President Obama Looking for Assurances from Pakistan on Nukes

President Obama, meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zadari this week, is slated to ask the Pakistani leader for assurances regarding Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons. Obama’s specific concern is that the arsenal could fall into the hands of Taliban militants and, on that note, Obama will also seek assurances that the Pakistani military will engage in coordinated efforts with U.S. and Afghani forces to remove Taliban extremists from Pakistan. Speaking of U.S. concerns over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and the upcoming discussions between Obama and Zadari, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs noted, "I don’t doubt that that will be mentioned."

Gibbs went on to say that "the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and the security of nuclear material throughout the world is something that the president thinks is of the highest priority." Obama and his administration are, apparently, especially concerned that extremist sympathizers among Pakistan’s military could clue in militants to the movement of nuclear weapons and materials.

Speaking on the issue, Join Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen told reporters yesterday that he was comfortable with the current level of security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, but was coy in answering questions about his confidence in the continuing security of the weapons. Mullen did say, however, "I know what we’ve done over the last three years, specifically, to both invest, assist, and I’ve watching them (Pakistan) improve their security fairly dramatically over the last three years." On the Pakistani side, the ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, said that the U.S. should not worry about the security of the weapons. Noted Haqqani, "They know we have an effective command and control system in place and that our safety standards are the same as other nuclear capable countries. At no stage have Pakistan's nuclear weapons been unsafe."
Books for Nuclear Weapons

Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of US ... - Stephen I Schwartz - 1998 - 750 pages

Nuclear Weapons

Local Energy Production Makes Sense

With the crisis in oil and natural gas prices, the continued violence in the Middle East, and the environmental concerns brought front and center by hurricanes Katrina and Rita, alternative fuels have managed to become a topic of conversation in the mainstream media.

Unfortunately, not all proposals make sense environmentally. The energy crisis has given the nuclear industry a major boost, despite problems with nuclear waste and vulnerability to terrorist threats, and Republicans in Congress are pushing even harder for drilling on the ecologically fragile Alaskan slopes. Meanwhile the oil companies, in an attempt to keep a stranglehold on the production of energy, are the ones getting billions of dollars in support for developing new technologies, including hydrogen fuel cell and ethanol development.

Let’s face it: If Standard Oil or Exxon could figure out a way to put a meter on the sun, we’d have solar energy in abundance tomorrow. Meanwhile, we really need to challenge this notion of having multinational, multi-billion-dollar companies the ones responsible for doling out our energy needs. Bringing energy production back to our shores from the Middle East, Venezuela, and other political hotspots is only the beginning of a solution.

We need every region in this country, and every community in each region, to make energy production a priority. In the Midwest, that can mean a combination of wind, solar, and ethanol or biodiesel production. Farmers particularly vulnerable to a rise in fuel to run their farm equipment could have their own small ethanol or biodiesel plants on-site, growing the raw material and then producing the fuel they need to operate their tractors, combines, and other machines. The Southeast could adopt solar technology on a house-by-house basis; just retrofitting every mobile home in the Sun Belt with solar air-conditioning capability could save billions in fuel demands every year. In the Northeast, a combination of solar energy and wind power in the summer and wind and biodiesel use in the winter, with family farms growing much of the raw material for the biodiesel, could cut the region’s dependency on heating oil, propane, and natural gas during the coldest months of the year. And all over the country, using sustainable farming and foresting methods to product corn and wood pellet products would provide still another efficient, low-emissions fuel.

Even hydrogen technology makes more sense produced on a local basis as part of a comprehensive energy plan. Hydrogen is produced by splitting water molecules into its component hydrogen and oxygen atoms; the hydrogen is then burned, producing more water. Using up massive amounts of water in centralized plants would put a tremendous demand on a locality’s water supply, and then would affect the environment in ways not now known as the fuel is burned and the water redistributed around the country. Locally, hydrogen could be produced using solar energy on a building by building basis, and then could be stored and used to fuel cars or for household energy use. The water produced by burning the hydrogen could also conceivably be collected and reused, limiting the demand on the water supply.

Thinking locally in terms of energy production and use could serve not only to break our dependence on foreign oil but could eventually free us from relying on corporate entities for our energy needs. That is true energy independence.
By Aldene Fredenburg
HowStuffWorks "How Nuclear Bombs Work"
Nuclear bombs are the most serious looming threat in just about any major conflict. Learn what gives nuclear bombs such immense power and what the long-

term ...

Nuclear Power becomes Popular Again

Nuclear power is on the increase due to increasing oil prices and greater insecurity around the world. Greenpeace is campaigning against this.

According to the Guardian (Monday March 27, 2006) the overwhelming majority of leaders at last week's European Union summit, including Tony Blair, strongly backed a revival of nuclear power as the answer to Europe's growing dependence on overseas supplies and to combat climate change.

Construction of nuclear power plants declined following the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl. Lately, there has been renewed interest in nuclear energy from national governments, the public, and some notable environmentalists due to increased oil prices, new passively safe designs of plants, and the low emission rate of greenhouse gas which some governments need to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol. A few reactors are under construction, and several new types of reactors are planned.

As of 2006 there are 442 licensed nuclear power reactors in operation in the world, operating in 31 different countries. Nuclear power plants currently provide about 17 percent of the world's electricity, yet how much of the world’s current and future environmental problems does Nuclear Power contribute to? Nuclear power has both powerful enemies and friends but does the bottom line come down to costs? The December 2005 World Nuclear Association report The New Economics of Nuclear Power states that "Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels". The need for cheap energy can not be argued when every week price increases are announced from all the gas and electricity suppliers in the UK. The Ukraine recently had their gas supply stopped by Russia, how long is it before this happens to the UK? Do we not need to be self-sufficient when it comes to the generation of power? Can renewable energy not begin to take a larger role in this supply? See GuideMeGreens green directory for renewable energy companies and recycled products in the UK.

The report goes on to say that fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants. At the NIA 2006 launch of the Commission’s position paper on the role of nuclear it confirmed "that nuclear is a low carbon technology with an impressive safety record in the UK" and "Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply." While we have an impressive record of safety in the UK, Chernobyl has proved that a nuclear accident thousands of miles away can effect the UK for decades to come. The Tsunami also caused problems at Nuclear Power plants around Asia as the plants are built near the sea due to the large amount of water needed to cool the rectors. Greenpeace has always fought vigorously against nuclear power because they believe that it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity and that the only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

By Mark Marris

Nuclear Weapons — Global Issues

This part of the globalissues.org web site looks into the issue of nuclear weapons around the world. How are the powerful nations dealing ...

Effort to End Eternity, PGS

PGS ( prompt global strike) airing rumour that US development of conventional weapon to the destructive capacity of nuclear warheads can reduce the dependency on the nuclear warheads. President of Russia and China are already threatened by such initiative by US.

Arm race has taken faster pace
The way the armed manufacturing countries are promoting instability in the regions, it seems world is US military planners have won President’s Obama support to develop new generation weapon that can strike any part of the world within an hour.

White house has formulated the funding of $250 million dollar for the research of hypersonic missiles.

PGS is new generation Weapon
Fast life, fast mind why not fast, faster and the fastest weapon the missile which can enable to take warheads to any part of the globe within an hour.

The US President’s plan of PGS ( prompt global strike) airing rumor that US development of conventional weapon to the destructive capacity of nuclear warheads can reduce the dependency on the nuclear warheads. President of Russia and China are already threatened by such initiative by US. Pentagon is trying to reach any part of globe within an hour indicating there is no excuse or reversible action for the mistake. Where heads will not get the time for war decision an all the reactions to be faster. Such news had already sown the seed of competition to prepare for faster devastation and death.

Many countries had already started doubting on integrity of the nations who are initiating a peace in name of reduction of nuclear warheads.

Peace Conferences and Meet war outcome
During world war it is being found the seed of war was sown during the talk for peace in peace conferences. The violent mind, argument and differences used to sow the seed of war and weapon race.

Recent convection at Washington where the head of France openly declared he would not compromise with the safety and security of his nation, highlighting the developed countries hypocrisy. He wants to have sufficient nuclear heads to protect the nation.

Stockpile of Nuclear Weapons to apply or for Display only
In total, as there are around 20000 nuclear weapons were being possessed by the world by different nations, we can foresee the devastation. Till date almost 2000 nuclear warheads tests were being conducted by various developed countries. Out of that USA has conducted almost 1200 and Russia 800.

A few years back there was statistic of most traded items in the world. The normal common sense perceived after petrol and petroleum products the most traded item world export and import should be agricultural products, garments, heavy machineries, or electronics items, gold , leather, etc as these are the needed commodities of human life, but beyond our imagination second and third position was acquired by the weapons and drugs respectively.

Merchant of Death
This year statistics says 1.4 trillion worth weapons and warheads will be traded and out of which USA will sell around 740 billion dollars worth weapons around the world. During the recession almost all the manufacturing industry sense the temperature of recession except the weapons manufacturing industry it has registered healthy growth.

Recently India raised the voice after defense secretary of USA regarding the supply of F 16 war planes to Pakistan and the defense secretary promised India to supply the warplanes with superior technology. Means by supplying weapons to both the party or countries they are going to generate billion of dollars business.

Awake out of Ignorance
Still people are sleeping in ignorance ignoring the upcoming devastation, though majority sure about the transformation by the 2012, still things may start earlier and we should not misconceived the dates, because world is not so small to get destroyed in a day.

Gateway to Transformation
The sign of transformation are quite visible as we are finding the recent volcanic eruption which could able to cancel 100000 flights; it could have been one of the major threats, if lava had erupted.

Just because of dust out of eruption whole airline got disrupted.
The sign of collapsing of world system
1- Sign of collapse of religious system with abuse cases among the spiritual leaders they may be saints or the church leaders .
Ex. Recently spiritual leader from India was captured with video camera and the resignation of the bishop of Belgium and Ireland had triggered serious doubts on the integrity of the religious heads. And no of cases are still pending for Pope review.
2- Political system is already in threats and disrupted due to weak self control, self restraint, abuses and corruption by the political leaders.
Which we are well aware of.
3- Similarly in the sphere of sports and entertainment things are worsening.
4- In the sphere of business with series of scam, bankruptcy, frauds cases people are helpless to take decision.

In addition to human sphere the nature is also warning with so many clues and incidents.

So instead of calculating dates for self transformation we need to have early preparation.

It may happen nothing will happen by 2012. And many of us may start neglecting the speed of effort for self progress and transformation. The intensity and frequency of speeds are going to increase with time and in last few minutes millions of destructive activities will happen at a time. So call of time suddenness, volatility, uncertainty and crisis. And God has given us the slogan to fight with uncertainty and suddenness is ever ready. It is not just ever ready; we should transform self before the time.

If time will teach us means with time everyone will be transformed by force they will not get any fruits out of this painful transformation. To enjoy the fruits of self transformation it should be permanent in nature and should be before the time and climax.

Recently "Just a Minute" program being launched by the Brahma Kumaris UK, branch, according to it each individual has to devote one minute time out of one hour to be at Peace. I hope all of us can do it to link self with self with eternal quality of Peace Start to regain undiluted, undisturbed and unending peace of mind.

By Shiba Prasad Parhi
Nuclear Weapons - Brookings Institution
At least nine nations are believed to have nuclear weapons – the United States, ... Other nations may have nuclear weapons or are working towards them, ...

Your Hands Can't Hit What Your Eyes Can't See

Your Hands Can't Hit What Your Eyes Can't See
- Muhammad Ali

In the 1970s, the U.S. military wanted a replacement for the aging B-52 bomber. The requirement was for a flying machine that could not only carry nuclear bombs all over the world but also be completely invisible while it does so. Something like this existed only in the dreams of military mandarins all over the world. The B-2 bomber, commonly known as the stealth bomber, was an ambitious project, to say the least.

Northrop Grumman, the defense firm that won the bomber contract, spent billions of dollars and nearly 10 years developing the top-secret project. The finished product is a 172-foot wide flying wing that looks like a small bird to radar scanners.

An ordinary airplane consists of a fuselage (the main body), two wings and three rear stabilizers attached to the tail. The wings generate lift, hoisting the fuselage into the air. The B-2 bomber has a completely different design: It's one big wing, like a boomerang. Instead of separate wings supporting all the weight of the fuselage, the entire craft works to generate lift. Eliminating the tail and fuselage also reduces drag -- the total force of air resistance acting on the plane.

It can go 6,900 miles (11,000 km) without refueling and 11,500 miles (18,500 km) with one in-flight refueling. It can get anywhere on Earth on short notice. Northrop Grumman have been developing flying wings since the 1940’s but they suffered from stability problems in the past.

By the 1980s, advancements in computer technology made the flying wing a more viable option. Northrop Grumman built the B-2 with a sophisticated fly-by-wire system. The pilot controls a computer and the computer controls the steering system. The B-2 bomber needs only a two-person crew -- a pilot and a mission commander who sit in a cockpit at the front of the plane.

The B-2 is a huge plane, but its advanced stealth capabilities make it seem smaller than a small bird on radar. The B-2's flat, narrow shape and black coloration help it fade into the night. Even in the daytime, when the B-2 stands out against blue sky, it can be hard to figure out which way the plane is going. The B-2 emits minimal exhaust, so it doesn't leave a visible trail behind it. The B-2's noisiest component is its engine system but they are buried inside the plane. This helps muffle the noise. The efficient aerodynamic design is another factor that helps keep the B-2 quiet.

In the B-2, all of the exhaust passes through cooling vents before flowing out of the rear ports. The B-2 has two major defenses against radar detection. The first element is the plane's radar-absorbent surface. In the same way that certain materials absorb light very well (black paint), some materials are particularly good at absorbing radio waves.

The second element in radar invisibility is the plane's shape. The large flat areas on the top and bottom of the plane are just like tilted mirrors. These flat areas will deflect most radio beams away from the station, presuming the station isn't directly beneath the plane. The plane does emit radio energy when using its radar scanner or communicating with ground forces and other aircraft, but the radar signal is small and highly focused, making it less susceptible to detection.

Although the U.S. Air Force has increased the public visibility of Stealth Bomber with fly-overs at various events getting a closer look is impossible for the public.

The Stealth bomber had however come for a lot of criticism in the U.S. Congress because Northrop Grumman upped the price tags of the bombers by more than 3 times the original price after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Clinton administration nevertheless went ahead with the purchase of these magnificent flying machines.
By Anish Chandy
Nuclear Weapons - News - Science
News about nuclear weapons. Commentary and archival information about atomic weapons from The New York Times.

Greenpeace

by Rex Weyler
(Rodale Press, September 2004). ISBN 1594861064

Greenpeace Gets a Name

Greenpeace was founded as much by happenstance as by design. In October 1969, the United States detonated a one-megaton nuclear bomb on remote Amchitka Island, 2,400 miles northwest of Vancouver in the Aleutian Islands. The blast created a Richter 6.9 shockwave around the world. Vancouver Sun columnist Bob Hunter, recalling a 1964 tsunami that had caused $1.4 million in damage to Port Alberni, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, wrote in his column: "There is a distinct danger that the tests might set in motion earthquakes and tidal waves which could sweep from one end of the Pacific to the other." For a disarmament rally in front of the U.S. consulate, Hunter came up with the slogan "Don’t Make a Wave." When the U.S. Department of Defense announced another test, five times more powerful, a five-megaton thermonuclear blast, for the fall of 1971, Vancouver antiwar and environmental activists rose up to stop it. American Quaker Irving Stowe, living in Point Grey, phoned journalists Hunter and Ben Metcalfe from the CBC, his expatriate American friends Jim and Marie Bohlen, local members of the Sierra Club, and others. Stowe organized the group that came to be known as the "Don’t Make a Wave Committee."

On Sunday morning, Feb. 8, 1970, Jim and Marie Bohlen drank coffee in the kitchen of their home on West 19th, in the arborous neighbourhood of Dunbar. >From the typically overcast winter sky, a diffused light filtered through the chestnut trees and into the large window. Marie, a nature illustrator, watched busy juncos and chickadees in the damp morning foliage. Jim told Marie he was frustrated with the Sierra Club for its failure to take up the nuclear weapons issue, and with the Don’t Make a Wave Committee for its inability to arrive at a strategy. Marie sipped her coffee and watched the birds. Jim seethed as he read the newspaper. He got a second cup of coffee. Finally, somewhat casually, Marie said, "Why not sail a boat up there and confront the bomb?"

The Bohlens, and most of the disarmament crowd, knew of the

Golden Rule , the boat that had attempted to sail into the Enewetak test zone in 1958; the

Phoenix that actually made it; and the Everyman that was arrested en route. Bob Hunter and lawyer Hamish Bruce had launched the tiny fishing boat,

Maddy , to stage ecology actions, but it had sunk at dockside. Rod Marining and others had discussed the idea of procuring a ship, but Marie’s suggestion was pure inspiration, detached from the practicalities. It just seemed to her like the right thing to do.

Jim and Marie were contemplating this when the phone rang. A reporter from the

Vancouver Sun , making a routine call and looking for a story, asked what campaigns the Sierra Club might be planning. The synchronicity caught Bohlen off guard. Out of frustration, he took the plunge. "We hope to sail a boat to Amchitka to confront the bomb," he explained. To Bohlen, this may have been a hypothetical idea, but to the

Sun reporter, it was a scoop. The journalist dug for more information, and before Bohlen knew it, he was describing how they would sail inside the 12-mile limit. "If the Americans want to go ahead with the test," he said, "they’ll have to tow us out. Something must be done to stop the Americans from their insane ecological vandalism."

The Sun ran the story the next day. The headline proclaimed: Sierra Club Plans N-Blast Blockade.

The initial glitch was that the Sierra Club had approved no such campaign. This was a concern for Terry Simmons, who had set up the B.C. chapter with the blessings of the Seattle group but had not received official sanction from Sierra Club headquarters in San Francisco. What happened next would be later disputed in people’s memories and clouded by myth, but over the next week the Don’t Make a Wave Committee devised a plan to sail a boat to Amchitka Island and gave the boat a name, although no such boat had been committed to the cause.

That week, in the Fireside Room of the Vancouver Unitarian Church on Oak Street, the committee held an emergency meeting. Light entered the unadorned room from two tall, thin windows in the west wall facing Oak. Wooden and grey metal chairs had been pulled out, facing a table where Irving Stowe presided between the windows. The throng pulsated with anticipation. Although Marie’s idea and Jim’s pronouncement to the media had bypassed the consensus process, no one opposed the plan for a boat. On the contrary, the idea had given the group some direction. Terry Simmons made it clear that the Sierra Club might have nothing at all to do with the plan. Although Don’t Make a Wave had originally been a committee of the Sierra Club, it now assumed ad hoc status. The group unanimously ratified the action, although they had neither a boat, nor the money to charter one, nor any legal standing other than the democratic right of citizens to assemble and challenge their governments.

As the meeting wound down, they discussed what kind of boat they needed and who would find it. Some people drifted into the courtyard of the Unitarian Church grounds and others milled around inside and talked in small groups. When Stowe left the meeting, he flashed the "V" sign, as was his custom, and said, "Peace." Bill Darnell, a quiet ecology activist who rarely spoke at the meetings, said modestly, in the same offhanded manner that Marie Bohlen had suggested the boat, "Make it a green peace."

The assembly went silent for a moment. Darnell was not aware that anyone took notice, yet everyone heard the magic in the two words. Others in the group had discussed the confluence of disarmament and ecology, and Hunter and Metcalfe had written about the idea, yet no one had quite articulated the fusion so succinctly. The indelible conjugate lodged in people’s minds.

A green peace. A few days later, Stowe confided to Darnell that he could not stop thinking about the words. Hunter believed the expression fused the two most urgent movements in human affairs. Metcalfe said, "Yeah, well, it fits better in a headline than the Don’t Make A Wave Committee." Over the next few days, people talked about the hypothetical boat as if it already existed, and some called it "the Green Peace ."

For more information, visit www.rexweyler.com or www.writtenvoices.com
Nuclear Weapons
Since 1945, when the first nuclear bomb was exploded by the Manhattan Project team in the US, nuclear weapons have proliferated across the globe. ...

The World’s First Nuclear Reactor

By Earl Hunsinger

Nuclear power is considered by many to be complicated and dangerous. The use of radioactive materials certainly has the potential to be dangerous. The radioactive waste produced by this use is even more potentially dangerous, if only because of the need for safe, long term storage. However, as far as being complicated, nuclear power plants are only complicated because of the redundant safety measures used. Many people would probably be surprised to learn that in itself the generation of power from radioactive materials (uranium) is not complicated at all. In many ways it is simpler than burning coal. The very name given to the nuclear material used implies this simplicity. The uranium at the heart of the power plant, the nuclear reactor, is often called a nuclear pile. The history of the first nuclear pile illustrates why this is so, along with the simplicity of this most feared source of power.

On September 12, 1933, the famous physicist Lord Rutherford was quoted in The Times of London as saying that anyone that looked to the atom as a potential source of power was "talking moonshine." As the Hungarian theoretical physicist Leo Szilard later said, "Pronouncements of experts to the effect that something cannot be done have always irritated me." As a consequence, as Szilard stopped on a street corner in London’s Southampton Row waiting for the light to change, he was thinking of how Rutherford might be proved wrong. As the light changed to green and he began to walk across the street, he realized that the solution was to find an element that would be split when struck by neutrons and would release two neutrons for every neutron that it absorbed. With a large enough quantity of this element a chain reaction could be created, with two neutrons becoming four, four becoming eight, and so on. This simple, yet profound insight, would lead to nuclear power plants, and their more sinister cousins, atomic bombs.

Eventually, it was discovered that uranium could be used to sustain the type of chain reaction that Szilard had envisioned. By 1942, the world was engulfed in war and the Manhattan Project had begun. The scientists working on this top secret scientific project had been charged with the task of building the world’s first atomic bomb. As part of this work, the Italian immigrant and physicist Enrico Fermi was leading a group of scientists (including Leo Szilard) in the construction of the world’s first nuclear reactor. The site chosen for the experiment was a squash court under the football field at the University of Chicago. Blocks of graphite and uranium were laid in a circular pattern on the floor of the court. The plan was to stack these blocks so that they eventually formed a sphere (literally a pile) with a radius of approximately thirteen feet. Cadmium rods were added as the blocks were stacked. These would absorb neutrons and so stop the chain reaction.

According to the University of Chicago website, when the last of the cadmium coated rods was withdrawn at 3:25 pm on December 2, 1942, the world’s first self sustaining nuclear chain reaction was initiated.

The world’s first nuclear pile had very few safety devices. The book The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes, estimated that if the scientists present on that day had allowed the chain reaction to continue for an hour and a half, the reactor would have reached a million kilowatts. Long before that it would have killed them all and melted down. One of the only safety systems that they employed consisted of the spare cadmium rods suspended over the pile of uranium by a rope, with a man standing by the rope with an axe, ready to cut it if things got out of control. According to Paul W. Frame of the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, the nuclear safety term SCRAM, which refers to the sudden shutdown of a reactor, pays homage to this man. SCRAM is said to stand for "safety control rod axe man."

Present day nuclear reactors are much more than just a pile of nuclear and graphite bricks. Steam is produced from the heat generated by the chain reaction. This steam is used to turn turbines, which are used to generate electricity. Extensive shielding is built around the radioactive material and elaborate safety and control systems are installed. Still, as complicated as these systems are, the basic principle remains the same as it was way back then in that squash court. Uranium is stacked up to form a "nuclear pile."

For more technical information about the first chain reaction, please see the website Chemcases.com
Nuclear Weapons
Information on nuclear weapons design, production, materials, testing and effects both historic and current. Includes diagrams and explanations of the ...

President Obama Calls for End Nuclear Weapons – Worldwide

Speaking in Prague yesterday, President Barack Obama called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons...worldwide. The broad, sweeping sentiments are a signal from the Obama administration to would-be atomic powers Iran and North Korea that the U.S. is serious about stewarding in an era of worldwide denuclearization. Obama noted Friday that he wished to lay out a specific plan to secure the loose and "rogue" nuclear materials around the world and to try to cease the spread of illegal weapons. He also noted that his overall agenda was "to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Obama went on to say that, "Even with the Cold War over, the spread of nuclear weapons or the theft of nuclear material could lead to the extermination of any city on the planet." It is clear from his past statements while in the U.S. Senate and now as president that Obama wishes to aggressively pursue global denuclearization. Said White House Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, "The president has been very focused on these issues of proliferation for many years."

McDonough went on to say on Saturday evening that, "Tomorrow, I think you’ll hear the president, in a very comprehensive way, outline many of the things that he’s been talking about and working on for some time." Together, Obama and McDonough will try to seek a revival of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a treaty ratified in 1970 that features steps toward denuclearization and forbids non-nuclear nations and states from attempting to acquire such weapons.
List of states with nuclear weapons
Nations that are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons are sometimes ...

Pros of Nuclear Energy

The topic of using nuclear energy for civilian use has been a matter of debate in world politics. This form of energy can be used for used for civilian needs, if proper care is taken. However, the history of use of nuclear weapons still poses a threat to modern society. Creating nuclear power in a controlled environment though, is possible for solving the current energy crisis faced by the world. It requires a responsible and efficient government to handle such energy programs. This topic is a controversial one, and has nothing to do with our main course of discussion in the article. However, having an idea about pros and cons of nuclear energy should be useful. For the time being, let us try to understand what are the advantages/pros of nuclear energy. Get more information on advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy.

Advantages of Nuclear Energy

The advantages and benefits of nuclear power are discussed in the paragraphs below. Let us first know about the pros of nuclear energy and then, about nuclear energy pros and cons in subsequent paragraphs.

• Reduction in the CO₂ emissions is one of the most important benefits of using nuclear energy. Nuclear power is a clean form of energy, and holds potential to minimize the problem of global warming (resulting from CO₂ emissions) to some extent.
• The amount of energy generated in a nuclear plant is many times greater than that produced by other, conventional means. Nuclear fission is the reaction which takes place in the production of this form of energy; it is due to this chemical reaction that a high amount of energy is generated.
• It is not necessary to develop the technology needed for the generation of nuclear energy from scratch. This technology is readily available. Learn more about uses of nuclear energy.
• Requirement of fuel in the production of nuclear energy is less in comparison to that of other methods. Uranium is the raw material/fuel used in the production of nuclear power. The reserves of uranium in the world would last for next 50-60 years. The demand for uranium should also influence/affect the time taken for complete depletion of the resource.
• Use of nuclear energy is best demonstrated in space propulsion applications. A relatively less reaction mass is needed in the generation of high mission velocities by the use of nuclear reaction. Higher energy density of nuclear reactions producing this form of energy is the reason why a lesser reaction mass is required. Here are few more facts on the advantages of nuclear power.

Production of Nuclear Energy

A controlled form of nuclear reaction is used in the production of nuclear energy. The nuclear fission reaction which is used in these power plants helps in heating water to form steam. The steam in turn is used to generate electricity.

Nuclear Fusion: The reaction of nuclear fusion is considered to be much safer than nuclear fission. This is because, the nuclear waste generated from nuclear fusion should be lesser than the fission reaction. The technical difficulties have acted as hurdles in the successful implementation of nuclear fusion for energy production on a large scale. Otherwise, the method is said to have great potential. More information on what is nuclear fusion and how does nuclear power work should be helpful.

Cons of Nuclear Energy

No matter how appealing and cost-effective the use of nuclear energy seems to be, there few disadvantages of using it. It is therefore, necessary to understand both the pros and cons of nuclear energy. The nuclear waste created by the power plants emit harmful radiations, if not disposed properly. Radiations produced from these wastes do not get extinguished for thousands of years. Thus, great care is required in handling the nuclear wastes. Let us find out more about nuclear power pros and cons.

The pros and cons of nuclear energy discussed in this article should be useful in understanding the subject from various angles. Along with pros of nuclear energy, the associated dangers need to be understood and tackled properly. Great maturity and responsibility needs to be shown by governments of countries which make use of this form of energy. If nuclear energy in the form of weapons fall in wrong hands, it won't require much time for World War III to begin. Nuclear energy as a tool can be therefore, be referred to as a double-edged sword which needs to be used with utmost care.
By Shashank Nakate
Nuclear weapon
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force ...

The Advantages of Nuclear Energy

By Wendy Pan

In a world where the threat of global warming is looming over the future of our planet, it is becoming more and more important to look into renewable, alternative forms of energy. With energy use growing at a rate of 3% per year, soon it will be inevitable to explore our options. Though it has been under much scrutiny in the past, the advantages of nuclear energy make it one form of powering our planet that should strongly be considered. By reducing emissions, the production of nuclear energy would in turn reduce the effects of global warming. In comparison with gas and coal fired power plants, nuclear energy plants create less than 1/100th of the CO2 created by the traditional power plants.
There are 2 processes in producing nuclear energy- fission and fusion. Fission, which is the splitting of nuclei, creates more than 10 million times the energy that is created in the burning of fossil fuels. Fusion, which is the process of joining nuclei, happens naturally in stars and the sun, and though the process has been recreated by man, it has not yet been safely controlled. When the ability to safely harness the energy from the fusion process has been developed, the amounts of usable nuclear energy will dramatically increase.
Nuclear energy can be renewable depending on the type of reactor that is being used. Currently, there are 442 reactors operating in the world, 130 of which are in the United States. Another 12 are being built in foreign countries. With the current technology, only 1% of the energy available in uranium is able to be captured by thermal reactors. This energy makes up between 11% and 18% of the total energy available in the world. Developing technologies that would allow us to capture more of this available energy, is at least 15 years away, but with incentives, these advances could be a realistic part of our future. The potential is not the only part of the advantages of nuclear energy.
Uranium, the source of nuclear energy, is available in large quantities in Australia. The uranium is reasonably cheap to mine, and easy to transport to reactors around the globe, making nuclear energy relatively inexpensive to produce when compared to conventional methods of energy production. The average finished cost of nuclear energy is between 3 and 5 cents per kilowatt, and the cost has dropped over the last 26 years, while the cost of other forms of energy has risen steadily over the same period of time.
When considering the advantages of nuclear energy, it is also important to keep in mind the challenges that the process also comes with. Radiation accidents are at the top of the list. Since the 1950's, 17 accidents have been reported throughout the world, with only a few causing serious illness and death. While health and public safety are of utmost concern, we must consider the relatively low accident rates, and how further advances in technology could help prevent other accidents from occurring.

Nuclear power

Nuclear power is the use of sustained Nuclear fission to generate heat and do useful work. Nuclear Electric Plants, Nuclear Ships and Submarines use ...