Nuclear Power or Nuclear Weakness - Research Paper Example

Nuclear Power or Nuclear Weakness? Ruby Nunez Guimbard English 1004 “The discovery of nuclear reactions need not bring about the destruction of mankind any more than the discovery of matches.” (Einstein quoted by Isaackson, 2008) Nuclear energy stands among the most useful, incredible and important inventions of the 20th century side by side with television, internet and penicillin. Though first created strictly for military purposes later it also appeared as an almost inexhaustible source of energy. This unmilitary usage of atomic power is better known as a concept of “Atoms for Peace” (Chernus 2002). Nevertheless atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were made to end the war faster as well as nuclear disasters in Chernobyl (Ukraine) and Fukushima (Japan) has aroused massive social panic and fear of nuclear energy. Nuclear power is the world’s best and first answer to the problem of the exhaustion of resources. Above that it is ecologically clean when used properly. Besides that atomic energy serves for military purposes as a nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Despite the fact of its massive ability to destroy everything living it is the political mechanism of the future which guarantees world peace and logical avoidance of any local conflicts on the theoretical basis of nuclear deterrence and mutual asserted destruction (Edwards, 2013). Opponents of the nuclear energy and its military usage ignore the benefits and fear the danger of nuclear holocaust and worldwide ecological catastrophe in the future if nuclear power will continue to exist. They say that benefits don’t exceed the harm and it is better to continue injuring nature slowly thought fossil fuel energy than put it in jeopardy of probable total annihilation with atomics energy. More than that ecological harm from the atomic accidents not only overcomes the usual pollution but bring whole generations of unproductive land, humans and animals with diseases and low immune system all because of the radioactive pollution. Above that they state that nuclear weapon in the hands of government that behave in a rough way is not a responsible way to treat such serious issue due to the political corruption and instability that so often shows itself. They state that political differences and dissidence of countries which possess nuclear weapon can lead to the nuclear war which will annihilate and destroy the planet. Same opponents say that slow harm to the nature by the non-nuclear energy plants is better than the probability of total devastation. The also point out that disastrous events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are the examples that prove people’s inability to treat atomic energy with responsibility and that it can lead to further even more disastrous nuclear catastrophes with much more serious consequences. Adversaries of the atomic power still remain dedicated to the opinion that it is easily able to bring chaos, total destruction and massive annihilitation of all life on the planet Earth and ecological damages cause by nuclear energy overshadow benefits that derived from it in the face of the lack of other resources and ecological harm brought by gas pollution. While Fukushima nuclear disaster was the consequence of massive earthquake and tsunami and can be blamed more on the chance and named accidental, Chernobyl catastrophe is much more difficult to justify. It happened because of the human’s lack of experience and responsibility but it is exactly Chernobyl case that makes people all around the world see nuclear energy in a whole new light so now the possibility of similar event is close to zero due to the way more progressive and modern technologies and a new level of comprehension. Above that overall general pollution from cars and plants is way more widespread than the consequences of both mentioned above disasters which consequences in its turn are almost depleted by now (McLeish, 2014). Nuclear weapon being the weapon of nuclear deterrence is the reason why any major conflict is doomed to disappear at its beginning. That is because all great and influent countries have it which makes any large-scale war senseless because it will lead to the total destruction in which no one is interested (Daley 2012). Above that nuclear weapon persuade to the diplomatic solution instead of taking arms and making an attack. Corruption and dishonest of government don’t mean that such government is suicidal because nuclear war will eventually destroy any political institute which is not beneficial for politicians. Logically speaking anti-nuclear movement owns a lot to the Cold War perception of the world. It is exactly because of the maniacal political strife with either Japan with one phrenetic in charge or USSR with another one nuclear weapon became a subject of such active criticism. Balance of Power better known as a long confrontation between communism and capitalism, between democracy and dictatorship almost put the world in a pit of a total breakdown due to the differences in opinions. Such balance of power is now in past because world as it is became way more cosmopolite. Thanks to that there is no longer “red paranoia” that presents itself in a desire to kill an entire nation or destroy some country only because of the political and economic differences. That is a classic example of hate that produces more hate, violence over violence. Modern world has more in common: pollution and mistrust towards government (social opposition shows itself almost in every country all across the globe), unemployment, economic crisis etc. Internet provided understanding between eastern and western cultures and provided a connection between people from different parts of the world in order to create a harmony between nations. Nationalism, fascism, Nazism and communism are on its way to the total and complete oblivion for the better of humanity. This new kind of humanity needs resources which mother nature simply cannot provide. At this point science comes to the rescue. Population grows fast and with time there will simply be no such alternative as to live with or without atomic energy. Above that simple means of energy producing harm ecological system for nothing because in some time there will be no more easy and cheap bountifulness of gas and coal while at the same time ecological system will be exhausted due to the pollution (www.independent.co.uk). Ecologically clean and neverending atomic energy is in everyone’s interest because it has all the benefits of realistic choice while the alternative will eventually lead to the problem of the absence of any energy. Opposition arguments could have been appropriate on the stage of developing the first atomic bomb and during the Cold War. Now in the modern time it just outlived itself because atomic energy is a social reality and there can only appear more responsibility or less but the disposal of such great mechanism can be a more venturous thing than its usage because of the big amounts of nuclear products all around the world. What is done can’t be undone. Just simple refusal of the atomic energy is too fantastic because it implies that people and countries all around the world will reach a consensus which is unreal due to the competitive character of any man and therefore government on the matter of political, social, religious and other problems. Nevertheless it doesn’t mean that cosmopolitism is not a reality though our world slowly moves towards it due to the realistic fact that as cynical as it may sound something to eat is often more important than something to believe in. Overall and in general there is no choice and the only issue is how to make opponents believe in rationality and necessity of the usage of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is a reality like automobiles and space programs (someone criticizes it too because they think that there are enough problems on the planet’s surface). Responsibility of people and government is something that everybody has in common. Fire is not something bad because it is only a tool which can be used for different purposes. So is the nuclear power which is criticized as were criticized before any other technological breakthrough or innovation. But that is a matter of things and even reality should sometimes be justified. As for the mentioned above arguments overall they can be summarized in the following: nuclear power remains with us and can with careful precautions be used for the benefit of humankind. It is dangerous but it is useful and any valuable thing always comes with a price. While opponents see only this price the other people use and admire benefits. References Connor, S. (2015) Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html Chernus, I (2002) Eisonhower’s Atoms for Peace. Austin: Texas A&m University Press Daley, M. (2012) Nuclear Power: Promise or Peril? London: Twenty-First Century Books Edwards, A. (2013) Nuclear Weapons: The Balance of Terror, the Quest for Peace. New York: SUNY Press Isaackson, W. (2008) Einstein: His Life and Universe. Chicago: Simon and Schuster McLeish, E. (2014) The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group Read More