Consider the claim that the world cannot do without nuclear technology.

Consider the claim that the world cannot do without nuclear technology.

History has shown us the scarring effects of nuclear technology -- whether in the form of a weapon, like the devasting bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan by the United States at the end of World War II, or whether in the event of failures or accidents at nuclear power plants. The vast destructive abilities that such technologies possess have caused the world to pause and think if nuclear technology is really necessary in today's world, and whether we would be better off without it. Although the world can, undoubtedly, survive without nuclear technology, as there are other alternative energy sources available, and nuclear weapons would no longer be problematic if all nations were to destroy their existing stockpiles and commit to not producing more weapons, the international community has a lot more to gain than to lose from these technologies, and I would hence argue that we cannot, and should not, go without them.

The most common argument put forth by anti-nuclear advocates is that all nuclear weapons should be eradicated because of the destructive power of these weapons, as well as the lasting effects of radiation. The haunting faces of children born deformed for generations to come in affected regions in the aftermath of the Japan bombings come to mind - innocent children who played no part in the war. Most advanced nations have developed non-nuclear weapons with similar destructive capabilities that do not have the same toxic effects of radiation. Since there are viable alternatives to nuclear weapons with comparable firepower and hence, can also serve as deterrence to other nations with the added bonus of not leaving lasting effects of radiation on the innocent, the world can go without nuclear technology.

However, buying into such arrangements without considering how this can be achieved is completely blind. Building a nuclear-free world requires worldwide cooperation where competing nations have varying opinions on such matters. The failure of the BARUCH plan in the past attests to this. While there are alternative weapons, nuclear weapons still remain one of the most destructive today and numerous countries still cling to their stockpiles in the face of new threats today. Considering Russia's annexation of Crimea this would arguably have not been possible if Ukraine had not chosen to give up its nuclear stockpile in the aftermath of the Cold War, and hence had little to deter the much larger and powerfully equipped Russia. Furthermore, even if we were to press the world to go nuclear-free, it would almost be impossible to ensure that nations are not secretly building weapons, especially considering the ease with which a nuclear power station, using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, could also produce high-grade radioactive substances that could be used for bombs. International compliance is difficult to ensure, and the world does not want a situation to arise where rogue states like North Korea and Iran are equipped with nuclear weapons while the rest of the world helplessly looks on.

Another case against the propagation of nuclear technologies would be the growing number of alternative clean energy sources available, which would make nuclear power unnecessary. Harnessing solar energy with the use of silicone panels and the building of hydroelectric power stations are just two of the ways, and scientists and researchers are continually improving the energy yields and lowering the costs of harnessing alternative energies, such that what was once prohibitively expensive can be afforded by the average household in the developing world. This is where the area of debate centres on as the building of nuclear power stations is expensive and falls mostly in the domain of rich nations. These alternative energies are much safer compared to the risks of nuclear power stations, where failures can result in devastating consequences, such as the disastrous meltdown at Chernobyl in Ukraine and the more recent failure at the Fukushima nuclear energy reactor after the tsunami in Japan. This has led national leaders to rethink their country's level of dependence on nuclear technology. In Germany, the government has considered closing the remaining nuclear power stations should they manage to generate sufficient energy to meet their country's needs from other clean sources.

While it is important to transit towards cleaner energy for the collective good of the world environment, the implementation of alternative technologies may not always be feasible, not just for cost reasons but due to other geographical constraints. For example, countries without large fast-moving bodies of water cannot build hydroelectric power dams, and nations located near the poles of the Earth would think it pointless to place solar panels nelson on rooftops since they do not receive much sunlight for most of the year. In Singapore, whose small land size makes harnessing wind energy and hydroelectric power unfeasible, other than solar energy, nuclear energy has been considered seriously as a viable alternative energy source for the future. Singapore plans to train one hundred experts to equip them with knowledge of nuclear technology as well as risk assessment, and shortly, experiment with the feasibility of building a nuclear power station. In such cases, while we desire that countries who can afford it shift away from non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels and coal, nuclear energy may be a crucial form of alternative energy, and hence we cannot go without it.

One last area where we have to consider the importance of nuclear technology, and hence, whether we can go without it, is the area of health and science. Currently, nuclear technologies and the use of radioactive substances have proved immensely beneficial to research scientists. Nuclear fission and fusion have allowed scientists to better understand the structure of atomic particles and hence gain insight into the chemistry of things on the sub-atomic level, allowing scientists to discover smaller particles and examine how they interact. Hence, to go without such technology would be to take a step backwards, against the direction of scientific advancement. Furthermore, progress in the development of technology has allowed for the use of radioactive substances to be more finely controlled than ever before the precise manipulation of nuclear substances has vast potential applications. For example, technology has allowed for radioactive substances to be inserted into a cancer patient's body to target only cancerous cells when in the past, these substances would have attacked both malignant and healthy cells. This shows that the proper application of nuclear technologies can lead to vast potential benefits and in areas such as health and science where any development that can treat or cure a disease, it plays a crucial role. Arguably then, we must go with nuclear technology, as it would mean closing off one potential avenue from which crucial medical advancements can be made.

In conclusion, the world can survive without nuclear technology. Still, the drawbacks of such a decision vastly outweigh its benefits. As an international community, it would be more helpful if we take greater measures towards regulating the use of nuclear technology and facilitating better communication and sharing of knowledge of nuclear technology capabilities. Nuclear technology has vast potential, both in the service and disservice of humanity. Our collective responsibility is to ensure that such technologies are meaningfully used, since ultimately, we cannot go without them.