The Role of Nuclear Power in the terms of Realism and Environmentalism
Introduction
Nuclear power plant is certainly a major source of energy supply in most countries in the world today. Its enormous potential as an energy supply is undeniable because it can provide energy source to a whole country. However, there are varying opinions and analysis about its impacts to human population and the environment. Though its benefits to various sectors particularly in business industry and residential communities have been acknowledged, its adverse effects to the environment are still being questioned.
Consequently, nuclear capability provides tremendous military prowess to countries. It is the reason why highly industrialized countries have been contemplating on developing and for some even modifying their nuclear technology as an energy resource or a military armament. In terms of international relations, nuclear capability inevitably poses serious threats to all nations because of the unbelievable damaged that it had done to the victim nations just like what happened in World War II. Indeed, nuclear capability is a double bladed sword that can either help or hurt a country when it comes to international relations.
In this paper, vital questions pertinent to the possession of a nuclear capability would be investigated and attempted to answer. Specifically, the question,”Does the spread of nuclear weapons would make the world safer or more dangerous?” Consequently, the use of nuclear weapons today may pose an existential risk, unlike every other kind of risk our species has ever before encountered as suggested by one major political thought.
Two competing perspectives would be used as framework of analysis in examining the mentioned research questions, which are realism and environmental perspectives. These are two opposing perspectives in comprehending the usage of nuclear capability in a country and its impacts to international relations.
Realism
Realism or political realism is a theory in political philosophy that tries to explicate and impose political relations. It assumes that power is the ultimate end of political action, whether in the local or international spheres. It emanated from the political condition of early modern Europe that was buttressed on the fact that world politics was based on conflict and pursuant of power and domination (McQueen, 2009). Realists, as the term suggests, acknowledge the notion that it is human nature to dominate as part of international relations. Control, domination, or grabbing of power is a matter of necessity since world politics is built on survival. In other words, every nation has to position themselves upward and should not allow other nations to dominate them (Lánczi, 2015).
In doing so, states are considered the main players in international politics and not individual personalities. Prime ministers or presidents are just minor players and agents of state that pursue the interests of the country rather than a particular sector. Consequently, power struggle is an underpinning framework of international policy that should be adopted by every nation according to political realism (Waltz, 2010). Without such framework, a country or state may not survive the dynamics of international politics since other states are focused on grabbing political power and used it to control world politics in the guise of international relations. Undeniably, there is a extreme need for states to engage in such global dynamics to ensure their own self-preservation.
Realists continue to argue that such political action in the global arena is reasonable for all states as they are all rational actors who would naturally maximize their own self-interest.
As mentioned, it is the interest of the country that compels every state to engage in such political dynamic. Protecting their own interests is the major motivation of states to dominate other states, which is a rational thing to do.
Political realism is also premised on the notion that international political system is chaotic without the superpower nations that would enforce rules, peace and order in the world. Realists also admit that it would be impossible to acquire the global condition where in all countries are equal in political power or control. There are always countries that would amass political control over the majority of the states in the world (Waltz, 2010). It should be emphasized that this is an ought condition, not an option. In other words, the world politics, which is always chaotic, necessitates the rise of the superpower nations to stabilize the global political arena.
Philosophical Foundation of Realism
Realism is a culmination of various political theories from the classical period up to the modern period. Its main premise was formulated Aristotle who proposed that man by nature is a political animal. Aristotle argued that every human association contains a power relation, which is a natural human process (Pangle, 2013). As a political animal, man has the natural desire to grab power that inevitably create social stratification or system of inequality. In short, social stratification is a universal phenomenon since every situation is a political arena.
Aristotle’s notion of political animal has become the foundation of realism because it provides realistic insights on human nature that as applied in politics. Consequently, every action of political actors can be discerned as motivated by power since it is part of human nature. So, political decisions are viewed as rationally calculated in pursuit of control of others. Certainly, Aristotle laid the fundamental premise of realism because of his theory on the natural inclination of man as a political animal.
Friedrich Nietzsche is another political philosopher that contributed to the development of realism as a political philosophy. Nietzsche emphasizes the nature of man as well as a power manipulator. His concept of will to power indicates that man’s quest in this world is to dominate and be a master of others. His will to power formulated the Master-Morality and Slave-Morality. Nietzsche proposes that there two types of humans in this world, those who are born rulers and those who are destined to be ruled. The rulers are guided by the master morality since they are fully aware of their ability to grab power and impose their own brand of morality. The rulers have the natural tendency to control the weak since they are at the top of the social hierarchy. In other words, those at the top of social hierarchy have the right to create morality for the whole society. Master morality suggests that people have to exhibit certain virtues like courage, cruelty, superior physical strength and intellect (Knoll and Stocker, 2014).
In contrast, the slave morality is for those who are weak. These are people who have not realized their potential to control but instead accepted that they have to follow those who are superior than them. Nietzsche considers compassion, sympathy, and kindness as included in slave morality. People who are weak deserve to be oppressed, abused, and become slaves according to Nietzsche’s realism.
The most recent political philosopher that tremendously contributed to the emergence of realism as a compelling political theory is Niccolo Machiavelli. During the 15th century, Machiavelli proposed that politics consisted of relations among states and that political players should be virtuous and should abide strictly to a unique and realistic kind of ethical standards.
However, Machiavelli was strictly pointing out that political analysis should be focused on the real rather than the imagined one. Though there is an ideal truth that should be sought, political reality should not be discounted (Whelan, 2004).
In politics, the relevance of morality is immaterial because he proposed that all means justify the end. Political goals are more important than doing what is right or ought to be. Morality is a separate realm from politics because the end justifies the means. So, doing good for the state is not necessarily moral or ethical but it is a necessity to do so. Machiavelli refuse to accept the fact that the way is not that important as achieving a goal. Good results regardless of method of achieving are considered good in politics, which is a reality (Whelan, 2004). For instance, killing the enemy to protect one’s country is good from a Machiavellian point of view.
Accordingly, Machiavellian perspective has fully modified realism since it has clearly differentiated morality from politics, which has been a dilemma of political thinkers. By putting a clear demarcation line between morality and politics, it would be easier to understand and analysis political reality since there are issues that are within the moral realm while there are those within the boundary of political realm.
Environmentalism
On the opposite of the polarity, the environmentalists are doubtful of the benefits that nuclear capability can give to a country and to international relations.The mere construction of a nuclear plant or any nuclear facility is already being criticized by environmentalists much more developing nuclear weapons. Apparently, environmentalists have identified the serious threats that nuclear facilities present to the countries and international relations.
For one thing, environmentalists argue that there are no security measures that can be implemented to cushion the adverse impacts of nuclear facilities.
Even if the plan is formulated systematically, environmentalists persist that the risk of catastrophic effects will still be high due to the innate destructive substances that a nuclear plant contain. For that matter, a nuclear facility requires thousands of gigawatts in order to be managed appropriately and eventually sustain the energy supply. Certainly, the potential for accidents that would result to disastrous events is quite high. The government has to install safety measures that would prevent such events to occur, which for the environmentalists would be impossible.
The potential accidents are unavoidable with the existence of a nuclear facility in a country. History has shown that nuclear plants can always lead to accidents due to human error or natural disasters. For instance, the Russia’s nuclear plant in Chernobyl exploded that resulted to the deaths of 30 employees and has adversely affected the health of thousands of people in the country and Eastern Europe. In 2011, the nuclear facility in Japan was ravaged by a massive tsunami that caused a huge accident because of the 3 nuclear meltdowns. The said accident unreleased deadly radioactive materials into the nearby residential areas. The said historical and disastrous accidents of nuclear power plants led to disposal of millions of dollars, relocation of thousands of people, and the spread of radiation-related disease. As a fact, the rates of children with elevated rapidly after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear plant incidents (Bunn, 1999).
Constructing a nuclear plant would need sophisticated technologies that should handle the various threats that such an infrastructure would pose like expensive costs, toxic wastes, and a lot of garbage. In managing such a facility, the government has to exert tremendous effort and allot substantial budget so that effective waste management would be implemented. Indeed, the release of bulk of toxic wastes is one of the major concerns in handling a nuclear plant.
Environmentalists are not pessimistic that this threat can be effectively managed by any means possible. In other words, there is no other way to prevent the release of toxic materials that are harmful to the health of the people and the environment by a nuclear facility (Cadenas, 2012).
Actually, nuclear wastes are radioactive that definitely harm the health of the people in the nearby communities. Unfortunately, there are no long-term storage solutions for radioactive wastes. Additionally, they are usually contained in a temporary and above-ground facilities. In countries with nuclear facilities, the main problem is that they are already running out of location to store them. They are looking for other storage locations that are less costly and secured, which is not that easy. For a more secured operation, nuclear plants should be located near a source of water for cooling. Unfortunately, sites with a water source that could not cause droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters are no longer sufficient.
Studies have shown that nuclear radiation can cause cancer. In connection, sites where nuclear plants are located have high risks of causes cancer to residents nearby. Children are especially vulnerable to cancer and leukemia due to the radiation generated by nuclear plants. In addition, workers would inevitably be exposed to nuclear radiations as they work within the plant. In fact, workers have the highest risks of acquiring cancer and other related diseases because of nuclear radiations.
Another reason for rejecting the development of a nuclear plants from the point of view of environmentalists is the chances of nuclear proliferation. With the installation of a nuclear program, there is a high possibility of the spread of nuclear weapons. The chances of being abuses by wrong people are very high since nuclear fuel and equipment would become available in the market. Consequently, the creation of nuclear plants is prone to corruption and may lead to political turmoil within and outside the country.
It invites a potential war against any superpower country that may be threatened about the destructive nature of a nuclear weapon that would compel them to take action against any country that possesses such weapon.
Environmentalists further argue that nuclear power plants potential threat to national security since they are magnets for terrorist operations. Terrorists may target nuclear facilities in order to cause major explosions that would lead to panic and fear among the residents. The explosion would also release dangerous radioactive material into the atmosphere that would infect the people who will inhale it. It has been identified that terrorists usually target nuclear research facilities, uranium enrichment plants, uranium mines and other related radioactive facilities in order to cause widespread contamination of the target population.
Nuclear Weapons: A Safer or A More Dangerous World
Realists Point of View: It is a safer world
With serous consideration on the accounts presented by realists and environmentalists, it is crucial to answer the issue as to whether the world would become a safer or more dangerous world. First and foremost, the realists are quite compelling in their arguments about human nature that people are naturally born to exert power over others. No matter how careful the states are in preventing the emergence of another catastrophic war, there will always be someone like Adolf Hitler (German), Joseph Stalin. (Russian), Benito Mussolini (Italian), Saddam Hussein (Iraqi), Mao Zedong (Chinese) who will be born and threaten the existing democratic atmosphere in the world (Masco, 2013). In other words, realists may be correct in their assumptions that man is a political animal. There are always be leaders who will rise into power and use a very potent weapon such as the nuclear weapon in obtaining ultimate control of the world. These kinds of leaders will always pose threat to global peace and order since human association is a matter of power struggle.
Unfortunately, their desire for domination is quite extreme as compared with ordinary individuals based on the theory of Nietzsche. As Nietzsche call them the “Supermen” who possess the knowledge and skills to completely influence and dominate other people will emerge in every generation and who will inevitably find ways or means to strike fear through weapons of mass destruction. Of course, nuclear weapons will catch their attention since such weapons are the most destructive among other types. Their master morality or mentality will always drive them into using nuclear weapons to attain the superpower status in the global politics as history suggests.
Consequently, every state has to protect itself from such possible global threats. The reality is that the possession of nuclear weapon is one of the most effective ways in doing it. So, global politics is being dictated by a mere possession of nuclear armaments as a weapon or energy source. The greater the degree of nuclear capacity, the higher the chances of grabbing power from the global perspective. In this respect, it would be difficult not to engage in nuclear acquisition since it is already the name of the game and a significant game changer (Munster and Sylvest, 2016).
While strong leaders like Hitler or Hussein will always nuclear armaments for destructive purposes or to instigate wars, there are other states that intend to use them promote peace and order in the global perspective. In other words, nuclear weapons can also serve as threat to those who will instigate war that would lead to peace and order. A possession of nuclear weapons will strike fear to those who want war and in the end prevent them from starting it. Thus, realists justify that possession of nuclear weapons is a means to an end, which is peace.
From a Machiavellian perspective, though nuclear weapons may have potential threats for contamination of people in the country, it is an effective deterrent to war. Indeed, it is a reality that a country that possesses a nuclear capability will not easily be attacked by another superpower due to their capacity for effective retaliation.
In that sense, nuclear capacity should not always be seen as a threat but also a means to promote peace. For a state to survive in this generation, it should at least show a certain capacity to defend itself from any military threat coming from other nations and possessing nuclear armaments is one way of doing it. Realists also assume that nuclear weapons are here to stay. It has already been invented and can be generated by modern technology especially by affluent countries. It is why there is no way to stop highly industrialized countries to construct power plants or nuclear weapons due to their sophisticated technology. There is also no guarantee that superpower nations will not use their nuclear capacity to wage war against other nations, which is built in human nature.
If this is so, the best response to the existence of nuclear weapons or nuclear plants is to use them to promote peace and prosperity, again they are a means to an end as Machiavelli recommends. Nuclear weapons should be used for defensive purposes, not for offense. If human nature dictates that people should dominate other people, it is also human nature to preserve oneself. In short, promoting peace is an effective way to preserve oneself rather than engaging in a war. The risk of dying or being killed is higher in war than in promoting peace and nuclear weapons should be utilized for the latter purpose.
Accordingly, nuclear capacity can also be used to foster prosperity or economic growth. Realists suggest that nuclear capacity is quite helpful in generating unlimited supply of energy.
Although there are risks to health of the people and the environment, these risks should be mitigated by proper management (Shultz and Goodby, 2015). It has been proven that nuclear power plants have tremendous advantages for a country especially to the residential areas and business sectors. One good example is the initiative of China to invest in nuclear power plants in the past three years in order to provide sustainable supply of energy to its billions of population. In fact, China has nuclear power plants that are two times greater than any other countries in the world (Bradsher, 2009).
The Chinese government has earned the benefits of nuclear plants as evident in unlimited supply of electricity that such facilities provided to its population and business industries. The government has also become independent in supply electricity to its population instead of purchasing them from other countries. Moreover, more and more foreign investors are entering the local market of China due to its very sustainable supply of energy through its nuclear plants (Hamblin, 2013).
Thus, for the realists, nuclear weapons and nuclear plants would definitely make the world safer than more dangerous because of the mentioned benefits that they can provide in a country and the global politics (Weart, 2012). For one thing, the premises about power hunger beings and the existence of nuclear weapons are already a reality. They could no longer be avoided and ignored because they are real and they exist. The best thing to do is to approach them in a positive manner and direct the effort toward more useful actions such as promoting peace and prosperity.
Environmentalists: It would be a more dangerous world
Undeniably, environmentalists are pessimistic enough to assume that there is no way that nuclear capacity can contribute to humanity especially in environment and international relations. The first victim of a possession of a nuclear facility is the environment. Its mere existence or construction in a land area already poses serious threat and damage to the environment. As the nuclear facility naturally generates radiation and radioactive materials that can thousands of people in the nearby residential areas. Moreover, the toxic wastes that nuclear plants tend to release can be disposed appropriately. There are always residues that can damage the environment (Masco, 2013).
In responding to the realists argument about human nature and the tendency to wage war by states, environmentalists argue that not possessing a nuclear weapon would is more effective in fostering peace than possessing such capability. Indeed, humans are rational beings but as well as moral ones. Though there are people who are naturally violent or power hunger, there are also those who are more concerned with others’ well being and the environment. Self-preservation would also require every country to preserve the environment. Without the environment, there are no countries or states. If world leaders would be rational about it, it is more rational and moral not to possess power plants or nuclear weapons. Creating nuclear weapons is more costly, destructive, and exhaustive in terms of time and effort spent on constructing and managing it. World leaders can always agree on this fact that the environment is the only source of energy and food supply that people in the world badly need (Weart, 2012).
So, the environment has to be preserved and it should be the priority rather than engaging in wars. Wars are expensive and destructive, which a rational being would realize in the end.
Lastly, promoting the welfare of the environment is more effective in fostering peace and prosperity than advancing the construction of nuclear capacity, which incites war and aggression (Shultz and Goodby, 2015).
Conclusion
This paper concludes that both realists and environmentalists have compelling arguments about nuclear weapons. It is better to accept the major and positive points of each theory in order to systematically settle the issue as to whether the world would be safer or more dangerous with the existence of nuclear weapons. The first point that has to be accepted is the fact that nuclear weapons can already be constructed given the technological capability of superpower nations. Nobody can stop them from creating such a destructive weapon or device. To counter it, nations should negotiate on how to use these weapons and should come up with a solution that would promote peace and prosperity. In this sense, environmentalists are correct to assume that humans are also rational that would motivate them to push more for peace than war. Environmentalists also have proven the destructive nature of nuclear weapons, which should be mitigated by proper planning and management. The highly industrialized nations should be convinced that nuclear deterrent is more reasonable than its proliferation. Also, nuclear capacity should be diverted toward more useful and peaceful outlets such as provision of sustainable energy given the security measures to be installed prior to their construction. Nuclear weapon is not per se evil and the political players are supposed to be the ones to rationalized the use of such weapon whether to promote peace or war.
References
Bradsher, K (2009). Nuclear Power Expansion in China Stirs Concerns. Retrieved from,
Bunn, M. (1999). Enabling A Significant Future For Nuclear Power: Avoiding Catastrophes,
Developing New Technologies, Democratizing Decisions -- And Staying Away From Separated Plutonium. Retrieved from,
Cadenas, J. (2012). The Nuclear Environmentalist: Is There a Green Road to Nuclear Energy?
Retrieved from, https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=YePNrM- fMhUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=environmentalists+on+nuclear+plant&hl=en&sa=X& ved=0ahUKEwiR4b2UuNbfAhWGdXAKHfPCBc8Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=enviro nmentalists%20on%20nuclear%20plant&f=false
Hamblin, J. (2013).Arming Mother Nature: The Birth of Catastrophic Environmentalism. Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=xDYzL9T5WkQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=envi ronmentalists+on+nuclear+weapon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin48r1uNbfAhVEMN 4KHRCuD_oQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=environmentalists%20on%20nuclear%20we apon&f=false
Lánczi, A. (2015). Political Realism and Wisdom. Retrieved from, https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=Pb- hCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=realism+in+political+science&hl=en&sa=X&ve d=0ahUKEwj92OP- s9bfAhXOP3AKHemkC1sQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=realism%20in%20political%20 science&f=false
Knoll, M. and B. Stocker (2014). Nietzsche as Political Philosopher
Pangle, T. (2013). Aristotle's Teaching in the "Politics"
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=wW--Retrieved from, BqlmRcUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=aristotle+politics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj O7NjttdbfAhXLQN4KHRKcDtEQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=aristotle%20politics&f=f alse
Masco, J. (2013). The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico. Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=qWsiAQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=env ironmentalists+on+nuclear+weapon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin48r1uNbfAhVEM N4KHRCuD_oQ6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=environmentalists%20on%20nuclear%20w eapon&f=false
McQueen, A. (2009). Political Realism in Apocalyptic Times
Retrieved from, https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=iqpCDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=reali sm+in+political+science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj92OP- s9bfAhXOP3AKHemkC1sQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=realism%20in%20political%20 science&f=false
Munster, R. and C. Sylvest (2016). Nuclear Realism: Global political thought during the thermonuclear revolution. Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=- Z37CwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=realists+for+nuclear+weapon&hl=en&sa=X &ved=0ahUKEwiR5YqIu9bfAhVZ7mEKHbjbCxcQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=realists %20for%20nuclear%20weapon&f=false
Shultz, G. and J. Goodby (2015).The War That Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence. Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=- yVpCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=realists+for+nuclear+weapon&hl=en&sa=X &ved=0ahUKEwiR5YqIu9bfAhVZ7mEKHbjbCxcQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=realists %20for%20nuclear%20weapon&f=false
Waltz, K. (2010). Theory of International Politics. Retrieved from, https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=OaMfAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=rea lism+in+political+science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj92OP- s9bfAhXOP3AKHemkC1sQ6AEIQzAF#v=onepage&q&f=false
Whelan, F. (2004). Hume and Machiavelli: Political Realism and Liberal Thought.
Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=2d4qgsSLZQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=machi avellian+realism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5kvzAt9bfAhUWd94KHWEZDfkQ6A EIKDAA#v=onepage&q=machiavellian%20realism&f=false
Weart, S. (2012). The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Retrieved from,
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=9KBD- YrGOVkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=environmentalists+on+nuclear+weapon&hl=en&sa =X&ved=0ahUKEwin48r1uNbfAhVEMN4KHRCuD_oQ6AEIRjAF#v=onepage&q=env ironmentalists%20on%20nuclear%20weapon&f=false