Socio-Political Impact of Nuclear Power
The debate on the usability and safety of nuclear power has returned back to the limelight due to the on-going issue in Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Plant, and the growing number of nations trying to accumulate nuclear power for their national interest. Nuclear power remains as a crucial topic of national importance for many nations since the discussions for nuclear proliferation and disarmament took place after the Second World War. However, some nations had retained its use for electricity and for other applicable sciences. With the debate on nuclear power back due to the countries trying to harness such volatile power, horror stories such as the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and the Chernobyl incident went back to life. While nuclear power can present benefits to the nuclear producing states, the consequences of nuclear power being in the hands of non-nuclear states not only can cause social risks to the international community, but also influences the capacity of the international community to promote nuclear disarmament and sustain international security.
As the debate on nuclear power, proliferation, and disarmament continue to escalate with the on-going test of North Korea, Iran, and the other nations capable of producing nuclear power; the impacts of nuclear power can be severe under the hands of nations currently testing nuclear power. In a social aspect, the impact of nuclear power can go on benefit or disadvantage. However, nuclear power’s impact to the social sector outweighs the benefits considering its capacity to put risk into the society. First and foremost, the presence of nuclear power in a community or in other nations causes public perception on its benefit and risk to change, fostering fear and reservation regarding usage. With public perception changing regarding nuclear power, it also affects the social consensus regarding a country’s use to nuclear power. According to Ballard (2007), the public had been taught to understand that nuclear power can equate to nuclear war and as to how nuclear power plant accidents can impact on the country. As a result, many become weary with news reports and issues that a nation is trying out their nuclear capacities, especially those with considerable political background and history.
In addition, several incidents and events pertaining to nuclear power supports their fear and sentiment over nuclear power. Aside from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, there have been several incidents in NPPs that caused severe trauma to many areas. One notable example in the United States is the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Facility accident in 1979. That year, the facility’s Unit 2 had malfunctioned, causing its cooling capacity to malfunction and cause a meltdown. While there were no accidents reported outside the facility, the U.S government labeled it as one of the most serious commercial power plant operation accident in history. Even up to this day, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission notes that the cause of the incident is still unknown as it could be caused by personnel error, component malfunction, and design issue. Another notable incident that shook the perception of the public regarding nuclear power is the 1986 Chernobyl power plant site incident, the known worst accident in nuclear power. Similar to TMI, the Chernobyl incident was caused by a reactor malfunction, which then triggered explosions in the area. Fatalities of the Chernobyl incident reached up to 31 deaths and caused high contamination throughout the 30 km radius of the plant. Almost 100,000 residents in the area were displaced for health reasons, some being monitored for possible aftereffects of exposure. With these two incidents in mind, the public’s perception over the risk of nuclear power causes them to recoil on the issue of nuclear power and countries testing out nuclear use .
In addition to the changed social consensus and risk perception over nuclear power, nuclear power also impacts culture, especially their outlook on nations capable of nuclear power. As noted by Ballard (2007), culture is influenced with the presence of nuclear power in a region, which influences their risk perception and social consensus on what their government must do on tackling the problem. Films, such as the Chain Syndrome which was released after the TMI incident, added into the cultural image nuclear power portrays: a dangerous component that can impact society completely . Media, as noted by Bell (2011), tends to increase anxiety and confusion in the public, thereby influencing their perception on the capability of nuclear power and states with such capability. In his assessment regarding the Fukushima Nuclear Plant issue after the 9.0 magnitude earthquake-tsunami tragedy, the media lacked objectivity and proportionality as to how they can present both the benefit and risk of nuclear power. The media only covers the hypothetical radiation angers that may occur should the Fukushima plants malfunction and cause a similar Chernobyl incident. Bell even stated that while the media also states realistic data on nuclear power, reports tend to be exaggerated especially regarding the risks. They even compare the incident with both the TMI and Chernobyl incident, calling the Fukushima incident the second version of the TMI incident or a bigger Chernobyl. With the media’s portrayal of nuclear power, especially in the Fukushima incident, Bell explained that it adds to the stereotype and fear on nuclear power . With this in mind, it is understandable that society would view nations with nuclear power dangerous and must be stopped.
Finally, nuclear power in the hands of non-nuclear weapon states causes concern for many nations, especially for environmentalists and organizations as it can pose health and environmenta risks. Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima, Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear incidents are just some of the few nuclear incidents that made governments and the public weary of nuclear power. Ramana (2009) stated that the impacts of nuclear power use and generation can present both radiological and non-radiological risks, especially for people working on nuclear facilities and if accidents occur. The Chernobyl incident the best example to showcase the health and environmental impacts of nuclear power, whether it is to be generated or used as weaponry. In the assessment done by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation in the period, almost 1800 people were exposed to radiation and contracted thyroid cancers, others contracting leukemia. The immediate radius of the plant also poses dangers as radiation readings are still recorded and can cause diseases and deaths each year. Another notable example showcasing the environmental and health impact of nuclear power is the Nagasaki-Hiroshima bombings in World War II. According to Pittock, Ackerman, Crutzen, MacCracken, et al (1986), the nuclear explosions in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused massive fires throughout the city due to thermal irradiation. Several radioactive aerosols were discovered in the areas, showing radioactivity in the area, affecting survivors. Aside from radiation, victims of the bombings also showcased severe burns and injuries due to the heat rays and bomb blast, and psychological trauma for experiencing such event .
Additional environmental and health risks of nuclear power can also come from nuclear wastes as there is still no visible and workable means to dispose nuclear waste without fearing for radiation. In the case of the United States, many thought of disposing nuclear waste in geological repositories under Yucca Mountain, Nevada. However, the problem with the disposition proposal is the fact that does not take into account the radiation capacity of nuclear power. Finally, nuclear power can also influence the increased impact of climate change as it is still not proven that nuclear power can indeed reduce emissions that fosters the issue. Continuous use of nuclear power by NNW states, especially in the tests done, indicate that there are large increases in carbon emissions from their territories . In this extent, it is advisable that nuclear power should remain in high scrutiny upon usage, especially by NNW countries as it can spell disaster for the society and the environment.
In the political context, continuous government support in sustaining nuclear power through power plants and weaponry could cause debate, especially after reports of nations using nuclear power. Government support against nuclear tests and countries would also be heavily influenced. According to Wittneben (2012) the impact of the Fukushima accident in 2011 now influenced the energy policies of major European nuclear states: the UK and Germany. Political debate had sprung within these two EU member countries whether or not they would continue nuclear power. In the UK, policymakers had stood strong on their belief that the country should sustain nuclear power generation as one of the known nuclear states. In Germany, however, the federal government ordered for the shutdown of old reactors and re-evaluate the country’s nuclear sector. Many factors have been identified that could have been an alternative explanation to both Germany and UK’s position on nuclear power. However, it is clear that the Fukushima incident had caught the attention of the political debate on nuclear power use . In the case of NNW states, international response to these countries’ mobilization would impact as to how perform against nuclear power. According to Pennington (2013), nations are varied as to how they should influence North Korea. In the United States, for example, the Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the nations should agree to a strong response against North Korea and Iran to stop their efforts. Currently, the UN Security Council resolutions sent to North Korea and Iran have continuously been ignored, although Iran is seen to develop its weaponry peacefully. Kerry stated that if the international community would work together in developing a way to stop non-nuclear weapons states, the response should mean something and can follow up the international action against it.
The use of nuclear power by non-nuclear weapon states such as North Korea and Iran also influences national security as it can be seen as an act of war or a national security risk. This instance is seen in the nuclear proliferation actions of North Korea and Iran. In the article written by Sanger and Sang-Hun (2013), North Korea’s weapons program poses immediate threat to the United States as it bluntly admitted that they would target the United States and continue a higher-level nuclear test to ensure it would not fail in attacking the U.S. Despite the orders of the United Nations to stop nuclear tests, DPRKs leader Kim Jong-un continued his father’s strategy on improving its sophisticated nuclear weapons system. For the United States, and also to South Korea, DPRK’s continuous development of its nuclear capacity despite the UN sanctions indicates possible active confrontation with nation. Analysts believe that the DPRK’s tests was mostly a ruse to wind the West into a confrontation, but nevertheless, poses high risk to the country and its allies . In the case of Iran’s nuclear power, Israel finds itself threatened by Iran’s nuclear drive. According to Spetanick and Eckert (2013), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believed that it is necessary to develop a ‘credible military threat’ to stop Iran’s efforts. Unless there is a creation of a powerful military force to stop Iran, Iran would continue to disregard the sanctions given by the UN and the Western powers. With Iran continuing its efforts, Israel’s domestic affairs is also affected as Netanyahu had to hold off arguments against centrists trying to sway his government. Iran had continuously threatened Israel and may find itself attacked once Israel is finished with their nuclear effort .
Finally, continuous nuclear power development by non-nuclear weapon states opens risks in terms of ensuring nuclear disarmament. According to Howlett (2011), the issue of nuclear power and proliferation is considered an important political issue since the aftermath of the Second World War. Since 1945, the knowledge of nuclear technology for both civil and military use had been distributed throughout the globe. However, by the end of the Second World War, only the United States retained its capability to manufacture its own nuclear weapon. Four other nations had also reached the threshold on nuclear capability: Soviet Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964). These five nations are considered Nuclear Weapon States, states allowed to produce nuclear weaponry or devices, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968. However, there are already small nations not part of the treaty that has a capacity to construct nuclear weaponry or devices. South Africa was the first nation not belonging to the nuclear powers to announce their nuclear capability. On March 24, 1993, then President F.W. de Klerk announced that the country had produced six nuclear devices before 1989, but they had immediately dismantled these weapons prior to their signing of the NPT. Aside from South Africa, there are other industrial states that has a potential nuclear capability if their nations have decided to develop nuclear devices. In May 1998, India and Pakistan showcased their nuclear capability and were not considered members of the NPT. However, their capacity to showcase nuclear power now questioned the capacity of the NPT and its capacity to order nations to follow anti-nuclear proliferation.
Currently, the anti-proliferation campaign is taking another hit due to the announcements from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, and Iraq of nuclear capability. In Iraq, the United Nations Special Committee oversaw the dismantlement of the country’s weapons of mass destruction program after the 1991 Gulf War. However, the monitoring of Iraq’s disarmament had been brought to a halt in the 1990s due to technical difficulties. The Security Council also argued in the implementation of sanctions to Iraq and was unresolved by 2003 upon the re-inspection of the region for possible WMD. In the case of Iran, the country had gotten the attention of the International Atomic Energy Agency due to their delay on signing the additional protocols required to Iran for transparency of their nuclear programme. While Iran had indeed signed the Protocol, there were still speculations regarding Iran’s sincerity as the IAEA discovered facilities capable of enriching uranium. In the case of the DPRK, the nation had constantly done nuclear tests despite the constant warnings from the UN and from the Nuclear States . In addition, Sidel and Levy (2007) estimated that almost 27,000 nuclear warheads are present in strategic bases around the globe, capable of producing an explosive force of over 10 billion tons of TNT, more powerful than the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear warheads are also attached in missiles that can be launched with a moment’s notice. Active and inactive stockpiles of uranium and plutonium are also scattered around the globe.
Several conferences had been held throughout the globe by international organizations and national governments to end the proliferation and use of nuclear power. One of the known conferences held regarding nuclear power is the 2006 International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) discussing the 10 year anniversary of the group as the advisory body of the International Court of Justice to understand the risks of nuclear power. While there are now conferences and treaties sustaining the disarmament of nuclear power, the continuous development of NNW states causes a debate on whether the international community can sustain the disarmament methods throughout the globe. In the assessment by Wertz and Vaez (2012) sanctions would not be as effective as they are meant to be in ending nuclear efforts of nations such as Iran and North Korea as both nations have pressed on to continue with their nuclear efforts. Both authors believed that economic pressure is just one means to push for nonproliferation for NNW states and it would not be enough if economic sanctions are brought to these nations to stop their efforts. Sanctions may only cause diplomacy to dwindle and give reasons to the administrations in question to strengthen their efforts to exact revenge on the international community. Inflexible sanctions can also pose problems as they may backfire on the international community, especially if member states of the UN would argue as to the actual power and impact of the sanction. Policy makers for every nation should also consider the nature of the sanctions to address nuclear disarmament, decreasing possible instances of continuous proliferation .
Finally, there must also be a consideration with regards to strengthening international action against non-nuclear weapon states into the introduction of nuclear disarmament. Pennington (2013) stated that the North Korea-Iran tests challenges non-proliferation regimes as expressed by EU foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton. Aside from considering the power of the sanctions, political and technical concerns must also be addressed to ensure that the international community has a clear image of the current capacity of non-nuclear weapons states and if nations such as China, would support the joint action . Cotta-Ramusino (2009) added that to foster nuclear disarmament, there is a need to revisit safeguards and policies of states and the international community pertaining on the production and utilization of nuclear power. The IAEA, the United Nations and other regional organizations should lead in the reform efforts to ensure that nations would not threaten national security, political stability and social balance due to the use of nuclear power. The NPT must also be re-assessed as to its policies on nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, and NPT assistance to members, clearly written in a means that would allow members to enforce nonproliferation strategies to nations. There must also be an improvement in the monitoring systems under the NPT for all nuclear activities without discriminating or isolating a country due to its activity. The framework of nuclear disarmament must also guarantee security and call for a unified responsibility in ending nuclear power use and proliferation for military use .
Utilizing nuclear power can bring both benefit and chaos depending on the intention of the nation or group in question. On the one hand, nuclear power can beneficial as an alternative source for energy, improving the social/economic status of the country, and also as a political key to maintain peace without using these weaponry. The benefits of nuclear power, if regulated and monitored properly, can reap a bountiful advantage to NWS and NNWS states, especially if they are used properly under the international standards. On the other hand, however, like any other source for power, nuclear power is still a mystery to many scientist and one mishap can change the planet and its people. In a social context, the presence of nuclear power changes risk perceptions of the public as to how safe they are within nuclear power generators, perceptions of its cultural impact, social benefit, and environmental benefit considering the accidents that had happened in Chernobyl, Fukushima, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a political context, nuclear power can disrupt the balance of power as this new type of power can threaten both national and international security and interest, and also questions if governments can adhere to the agreements pertaining to nuclear disarmament. With these impacts in mind, only time and additional research and consideration would tell if nuclear power will become a benefit to nations or retain its position as an energy source that poses devastating impacts to society and politics.
References
Ballard, J. (2007). Perceptions and the social-political aspects of nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal. Journal of Physical Security, 2(1), 1-22.
Bell, L. (2011, April 22). Media hype over nuclear energy increases anxiety and confusion. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/04/12/media-hype-over-nuclear-energy-increases-anxiety-and-confusion/
Cotta-Ramusino, P. (2009). Next steps to universal nuclear disarmament. UN Chronicle, 1, 15-22.
Howlett, D. (2011). Nuclear proliferation. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens, The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international politics (pp. 384-394). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pennington, M. (2013, February 14). North Korea nuclear provocations, Iran weapons program won’t be tolerated: John Kerry. Retrieved from http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/13/north-korea-john-kerry/
Pittock, A., Ackerman, T., Crutzen, P., MacCracken, M., Shapiro, C., & Turco, R. (1986). Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War Volume 1: Physical and Atmospheric Effects. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Ramana, M. (2009). Nuclear power: economic, safety, health and environmental issues of near-term technologies. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 127-152.
Sanger, D., & Sang-hun, C. (2013, January 24). North Korea issues blunt new threat to the United States. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/asia/north-korea-vows-nuclear-test-as-threats-intensify.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sidel, V., & Levy, B. (2007). Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition. American Journal of Public Health, 97(9), 1589-1594.
Spetalnick, M., & Eckert, P. (2013, March 5). "Credible military threat" needed to stop Iran nuclear drive - Netanyahu. Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/3/5/worldupdates/credible-military-threat-needed-to-stop-iran-nuclear-drive-netanyahu&sec=Worldupdates
Wertz, D., & Vaez, A. (2012). Sanctions and nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran. New York: Federation of American Scientists.
Wittneben, B. (2012). The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 15, 1-3.
