Why does the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy continue to drive public attitudes towards nuclear energy in the United States? Conventional views on the dual (military and civilian) nature of nuclear technology highlight the material connections between nuclear energy and nuclear-weapons systems. In contrast, this article examines evolving ideas that shape public understandings of nuclear technology's dual potential. I argue that the linkage persists because of historical framing efforts by the anti-nuclear movement of the past and the present-day pro-nuclear movement. The article identifies a key historical cleavage within the anti-nuclear movement. Early activists opposed institutional arrangements, which, they argued, prioritized nuclear-weapons development at the expense of nuclear-power-plant safety. But over time, anti-nuclear activists came to cultivate a discursive and affective connection, framing all nuclear technologies as inherently destructive. This latter view came to dominate broader public understandings and made the anti-nuclear movement successful. But in a twist of historical irony, this dominant framing is now being used to undermine the anti-nuclear movement and buttress pro-nuclear attitudes. The pro-nuclear movement has challenged the affective and discursive connection cultivated by the anti-nuclear movement and has mobilized to rebut what nuclear advocates characterize as the “irrationality” of nuclear fear.
Sidra Hamidi (Fri,) studied this question.