The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy. The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your knowledge or experience.

There is no doubt that nuclear technology has been an enormous benefit to the world. It ended World War II with the first and last use of nuclear weapons against an enemy, and the threat of a future nuclear attack ensures that World War II stays ended. Today, nuclear technology furnishes us with smoke detectors in our modern homes, radioisotopes for our modern medicine, and clean energy to run our modern economy. Despite the danger of catastrophic failures of nuclear reactors and the risk of nuclear war, the virtues of nuclear technology clearly outweigh any drawbacks. Indeed, nuclear technology is somewhat worthwhile. Without the tiny flake of radioactive substance in every smoke detector, countless homes, businesses, and lives would be lost. Fires would burn everywhere and misery would multiply if we were to allow ourselves to be persuaded to rid ourselves of nuclear technology by a successful anti-nuclear campaign. Furthermore, as a society without radioisotopes in nuclear medicine as contrasts in routines scans, diseases would be missed and loved ones would die. Without radiation therapy, cancer would return more often after surgery and the misery of chemotherapy would be our line of defense. Finally, the lights would go out and food would spoil without nuclear power facilities. To replace the loss of safe, cheap, and limitless electricity generation, we would have to turn to fossil fuels, poisoning our air and destabilizing our climate even more than we are doing currently. Nevertheless, critics are quick to point out that we would be better off without nuclear technology. They point to the Fukushima nuclear power plant fire, explosion, and contamination of the surrounding countryside. Opponents of nuclear energy also point to the nuclear waste that has to be safely stored indefinitely. Forever is a long time to store nuclear waste, admittedly. Nuclear war seems a constant threat since all it takes is for a hotheaded terrorist with access to a bomb or a fit of madness in one of the presidents of Russia or America to end civilization with a nuclear apocalypse. Granted, nuclear technology is extremely dangerous because catastrophic failure of just one of the safety mechanisms we have devised for it can ruin us completely. However, there is no going back. The genie will not return to its bottle. We must learn to live with the dangers of nuclear technology, using past disasters and simulations of the future to develop better safeguards. Complete denuclearization is wholly unrealistic and will never happen. In conclusion, despite some major drawbacks, nuclear technology is much more beneficial than it is detrimental. With safety in mind, nuclear energy remains our best hope for a reduction of the use of the fossil fuels that poison our climate and funds the religious extremism of Middle Eastern terrorism. Also, nuclear medicine is indispensable for disease detection and treatment. Finally, who would wish to live in a completely denuclearized apartment building without smoke detectors? It is a deathtrap. Rather by focusing on nuclear safety instead of the unrealistic fantasy of complete denuclearization, we will continue to benefit from nuclear technology long into the future.