A plea for a total ban on the use,
be it military or civilian, of nuclear energy

Mitsuhei Murata
Professor, Tokai Gakuen University



After September 11, 2001, it has become a common recognition that more than 430 nuclear plants and nuclear facilities such as reprocessing plants could become weapons of mass destruction once they become the targets of terrorism.

We have now good reasons to suppose that some groups have already produced some nuclear weapons, utilizing smuggled plutonium and other nuclear materials emanating from civil nuclear facilities. .For these reasons, some countries are feeling menaced by the increasing danger of nuclear terrorism.

In addition to this, the world faces today the serious problem of the possible nuclear proliferation in North Korea .The manufacturing technology and fissionable materials (uranium and plutonium) that are used to produce atomic bombs could not have been obtained without nuclear installations that had been constructed for the peaceful use of generating electricity.

Israel, India and Pakistan that possess nuclear weapons, have realized the development of nuclear weapons by means of the technology and facilities derived from nuclear installations for peaceful use.

The civil use of nuclear energy employs materials and technology that generate nuclear fission. In fact, nuclear proliferationﾓ is made possible by peaceful nuclear plants, operating all over the world. We are thus led to recognize clearly that nuclear technology is indivisible and cannot be separated between the military and the civilian sectors

Nevertheless, what is loudly called for is only nuclear disarmament, and not the abolition of civilian nuclear installations.. This situation must be remedied.

As long as civil nuclear technology remains, it is difficult to hope for the abolition of nuclear energy limited to military use. Nuclear disarmament alone could rather create a dangerous situation.

From this point of view , I would like to propose the following:

1. The I.A.E.A .that is given anﾊ incompatible mission of preventing nuclear proliferation
and promoting nuclear power generation should be reformed. National nuclear commissions
mandated to promote nuclear plants should also be reformed.

2. Many organizations and groups campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons,
including the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be advised to revitalize the movement
by encompassing the abolition of the civilian use of nuclear energy.

3. Those involved in the peaceful use of nuclear energy are often criticized that they have not
sufficiently disclosed the dangers of nuclear energy such as lasting damages of radioactivity and
radiation leakage .They are requested to respond and fulfil their accountability

.4. International control over the safety of existing nuclear plants must be strengthened. Sovereignty can no longer serve as a pretextﾊ for rejecting interventions by other countries, since a fatal accident in one country could haveﾊ unimaginable consequences for many others.


The problem of nuclear energyﾊ boils down to the question of ethics and responsibility.
Is it ethical to export nuclear installations to other countries fully aware that they are dangerous?
Is it ethical for decision makersﾊ to import such installations, fully aware of the dangers?

Is it not a lack of the sense of responsibilityﾊ to allow the continued functioning of more than
430 nuclear reactors without knowing how to dispose ofﾊ accumulating nuclear waste orﾊ how to suppress an eventual accident that requires the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of people?

To do nothing to eliminate the seeds of such catastrophes, doesnt it reflect a lack of the sense
of justice?

The foregoing statement seems to justify the need for the denuclearisation of the globe, both military and civilian,which I have long been advocating.

We are faced with two choices. The first is to start the denuclearisation of the globe as a preventive measure. The second is to be eventually forced to do so by a catastrophic disaster.