Physicist Amory Lovins and Attorney L. Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: "All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions.
"Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.
"A large power reactor," they note, "annually produces"hundreds of kilograms of plutonium." Civilian nuclear power technology, they conclude, provides the way to make nuclear weapons, furnishing the material and the trained personnel.
"Human society is too diverse, national passion too strong, human aggressiveness too deep-seated for the peaceful and warlike atom to stay divorced for long,"? oceanographer Jacques Cousteau emphasized. "We cannot embrace one while abhorring the other; we must learn, if we want to live at all, to live without both."
The organization Beyond Nuclear (www.beyondnuclear.org), on whose board I sit, focuses on this connection. The organization warns that the "insistence on supplying the technology, materials and know-how for civilian nuclear programs perpetuates the danger that nuclear weapons may also be developed--with speculation over Iran a case in point."
"The "unofficial" nuclear weapons states all developed weapons from civilian nuclear programs," it notes. "At least 32 additional countries could do the same using uranium and plutonium from their civilian programs."
The only real way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout the world is by putting an end to nuclear technology. Such a move might seem radical but consider the even more radical alternative: a world in which scores of nations have nuclear weapons.
There are parts of the earth designated "nuclear-free zones." If we are to have a world free of the terrible threat of nuclear weapons, this designation should be extended to the entire planet: no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power.
To keep using carrots and sticks, by trying to juggle through the 2lst Century to prevent nuclear proliferation, we are on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster. A nuclear-free world is the only way humanity will be free of the specter of nuclear war.
Is it possible to put the atomic genie back into the bottle? Anything people have done, other people can undo. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction offers the best of reasons for doing so.
In Prague in April, Obama, in a remarkable declaration, said: "As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
That's only half of what needs to be done. There needs to be a world, too, without the nuclear power plants that provide the means for any nation--or terrorist group--to get nuclear weapons.
What about controls of the International Atomic Energy Agency? The IAEA was formed as a result of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN in 1953. He proposed an international agency to promote civilian atomic energy and, at the same time, to control the use of fissionable materials a dual role paralleling that of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after Congress concluded that the two roles were a conflict of interest. But the IAEA--set up in the AEC's image and riddled with the same conflict of interest--continues to operate.
With its mission "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy," it unabashedly boosts nuclear power at the same time it tries to police that same power.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
