Nuclear Liability Issue Between The United States And India

The president can't tell you what we got. I'll tell you what the world got. The world has a burgeoning nuclear power that didn't, as the

John Paul Jones states, “It seems to be a law of nature, inflexible and inexorable, that those who will not risk cannot win.” The controversy regarding the utilization of nuclear energy focuses upon the assessment of whether the hazards involved are worth the potential benefits. Throughout the progression of mankind, advancements in energy and power production have consistently transformed all lifestyles. Such advancements have, in addition, provided extensive information pertaining to the sciences. Regrettably, resources scarcely exist, and destruction of the planet is inevitable. Innovations for power source fabrication, ones that prove to be renewable, are not optional projects. Such requirements are demanded on every continent. Despite

Background Information. In the past 10 years the usage of nuclear energy has become one of the most polarizing issues of the world. Especially in the Middle East when a country reveals information about its nuclear program, the west considers this country as a threat and tries all possible ways to stop this program.

The responsibility to ensure the safety of nuclear energy production throughout the world is in the hands of people. But, the layperson concept may be a bit askance because many consumers may view the issue of nuclear energy only in terms of price considerations. This is a discomforting notion considering the myriad of risks involved, especially in light of the consequences that have occurred at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukraine. While no comparison exists in the United States (U.S.) that would enable U.S. citizens to understand the human and environmental toll that results when something tragically wrong occurs; it remains well past the time for us to consider real solutions to our energy needs that do not have the potential for such wide-spread devastation. Regardless of the various technologies and engineering acumen used to operate nuclear power plants, they are only as effective safety-wise as those who are charged with maintaining security.

Despite the potential harmful effects of nuclear energy, it is a necessary step for this country and world to take for the future. William Tucker holds this position in his article, “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima.” This article made its appearance on the April 23, 2011 edition of the Wall street Journal.

Brown also foresees a political problem – which nuclear power may be selectively pursued by the developed countries only. However, I am of the opinion that nuclear power remains credible and is the solution to lowering carbon emissions. The next section of this paper will expand on the arguments for nuclear power, against the backdrop of renewable energy challenges and nuclear

There is often speculation surrounding Nuclear energy. There were reports that the British applied to the United States for permission to carry out their first atomic bomb in the flats of Nevada. These reports were met with much speculation due to the physical size and observable flaws in the British program . This highlights an important problem with Nuclear energy production. Many countries pursue Nuclear energy for weaponry or other status symbols. When Nuclear Energy is harnessed, it can have a significant effect. Developments in Nuclear energy have had a great impact on global carbon emissions and have significantly decreased the footprint that energy production leaves on the environment. The progress that the American West and other industrialized countries have made in Nuclear energy and other renewable methods provide a reliable alternative to other energy sources that increase carbon emissions.

As we head towards the next millennium, no longer are there a few, traditional forces to lead the world economically. "Third-world" nations, such as India, are beginning to harness their manpower into greater modes of production, which signifies the end of "superpowers," and the beginning of economic parity throughout the world. In this age of globalization, it is becoming quite clear that no longer can the United States dictate world order. In the coming years, expect interdependence from every country, which will eliminate the state of the superpowers as we know it. India, which maintains the world’s largest democracy, is one nation that is making strides to assert their presence as a world power.

For the past 50 years, the United States has been using nuclear energy as one of it’s main non-renewable energy sources. The source of nuclear energy comes from nuclear power plants, which efficiently generates large quantities of energy and has low greenhouse gas emissions, compared to traditional coal power plants. Currently, there are 61 nuclear power plants operating in the U.S. and using nuclear power plants as a main energy source has always been a controversial problem within U.S. society. By the time nuclear power plants bring people convenience, they bring more disadvantages instead.

Debating Whether Nuclear Power Should Be Developed for Future Energy Supplies Introduction I am writing this essay to debate the idea of having nuclear power developed for future use by us. This takes on a major issue and covers many aspects of our nations energy use both in present and for the future. When we think about nuclear power we do not automatically think of it as a non renewable energy source. This is because it is not part of the fossils fuels; coal, oil and gas, which we all know will not last us as reliable energy sources for much longer.

Nuclear energy was supposed to be the energy of the future. The ‘energy of tomorrow.’ It was to safely and cheaply meet all of the United States’ energy needs for years to come (Karl Jagers, Kullander pg. 1). Yet according to the World Nuclear Association only twenty percent of our nation’s power comes from nuclear reactors (Nuclear Power in the USA).

In light of this, the United Nations Security Council approved a program of sanctions against Iran (“Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). No significant negotiated deal was reached with Iran on its nuclear program until the JPA, ie. JCPOA, in 2014. The JPA requires Iran “ to remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent” (“ Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). The hope behind this is that Iran will have a vastly increased timeframe in which they would be able to produce a viable nuclear weapon. That increase in time needed to produce a bomb plus increased transparency to nuclear inspectors, not only to “Iranian nuclear facilities, but to...uranium mills....the centrifuge production and storage facilities”, would kill Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon before it could truly begin (Obama “ A Historic Understanding 1). In return, sanctions on Iran were lifted and they are allowed to rejoin the international economic community.

The matter was taken to the United Nations Security Council, and a program of sanctions against Iran was approved ( “Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). No significant negotiated deal was reached with Iran on its nuclear program until the JPA in 2014. The JPA requires Iran “ to remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent” ( “ Iran Nuclear Deal” 1). The hope behind this is that Iran will have a vastly increased timeframe in which they would be able to produce a viable nuclear weapon. That increase in time needed to produce a bomb plus increased transparency to nuclear inspectors, not only to “Iranian nuclear facilities, but to...uranium mills....the centrifuge production and storage facilities”, would kill Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon before it could truly begin ( Obama “ A Historic Understanding 1). In return, some sanctions on Iran are lifted and they are able to rejoin the international economic community.

The industrial revolution marked the start of the new face of the world with the improved development and quality of life. The revolution increased the rate at which new and complex discoveries have come to be across the world. Countries have over the years embarked on exploiting their natural resources to develop their economies and improve the standard of living of the residents. The international community has however raised issues on how the discovered resources are used because of the security threats that arise as a result. Nuclear energy is one the major discoveries made by a number of countries to provide power and energy for both domestic and industrial use. Nevertheless, the discoveries have raised significant threats to the

This Policy of Nuclear parity for Deterrence not only sustained the global balance of power but also to major extend, reason for a peaceful and stable world system for decades (Waltz, 1990. Same is the case with South Asian region specifically in case of arch rivals Pakistan and India. Both states have been is state of hostile since 1947. Both neighbors have engaged in copious border clashes to fully fledged wars. The Nuclear capability and to get a strong foot hold in power politics of the region, both states have engaged in the “Nuclear arms race” since the 1970s. Both are not ready to halt the development process of these weapons. Hence forth the nuclear parity for deterrence is fully functional in South Asia.