Not entirely sure about this premise, but I figured I'd still post it and see what everyone else thinks of it.
edit: Definitely gonna pun it up more later, gonna want to have someone having a meltdown, etc. just posted to see if the idea works really.
edit2: Also threw in a variant for option 1 because for some reason your nation can be in a state with neither "no nuclear energy" nor "nuclear energy".
(presumably the former bans it while the lack of a latter simply suggests not getting round to it)
Title: In the Green
The Issue: The uranium mining industry has been so successful that uranium's actually spilling into the streets, leading many to wonder if maybe it's time @@NAME@@ made use of it.
Validity: Must not have the "Nuclear Energy" policy; Substantial uranium mining industry
Validity: Don't have the "no nuclear energy" policy either
Option 1a: "Nuclear energy is a reasonably safe, clean, and efficient investment, one I think the government should consider investing in a large-scale nuclear project," suggests Nukes4U spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, holding a glowing rock. "What do you have to lose? And sure, we have electricity — but why stop on a dime when you could turn over a dozen?"
[effect] @@LEADER@@ stopped worrying and learned to love the nuclear power plant
Validity: no nuclear energy
Option 1b: "Nuclear energy is a reasonably safe, clean, and efficient investment, one I think the government should reconsider their current ban on," suggests Nukes4U spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, holding a glowing rock. "What do you have to fear? And sure, we have electricity — but why stop on a dime when you could turn over a dozen?"
[effect] @@LEADER@@ stopped worrying and learned to love the nuclear power plant
Validity: Capitalist
Option 2: "Nuclear energy does have its promises, but the raw power of it and risk of a meltdown is also dangerous to leave in the hands of greedy corporations," suggests stuffy bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@ while documenting the glowing rock. "As long as we pay the mining industry handsomely for their product, I don't think anyone could complain about the government running everything."
[effect] the government holds all the power
Validity: no WMDs
Option 3a: "Why create a potential public safety hazard when you could use it for public safety?" inquires strategic explosives specialist Stanley Stirling. "And by safety, I of course mean mutually assured destruction. There'll be no need to worry about an invasion when we spearhead an impressive nuclear arsenal. Easy picking, if you ask me."
[effect] there's a strange love for mutually assured destruction
Validity: has WMDs
Option 3b: "Why create a potential public safety hazard when you could use it for public safety?" inquires strategic explosives specialist Stanley Stirling. "And by safety, I of course mean outplaying mutually dassured destruction. There'll be no need to worry about an invasion when we spearhead mass expansion of our nuclear arsenal. Easy picking, if you ask me."
[effect] there's a strange love for mutually assured destruction
Option 4: "Actually, all of this has me thinking," says local small-town citizen @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been woken up early this morning by mining operations. "Or, rather, is keeping me from thinking straight. But it seems to me like we're mining too much of this stuff. Maybe you could place some sort of limit on how much heavy metals can be mined or on-hand at any time? Maybe then I could get out of the house without worrying about radiation poisoning."
[effect] uranium extraction has been undermined
