Nuclear Energy & Weapons

[dangerdan 0]

I do not think that we should use nuclear weapons or even energy and I'll explain why.Firstly, we are going to run out of oil soon. Nuclear energy simply has to be part of the post oil mix, I accept that, but I hope that it is not part of the long term solution.Secondly, I feel the technology differential between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is too small, and a world in which all countries use nuclear energy, but none have nuclear weapons is a very dangerous one in my opinion. This brings me to my third point, the nuclear deterrent.The Nuclear Deterrent (the phrase used to describe the UK, USA, France, China and Russia's ability to have nuclear weapons as a 'deterrent') is in my opinion fundamentally flawed. Since the Nuclear Deterrent emerged, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran and North Korea have all frantically been chasing the bomb and all but Iran achieved it (SA gave it up). My point is, that as long as the super powers have nuclear weapons, everyone else is going to want them. I feel the superpowers need to get rid of their nuclear weapons, to stop other people trying to obtain them (idealistic and liberal, perhaps) but first they need to make sure India and Pakistan give up theirs (and N Korea obviously). However, I do not think that anyone will convince Israel to surrender it's nuclear weapons because of its history and fear of its neighbours.

[rayzoredge 2]

Nuclear energy is clean, easier and cheaper to obtain (apparently). Also, nuclear warheads are easier to obtain than developing the next best thing... not to mention that nuclear weapons are our super weapon, as nothing else "better" has come around.

 

Take a look at the Tsar Bomba. The damn thing was detonated at 13,000 ft but still did more damage than anything we have yet to witness or on record. With 10 times the amount of nuclear material than Little Boy and Fat Man (which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II), and with an explosion that literally "glassed" a 25-kilometer radius, which is over 1500 square miles. To give you an idea of how huge that is, if that was dropped over New York, you would disintegrate 75% of the state, cook anything in a 100 kilometer radius, and throw pressure hundreds more kilometers to obliterate houses and blow windows out at the edges of the area of impact.

 

This bomb was hastily constructed with little to no mathematical analysis involved in the planning. The bomb took fifteen weeks to build, was built with "off-the-shelf" nuclear components, and it was even LIMITED in its construction to a 50-megaton potential because of the fears of radiation fallout... which, thankfully, they did, as their calculations did involved nuclear fallout with lethal effects over an enormous area. (Source)

 

When you have that kind of ease into creating something that can literally and completely wipe out a spot on the Earth plus the added shock wave to circumvent the Earth three times, it's no wonder why everyone wants to harness the power as well as use it to shake a bigger stick.

 

It would be nice to keep these true WMDs away from anyone's hands, but when you have defense protocols to make sure you have that bigger stick to wave when someone surprises you with an unfair offensive advantage, the U.S. can't afford not to have nuclear weapons, and neither can any other country.

 

Plus, since nuclear weapons are our best super weapon as a human race, what happens if we disarm ourselves and an alien invasion occurs?

[dangerdan 0]

Aha, I take your point about the alien invasion! Our nukes don't have the kind of range to destroy anything but our own planet though!I just feel that as long as the US has the 'big stick' then other countries are going to be trying to obtain sticks as big, if not bigger. Like I said in the OP, it is a very idealistic and liberal viewpoint but the only way to ensure the future safety of the world. Wikipedia now states that North Korea does have nuclear weapons, with Iran rapidly chasing them (to, in Ahmadinejad's own words 'wipe Israel off the map') and Israel already owning them, and with Pakistan and India both owning them (whilst disputing the regions of, for e.g., Kashmir). I feel that nuclear war is an ever increasing likelihood and something that needs to be averted before it is too late.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

To me nuclear weapons are just there for war... War is inevitable. Anyone who is highly religious should know even the Bible speaks of wars. To me, they are just "necessary evils."And as you learn in physics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. For there to be good, there must be bad.About using the nuclear energy for "good" purposes... I will admit I'm very light on the subject. I just don't know enough about it other than that it is dangerous when not disposed of properly. I feel as long as people know what they are doing, and as long as it is helping us, it's fine.

[Atomic0 0]

Some people describe Nuclear Energy as a source of 'clean' energy, but it is actually the opposite. Although there are no emissions to toxic gases / substances from the fission of nuclear material i.e. the breakdown of radioactive elements to release energy, the resulting nuclear waste remains highly radioactive even when stored in secure containers. There is currently no way to destroy used radioactive material from nuclear fission and the only option there is currently is to store them deep underground, as the radioactivity poses severe health risks to humans like the formation of cancers from mutated human cells etc.The only true clean energy that is feasible for sustaining our current lifestyles and world is solar energy, converting sunlight into electricity. From my point of view, other renewable energy options like wind power and hydro are not as effective in producing electricity as what solar power is capable of.

[dangerdan 0]

I am that confident about seeing nuclear fission energy as part of a renewable energy future, and I do not think nuclear energy will be viable as an answer until we master nuclear fusion, which is unlikely to happen in the short term. Were it to happen though, we would have a source of energy which, given equi-proportional inputs, is significantly more efficient than any form of energy currently known to man - renewable or otherwise. Only when this technology becomes a reality will our energy needs become less of a concern.