Although the idols of Canaan and Philistia are museum relics today, idolatry is still a major force in human affairs. The 20th century has reaffirmed the idolatries of race and nation that have dominated human history from its start. It has also enshrined the idolatry of technology.
The essence of idolatry is the worship of the creation of the creature, rather than the Creator. It is the placement of ultimate trust as well as personal and corporate loyalty in any concept other than God. Thus, the idolatry of technology is the belief that the pursuit of technology is by definition the pursuit of progress.
Technology is not itself idolatrous. Rather it is the belief that technology must produce more good than evil, that technology is perfectible, and that technical solutions can be found to remedy the fundamental fallibility and sinfulness of human nature that is idolatrous.
In both the impetus to develop atomic power and in the bitter fruits of its development, the idolatry of technology is clearly evident. After the explosion of the atomic bombs on Japan, there was a powerful desire in the United State to use atomic technology for the good of humankind. Because its destructive powers were obviously enormous, technological faith required a demonstration of its constructive powers. Despite voices of dissent, there was an outward national consensus, supported by inner guilt, that the peaceful uses of the atom must be developed. This goal was pursued through huge expenditures of tax dollars to develop methods of producing electricity from the heat generated by the controlled fission of uranium. Those who questioned the benefits of atomic power were branded as opponents of progress.
It was by no means clear that developing civilian uses of atomic energy would benefit humanity. On the contrary, perceptive observers recognized from the beginning that the spread of atomic power could proliferate atomic weapons as well. Robert Oppenheimer, the chief scientist of the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb during World War II, observed that the “heart of the problem (was) the close technical parallelism and interrelation of the peaceful and military applications of atomic energy.”
The potential weapons proliferation from developing atomic power is on the verge of realization today. If the civilian uses of atomic energy continue to boom, the ability and materials necessary to make atomic weapons will be propagated to 40 nations in the next decade. The widespread availability of atomic weapons, in turn, makes atomic war in some form a likelihood by the year 2000.
The direct connection between the civilian uses of atomic energy and atomic weapons is not well understood, and that incomprehension is not accidental. For 30 years the atomic complex in the United States has propagated the notion that there was a “peaceful” atom separate from atomic weapons. They even argued that the spread of the “peaceful” atom would limit the development of atomic weapons.
To understand why the proliferation of civilian atomic power for electric generation will spread atomic weapons throughout the world, one must under stand a few simple facts about atomic power.
Atomic reactors used for the generation of electricity fission or “burn” uranium. The fission process creates great heat which makes steam to power generators, producing electricity. The amount of uranium in the world is finite--there is about as much uranium as oil. We are not running out of either soon, but the supplies are limited. Because of limits to the uranium supply, and because the atomic industrial complex wants widespread use of atomic reactors, it believes that there is the need for a fuel in addition to uranium that can be used in reactors. Plutonium is such a fuel.
Plutonium is a material that does not form naturally. It is created as the structure of atoms are changed during fission in atomic reactors. The atomic industry has proposed that the plutonium which is created during the “burning” of uranium, and which becomes part of the radioactive wastes, be reprocessed. These radioactive wastes can be chemically processed so that the plutonium can be reused in place of, or in combination with, uranium in reactors. This procedure is called plutonium reprocessing, and the plutonium fuel is called reprocessed fuel or mixed oxide fuel.
Unfortunately, as well as being a uranium substitute, plutonium is also the raw material of atomic weapons. The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb.
Every nation that has an atomic reactor will have access to this reprocessed plutonium fuel unless policies are changed. Virtually any nation, and many “terrorist” groups, can extract the plutonium from this reprocessed fuel, place the plutonium in a bomb mechanism, and have the A-bomb.
Thus the spread of atomic energy technology creates both the motivating force for, and the means of, atomic weapons proliferation. If atomic re actors proliferate, they will force the reprocessing of plutonium. The technology of plutonium reprocessing itself will provide the means by which nations will acquire atomic weapons.
Fortunately, the spread of atomic weapons by the proliferation of civilian atomic power is not inevitable. Plutonium is not being reprocessed commercially anywhere in the world today. The market for atomic reactors in nations that do not now have them is very small. Many sales could not proceed without large scale subsidization by the U.S. government.
Most importantly, the U.S., if it is willing to take leadership, can discourage and virtually halt commercial reprocessing throughout the world. If the United States decides not to proceed with reprocessing, it would issue a clear and influential signal to the world.
Idolatries, by definition, are based on illusions. Atomic technology idolatry is no exception. The fundamental illusion that the peaceful uses of atomic energy could be propagated without proliferating atomic weapons was itself based on two sub-illusions. The first was that atomic power would have such great benefits that atomic power development was inevitable throughout the world. The second was that the plutonium, which is the raw material of atomic weapons, could be denatured.
During the early days of the atomic program, the technology’s prophets foresaw the atom producing “energy too cheap to meter.” The visionaries believed that ocean liners would be powered across the Atlantic from the energy in a glass of water.
In fact, the electricity from atomic power will cost twice as much as the average cost of electricity today. The basic alternative to atomic energy development--increasing the efficiency of the use of our present energy supply--would be half as costly as atomic generated electricity. If the costs of generating electricity by burning oil are compared to those of generating electricity, even in the lesser developed countries, would save only pennies per year per capita.
The illusion that atomic power would be very cheap had tragic consequences. It convinced policy makers that every nation of any size would be forced to develop atomic technology. Recognizing that the development of a nation’s civilian atomic program would inevitably give that nation its own atomic weapons capability, U.S. policy makers adopted a practice of giving away civilian atomic technology. They reasoned that if we transferred the technology to other nations, they would agree not to develop it themselves. This would stave off the proliferation of atomic weapons. So the hope of great economic advantages from atomic power was the springboard for distributing civilian atomic energy.
Its proponents believed that this distribution would not expand military uses because plutonium could be denatured. Unfortunately, denaturing it self is an illusion. Plutonium, it was believed, could be rendered unsuitable for atomic weapons by the addition of certain other substances during fission. Even though some scientists within the priesthood of believers in the 1940’s recognized that plutonium probably could not be denatured, the program proceeded for 30 years on the assumption that this process would occur. But fission, in fact, does not denature plutonium. As we have seen, the plutonium from reprocessed plutonium may give many nations potential atomic weapons in the near future.
The illusion that plutonium could be denatured is characteristic of a key element of technological idolatry--the “technical fix” mentality. This is the belief that there is a technical solution to every problem--including greed and fallibility.
The idolatry of technology can be seen in other outcroppings of atomic development. These are the dangers that atomic weapons will be made by terrorist groups or that large scale human and environmental damage will be caused by accidental release of radiation from atomic reactors or atomic wastes.
The attitude of the atomic complex to the threat of plutonium theft by terrorists is a paradigm of the technical fix. If nations can make atomic bombs if they have the plutonium, so can terrorist groups. While the fabrication of an atomic weapon is not easy, recent studies have confirmed that the more powerful terrorist groups can make a weapon if they have plutonium. If plutonium is reprocessed on a commercial scale, there will be tons of plutonium produced, reprocessed, and fabricated each year. If just 20 pounds of this material is stolen by a terrorist group, it will have the material necessary to make an atomic weapon.
Critics of plutonium reprocessing argue that the threat of terrorist theft is a compelling argument against reprocessing plutonium. Until the plutonium is reprocessed, it cannot be used to make a crude bomb. Supporters of plutonium reprocessing believe that security measures, societal and technical, can be developed that will make it virtually certain that no plutonium will be stolen. Yet heroin was stolen from the New York police department’s lock-up, and the Mafia has widely infiltrated the U.S. transportation industry. No security system can be designed that cannot be defeated if there is the desire, pecuniary or otherwise, to beat it.
At the end of a speech by a critic of plutonium reprocessing, an atomic industry scientist stood up and stated that he had a solution to the problem of plutonium theft. There is a device, he argued, that could detect very reliably any person attempting to smuggle plutonium out of a plutonium facility. The speaker responded rhetorically, “And what is the probability that the person whose job it is to watch the plutonium detection machine will be bribed to ignore the warning?”
Atomic technological idolatry also has a tenet that there are technical fixes to human fallibility as well as to greed or malevolence. This is seen most clearly in the attitude of the atomic complex to the safety of atomic reactors and the disposal of radioactive wastes.
Atomic reactors contain large amounts of radioactivity. A large plant contains a thousand times as much radioactivity as the Hiroshima bomb. An atomic reactor of the type now being built cannot explode. It can, however, undergo an accident called a “meltdown” in which significant quantities of radioactivity can be released. If this happens, thousands could be injured or killed, and hundreds of square miles made uninhabitable.
The proponents of atomic power argue that extremely complex, redundant safety systems can be designed, that the designs can be applied by engineers, and that the plants will be built according to these designs. They also assert that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will assure that its safety regulations will be enforced, and that the atomic power plants will be operated without serious errors. Although there are some technical arguments, the fundamental bone of contention is the proponents’ too great faith in technological perfectionism. Although in theory it may be possible to design a perfect system, thoroughly researched and engineered systems have failed repeatedly, as illustrated by the failures in the space program. Even a perfect safety system would face pressures by the regulated atomic industry that could force the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to implement it. There have been numerous instances in which the NRC has caved in to the atomic industry on safety matters, egregious errors in the construction of atomic facilities and components, and bribes and kickbacks during the construction of the plants.
One simply cannot trust the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do its job, because of the tremendous power of the industry it regulates. Safety standards for reactors are actually developed by the atomic industry itself, subject only to veto of the NRC, and NRC inspectors inspect less than one percent of any given plant.
Perhaps the most telling example of technological idolatry in the atomic program is the attitude of the atomic complex to the disposal of radioactive wastes. These wastes produced by atomic reactors are extremely toxic, remaining so for thousands to tens of thousands of years. Their disposal is an enormous problem. In spite of the expenditures of billions of dollars on a nuclear research and development, no solution for the disposal of radioactive wastes has been found.
Perhaps the most telling example of technological idolatry in the atomic program is the attitude of the atomic complex to the disposal of radioactive wastes. These wastes produced by atomic reactors are extremely toxic, remaining so for thousands to tens of thousands of years. Their disposal is an enormous problem. In spite of the expenditures of billions of dollars on a nuclear research and development, no solution for the disposal of radioactive wastes has been found.
The atomic industry complex believes that these problems can be solved and argues that the public must permit more atomic reactors to be built, urging us simply to “have faith” in the technological ability of modern science to find solutions.
The consequences of atomic idolatry are clearly evident in the prospect of atomic weapons proliferation and in the threat to our health and genetic integrity if atomic power continues to develop.
Because of the immense influence of the United States on technological and political questions, world policy can be turned around if the United States will exercise leadership. The atomic complex after propagating atomic technology throughout the world, now argues that we must continue to proliferate atomic energy because if we do not, the French or the Russians will. The French and the Russians, it is also argued, will not require as stringent safety and proliferation controls. This was the same argument that the proponents of the slave trade used for the continued participation of Britain and the United States in that enterprise.
For the Christian, an escape to moral irresponsibility is the ultimate idolatry, and moral irresponsibility is the ultimate illusion.
When this article appeared, Jim Cubic, who studied at Princeton Theological Seminary and served for one year as an assistant minister, had been an attorney-lobbyist for Ralph Nader’s Congress-Watch in charge of energy affairs and served in a similar capacity for New Directions, a foreign policy lobby group in Washington, D.C.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!