Friend or Foe

            "Let me be clear." This is how President Obama prefaces his remarks when he wants to make sure we don't misunderstand what he is about to say. Well, remarks he uttered in several speeches during the week of May 16th make it clear where he stands on Israel.

            Since the Six-Day War in 1967 between Israel and its neighbors, American policy stated by every president since Lyndon Johnson has been that Israel need not return the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza strip to Arab control or to repatriate Palestinian refugees. President Obama has now reversed that policy.

            To his credit, Prime Minister Netanyahu said to the most powerful man in the world, right to his face and in front of the cameras for all the world to see and hear, "That will not happen." Bravo.

            Oblivious to the crushing deficits he has promoted, President Obama that week also declared that the United States would provide billions in additional aid to the Palestinians and the Arabs of North Africa. These are the same people who cheered in the streets after 9/11, the same people who support Hezbollah, Fatah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in their midst,  organizations that openly advocate the destruction of Israel and America. 

            This was the same week that Obama focused all the attention on himself when speaking about the killing of bin Laden. Yet leaks keep coming out of Washington that make us suspect that Obama withheld approval of the action for weeks for fear of offending his Muslim friends. On the eve of the action, with everything ready and the CIA and the Pentagon pressing him for action, the president still needed to sleep on it. It may very well be that the decision was made for him while he slept. If true, that would have been a gift to the president: had the action failed, he could have blamed his advisors for usurping his authority. When it succeeded, he was able to take credit for the fateful decision, while the others obviously could not.

            Finally, evidence surfaced that week that Iran and Hezbollah helped al Qaeda in planning the attacks on September 11, 2001, and in facilitating the hijackers' training and travel. This is the same Iran that Obama chooses to "engage" rather than confront, the same Iran that crushed a popular rebellion that cried out for support from a silent Obama. It is also the same Iran whose first nuclear plant is expected to be operational in a matter of weeks, bringing it that much closer to having nuclear weapons.

            Israel had stated repeatedly that it cannot permit Iran to have nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to act unilaterally against Iran, will it have the backing of the United States? I don't know. But I am reminded of the old adage that a friend of my friend is my friend, and the friend of my enemy is my enemy. Israel has every right to ask Obama: Whose friend are you?  

           

The Facts about Nuclear Energy

         

            Ever since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, any mention of nuclear plants in this country, whether existing or planned, is met with hysterical rants from anti-nukes and uninformed environmentalists. This calls for a re-examination of the facts.

            To put it simply, of the three major sources of electricity in this country (coal, gas, and nuclear account for 90%), nuclear energy is the cleanest, most cost effective, and  safest source of power we have. Let's take one point at a time.          

            First, I have never understood why environmentalists who rail against emissions of CO2 by coal and gas-fired plants haven't become big supporters of nuclear energy, which emits none. We have 104 operating nuclear plants in this country, and they produce clean, emission-free energy. Period.

            Second, nuclear energy is also cost effective. It takes six to eight billion dollars to build a nuclear plant, but once it is built, it requires only basic maintenance; we have plants that have been in operation for over forty years and will continue to operate long into the future. The fuel itself, uranium, is plentiful and cheap; moreover, if the Japanese figure out how to extract it from seawater economically (they're working on it), we could have enough uranium to meet our needs for the next thousand years.

            Electricity produced by nuclear plants is probably the cheapest of all. France learned this lesson years ago when it built 59 nuclear plants that provide 80% of its electricity at a cost that is among the lowest in the world. In fact, France produces so much electricity from its nuclear plants, it sells its excess to other countries. We could learn from France's example.

            Third, U.S. nuclear power plants are very safe. Our first nuclear power plant was started in 1958. Since then, the U.S. has built 132. In addition, the Navy has put 140 nuclear-powered ships out to sea. None of these plants or ships, not even Three-Mile Island, has ever caused a single death due to a nuclear accident. Compare that to the record of the coal industry, for instance. Yet, vocal and influential anti-nuke groups have managed to get the number of power plants reduced to 104 and have effectively prevented the building of new ones for decades.

            Another concern brought up by opponents is the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel. This is no problem for the French who recycle spent fuel. But Jimmy Carter thought that stored plutonium waiting to be recycled presented a security risk, so he opted for permanent storage of nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain storage facility became a perfectly adequate solution. But Nevada's Senator Reid didn't want nuclear waste in his back yard so he called in a favor from President Obama, and the president obliged by cancelling Yucca Mountain. So much for playing politics with nuclear fuel. But another solution is available.

            There are enormous salt domes beneath Texas and New Mexico. In fact, one of these domes in Carlsbad, New Mexico, has been used for 12 years as a repository for defense transuranic waste material from our nuclear weapons program. Steel casks containing the waste are buried deep in a salt dome, and the heat from the radioactive waste causes a melting of the salt, a process called plastic deformation. The salt surrounds the casks and seals them. Unfortunately, this solution would make the nuclear waste very expensive and impractical to retrieve, if we ever changed our minds about that. Yucca Mountain, on the other hand, was designed for retrievability for 100 years. So much for the $12 billion of taxpayer money already invested in Yucca Mountain.

          This is just another piece of evidence that our country's energy policy is weak, muddled,  confused, and politicized. It is high time we put a lid on venal politicians and hysterical anti-nukes, and become enthusiastic advocates for clean, efficient, and safe nuclear energy.