The Dangers Of Nuclear Proliferation For Energy Production

Usually during a decision-making process, the benefits are measured against the costs. However, this kind of decision-making process is not applicable to all situations. The authorities of states have for a long time been assessing the (primarily economic) costs and benefits of nuclear energy for their respective states and populations, especially in the production and manufacturing industrialized states. Yet, a more appropriate manner to approach the issue of nuclear energy would be to measure the risks against the benefits. The difference between costs and risks, is that costs are mostly predictable; risks are not. Also, in this specific argument, costs refers primarily to economic costs; risks refers to the dangers that nuclear energy can entail for countless human lives and for the environment, as well as a sizable economic loss for a state.Just as costs are normally measured against benefits (i.e. what will be lost versus what will be gained), risks are normally measured against perceived benefits (i.e. what could be lost versus what could be gained). However, in the case of nuclear power, the benefit is obvious:the production of energy. Although one may assume that a risk (i.e. a perceived potential cost) should not out-weigh a definite tangible benefit, the argument here will be to show that in some cases, the risks are simply too large.The problems which will be addressed in this essay are as follows:a) If so much attention is paid to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons for the sake of human security, then a sufficient amount should also be given to the non-proliferation of nuclear energy for the same reason.b) The reasons for the current proliferation of nuclear energy is the scarcity of other sources of energy. Despite the fact that alternative sources of energy have been developed which are not exhaustible and also have less deteriorative effect on the environment (such as the use of wind, water and solar energy), the current world view is that implementing just drastic plans for change in a country’s energy production are, firstly, not reliable, and secondly, not economically viable. However, there seems to be evidence to the contrary, which will be brought forth through-out the second part of the essay.This essay attempts to acknowledge the importance of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and identify the rationale behind it, but its emphasis is on the argument for the non-proliferation of nuclear energy. Past incidents have proven that nuclear energy projects, and atomic accidents occurring through these projects, can be just as detrimental to human safety as the use of nuclear weapons, yet not enough attention is given to the need to address such problems with a resolve equal to that of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Examples will be given and data drawn from actual historical events to demonstrate the dangers that nuclear energy accidents can hold.Secondly, the USA’s, as a leading industrial nation, nuclear energy policy will be assessed and the alternatives that21st century technological advances in energy generation provides will be discussed. The research will also include opinions of Doyne Farmer1and on whether or not it is possible for a state such as the USA to become completely independent of nuclear energy. If the USA is able to do so, then perhaps it is possible for other states whose socio-economic and industrial capabilities are entirely different to that of the USA to do so as well. Other economic giants, such as Germany and China, will also be discussed. The viability of future alternatives for nuclear energy therefore constitutes my third research question.