In this section
- Section Home

Archive
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006

Blog RSS feed

RSS Feeds

- News RSS
- Blog RSS
- Gallery RSS

James Gray on Going Nuclear

The word “nuclear” produces oddly mixed emotions amongst most of us. This week, the Prime Minister rather oddly seemed to pre-empt the current Energy Review by announcing to a CBI Dinner that he was certain that we would need a new generation of nuclear reactors. The green lobby went “nuclear” as a result, although the message they sent out was a bit mixed. Some seemed to think that nuclear power may well be the only solution to Global Warming; others that the nuclear waste at the end of it is just as environmentally damaging. That lobby seems to argue that all we need are a few windmills , and to use a bit less power and all will be fine. Ideallists? Or head in the sands? I probably tend to agree with the PM that there is no real option but nuclear power, which anyhow seems to me to have fewer downsides than most other forms of generation. But I will watch the debate, and the Energy Review, and the passionate letters on both sides of the argument to the Editor of the Gazette which these views will doubtless spark off.

Now while Mr Blair was advocating the use of enriched uranium to make Britain’s electricity, he and the international community were becoming more and more exercised about the declared intention of the Iranian Government to do exactly the same thing. Despite their protestations to the contrary, there is more and more talk about pre-emptive self-defensive action against Iran’s nuclear installations, perhaps as early as this autumn. International lawyers told me at a seminar on Thursday that such a strike would probably be perfectly legal, unlike Iraq which was almost certainly illegal. Jack Straw, who said that such a thing was impossible, finds himself demoted and side-lined, with the arch-Blairite Mrs Becket saying that “There was no immediate prospect of military action against Iraq,” or some such weasel words, leaving the door wide open for British support for an American air strike. The anti-war Foreign Office has been downgraded by her appointment in favour of a possibly more belligerent No 10.

Its very likely that the Americans would use nuclear-tipped bombs to destroy the deep bunkers in Iran, and to prevent a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Israel who are so directly threatened by the mad President of Iran. North Korea meanwhile continues to build its nuclear arsenal, and India and Pakistan’s mutual nukes are in a sometimes uneasy balance across Kashmir. British nuclear submarines (nuclear powered as well as nuclear weaponed) cruise beneath the world’s oceans. A decision on what should replace Trident is imminent. I wonder if the newly-nuclear and belligerent Mr Blair will take it before he demits office to the presumably greener and more pacifist Mr Brown? We shall see.

The fact is that both nuclear power and nuclear weapons have important roles to play in non-fossil fuel generation reducing global warming and in deterring less responsible nations from use of nuclear weapons. But explaining those difficult arguments takes statesmanship and courage - commodities of which the current Government are remarkably short.

Next Page