Despite the impending festival between Moscow and Washington, Eisenhower’s 1953 speech had abundant positive effect. His call for the creation of a company to reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation became a reality three years later, when 81 countries unanimously approved the prestige of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It also sparked intense negotiations between the world’s two superpowers, as well as other nations, culminating in 1970 with the adoption of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The important balance of the NPT is based on a tripartite agreement. States without nuclear weapons agree not to expand or acquire them and to submit to IAEA inspections to verify their compliance; nuclear weapons states promise intelligent religion to their arsenals; and those who have the means to exploit the non-violent uses of nuclear science and generation adopt making them available to those who do not have them.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this agreement; Some call it the “great deal. “The treaty is almost universal and has been extended indefinitely. Although India, Israel and Pakistan have not joined the treaty and North Korea announced in 2003 that it would no longer be bound by it, fewer than ten countries possess nuclear weapons, compared to dozens that were previously feared. The nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear powers have declined especially over the decades, and nuclear science and generation have saved millions of lives and livelihoods.
This order has had its limits and is still an imperfect picture in progress. But it has proven to be adaptable. The NPT established a safeguards formula under the IAEA’s mandate. But strict parameters restricting what the agency’s inspectors can do allowed Iraq to carry out a clandestine nuclear weapons program in the 1990s without much concern about discovery. The Additional Protocol has since filled this weakness and is now in force in 142 States, some others have not yet followed.
At the same time, the original Small Quantities Protocol, enacted in 1974, minimized the burden of implementing safeguards on countries with little or no nuclear infrastructure. However, it did not allow agency inspections to determine whether a country’s nuclear tissue volume was actually small enough to gain benefits from the protocol. This weakness was corrected when the protocol was updated in 2005. So far, 81 states have an operational SQP based on the revised text, with 18 yet to make the change.
It is essential to have the most powerful and adaptable safeguards formula possible, such as – political and monetary – for IAEA inspections. The accumulation of the total number of nuclear weapons in the world reflects their increasing use for non-violent purposes, such as medicine, agriculture, architecture, and science. But this buildup also means there is much more left to inspect. Over the past decade, the number of nuclear facilities and sites to be inspected has increased to 8, according to Today, the agency’s inspections are tasked with verifying the nonviolent use of enough nuclear energy to theoretically produce more than 230,000 nuclear warheads.
At the same time, the demanding situations for peace and security abroad underscore the importance of an independent and physically powerful monitoring body. North Korea’s illegal nuclear weapons program continues to advance outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In Iran, the IAEA has discovered lines of undeclared synthetic uranium and Tehran has not responded to many of the company’s questions. As a result, the company cannot guarantee that all activities of Iran’s growing nuclear program will be entirely peaceful. After the United States withdrew in 2018 from the nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran abandoned all restrictions contained in that agreement. This means that there is no longer a comprehensive, long-term formula for improving monitoring and verification to lessen the proliferation threat around Iran’s civilian nuclear program. Currently, Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state that generates uranium enriched to 60%.
However, the movements of States that have the right to possess nuclear weapons under the NPT also exert undeniable pressure on this order. A number of the world’s existing nuclear weapons stockpiles are increasing, raising questions among non-nuclear-weapon States about the commitment of nuclear-weapon States. Arms States to their market share.
The NPT is essential for external security. Countries periodically evaluate the prices and benefits of nuclear proliferation, and if new nuclear states emerge or existing ones create even more formidable arsenals, more countries may feel susceptible to launching their own weapons programs. Massive expansion is not imminent; The treaty remains remarkably resilient. But it should be noted that in the last two Review Conferences of the NPT, where the leaders of the States Parties to the Treaty meet to take stock of its effectiveness, they failed to agree on a not unusual document, basically due to political differences that They are not directly related to the NPT.
As diplomats gather in Geneva this month to set the bar for the 2026 review conference, the foreign network has a choice. It can, through actions and words, modify the legal framework, adding the inspection process, which it has built with so much effort. He can’t do anything, letting apathy and existing political divisions shake him up.
Implementation of the NPT not only curbs the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also facilitates the replacement of equipment, education and clinical data for the non-violent use of nuclear energy. The IAEA’s mandate is to expand access to non-violent nuclear generation. (Most of the 178 countries that have joined the company have done so exactly to reap those benefits. ) The uses of nuclear generation and science are so diverse that they directly represent more than a part of the country’s progress objectives. sustainable progress of the UN (and indirectly of all). Joint This makes the IAEA a very important force for sustainable economic and social progress, improving health systems, mitigating climate change and pollution and strengthening energy, food and water security.
Consider the progress this formula has already made. The company has transferred nuclear science and technology to help eliminate rinderpest, a viral disease that has killed livestock worldwide; contribute to the creation of more than 3,400 new types of 210 plant species; and mapping microplastics in the ocean from Antarctica to the tropics. By expanding the apparatus and training of emerging countries, the company has contributed to the structure of cancer care centers in partnership with the World Health Organization, created a network of laboratories to stumble and better respond to zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19 with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. It organizes and develops the criteria and rules of nuclear protection on which the world depends.
Today, nuclear science can play a vital role in the fight against climate change. To help achieve the goal of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius, leading analysts, including those at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the IAEA, agree that the world will need to more than double existing nuclear capacity. Some mainstream climate activists reject this speculation, arguing that nuclear power produces too much radioactive waste, poses too much risk of injury, or has too high anticipated costs. But those considerations are misplaced. No source of force is without threats. However, the nuclear force has caused fewer deaths – relative to its output – than any other source of force, except the solar force. What’s more, nothing can actualize what nuclear fission has shown it can achieve on a giant scale. Solar and wind power have made significant progress and will play a huge role in the decarbonization of energy systems, however, networks that use such intermittent power bureaucracy still require a constant base load power so that electrical energy can circulate. even when it’s dark or the air is dark. cold. always.
Nuclear energy does not have the problem of intermittency. This is part of the explanation why it is already the source of a quarter of the world’s low-carbon energy. A nuclear power plant built today can upgrade coal and fuel and will produce gigantic quantities. of low-carbon energy for the better part of a century at a low operating cost without emitting a single component of greenhouse fuels. Nuclear power plants do not need constant refueling and can store years of reserves on site, meaning they can also be offered a degree of security and force independence.
It is true that nuclear facilities produce radioactive waste. Today’s nuclear industry has painstakingly stored its byproducts and tried to minimize any effects those wastes may have tens of thousands of years from now. Finland, France and Sweden, for example, are in the process of safely disposing of their nuclear waste at great depths.
Fortunately, policymakers, ordinary citizens, and even many influential environmental activists are beginning to perceive that nuclear force is imperative to decarbonization, is helping to drive economic growth, and improves force security. The last UN summit on climate update, COP28, was a pivotal moment: the world finally agreed that nuclear power will have to be part of the transition to net zero. After allowing ideology to be science for decades, countries that produce nuclear power and those that have not agreed to come with the Nuclear Power Initiative and those that have not agreed to come with the Nuclear Power Initiative want to invest in nuclear power along with other low-carbon energy resources in the global “stock” of progress towards achieving the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate update. In addition, more than 20 countries have agreed to work towards tripling nuclear capacity.
Around the world, countries are reaffirming their commitment to nuclear force or pledging to expand it. Much has been made in Europe about Germany’s decision to close its last three nuclear power plants last year. But Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Romania and the United Kingdom are expanding their nuclear capabilities. Other countries, such as Poland, are preparing to introduce it for the first time. Canada, China, India, the United States and even Japan, scene of the Fukushima Daiichi turn of fate in 2011, are refocusing on nuclear force. Countries are restarting idle nuclear plants, extending the operational lives of existing plants while building new ones, and creating investment conditions for technological advances, specifically in small modular reactors. Even the oil-rich United Arab Emirates connected its first nuclear reactors to the grid. Türkiye and Egypt will soon join the list of nuclear power generating countries. Many of those projects are cross-border efforts, with China, France, Russia, South Korea and the United States competing to sell their generation abroad. About 60 reactors are being built in 15 countries, with nearly double that number planned.
However, those efforts are not enough. Although countries such as France and Sweden have demonstrated how to decarbonize an electric power grid, whether nuclear or hydroforce, the global one is only adding a quarter of the maximum annual nuclear capacity it had reached after the oil crises of the 1970s. This expansion represents less than a part of the annual average needed, according to analysts, to achieve existing climate goals. Acknowledging that the world wants more nuclear force does not mean that this happens automatically. In its latest report on investing in global strength, the International Energy Agency noted that of the $3 trillion that will be invested in power this year, $2 trillion will go to blank sources, but only $80 billion to nuclear power, or a little more than a portion of that figure. quantity. what is needed to triple the capacity. Investments in the constant source of fossil fuels (coal, oil, fuel) account for the remaining trillion dollars.
Meanwhile, carbon emissions continue to reach unprecedented levels. Coal, the largest source of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, remains the largest source of power for power generation as well as metals and cement production. Most green investments are made in complex economies and China. , and emerging countries have gigantic deficits. To address those trends, the world will need a much greater investment in nuclear power.
In market economies, governments will have to create situations that facilitate public and personal investments in nuclear energy. At the same time, foreign monetary institutions and progress banks will have to ensure that no one is left behind. To do this, they will have to align their policies with science and the global imperative by removing obstacles to their important participation in the financing of the construction of nuclear forces.
Achieving net-zero emissions will also require investment in complex nuclear technologies, such as reactors that can recycle spent nuclear fuel, generating less waste, and small modular reactors. SMRs, made up of prefabricated units, produce about a third of the power of the classics. Nuclear power plants. By 2050, they could account for only about ten percent of global nuclear capacity, distributing electrical power to emerging countries and offering more affordable features for smaller grids, such as those operated through industries in remote areas. Many emerging countries are already working with the IAEA on methods to meet the desire for strength and climate goals of their emerging populations and economies. But small reactors will not succeed in those markets in the required timeframe without us taking a cross-border decision. cooperation on regulatory approaches and greater standardization of design, efforts that the firm is facilitating lately.
Mastering nuclear fusion is an even greater technical challenge. While nuclear fission produces energy by splitting the atom, nuclear fusion does so by combining two soft atomic nuclei to form a heavier one, necessarily recreating the situations of the sun in the laboratory. This enormous experiment has occupied scientists and engineers for decades.
Pessimists joke that fusion will be the abundant source of empty energy of the future. Others say it will come, albeit too late. Both arguments are false. We may not have a full picture yet, but for the first time all the pieces of the puzzle are there: the physical elements, the policy points, and the investments. And the end of the world will not end in 2030, 2050 or 2070 simply because those are the deadlines set by many countries to meet their current climate goals. We will have to continue to help fusion so that it can, in the not-too-distant future, produce almost unlimited amounts of energy, with virtually no destructive waste. The IAEA’s creation of a Global Fusion Platform – in collaboration with the G7 and others, adding the 35-nation fusion experiment known as ITER – brings us closer than ever to fusion electricity.
But the world cannot think only in the long term. Climate change is already here, evident in the dry fields of Africa, in flooding in Central Asia and in record heat levels around the world. Nuclear technologies and techniques can help societies adapt to climate change. Isotopic hydrology uses radioisotopes as tracers to analyze water flows, for example to better monitor valuable groundwater sources. Physical radiation can boost the natural process of genetic variation, creating crops that are more resistant to drought and disease and therefore improve food security while reducing the use of destructive fertilizers and pesticides.
There is no undeniable and direct correlation between the three tracks of the NPT: nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the expansion of non-violent uses of nuclear science and technology. However, as with a tripod, all three legs are required to ensure the stability of supply, a balance that has worked very well for more than a century. This achievement should not be taken for granted, especially in the divisive political climate.
We are faced with a convergence of demanding situations: climate change, energy, water and food insecurity, and the need to provide physical care for all. Floods, fires and droughts augur a disastrous future. But we have the means to avoid the worst and adapt to the new realities: nuclear generation is an essential component of the solution. World leaders will need to adopt and expand this tool in proportion to the demanding situations we face.