NUCLEAR ENERGY PROLIFERATION: LESSONS FOR THE THIRD WORLD NATIONS, 1945-2006

Background to the Study: Besides the many discoveries of Science and technology in the 20th Century, nuclear energy seems to be one of the few inventions which have more direct impact on people’s lives and the society at large. The innovation is profitable in several civilian uses. It is the safest, cleanest, cheapest and most efficient energy source, but the danger lies in its use for the manufacture of bombs and other destructive weapons. Ironically, some nations acquire nuclear energy for military advantage in an uncertain international system. Thus, as governments seek to survive as viable entities in the conflict prone International system, the desperate bid for nuclear energy becomes inevitable. However, the military, as one of the major determinants of national power, is only a reflection of other components of a state’s existence(Alfred ,2001).  In spite of measures taken by the international community to forestall the development and the diffusion of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear energy proliferation has become the hallmark of global discourse since the end of Second World War. It is widely accepted that the United States bombardment of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, 1945, ushered in the most destructive epoch in the development of nuclear technology in the globe.(Alfred,2001) However, the ideological rift between the United States and the Union of Soviet 10 Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) exacerbated the proliferation of nuclear devices. Five powers, namely, the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China are considered to be the major “nuclear haves’. Nonetheless, the new generation of nuclear powers, known as the “Phantom Proliferators”, adds a new phase to the spread of nuclear energy around the world. The “phantom proliferators” include India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and to a lesser degree, Argentina and Brazil. In all, over 31 nations have acquired nuclear reactors in the world. The dynamics of global politics has left the international system in a dilemma, arising from the antics of the “nuclear haves” and the “nuclear have nots”. Traditionally, the most advanced nations are referred to as the “nuclear haves”, while the Third World nations represent the “nuclear have nots”. The nuclear tests by India, Pakistan and North Korea are strong indications that some Third World nations have already acquired the capacity for Uranium enrichment and could be close to having a bomb in the basement.

1.2     Statement of Problem

No comparison is intended between energy resources, and thus no conclusion is reached as to which option is more preferable or best. Indeed, it would not be prudent to exclude any one of them. Accordingly, the point of singling nuclear energy out is just to underline the current drive of states for nuclear energy, and why this is the case.  Drastic increases in the energy needs of states force decision-makers to choose an economically viable and sustainable resource option, which brings huge output and also is cost-effective. Authorities, unlike other citizens, perceive that they are under the pressure of time in making decisions owing to the estimated short, medium, and long-term economic status of their countries.5 That said, options are mainly the renewable energy resources, carbon sequestration, increased energy efficiency, and nuclear energy.