Nuclear technology: to have or not to have (13)

In a world where climate change and its consequences are major concerns, it is important to remember that nuclear power is cost-effective and generates virtually no pollution.

By Park Jin-seng

Much scientific data concerning nuclear warheads has been publicized in recent years. Research results point to the devastating realization that the number of existing nuclear warheads is critically high, and unless we reduce their number or find the means to prevent them from causing harm, all of mankind could be eradicated without warning.

Most notably, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) reported this January that the Doomsday Clock was adjusted forward by one minute, and that it is now pointing at 11:55 p.m. The BAS stated during a press interview, “The clock which had been pointing to 11:54 since 2007 has been adjusted, primarily because of the rapid proliferation of nuclear weapons despite the efforts of global leaders.” As the Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight, it concomitantly brings the end of the world one step nearer.

The Doomsday Clock is not only warning sign of possible nuclear war. Recently, one of the world’s best known theoretical physicists, Dr. Steven Hawking, claimed during an interview with the BBC that global warming and nuclear weapons can put all of humanity in a perilous situation within the next century.

Nuclear proliferation

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) officially sanctions nuclear warheads to only five nations: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. However, other non-sanctioned countries have either conducted nuclear weapons testing or have developed a sufficient degree of technology to create nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan have conducted nuclear weapons testing, once in 1974, and again in 1988. Israel is believed to have sufficient power to produce nuclear warheads, and even our closest neighbor, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, announced on Oct. 9, 2006 that the government was successful in conducting nuclear tests.

Although fewer than 10 countries possess nuclear weapons, the total number of warheads is stunningly high. More than 22,000 nuclear warheads exist around the globe, and 8,000 of these can be activated instantly.

The numbers listed above demonstrate two alarming facts: First, nuclear weapons have the potential to cause mass destruction, despite the global community’s efforts to reduce catastrophic events. The Stockpile Steward Program is one such effort.

Second, there is still a possibility that countries like North Korea and Iran are producing more nuclear weapons in order to compensate for their political weakness and to defend themselves from outside forces.

Some proponents of a nuclear deterrent force argue that nuclear weapons are vital in that they serve as deterrents against war between countries. That said, a single question remains: Can nuclear weapons truly guarantee a country’s national security? The answer is an emphatic no.

These are stark realities. Yet, the truth is that the importance of atomic power, which is often associated with the production of nuclear weapons, cannot be ignored.

Last year’s nuclear meltdown in Fukushima, Japan as a result of a massive earthquake – measuring an astonishing 9.0 on the Richter scale – and the ensuing tsunami was another reminder of the consequences of atomic power.

Recent reports in Japan indicate that there were shortfalls in preparatory measures against the possibility of accidents that could have reduced the impact of the natural phenomenon.

As a result of the Fukushima accident, Germany has declared that it will move to power down all nuclear plants in the country by 2022 even as the United States commissions the construction of a new nuclear facility for the first time in decades.

What are the implications for South Korea? Most experts believe that for a country with virtually no natural resources and increasing demands for energy, there are few viable alternatives.

In a world where climate change and its consequences are the concerns of countries around the world, it is important to remember that nuclear power is cost-effective, and, more importantly, generates virtually no pollution. No gases that cause global warming or any other pollutants generated by fossil fuels are emitted.

We should also take note of the fact that many countries with nuclear power plants have not resorted to uranium enrichment programs, as North Korea has. They have been successful in the preservation of safe energy.

Acknowledging dangers

Korean monk Tan-huh was renowned for his ability to foresee the future. He did so from a Buddhist perspective, also based on his deep knowledge of “The Book of Changes.” He once remarked, “The people who will eventually be damaged the most by nuclear warheads are not the ones living in countries without nuclear weapons, but rather, those residing in nations possessing the most nuclear warheads are at greatest risk.”

According to him, it is highly unlikely for humanity to be pushed to the verge of extinction by another world war. Instead, natural disasters such as earthquakes that humans can neither prevent nor avoid might inadvertently cause nuclear warheads to explode.

His warning, which had once been disregarded by scientists overseeing the security of nuclear warheads, proved to be prophetic. The recent earthquakes in Japan and the ensuing nuclear fallout and radioactive contamination illustrate his foresight.

It is of paramount importance that we also consider that the decision of implementing nuclear warheads in real-life situations is made by imperfect human beings who make mistakes.

Suppose a world leader suffering from a psychological disorder decides to attack other countries with nuclear weapons? There are numerous psychological conditions that result in impaired judgment.

The first nuclear weapon was invented to address this very concern. Einstein worried about the destructive powers of nuclear weapons when they were first introduced by German and Soviet Union leaders. He sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, urging him to make the United States the first country to possess nuclear warheads. Consequently, The Manhattan Project was initiated, and the United States was able to induce the surrender of Japan by dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the first time in history. If the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler or the Japanese militarist Hirohito had used the atomic bomb earlier than the Americans, the outcome would have been much more devastating.

Notorious leaders such as Hitler and Kim Jung-il clearly suffered from personality disorders and posed threats to the entire world. However, they were not genetically programmed to have mental disorders, since humans develop their personalities throughout their lives.

Prevailing implications

This leads to the argument that the availability of nuclear power inadvertently leads to the possibility of weapons build-ups.

Therein lies the importance of efforts like the second nuclear security summit, which will take place in Seoul in a few days, where political leaders from more than 50 countries will gather to find solutions for possible nuclear warfare and terrorism.

I would like to ask every world leader to take violence off the table. Even if some countries such as North Korea and Iran flout the rules and are headed in the wrong direction, no country should use force to oppress them. Violence will only beget more violence, rather than make the world a safer place.

Another valid point would be to separate the need for nuclear energy from the potential of weapons build-up. The Seoul Nuclear Security Summit will hopefully go a long way in this direction.

One Korean spiritual leader argued that the new era requires us to become “unified and co-dependent” rather than “confrontational and antagonistic.” Every human being and country should foster a stronger sense of community. Therefore, instead of punishing countries like North Korea and Iran, we should always remain empathetic, and encourage them to give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily while preserving the possibility of the peaceful use of nuclear technology, as Iran insists it is.

At the end of the day, there will continue to be long and conflicting discussions on the safety of nuclear power and whether mankind needs to resort to this source when there are alternatives.

Atomic power debate

The atomic power debate is about the controversy that has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The debate about nuclear power peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it “reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies,” in some countries.

Proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is a sustainable energy source which reduces carbon emissions and can increase energy security if its use supplants a dependence on imported fuels.

Proponents advance the notion that nuclear power produces virtually no air pollution, in contrast to the chief viable alternative of fossil fuel. Proponents also believe that atomic power is the only viable course to achieve energy independence for most Western countries.

They emphasize that the risks of storing the waste are small and can be further reduced by using the latest technology in newer reactors, and the operational safety record in the Western world is excellent when compared to the other major kinds of power plants.

Destructive weapons or a peaceful source of virtually unlimited energy? Only time will tell.

Dr. Park Jin-seng graduated from Pusan National University Medical School in 1984. He completed his fellowship at Seoul National University Hospital in 1991. As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist, Dr. Park approaches the complexities of humanity with sincerity, passion, and an open mind. In particular, he takes great interest in the elements of life that bring people happiness. From 2000 to 2004, he worked as a visiting professor at Catholic University, lecturing on meditation and counseling.