Budny 4:00
L21
The Moral Dilemma of Designing Fusion Reactors for Military Applications
William Leisner ([email protected])
The Benefits
THE MORAL DILEMMA
The benefits of nuclear fusion applications in the military
are numerous. Nuclear fusion is much safer then nuclear
fission as a power source. In terms of radioactive waste, it
requires small amounts of tritium, and irradiates its inner
reactor wall due to neutron bombardment. However, tritium
only has a radioactive half-life of 10 days in the human body,
and the irradiated reactor wall would only be considered as
class C (low level) radioactive waste. [1] This is much reduced,
and far safer waste then the nasty radioactive materials
produced in fission reactors. And, unlike fission reactors,
fusion reactors have no potential of exploding or going critical.
These attributes of fusion make it far safer for people and the
environment then fission. If I helped to put fusion reactors into
the aircraft carriers and submarines that currently contain
fission reactors, I would help to make them far safer for their
personnel. Since fusion could also be implemented on smaller
ships because it requires less space, fusion would also help to
reduce the fossil fuel use of the Navy, which would be a very
large benefit to the environment. The benefits are great, but the
detriments of my work must still be considered.
Engineering is a profession that touches the lives of all
people on Earth. Being such a far reaching occupation means
that engineers must pay close attention to how the morality and
ethics of their work affects the lives of others. This could not
be truer for engineers designing the newest and most radical
advancements on the edge of established science. One such
technology is a viable nuclear fusion reactor. I discussed in
great detail in my last paper the current state of commercial
nuclear fusion energy production. Currently, this technology is
still only theoretical. However, at some point in the future
practical nuclear fusion, as an entirely new development, will
require engineers to answer a host of entirely new moral
dilemmas. I want to take a look into the future where energy
efficient nuclear fusion has already been achieved. Whereas
most moral dilemmas may arise in small scale scenarios,
nuclear fusion is such a wide reaching development that I
believe that a dilemma on a much larger scale should be
analyzed. Therefore, in this paper I will play the main role as
a top researcher on nuclear fusion reactors who is faced with a
specific moral choice never faced by anyone before him due to
the novelty of the technology. As a top researcher in nuclear
fusion, the United States military approaches me offering a
position as a lead designer of fusion reactors in military
applications, primarily in naval vessels. My choice is whether
or not to take their offer. Deciding if I should put fusion
reactors into such applications as aircraft carriers and
submarines. On the surface this decision may not seem like a
significant moral dilemma, but in fact it is. Any and all
research for the military must be scrutinized much more than
for the private sector because the military has the capacity to
either save or snuff out the lives of others. As a citizen of the
U.S. it is hard not to be biased towards my own country, but as
a human of planet Earth I must view the consequences of my
research from the perspectives of all people. To make my
decision I must look at the potential benefits and detriments of
my work for the military. I must also refer to the code of ethics
for my line of work as well as to the choices of others before
me who had to make similar ethical decisions. Lastly, I will
seek the advice of those I love and my moral guide as a
Christian, the bible.
The Detriments
The possible detriments of my work are not as immediately
obvious as the benefits, but they are there nonetheless. As it
has been noted, “New military products quickly become
globally accessible” [2]. Currently only a handful of countries
have nuclear fission powered vessels and the U.S. is the only
country which employs nuclear powered aircraft carriers to a
significant degree. But if I helped the military implement
fusion reactors it would ultimately lead to the same
innovations by other countries in their ships. Fusion, being
safer and cheaper to use would lift the current hold on
extremely large ships that fission currently imposes. This
could lead to a rapid arms race in the development of many
large and powerful navies that would increase tensions across
the globe. If the U.S. acquired fusion powered warships it
would greatly increase the demand for other countries to have
them as well for countermeasure purposes. If war broke out it
would be ships powered by my designs leading the fight and it
would be foolish to pretend that I have no responsibility in the
resulting casualties. It has also been recognized that fusion
reactor research can also benefit countries that wish to develop
thermonuclear weapons [3]. So countries that wish to develop
fusion reactors for their naval vessels may also find other, more
nefarious, insights with their research. Looking at the benefits
and detriments of fusion in the military is not enough for me
to come to a sound conclusion on my choice. The pros exceed
the cons, but they are too close for comfort. I must move on to
the codes of ethics of different areas of engineering to help
resolve my moral dilemma.
PROS AND CONS
When first attempting to reach a decision on the military’s
offer, I would weigh the potential good that could stem from
my involvement and research versus the potential harm that
could result from it. I believe that this is ultimately the most
important step in making my choice because it will provide me
with insight onto the overall effect of my work.
1
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2015-11-2
William Leisner
ultimate purpose of the project, he quickly dropped out on
moral conscience [6]. He felt his work would make him
responsible for the effects of nuclear weaponry. Indeed, the
results of the Manhattan Project were many. With the use of
atomic bombs in Japan, almost 350,000 have died as a direct
result. The development of fission bombs also lead to fusion
bombs of even greater destructive force. The Manhattan
Project led to the rapid buildup of nuclear stockpiles in the U.S.
and eventually many other countries around the globe. Since
the creation of nuclear weapons, mankind has lived in constant
fear of self-wrought destruction. Contrasting Rotblat, another
Manhattan Project scientist Albert Einstein, chose to stay. He
did feel guilty that his work helped contribute to the many
negative results of the Manhattan project, but at the same time
he did not feel responsible. As he said in an interview in 1940,
“[Science] creates means, not goals” [7]. He believed that it
was those who made the decision to use and produce nuclear
weapons who were responsible for their effects, not the
scientists who made them possible. Although my choice to
help the military apply fusion reactors to their naval vessels is
not leading to the direct creation of a super weapon, it will
enable the production of larger and more powerful warships
that themselves will carry out military operations. Whether or
not these military operations are good or bad is for another
paper, but many of these operations would undoubtedly have
casualties on both sides of conflicts. This leads to another
method of determining my moral responsibility. As Jesper
Reyberg concluded in his paper, “Ethics and Military
Research”, the morality of military research must be judged by
its effects. In other words, whether or not it leads to more or
less victims in military conflict [8]. To finally make a decision
I must choose whether to follow in the ways of Rotblat or
Einstein, by using the thought process of Reyberg. Since there
is much potential for good to come out of nuclear fusion
reactors in naval vessels, I am again swayed towards accepting
the military’s offer. But, I am now well aware that I may end
up regretting my decision in the long run like Rotblat. What I
have gathered from society is a mixed message. No one choice
stands out from the other, and therefore I must turn to my own
personal sources.
CODE OF ETHICS
As a professional engineer, I would be very familiar with
the code of ethics for all professional engineers and for
engineers in my specific area of engineering. After finding the
benefits and detriments I would next move to these codes to
help guide my decision. The National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE) has drafted its own code of ethics that all
professional engineers must follow. In the NSPE code of ethics
there is a fundamental canon that is listed first, implying
importance. It reads, “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their
professional duties, shall: Hold paramount the safety, health,
and welfare of the public” [4]. This canon makes it very clear
that as an engineer I must put the public first when considering
the implications of my work. The American Nuclear Society
(ANS) code of ethics states a similar principle that as
professionals, “We hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public and fellow workers, work to protect the
environment, and strive to comply with the principles of
sustainable development in the performance of our
professional duties” [5]. Therefore, as I refer to the NSPE and
ANS code of ethics it is abundantly clear that I must
contemplate the implications my potential work will have on
the public. Nuclear fusion is definitely safer to the public and
to the service personnel who will be around them in the
military. And, as the ANS code of ethics clearly considers
important, nuclear fusion is much better for the environment
than fossil fuels or nuclear fission. Consequently, as I make my
decision, these two codes of ethics will lead me to lean towards
helping the military to implement nuclear fusion. Yet, there
would certainly still be doubt as to whether this would be the
right choice. No engineer has ever had to consider the moral
implications of nuclear fusion power in the military, but
several had to make similar choices about the applications of
their research.
SIMILAR CHOICES FACED BY OTHERS
One major time period for tough ethical decisions was
during the darkest days of the Second World War, when a
collaboration of western Allied scientists came together in the
Manhattan Project to develop a nuclear bomb that derived its
destructive force from the splitting of atoms. Many researchers
were driven by a sense of curiosity, wondering if such a bomb
could be made. All of them wanted to end the war and with the
lowest loss of life possible. The reason for building the bomb
was initially as a countermeasure to Allied intelligence stating
that Nazi Germany was working on its own version of the
bomb. However, as the war dragged on, it became apparent
that the Germans had given up on their bomb project, yet the
Allies continued with theirs. The project had changed. Instead
of defense against Germany, it quickly came to light that the
bomb would be used as a deterrence against the power of the
Soviet Union. Yet this change of course did nothing to stop all
but one researcher. Joseph Rotblat was one of the lead
researchers on the Manhattan Project. When he learned the
CONSULTING PERSONAL SOURCES
Societal sources aside, I must look into my own heart and
listen to the advice of those I trust to reach an ultimate decision.
For me this means seeking advice from my girlfriend and my
father. It also means analyzing my spirituality to eventually
conclude on a choice. I asked my girlfriend what she thinks
would be the right choice because she often has the uncanny
ability to know me better than I do. She told me that she thinks
I should not take the military’s offer. Her reasons are that since
I am already having trouble reaching a decision in the first
place, that somewhere deep down I know that there is at least
a little bit of the decision I find unethical. Therefore she
believes I should abstain from the choice all together. My
girlfriend also pointed out that by helping the military, if some
2
William Leisner
part of my design goes wrong, “one small wrong thing could
become a big problem” [9]. However, she also concedes that
there are obvious benefits. Her advice would influence my
decision greatly, but the correct decision still remains unclear.
For further advice I would go to my father. He has guided me
for most of my life and I respect him immensely. He is also
very well grounded in history so he has a great deal of
perspective on historical issues such as this. If I went to him he
would tell me to do what I feel is right, but that in his opinion
it is perfectly ethical for me to help the military install fusion
reactors in its naval vessels. He would point out that of any
type of involvement in the military, this has the least
responsibility towards any killing or violence. It would only be
a matter of time of time before another person took the
military’s offer [10]. In the end, my father would encourage
me to look towards my religion for guidance.
would be a morally correct choice that will end up bringing
about more good by increasing the safety of naval vessels.
However, as Joseph Rotblat warned in his Nobel Peace Prize
lecture, “there are many areas of scientific research that may
directly or indirectly lead to harm in society. This calls for
constant vigilance” [12]. My searching has instilled this sense
of vigilance in me, such that I will constantly remain aware of
my choices and their potentially far reaching effects on the
world around me. In this sense I fall between the views of
Rotblat and Einstein. I will not assign responsibility to myself
for the actions of others, but I will take active steps to keep my
innovation from doing harm. I would also encourage that other
engineers also remain cautious with regards to fusion reactors
in military applications. Fusion has a great potential for good,
but its related detriments mean that it will straddle the ethical
boundary for years to come.
Spirituality
REFERENCES
[1] W. E. Fork, C. H. Peterson. (2014). “Fusion Energy and
Nuclear Liability Considerations”. Nuclear Law Bulletin.
(PDF Article). Issue 93, pp. 43-61
[2] (2015). “Military Technologies.” Online Ethics Center.
(Website).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/EmergingTech/TechSpec
ific/militarytechnologies.aspx. p. 1
[3] R. J. Goldston, A. Glaser. (2011). “Inertial Confinement
Fusion Energy R&D and Nuclear Proliferation: The Need for
Direct and Transparent Review.” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists. (PDF Article). Vol. 67 Issue 3, pp. 59-66
[4] (2015). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National
Society of Professional Engineers. (Online Article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics.
[5] (2003, June 5). “ANS Code of Ethics.” American Nuclear
Society. (Online Article). http://www.ans.org/about/coe/.
[6] L. Veys. (2013). “Joseph Rotblat: Moral Dilemmas and the
Manhattan Project.” Physics in Perspective. (PDF Article).
Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp. 451-469
[7] A. Einstein. (1940, October). Interview. “Albert Einstein Radiointerview
1940.”
(Video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBAZOLxaC0
[8] J. Reyberg. (2003). “Ethics and Military Research.”
Mathematics and War, Vol. 7. Birkhäuser Basel. (PDF Essay).
pp. 352-364
[9] V. Maziarz. (2015, October 25). Email
[10] A. Leisner. (2015, October 27). Email
[11] (2015). “1 Timothy 2:1-2, ESV Bible” Bible Gateway.
(Online
Article).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+
2:1-2.
[12] J. Rotblat. (1995). Nobel Peace Prize Lecture
As a Christian, my basis for morality is grounded in the
Bible. Looking at my decision from a biblical perspective
would be the final, and most personal step in my decision.
Reading through the Bible, I came across a verse that echoes
the theme of peace often found in the New Testament. This
strong example can be found 1 Timothy 2:1-2 and reads, “1
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for
kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a
peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” [11].
It is clear that as a Christian, I should focus on a life centered
on peace. This peace does not only apply to my interactions
with those I like, but to all people, regardless of race or creed.
Will helping the military bring more peace, or more violence?
Once again I am brought to this most crucial question. With
this whole array of sources now behind me, I must make my
final decision.
CONCLUSION
After weighing the benefits and detriments of my decision,
examining the pertinent codes of ethics, delving into the past
for similar examples, and seeking familial and spiritual
guidance I must finally come to a decision. Ultimately, I would
choose to work for the military helping them to implement
fusion reactors in their naval vessels. This ultimately stems
from the fact that by taking this offer I will bring about more
good than harm in the world. This satisfies the codes of ethics,
which clearly state that I must put the safety and health of the
public first. This is satisfied because fusion reactors are
inherently safer than the fission reactors that they will replace.
I also believe that fusion reactors in naval vessels will lead to
fewer victims in combat because the naval vessels will be safer
to operate. Thus Reyberg’s conclusion states that my decision
is moral and ethical. Finally, the benefits of fusion reactors in
naval applications will have little to no direct effect on the
violence of the world, so biblically, helping the military is a
morally sound choice. In conclusion, I believe taking the offer
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
(2013). “Public Health and Safety – Delay in Addressing Fire
Code Violations.” National Society of Professional Engineers.
3
William Leisner
(Online
Article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
(2015). “Ethics Cases.” Texas Tech University. (Online
Documents).
Cases
1006,
1010,
1039,
1042.
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.php
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my writing instructor Josh Lapekas
for his guidance on my writing development and for taking the
time to grade this writing assignment. I would also like to
thank my girlfriend, Victoria, and my father, Andy, for taking
the time to answer my questions. Finally, I wish to thank my
roommate, Joe, for peer reviewing my writing assignment.
4