In Defense Of Nukes

by Mike Rosolio

Certain words are weightier than others. They carry years of rotating meanings and the occassional graphic image of someone lighting himself on fire. You never want to have your product share a name with something infamous or terrible. AYDS Dietary Chocolate, for example, had such bad luck, as did Swine Flu Brand Toothpaste.

We’re hit very early on with the weight of these words. Communism was a big one. Before the idealogy or history of Marxism is explaned, you understand that communists are evil bastards who will take your candy and bite off your foot if it’s exposed from your bedspread in the middle of the night. It’s installed through cartoons, as the bad guys are always in commie red. Cobra Commander was a classic example. Even Mumm Ra had a red cloak and red cape. Nothing in Thundercats suggested Mumm Ra wanted to create an oppressive regime under the guise of a Worker’s Paradise, but nevertheless, the connection was made.
If ‘Communism’ is Bald Bull, ‘Nuclear’ is King Hippo.

It’s hard to say if another word in American English has more negative connotations than ‘Nuclear.’ Sure, it’s not the most voliatile. There are a smattering of racial slurs that end careers when shouted from the stage at The Laugh Factory. But that was always the idea behind racial slurs; they were designed to get punches thrown and cars keyed. ‘Nuclear’ is like Nick Cage in Con Air: a well-meaning soldier on leave who was incarcerated for protecting the honor of his wife and ended up in Seat 3D next to a serial rapist and Cyrus the Virus.

(sidenote: Cage’s character, Cameron Poe, had the worst attorney in the history of fictional law. It was a slam-dunk self-defense situation and he ended up letting his client go away on manslaugter charges. I would love to have been in the writers’ room on that film:

-”So how do we get our innocent good guy on the plane with the bad guys?”
-”Well, he has to be convicted of a crime.’
-”Prison Plane!”
-”Settle down, Sanchez. Let’s say he was defending his girlfriend from a drunken attacker and killed him.”
-”Well, wouldn’t that be self-defense.”
-”What the f**k do you know?”
-”I went to law school at Yale.”
-”What the f**k is Yale?”
-”Jail-rlines!”
-”Guys, relax. We do have to figure out how a lawyer could let this happen.”
-”Lawyer’s on muscle relaxants. Judge is an idiot.”
-”Great! That’s lunch.”

Longest digression to date. Anyway…)

Nuclear isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a dirty word.

The problem with ‘Nuclear’ is that its three main associations are 1) the worst weapon ever created, 2) a horrific environmental disaster, and 3) Kiefer Sutherland’s catchphrase on 24. But when it isn’t being used to melt people, Nuclear technology is incredibly clean, incredibly efficient, and lasts for-effing-ever. Nuclear fuel cells power aircraft carriers and could easily make a Hyundai run for the next ten years without a pit stop. The downside is the possibility that a minor fender-blender blows the 101 freeway in half. But this is the future, and what’s the future without the chance that we could destroy our civilization at the drop of a clutch?

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have Nuclear Power ostricized like an Amish kid with an iPod. But power plants are running off coal, which isn’t exactly great for people. Why not view the nuclear power plant as a possibility rather than an apocalyptic matter-of-time? Who knows, maybe it won’t blow up and cause three legged plant babies. The ozone is worth the risk, right?

It’s time we take off our GI Joe jammies and welcome nuclear technology back to the party. It could save money, the environment and the occassional marriage.
Plus, it’s not like it’s ‘Terrorism.’