I think every country should have Nuclear technologies

First I will address my opponents statements. Nuclear power is good Simply stating that Nuclear power is good is not an argument. Nuclear power is scientific Something being scientific does not support the idea that every country should implement it. Anthrax is scientific. This does not prove that Anthrax should be freely distributed. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly This is true, with some limited exceptions, and I am not challenging this. Many ecological organizations and environmentalists now support it that once argued against it This may or may not be true. However, the point adds little to either side, since the number of people that agree with you does not validate or invalidate the points you are trying to make. The entire world may disagree with something, and it could still be true, illustrating the fact that people do not need to believe something is true for it to be true. Nuclear proliferation Pro argues that he thinks the spread of nuclear weapons to unreliable owners is "some kind of advantage". I would like to disagree with this argument on the grounds that it is unmerited and unsupported by Pro. Additionally, I would like to point out that he contradicts his own point by stating that some owners are unreliable, to which I agree. So either Pro must retract this argument, or he must concede the debate. My case I would like to summarize my argument by saying that I support nuclear power, and believe that it could help potentially solve many severe problems, global warming and the coming oil crisis [1]. However, like every other method of power production, nuclear power should only be used when the conditions are appropriate for such energy production to be safe, profitable, environmentally feasible, and reliable in the long term. I believe that not every country contains conditions for all of these conditions to be met. Note that the debate is not whether or not every country should have access to nuclear power, but whether or not every country should use nuclear power, regardless of that country's preference. I will explain the problems with every country having nuclear power. Technology and Education Nuclear power is an efficient and environmentally friendly method of producing large amounts of power reliably and constantly, with little downtime, and limited risks. However, in order for this to be true, the right technology must be used that is appropriate to the situation, and there must be an adequate number of workers available to support such systems, technicians who are skilled, trained, and experienced in their use, and engineers who are highly educated. In third world countries, and countries with lower education levels, it would be very difficult and expensive to obtain sufficient numbers of these workers. Transportation and Storage of raw materials The problem with the transportation and storage of reactor grade uranium is not the logistics, but the level of safety that needs to accompany these things. Terrorists and extremists are constantly searching for ways to get a hold of the materials to build crude nuclear explosion devices, and even now, it is too easy for the required materials to fall into the wrong hangs, so to speak, with some reserves being secured with little more than "an underpaid guard and a chain link fence". [2] I don't think I need to explain the consequences and disadvantages of nuclear terrorism, but Pro feels I do, they should let me know. Non-Renewable Resource Unfortunately, one problem that nuclear power does not fix is that of the limited quantity of non-renewable resources. In order for nuclear power generation to take place, highly radioactive enriched uranium undergoes a nuclear reaction, and changes into a less radioactive, depleted form of uranium, which is stored for a long, long time, until it is no longer dangerously radioactive. If we change from depending on oil products to depending on nuclear/uranium products for energy, it is only a matter of time before we deplete that available energy source. Cost of resource Along with the increase in demand for a resource comes the inevitable increase in price for that resource. Even if the price of the technology, education, training, and subsequent manpower that follows was affordable to every country in the world right now, there is no guarantee the same resources would be affordable for these countries in the future, when the availability of the resource becomes more limited. You can currently see this problem with crude oil prices, which are rising faster than the level of inflation. It stands to reason, that if a country cannot afford a proposed solution their power problem, it is not a valid long term solution. Environmental feasibility One of the problems surrounding nuclear power generation is in the method used to cool the reactor where the uranium is being held. If the reactor becomes too hot, the nuclear reactions will speed up and a positive feedback loop occurs, resulting in a nuclear meltdown, and the danger of subsequent release of radioactive material into the surrounding area (a very bad thing) [3]. Many recent designs of nuclear reactors (such as the CANDU and the Westinghouse AP1000) contain many fail safes; indeed even the fail safes have fail safes. So what happens when the fail safe fail safes fail, you ask? Well, in the event this happens, in the case of the CANDU reactor, the entire core passively drops into an emergency container of heavy water, which has extra neutrons to absorb the neutrons emitted from the nuclear reactions, thus breaking the positive feedback loop necessary for a meltdown. [4] The problem with these reactors is the expense. Naturally, to do something the safest way possible comes at odds with trying to do it as economically as possible. If some of the poorer countries are forced to use nuclear power, they may be forced to use older than current designs with less than adequate safety systems. With that, I will conclude my argument that not every country should use nuclear power. I encourage and look forward to the rebuttal from my opponent and hope for a fruitful and intellectual exchange. Some facts that were not cited are from memory, since I took 3rd year course on energy production physics, and a 3rd year course on environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of Guelph. [1] . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [2] . http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu... [3] . http://www.scientificamerican.com... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...