DAVID HESS | OPINION
The peace-building potential of a new Atoms for Peace initiative is considerable, as nuclear programmes lead to
international partnerships and help to develop effective governance. By helping to address energy shortages, these programmes would unlock GDP growth, promote regional cooperation, integration and trade that should reduce the factors that lead to conflict.
the most recent year for which data is readily available, there were 61 active conflicts across 36 countries. According to the Peace Research institute of Oslo, this was the highest number since 1946. It bears watching whether this number increased or decreased in 2025. Looking at these headlines it is hard to escape the
feeling that we have entered a more belligerent age, and that a long period of comparative peace and prosperity building via free trade is drawing to a close. At the very least we seem to be in for a bumpy road for a few years, with a distinct possibility that things may escalate further. Countries which have not experienced foreign
aggression on their own soil for decades may find themselves targets. These will not be like the wars of years-past, but rather characterised by modern weaponry, drone strikes, military AI and other advanced systems. The nature of war is changing and this is truly scary stuff. What an increase in conflict means for the global
nuclear industry remains to be seen, but it probably will not be good. Nonetheless, the general increase in security fears, especially energy security, seems to have boosted the desire for nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants bring genuine energy security benefits (if implemented strategically), but there also seems to be a deep connection between a country’s nuclear sector and perceived national strength. While many countries now hunger for nuclear energy,
many of these are seeking to develop this without the involvement of arguably the most successful national nuclear sector in the world. The progressive blacklisting of the Russian nuclear supply chain and fuel cycle facilities can hardly be serving to make nuclear energy cheaper – especially for Western countries which have notoriously struggled to deliver nuclear construction projects on time and on-budget. What happens if China – another leading nuclear
energy country and a major source of the supply chain across multiple industries – suddenly finds itself on similar lists? How will Western nuclear projects go if basic resources like graphite, lithium, electronics, etc are suddenly in short supply? Taking these grim thoughts a step further, what will happen to the available workforce if the armed forces offer better opportunities, or exhibit greater need? Engineers, welders, civil contractors, even radiation and reactor experts may find themselves dragged elsewhere – reducing an already small pool of suitably skilled workers. And if missile strikes or other attacks become a reality, do we really expect major civil construction works to continue unaffected?
Whereas existing nuclear infrastructure becomes
a strategic asset during war-time, civil nuclear construction projects would seem to be more of a resource suck. Put simply, nuclear power plants are something well-off nations are more likely to build while at peace, not something that they are expected to build in great numbers while involved in conflict of any major scale. Scale is of course a relative concept, and Russia has notably just connected the first unit of Kursk II to the grid. Yet the idea that smaller nations will carry out significant nuclear new build programmes while at war is difficult to accept. Over the longer term perhaps there is a silver lining, in that countries which again build up industrial capability will find themselves well-placed to launch into a civil nuclear programme. This is not however a thought which brings much solace. For now, for most of us, the peace remains. This
leads to the question of whether there is anything the nuclear sector can do promote and prolong this peace? Such a question may raise a sceptical eyebrow or two, especially given the commonly assumed connection between the nuclear sector and military activities, but it is a genuine one. It is a question which has a historical answer in the Atoms for Peace programme. This programme, which seeded nuclear technology across multiple countries, also laid the foundation for the non- proliferation regime. Perhaps it is time for a second-wave Atoms for Peace
programme, in which the USA, Europe and their mutual allies target the global south for accelerated civil nuclear development. The peace-building potential of such an initiative is considerable, as nuclear programmes lead to international partnerships and help to develop effective governance. By helping to address energy shortages, these programmes would unlock GDP growth, promote regional cooperation, integration and trade that should reduce the factors that lead to conflict. Author Stephen Pinker described the pillars of the
‘enlightenment’ as reason, science, humanism and progress. These are the forces that promote human flourishing and lead us away from conflict and towards peace. The establishment of successful nuclear energy programmes perfectly captures the essence of these pillars. To assist with domestic security Western nations should be building more nuclear power plants as quickly as possible. To promote peace abroad they should be developing the infrastructure and helping to build nuclear plants in the countries which need them the most. This is a new year’s resolution worth fighting for. ■
www.neimagazine.com | January 2026| 13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
