Home

Nuclear Power for NZ? No Thanks

by Larry Ross, August 2, 2007

For readers looking for pro-nuclear power arguments, Google has over 70,000 articles on this subject they may like to consider. You will also find on Google that there are 8,720,000 results for anti-nuclear power, almost 125 times as many against.

Our site presents facts and opinions showing the risks and disadvantages of nuclear power generation in New Zealand as well as the many risks and disadvantages of nuclear weapons. Many of these considerations are either carefully avoided by the pro-nuclear sites or discounted. Those showing the use of nuclear power in France are full of praise but little of the risks. However in the long run, accidents do happen, as do new wars. One accident - say, another Chernobyl - can wreck a country.

During war, France could be seriously damaged due to its many dangerous nuclear reactors becoming targets in wartime. All countries with nuclear reactors become potential targets. That may be an acceptable risk in a world where peace prevails. But in our real world, generations of peace is the exception not the rule. The rule is that wars and the armaments industries mean huge profits and power for those involved. The power of military-industrial-political complexes should not be discounted or forgotten. Once a country takes on nuclear power generation then it is a commitment forever. Few predicted World Wars I and II, both of which involved France. So long as there are independent nations, with 8 nuclear arsenals, there is the danger of new very destructive wars.

Additional considerations against nuclear power for New Zealand follow:

1. In our world of recurring wars, any nuclear installation can become a target. That could mean widespread radiation for centuries. It would destroy the country's agricultural export industry. That's butter, milk, meat, etc. Naturally the pro-nuclearists do not mention this factor, or play it down as unlikely, etc. in their propaganda.
   
2. In a country prone to earthquakes like New Zealand, and in Japan and the US where they have built reactors on earthquake faults, nuclear power is a long-term risk.
   
3. New Zealand has the good fortune to have many alternative sources of power, and undeveloped natural sources. So we have no need to take on the nuclear power risks.
   
4. Nuclear power generation opens the door to nuclear weapons and nuclear powered warships in NZ harbours and eventually US bases with suspected nuclear weapons. All it takes is a NZ government very sympathetic to US policies, plus a real or contrived crisis, and the nuclear free act could be altered to first allow NZ power in NZ, then warships. Then the usual "neither confirm nor deny" situation that allows nuclear weapons to be on US warships, and then perhaps clandestinely (with a wink, wink by NZ politicians) nuclear weapons placed in new US military bases in NZ.
   
5. Although this may seem unlikely now, the world is only in the beginning phases of a new nuclear arms race. This is sparked by US policies of wars based on lies, new nuclear weapons and new strategies of using nuclear weapons in pre-emptive nuclear wars, or introducing nuclear weapons into conventional wars. Also, Russia is very nervous about being confronted by US missile defence systems stationed in previous Soviet satellite states. These are seen as potentially facilitating a US first strike on Russia, which is reacting by improving its own defences. Any countries caught up in the wars of the future, risk devastation. A new arms race could breed nuclear proliferation among countries who feel the increased risks inherent in the new US policies. More nuclear weapon nations increase the risks of a nuclear war by accident, miscalculation or madness. Thus nuclear reactors in countries at war can become targets. They are likely to be seen as much greater risks in the future, when it is too late to change back to other power sources.
   
6. Luckily New Zealand has the legislation in place to prevent this process of erosion if people stay alert.