Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
Comments
I would even include India, Pakistan and Israel in this category. The former two have resisted the temptation to go nuclear, despite open conflict at times, while Israel has refrained from using its nukes even when it was very close to being overrun in 1973, adding credence to their claim that the weapons are for last-gasp self-defence only.
Iran, on the other hand, cannot be trusted in this way, nor can North Korea. Iran's ongoing support for terrorist groups and its constant (and unwarranted) threats against Israel should give anyone cause to doubt their professed "peaceful" intentions, whilst NK's policy of selling nuke tech to whomever wishes to pay for it doesn't do wonders for non-proliferation.
Thus it makes sense to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, because its threats and actions (most especially the intense secrecy which surrounds its enrichment program) make it clear that it seeks not peaceful nuclear power but rather nuclear weapons. Not only is this in breach of the NPT, but it's undesirable from the standpoint of anybody in favour of peace and stability.
With that in mind, the impression I got from the Commentary post was not that they were saying that South Africa should not be allowed to enrich uranium, but rather that it had no convincing economic or strategic reason to do so. Certainly, the international community is not wary of SA's intentions and there's no worry about us going nuclear again, so any uranium enrichment by SA will be ignored.
For this reason, if SA's enrichment plans are indeed an attempt to show some sort of hollow solidarity with Iran, then it is quite plainly stupid (arguably just as stupid as showing solidarity with Iran in the first place). And as a South African, you really should be wary of our government potentially spending millions on a program which will run at an economic loss and bring no tangible benefit to us in any way.
In regard to your other question the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the International Atomic Agency determines who is suitable. The main powers, including Russia and China are regarded as more stable and better custodians of such weapons for obvious reasons. Would you like a small regime that engages in drug smuggling, counterfeiting and spends 50% of it's GDP on arms while threatening to also start sharing atomic warheads with terrorists that could nuke your city? If you would know that it does exist - it's called North Korea.
If every individual or small nation must have the right to possess atomic warheads then you must also be prepared to start erasing cities from maps. After all, the increasing promotion of suicide bombers shows that the 'rational individual' argument is not a guarantee.
Apartheid South Africa possessed atomic bombs. If the 'verkramptes' had won the succession battle in the NP in the late 1980's and the country had collapsed into civil war do you think they wouldn't have been used?