Resolved: The International Community should ban nuclear powered spacecraft.

Secondly, I would like to define the term "Nuclear-powered spacecraft" as a vehicle capable of orbital or deep-space travel which is propelled by the use of a nuclear reactor. Generators which are used simply to provide electricity are exempted (as the size of a reactor for that purpose does not create a viable radioactive weapon as compared to a craft which uses a reactor capable of accelerating it into orbit) Thirdly, I would like to cite Title 18 of the US Code, Chapter 113b, Section 2332a, Paragraph C, Clause 2 allows for definition of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) as "any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life". Note that this is used to provide an appropriate definition for the way that I shall be using this term, I am not using it as evidence in this debate at this point as per the rules proposed by the initiator of this debate. Moving onto the actual case at hand, I hold that the international community, namely the United Nations, should prohibit the use of nuclear-powered spacecraft for the following reasons: 1) Nuclear-powered spacecraft are not needed. Current spacecraft use chemical propulsion systems which are uniquely suitable for entering into Earth's orbit because of the high amount of thrust in a short time, and being easily disposed of afterwards. A nuclear propulsion system would have similar benefits from the aspect of thrust/time, but no significant advantage in that regard. 2) Nuclear-powered spacecraft are dangerous and risky. From the stance of safety, nuclear propulsion reactors would have at best the same rate of failure as chemical propulsion (as those failures are due to mechanical difficulties, which would impact both types of systems), but may be more risky because of inherent problems with nuclear reactors. While my comment may be taken by some as being sensationalist about nuclear energy (as many are wont to do by alluding to Chernobyl or other meltdowns), but the fact of the matter is that while a reactor may be totally stable when stationary, it can be subject to disastrous problems when subject to severe jarring (as in the case of the recent Fukushima disaster in Japan). Thus, nuclear systems will be at least as, if not more, dangerous than their chemical brethren. Additionally, chemical propulsion systems pose little to no hazard when ejected (if that is the disposal method. Sometimes, the rockets are retrieved); when performed with the proper protocols, the waste simply disintegrates in orbit, completely harmless. However, a problem (or planned disposal) with a nuclear reactor in a space-faring vehicle which led to ejection of the reactor could lead to radiation contamination on Earth. Being rational, a disintegration of the reactor within the confines of a higher orbit would mean that the radiation would be dissipated in such a way that contamination would be minimal, but a launch disaster (such as the Columbia, or numerous Russian spacecraft) could act much like a nuclear device with an aerial detonation: possibly an electromagnetic pulse which would severely damage electronics in a significant radius, and definitely a spread of contaminants which would, in that altitude of disaster, be dangerous to the affected areas as the radiation would remain fairly concentrated. While the contamination would not remotely be on the same scale as Hiroshima, it could still have severe deleterious effects for the afflicted areas. Finally, on this topic, a nuclear propulsion system involves projecting great volumes of gas (most likely hydrogen) through a nozzle by the heat of the reactor. A significant risk of this design is that one small flaw, one which might not endanger the craft itself, could easily contaminate the hydrogen or other propellant, leading to radioactive exhaust. Ergo, the spacecraft has the potential to literally spray nearby areas with radioactive isotopes in the form of gas. 3) Nuclear-powered spacecraft could be implemented as weapons. While a nuclear bomb being deployed in space may seem like a far-fetched reality, both of the countries to first develop nuclear weapons and space travel (namely, the United States and Russia) had already considered the possibility long before the technology to implement the tactic would arise, and precluded the other from using it in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Allowing nuclear-powered spacecraft would open Pandora's Box by giving space agencies a means by which to violate that treaty and principle. In fact, by simply retracting the carbon rods or similar measure to counterbalance criticality, the spacecraft device can act much like an atomic bomb, and can be easily used in such a way as to spread radiation over the Earth to count as a WMD. 4) Nuclear-powered spacecraft will deplete resources which can be put to better use in other projects. Uranium and plutonium, the primary elements utilized in nuclear reactors, are non-renewable and expensive resources. For example, plutonium-238 is an isotope commonly used by probes and satellites which are unable to use solar arrays for sufficient power and so utilize radioisotope thermoelectric generators (hereafter referred to as RTGs), which are small reactors that passively generate power (rather than agitating the atoms to create fission, the craft capture the energy of the natural radioactive decay). Due to the already-dwindling supplies of these resources, space programs need these resources to simply release these probes and a waste of the supplies on a project that can just as readily use another form of power is, quite simply, reckless, irrational, and irresponsible. In summary, nuclear-powered spacecraft are not needed, but are risky, can be utilized to skirt international prohibitions on WMDs in space, and will deplete resources that could be put to more effective use in other venues.