by Tom Beattie
Nuclear power has been an interesting topic ever since the Manhattan Project in 1945, where the first atomic bomb was tested in Alamogordo. The deadly consequences of the atomic bomb weren’t experienced until a month later when, on August 6 1945, an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Japan’s Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb”. It’s clear that the threat of modern nuclear technology is ever present with big world leaders like Trump and Kim Jong-un constantly comparing their nuclear capabilities, meeting, making up and doing it all over again. However, these leaders share something in common; they both have the disposable income to be investing in expensive nuclear programmes. However, how do developing countries such as Pakistan and India keep up with these expensive modern technologies. Well, recently we’ve seen this in the news, but is it moral for countires like this to be investing in nuclear programmes and nuclear energy when they both experience a large amount of poverty?
India and Pakistan have been all over the news in the last few months due to their ‘War-mongering media’, with some even saying that it’s a war of TV studios. The situation provides an interesting insight into a modern, post nuclear weapon, war. We’ve seen cases like this before with Trump and Kim jong un so it’s not completely new. So where did this particular conflict stem from? Territorial disputes over the Kashmir region lead to two of the three major Indo-Pakistani wars in 1947 and 1965, and a partial war in 1999. Although both countries have maintained a “fragile ceasefire since 2003”, according to Global Conflict Tracker, they often exchange fire across the debated border, known as the Line of Control. Both sides accuse the other of breaching the ceasefire and claim to be shooting in response to attacks. An upsurge in border skirmishes, that began in late 2016 and continued into 2018, has killed dozens and displaced thousands of civilians on both sides of the Line of Control causing major upset for both regions. The Kashmir region has been in dispute since the end of the war and to this day poses questions. More recently, continued violence in Kashmir, and a high level threat of terrorist activity by Pakistan-based militant groups, has meant that tensions and concerns over a serious military confrontation between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan remain high. Again Global Conflict Tracker say that, “In February 2019, an attack on a convoy
of Indian paramilitary forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least forty soldiers. The attack, claimed by Pakistani militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, was the deadliest attack in Kashmir
in three decades.” Since taking office in August 2018, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has shown a willingness to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to salvage relations and resolve the main issues, including Kashmir. In September 2018, Khan sent a letter to Modi proposing talks between the countries’ respective foreign ministers at the UN General Assembly. After initially agreeing to talks, India cancelled the meeting. Throughout these conflicts, both countries have been heavily invested in sizing up and threatening their nuclear programmes.
A clear argument against the morality of both these countries investing into their nuclear programmes is the shire amount of poverty and low standards of living experienced by the majority of people who live there. Www.soschildrensvillages say that, “Two-thirds of people in India live in poverty: 68.8% of the Indian population lives on less than $2 a day. Over 30% even have less than $1.25 per day available - they are considered extremely poor. This makes the Indian subcontinent one of the poorest countries in the world; women and children, the weakest members of Indian society, suffer most.”
In addition to this, India has one of the largest populations on the planet with about 1.2 billion people and is the seventh largest country in the world with an area of 3,287,000 km². This means that, whilst their GDP is one of the highest at 2.597 trillion USD (2017), its GDP per capita is low at 1,939.61 USD (2017). The highly contrasted country has enjoyed growth rates of up to 10% over many years, but only a small percentage of the Indian population has benefited from this impressive economic boom so far, as the majority of people in India are still living in abject poverty. The effects of this are shown in many ways, for example high rates of infant mortality. In 2017, according to www.statista.com, India experienced on average 32 deaths out of every 1000 live births. Granted this has gone down from the figure 10 years earlier which was 51.6, but it is still high compared to the Uk’s 3.9 deaths every 1000 live births. More effects of extreme poverty include malnutrition, child labour, lack of education, child marriage and HIV/AIDS. Clearly these are areas which are in need of government spending and attention, not a nuclear ‘TV’ battle with Pakistan. This is highlighted in Barbara Matera’s article “Pakistan invests in nuclear weapons instead of its citizens”.
She says “The recent news that Pakistan has requested the purchase of eight nuclear-capable F-16 aircrafts, radar and electronic warfare equipment in a deal worth nearly $700 million from the US serves as a worrying reminder peace and stability in the region are on a knife-edge, while the reality of people’s lives on the ground seems to be largely ignored.” These decisions from Pakistan will inevitably mean that Pakistan is unable to provide adequate services to its citizens. Performance in education, health care and social inclusion lags behind the targets set by the government of Pakistan and international donors, including the EU. She raises some interesting statistics behind the issue, saying that “of the 50.8 million children aged five to 16 in the country, 47% do not receive any education, according to the annual Pakistan Education Statistics report for 2014-2015. This means that a staggering 24 million Pakistani children are out of school. Of these 24 million, more than half are girls: 12.8 million compared to 11.2 million boys. The report also revealed that 69% of children enrolled at primary school level drop out by the fifth year, and highlighted the lack of resources for education in Pakistan: around 29% of government primary schools operate with just a single teacher, 18% have only one classroom, and 9% do not even have a building.” It’s clear that Pakistan are bypassing their moral obligation to the people and instead investing huge sums of money on defense. It could be argued that this should not be allowed.
However, there are reasons as to why both India and Pakistan need to invest in nuclear development. Firstly, both countries are developing economies and they have to keep up with the modern world and one of the only ways to do this is to invest in modern technologies in order to not even grow, but to survive in times of modern warfare. In addition to this, India in particular, must also continue to develop their nuclear sources of energy to provide reliable and consistent forms of energy as their population grows rapidly year on year. This means sustainability is crucial for India. World-nuclear.org states that “India's dependence on imported energy resources and the inconsistent reform of the energy sector are challenges to satisfying rising demand. The 2017 edition of BP’s Energy Outlook projected India’s energy consumption rising by 129% between 2015 and 2035. It predicts that the country’s energy mix will evolve very slowly to 2035, with fossil fuels accounting for 86% of demand in 2035, compared with a global average of 78% (down from 86% today). There is an acute demand for more reliable power supplies, though early in 2019 India was set to achieve 100% household electricity connection”
Clearly the demand for energy is there, and it needs to be satisfied, especially with a population of 1,350,438,098 (UN statistics). Nuclear power is important for India in three mains ways. Firstly, unlike renewables, nuclear sources can provide bulk energy in a certain manner, without a great amount of uncertainty. The Kudankulam power projects’ two reactors have added 2000 MW of electricity to the southern states. Secondly, nuclear energy is a clean energy source and hence is very important to attain carbon free energy economy. Thirdly, nuclear energy enhances energy independence and energy security, giving a solution the issue of sustainability. Pakistan face similar issues as well, and nuclear power is too important for them. Pakistan’s own pursuit of nuclear energy through fission was shown when Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi inaugurated Pakistan’s fifth nuclear power plant called the Chashma-4 (C-4) with the capacity to produce 340 megawatts of electricity. At the plant’s inauguration, Mr. Abbasi remarked that “this power plant will help in fulfilling energy needs of the country and will also help in reducing environmental pollution”. Among those supporting the use of nuclear power was Stephen Hawking, saying “I would like nuclear fusion to become a practical power source. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy, without pollution or global warming.” Something that could be argued as crucial for a country with the second largest population in the world, yet such a low GDP per capita.
India and Pakistan have been all over the news in the last few months due to their ‘War-mongering media’, with some even saying that it’s a war of TV studios. The situation provides an interesting insight into a modern, post nuclear weapon, war. We’ve seen cases like this before with Trump and Kim jong un so it’s not completely new. So where did this particular conflict stem from? Territorial disputes over the Kashmir region lead to two of the three major Indo-Pakistani wars in 1947 and 1965, and a partial war in 1999. Although both countries have maintained a “fragile ceasefire since 2003”, according to Global Conflict Tracker, they often exchange fire across the debated border, known as the Line of Control. Both sides accuse the other of breaching the ceasefire and claim to be shooting in response to attacks. An upsurge in border skirmishes, that began in late 2016 and continued into 2018, has killed dozens and displaced thousands of civilians on both sides of the Line of Control causing major upset for both regions. The Kashmir region has been in dispute since the end of the war and to this day poses questions. More recently, continued violence in Kashmir, and a high level threat of terrorist activity by Pakistan-based militant groups, has meant that tensions and concerns over a serious military confrontation between nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan remain high. Again Global Conflict Tracker say that, “In February 2019, an attack on a convoy
of Indian paramilitary forces in Indian-controlled Kashmir killed at least forty soldiers. The attack, claimed by Pakistani militant group Jaish-e-Mohammad, was the deadliest attack in Kashmir
in three decades.” Since taking office in August 2018, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has shown a willingness to hold talks with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to salvage relations and resolve the main issues, including Kashmir. In September 2018, Khan sent a letter to Modi proposing talks between the countries’ respective foreign ministers at the UN General Assembly. After initially agreeing to talks, India cancelled the meeting. Throughout these conflicts, both countries have been heavily invested in sizing up and threatening their nuclear programmes.
A clear argument against the morality of both these countries investing into their nuclear programmes is the shire amount of poverty and low standards of living experienced by the majority of people who live there. Www.soschildrensvillages say that, “Two-thirds of people in India live in poverty: 68.8% of the Indian population lives on less than $2 a day. Over 30% even have less than $1.25 per day available - they are considered extremely poor. This makes the Indian subcontinent one of the poorest countries in the world; women and children, the weakest members of Indian society, suffer most.”
In addition to this, India has one of the largest populations on the planet with about 1.2 billion people and is the seventh largest country in the world with an area of 3,287,000 km². This means that, whilst their GDP is one of the highest at 2.597 trillion USD (2017), its GDP per capita is low at 1,939.61 USD (2017). The highly contrasted country has enjoyed growth rates of up to 10% over many years, but only a small percentage of the Indian population has benefited from this impressive economic boom so far, as the majority of people in India are still living in abject poverty. The effects of this are shown in many ways, for example high rates of infant mortality. In 2017, according to www.statista.com, India experienced on average 32 deaths out of every 1000 live births. Granted this has gone down from the figure 10 years earlier which was 51.6, but it is still high compared to the Uk’s 3.9 deaths every 1000 live births. More effects of extreme poverty include malnutrition, child labour, lack of education, child marriage and HIV/AIDS. Clearly these are areas which are in need of government spending and attention, not a nuclear ‘TV’ battle with Pakistan. This is highlighted in Barbara Matera’s article “Pakistan invests in nuclear weapons instead of its citizens”.
She says “The recent news that Pakistan has requested the purchase of eight nuclear-capable F-16 aircrafts, radar and electronic warfare equipment in a deal worth nearly $700 million from the US serves as a worrying reminder peace and stability in the region are on a knife-edge, while the reality of people’s lives on the ground seems to be largely ignored.” These decisions from Pakistan will inevitably mean that Pakistan is unable to provide adequate services to its citizens. Performance in education, health care and social inclusion lags behind the targets set by the government of Pakistan and international donors, including the EU. She raises some interesting statistics behind the issue, saying that “of the 50.8 million children aged five to 16 in the country, 47% do not receive any education, according to the annual Pakistan Education Statistics report for 2014-2015. This means that a staggering 24 million Pakistani children are out of school. Of these 24 million, more than half are girls: 12.8 million compared to 11.2 million boys. The report also revealed that 69% of children enrolled at primary school level drop out by the fifth year, and highlighted the lack of resources for education in Pakistan: around 29% of government primary schools operate with just a single teacher, 18% have only one classroom, and 9% do not even have a building.” It’s clear that Pakistan are bypassing their moral obligation to the people and instead investing huge sums of money on defense. It could be argued that this should not be allowed.
However, there are reasons as to why both India and Pakistan need to invest in nuclear development. Firstly, both countries are developing economies and they have to keep up with the modern world and one of the only ways to do this is to invest in modern technologies in order to not even grow, but to survive in times of modern warfare. In addition to this, India in particular, must also continue to develop their nuclear sources of energy to provide reliable and consistent forms of energy as their population grows rapidly year on year. This means sustainability is crucial for India. World-nuclear.org states that “India's dependence on imported energy resources and the inconsistent reform of the energy sector are challenges to satisfying rising demand. The 2017 edition of BP’s Energy Outlook projected India’s energy consumption rising by 129% between 2015 and 2035. It predicts that the country’s energy mix will evolve very slowly to 2035, with fossil fuels accounting for 86% of demand in 2035, compared with a global average of 78% (down from 86% today). There is an acute demand for more reliable power supplies, though early in 2019 India was set to achieve 100% household electricity connection”
Clearly the demand for energy is there, and it needs to be satisfied, especially with a population of 1,350,438,098 (UN statistics). Nuclear power is important for India in three mains ways. Firstly, unlike renewables, nuclear sources can provide bulk energy in a certain manner, without a great amount of uncertainty. The Kudankulam power projects’ two reactors have added 2000 MW of electricity to the southern states. Secondly, nuclear energy is a clean energy source and hence is very important to attain carbon free energy economy. Thirdly, nuclear energy enhances energy independence and energy security, giving a solution the issue of sustainability. Pakistan face similar issues as well, and nuclear power is too important for them. Pakistan’s own pursuit of nuclear energy through fission was shown when Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi inaugurated Pakistan’s fifth nuclear power plant called the Chashma-4 (C-4) with the capacity to produce 340 megawatts of electricity. At the plant’s inauguration, Mr. Abbasi remarked that “this power plant will help in fulfilling energy needs of the country and will also help in reducing environmental pollution”. Among those supporting the use of nuclear power was Stephen Hawking, saying “I would like nuclear fusion to become a practical power source. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy, without pollution or global warming.” Something that could be argued as crucial for a country with the second largest population in the world, yet such a low GDP per capita.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.