Proliferation: Is the risk of nuclear energy being used for weapons

tolerable?

[ ]
[Edit]

Yes

• Nuclear energy should not be banned on mere risk of weapons-use Patrick

Moore. "Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case". Washington Post. April 16th,
2006: "Nuclear fuel can be diverted to make nuclear weapons. This is the most
serious issue associated with nuclear energy and the most difficult to address, as
the example of Iran shows. But just because nuclear technology can be put to evil
purposes is not an argument to ban its use. [...] The only practical approach to the
issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international
agenda and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or
terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends."

• New nuclear reprocessing systems reduce risks of weapons-use Reprocessing

systems can be designed to make it more difficult to re-direct nuclear fuel into
weapons-grade nuclear materials.

• Diplomacy and force should be used to counter proliferation risks of nuclear

energy It is the job of leaders and diplomats to reduce the risk of the nefarious use
of any technology. Nuclear technologies are no exception.

• Nuclear energy can reduce materials available for weapons-use. The

Megatons-to-Megawatts program destroyed weapons material by using it to create
electricity in power stations across the US. Far from increasing proliferation,
nuclear energy is helping to reduce nuclear weapons quantities in a safe and
useful manner.

[ ]
[Edit]

No

• Nuclear energy risks being diverted to nuclear weapons development ♥

"Nuclear's Fatal Flaws: Proliferation." Public Citizen. January 24, 2008:
"Sensitive nuclear technology such as uranium enrichment and spent nuclear fuel
reprocessing are ostensibly employed to create fuel in power reactors, they may
be easily adjusted or redirected to produce weapons-grade fissile material.
Moreover, power reactors themselves produce plutonium, which may be used in
bombs. In practice, there is no way to segregate nuclear technologies employed
for “peaceful” purposes from technologies that may be employed in weapons—
the former may be, and have been, transformed into the latter."
• The benefits of nuclear energy are outweighed by weapons-use risks Michael
Levi, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow for Science and Technology. "Wasted
Energy". CFR.org. April 18th, 2006 - "Moore turns to the question of whether
nuclear power can be diverted to make nuclear weapons, and to his credit calls it
'the most serious issue associated with nuclear energy.' But he then proceeds to
treat it unseriously. He notes that 'If we banned everything that can be used to kill
people, we would never have harnessed fire.' That’s true, but the question here
isn’t whether nuclear power is dangerous; it’s whether the dangers associated with
it outweigh the benefits it entails. Simply because fire had greater potential for
good than harm does not mean that the same is true for nuclear power."