How much is it and who holds it?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/246420/major-foreign-holders-of-us-treasury-debt/
https://www.pgpf.org/infographic/the-national-debt-is-now-more-than-34-trillion-what-does-that-mean
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-us-debt/
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/how-much-is-the-national-debt-what-are-the-different-measures-used
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/
Challenges for Africa – the most important is poverty, which causes many of the others or limits an African country’s ability to deal with them. And then:
making a living, food insecurity, Africa’s rapid demographic growth,
climate change, droughts, famines, floods, the lack of infrastructure, lack of
an adequate education system (particularly for girls, health care and disease
prevention system, weak governance, corruption, security, civil wars and
conflict generated by armed non-state actors, migration, human trafficking, human rights abuses
and atrocities, dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, the need for more
economic development and foreign investment, more trade and economic
diversification in economic activities e.g. more industry.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poorest-countries-in-africa
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/whats-stake-africa-2024
https://www.giga-hamburg.de/en/publications/giga-focus/ten-things-to-watch-in-africa-in-2024
https://apnews.com/article/africa-un-au-food-hunger-03c66d5afa6b99b2427678faaa87ec56
The EU and Africa: the EU Partnership with
Africa
https://ecdpm.org/work/trouble-paradise-eu-africa-partnership-geopolitical-context
Italy
and Africa: the Mattei Plan
https://www.governo.it/it/node/24861
https://www.iai.it/it/pubblicazioni/giorgia-melonis-foreign-policy-and-mattei-plan-africa
https://www.eunews.it/2024/01/04/meloni-piano-mattei-ue-africa/
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/meloni-mattei-africa-policy-immigration/
The
UN
Other
actors
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/nonstate-armed-actors-in-2024-the-middle-east-and-africa/
https://www.orfonline.org/research/russias-low-risk-high-reward-strategy-for-its-return-to-africa
https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2024/04/01/china-africa-economic-bulletin-2024-edition/
https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/02/07/infrastructure-diplomacy-the-key-to-chinas-influence-in-africa/
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/africa-india-cooperation-benchmark-partnership/
https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/turkey-influence-africa/
In
an essay with this title, you might want to make a distinction between North
Africa (the Maghreb
and Egypt), the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa, explaining that the challenges
are similar interconnected but often on a different scale in different areas. Then
you could focus on one of them. Most of the material above is focused on
sub-Saharan Africa.
North Africa
– high levels of youth unemployment and a widespread demand for political and
social change (expressed through the events of the Arab Spring) while economic
problems, including food prices, are less severe at the moment. However, with
the military regime in Egypt, and authoritarian regimes in other North African
countries and post-regime faction-fighting in Libya, stability in this region
is fragile. The economic situation is expected to return to low growth like
that prior to Covid-19 pandemic. Tourism is slowly recovery in Egypt. Oil
exports from Libya should gradually grow.
The
Sahel and the Horn of Africa
Countries in the Sahel (comprising Burkina
Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger), along with neighboring Central
African Republic (CAR) are facing a medley of development challenges.
Escalating insecurity, political instability including military takeovers, climate
change, and overlapping economic shocks are making it even harder to achieve
sustainable and inclusive development in one of the poorest
parts of the world. The central Sahel states of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger —
all of which are now ruled by military juntas — are engulfed in a decade-long
regional jihadist insurgency driven by al-Qaeda’s Sahelian branch Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State Sahel Province (IS Sahel).
https://acleddata.com/conflict-watchlist-2024/sahel/
In
the Greater Horn of Africa countries face a
convergence of increasingly recurring and intensifying climate crises, mainly
drought and flooding, conflicts, human rights abues and atrocities, disease
outbreaks, and economic shocks.
https://reliefweb.int/report/ethiopia/greater-horn-africa-humanitarian-key-messages-february-2024
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/11/horn-africa-impunity-fueling-abuses
In
dealing with sub-Saharan Africa, if you wanted to take one country as an
example of the challenges facing other countries in the region, Zambia might be
interesting. It is peaceful and should attract investment but remains poor.
https://www.afdb.org/en/documents/zambia-study-economic-diversification-and-productivity-improvement
https://cepa.org/article/confronting-the-china-challenge-in-africa-the-lobito-corridor/
https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/ZMB
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/zambia-infrastructure-development
https://healingwaters.org/zambia-water-crisis/
EU
missions and operations in Africa are listed with other EU missions on this
page. Click on the links. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/missions-and-operations_en
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/euam-rca_en
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eubam-libya_en
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eucap-sahel-mali_en
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eucap-som/about-eucap-somalia_en?s=332
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eutm-rca_en
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eu-sdi-gulf-guinea_en
UN
Peacekeeping
Operations in Africa-
UN
aid programs in Africa
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/section/humanitarian-aid
The
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Africa
Education
and gender equality
https://www.unicef.org/media/106691/file/Transforming%20Education
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/topic/education
https://www.uneca.org/gender-equality-and-empowerment-women
Missioni
italiani: https://www.affarinternazionali.it/missioni-internazionali-italiane-non-solo-mediterraneo/
Con le nuove missioni in Niger e Burkina
Faso, il contingente italiano supporterà le forze di sicurezza locali
nella lotta ai gruppi armati. Con la neo-istituita EU Military Partnership
Mission in Niger (EUMPM Niger),
Roma contribuirà – tra le altre cose – alla creazione di un Centro per la
formazione dei tecnici delle forze armate nigerine. La EUMPM Niger si aggiunge
alla Missione Italiana Bilaterale di Supporto nella Repubblica del Niger
(MISIN) dove – per usare le parole del Comandante del Comando Operativo
Interforze Figliuolo, che da poco ha fatto visita alla base –
il i militari italiani sono impegnati a “contrastare la minaccia alla stabilità
e alla convivenza civile”.
Anche in Libia,
con la nuova missione europea, l’Italia rafforza la propria presenza. La EU
Border Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM Libya), che mira a facilitare la
transizione del Paese verso democrazia e stabilità, si somma infatti alla
Missione bilaterale di assistenza e supporto in Libia (MIASIT).
Quest’ultima è stata spesso criticata con
riferimento ai flussi migratori di persone che cercano di arrivare in Europa e che
si trovano costrette in centri di detenzione dove sono sottoposte a pratiche
inumane. Il tema è aperto dal 2017, quando l’allora Governo Gentiloni
sottoscrisse un Memorandum con Tripoli, recentemente rinnovato dall’attuale
esecutivo.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/eu-should-support-thaw-greece-turkey-relations
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/91571
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/turkey
Turkish position: https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/where-is-turkish-foreign-policy-headed-in-2024
https://www.mfa.gov.tr/relations-between-turkiye-and-italy.en.mfa
https://www.statista.com/chart/8301/the-countries-holding-the-worlds-nuclear-arsenal/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyJh3qKjSMk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YN0qvNhtGhM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4VlruVG81w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2uBeiNXAo
What follows
is not an essay plan but some notes with information and ideas that might be
useful in working out an essay plan.
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2021-02/us-russian-nuclear-arms-control-watch
https://www.state.gov/on-the-extension-of-the-new-start-treaty-with-the-russian-federation/
https://ru.usembassy.gov/new-start-treaty-mythbusters/ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R41219.pdf
but then https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-03/news/russia-suspends-new-start
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/disarmament-non-proliferation-and-arms-export-control-0_en
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/759601/EPRS_BRI(2024)759601_EN.pdf
https://eu.boell.org/en/2016/05/25/european-union-and-nuclear-disarmament-sensitive-question
Meanwhile North Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_North_Korea
and Iran
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2024/mar/11/2024-us-intelligence-report-iran
https://www.stimson.org/2024/will-iran-get-the-bomb-in-2024/
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.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
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) and 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, which means they take common decisions with
the US on nuclear weapons policy and maintain technical equipment required for
the use of nuclear weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
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.) There is an ongoing dispute
with Iran about whether it has developed nuclear power for purely peaceful
purposes or intends to develop nuclear weapons. There was a nuclear deal between
the UN and Iran (July 2015) and the lifting of sanctions, but the US withdrew
from the deal (May 2018) and reimposed sanctions..
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-iran-nuclear-deal
There are
calls for the revival of the deal or a renegotiated agreement.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-10/news/delay-risks-effort-restore-iran-deal
Nuclear weapons and the current dangers of nuclear proliferation and an
escalation of a conflict into nuclear war
With rising tensions between the US and Russia, the US withdrew from the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. The New START Treaty (on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of
Strategic Offensive Arms)
was extended in 2021 but Russia’s suspended its participation in the treaty in
2023 and later withdrew from the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2024-03/inside-aca
They are clearly expensive to build, maintain and update. How dangerous
do they make the world? Are they weapons that are likely to be used? Hopefully
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, as is competition between the US and
Russia regarding the development of new weapons technologies. There are also
worries that various other countries may try to develop weapons. Would an Iran wit nuclear weapons end up in a
nuclear war with Israel? 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. 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. In addition, poorer countries may spend too little on maintenance and
security systems (e.g. not funding 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.
https://www.economist.com/international/2023/08/29/a-new-nuclear-arms-race-looms
So there is
a good argument for trying to abolish them completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Campaign_to_Abolish_Nuclear_Weapons
or
at least relauch nuclear arms control talks
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-04/focus/breaking-impasse-disarmament-part-one
However, an
attack by a nuclear power on another nuclear power, or the ally of a nuclear
power, would be suicidal (the Mutually Assured Destruction
deterrence doctrine of the Cold War). For example, an attack by a future Iran,
hypothetically in possession of nuclear weapons, could destroy Israel (and
probably most of the Palestinians too along with their longed-for homeland) 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).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Terrorism_Convention
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 75 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 seems a strong argument.
(2) No conventional war since 1945 has
ever actually 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
against 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 and more recently the US also
lost the war in Afghanistan and the US-backed Afghan government fell. Neither
the Vietnamese, nor the Afghans rebels were 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 directly. 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. Even President Putin’s government has so far refrained from direct
threats, raising Russia’s nuclear readiness status and underlining the risks of
the war in Ukraine becoming a nuclear conflict but nor directly threatening a
nuclear attack on Ukraine or other European countries.
(8) Prestige – This is a much-quoted but probably
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 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 try to reduce
their numbers, improve their safety, prevent their proliferation where
possible, but accept that they are here to stay?
http://www.boell.de/intlpolitics/security/foreign-affairs-security-global-zero-nuclear-weapons-conference-8755.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/67/nuclear-weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1997/00/00_babst_consequences.php
Treaty on the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Nuclear
technology for the peaceful production of energy
What is
nuclear power?
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/nuclear-energy/
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-is-nuclear-energy-the-science-of-nuclear-power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
In response to climate
change, a number of nations see nuclear
energy as a ‘reliable’ option and a way to achieve climate targets, at least in
the short term
https://www.voanews.com/a/nations-pledge-to-boost-nuclear-power-to-fight-climate-change/7537385.html
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2024/01/nuclear-energy-transistion-climate-change/
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/reactors.html#tab=iso;
2024
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-reactor-landscape/
2020
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-the-worlds-nuclear-power-plants
2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Nuclear
power is widely used as a source of energy. Some examples :
|
Country |
Nuclear
electricity generation capacity (million kilowatts) |
Nuclear
electricity generation (billion kilowatthours) |
Nuclear
share of country's total electricity generation |
|
United States |
95.49 |
778.15 |
19% |
|
France |
61.37 |
360.70 |
68% |
|
China |
53.26 |
407.52 |
5% |
|
Russia |
27.73 |
222.44 |
20% |
|
South Korea |
24.43 |
150.52 |
26% |
|
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Statistics, last updated with data available as of August 7, 2023. |
|||
France has
56 nuclear power stations (or plants) and 1 under construction, producing 70%
of its electrical power, the highest percentage in the world. (2023).
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx
Nuclear power was
used in Germany from the 1960s until it was phased out in April
2023.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany
The USA has 93
nuclear power stations, producing 20% of its electrical power.
Up until 2011,
Japan was generating some 30% of electricity from its nuclear power stations and this was expected to increase to at least 40% by 2017. Then came the Fukushima nuclear
accident due to the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 and the nuclear reactors were shut down. The first two reactors restarted in August and October 2015, with a
further nine having restarted since then (2023). 16 reactors are currently in the process of restart approval. The plan
is now for at least 20% by 2030, from reduce number of plants.
The UK generates about 15% of its
electrical
power, using 9 nuclear power stations (2023).
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx
For the
history and current situation in Italy see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Italy
China has 55 nuclear
power stations with 22 more under
construction, producing about 5% of its electrical power (2023).
South Korea has 26 nuclear
power stations with 2 more
under construction, producing 28% of its
electrical power (2023).
The Russian
Federation currently has 36 nuclear power stations, producing 19% of its
electrical power, and 4 under construction (2024).
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. Japan is torn between its fears of another
accident and desire to decommission existing nuclear power plants and its needs
to produce ‘clean energy’ under the Paris Climate Change agreement and thus to
allow restarts at sites which are currently closed to increase the ‘nuclear’
share of electricity production back up to 20%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/fukushima-nuclear-power-plant.htm
http://fukushimaupdate.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan
Some
countries had already decided not to use or to phase out nuclear power and
there is an ongoing debate about the pros and cons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out
Emerging Nuclear Energy Countries (updated October2023)
However, there are about 30 countries which are considering, planning or starting nuclear power
programmes
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/others/emerging-nuclear-energy-countries.aspx
The
production of nuclear energy produces radioactive waste materials that need
to be stored on a long-term basis (for decades). 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, some
experts argue that in the US alone, 70 years after the Manhattan project began,
there are now 95 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. So this is another hot debate.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12
https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx#:~:text=Nuclear%20waste%20is%20neither%20particularly,disposal%20is%20the%20best%20option.
Moreover,
those who argue that nuclear energy is cheap often ignore the fact that any
eventual solution that is found for the storage or disposal of this waste is
liable to be expensive and needs to included in calculating the real cost of
producing such energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
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
The argument
for maintaining the existing power plants, at least in the short term, is that
fossil fuel alternatives are limited and average oil pricesin 2024 remain
relatively high, and although additional shale gas and oil reserves may be made
available, they are polluting (contributing to climate change) and alternative
clean renewable energy sources are still not sufficiently developed 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:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053-600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power/
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 other European nations (e.g. Switzerland, the UK) 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
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, 1993, START 3 negotiations and SORT, 2003) 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 were estimated to be some 4,120 active nuclear warheads and some 14,930 total nuclear warheads in the world in January 2021.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/
The US
reduced from 32,000 (active and stockpiled) at the highest point in 1966 to 1,800 (active
warheads) and 5, 550 (total inventory including reserves and stockpiles)
The Russian
Federation reduced from 45,000 (active and stockpiled by the USSR) at the
highest point in 1988 to 1,950 (active) and 6,255(total inventory).
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
Current situation
For the
latest estimated global nuclear warheads inventories 2023/24 and most
up-to-date charts and data, go to:
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264435/number-of-nuclear-warheads-worldwide/
https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
More Background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_disarmament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/rose-gottenmoeller-america-russia-nuclear-security-1024
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/
So 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.
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 States 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.”
from: http://www.fas.org/_docs/Non_Strategic_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf
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.
https://armscontrol.org/act/2013-11/missile-defense-against-iran-without-threatening-russia https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_176392.htm https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-05/news/romania-missile-defense-site-activated
In August 2019 under President Donald
Trump the US withdrew 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.
Without agreement on an extension the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (New
Start) would have expired on 5 February 2021. In the same month the
Biden administration agreed with Russia to extend the New START Treaty for 5
years and to undertake comprehensive arms control and reduction talks. This was
greeted by the international community with enthusiasm.
https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2021-02/us-russian-nuclear-arms-control-watch
https://www.state.gov/on-the-extension-of-the-new-start-treaty-with-the-russian-federation/
https://ru.usembassy.gov/new-start-treaty-mythbusters/
https://www.dw.com/en/us-russia-agree-to-extend-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/a-56354318
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-05/focus/back-brink-next-steps-biden-putin
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/06/22/biden-putin-russia-arms-control-new-start/
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-12/news-briefs/russia-us-adhere-new-start-limits
but the treaty
needs to be expanded to include new technologies
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IN11520.pdf
https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/01/25/extending-new-start-should-be-just-beginning-pub-83699
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. In fact, arms control talks with Russia were suspended by the Biden administration on 25 February
2022 in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/25/biden-russia-arms-control-talks-ukraine-invasion/
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 but nearly all agree
that greater nuclear arms control and further reductions are vital.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-05/focus/back-brink-next-steps-biden-putin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Option
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
So, there is
general consensus within the global community that the number and types of
nuclear weapons needs to be reduced and further proliferation avoided. Moreever,
some experts argue that with the
increased reliance on IT in nuclear defence systems the catastrophic risks of a
computer error or computer-related human error are leading us towards the
nightmare scenario of Dr Strangelove. In January 2021, the NATO Secretary
General underlined the urgency of the situation and the need for a new treaty
on nuclear arms control to take the place of New START.
However in February 2023 Russia suspended its participation in New START
and later in the year withdrew from the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
There is even 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.
