There are around 15,000 nuclear bombs in the world. Who do these belong to, I hear you ask?
Yeah, but it could be a lot worse. In the early 1980s the number of Nuclear Bombs was around 70,000.
Countries were stockpiling weapons due to the “Cold War”. This was a war without actual fighting, with countries like the USA and Russia gradually building up their weapons stockpile; each daring the other to fight.
Eventually, the Cold War began to thaw out, and countries with Nuclear Bombs decided that making more was a really daft idea. So they signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT countries listed above). The treaty aims to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to eventually disarm and get rid of them altogether. Don’t hold your breath any time soon.
Recently the world marked the 70 year anniversary of the Hiroshima Bomb. This was the first nuclear weapon.
An article by the Center for Strategic and International Studies explores the reasons why the bomb was used;
The Americans wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, and at the lowest cost (financially, as well as the cost of American lives). The USA had spent a ton of money the “Manhattan Project”, their top-secret project to design the nuclear bomb.
$1,889,604,000 had gone into the Manhattan Project. Given that this was in 1945, the build would have cost a lot more today. Not using the bomb would have meant all that $$$$ was wasted.
As well as this, the attack on Pearl Harbor meant that the USA really didn’t like Japan. In 1941 Japanese planes attacked the base at Pearl Harbor killing 2,000 Americans and destroying 20 ships and 200 airplanes. The next day America declared war on Japan and joined World War II. By the end of the war the US had a score to settle.
The Americans were also thinking about how the world would be after the war. The Soviet Union (now Russia) was becoming a dominant force in the world. Dropping the Hiroshima bomb was a sign of strength – don’t mess with us. It’s been claimed that impressing Russia was the real reason for dropping the bomb; others argue it was just an added benefit.
As the article says “weapons were created to be used”. What else would one do with a nuclear bomb?
However, there were alternatives. US generals believed that conventional bombing and using the navy to blockade Japan would have forced the country to surrender within months. The lives of Americans would have been at risk, but it would have saved the consequences of a nuclear attack.
Higher than you might think.
Relations between Russia and the West have recently gone sour again, and countries like Iran are trying to get in on the nuclear act. Though the Cold War is now over, the USA and Russia still have hundreds of Nuclear Bombs on “hair trigger alert”. This means that the nuclear weapons could be deployed within minutes. So don’t make any sudden moves.
There have been several examples where errors by computers and humans have almost led to nuclear bombs being deployed. In 1979, a technician accidentally inserted a tape with a training exercise into the computer monitoring incoming threats. The computer showed an incoming Russian attack and the Americans nearly fired their weapons in retaliation.
In 1983 a Russian satellite mistook reflections from the sun as American missiles launching. And in 1995 the Russian warning system noticed the launch of a missile. The Russian President activated a device that would allow a launch of nuclear bombs. It turned out the “missile” was an US/Norwegian scientific rocket being sent up to study the Northern Lights. Norway had warned Russia about the experiment but the message had failed to get to the right departments. The world potentially nearly ended because a memo went to the wrong office.
At the moment there is quite a lot of tension in the world. Note, we have zero intention of scare mongering, just a few things worth bearing in mind;
Russia has managed to p£$$ everyone off for taking an area of land called Crimea away from Ukraine. This has caused a drastic heightening of tensions between the USA and Russia. Because of this, Russia’s President Putin has lowered the bar for when Russia would use nuclear weapons.
Many experts now say that nuclear war with Russia is a possibility. A report from the London think-tank Chatham House states “the probability of inadvertent nuclear use is not zero and is higher than had been widely considered.”
Iran has just signed a deal to cut back on its nuclear activity. However countries like Israel still suspect they are up to no good and will “receive a sure path to nuclear weapons.” Why so suspicious, Israel?
China is worrying everyone by building military bases in the south China sea. It could be only a matter of time before someone decides to stand up to China.
And there are alarming reports that North Korea has an army of computer hackers that could cause havoc at the push of a button. Which is always good.
All these countries have (or at some point have been suspected to have) nuclear weapons. It’s unlikely these countries will be dropping a nuke any time soon – but all it would take is one country being pushed too far, again. So, are we heading for World War III? Let’s just hope world leaders learn from the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is pushing to scrap the UK’s nuclear programme.
It seems the political parties are talking about fracking a lot in their campaigns with some arguing it’s a good thing, and others saying no, never and stop. But how are we supposed to care one way or another if we don’t actually know what it is…
Fracking: you drill down into the earth, find a rock, aim a high-pressure water mixture at that rock which causes it to fracture apart, and that then allows the gas in the rock to release and flow on out. Rocks have gas in them? Apparently so. Rock on!
The posh word for fracking, or what you’d call it if you were showing off at the dinner table.
The gas trying to be exported from these rocks is called Shale Gas. Fracking is going on all over the country in the North, South and Midlands. For fracking companies to frack in the UK they need to apply for planning permission and tick a lot of boxes before they can go ahead.
Where oh where do we begin? Firstly, fracking uses a LOT of water. That means transporting masses of water to the fracking sites which costs huge amounts of money, and doesn’t do the environment much good either. If we really want to pull on the heart strings, shouldn’t an adundance of water go towards countries with shortages or in dire need of water aid. Various African countries will spring to mind, but several states in America e.g. California is particularly drought-stricken.
Secondly, environmentalists worry that chemicals, and the bad sort of chemicals called ‘carcinogenic chemicals’, can escape during the fracking process contaminating the surrounding areas underground and on the fracking site. There’s also the worry that fracking is causing earth tremors: Blackpool had two tiny earthquakes back in 2011 after fracking took place in the area. And what about renewable energy sources people!? Can’t the money being invested in fracking be used to fund more renewable energy sources instead? After all, fracking is only continuing our reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are bad for us, remember?
Fracking lets you have access to those difficult to reach resources of oil and gas but most importantly it has given the UK gas security for the next 100 years. It’s great for job creation, the economy and energy supplies: the US have been busy fracking and it has meant millions more jobs, and much cheaper fuel because it’s all coming from home turf and not being imported in. So California might be desperate for some water, but now that they have a job they can afford bottled water! *Probing, another explainer for another time*
A word from our Environment expert, David Saddington: “Fracking is quite an old technology for extracting fossil fuels but as previously mentioned the big rise in popularity came during the US shale boom in the early 2000’s and lots of videos hit youtube of people who could light their tapwater on fire because of the methane in the water. Matt Damon even did a film about it called The Promised Land.”
The US have their own political stances on this, but for now let’s talk UK:
Conservatives: support fracking for shale gas….if it’s done safely. Their argument is that the positives outweigh the negatives. There is a lot that contributes to climate change and fracking might be a small part of it.
Labour: put in tougher measures before fracking can take place and give Wales and Scotland the power to decide on fracking in their countries independently.
Lib Dems: similar to the Tories but re-invest 50% of the tax income from fracking in green energy. Fighting fire with fire no?
UKIP: support fracking.
Greens: have a guess… yep… totally against it.
SNP: don’t like it either and will ban it in Scotland.
Plaid Cymru: not totally against it, but support a freeze on fracking in the meantime.
What else have the parties got planned for our environment: