What is the connection between nuclear power and Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It's perhaps particularly relevant with Japan; they are the nation probably most often used as an example of a country that could develop nuclear weapons almost overnight, should the political will materialize. They have the know-how, industry, missiles, and because of the nuclear power program, both stockpiles of, and the ability to produce, both enriched uranium and plutonium.
Edit: Did I hit a nerve or something folks?
For the record I personally strongly support nuclear power. Parent asked a question. It's obvious to me why anti-nuclear activists link weapons and power reactors. It's not (necessarily) lack of scientific understanding -- power reactors produce the material for nuclear bombs. Some people think that is unacceptable as a proliferation risk. Don't shoot the messenger? Was just trying to contribute to the discussion positively.
If one attributes the U.S. stepping back from nuclear power to the anti-proliferation scare of the mid-1970s (good heavens, brown people are making plutonium!) you might then consider the alternate path where the U.S. had stayed the course, built the 500 reactors it had planned to build by 2000, and we'd be talking about some other crisis than the "climate crisis."
The constant drumbeat about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is part of a larger syndrome where Japan never reconciled with its neighbors after WWII the way Germany did and now is stuck with a pacifist constitution that seems more of a problem than a solution year after year as that part of the word becomes increasingly dangerous.
I doubt that. Perhaps it'd be slightly less acute, that's all.
While nuclear power and weapons use similar technology, their purpose is diametrically opposed.
Many of the early designs like Magnox and RBMK were for producing plutonium first, and power second. Nuclear power was a public relations project more than anything else, at least initially. The UK and Russia continue dual use with their power reactors today.
> their purpose is diametrically opposed
The purpose is decided by those who control the reactors. For example, the power reactors used in Canada produce plutonium, from natural uranium. Canada built a small heavy water research reactor in India; the material for their first nuclear bomb was made in that reactor. This was expressly not the intent of Canada.
But this is a plain naive argument to make. At this point saying "destroying all nuclear bombs means no more nuclear bombs" is also technically correct, but even if, let's say, civil nuclear energy was impossible to manage, there would still be uranium enrichment facilities designed with the sole purpose of creating nuclear weapons, because they give such a significant strategic advantage to superpowers; they just wouldn't allow not to have it when others can.
So even without nuclear power plants you would still have nuclear weapons, I really never understood the argument of causation civilian and military nuclear energy, on can exist without the other.
"There is general agreement that the bombing of Nagasaki did little in the way of changing the hearts and minds of the Japanese military. By blaming their surrender on the atomic bombs, Japan avoided the Soviet Union having a hand in the post-war reconstruction process. Japan was afraid that the Soviet Union might try to push a communist regime onto the country. It was also very convenient for the U.S. that Japan attributed their surrender to the atomic bombings."
https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/japans-surrend...
EDIT: incidentally