What
follows is not an essay plan but some notes with information and
ideas that might be useful in working out an essay plan.
Introduction
– this title concerns two separate but connected topics, nuclear
armaments and the development of nuclear power for peaceful
purposes. It is also related to the dangers posed by other Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMDs).
Nuclear
arms – some information
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
There
are currently 9 nuclear powers – the US (since 1945), the Russian
Federation (1949), the UK (1952), France (1960), China (1964), Israel
(1967?) , which now also has a submarine with nuclear arms and thus a
second strike capability (2003), India (1974), Pakistan (declared
1998, probably developed from the 1970s), North Korea (2003).
Apartheid South Africa had them and then eliminated them (1982-94).
Canada deploys US missiles but has no independent control of them.
Germany, Italy, Holland and Belgium and Turkey have US nuclear bases
and are part of NATO's nuclear
sharing
policy
https://eu.boell.org/en/2016/05/25/european-union-and-nuclear-disarmament-sensitive-question
which
means they take
common decisions with the US on nuclear weapons policy and maintain
technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons.
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine had them after the break-up of the
Soviet Union but returned them to the Russians almost
immediately.
The
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) came into force in 1970.
There was also the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) and the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1998)
There
are treaties concerning other potential Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMDs). These include the banning of Chemical weapons (1992),
Biological weapons (1971) and Weapons in Outer Space (1967).
The
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible
for monitoring
the development of nuclear power for peaceful
purposes (the
production of energy for domestic and industrial consumption) and
ensuring that nuclear materials and equipment are safe and not
diverted from legitimate peaceful purposes to military
purposes.
(There is a similar Agency in the Hague for chemical products and the
potential for producing chemical weapons.) The dispute, sanctions,
recent deal between the UN and Iran (July 2015), and the recent US
withdrawal from the deal May 2018), and the continuing support for,
doubts about and criticism of the deal, demonstrate the difficulty of
this
task.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/opinion/a-safer-world-thanks-to-the-iran-deal.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/world/middleeast/iran-sanctions-lifted-nuclear-deal.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/politics/pompeo-iran-sanctions/index.html
Nuclear
weapons
They
are clearly expensive to built, maintain and update.
Are
they dangerous? Are they weapons that are likely to be used? Probably
not in terms of whether states really intend to use them one day,
although tensions between the US and North Korea at the start of the
Trump administration were cause for concern. There are also worries
that various other countries may try to develop weapons. Moreover,
there is always the danger of an accident due to a technological or
human error, and the threat of a decision taken by a madman. There
is, in the case of India and Pakistan (as in the similar but slightly
different case of the US and USSR during the Cuban crisis), the
danger of escalation from a conventional conflict to a nuclear war in
the Kashmir region. In addition, poorer countries may spend too
little on maintenance and security systems (e.g. the 2-key launch
system or Russia's security failures during and after the collapse of
the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, 1989-91). Other experts claim that
a new arms race combined with the abandoning of international
treaties and greater automation and digital complexity of
nuclear-arsenals makes the world less and less secure.
So
there is a good argument for trying to abolish them completely.
However,
an attack by a nuclear power on another nuclear power, or the ally of
a nuclear power,
would be suicidal
(the Mad Doctrine of the Cold War). For example, an attack by a
future Iran hypothetically in possession of nuclear weapons could
destroy Israel but Israel would retaliate and destroy Iran. An attack
on a non-nuclear power would lead to international isolation, if not
a coordinated counter-attack from the global community or other
nuclear powers (e.g. North Korea on South Korea). So
the real danger may be that nuclear weapons or materials could fall
into the hands of terrorists or be targeted by terrorist attacks (in
Pakistan, for instance).
http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm
There
is also the question of what would happen to the nuclear weapons in
the event of a civil war in a state which has nuclear arms. This is a
real danger in Pakistan and was one of the major international
concerns during the break-up of the Soviet Union. The development of
nuclear weapons is also related to the development of nuclear
delivery systems (planes, short-range, long-range and
intercontinental ballistic missiles – ICBMs) and the international
community is involved in monitoring this situation, particularly
regarding developments in this sector in Iran and North Korea.
Arguments
in favour of keeping nuclear arms (the Devil’s advocate!)
(1)
They, more than the UN, have prevented a Third World War for more
than 65 years. There have been many conflicts, but none of them have
been global. Without nuclear arms the US and USSR might have gone to
war at some point during the Cold War . So their elimination might
actually lead to more
wars and make a general global conflict more
likely.
They have only been used once, by the US on Japan, to end a war, not
to start one. This is a strong argument.
(2)
No conventional war since 1945 has ever escalated into a nuclear war.
(3)
Reductions in or the elimination of these weapons must be coordinated
with reductions in other types of WMDs, or countries will
invest in those alternative weapons and the real danger to the world
may be increased, e.g. a race to develop and build biological
weapons.
(4)
If major powers reduce the number of nuclear weapons they have then
they will probably massively
increase their spending on conventional
weapons
to compensate for this. Some historians argue that World War I
demonstrated that a build-up of conventional weapons can lead to
growing tensions and war.
(5)
Nuclear weapons guarantee a country nuclear attack. So far this has
been true.
(6)
Nuclear weapons guarantee a country and a country’s allies against
conventional attacks or invasion. This is not true. Argentina invaded
the Falklands, confident that Britain would not respond with nuclear
weapons. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong defeated the South
Vietnamese government and US forces. Afghan rebels fought and
defeated the Russians and the Russian-backed Afghan government. They
were not intimidated by the strength of the US and USSR as nuclear
powers.
(7)
Nuclear weapons can be effectively used to threaten a non-nuclear
country. This does not really seem to be true. Only North Korea has
tried to use this tactic, against South Korea, and largely without
success. The US, the USSR (Russia today), France, Britain, China,
India, Pakistan – none
of them has ever done this.
Israel does not admit publicly that it has nuclear weapons and has
fought a series of conventional wars with its neighbours. It has
never threatened the use of nuclear weapons. It has threatened
conventional
bombing of Iranian nuclear research and development sites if the
Iranians continued with their program.
(8)
Prestige – This is a much-quoted but possibly mistaken idea. A
country or government may, of course, believe
that it will acquire status and prestige by developing nuclear
weapons but this is probably an illusion as the following
considerations suggest. Have North Korea and Pakistan really
acquired international prestige or become regional leaders? Don’t
Germany, Japan and Brazil have considerably more prestige because of
their economic importance? Did China and India gain prestige
internationally when they acquired nuclear weapons or when their
economies expanded to their current levels? Does the prestige of the
EU in international relations depend on French (and British? Post
Brexit?) nuclear weapons ( or NATO forces and US weapons) or on its
economic importance as a single developed market, democratic
traditions and cultural influence? Do the Arabs respect Israel more
because it has nuclear weapons?
(9)
Nuclear technology is old, no longer complex (with the right fissile
material you could built one at a US university physics department)
and you cannot turn the clock backwards. You cannot get rid of
knowledge. So should we try to eliminate them completely, or reduce
their numbers and try to improve their safety, prevent their
proliferation where this is possible, but accept that they are here
to stay?
Nuclear
technology for the peaceful production of energy
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Germany
has 7, producing 11.6% of its electrical power (compared
to 22.4% in 2010 and 17 nuclear plants)
but plans to phase out nuclear power by
2022.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/germany.aspx
The
USA
has 99, producing 19.3% of its electrical power. As
of 2018, there were 2 new reactors under
construction.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
Japan
has 42 operable nuclear power stations (but only are 9 operating in
February 2019) producing 6.2% of its electrical power. Prior
to the earthquake
and tsunami of March 2011
Japan had generated 30% of its electrical power from nuclear
reactors and planned to increase that share to 40%. After the
disaster, all its 50 reactors were closed.
Currently
42 reactors are operable and potentially able to restart. 9 have been
restarted and a further 21 reactors are in the process of restart
approval.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
The
UK has 15, producing 21% of its electrical power (and 2 under
construction).
http://network.bellona.org/content/uploads/sites/3/2017/05/2017-Russian-nuclear-power-NO-ISBN.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-power.aspx
The
Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear
accident
that occurred in April 1986 at the Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant
in Ukraine,
which was under the direct jurisdiction of the central authorities in
Moscow.
An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive
material into the atmosphere. It is widely considered to have been
the worst nuclear
power
plant accident in history. Highly
radioactive fallout
entered and contaminated the atmosphere and drifted over large parts
of the western Soviet
Union
and Europe
(large parts of Germany were covered with radioactive
contamination).
From 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from
the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus,
Russia,
and Ukraine.
According to official post-Soviet data about 60% of the fallout
landed in Belarus.
The accident raised concerns about the safety
of Russian nuclear technology, as well as the dangers of nuclear
power plant engineering in general and human error. Russia, Ukraine,
and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial
decontamination
and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. According to a
report by the International Atomic Energy Agency estimates of the
number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary
enormously: Thirty
one deaths are directly attributed to the accident,
all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. An UNSCEAR
report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of
2008. The World
Health Organization
(WHO) estimates that the death toll could reach 4,000 civilian
deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker
casualties. The Union
of Concerned Scientists
estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess
cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. The 2006 TORCH
report
predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl
fallout.
A
Greenpeace
report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication,
Chernobyl,
concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide
between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from
Chernobyl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
The
events following the
failure of cooling systems at the Fukushima
Daiichi I Nuclear Power Plant
in Japan on March 11, 2011demonstrate
that even
with great advances in the safety of nuclear technology,
exceptional events (in this case an earthquake and a tsunami) make
100% safety impossible and raise questions about the industry’s
confident claims to operate within acceptable margins of
safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant.htm
http://fukushimaupdate.com/
Many
countries had already decided not to use or to phase out nuclear
power:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
after
the Fukushima disaster other countries now plan to reduce or
eliminate nuclear
power:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/japan-end-nuclear-power
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/27/post-fukushima-nuclear-power-changes-latitudes.html
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2011/11/04/mexico_1920_s-energy-plans-swap-nuclear-for-natural-gas-110401.aspx
The
production of nuclear energy produces radioactive waste materials
that need to be stored on a long-term basis (for centuries). The
French nuclear power industry’s claims that a very high percentage
of this material can be recycled is widely disputed. Moreover, this
is not what is happening in most countries at the moment. So this
material also represents a threat to life. For example, experts argue
that in the US alone, 70 years after the Manhattan project began,
there are now 99 nuclear reactors and 90,000 metric tons of nuclear
waste (the product of both the commercial and defence nuclear
reactors) at 80 sites in 35 states in temporary(!) storage facilities
with no permanent storage arrangements.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/05/18/18climatewire-is-the-solution-to-the-us-nuclear-waste-prob-12208.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ieer-french-style-nuclear-reprocessing-will-not-solve-us-nuclear-waste-problems-90233522.html
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/apr/04/fear-nuclear-power-fukushima-risks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
The
argument for maintaining the existing power plants, at least in the
short term, is that fossil fuel alternatives are limited (but with
average oil prices in 2019 not being particularly high and additional
shale gas and oil reserves this argument now seems weak) and
polluting (contributing to climate change) and that alternative clean
renewable energy sources are only in their infancy and cannot
offer adequate supplies at the moment.
Opponents argue that renewable, green energy sources are becoming
competitive and that, anyway, this argument only underlines the need
for greater investment in renewables in order to produce a
technological revolution and lower costs dramatically. Supporters of
nuclear power also argue that the two major accidents which happened
were in Soviet Russia, using poor technology and under a government
system that was well-known for its inefficiency, and in Japan, in an
area where a nuclear power plant should never have been built because
of seismic risks. Moreover, advocates of nuclear energy claim that
more people die, directly or indirectly, in the coal-mining industry
and oil industry than die in the nuclear industry and statistics from
the International Energy Agency seem to confirm
this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html#.UvlL-fvrVbg
However, there are several arguments for closing these power
stations. First, there is the danger of an accident like the ones
described above. Moreover, in Europe the EU (and UK after Brexit?)
clearly needs to adopt a common
policy since
the effects of an accident in France could easily spread to Italy,
Spain, the UK, Belgium, Switzerland and Germany. Secondly, closing
them will force countries to invest heavily and rapidly in
alternative renewable energy sources. Thirdly, they are potentially
vulnerable targets for terrorists , e.g. an attack on a nuclear
facility could lead to a nuclear disaster (e.g. by using a plane), or
a raid to acquire nuclear materials or waste (or simply the purchase
of these materials from corrupt officials) for the construction of a
‘dirty’(or ‘suitcase’) bomb for a terrorist attack (using
conventional explosives to release radioactive material into the
atmosphere). The fewer the nuclear plants the less nuclear material
there is to protect.
http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm
The
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the international
organization which is responsible for promoting the peaceful
use of nuclear
energy,
and trying to prevent its development and use for any military
purpose, including nuclear
weapons.
The IAEA was established as an autonomous organization in 1957 but
reports to both the UN General
Assembly
and
Security Council . As
the IAEA points out there is no simple clear line between nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes and nuclear energy for military
purposes. So preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a
world in which nuclear energy is widely used for energy production is
becoming an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task.
Nuclear
weapons today
The
US and the Russian Federation made large reductions in their nuclear
arsenals through a negotiation process which began with the START 1
treaty in 1991 (also START 2, START 3, SORT) and say they are
committed to continuing this process (the New START treaty was
ratified in January 2011). From
a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there are now estimated to
be some 4,120 active nuclear warheads and some 14,930 total nuclear
warheads in the world in 2015.The
US has reduced from 32,000 (active and stockpiled) at the highest
point in 1966 to 1,800
(active warheads) and 6,800 (total inventory including reserves and
stockpiles)
The
USSR/Russian
Federation has reduced from 45,000 (active and stockpiled) at the
highest point in 1988 to 1,950
(active) and 7,000 (total inventory).
Status
of World Nuclear Forces 2019*
|
Country
|
Deployed Strategic
|
Deployed Nonstrategic
|
Reserve/ Nondeployed
|
Military Stockpilea
|
Total
Inventoryb
|
Russia
|
1,600c
|
0d
|
2,730e
|
4,330
|
6,500f
|
United
States
|
1,600g
|
150h
|
2,050i
|
3,800j
|
6,185k
|
France
|
280l
|
n.a.
|
20l
|
300
|
300
|
China
|
0m
|
?
|
290
|
290
|
290m
|
United
Kingdom
|
120n
|
n.a.
|
95
|
215
|
215n
|
Israel
|
0
|
n.a.
|
80
|
80
|
80o
|
Pakistan
|
0
|
n.a.
|
140-150
|
140-150
|
140-150p
|
India
|
0
|
n.a.
|
130-140
|
130-140
|
130-140q
|
North
Korea
|
0
|
n.a.
|
?
|
20-30
|
20-30r
|
Total:s
|
~3,600
|
~150
|
~5,555
|
~9,330
|
~13,890
|
Globally,
the number of nuclear weapons is declining, but the pace of
reduction is slowing compared with the past 25 years. The United
States, Russia, and the United Kingdom are reducing their overall
warhead inventories, France and Israel have relatively stable
inventories, while China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea are
increasing their warhead inventories.
All
the nuclear weapon states continue to modernize their remaining
nuclear forces, adding new types, increasing the role they serve, and
appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite
future. For an overview of global modernization programs, see our
contribution to the SIPRI Yearbook.
Individual country profiles are available from the FAS
Nuclear Notebook.
The
exact number of nuclear weapons in each country’s possession is a
closely held national secret. Yet the degree of secrecy varies
considerably from country to count. Between 2010 and 2018, the United
disclosed its total stockpile size, but in 2019 the Trump
administration stopped
that practice.
Despite such limitations, however, publicly available information,
careful analysis of historical records, and occasional leaks make it
possible to make best estimates about the size and composition of the
national nuclear weapon stockpiles.
“Since
1991, the United States [claims that it] has destroyed about 90
percent of its non-strategic nuclear weapons and devalued them in its
military posture. However, the Obama administration reaffirmed the
importance of retaining some non-strategic nuclear weapons to extend
a nuclear deterrent to allies. And the U.S. Congress has made further
reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons conditioned on reducing the
“disparity” in Russian non-strategic nuclear forces.
Russia
says it has destroyed 75 percent of its Cold War stockpile of
non-strategic nuclear weapons, but insists that at least some of the
remaining weapons are needed to counter NATO’s conventional
superiority and to defend its border with China. Following a meeting
of the NATO-Russia Council on April 19, 2012, Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov stated: “Unlike Russian non-strategic
nuclear weapons, U.S. weapons are deployed outside the country,”
and added that “before talks on the matter could begin, the
positions of both sides should be considered on an equal basis.”
The
US withdrew from the ABM Treaty (1972) in 2002 (which banned the
development of a missile defence system).
At
the November 2010 NATO Summit in Lisbon, NATO’s leaders decided to
develop a ballistic missile
defence (BMD)
capability to pursue its core task of collective defence
and specifically against an attack with missiles. Despite NATO’s
initial attempts to reach agreement with the Russian Federation,
Russia has made its opposition to the plan clear. (Moreover, many
technical experts doubt that such a system will ever be 100%
effective, which is the only level of safety worth having if the
missiles have nuclear warheads.) This and the situation in Ukraine
raised tensions with Russia and put at risks the prospects for
further cooperation between the US and Russia on nuclear arms
reductions.
In
October 2018 President Donald Trump said the US will withdraw from
the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty claiming that
Russia had violated it. The
deal banned ground-launched medium-range missiles, with a range of
between 500 and 5,500km (310-3,400 miles. e.g. Moscow to Paris).
There are concerns that without a new understanding between the US
and Russia we could now see the unravelling of all the progress made
in the last 25 years and a new nuclear arms race.
Worsening
relations between the US, NATO and the Russian Federation (due to
events in Ukraine, sanctions, the NATO missile defense system and the
US suspension of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty)
seem to make future negotiations and progress on further reductions
unlikely.
The
situation in November 2019 seemed blocked:
Both
sides now seem to be set on a new nuclear arms race.
In
contrast, former US President Obama had talked about the need for an
international commitment to eliminate nuclear arms completely.
Realistically, this is unlikely to happen in the near future, without
the prospect of some kind of world government. Some experts even
doubt the advisability of such a development.
However,
there is general consensus in the global community that the number
and types of nuclear weapons needs to be reduced and further
proliferation avoided if possible.
There
is less consensus on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,
but general agreement on the need for:
1)
More integrated strategies for monitoring and responding to the
recruitment of trained nuclear scientists and engineers by suspicious
parties, and against the purchase or acquisition of fissile
materials, nuclear waste materials, nuclear know-how and technical
expertise (Pakistani scientists in North Korea and Iran), non-
nuclear components of a nuclear bomb or advanced delivery systems by
such parties on the black market.
2)
increased secret service surveillance and international cooperation
in this field.
3)
improvements in the security provided to and at nuclear plants.
4)
better and more regular tests on the safety of nuclear facilities.
5)
better and permanent arrangements for the recycling and/or storage of
nuclear waste.
For
source material about the dispute between the UN, US and Iran see:
Background
US
and Russia