Does Every Nation on Earth Have a Right to Build Nuclear Power Plants

[alexandra]

Good question. I would say only when one country is guilty of immoral acts of barbarism that are beyond the pale. Especially actual genocide, and perhaps threats of genocide backed up by nuclear tipped IRBM's.

As I have just posted in another thread (and will copy here because of the importance of this issue), the US government is the only one that has ever indulged in the "immoral act of barbarism that is beyond the pale:...actual genocide"!

The US is the only government in the world that has ever been ruthless enough to ever deploy such a devastating weapon; this is proof of how dangerous such weapons are in its hands. No other country has proved itself capable of such atrocities

The United States Army Air Force dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the mornings of August 6 and August 9, 1945 during World War II. The goal was to secure the unconditional surrender of Japan. At least 120,000 people died immediately from the two attacks combined, and many more would die in years to come from the effects of nuclear radiation. About 95% of the casualties were civilians. Japan sent notice of its unconditional surrender to the Allies on August 15, a week after the bombings. These bombings were the first and only nuclear attacks in world history [so far - my own comment].
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Have a look at some photos of the victims of this barbaric act: http://history1900s.about.com/library/photos/blyindexhiroshima.htm

 

[alexandra]

Why did I vote no? For the same reason we don't allow convicted felons to own guns. Those states that have a proven record of irresponsibility cannot be trusted with nuclear power plants because all too often the "peaceful" use of uranium becomes a cover for clandestine nuclear weapons programs.

The irony of an American citizen making such statements is astounding!

Besides, if a nation really wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO₂ production, there are other alternatives.

Exactly - and let the US lead the way, please.

 

[Cyrus]

As I have just posted in another thread (and will copy here because of the importance of this issue), the US government is the only one that has ever indulged in the "immoral act of barbarism that is beyond the pale:...actual genocide"!

Sorry, that is a bunch of nonsense. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that a massive amount of both US and Japanese soildiers were killed fighting for the minor islands. The amount that would have been killed on both sides on the main islands would have been far worse, and draged the war on for many more years. Using nuclear weapons was the only 'good' alternative to end the war as fast as possible. That was not an act of genoicde, as we rebuilt the country afterwards, so your statement really makes you sound quite foolish.

Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped. That should be an indicator to the fact that the second was still an evil necessity. If you want to talk Genocide, get it right. It was the Japanese that were killing raping and maiming in China.

But this is wayyyyyyyyyyyy off topic now. Let's try to focus on the origional topic, shall we?

 

[Gokul43201]

The amount that would have been killed on both sides on the main islands would have been far worse, and draged the war on for many more years.

Psst ! I doubt you'll find more than half the generals that were in WWII advocating this stance with the certainty you give it. Many have said the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway.

 

[alexandra]

Sorry, that is a bunch of nonsense. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that a massive amount of both US and Japanese soildiers were killed fighting for the minor islands. The amount that would have been killed on both sides on the main islands would have been far worse, and draged the war on for many more years. Using nuclear weapons was the only 'good' alternative to end the war as fast as possible. That was not an act of genoicde, as we rebuilt the country afterwards, so your statement really makes you sound quite foolish.

In the U.S., the prevailing view is that the bombings ended the war sooner than would otherwise have been the case, and saved many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place. In Japan, the general public tends to think that the bombings were needless as the preparation for the surrender was in progress.

I sound foolish, do I, cyrus? Not really - I just subscribe to the other side of the debate (a lot of people would agree with what I say, though a lot - obviously - wouldn't!):

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification of them have been subject to much debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

The debate is outlined in more detail in the wiki article.

Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped. That should be an indicator to the fact that the second was still an evil necessity. If you want to talk Genocide, get it right. It was the Japanese that were killing raping and maiming in China.

Hang on, when did I ever defend the Japanese military actions? Did I do that? Sorry, didn't mean to. My aim was to draw attention to the human suffering inflicted by the use of nuclear weapons.

But this is wayyyyyyyyyyyy off topic now. Let's try to focus on the origional topic, shall we?

Well, I didn't start this - I was responding to a statement warren made. Read the whole thread and you'll see why I responded in this way.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

I don't see how you can say "no". Every country has the right to nuclear power. Every country also has the right to protect its interests and act accordingly if threatened by another. Naturally, these countries must face the global consequences of their actions, but that is not to say that they do not possesses the right in the first place.

Which leads to a new consideration. What happens when the consequences spill across borders? How many people outside of the Soviet Union have caught cancer as a result of Chernobyl? And nuclear spacecraft crashing into nations other than the one that sent it up. What about rogue nations selling enriched uranium on the black market.

IMHO if "peaceful" nuclear power had never been developed at all in the world, the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation would not be nearly what it is today, and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would never have happened. And to suggest that Three Mile Island was harmless to the surrounding population is false (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).

the US government is the only one that has ever indulged in the "immoral act of barbarism that is beyond the pale:...actual genocide"!

While the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attempts to cause the extinction of the Japanese race, and therefore doesn't count as a true case of attempted genocide, I agree that it was probably immoral. The nuclear attacks were as much scientific experiments as they were a strategic attempt to end the war. About seven cities were spared conventional bombing in order that the effects of a nuclear bomb could not be confused with the effects of previous conventional bombing. The weather just happened to clear over Hiroshima the day of the bombing (it had to daytime so the American photographers would get a good view). Thus, Tokyo was never a target, because Tokyo had already been mostly leveled by previous American firebombing raids. There were other alternatives. They could have dropped a bomb down the throat of Mt. Fuji or off the coast somewhere so that everyone could see the effects without killing several tens of thousands of people. Or we could have just blockaded the islands of Japan and called an end to the war. There never was a need to invade. But that's just my opinion.

And Russ, I guess I'll have to grant your point that 767's won't crack open a nuclear plant. But what about a team of say 20 determined, heavily armed commandos? A former Navy SEAL friend of mine once participated in a mock attack on a nuclear facility in the state of Washington. He said that if they had been playing for keeps, there is no way the civilian guards there could have stopped them from destroying the place.

 

[Cyrus]

Psst ! I doubt you'll find more than half the generals that were in WWII advocating this stance with the certainty you give it. Many have said the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway.

You seem to forget that at this time it was generally accepted to firebomb entire cities by all sides fighting the war. So its either death by firebomb, or death by nuclear weapon. Either way, its still bad. At least a nuclear bomb will end it in two tries. With the firebombing, US planes could still get shot down.

More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings.

The Japanese would not give up easily because of their strong tradition of pride and honor — many followed the Samurai code and would fight until the very last man was dead.

Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the Emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet.

The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated:"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war."

Something to ponder Gokul...

Hang on, when did I ever defend the Japanese military actions? Did I do that? Sorry, didn't mean to. My aim was to draw attention to the human suffering inflicted by the use of nuclear weapons.

Yeah, just don't make statements like the US committed genocide in WW2, when they obviously did not. I did not say you were defending Japanese military actions, I am putting you to what you said about U.S military actions.

 

[Gokul43201]

Which leads to a new consideration. What happens when the consequences spill across borders? How many people outside of the Soviet Union have caught cancer as a result of Chernobyl?

I don't know. I also don't know how many people have died of sun-stroke or skin cancer because of US greenhouse emissions. But I'm not going to say that the US doesn't have the right to emit greenhouse gases. They just have to worry about Global politics if they don't do something about it.

 

[alexandra]

While the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't attempts to cause the extinction of the Japanese race, and therefore doesn't count as a true case of attempted genocide, I agree that it was probably immoral. The nuclear attacks were as much scientific experiments as they were a strategic attempt to end the war. About seven cities were spared conventional bombing in order that the effects of a nuclear bomb could not be confused with the effects of previous conventional bombing. Thus, Tokyo was never a target, because Tokyo had already been mostly leveled by previous American firebombing raids. There were other alternatives. They could have dropped a bomb down the throat of Mt. Fuji or off the coast somewhere so that everyone could see the effects without killing several tens of thousands of people. Or we could have just blockaded the islands of Japan and called an end to the war. There never was a need to invade. But that's just my opinion.

My hat off to you, warren - even if we disagree about a lot of things, I respect how you think through your position when challenged and explain and justify it honestly

I think what irritates me most about some of the messages posted in these discussions are the double standards at play - and the lack of acknowledgment of these double standards. If people just came out and said: "Look, as supporters of administration X, we don't care what anyone else thinks - might is right and that is all that matters", it would still be sickening, but not quite as sickening as the false position of taking the moral high ground and trying to justify the morally unjustifiable. If people are discussing 'real politics' and morality does not come into it, fine - but then they should just acknowledge this.

 

[Gokul43201]

Cyrus, this has nothing to do with what I was saying. All I said is that there just isn't the overwhelming consensus among the military community to support the previously quoted statement (that you made about the alternative outcome).

The US just didn't consider the possibility that the A-bomb would make it very difficult for the Japanese to surrender without losing face. You'll find this in the book written by Gen. George Marshall (or it was a set of interviews with him)...can't recall the title.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually, it does, as you said:

Many have said the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway.

The quotes of the Japanese military officials clearly indicate this was not the case, even though they were loosing.

As for your second statement,

Psst ! I doubt you'll find more than half the generals that were in WWII advocating this stance with the certainty you give it.

That simply is not true either. If you scroll down you will find quote after quote of military offical denouncing the use of the atomic bomb. To be fair, I never said any military officials said that though.

http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

One thing I will note, and is debatable still, is the fact that the military seems to think that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, however, I have to highly doubt that as the quotes from wikipedia clearly show evidence that the Japanese military had far too much pride to do that. It would be a fight to the last man standing.

 

[Gokul43201]

Nowhere does this exclude the possibility that the A-bomb only strengthened the resolve among Japanese military leadership to continue the fight. One wiki article is not going to convince me that a protracted and bloodier alternative was inevitable. I've read too much that throws reasonable doubt on that claim.

Perhaps we should get this back on topic...

 

[jhe1984]

I've got to vote no, simply because I think the line between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons (thus nuclear blackmail) is a thin one.

In a perfect world, I'd have to answer yes, but my take on this one is that there are real bad people out there who I wouldn't trust with more than a spoon. And by real bad people, I don't mean people who we don't like or think are crazy - I mean people who, for whatever reason, are depraved, murderous, and scary and who are not limited by internal checks within their govt or their population.

Now the question applies to nuclear power plants which, granted, are much different than nuclear weapons facilities. However, once a country has nuclear power facilities, it shortly thereafter can have the power of nuclear blackmail (if it desires - IAEA inspectors aren't hard to kick out). Take North Korea for example. They have nuclear power plants and weaponizing facilities and yet with hardly any proof, they've declared (and are believed, at least as far as prudent military calculus is concerned) to have nuclear weapons. In doing so, they've dramatically lessened their chances of invasion, air assault, or any type of excursion in between. Not to say that it's impossible, but that simply by stating that they have nuclear weapons and the rest of world not having beyond a reasonable doubt confidence that they don't, they have been (correction, will be) able to get concessions, both defensive and economic.

All of that's well and good until you get a geopolitically key piece of real estate playing the nuclear card, Iran case in point. Listening to their stated policy for civilian nuclear energy, I can hardly disagree with its soundness. Yet the reality is that it is simply unacceptable for them to possesses nuclear weapons or the potential for nuclear blackmail. Not only would they gain the capacity to contaminate an eighth of the world's known oil reserves within their own country, but they'd have very real geopolitical blackmail power in that almost a third of the world's oil lies within their kill radius (not to mention the nexus of two or three of the world's largest religions). So without even fueling their nuclear weapons, they'd be able to manipulate the world markets not to mention regional geopolitical decisions.

But yes this is all a huge double-standard. The US has its power because, among other things, we can destroy the world and implicitly any country within it several times over. It may be unfair, but that's the way it is. And until that changes, any aggressive counterpositioning is an incredibly dangerous play (albeit a powerful one if performed correctly, as with the DPRK), made exponentially more dangerous when your country is located in the sandy hornet's nest that is the middle east.

Plus, if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, they would have not one (Israel) but two (Pakistan and potentially three, India) countries within their strike radius - actually more than that if you count the FSU nations' stockpiles - though I am not sure those are still deployed.

It's not a matter of fairness or justice - it's just reality.

All that said, I do believe the NPT weighs in Iran's favor. But those pesky international treaties are always whining about something.

And to Warren, yes I've also read US SF accounts of mock-assaults against NATO nuclear facilities (I think nuclear weapons facilities, scarily enough) in Germany during the late 70s and 80s. And as in your case, I think it was a fairly one-sided game: point, SEALs. Hehe.

PPS - If anyone would be interested in hearing why I don't think there are any good military first-strike options against Iran, I'd be happy to soliloquize about that too. Clue: Iraq is US airspace.

 

[jhe1984]

For what its worth, my granddad was in the first US Marine division to land in Japan after the bombs were dropped - though not the first troops: as the Marines landed in full amphibious assault mode on one beach, they encountered sailors on their way BACK towards their ship, in shorts and drunk as skunks!

Anyway, he said that the entrenched defensive structures were much more fortified and much more numerous than their pre-invasion estimates. He said pretty much it would've been a bloodbath. He wasn't certain they would've taken the beaches as planned initially.

But again, that's only one viewpoint.

Also - here's a video of an F4 crashing into a nuclear power plant (test) wall at 500 mph

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1138269221/Plane_Vs_Concrete_Wall

 

[Orefa]

You questioned international moral authority.

Nonsense. I had not even spoken of international authority.

In your posts #2 and #6, you never once used the plural version of the word "counrty". You never said that it was ok for the UN to decide, just that it wasn't ok for one country to decide.

There you said it, thank you. I never spoke of the UN until you did. You knew that I was speaking of individual countries, not groups like the UN. Stop insisting that I said anything about the UN or international moral authority. You dreamed it up.

You're the one who suggested that no country should be allowed to judge any other in the same breath that you were doing just that!

Pay attention. What I suggested (and later spelled out explicitly for you) is that morality is no justification for one country to attack another. Do note that I am not a country and I don't threaten to attack one. Anyways, if you missed the irony of the post, there isn't much I can do for you.

If you change your tactics, you'll avoid the risk of people misinterpreting you.

I simply drop in for chats. You shouldn't assume that I'm a "debate tactician" or anything. You've already made too many assumptions. These may be why you missed the mark.

 

[Gokul43201]

Also - here's a video of an F4 crashing into a nuclear power plant (test) wall at 500 mph

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1138269221/Plane_Vs_Concrete_Wall

That is one amazing video !

 

[Cyrus]

Grrrr...I already put that video.

 

[X-43D]

Yes if that is the only way to sustain current energy needs.

http://www.iter.org/index.htm