Nuclear Terrorism and Greenpeace Discussion

Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are inseparable in the minds of much of the opposition (Mirel 2009). It is likely the connection will continue to play a role in public considerations with the media depictions. From personal experience of watching the news often nuclear energy potential is commonly associated with a risk of weaponry. This fear is likely to increase with the proliferation of nuclear potential around the globe (MIT 2015), as technologies capable of separating weapons-usable plutonium and uranium become widely available then the potential for security threats increases in scope.

Map of nuclear potential on a global scale - increasing scope. Key: Yellow = under construction. Blue = planned. Orange = not operating. Green = operating. Red = shut down (Clark 2012).

As was previously mentioned President Jimmy Carter abandoned waste reprocessing plans after a nuclear weapon test in India in 1974 used plutonium from a research reactor (Gerrard 2015). The fear was that the processed material could be susceptible to theft and therefore used in nuclear weapons – consequently jeopardising US security. Therefore permanent waste storage was favoured to limit the threat (Forbes 2015). Such concerns have enhanced following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and therefore a shift to reprocessing policies is unlikely to occur, despite the potential for carbon-free energy. Not only is there a fear of weaponry, but also the concern that nuclear power stations could be targeted by terrorist attacks, due to the potential civil damage they can cause – illustrated from past case studies (WNA 2015). In the US the robust concrete structures are deemed to be able to withstand aircraft impact, with bulletproof security stations also implanted in many stations to internally protect the nuclear safety also (WNA 2015).

The dual use of nuclear for energy/research and weapon creation creates the difficulty in combating the concern (NEIS 2004). IAEA inspections are undertaken in order to assess the use of nuclear energy and to assure that they are not being misused for weapons (IAEA 2001). However, the fact nuclear can be used for peaceful purposes also means the identification of misuse may not be straight forward – immoral use may be veiled under an image of emission-reducing objectives. Add onto this the fact that countries can simply leave the agreement or not sign it (Higgin 2006), meaning the deterrent to weaponry is not substantial. There is also the contradiction within this process, with the UK, USA, China, France and Russia permitted to hold weapons (IAEA 2001) – displaying a global disparity in the rules. Perhaps highlighting how Western (and Chinese) weaponry is thought of as essential for peace and protection – compared to other nations possessing it for terrorism. Is the difference really there?!

Royal Navy's nuclear submarine - HMS Vanguard (BBC 2015).

I argue however that climate change is a far greater threat to national security than nuclear power – many may disagree with this statement (feel free to comment below). Nuclear should not be scrapped as it provides a potential security threat, as a far larger magnitude threat of climatic change is ever quickly approaching. That is why I find it strange that Greenpeace (2006), continually oppose nuclear expansions – yet a central objective of the organisation is to “stop climate change”. They list multiple issues from waste to terrorism – whilst claiming even optimistic nuclear reactor builds would be insufficient to stop climate change. However, as was seen in the future trends post rapid production is possible. I oppose to the fact that they put so much effort into opposing nuclear – failing to realise the potential it has – surely expanding even a small amount and cutting emissions is better than nothing! Surely their resources would be better used attacking the fossil fuel sector rather than nuclear?! The urgency of the climatic issue means all should be done to stop the increased atmospheric CO2 composition, nuclear has a quick start up time and can limit the magnitude – it surely has to at least be acknowledged as one of many options!

Greenpeace (2015) claim one of their targets to be "Make sure emissions peak in 2015 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards 0 after that". Surely if an objective is to achieve a speedy recovery, then all alternatives have to be engaged with at this time of proposed urgency. It is not a time to pick and choose!

Is nuclear not one of the ways to achieve the clean future? (Greenpeace 2015).

As the blog has progressed I feel my opinion swaying towards a pro-nuclear position. Before starting this blog I knew very little about the nuclear sector and therefore my opinion may simply be a product of the literature and media I have engaged with (despite trying to encounter an unbiased selection)! The threats are real and more often than not can be large – however with regulations and improved technologies it surely has to be accepted as an important energy source. Whether it expands to become the dominant global provider is another question, with many, including myself seeing large scale wind or solar as a more desirable option. However, in this period of urgency it must be utilised – stopping it all together as Greenpeace suggests is counter-productive to their organisation objectives and global desires to cut emissions and limit the magnitude of climatic damage!