Yongbyon: For Peace (Civil Applications), , PLEASE!

[maxham]

The radioactivity were known as one of the masterpieces of the chemistry & physics world since the 20th century. Since the Cold War, nuclear engineering has experienced a huge development, which made it as one of the vital & strategic sectors by the developed, confrotating countries.

North Korea as one of the top communist states in Asia, also benefited from the Yongbyon nuclear project which has been started since 1980s. Since then, WMD (Weapons of Mass Destructions) has been a self ace-card for N. Korea, but also a threat for World peace.

It's a common thesis that everything in this world is dualist, but it depends on us how do we face it, & so as the Yongbyon nuclear project. Nuclear projects also creates dualist benefits from it's existence & developments: to help or destroy people, & it's power are seirously enormous. DPRK may proud of it's competence of Asian nuclear project, along with China, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, India, & Pakistan. But in the other hand, the people were crying of extreme poverty, starvation & despotism. The Stalinist "Military-First" policy has jeopardized everything N. Korean lives. It has been a self-destructing power for N. Korea itself.

"Military first" policy, WMD doesn't give much benefit for N. Korea, except hate, & sorrow. It's the time to end this darkness into enlightement. Abolish the military fisrt-policy & Stalinism is the pioneer to enlight N. Korea. It will be better to apply the nuclear projects for developing electircity power plants, agricultural & food processing, & also, radiotherapy. The nuclear reactor should be also civilian-friendly, easy to learned, so it could be applied in widely peacrful ways. Within these ways, I hope, & I think that the peace technologies should improve the people's welfare. The food production could be raised so it could fight starvation. The heavy diseases (esp. cancers) could be also been fought by the radiology development, which also raised the life expectancy, indirectly. I hope, this should help the West to make friends with N. Korea more easily.

[MarxSchmarx]

One of the reasonably decent arguments against the use of nuclear power is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. With the exception of Russia and the US, every country that has nuclear weapons or tried to acquire them started its program under the guise of "civilian electricity generation".

We need to expect this to be the norm under present international conditions. North Korea can invest in hydro and wave successfully. They are just as dependent on foreign plutonium as they are on foreign oil or natural gas. The only sensible reason for using nuclear power there is to build weapons. This is a central problem with the thesis that we can use nuclear power to get us out of energy shortages.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

One of the reasonably decent arguments against the use of nuclear power is the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

No, it's a rubbish argument actually. Since the US and Russia already have nuclear weapons and will never give them up, arguments against other countries developing both their civilian and military nuclear capability basically amount to arguments for those countries to submit to nuclear domination by the major powers, and energy domination by those with control over significant deposits of hydrocarbons. In other words, support for imperialism.


With the exception of Russia and the US, every country that has nuclear weapons or tried to acquire them started its program under the guise of "civilian electricity generation".

Yes, and why is that? Because Russia and (especially) the US want to maintain their power. They can't do that if the countries they want to boss around can glass their major cities.


We need to expect this to be the norm under present international conditions. North Korea can invest in hydro and wave successfully. They are just as dependent on foreign plutonium as they are on foreign oil or natural gas.

No they are not. Plutonium does not naturally occur in commercially viable quantities.


The only sensible reason for using nuclear power there is to build weapons. This is a central problem with the thesis that we can use nuclear power to get us out of energy shortages.

No it isn't. Nuclear power by itself is a perfectly viable method of generating electricity (see: France). Since the major imperialist powers already have nuclear weapons, proliferation can only serve to enhance the clout of other countries.

There is also something inherently chauvinistic within anti-proliferation rhetoric - it assumes small, underdeveloped countries are more prone to violence than the larger, more developed nations. Which is nonsense, as they are the countries which are far more likely by a long shot to act in an imperialist manner.

The ruling classes of all countries, large and small, well-developed and underdeveloped, imperialist and otherwise, are not terminally stupid. They know that if they were to glass another country unprovoked, they would expect a similarly heated response from that country or one if it's nuclear armed friends. Which is why for all their bluster about wiping Israel off the map, Iran hasn't made any motions towards actually carrying it out.

Iraq would never have been invaded if they had had the ability to turn up the heat a few thousand degrees in New York, or even had the ability to wipe out several US Army divisions in one tactical nuclear strike.

[Decolonize The Left]

In regards to nuclear power and nuclear weapons, the only question I have is 'has anyone solved the issue of nuclear waste?'

- August

[DesertShark]

In regards to nuclear power and nuclear weapons, the only question I have is 'has anyone solved the issue of nuclear waste?'

- August

In addition, what about the effects of a meltdown? There's been several in the past and all have had an adverse effect on the people in the area (also, the fallout cloud effects people miles away).

[Decolonize The Left]

In addition, what about the effects of a meltdown? There's been several in the past and all have had an adverse effect on the people in the area (also, the fallout cloud effects people miles away).

As far as I understand, meltdowns are far and few in between... on the other hand, radioactive nuclear waste is constantly produced...

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear waste is less of an issue than detractors of nuclear technology make it out to be. Firstly, short-term storage can ensure that all the really nasty radioactive stuff radiates away, secondly, it can mostly be reprocessed into usable fuel again.

Really, the environmental impact of nuclear fuels is miniscule compared to fossil fuels.

[MarxSchmarx]

No, it's a rubbish argument actually. Since the US and Russia already have nuclear weapons and will never give them up, arguments against other countries developing both their civilian and military nuclear capability basically amount to arguments for those countries to submit to nuclear domination by the major powers, and energy domination by those with control over significant deposits of hydrocarbons. In other words, support for imperialism...Since the major imperialist powers already have nuclear weapons, proliferation can only serve to enhance the clout of other countries.Look at it this way. Social change won't come to all countries at the same time. If the US and Russia were be taken over by well meaning communists, then we can start to see them dismantle their weapons. However, if reactionary capitalist regimes based in, say, India or Iran or China wanted to crush the new governments, they could use nuclear weapons to threaten them. Proliferation is acceptable only if you believe that the current imperialist powers will be the last bastions of imperialism. Does this mean the provisional people's government of America or Russia should hold on to their nuclear weapons until all capitalist governments are abolished?


No they are not. Plutonium does not naturally occur in commercially viable quantities.Yeah but they need the uranium from somewhere, and it's not obvious that they have more of that than, say, hydro.


Iraq would never have been invaded if they had had the ability to turn up the heat a few thousand degrees in New York, or even had the ability to wipe out several US Army divisions in one tactical nuclear strike.Of course, under the present order of things, it is rational for many states to possess nuclear weapons. But this isn't necessarily a good thing.



There is also something inherently chauvinistic within anti-proliferation rhetoric - it assumes small, underdeveloped countries are more prone to violence than the larger, more developed nations. Which is nonsense, as they are the countries which are far more likely by a long shot to act in an imperialist manner.Judging from the history of where genocide was committed in the last 50 years, this isn't an unreasonable assertion. Yes, the US and Russia have committed untold atrocities abroad. But this doesn't mean that Rwanda, Serbia, the DRC, Sudan, etc... are off the hook. Sovereignty of such bourgeois states are not sarcosanct. Sometimes external intervention, even if it is by an imperialist power, can have a net gain. For example, Australia's intervention in East Timor, belated and inept as it has been, is probably better than letting the Indonesians run rough-shod over it.

Indeed, underlying your assertion seems to be the premise that no act of war by an imperialist power is ever justified. It's not as simple as saying "Iraq, Guatemala, etc..." should have had nuclear weapons. Perhaps they should have. But if Cambodia under Pol Pot had nuclear weapons the Vietnamese wouldn't have dared stopped the genocide. Ditto with Nazi Germany.