Nuclear technology serves as a double-edged sword. From being a source of progress and security to creating a sense of fear and ambiguity due to its tremendously destructive potential. Its contribution in the energy production sector to defense has enhanced human capabilities.

However, a number of critical questions arise on the duality of its nature, whether this nuclear technology leads truly to bolstered security or fuels insecurity. The Fukushima Daiichi incident of 2011 is a vivid reminder of how nuclear technology, regardless of its enormous promises, can turn from a strategic asset to a security liability.

The Fukushima Daiichi disaster exemplifies how nuclear technology, intended for security, can become a global liability due to accidents.

The onset of nuclear technology has been seen as a ground-breaker in international relations for the national security of states. Similarly, in the energy realm, it has emerged as a source of more effective and sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. It is taken as a pathway towards a low-carbon future, in a world struggling with climate change.

Since, it produces a large amount of electricity with little or no emission of greenhouse gases, executing it is an appealing choice for states seeking energy autonomy while dealing with the dilemma of global climate. The advancements in nuclear technology also play a vital role in strategic defense, as global stability since the Cold War anchors on nuclear deterrence. Additionally, its harmonious utilization of disease treatments as medical isotopes contributes to its strategic value.

While the advantages of nuclear technology are certain, the vulnerabilities besides them are also very crucial. The Fukushima Daiichi incident of 2011 is an alarming case study to examine how a nuclear power plant designed for the purpose of security in Japan became a seed of insecurity for the state and its people.

On March 11, 2011, the coasts of Japan were struck by an earthquake of 9.0 magnitude resulting as a trigger for 15-meter-high waves of tsunami. This tsunami ended up in one of the most devastating nuclear site accidents recorded in history, on Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). Three out of six reactors of the station were core melted and the entire facility was extensively ruined, abundantly releasing radioactive materials into the environment.

The accident due to its catastrophic consequences was categorized as level 7 of the International Nuclear Event Scale. Over 150,000 people were evacuated forcefully from their homes, from which many could never return till the date due to the contamination. Few causalities in the facility were also reported. All the water and land in the region was toxified with radiation.

Hence, causing long-term health and environmental concerns. Japan had to bear a cost of about $200 billion for the disaster with its decontamination process expected as decades-long. What was intended as a symbol of security ended up in a national and global crisis?

Radioactive waste remains an unresolved issue, with potential human and environmental consequences threatening the narrative of nuclear safety.

In addition to this, the challenge of radioactive waste management and storage still remains unattended. No sustainable approach has been taken despite the security and environmental challenges it poses. This is justified if viewed from the lens of the Fukushima incident, as more than a million tons of water contaminated with radioactive materials have been present at the sites of TEPOC since 2011.

The government has decided to release this water into the Pacific Ocean from 2022, however, the environmentalist contradicts this idea. A report has been released by Greenpeace, claiming that this contaminated water consists of a high level of radioactive material known as Carbon-14.  This substance has all the potential to damage human DNA, hence endangering humanity. This issue further confounds the perspective of nuclear technology existing as a strategic asset only

This emphasizes how nuclear weapons also embody the paradox in the strategic realm. Despite being a tool for deterrence, its mere existence is a risk to global security. Intentional, unintentional, or accidental launch of these weapons will leave the world utterly shattered. The Fukushima accident is one of the most prominent examples of the dangers, this nuclear technology poses.

If the melting down of reactors at civilian nuclear power plants can be so devastating, then the conscious use of nuclear weapons would be unimaginably catastrophic. This face of technology, characterized by several risks defies the idea of nuclear technology as solely a strategic asset, exhibiting their capacity to erode the same security they strive to uphold.

The destiny of nuclear technology now resides in our potential, as to mitigate the risks and extend its benefits to all possible ends. The recent advancements in this domain, are done to address the challenges posed by previous accidents. Such as the creation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which are more resistant to shocks, hence reducing the probability of disasters.

Nuclear weapons, while tools of deterrence, pose catastrophic risks, challenging their perception as purely strategic assets.

The complete elimination of risks, however, is not possible even with the most innovative technologies. Some level of uncertainty will always be carried along the nuclear technology due to the unpredictability of human errors, geopolitical conflict, and natural disasters.

The 2011 disaster of Fukushima Daiichi is a sobering reminder of the binary nature of nuclear technology. Offering strategic benefits of military deterrence and energy security on one side and generating vulnerabilities on the other. This disaster left some lessons that highlighted the importance of extra safety measures at nuclear power plants, more vigilant governance, and cooperation around the globe to mitigate all risks.

As the world navigates through the challenges of energy consumption and climate crisis, nuclear technology will be a cornerstone of discussions. The status of this technology either as a strategic asset or security liability depends on our ability to take lessons from past failures and guarantee that its power is leveraged cautiously.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.