pros and cons of nuclear weapons essay

16 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons

How does one keep a society safe at a national level?

In the past, city-states would build walls to protect the population. As technologies advanced, nations rushed to develop deadlier weapons than their enemies so that the threat of loss was greater than the reward of taking territory.

Those technologies have now developed into nuclear weapons. The destructive power of a nuclear weapon is just one threat to consider. The radioactive fallout from such a weapon can cause long-term consequences for a population that was close to the explosion. Radiated soil, weapon debris, and radioactive particles falling from the sky are all threats that must be taken seriously, which means a nation with nuclear weapons provides a great threat to a potential invader.

If enough nuclear weapons are launched and allowed to detonate, however, then life as we know it on our planet will cease to exist. Any survivors would be forced to endure unthinkable conditions.

Here are the essential pros and cons of nuclear weapons to consider.

The Pros of Nuclear Weapons

1. It is a deterrent for starting a major conflict. Only a handful of nations are armed with nuclear weapons. The US and Russia have the most weapons, but France, China, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan all have more than 100 weapons. The presence of these weapons and their immense destructive capabilities is a major deterrent for starting a major conflict, like the two world wars that are fought in the first half of the 20th century. Even when both nations have nuclear weapons, their mutually assured destruction is enough to cause diplomacy to rule the day.

2. It reinforces national borders. Our society is becoming ever-more global. Because of the internet, communications improvements, and other technological advances, we can talk with anyone, anywhere, with a simple data connection. New transportation technologies are in development that can provide long-distance transportation at speeds which were unthinkable just a generation ago. By reinforcing national borders, a global society of cooperation can be built through negotiation and diplomacy instead of warfare.

3. It changes the power and status of a nation. Countries with nuclear weapons are treated different on the global stage than countries without those weapons. North Korea may only have a dozen or so nuclear weapons at best estimate, but their demands are taken with an extra level of seriousness and scrutiny because they have developed rudimentary nuclear weapon technology. Because there is a desire to avoid such a devastating conflict, most nations with nuclear weapons can generally get what they want on-demand.

4. They can be fired without a direct threat to personnel. The nuclear weapons dropped in Japan were carried by bombers, staffed with a flight crew. Rockets can be fired remotely from stations and intercontinental ballistic technologies can let someone manage the weapon from thousands of miles away. Nuclear weapons do not require a battlefield presence in the same way a conventional weapon may require.

5. Nuclear weapons can be positioned in a variety of locations. Submarines and naval craft can be outfitted with nuclear weapons so that they can be fired from any ocean-based location on the planet. Storage silos, buried underground, can fire ICBM-outfitted nuclear weapons. They can be fired from remote trucks, put into aircraft missiles, or still be dropped by bombers like they were in the 1940s. The versatility of positioning that a nuclear weapon offers is quite profound.

6. They provide the foundations for other technologies. The technologies that have helped to create nuclear weapons have fostered other technologies that have benefited society in many ways. Nuclear power provides a relatively clean source of energy that is used to power hundreds of thousands of homes around the world. Nuclear reactors have been used to build naval vessels. Many types of nuclear-powered propulsion have been proposed for future spacecraft.

7. It is a highly reliable technology. As a power source, nuclear energy can run uninterrupted for more than a year without disruption, even during difficult weather conditions. The refinement of a nuclear weapon is similar to this advantage. Once installed, the delivery platform reliability of the weapon is strong. Even if the warheads are not modernized, the surety of the weapon and its readiness make it a consistent threat that cannot be ignored.

The Cons of Nuclear Weapons

1. They have added development and maintenance costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States spends an estimated $34.8 billion per year to maintain, operate, and upgrade its nuclear weapons arsenal. Estimates from Nuclear Threat Initiative suggest the figures may be a little lower, but still costing the US up to $25 billion per year. To put that in perspective, an investment into food products at that level would provide up to 75 billion meals for those living in poverty.

2. Detonation has a major ethical impact. Only two cities have ever been directly affected by nuclear weapons in history. Both were in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just two bombs caused the death of over 129,000 people, with many of them being civilians. Acute effects from the bombs may have contributed to the deaths of over 250,000 additional people in the following decades. Even if military complexes are struck with a nuclear weapon, there will be civilian casualties.

3. There are environmental concerns which must be considered with a detonation. Since 1945, the testing of nuclear weapons has caused more than 2,100 detonations that have happened around the globe. Some have occurred underwater, while others have occurred underground. Every detonation creates radiation that, if someone were exposed to it, could create grave consequences. The threat of multiple simultaneous nuclear detonations could create a prolonged winter that would ravage the planet and potentially cause all life to cease.

4. It provides a major terror threat. The size of a nuclear weapon is relatively small. With terrorism on the rise around the world, the threat of a “dirty bomb” cannot be ignored. A terrorist group with a nuclear weapon could cause immense and immediate damage that could change the path of an entire society. The Patriot Act of 2001 was in response to airplanes being flown into buildings. Imagine would the aftermath of a nuclear explosion could be.

5. Waste from the development of nuclear weapons must be stored somewhere. The challenges of storing nuclear waste are evident at the Hanford Site in Washington State. It was the location of the world’s first plutonium production reactor. Up to 9 nuclear reactors and 5 plutonium processors were operating at once, creating 60,000 weapons for the US nuclear arsenal. Now the radioactive waste is stored in 177 storage tanks. Breaches and leaks are still a very real threat, despite the lack of production that occurs there today.

6. It is a non-renewable resource. Nuclear fuels are plutonium and uranium, which are radioactive metals. This means it is a resource that is non-renewable. Even if the all the nuclear energy from weapons was transitioned into usable energy that wouldn’t produce carbon dioxide, any accident could create a threat to human health that could potentially last for thousands of years. In many ways, nuclear technologies are much like fossil fuels, but with a different threat to the environment.

7. A nuclear weapon can fail because of a degraded delivery system. Even if the nuclear weapon is viable, the delivery system for the weapon may not be viable. Many nuclear weapons are being maintained with delivery systems that have not been modernized. In the US, the current stock of ICBM nuclear weapons is expected to remain in service until 2032. Submarine-based nuclear weapons are expected to remain in service until 2042. Unless delivery systems are upgraded and maintained in the same way as their weapon counterparts, they may not be an effective deterrent.

8. They require a skilled workforce to operate. Although nuclear weapons can be operated from a distance, a skilled workforce is required to make them a useful tool. Scientists, engineers, and operators are critical to the viability of any nuclear weapon. Without a skilled workforce in support, the safety and security of the nuclear weapons becomes doubtful and that doubt can be enough to make the weapons less of a deterrent.

9. Testing must require a detonation at some point. Computer simulations can show the effects of a nuclear weapon and what an expected fallout happens to be. To determine if the technology is viable, however, an actual detonation must take place. Since July 1945, the United States has fired over 1,100 nuclear weapon as part of the testing process. No tests have been conducted, however, since September 1992.

The pros and cons of nuclear weapons show that they can serve as a deterrent and support “positive” technologies. There is just one question that continues to remain unanswered: what will happen if someone finally calls the bluff and attacks a nation with nuclear capabilities? It is the potential answer to that questions which should cause everyone to pause and consider the continued need for these weapons.

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are explosive devices that create a destructive force due to the fission or fusion reactions it creates upon detonation. There are several names for this technology, including atom bombs, nukes, a-bombs, and nuclear warheads, but it all works to describe the same technology.

There have only been two times when nuclear weapons were deployed in war. Both of the incidents were initiated by the United States against Japan near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945, the Army Air Forces detonated a fission bomb that was nicknamed Little Boy over the city of Hiroshima. Three days later, the implosion-type Fat Man was detonated over the city of Nagasaki. These two incidents caused injuries that resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 civilians and military personnel, along with several Americans and Allied troops in the area.

Since these two wartime incidents, there have been over 2,000 detonations of nuclear weapons for demonstration and testing purposes. Despite this high number, only a few countries possess these weapons or are suspected of seeking them. South Africa is the only country on the planet to have independently developed this technology and then renounced and dismantled what they created.

List of the Advantages of Nuclear Weapons

1. It reinforces the idea of nationalism from a border-based perspective. The reality of human existence is that people tend to go toward the areas of the planet where the most resources are available. This pattern of behavior dates all of the way back to the Roman Empire and Ancient Egypt. When governments take action to defend their borders, then they are creating a method of organization that allows for the effective distribution of needed items to their citizens and the world beyond.

Even though a borderless world seems like it could be an excellent idea, borders create an environment where cooperation between cultures becomes a requirement for survival. It forces us to develop an approach that seeks diplomacy first instead of launching missiles whenever someone does something that isn’t liked.

2. Nuclear weapons do serve as a deterrent to a global conflict. One of the primary reasons why there hasn’t been another global war since the 1940s is because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Only a handful of countries possess or share this technology with others, and most nations that do have access to this technology have fewer than 100 weapons. The destructive capabilities in the hands of the military were put on full display over Japan at the end of World War II, and no one wants to go through something like that again. The threat of being over-powered or having mutually-assured destruction is enough to prevent the world’s superpowers from escalating a conflict to the point that a military confrontation becomes necessary.

3. This technology creates a bargaining chip for countries that need it. Israel is believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons, but their government does not officially report this status. North Korea has independently developed this technology since then end of the Korean War, giving it a seat at the negotiation table to the point that President Donald Trump has visited with the leadership of the country on multiple occasions. The threat of devastation from this tech is so great that it forces other nations to listen to what the other has to say. Since there is a desire to avoid the outcomes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is not unusual for concessions to be made to those with the greatest power.

4. Nuclear weapons reduce the threat to a country’s military forces. Today’s nuclear weapons have the ability to fly over 1,000 miles to strike a target with precision. Even the nations with “subpar” technology in this area, such as North Korea, can fly their missiles are enough to impact the sovereignty of another nation. The Skyfall project in Russia presents the idea of equipping a small nuclear reactor to a missile so that it can operate almost indefinitely. Because the deployment of these weapons can occur remotely, there is less of a threat of casualties or loss if an order comes through to launch. It’s not like the 1940s when bombers carried the weapons with an entire flight crew.

5. Governments can position nuclear weapons to a variety of launch locations. Portable launch vehicles make it possible to locate nuclear weapons at almost any point on land. Government installations allow for underground storage and launch capabilities at numerous development sites across their country. Naval tech, including submarines, can support this firepower as well.

Nuclear weapons provide just as much flexibility as their conventional counterparts with this support technology. One can even drop them from a bomber as they did in the 1940s if that is preferred or issue a remote command. This versatility is a definite advantage when considering the overall scope of what this tech can do.

6. Nuclear weapons helped us to create new technologies in other sectors. Even though the destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, the concepts of fission and fusion have helped us to develop a variety of technologies over the year in several different industries. Approximately 10% of the electricity the world uses every year comes from nuclear reactors. Medical practices that use nuclear techniques can help to diagnose and treat diseases when conventional options may not be available or useful. We use nuclear engines on naval craft, and we are exploring this option for space travel as well.

Many people around the world are using the power of nuclear technology to read this content right now. The idea of using it as a weapon may be incomprehensible, but it at least allows us to do good things for the human race too.

7. The reliability of nuclear weapons is one of its greatest attributes. Nuclear fission can operate for up to three years without disruption, which is why it is such a useful option for power generation. When we use the refinement processes with nuclear weapons, this advantage presents itself as well. You can install a missile on a delivery platform, and then have it ready to launch for years on standby mode with a minimum amount of maintenance. It is a technology that increases the readiness factor of a government and its protective capacity while still reducing the threat of war because of the principles of mutually assured destruction.

List of the Disadvantages of Nuclear Weapons

1. There will always be moral and ethical debates about the use of nuclear weapons. We can point to the two cities in Japan that experienced a direct detonation to speak to this advantage. The mass loss of civilian life from nuclear weapons would go far beyond what any mass shooter in the United States would create.

We must also look at the more than 2,000 test explosions that researchers generated in their quest to develop this technology. The primary human-made contribution to the exposure of the world’s population to radiation has come from testing these weapons in the atmosphere from 145-1980. Each test resulted in the unrestrained release into the environment of radioactive materials that dispersed and deposited everywhere on the planet.

2. Nuclear weapon detonations are directly connected to cancer development. Ionizing radiation is a scientifically-proven carcinogen in humans. It is directly linked to most forms of leukemia, thyroid cancer, and cancers in the breast and lungs. The time that can elapse between the exposure to the radiation and the development of a malignancy can be anywhere between 10-40 years. When we look at the degrees of exposure that scientists thought were tolerable in the 1950s, it is clear to see that they were unsafe – and that position is now backed by international recognition of what nuclear weapons can cause.

3. There are direct costs attributed to a government’s nuclear weapons program. The United States spends about $35 billion every year to build, upgrade, operate, and maintain the nuclear weapons stockpile it owns. Figures from Russia where there are a similar number of weapons are about equal. Even third-party estimates of the expense to maintain an entire portfolio of these explosive devices place the expense at $25 billion or higher. That means we could take the money that we spend on these destructive devices, switch it to food development, and cure global hunger overnight with that amount of money.

The figures in this disadvantage don’t include the potential medical costs of over 2.7 million people who may develop cancer over the years because of the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

4. Nuclear weapons devastate the environment. The United States tested a massive hydrogen bomb on Bikini Atoll in 1954. It’s more than 65 years later, but this location in the Marshall Islands chain is still not livable. Some of the exiled families say that they are too fearful ever to go back. The U.S. government declared that it was safe to resettle some residents in the 1970s, but they were removed in 1978 after officials discovered that the foods grown on the island contained high levels of radiation. The Nuclear Claims Tribunal has awarded more than $2 billion in land damage and personal injury claims over the years, but it has stopped paying since its compensation fund is entirely exhausted.

There was a total of 67 tests conducted on the Marshall Islands, with the last one occurring in 1958. A 2012 report from the United Nations found that the conditions there are still not livable. This devastation means that the land around a test site or detonation event remains unusable unless there is a targeted and expensive cleanup effort that takes place.

5. The use of nuclear weapons creates a significant threat of terrorism. The Nuclear Threat Initiative works to create a better world from Washington, D.C. by working to prevent terrorism with these harmful weapons. The number of countries that are storing the dangerous materials that could lead to atomic weaponization has decreased from 52 in 1992 to a little over 30 today. Terrorist organizations now have easier access to the materials and knowledge needed to build these weapons as well. Some have even declared their intent to seek the necessary materials to create mass destruction.

If we have nuclear weapons, then we will always have the threat of loss that terrorism could provide. In February 2003 in Tennessee, the final testing of a new saltless uranium processing method created a small explosion and fire. Several incidents that date to the 1940s involve missiles exploding, bombs being accidentally dropped, and similar incidents where it would be possible for a terrorist organization to get their hands on this material if they were to act quickly enough.

6. The development of nuclear weapons creates hazardous waste. There are more than 14,000 metric tons of nuclear waste managed in the United States because of the presence of nuclear weapons. Washington State, at the Hanford Site, once at five plutonium processors and nine nuclear reactors operating simultaneously to produce over 60,000 weapons for the American arsenal. The hazardous waste from these activities is still in storage there in almost 200 tanks, where the threat of a leak can still create health problems for workers more than 50 years later.

The United States does not have a nuclear waste repository where the materials can be safely stored. That means that local storage takes place, requiring extensive management techniques that can create its own set of problems in the future.

7. Degraded delivery systems can cause a nuclear weapon to fail. The storage time for a nuclear weapon may not cause it to degrade as much as conventional devices, but the delivery systems for them to not contain the same advantages. It is possible for the detonation to fail in a variety of ways because the supportive tech does not have the same lifespan benefits. The American stock of intercontinental ballistic missiles is expected to remain in service until at least the year 2032, while naval-based installations on submarines have an additional decade of protective support. Once those deadlines are reached, then the deterrent power of the tech will not have the same impact that it does today.

8. We create nuclear weapons from non-renewable resources. We typically create nuclear weapons from uranium or plutonium, which are both radioactive elements that we harvest from the planet. A third option, called thorium, can come from the waste of nuclear reactors. If we were to transition all of the energy potentials from these destructive devices to provide an emissions-free result, there would still be the risk of a meltdown or reactor explosion that could adversely impact the planet in a variety of ways.

Since the half-life of the radiation produced by some of these technologies can be as much as 5,000 years, the problems that we create today are going to be an issue for future generations long after anyone who reads this content is forgotten.

9. It requires a specific skill set to develop or maintain nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have the capability of remote use, but it requires a skilled workforce to pull the trigger on this advantage. Engineers and scientists are necessary to ensure the viability of this technology throughout its lifetime. Military personnel can be trained to launch, operate, or direct the explosives, but they are not typically responsible for the upkeep work that they require. If the people who know how to manage this tech were to disappear for any reason, in any country, then there would be a significant increase in risk for that region and the rest of the world.

10. We are still dealing with the after-effects of nuclear weapons testing. The United States is responsible for over 50% of the total nuclear weapons tests that have taken place since the 1940s. This fact persists even though the American government last tested this technology in 1992. One example from this disadvantage comes from Project Rulison, which was an underground 40-kiloton nuclear test project that took place between the small towns of Rifle and Parachute in Colorado.

This project is unique because the goal was to study the impact of a nuclear weapon for the release of energy resources. The work found that it could liberate high levels of natural gas, but it also contaminated the fuel so that it was unsuitable for heating homes or cooking with it. A bugger zone is still in place around the site.

The issue with mutually-assured destruction is that it always leaves a lingering threat to the general population. If two superpowers decide to trade launches, such as Russia and the United States, then there would be global consequences to that decision. The life of a single human is more valuable than all of the nuclear weapons in stockpiles around the globe right now.

When we look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear weapons, the idea of a threat deterrent is not genuine peace. It is a race to create something bigger or more defensive in an arms battle that never seems to end. The use of significant conventional weapons without the threat of radiation exposure and the severe loss of civilian life could accomplish a similar goal.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay as a threat. We might not think about the idea of a missile falling from the sky every day, but history does teach us that we must continue to be vigilant about protecting ourselves and our families from the dangers these weapons create.

Nuclear weapons: Why reducing the risk of nuclear war should be a key concern of our generation

The consequences of nuclear war would be devastating. much more should – and can – be done to reduce the risk that humanity will ever fight such a war..

The shockwave and heat that the detonation of a single nuclear weapon creates can end the lives of millions of people immediately.

But even larger is the devastation that would follow a nuclear war.

The first reason for this is nuclear fallout. Radioactive dust from the detonating bombs rises up into the atmosphere and spreads out over large areas of the world from where it falls down and causes deadly levels of radiation.

The second reason is less widely known. But this consequence – 'nuclear winter' and the worldwide famine that would follow – is now believed to be the most serious consequence of nuclear war.

Cities that are attacked by nuclear missiles burn at such an intensity that they create their own wind system, a firestorm: hot air above the burning city ascends and is replaced by air that rushes in from all directions. The storm-force winds fan the flames and create immense heat.

From this firestorm, large columns of smoke and soot rise up above the burning cities and travel all the way up to the stratosphere. There it spreads around the planet and blocks the sun’s light. At that great height – far above the clouds – it cannot be rained out, meaning that it will remain there for years, darkening the sky and thereby drying and chilling the planet.

The nuclear winter that would follow a large-scale nuclear war is expected to lead to temperature declines of 20 or even 30 degrees Celsius (60–86° F) in many of the world’s agricultural regions – including much of Eurasia and North America. Nuclear winter would cause a 'nuclear famine'. The world’s food production would fail and billions of people would starve. 1

These consequences – nuclear fallout and nuclear winter leading to famine – mean that the destruction caused by nuclear weapons is not contained to the battlefield. It would not just harm the attacked country. Nuclear war would devastate all countries, including the attacker.

The possibility of global devastation is what makes the prospect of nuclear war so very terrifying. And it is also why nuclear weapons are so unattractive for warfare. A weapon that can lead to self-destruction is not a weapon that can be used strategically.

US President Reagan put it in clear words at the height of the Cold War: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?” 2

Nuclear stockpiles have been reduced, but the risk remains high

40 years after Reagan’s words, the Cold War is over and nuclear stockpiles have been reduced considerably, as the chart shows.

The world has learned that nuclear armament is not the one-way street that it was once believed to be. Disarmament is possible.

But the chart also shows that there are still almost ten thousand nuclear weapons distributed among nine countries on our planet, at least. 3 Each of these weapons can cause enormous destruction; many are much larger than the ones that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 4

Collectively these weapons are immensely destructive. The nuclear winter scenario outlined above would kill billions of people— billions— in the years that follow a large-scale nuclear war, even if it was fought “only” with today’s reduced stockpiles. 5

It is unclear whether humanity as a species could possibly survive a full-scale nuclear war with the current stockpiles. 6 A nuclear war might well be humanity’s final war.

Close Calls: Instances that threatened to push the ‘balance of terror’ out of balance and into war

The ‘balance of terror’ is the idea that all involved political leaders are so scared of nuclear war that they never launch a nuclear attack.

If this is achievable at all, it can only be achieved if all nuclear powers keep their weapons in check. This is because the balance is vulnerable to accidents: a nuclear bomb that detonates accidentally – or even just a false alarm, with no weapons even involved – can trigger nuclear retaliation because several countries keep their nuclear weapons on ‘launch on warning’; in response to a warning, their leaders can decide within minutes whether they want to launch a retaliatory strike.

For the balance of terror to be a balance, all parties need to be in control at all times. This however is not the case.

In the timeline, you can read through some of the close calls during the past decades.

The risk of nuclear war might well be low – because neither side would want to fight such a war that would have such awful consequences for everyone on the planet. But there is a risk that the kinds of technical errors and accidents listed here could lead accidentally to the use of nuclear weapons, as a nuclear power can incorrectly come to believe that they are under attack.

This is why false alarms, errors, and close calls are so crucial to monitor: they are the incidents that can push the ‘balance of terror’ out of balance and into war.

Accidents and errors are of course not the only possible path that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. There is the risk of a terribly irresponsible person leading a country possessing nuclear weapons. There is the risk of nuclear terrorism, possibly after a terrorist organization steals weapons. There is the possibility that hackers can take control of the nuclear chain of command. And there is the possibility that several of these factors play a role at the same time.

A timeline of nuclear weapons ‘close calls’ 7

Below this post, you find additional lists of close calls, where you find much more information on each of these incidents.

How to reduce the risk of nuclear war?

An escalating conflict between nuclear powers – but also an accident, a hacker, a terrorist, or an irresponsible leader – could lead to the detonation of nuclear weapons.

Those risks only go to zero if all nuclear weapons are removed from the world. I believe this is what humanity should work towards, but it is exceedingly hard to achieve, at least in the short term. It is therefore important to see that there are additional ways that can reduce the chance of the world suffering the horrors of nuclear war. 8

A more peaceful world : Many world regions in which our ancestors fought merciless wars over countless generations are extraordinarily peaceful in our times. The rise of democracy, international trade, diplomacy, and a cultural attitude shift against the glorification of war are some of the drivers credited for this development. 9

Making the world a more peaceful place will reduce the risk of nuclear confrontation. Efforts that reduce the chance of any war reduce the chance of nuclear war.

Nuclear treaties : Several non-proliferation treaties have been key in achieving the large reduction of nuclear stockpiles. However, key treaties – like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the US and Russia – have been suspended and additional agreements could be reached.

The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which became effective in 2021, is a recent development in this direction.

Smaller nuclear stockpiles : Reducing the stockpiles further is seen as an important and achievable goal by experts.

It is considered achievable because smaller stockpiles would still provide the deterrence benefits from nuclear weapons. And it is important as it reduces the risk of accidents and the chance that a possible nuclear war would end civilization.

Better monitoring, better control: The risk can be further reduced by efforts to better control nuclear weapons – so that close calls occur less frequently. Similarly better monitoring systems would reduce the chance of false alarms.

Taking nuclear weapons off ‘hair-trigger alert’ would reduce the risk that any accident that does occur can rapidly spiral out of control. And a well-resourced International Atomic Energy Agency can verify that the agreements in the treaties are met.

Better public understanding, global relations, and culture : Finally I also believe that it will help to see clearly that billions of us share the same goal. None of us wants to live through a nuclear war, none of us wants to die in one. As Reagan said, a nuclear war cannot be won and it would be better to do away with these weapons entirely.

A generation ago a broad and highly visible societal movement pursued the goal of nuclear disarmament. These efforts were to a good extent successful. But since then, this goal has unfortunately lost much of the attention it once received – and this is despite the fact that things have not fundamentally changed: the world still possesses weapons that could kill billions. 10 I wish it was a more prominent concern in our generation so that more young people would set themselves the goal to make the world safe from nuclear weapons.

Below this post you find resources on where you can get engaged or donate, to help reduce the danger from nuclear weapons.

I believe some dangers are exaggerated – for example, I believe that the fear of terrorist attacks is often wildly out of proportion with the actual risk. But when it comes to nuclear weapons I believe the opposite is true.

There are many today who hardly give nuclear conflict a thought and I think this is a big mistake.

For eight decades, people have been producing nuclear weapons. Several countries have dedicated vast sums of money to their construction. And now we live in a world in which these weapons endanger our entire civilization and our future.

These destructive weapons are perhaps the clearest example that technology and innovation are not only forces for good, they can also enable catastrophic destruction.

Without the Second World War and the Cold War, the world might have never developed these weapons and we might find the idea that anyone could possibly build such weapons unimaginable. But this is not the world we live in. We live in a world with weapons of enormous destructiveness and we have to see the risks that they pose to all of us and find ways to reduce them.

I hope that there are many in the world today who take on the challenge to make the world more peaceful and to reduce the risk from nuclear weapons. The goal has to be that humanity never ends up using this most destructive technology that we ever developed.

Resources to continue reading and finding ways to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons

• Hiroshima : John Hersey’s report for the New Yorker about the bombing of Hiroshima, published in August 1946.
• ’80,000 Hours’ profile on Nuclear Security : an article focusing on the question of how to choose a career that makes the world safer from nuclear weapons.
• The ‘Future of Life Institute’ on Nuclear Weapons : this page includes an extensive list of additional references – including videos, research papers, and many organizations that are dedicated to reducing the risk from nuclear weapons.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Charlie Giattino, Hannah Ritchie, and Edouard Mathieu for reading drafts of this and for their very helpful comments and ideas.

Additional lists of close calls with nuclear weapons

* Future of Life Institute – Accidental nuclear war: A timeline of close calls .

* Alan F. Philips, M.D. – 20 Mishaps That Might Have Started Accidental Nuclear War , published on Nuclear Files

* Josh Harkinson (2014) – That Time We Almost Nuked North Carolina

* Union of Concerned Scientists (2015) – Close Calls with Nuclear Weapons

* Chatham House Report (2014) – Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy authored by Patricia Lewis, Heather Williams, Benoît Pelopidas, and Sasan Aghlani

* Wikipedia – List of Nuclear Close Calls

On Nuclear Winter see:

* Jägermeyr, Jonas, Alan Robock, Joshua Elliott, Christoph Müller, Lili Xia, Nikolay Khabarov, Christian Folberth, et al. (2020) – ‘ A Regional Nuclear Conflict Would Compromise Global Food Security’ . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 13 (31 March 2020): 7071–81.

* Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. L. Stenchikov (2007) – Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences , J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008235.

* Alan Robock & Owen Brian Toon (2012) – Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war . In Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 68, 66–74.

* Alan Robock & Owen Brian Toon (2016) – Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter , In the New York Times, Feb. 11, 2016.

Some additional points:

* The risk of nuclear winter (initially termed ‘nuclear twilight’) was only discovered in the early 1980s, more than 3 decades after the bombs were first used.

* The main mechanism by which a nuclear winter is expected to cause a decline in global food production is by reducing the growing season, the days in a row without frost. See Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007).

* Robock estimates that the smoke and soot would rise as high as 40 kilometers (25 miles) into the atmosphere. See Robock and Toon (2016).

* Before the nuclear famine kills people from hunger, many will die from hypothermia.

* In addition to the impact on the climate, the ozone layer is expected to get depleted in such a scenario. This would allow more ultraviolet radiation to reach our planet’s surface, harming plant and animal life.

* In general there is only relatively little scientific work that focuses on nuclear winter and additional, good research could be useful to provide a better understanding. Due to the lack of research there remains uncertainty about how devastating a nuclear winter would be. In particular there is disagreement on how likely it is that all of humanity would die in a nuclear winter.

* The paper by Jägermeyr et al (2020) shows that among the countries with the largest food production losses would be the US and Russia, those countries that have the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

For anyone who interested in the impact of nuclear winter on food production and famine, Ord (2020) cites the following:

* Cropper, W. P., and Harwell, M. A. (1986) – “Food Availability after Nuclear War,” in M. A. Harwell and T. C. Hutchinson (eds.), The Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War (SCOPE 28), vol. 2: Ecological, Agricultural, and Human Effects. John Wiley and Sons.

* Helfand, I. (2013) – Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk? Physicians for Social Responsibility.

* Xia, L., Robock, A., Mills, M., Stenke, A., and Helfand, I. (2015) – Decadal Reduction of Chinese Agriculture after a Regional Nuclear War . Earth’s Future, 3(2), 37–48.

Reagan in his State of the Union address in 1984, quoted in the New York Times: Bernard Gwertzman (1984) – Reagan reassures Russians on war . In the New York Times January 26, 1984.

There are nine countries that are known to possess nuclear weapons: Russia, United States, France, China, United Kingdom, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea. South Africa once possessed nuclear weapons and is the first state to voluntarily give up nuclear weapons.

The explosive power of a nuclear weapon is called the yield of a nuclear weapon. It is the amount of energy released when that weapon is detonated. It is usually measured in ‘TNT equivalents’.

The bomb that the US dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13–18 kilotons of TNT. (one kiloton are 1000 tonnes)

The largest bomb that was ever detonated is the ‘Tsar Bomba’ built by the USSR and detonated in October 1961. Its yield was about 50 megatons of TNT. That’s 50,000 kilotons of TNT or about 3,333-times the yield of the bomb in Hiroshima.

The scenario in Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) is based on the nuclear stockpiles after the large reduction that was achieved after the end of the Cold War. It shows that the world still retains enough weapons to produce “a large, long-lasting, unprecedented global climate change,” as the authors put it. Since the publication of this study, the stockpiles have been reduced further, as the chart shows, but not very strongly so.

For a recent discussion of this question see Ord (2020) – The Precipice.

This list is largely based on Toby Ord’s 2020 book The Precipice . His list can be found in Chapter 4 and Appendix C of his book.

Ord in turn relies mostly on a document from the US Department of Defense from 1981: Narrative Summaries of Accidents Involving US Nuclear Weapons (1950–1980) .

This list is mostly based on the ’80,000 Hours’ profile on Nuclear Security and Toby Ord (2020) – The Precipice.

For big overviews of this literature see the forthcoming book Christopher Blattman (2022) – Why We Fight: The Roots of War and the Paths to Peace and Steven Pinker (2011) – The Better Angels of our Nature for a big overview

Lawrence S. Wittner – Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement . Stanford University Press.

One indication for the declining interest in the last generation: Mentions of “nuclear war” in books and newspapers peaked in 1985 and declined strongly since then (see Google Ngram for ‘nuclear war’ ).

Cite this work

Our articles and data visualizations rely on work from many different people and organizations. When citing this article, please also cite the underlying data sources. This article can be cited as:

BibTeX citation

Reuse this work freely

All visualizations, data, and code produced by Our World in Data are completely open access under the Creative Commons BY license . You have the permission to use, distribute, and reproduce these in any medium, provided the source and authors are credited.

The data produced by third parties and made available by Our World in Data is subject to the license terms from the original third-party authors. We will always indicate the original source of the data in our documentation, so you should always check the license of any such third-party data before use and redistribution.

All of our charts can be embedded in any site.

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• Climate Change
• Policy & Economics
• Biodiversity
• Conservation

Get focused newsletters especially designed to be concise and easy to digest

• ESSENTIAL BRIEFING 3 times weekly
• TOP STORY ROUNDUP Once a week
• MONTHLY OVERVIEW Once a month
• Enter your email *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

Since the first nuclear plant started operations in the 1950s, the world has been highly divided on nuclear as a source of energy. While it is a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, this type of power is also associated with some of the world’s most dangerous and deadliest weapons, not to mention nuclear disasters . The extremely high cost and lengthy process to build nuclear plants are compensated by the fact that producing nuclear energy is not nearly as polluting as oil and coal. In the race to net-zero carbon emissions, should countries still rely on nuclear energy or should they make space for more fossil fuels and renewable energy sources? We take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy. 

What Is Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear energy is the energy source found in an atom’s nucleus, or core. Once extracted, this energy can be used to produce electricity by creating nuclear fission in a reactor through two kinds of atomic reaction: nuclear fusion and nuclear fission. During the latter, uranium used as fuel causes atoms to split into two or more nuclei. The energy released from fission generates heat that brings a cooling agent, usually water, to boil. The steam deriving from boiling or pressurised water is then channelled to spin turbines to generate electricity. To produce nuclear fission, reactors make use of uranium as fuel.

For centuries, the industrialisation of economies around the world was made possible by fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, and petroleum and only in recent years countries opened up to alternative, renewable sources like solar and wind energy. In the 1950s, early commercial nuclear power stations started operations, offering to many countries around the world an alternative to oil and gas import dependency and a far less polluting energy source than fossil fuels. Following the 1970s energy crisis and the dramatic increase of oil prices that resulted from it, more and more countries decided to embark on nuclear power programmes. Indeed, most reactors have been built  between 1970 and 1985 worldwide. Today, nuclear energy meets around 10% of global energy demand , with 439 currently operational nuclear plants in 32 countries and about 55 new reactors under construction. In 2020, 13 countries produced at least one-quarter of their total electricity from nuclear, with the US, China, and France dominating the market by far. 

Fossil fuels make up 60% of the United States’ electricity while the remaining 40% is equally split between renewables and nuclear power. France embarked on a sweeping expansion of its nuclear power industry in the 1970s with the ultimate goal of breaking its dependence on foreign oil. In doing this, the country was able to build up its economy by simultaneously cutting its emissions at a rate never seen before. Today, France is home to 56 operating reactors and it relies on nuclear power for 70% of its electricity . 

You might also like: A ‘Breakthrough’ In Nuclear Fusion: What Does It Mean for the Future of Energy Generation?

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

France’s success in cutting down emissions is a clear example of some of the main advantages of nuclear energy over fossil fuels. First and foremost, nuclear energy is clean and it provides pollution-free power with no greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what many believe, cooling towers in nuclear plants only emit water vapour and are thus, not releasing any pollutant or radioactive substance into the atmosphere. Compared to all the energy alternatives we currently have on hand, many experts believe that nuclear energy is indeed one of the cleanest sources. Many nuclear energy supporters also argue that nuclear power is responsible for the fastest decarbonisation effort in history , with big nuclear players like France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and South Korea being among the countries that recorded the fastest decline in carbon intensity and experienced a clean energy transition by building nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams.

Earlier this year, the European Commission took a clear stance on nuclear power by labelling it a green source of energy in its classification system establishing a list of environmentally sustainable economic activities. While nuclear energy may be clean and its production emission-free, experts highlight a hidden danger of this power: nuclear waste. The highly radioactive and toxic byproduct from nuclear reactors can remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. However, this is still considered a much easier environmental problem to solve than climate change. The main reason for this is that as much as 90% of the nuclear waste generated by the production of nuclear energy can be recycled. Indeed, the fuel used in a reactor, typically uranium, can be treated and put into another reactor as only a small amount of energy in their fuel is extracted in the fission process.

A rather important advantage of nuclear energy is that it is much safer than fossil fuels from a public health perspective. The pro-nuclear movement leverages the fact that nuclear waste is not even remotely as dangerous as the toxic chemicals coming from fossil fuels. Indeed, coal and oil act as ‘ invisible killers ’ and are responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide . In 2018 alone, fossil fuels killed 8.7 million people globally. In contrast, in nearly 70 years since the beginning of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Of these, only the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine directly caused any deaths.

Finally, nuclear energy has some advantages compared to some of the most popular renewable energy sources. According to the US Office of Nuclear Energy , nuclear power has by far the highest capacity factor, with plants requiring less maintenance, capable to operate for up to two years before refuelling and able to produce maximum power more than 93% of the time during the year, making them three times more reliable than wind and solar plants. 

You might also like: Nuclear Energy: A Silver Bullet For Clean Energy?

Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy

The anti-nuclear movement opposes the use of this type of energy for several reasons. The first and currently most talked about disadvantage of nuclear energy is the nuclear weapon proliferation, a debate triggered by the deadly atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War and recently reopened following rising concerns over nuclear escalation in the Ukraine-Russia conflict . After the world saw the highly destructive effect of these bombs, which caused the death of tens of thousands of people, not only in the impact itself but also in the days, weeks, and months after the tragedy as a consequence of radiation sickness, nuclear energy evolved to a pure means of generating electricity. In 1970, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons entered into force. Its objective was to prevent the spread of such weapons to eventually achieve nuclear disarmament as well as promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, opposers of this energy source still see nuclear energy as being deeply intertwined with nuclear weapons technologies and believe that, with nuclear technologies becoming globally available, the risk of them falling into the wrong hands is high, especially in countries with high levels of corruption and instability. 

As mentioned in the previous section, nuclear energy is clean. However, radioactive nuclear waste contains highly poisonous chemicals like plutonium and the uranium pellets used as fuel. These materials can be extremely toxic for tens of thousands of years and for this reason, they need to be meticulously and permanently disposed of. Since the 1950s, a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes of highly radioactive nuclear waste has been accumulated and distributed across the world, with 90,000 metric tons stored in the US alone. Knowing the dangers of nuclear waste, many oppose nuclear energy for fears of accidents, despite these being extremely unlikely to happen. Indeed, opposers know that when nuclear does fail, it can fail spectacularly. They were reminded of this in 2011, when the Fukushima disaster, despite not killing anyone directly, led to the displacement of more than 150,000 people, thousands of evacuation/related deaths and billions of dollars in cleanup costs. 

Lastly, if compared to other sources of energy, nuclear power is one of the most expensive and time-consuming forms of energy. Nuclear plants cost billions of dollars to build and they take much longer than any other infrastructure for renewable energy, sometimes even more than a decade. However, while nuclear power plants are expensive to build, they are relatively cheap to run , a factor that improves its competitiveness. Still, the long building process is considered a significant obstacle in the run to net-zero emissions that countries around the world have committed to. If they hope to meet their emission reduction targets in time, they cannot afford to rely on new nuclear plants.

You might also like: The Nuclear Waste Disposal Dilemma

Who Wins the Nuclear Debate?

There are a multitude of advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy and the debate on whether to keep this technology or find other alternatives is destined to continue in the years to come. Nuclear power can be a highly destructive weapon, but the risks of a nuclear catastrophe are relatively low. While historic nuclear disasters can be counted on the fingers of a single hand, they are remembered for their devastating impact and the life-threatening consequences they sparked (or almost sparked). However, it is important to remember that fossil fuels like coal and oil represent a much bigger threat and silently kill millions of people every year worldwide. Another big aspect to take into account, and one that is currently discussed by global leaders, is the dependence of some of the world’s largest economies on countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq for fossil fuels. While the 2011 Fukushima disaster, for example, pushed the then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel to close all of Germany’s nuclear plants, her decision only increased the country’s dependence on much more polluting Russian oil. Nuclear supporters argue that relying on nuclear energy would decrease the energy dependency from third countries. However, raw materials such as the uranium needed to make plants function would still need to be imported from countries like Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia. The debate thus shifts to another problem: which countries should we rely on for imports and, most importantly, is it worth keeping these dependencies?

This story is funded by readers like you

Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.

About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us

About the Author

Martina Igini

What the Future of Renewable Energy Looks Like

Top 7 Smart Cities in the World in 2024

Explainer: What Are NFTs, And What is Their Environmental Impact?

Hand-picked stories weekly or monthly. We promise, no spam!

• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Boost this article By donating us $100, $50 or subscribe to Boosting $10/month – we can get this article and others in front of tens of thousands of specially targeted readers. This targeted Boosting – helps us to reach wider audiences – aiming to convince the unconvinced, to inform the uninformed, to enlighten the dogmatic.

Nuclear energy protects air quality by producing massive amounts of carbon-free electricity. It powers communities in 28 U.S. states and contributes to many non-electric applications, ranging from the  medical field to space exploration .

The Office of Nuclear Energy within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) focuses its research primarily on maintaining the existing fleet of reactors, developing new advanced reactor technologies, and improving the nuclear fuel cycle to increase the sustainability of our energy supply and strengthen the U.S. economy.

Below are some of the main advantages of nuclear energy and the challenges currently facing the industry today.

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

Clean Energy Source

Nuclear is the largest source of clean power in the United States. It generates nearly 800 billion kilowatt hours of electricity each year and produces more than half of the nation’s emissions-free electricity. This avoids more than 470 million metric tons of carbon each year, which is the equivalent of removing 100 million cars off of the road.

Creates Jobs

The nuclear industry supports nearly half a million jobs in the United States and contributes an estimated $60 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product each year. U.S. nuclear plants can employ up to 700 workers with salaries that are 30% higher than the local average. They also contribute billions of dollars annually to local economies through federal and state tax revenues.

Supports National Security

A strong civilian nuclear sector is essential to U.S. national security and energy diplomacy. The United States must maintain its global leadership in this arena to influence the peaceful use of nuclear technologies. The U.S. government works with countries in this capacity to build relationships and develop new opportunities for the nation’s nuclear technologies.

Challenges of Nuclear Energy

Public Awareness

Commercial nuclear power is sometimes viewed by the general public as a dangerous or unstable process. This perception is often based on three global nuclear accidents, its false association with nuclear weapons, and how it is portrayed on popular television shows and films.

DOE and its national labs are working with industry to develop new reactors and fuels that will increase the overall performance of these technologies and reduce the amount of nuclear waste that is produced.  

DOE also works to provide accurate, fact-based information about nuclear energy through its social media and STEM outreach efforts to educate the public on the benefits of nuclear energy.

Used Fuel Transportation, Storage and Disposal

Many people view used fuel as a growing problem and are apprehensive about its transportation, storage, and disposal. DOE is responsible for the eventual disposal and associated transport of all commercial used fuel , which is currently securely stored at 76 reactor or storage sites in 34 states. For the foreseeable future, this fuel can safely remain at these facilities until a permanent disposal solution is determined by Congress.

DOE is currently evaluating nuclear power plant sites and nearby transportation infrastructure to support the eventual transport of used fuel away from these sites. It is also developing new, specially designed railcars to support large-scale transport of used fuel in the future.

Constructing New Power Plants

Building a nuclear power plant can be discouraging for stakeholders. Conventional reactor designs are considered multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects. High capital costs, licensing and regulation approvals, coupled with long lead times and construction delays, have also deterred public interest.

Microreactor (left) - Small Modular Reactor (right)

DOE is rebuilding its nuclear workforce by  supporting the construction  of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. The units are the first new reactors to begin construction in the United States in more than 30 years. The expansion project will support up to 9,000 workers at peak construction and create 800 permanent jobs at the facility when the new units begin operation in 2023.

DOE is also supporting the development of smaller reactor designs, such as  microreactors  and  small modular reactors , that will offer even more flexibility in size and power capacity to the customer. These factory-built systems are expected to dramatically reduce construction timelines and will make nuclear more affordable to build and operate.

High Operating Costs

Challenging market conditions have left the nuclear industry struggling to compete. DOE’s  Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program  is working to overcome these economic challenges by modernizing plant systems to reduce operation and maintenance costs, while improving performance. In addition to its materials research that supports the long-term operation of the nation’s fleet of reactors, the program is also looking to diversify plant products through non-electric applications such as water desalination and  hydrogen production .

To further improve operating costs. DOE is also working with industry to develop new fuels and cladding known as  accident tolerant fuels . These new fuels could increase plant performance, allowing for longer response times and will produce less waste. Accident tolerant fuels could gain widespread use by 2025.

Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power Essay

Introduction.

Nuclear power in description is a contained nuclear fission that generates electricity and heat. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the world’s energy and 14% of electricity. Nuclear energy is neither green nor sustainable energy because of the life threatening aspect from its wastes and the nuclear plants themselves.

Another reason is that its only source of raw material is only available on earth. On the other hand, nuclear energy is a non-renewable energy because of the scarcity of its source fuel, uranium, which has an estimation of about 30 to 60 years before it becomes extinct (Florida State University 1).

Nuclear power pros

Nuclear power has quite a number of pros associated with its use. The first pro of nuclear energy is that it emits little pollution to the environment. A power plant that uses coal emits more radiation than nuclear powered plant. Another pro of nuclear energy is that it is reliable.

Because of the fact that nuclear plants uses little fuel, their vulnerability to natural disasters or strikes is limited. The next pro is safety that nuclear energy provides. Safety is both a pro and a con, depending on what point of view one takes. Nevertheless, even though results from a reactor can be disastrous, prevention mechanisms for it work perfectly well with it. Another pro that is associated with nuclear energy is efficiency.

In considering the different economic viewpoints, nuclear energy offers the best solution in energy provision and is more advantageous. In addition, we have portability as the next pro of nuclear energy. A high amount of nuclear energy can be contained in a very small amount of volume. Lastly, the technology that nuclear energy adopts is readily available and does not require development before use (Time for change.org 1).

Nuclear power cons

On the other hand, nuclear energy has a number of cons that are associated with its usage. First is the problem of radioactive waste, whereby nuclear energy waste from it is extremely dangerous and needs careful look-up.

The other con of nuclear energy is that of its waste storage. A good number of wastes from nuclear energy are radioactive even thousands of years later since they contain both radioactive and fissionable materials. These materials are removable through a process called reprocessing which is through clearing all the fissionable materials in the nuclear fuel.

The next con of nuclear energy is the occurrence of a meltdown. A meltdown can be the worst-case scenario that can ever occur in a nuclear energy plant because its effects are deadly. The effects of a meltdown are very huge with estimation that radioactive contamination can cover a distance of over a thousand miles in radius. The final downturn associated with nuclear energy is radiation. Radiation mostly is associated with effects such as cancer, mutation and radiation sickness (Green Energy, Inc. 1).

Impacts of nuclear energy on the society

The society being an association that has people of diverse ideologies and faiths regarding the production and consumption of energy, and economic goods, to the good life and good society. Nuclear energy should serve social justice and quality of life rather than being looked upon as end in it.

The existence of technology is purposely for serving human needs; it can destroy people and human values, deliberately or by unintended consequences. Because of this, the technological processes are guided by values that require constant public scrutiny and discussion.

Nuclear energy has implications towards the political viewpoint in that a country might wish to take advantage of its nuclear weapons to gain control of others. This will deprive others of their democratic rights coexist within their territory without interference of intruders.

Legal impacts

In terms of the legal impacts of nuclear energy, there are regulations that gives rights to who or which organizations have the authority to own nuclear facilities. The legal implications also target what specific standards are set out for adequate protection and what risks are not acceptable.

From the above discussion, in comparing the pros and cons of nuclear energy, one can conclude that as much as nuclear energy has severe effects to people and environment it also has varied benefits. In my own viewpoint, I presume to counter with the cons rather than the pros. It is evident what devastating effect nuclear energy has on the environment and as much as it benefits the environment through low pollution, in case of an accident and there is a meltdown the whole environment will be wiped out.

In a moral standpoint, I believe that lives of people are more important than energy sources. In as much as we would wish to have the most reliable energy source, our lives is the most important than any other thing (Florida State University 1).

In conclusion, it is evident from the mentioned pros and cons that nuclear energy is not the all-time solution to any problem. One can argue that to the extreme it is much of a problem source that a solution. In an effort to getting a good life, withstanding the ethical and moral issues, we should always strive for sustaining our lives to the best way possible. Nevertheless, many of the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nuclear power require determinate, immediate, distinct, significant actions (Falk 1).

Works Cited

Falk, Jim. Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Print.

Florida State University. “Pros of Nuclear Power.” eng.fsu.edu . FSU, n.d. Web.

Green Energy, Inc. “Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power.” greenenergyhelpfiles.com . Green Energy, n.d. Web.

Time for change.org. “ Pros and cons of nuclear power ”. timeforchange.org. Time For Change, n.d. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power/

"Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power/.

1. IvyPanda . "Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power/.

• Astronomy: More Than Meets the Eye
• Classification of Radioactive Waste
• Financial Meltdown of 2008
• Radioactive Medical Waste Management
• Sustainability and Other Aspects of the Economy
• Impacts of Oil Shocks on Economic Meltdown
• Big Coal and the Natural Environment Pollution
• Social Change: Modern, and Postmodern Societies
• Balanced Treatment of the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy
• Overcrowding in Cities as Social & Environmental Problem
• How maglev trains work
• Different Sources of Energy
• Ballistics: Types of Bullets and Damage
• Can you study paranormal scientifically?
• The Path of Light

Angry Farmers Are Reshaping Europe

Farm protests are changing not only Europe’s food system but also its politics, as the far right senses an opportunity.

At Méryl Cruz Mermy and Benoît Merlo’s organic farm in eastern France. Credit...

Supported by

• Share full article

By Roger Cohen

Photographs by Ivor Prickett

Reporting from across rural France

• March 31, 2024

Gazing out from his 265-acre farm to the silhouetted Jura mountains in the distance, Jean-Michel Sibelle expounded on the intricate secrets of soil, climate and breeding that have made his chickens — blue feet, white feathers, red combs in the colors of France — the royalty of poultry.

The “poulet de Bresse” is no ordinary chicken. It was recognized in 1957 with a designation of origin, similar to that accorded a great Bordeaux. Moving from a diet of meadow bugs and worms to a mash of corn flour and milk in its final sedentary weeks, this revered Gallic bird acquires a unique muscular succulence. “The mash adds a little fat and softens the muscles formed in the fields to make the flesh moist and tender,” Mr. Sibelle explained with evident satisfaction.

But if this farmer seemed passionate about his chickens, he is also drained by harsh realities. Mr. Sibelle, 59, is done. Squeezed by European Union and national environmental regulations, facing rising costs and unregulated competition, he sees no further point in laboring 70 hours a week.

He and his wife, Maria, are about to sell a farm that has been in the family for over a century. None of their three children want to take over; they have joined a steady exodus that has seen the share of the French population engaged in agriculture fall steadily over the past century to about 2 percent.

“We are suffocated by norms to the point we can’t go on,” Mr. Sibelle said.

Down on the European farm, revolt has stirred. The discontent, leading farmers to quit and demonstrate, threatens to do more than change how Europe produces its food. Angry farmers are blunting climate goals . They are reshaping politics ahead of elections for the European Parliament in June. They are shaking European unity against Russia as the war in Ukraine increases their costs.

“It’s the end of the world versus the end of the month,” Arnaud Rousseau, the head of the FNSEA, France’s largest farmers’ union, said in an interview. “There’s no point talking about farm practices that help save the environment, if farmers cannot make a living. Ecology without an economy makes no sense.”

The turmoil has emboldened a far right that thrives on grievances and rattled a European establishment forced to make concessions. In recent weeks, farmers have blocked highways and descended on the streets of European capitals in a disruptive, if disjointed, outburst against what they call “existential challenges.” In a shed full of the ducks he raises, Jean-Christophe Paquelet said: “Yes, I joined the protests because we are submerged in rules. My ducks’ lives are short but at least they have no worries.”

The challenges farmers cite include E.U. requirements to cut the use of pesticides and fertilizers, now partly dropped in light of the protests. Europe’s decision to open its doors to cheaper Ukrainian grain and poultry in a show of solidarity added to competitive problems in a bloc where labor costs already varied widely. At the same time, the E.U. has in many cases reduced subsidies to farmers, especially if they do not shift to more environmentally friendly methods.

German farmers have attacked Green party events. This month, they spread a manure slick on a highway near Berlin that caused several cars to crash, seriously injuring five people. Spanish farmers have destroyed Moroccan produce grown with cheaper labor. Polish farmers are enraged by what they see as unfair competition from Ukraine.

French farmers, who vented their fury against President Emmanuel Macron during his recent visit to the Paris Agricultural Fair — where politicians regularly pat the backsides of bulls to prove their bona fides — say they can scarcely dig a ditch, trim a hedge, or birth a calf without confronting a maze of regulatory requirements.

Fabrice Monnery, 50, who owns a 430-acre cereal farm, is among them. The cost for his electrified irrigation more than doubled in 2023, and his fertilizer costs tripled, he said, as the war in Ukraine increased energy prices.

“At the start of the war, in 2022, our economy minister said we were going to destroy Russia economically,” he said. “Well, it’s Russia’s war in Ukraine that’s destroying us.”

Farms are mythologized but misunderstood, he said. The soul of France is its “terroir,” the soil whose unique characteristics are learned over centuries by those cultivating it, yet the people living on that hallowed land feel abandoned. The average age of farmers is over 50, and many cannot find a successor.

Often the romanticized image of the French farm — cows being milked at dawn as the mist rises over undulating pasture — is at some distance from reality.

Through Mr. Monnery’s office window, the Bugey nuclear plant could be seen belching steam into the blue sky. Urban development and industrial zones encroach on highly mechanized farms abutting deserted villages where small stores have been crushed by hypermarkets that offer cheaper imported meat and produce.

“The graduates of elite schools that run this country have no idea about farm life, or even what a day’s labor feels like,” Mr. Monnery said. “They’re perched up there, the successors to our royal family, Macron chief among them.”

‘Punitive Ecology’

Ascendant far-right parties across the continent have seized on such anger three months before European Parliament elections. They portray it as another illustration of the confrontation between arrogant elites and the people, urban globalists and rooted farmers.

Their message is that the countryside is the custodian of national traditions under assault from modernity, political correctness and immigration, in addition to a thicket of environmental rules that, in their view, defies common sense. Such messages resonate with voters who feel forgotten.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s anti-immigrant National Rally party, argues that true exile “is not to be banished from your country, but to live in it and no longer recognize it.” Her young lieutenant, the charismatic Jordan Bardella, 28, who is leading the party’s election campaign, speaks of “punitive ecology” as he crisscrosses the countryside.

Mr. Bardella often finds a receptive audience. Vincent Chatellier, an economist at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment, said that close to 18 percent of French farmers live below the official poverty line, and 25 percent are struggling.

For the National Rally, the E.U.’s “Green Deal” and “Farm to Fork Strategy,” which aim to halve chemical pesticide use and cut fertilizer use by 20 percent by 2030 as part of a plan to be carbon neutral by 2050, are a thinly disguised attack on the French economy. In February, under pressure from farmer protests, the E.U. acknowledged how polarizing its efforts have become, scrapping an anti-pesticide bill.

A recent poll by the daily Le Monde gave Ms. Le Pen’s National Rally 31 percent of France’s European election vote, well ahead of Mr. Macron’s Renaissance party with 18 percent. Farmers may not contribute many votes directly but they are popular, even venerated, figures in France, and their discontent registers with a broad spectrum of voters.

In Germany, Stefan Hartung, a member of Die Heimat (Homeland), a neo-Nazi party, addressed a farmers’ protest in January and denounced Brussels and Berlin politicians who exert control over people by “imposing things like climate ideology, gender madness and all that nonsense.” Demonstrations by German farmers had not previously been as violent as the recent ones.

“It’s war between the Greens and farmers,” said Pascal Bruckner, an author and political commentator in France. “You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

Cyrielle Chatelain, a French lawmaker who represents the mountainous Isère region and leads a group of environmentalist parties in Parliament, said that it was wrong to say that “all farmers are angry with the Greens.”

“It’s less the idea of a green transition that angers them,” she said in an interview, “than the way it’s applied.”

The Green Deal stipulates, for example, that hedges, home to nesting birds, cannot be cut between March 15 and the end of August. But in Isère, Ms. Chatelain said, no bird would nest in a hedge on March 15 because the hedge is still frozen.

Thierry Thenoz, 63, a pig farmer in Lescheroux in southeastern France, told me he had replanted miles of hedges on his 700-acre farm. “But if I want to cut a 25-foot break in the hedge for a gate and a track, I have to negotiate with regulators.”

Mr. Thenoz, who invested long ago in a methane unit to recycle pig manure as fertilizer to make his farm self-sustaining, has also decided to retire and sell his shares in the farm. His three children, he said, were just not interested.

A Cornerstone Wobbles

The cornerstone of a uniting Europe for more than six decades has been its Common Agricultural Policy, known as the C.A.P. As in the United States, where the government spends billions annually on farm subsidies, mostly for much larger farms than in western Europe, a viable agricultural sector is seen as a core strategic interest.

The European policy has kept food abundant, set certain prices, and helped ensure that France and the European Union have a large trade surplus in agricultural and food products, even as it has come under scrutiny for corruption and favoring the rich. Big farms benefit most.

French farmers who have led the protests of recent months over what they see as unfair competition from less regulated countries have themselves benefited enormously from E.U. subsidies and open global markets.

France has received more in annual financial support from Brussels for its farmers than any other country, more than $10 billion in 2022, said Mr. Chatellier, the economist. The French agriculture-and-food sector had a $3.8 billion surplus with China in 2022, and an even larger one with the United States.

But Europe’s agricultural policy is riddled with problems that have contributed to the farm uprising. An expanding E.U. introduced greater internal competition. Cheap chickens bred with much lower labor costs in Poland have flooded the French market. Such problems abound in a bloc that now has 27 members.

Tariff-free imports from Ukraine — where labor is even cheaper — have given a sobering sense of what eventual Ukrainian membership in the E.U. would mean. (This month, the E.U. imposed restrictions on some imports from Ukraine, including chicken and sugar.)

The C.A.P. has created an “unhealthy dependency,” Mr. Chatellier said. Farmers rely on politicians and officials, not consumers, for a substantial part of their revenue, and they feel vulnerable. Mr. Monnery said he received about $38,000 last year in E.U. aid, a sum that has declined steadily in recent years.

Increasingly, the money is tied to a raft of rules to benefit the environment. A new E.U. requirement that farmers leave 4 percent of land uncultivated to help “re-green” the continent provoked special fury — and has been put on hold for a year.

Governments are scrambling to contain the damage. Besides deferring some environmental rules, France has canceled a tax increase on diesel fuel for farm vehicles. It has turned against free trade, moving to block an agreement with Mercosur, a South American bloc accused by farmers of unfair competition.

The question is how much of a toll such concessions will take on the environment and whether these are cosmetic changes to what is widely seen as a dysfunctional, outdated European agricultural system.

Tough Road Ahead

Méryl Cruz Mermy and her husband, Benoît Merlo, who graduated in agricultural engineering from a prestigious Lyon school, have moved in the opposite direction from most young people.

Over the past five years, they built a 700-acre organic farm in eastern France where they grow wheat, rye, lentils, flax, sunflowers and other crops, as well as raising cattle. They went into debt as they bought and rented land.

If their path is to lead to the future of farming, it must be made easier, they said.

Mr. Merlo, 35, sees a “crisis of civilization” in the countryside, where automation means fewer workers, the work is too arduous to attract most young people, and credit for investment is hard to obtain. He joined one protest out of extreme frustration. “We don’t count the hours we work, and that work is not respected at its just value,” he said.

They are committed environmentalists, but a crisis in the organic food sector, known as “bio” in France, has added to their difficulties. Bio boomed for some years, but hard-pressed consumers now balk at the higher prices. Several big supermarkets have dropped organic food.

“New norms for a greener planet are necessary,” Ms. Cruz Mermy, 36, said, “but so are fair prices and competition.”

I asked if they might give up the farm life. “We have two children aged 3 and 7, so we have to be optimistic,” she said. “We want this farm to be an anchor for them. You look at the future — climate change, war, limited energy — and it feels ominous, but we go step by step.”

Over a century, that is what the family of Jean-Michel and Maria Sibelle did, breeding legendary poultry. Now, with a sense of resignation, they have come to the end of that road.

“I don’t have the physical force I once had,” Mr. Sibelle said. “That, too, is nature.”

“You know, I always wanted to be a farmer and had the good fortune to do that,” he added. “I would not have gone to a factory to work a 35-hour week even if I worked double that with my chicken and capons.”

He took me into his “prize room,” a shed filled with silver cups and trophies, Sèvres porcelain sent by presidents, framed accolades and other tributes to the greatness of his blue-white-and-red Bresse chickens, symbols of a certain France that endures, but only just.

Erika Solomon contributed reporting from Berlin.

Roger Cohen is the Paris Bureau chief for The Times, covering France and beyond. He has reported on wars in Lebanon, Bosnia and Ukraine, and between Israel and Gaza, in more than four decades as a journalist. At The Times, he has been a correspondent, foreign editor and columnist. More about Roger Cohen

Ivor Prickett is a photographer based in Istanbul. He covered the rise and fall of ISIS in Iraq and Syria while on assignment for The Times. More recently he has been working on stories related to the war in Ukraine. More about Ivor Prickett

Advertisement