy and Fat Man”. (2006). AtomicBombMuseum.org Retrieved at  from: http://atomicbombmuseum.org/2_firstbombs.shtml

The Manhattan Engineer District. (1946, June 29). The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki .Retrieved from: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2011). Nuclear power and water. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/fact-sheet-water-use.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.a). Clean energy. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.b). Health effects. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2010). Outline of history of nuclear energy retrieved from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Outline-History-of-Nuclear-Energy/#.UnEbs_lkSSp

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2013a). Nuclear fusion retrieved from: http://world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Fusion-Power/#.UmPsUPlkSSo

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2013b) .Nuclear power in France. retrieved from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/#.UlkTAVBkSSo

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2012a). Nuclear power in the world today. Retrieved from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Power-in-the-World-Today/#.UnEZ4_lkSSo

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2012b). The nuclear fuel cycle. Retrieved from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Overview/#.UnMcRRBfral

World Nuclear Association: Representing the people and organizations of the global nuclear profession. (2013d). Nuclear powered ships. Retrieved from: http://world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Transport/Nuclear-Powered-Ships/#.UnEeD_lkSSo

---

[1] Peer reviewed by Amanda Kimberly Tan Hui Ting and Katty Lim Jue Yi

[2] James Hansen is a former NASA scientist.

[3] Ken Caldeira is an atmospheric scientist who works at the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology

[4] Kerry Emanuel is a professor of meteorology working at Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[5] Tom Wigley is a climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research