"Congratulations on the last shipment! Be safe!" was the message written by the Assistant Secretary of the State for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, on the side of a cylinder containing the uranium of Soviet atomic bombs. This past Thursday the final shipment of nuclear reactor fuel left Russia on its way towards the United States thus bringing an end to post-Cold War program that has been supplying energy for the American nuclear power industry for twenty years. The program dubbed Megatons to Megawatts has been creating more electricity in the United States than any other alternative source, providing about ten percent of the overall power. Due to it the Uranium being "weapons grade" its is expected that this shipment should be keeping the lights on in the US until around 2020. Another strategic arms reduction treaty was signed between the two world powers in 2010 that will reduce each respective surplus by 450 warheads. A quote from Bruce Blair, the founder of the disarmament program Global Zero stated, "This program represented the pinnacle of U.S.-Russian nuclear Security cooperation, and its end leaves a huge vacuum that needs to be filled by a new innovative program of cooperation that puts another nail in the coffin of the Cold War."
Luckily for the world it seems that the nuclear arms race of the 1950's is finally creating more than just fear. We read about how the presence of nuclear weapons being used as a threat of complete annihilation does not create an ability to strong-arm, providing that the existential build up of weapons was rather useless. So I now present this question, can we look back on the nuclear arms race in a positive light due to the alternative energy that it is contributing as well as the implication that research from this contribution could further lead to a renewable energy supply that would detract dependence on foreign oil, thus lessening international strain/conflict caused by the economic prowess of the oil industry? Would this even be a plausible scenario to suppress conflict between states of Western ideology with the Middle East?
Are the 450 warheads each that the countries are getting rid of going to be used to create electricity, because I think that this could be beneficial for both countries. It would allow a return on the investment to make the weapon, and I feel that nuclear power is very beneficial for both nations to do something like this.
ReplyDeleteAre the 450 warheads each that the countries are getting rid of going to be used to create electricity, because I think that this could be beneficial for both countries. It would allow a return on the investment to make the weapon, and I feel that nuclear power is very beneficial for both nations to do something like this.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I think that this "final nail in the coffin" really shows that the modern world is no longer bipolar. But what are we now? Multipolar or not? Multipolarity was one of the contributing factors to WWI and WWII. What does this mean for the future?
ReplyDeleteI had no idea this was going on between the United States and Russia. It's awesome to read that we're using weapons that could've destroyed cities and killed millions of people and converting them in to power to supply our country with electricity. And it's supplying 10% of overall power? That is awesome! I wouldn't go far as to say we can look back on the Cold War and see it in a positive light. But we can see the positive outcome that has come out of it. Like you said, I think it also sets a positive light for the future in that it will allow some conflicts to be avoided when it comes to the need for oil in middle eastern countries.
ReplyDeleteIt is great to see that these warheads are being salvaged for nuclear reactor fuel rather than being stored as a testament to billions of wasted dollars. Nuclear energy is a great alternative to fossil fuels and its use will result with benefits to both economy and environment. As we have read, the taboo on nuclear weapons seems to be very influential in limiting nuclear attack threats and preventing actual nuclear weapon usage. The sway of international organizations and their anti-nuclear weapon proliferation policies has grown exponentially. One could go so far as to say that the world may never witness a nuclear attack again. This U.S.-Russia agreement on converting warheads to reactor fuel can be seen as a signal of the two states recognizing the taboo. Although we have witnessed many occasions in which the U.S. chose to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons, it is enlightening to see that a power such as Russia is also seemingly adopting an anti-nuclear proliferation policy. As you stated, this really does seem like the final nail in the Cold War's coffin. It also provides further support to the claim that the U.S. and Russia have managed to escape the Nash equilibrium of the prisoner's dilemma and that consistent interaction between countries will result with mutual cooperation in other dilemmas.
ReplyDeleteI believe the answer to your question is yes, we can look back on the nuclear arms race as a positive thing. The idea that we can soon have little to none dependence on oil in the U.S. promises a better future. Nuclear energy is extremely efficient and these days, has become so much less dangerous (given you don't build nuclear reactors on a fault line). The continued development on nuclear weapons does not have much point now that we and other countries have stock piles of them. Great post
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy is definitely a viable alternative option for energy. I really don't know much about it other than they're actually a lot safer than most people think. Often accidents occur due to faulty infrastructure or not up to standard codes or setting them too low. For instance there's a second nuclear reactor on the same coast of Japan that didn't receive any damage only because the civil engineer decided to build the flood wall higher than bureaucrats had deemed necessary.
ReplyDeleteThat said I would like to see progress made in the Middle East, and as I've said before I believe there needs to be other alternatives and incentives other than force. However to go and build nuclear reactors in an unstable region seems problematic. Then can the world ensure that these facilities are properly built, maintained, and managed? The world doesn't need another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, both accidents partially due to human error.
The problem is that all options for energy have a down-side. If nuclear energy is going to be used, it should be used well. Might as well use a bunch of otherwise useless stockpiles for something positive.
ReplyDeleteAs I think nuclear power is great, let us not forget about disasters including the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986, and most recently the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011. Radioactive waste has a half-life of 10,000-1 million years and can be (obviously) extremely detrimental to the health of the ecosystem and to humans. How can we dispose of nuclear waste from the Earth properly? We can't. The technology that we have is as archaic as throwing it in a mountainside. Therefore, as I feel that some nuclear energy has the capacity to light up a city, it is still not the method we should use to do so.
ReplyDelete