Nuclear Power and Weapons and Stewardship of the Earth

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. As you know, God has made us stewards over the earth and so we have to take good care of the earth. Well, nuclear power causes nuclear waste which takes thousands of years for it to biodegrade even partially. It is a very hazardous waste and it is hazardous to our water supply if it gets in the water supply. That’s not to mention that there is a risk of nuclear meltdown and other disasters like what happened at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. There is also the possibility that the nuclear fuel rods could be turned into nuclear weapons.

Here are some link about nuclear power and nuclear weaponry:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons

catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

boisecatholicworker.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/morals-truth-nuclear-energy/

catholicreview.org/article/life/nuclear-weapons-and-moral-questions-the-path-to-zero

Also, here is what the Catechism has to say about atomic weapons which I think are the same thing as nuclear weapons:

**2314 **“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

So anyway I have two questions: is having and using nuclear power immoral or moral? Also, is having nuclear weapons immoral or moral? I think we can all agree that using nuclear weapons is immoral since the Catechism says that every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man but what about having them as a deterrent to war? I hope we all can have a peaceful discussion about this.

 

[dshix]

Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral to use, but I think nuclear power is all right.

By the way, have you heard of thorium?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I am not going to debate or otherwise argue with anyone about the use of nuclear weapons or nudlear power. Such debates are futile and accomplish nothing except give voice to those against it.
I will, however, make one statement: There is absolutely nothing immoral about the use of nuclear power to generate electricity when it is done properly -which includes the safe disposal of its waste products.
Regardless of what the “anti’s” say, the safe and proper disposal of nuclear waste has been done by all major users of it for the sixty years or so it has been in existancee. The accident in Japan was due to poor planning on their governments’ part, and the debacle at Chernobel was due to negligence on the part of the Soviet government. From such things we learn, and today, nuclear power plants are safe.
Nuclear power production has many advantages over all conventional power production means except fot water powered power plants. Nuclear power does not pollute the environment as do coal, petroleum or natural gas produced power.

 

[JerryZ]

Hey everyone. As you know, God has made us stewards over the earth and so we have to take good care of the earth. Well, nuclear power causes nuclear waste which takes thousands of years for it to biodegrade even partially. It is a very hazardous waste and it is hazardous to our water supply if it gets in the water supply. That’s not to mention that there is a risk of nuclear meltdown and other disasters like what happened at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan. There is also the possibility that the nuclear fuel rods could be turned into nuclear weapons.

Here are some link about nuclear power and nuclear weaponry:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons

catholic.com/magazine/articles/dropping-the-atomic-bomb-was-wrong-period

boisecatholicworker.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/morals-truth-nuclear-energy/

catholicreview.org/article/life/nuclear-weapons-and-moral-questions-the-path-to-zero

Also, here is what the Catechism has to say about atomic weapons which I think are the same thing as nuclear weapons:

So anyway I have two questions: is having and using nuclear power immoral or moral? Also, is having nuclear weapons immoral or moral? I think we can all agree that using nuclear weapons is immoral since the Catechism says that every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man but what about having them as a deterrent to war? I hope we all can have a peaceful discussion about this.

OK! first let’s start with some basic definitions shall we?

Radioactive materials are all around us in some quantity also the earth is bombarded by Cosmic Radiation and Neutrinos day and night and has been since the creation of the Universe.
If you take a “Geiger Counter” a device used to measure radioactivity levels you would get a definite count even in your house and that is called “Background Radiation”.
Also in certain areas of the world there is a high level of a radioactive gas (an isotope) called Radon and is a leading cause of cancer deaths in many countries.
Far more dangerous that the waste from nuclear plants.
Now radioactive waste. It is primarily the result of processing Natural radioactive materials (refining) to obtain the usable part that can be used to produce electricity in a reactor.
The reactor cannot burn any radiocative materials same as your car may not burn Diesel fuel if the engine is gasoline.
So basically what happens is that we process millions of tons of earth to extract the radioactive material (Uranium) which comes in 2 main flavours U235 (usable) and U238 (Not so much usable) In the old days only the U235 could be used and you had to refine a lot of Uranium to produce enough U235. Since the U238 is far more common.

Now they have newer types of reactors that basicaly turn U238 into Plutonium which then can be used as fuel. Hence the reutilization of the “spent” fuel to produce more fuel.
The way we dispose of the spent fuel is really a non issue if we could dilute it back to the natural concentration levels at which it would not be dangerous. This “strategy” somehow has never been considered. Too Obvious? Or there are lot of money to be made by following the ones they do use or it could be that they are waiting for new technology that would allow us to recicle that “waste” same as we are now recicling U328.

By far, apart from Hidroelectric Energy, Nuclear Energy is one of the most clean as it does NOT produce any sub products that were NOT there to begin with. (Radioactive materials ARE present on the Earth) and it produces No Carbon emmission whatsoever.
Also alternative Energy sources like solar, wind or tide driven have all a big drawback as they are by their very nature INCOSTANT. They are great as suplemmental energy sources but hardly reliant enough for the requirement of the Industrial apparatus of modern society.

Hope this helps! a little

 

[SonCatcher]

Nuclear energy in itself is neutral. The key is in how it is realized. Weaponizing it is a grave situation because of its use as an instrument of death (this is the case of any weapon, including the drugs used in lethal injections). That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t if there is legitimate need in the case of just war and prudential use.

Using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is acceptable. The earth is entrusted to our stewardship so it is our responsibility to use its resources in the least destructive way. This way releases fewer pollutants into the atmosphere with a tradeoff that there needs to be a safe way to store waste and also to prevent leakage. The recent Fukushima disaster demonstrates we are still learning how to do that.

There are other stewardship issues with our current use of nuclear energy. One I can think of actually applies to most forms of energy: use of fresh water. Most electricity production works by boiling fresh water. This is being redirected from cropland, etc. We have much to learn for our stewardship.

 

[bilop]

Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral to use, but I think nuclear power is all right.

By the way, have you heard of thorium?

Here’s the problem with that; if you absolutely refuse to ever us nuclear weapons, they have no deterrent value. That means, an evil person with nukes can do anything they want, and you can’t stop him.

I think you can say “first use” of nukes is immoral (unless they were very small tactical nukes, used where they wouldn’t cause mass civilian casualties). But, use in retaliation against someone who has used nukes against you is not intrinsically immoral.

God Bless

 

[dshix]

Here’s the problem with that; if you absolutely refuse to ever us nuclear weapons, they have no deterrent value. That means, an evil person with nukes can do anything they want, and you can’t stop him.

I think you can say “first use” of nukes is immoral (unless they were very small tactical nukes, used where they wouldn’t cause mass civilian casualties). But, use in retaliation against someone who has used nukes against you is not intrinsically immoral.

God Bless

Haha, I agree with you. But using them to destroy as an offensive, instead of a defensive measure is wrong.

I guess I didn’t state my opinion properly in my first post.

 

[Neildown]

It’s immoral to willingly use a WMD indiscriminately and/or on innocents. There is no justification for killing an innocent person, even if for the greater good. I’m also against the possession of WMDs, but it’s too late in the game for that to count. It would be phenomenally unwise for America to disarm if Russia, China, Iran, and the other historically warmongering nations still have them.

Nuclear power I see no problem with, as long as it’s being done correctly.

 

[bilop]

It’s immoral to willingly use a WMD indiscriminately and/or on innocents. There is no justification for killing an innocent person, even if for the greater good. I’m also against the possession of WMDs, but it’s too late in the game for that to count. It would be phenomenally unwise for America to disarm if Russia, China, Iran, and the other historically warmongering nations still have them.

Nuclear power I see no problem with, as long as it’s being done correctly.

Partially true. The prohibition is on deliberately targeting civilians, with any weapons.

If an nation, say Iran, has a small numer of nuclear weapons in hardened silos and plans to use them to annihilate Israel, Israel can morally use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s weapons, if no other weapon will work. They have to use the smallest weapon that will do the job, if that’s a Tac nuke, they can use it.

If Iran has located their silos near population centers, and civilians die, the sin is on the Iranians. You’ll notice, the US puts our nukes in open prairies, or on submarines.

Another example, using chemical weapons against enemy troops is not inherently immoral. Chemical weapons are actually LESS deadly that high explosives. Looking at WWI experience, gas casualties had a much lower mortality rate than HE casualties. Most gas tends to disable, not kill.

God Bless

 

[Brendan]

**Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral to use, **but I think nuclear power is all right.

QUOTE]

Sort of.

The CCC correctly prohibts their use in the indiscriminate destruction of civilians. But there is no moral bar to the use, for example, of a ‘tactical’ nuclear tipped torpedo to sink an enemy aircraft carrier.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation

 

[Holly3278]

Thanks everyone. I think that nuclear power is fine to use so long as they have a safe way to either indefinitely store the waste or recycle or it get rid of it somehow.

As for nuclear weapons, I think its okay to have and use them but only if you’re not going to use them on civilians or to destroy cities and such. In other words, tactical nuclear weapons such as those used to destroy other weapons or underground enemy bunkers I think would be okay. I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

**Nuclear weapons are, of course, immoral to use, **

but I think nuclear power is all right.

QUOTE]

Sort of.

The CCC correctly prohibts their use in the indiscriminate destruction of civilians. But there is no moral bar to the use, for example, of a ‘tactical’ nuclear tipped torpedo to sink an enemy aircraft carrier.

I wouldn’t say there’s no moral bar, or more precisely, that the moral bar would be no different than using conventional weapons of equivalent destructive power. With nuclear weapons one would also have to weigh the long term and inderect consequences associated with fallout - presumably in the scenario of taking out a carrier with a nuclear torpedo you could generate some airborne radionuclides that could affect non-combatants far removed from the battlefield. These effects could be cumulative so where the first couple of detonations would have little long-term impact, if you do this enough times you will start to have long-term consequences. There’s also a certain pyschological impact that, by using nukes, you’ve “raised the bar” somehow - even if conventional weapons would have had the same destructive force, now that you’ve gone nuclear, the enemy will have reduced moral inhibitions about using nukes since, after all, it wouldn’t be a first strike, you’ve already struck first and set into motion the scenario that deterrence is meant to deter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

UK nuclear weapon programme ‘shameful’ says cardinal

US Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on War and Peace

A. On the Use of Nuclear Weapons:

1. Counter-Population Use: Under no circumstances may nuclear weapons or other instruments of mass slaughter be used for the purpose of destroying population centers or other predominantly civilian targets. Retaliatory action which would indiscriminately and disproportionately take many wholly innocent lives, lives of people who are in no way responsible .for reckless actions of their government, must also be condemned.
2. The Initiation of Nuclear War: We do not perceive any situation in which the deliberate initiation of nuclear war, on however restricted a scale, can be morally justified. Non-nuclear attacks by another state must be resisted by other than nuclear means. Therefore, a serious obligation exists to develop morally acceptable non-nuclear defensive strategies as rapidly as possible. In this letter we urge NATO to move rapidly toward the adoption of a “no first use” policy but we recognize this will take time to imple-ment and will require the development of an adequate alternative defense posture.
3. Limited Nuclear War: Our examination of the various arguments on this question makes us highly skeptical about the real meaning of “limited.” One of the criteria of the just war teaching is that there must be a reasonable hope of success in bringing about justice and peace. We must ask whether such a reasonable hope can exist once nuclear weapons have been exchanged. The burden of proof remains on those who assert that meaningful limitation is possible. In our view the first imperative is to prevent any use of nuclear weapons and we hope that leaders will resist the notion that nuclear conflict can be limited, contained or won in any traditional sense.

nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/ethics/issues/religious/us-catholic-bishops-pastoral-letter.htm

Pope Benedict on World Peace day 2006

What can be said, too, about those governments which count on nuclear arms as a means of ensuring the security of their countries? Along with countless persons of good will, one can state that this point of view is not only baneful but also completely fallacious. In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims. The truth of peace requires that all – whether those governments which openly or secretly possess nuclear arms, or those planning to acquire them - agree to change their course by clear and firm decisions, and strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament. The resources which would be saved could then be employed in projects of development capable of benefiting all their people, especially the poor

Archbishop Chullikatt’s address on nuclear question

In light of Japan crisis, what is church’s position on nuclear energy?

 

[JimG]

I would note that not every possible use of a nuclear weapon is necessarily “directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants.” Someone else noted the possibility of Israel, for example, using a nuclear weapon to disable nuclear weapons about to be launched against their nation. And a tactical nuke might be used for a tactical, not an indiscriminate, purpose. Targeting a missile silo in a remote area would not target civilians. (To destroy a hardened Minuteman silo, for example,—all of which are located in remote areas—would take a direct hit with a 1 megaton weapon, and the unmanned silo would be the only target.)

And having a nuclear deterrent is not considered an “act of war,” so the mere possession of a nuclear deterrent keeps the peace by preventing nuclear blackmail.

President Kennedy through his brother Robert threatened the Soviet Union with nuclear war if nuclear IRBM’s were not removed from Cuba, and they were removed. Flight time for a missile launched from Cuba would be about 5 minutes, simply unacceptable.

As for the Fukushima reactor in Japan, it would seem that the problem was a power failure which cut off water circulation to spent fuel rods. But backup electric power is needed and commonly used in a variety of situations. There should always be provision for backup electric power in any emergency.

The ideal nuclear power is of course, nuclear fusion, not fission. Fusion releases no radioactivity. Fusion weapons without a fission trigger would be powerful but non-radioactive. Fusion power for peaceful purposes would have similar benefits. Life on earth also depends on fusion power, since it powers the Sun.

 

[sw85]

Most every form of power has serious problems associated with it. Look up mountaintop coal removal, for instance. Whether the dangers of a particular method of power generation outweigh those of another to such an extent as to make one more commendable than the other is probably a prudential judgment to be left to the discretion of state officials.

 

[vera_dicere]

If there’s one thing that unites New Zealanders, or at least the vast majority of us, its our hatred of all things nuclear.

My gross outrages at nuclear weapons aside, I do think nuclear power is a bit of a touchy subject. Yes, all the major accidents have been due to stupidity, neglectful practices or cutting corners, so in most countries where this does not happen [or not on huge scales like Chern.] nuclear power is quite safe. However, its the natural disaster card that causes issues, sure, sure, its really rare, but if something goes pear shaped, New ZEaland doesn’t have the geographical size to maintain a nuclear boo-boo. My opposition stems mostly from that point. Plus, we all know people are greedy and lazy and slothful generally, I’d rather someone be cutting corners with a dirty coal burning reactor than a nuclear one!

As it stands, we’ll be here till the cows come home arguing the pros and cons of the situation. I think there’s better power sources, I don’t like the nuclear waste, and I certainly don’t like the possibility, however remote, of an accident.

Of course, end of the day, we have stewardship over the earth, I don’t think nuclear power is immoral, but the risks must be weighed with all things considered, and if a country can safely say the pros out weigh the cons then so be it.

I still don’t like it though, but what I like even less is the constant fear mongering by the “antis”. I may dislike nuclear power but I’m not about to throw pig faeces at people who support its use and scream about mutated babies.

 

[SonCatcher]

If there’s one thing that unites New Zealanders, or at least the vast majority of us, its our hatred of all things nuclear.

That’s definitely true.

Given that the United States Navy refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard ships, these laws in effect refused access to New Zealand ports for all ships of the United States Navy.

 

[247cath]

I am not going to debate or otherwise argue with anyone about the use of nuclear weapons or nudlear power. Such debates are futile and accomplish nothing except give voice to those against it.
I will, however, make one statement: There is absolutely nothing immoral about the use of nuclear power to generate electricity when it is done properly -which includes the safe disposal of its waste products.
Regardless of what the “anti’s” say, the safe and proper disposal of nuclear waste has been done by all major users of it for the sixty years or so it has been in existancee. The accident in Japan was due to poor planning on their governments’ part, and the debacle at Chernobel was due to negligence on the part of the Soviet government. From such things we learn, and today, nuclear power plants are safe.
Nuclear power production has many advantages over all conventional power production means except fot water powered power plants. Nuclear power does not pollute the environment as do coal, petroleum or natural gas produced power.

That true except that no spent fuel has been safely stored in an eternal fashion yet, and except for the fact that mining and processing nuclear fuel pollutes and it is moral to make power from nuclear materials as long as we ignore the fact that it costs more to produce power from nuclear materials when all the costs and subsidies are baked into the equation .

And the long term safety from low dose radiation is a settled fact because our government’s Energy Department says so. And since our government does such a good job of doing things for our best interest, we can trust them on this one too.