Going Nuclear

[This item was originally posted on my Xanga site]

A couple weeks ago, the Washington Post ran a very interesting editorial called Going Nuclear. The editorial is written by Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace and an active member of the environmentalist community... but it breaks with the predominant environmentalist position in advocating increased use of nuclear energy.
This is a point that has long made sense to me, and I've often wondered why there was such animosity toward the idea of using nuclear energy more significantly. Moore lists a number of possible objections, and gives his refutations of them.

Do you agree with Moore? Should we use nuclear energy more prominently for our nation's energy needs? Imagine electric cars with batteries that recharged with energy drawn from nuclear plants... that would be an excellent way to reduce our dependence on oil. And it seems to me that nuclear power would drastically reduce emissions. Would you feel safe with an active nuclear plant in your vicinity?

Of course, it is impossible to bring up the topic of nuclear energy at present without dealing with the Iran situation. Moore mentions Iran, but avoids taking any direct position. Speaking generally, however, he makes this statement:The only practical approach to the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation is to put it higher on the international agenda and to use diplomacy and, where necessary, force to prevent countries or terrorists from using nuclear materials for destructive ends.

At what point does the Iran situation move past diplomacy, to the point where force is "necessary"? The current scenario is bringing back vivid memories of the build-up to the Iraq war. The US is pushing for strong sanctions, and Europe is half-heartedly going along. Considering the risk, at what point do we assert ourselves forcefully?

For an additional perspective on this, you might read this rather long article that my brother Brad forwarded me last week, called Facing Down Iran, by Mark Steyn. It provided some historical context for the Iranian situation that I was not familiar with, and cast the dispute in the strongest of terms.

I came across another Washington Post op-ed written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and titled Bush's Thousand Days. In the op-ed, Schlesinger argues that what he calls "preventive" war is bad policy, and that Bush should "forgo solo preventive war and return to cooperation with other countries in the interest of collective security". He also argues for a policy of "containment plus deterrence" with regard to Iran. Any thoughts? Schlesinger doesn't go into specifics. What might containment and deterrence look like with regard to Iran? What might contain their nuclear abilities, or deter them from developing or using them?

In a more general sense, what is a good way for the international community to encourage the global use of nuclear energy, without enabling widespread nuclear weaponry?

Mark