The Struggle For Nuclear Power

Libya, another nation that was considered an immediate threat for the United Nations because of their nuclear development plans had recently promised to end their bombing-make labors and the American government state that “ The Success of [Their] mission in Libya underscores the success of this administration’s broader nonproliferation efforts around the world” . However of those two rogue nations North Korea is considered to be a bigger danger since unstable treaty which ended the Korean War didn’t eliminate the hostilities between the authoritarian regime of North Korean and the United States. Nevertheless, on 1994 Bill Clinton signed a treaty with North Korea that ended their plutonium production in exchange of energy supplies from the United States. This agreement ended when on October 2002, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, James A. Kelly, visited North Korea and stated that the visit was “frank but useful” and “raised, in a frank manner, our concerns on a full range of issues, including weapons of mass destruction, missile-development programs, missile exports, North Korea's threatening conventional force posture, human rights failings and the dire humanitarian situation.” Right after this, North Korea Withdrew form the Non Proliferation Treaty and was kicked out from the United Nations and expanded their

America’s nuclear energy plants are — by a wide margin — the nation’s largest source of carbon-free power. They produce clean, reliable electricity as well as well-paying jobs. Although several dependable nuclear plants have closed in recent years for economic reasons, nuclear energy is getting a fresh look for its ability to produce vast amounts of power without emitting greenhouse gases. And with new reactor designs, both big and small, scientists and technologists are re-engineering the future of nuclear energy for everyone’s benefit.

Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or

Dating back to the Korean War, North Korea has insisted its demand for nuclear weapons. North Korean leaders and officials claim this right on the basis to safeguard North Korea’s dignity, sovereignty and ensure peace in its nation. Since its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in January 2003, North Korea has demonstrated unacceptable behavior violating its obligations, in order to progress its nuclear weapon program.

North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons program is a major international crisis. In early September of this year the radical regime of North Korea conducted a Nuclear Weapons test, which broke regional stability and put the world on alert. North Korea continues to test intercontinental ballistic missiles and develop more dangerous nuclear warheads to eventually strategically strike South Korea and the United States. The test was later confirmed by many intelligence agencies as real and extremely powerful. With current policies failing to address the issue of North Korean Nuclear weapons program the international community should implement policies of coercive diplomacy, non-government organization executed soft power or putting pressure on China to end the threat of a nuclear weapons attack.

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

In the 1950’s and the 1960’s North Korea came forth as a Nuclear Power (5). With the help from the Soviet Union, North Korea was able to develop nuclear research. Eventually, October 9, 2006, North Korea broadcasted that the government directed a nuclear test (6). The United States analyzed the situation and authorities were able to verify that the underground explosion was nuclear. The United States, along with a few other countries, ordered a United Nations Security Council meeting. Together they coordinated an international

William Tucker, author of “Why I Still Support Nuclear Power, Even after Fukushima”, gives perquisite explanation of interesting points supporting his cause. Tucker believes that after all the harm from nuclear power in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power is better than any other natural resources used for the same cause, such as, coal, natural gas, and even a hydroelectric dam. In William Tucker’s words, he claims, “The answer is that there are no better alternatives available. If we are going to maintain our standard of living—or anything approximating it—without overwhelming the earth with pollution, we are going to have a master nuclear technology.” William Tucker addresses the emotions and sense of worry of his audience. I believe William

William Tucker, author of "Why I still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima" explains, "It's not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days"(Tucker 228). Tucker questions why there is use of harmful nuclear energy when there are better technologies available; in contrast, he then provides examples that prove there are no better alternatives and other energy technologies are equally not without risk. In a five year period, uranium rods sit in a reactor core and transform six ounces of its original weight into energy and as a result obtains the ability to power a large city similarly to the size of San Francisco for five years (Tucker 228). Tucker shows how natural gas, wind mills, solar collectors, and hydroelectric dams are

During Kim Jong IL'S reign, the government in North Korea was very unorganized and poor. “In 1994, the year Kim inherited North Korea's reins from his late father, the country was in the midst of a severe agricultural decline. The newly minted despot transformed it into a famine that would claim as many as three million lives. Food shortages have plagued the country ever since” (Weissmann). Since the death of Kim Jong IL, Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea, agreed to “stop” the nuclear tests and freeze the nuclear program in return would be food aid from the United States on February 29, 2012. This agreement included uranium enrichment and long range missile tests ("North Korea | Countries | NTI"). In April 2012, North Korea and the United States got into an argument over the launch of a rocket. North Korea then decided that their past agreement of freezing the nuclear program was now ineffective and conducted a nuclear test anyway in February 2013. On February 6 Pyongyang announced that all of its nuclear facilities would be restarted at Yongbyon. The United States knows this is not just North Korea bluffing. Satellite imagery has confirmed that the 5MW graphite-moderated reactor and the uranium enrichment plant has been put into work ("North Korea | Countries | NTI"). Not just the United States, but Japan, China, and everyone around North Korea must be on high alert. “ Reports indicate that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea has about 12 facilities where raw chemicals, precursors and agents are produced and stored. As well as 6 major storage depots for chemical weapons” ("North Korea | Countries | NTI"). It has come to light that North Korea never officially stopped the nuclear program (Mark Toner). Since then, North Korea has been performing multiple nuclear

Logically it 's not hard to see that if there is a limited supply of something, one day it will finally run out. What happens when society relies on a resource that is nonrenewable? This is something that scientists are struggling with more and more each passing day. Though this is true of many substances that humans use (helium, chocolate, gold...), the most important substances that our lives rely on are fossil fuels. While there is a wide range of guesses regarding how long we have left until we deplete the world 's supply of fossil fuels, most experts say that we only have a few years before harvesting them becomes much more difficult (and expensive) (Lamb 2010). Given our unfortunate dependence on energy, this would have a massive effect on everything in life. Without energy, society as we know it would not be able to continue functioning. Even ignoring the limited supply, it 's hard to deny that the harvesting of resources throughout time has caused a plethora of problems ( 'Miners Lung ' is a disease that 's 'affectionately ' known to come from mining coal after all, and cave ins are not at all an entirely unheard of problem). As such, this leaves us with really only one viable option: go nuclear before it 's too late.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Just five pounds of plutonium, a component of nuclear waste, is enough to make a

Internationally, nuclear weapons have been an important topic of concern and debate for the past several decades. The concerns and debates within the international community regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more sovereign states in the post-Cold War era have led to many international law instruments in attempts to contain these weapons of mass destruction. Treaties such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Test Ban Treaty of 1963, international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), along with United Nations Security Council resolutions and advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have all played roles in attempting to contain and reduce nuclear weapons in the international community. However, have these treaties, advisory opinions, resolutions, and creation of international organizations been effective in curtailing sovereign states from obtaining and testing nuclear weapons? This paper will highlight the relationship between specific instruments of International Law pertaining to nuclear weapons through a case study of North Korea to show that instruments of International Law in particular, such as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Agency (KEDO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), along with United States and United Nations economic restrictions, have been ineffective at controlling the