P. 1
Aff & Neg Nukes

Aff & Neg Nukes

|Views: 105|Likes:
Publicado porAffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


Modeling is empirically false

Sweet, 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
(William, Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy, pg. 193-194) CP

There's a school of thought that any reliance on nuclear energy by anybody sets a bad example, and tempts wayward
states to first acquire civil nuclear technology and then turn it to military ends. But this concern is hard to credit, on
either theoretical or historical grounds. Is it really plausible that a country like North Korea or Iran would forego
acquisition of nuclear technology just because the United States, Ger many, or Japan decided to do so first?
Obviously they have been assem bling nuclear technology precisely in order to lay the groundwork for nuclear
weapons programs: they're not buying it with peaceful purposes in mind, and only then contemplating the military
option as an after thought; they will remain intent on laying the groundwork for nuclear weapons programs, to the
best of their ability, whatever other countries may do. While it's true that if every other country of the world gave up
nuclear technology, it would be harder for countries like Iran and North Korea to launch weapons efforts in the guise
of energy programs, it would be a very high price to pay for a very uncertain reward.
In the historical record, there is not a single clear case of a country buying civil nuclear equipment and only later
opting for weapons, hav ing been tempted into the decision by the availability of the technology . The United States,
the Soviet Union, England, France, China, Israel, 27 Iraq, 28 India, 29 Pakistan and South Africa all launched nuclear
programs specifically to open a nuclear weapons option. (The only debatable case is India.) None of them would have been
deterred by others claiming that reliance on nuclear energy is not desirable, per se.
Baldly put, boosting U.S. reliance on nuclear power so that it ac counts for, say, 40 percent rather than 20 percent
of our electricity would not materially affect the considerations of any other country deciding whether or not to
develop nuclear weapons. (Nor, conversely, would a decision by the United States to end reliance On nuclear energy
have any impact.) This does not imply, of course, that the United States should return to the reckless policies of the
1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when its government positively encouraged other countries to buy nuclear equipment. 32
On the contrary, the United States should continue to work vigorously to convince the other major countries that
supply nuclear equipment that they should limit sales of sensitive technology to dubious customers like Iran and
North Korea.

Michigan 7 weeks


Nuclear power good / bad disads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->