The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy.

My opponent has resolved that the USA should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy. To support his resolution he has claimed that nuclear energy is relatively environmentally friendly, economically sound and safe. In have presented a rebuttal of my opponent's arguments on two fronts: Firstly I have shown that nuclear energy is not in fact safe. I have pointed to a number of incidents of varying degree of seriousness. This was my response to my opponent's claim that there has not been a single serious incident. I have also pointed out that the ultimate disaster is a reactor meltdown and that the consequences of one would be nothing short of devastating. My opponent's argument to this is that a meltdown has never happened before in the USA. He claims that the Chernobyl tragedy was attributable solely to Sovite incompetence. I have questioned his assumptions about USA competence versus Soviet incompetence. However, he has not addressed this point. Further, on one hand my opponent attempts to rely on the past (eg, his claim that in the last 5 years there have been no serious incidents) while on the other he attempts to dismiss my argment with an offhanded claim that I rely on the past to try and scare the reader against the risks of nuclear energy. Would we be excused for thinking that he wants to "have it both ways"? We have had a good run for the last 5 years, that much is true. I have asked my opponent to present some evidence of HOW and WHY nuclear energy is now safe enough for widespread implementation. In other words, what makes it safe now. Again, no response to that question. It would seem that 5 years of what I could just call good luck is all he has to support his point. The risks (in terms of the gravity of some possible consequences), I repeat, are humongous. There is nothing irrational about wanting to be 100% sure of this technolgy before agreeing to a blanket implementation. When it comes to things that have the potential to cause enormous pollution and large numbers of deaths and disease, one simply can't afford to be blase and dismiss such concerns with 5 years of good luck. Not without some independent evidence of the supposed safety of the technology in question. My opponent has offered none. The second point of my argument was focused on other alternative sources of energy. I have mentioned a number of them. I have asserted that they are getting progressively cheaper and that instead of investing huge sums of money and time into building new nuclear power plants we should focus on exploring these alternatives and making them available for mass production. My opponent has not taken these suggestions very seriously, it seems. To him, we have two choices: fossil fuel or nuclear. If those indeed were the only available choices or if he had showed that these alternatives are economically inviable then perhaps his argument and his resolution would hold some water. As things stand, however, my opponent has not done any of those things. With respect, all he has managed to do is dismiss my legitimate and well backed-up concerns out of hand and accuse me of irrationally spreading fear. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has set out to prove that the US should increase its use of nuclear energy significantly. To do so, I suggest, he would have to satisfy us that this energy is acceptably safe and that any risks it might carry would be outweighed by its advantages over EVERY alternative. He has not done so.