The practicality of nuclear nonproliferation

[Preon1]

I've attached an article from this morning's Washington Post.  The head of the CIA and many high officials in the Dept of Defense are saying that it is becoming close to impossible to regulate the spread of nuclear technology.  I have to bring up a related issue:

Given the foreseeable fact that the world will drain its rich oil deposits, the only economically feasible alternative that I see is nuclear power.  Once we get over the 'nuclear taboo' we will have access to a vastly superior power source for a long time.

The only problem with that vision is the following fact:  People will want to use this power to kill in vast numbers.  Of course it's not so much a matter of efforts at nonproliferation.  The knowledge is out there.  One simply has to do it.

So the question is:  Can we as a race evolve enough in the next 50 years (about how much oil there is left) to be able make responsible use of nuclear energy?

I’d like to think so, but I’m an idealist.

Washington Post
February 12, 2003
Pg. 1

CIA Head Predicts Nuclear Race

Small Nations Pursuing Arms

By Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer

CIA Director George J. Tenet warned yesterday that the "desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge" among small countries, confronting the world with a new nuclear arms race that threatens to dismantle more than three decades of nonproliferation efforts.

"The 'domino theory' of the 21st century may well be nuclear," Tenet said in reference to the doctrine that led the United States militarily into Vietnam in the 1960s to try to prevent a communist takeover of Southeast Asia. "We have entered a new world of proliferation."

Over the past 12 months, Tenet said, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya have all moved to obtain equipment to produce weapons-grade nuclear materials and the ability to deliver them as nuclear bombs. There also has been ongoing concern about Pakistan's and India's maturing nuclear programs, as well as growing alarm that nuclear materials could fall -- or have already spread -- into the hands of terrorist groups such as al Qaeda for production of radioactive "dirty" bombs.

"More has changed on proliferation over the past year than any other issue," Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee in his worldwide threat briefing, an annual report to Congress.

The CIA director's remarks signaled that the Bush administration has concluded that without enforcement, the era in which countries were encouraged by treaties and self-regulation to avoid developing nuclear weapons may be coming to an end. Such a conclusion would buttress the administration's new national security doctrine, which envisions preemptive strikes against potential nuclear powers, as well as bolster the administration's case for developing missile defenses.

Tenet's testimony, which reflected long-held opinions of many Pentagon officials, called into question the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty in which the United States, the Soviet Union and dozens of other countries pledged to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. Although countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India never signed the treaty and have since acquired nuclear weapons, the pact has been widely credited as a landmark in arms control.

The testimony also pointed to concerns about the enforcement abilities of U.N. arms control agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are supposed to prevent the spread of nuclear technologies, said Timothy V. McCarthy, senior analyst at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies and director of the Center's Proliferation Research and Assessment Program.

Tenet traced the breakdown of the global nonproliferation system not to existing nuclear powers but to what he called "non-state purveyors," meaning private companies or in some cases rogue individuals in Europe and elsewhere who are selling "technology and equipment that previously could only be supplied by countries with established [nuclear] capabilities." He described such individuals and companies as being "in the vanguard of this new world" of nuclear weapons proliferation.

Tenet cited North Korea's decision in recent months to develop the capability to produce weapons-grade uranium and to end its freeze on its plutonium production facilities; Libya's increased access to technologies that have both nuclear and civilian uses; and Iran's decision to produce enriched uranium that could be used for either civilian power generation or a nuclear weapon.

"The example of new nuclear states that seem able to deter threats from more powerful states, simply by brandishing nuclear weaponry, will resonate deeply among other countries that want to enter the nuclear weapons club," Tenet said.

Tenet particularly cited North Korea, which secretly began building an enriched uranium facility two years ago and since last fall has confronted the Bush administration with a strategic and foreign policy challenge. After being confronted last October by the United States, the North Korean government in Pyongyang admitted what it was doing, refused to halt its program without direct negotiations with Washington and thereafter withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also openly repudiated a 1994 agreement with the Clinton administration that froze its plutonium production facility.

Using North Korea as a starting point, Tenet said, "Additional countries may decide to seek nuclear weapons as it becomes clear their neighbors and regional rivals are doing so."

In North Korea's case, Pakistani scientists in the mid-1990s laid out a road map of companies from which Pyongyang could purchase needed nuclear equipment. Iraq, according to U.S. intelligence, has been able to purchase from a variety of sources aluminum tubing that can be used in a centrifuge for producing weapons grade uranium.

Traditional supporters of nonproliferation efforts reacted strongly to Tenet's statement.

"It is easy to say this regime won't work, but what's the alternative?" said Gordon Prather, a scientist who worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory with additional experience at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. He traced the CIA's concern over proliferation to the "shock" in finding that Iraq in 1991 had come close to developing a nuclear capability. North Korea's ability to procure equipment for its new enriched uranium was another example, Prather said.

[hawk220]

no

some toejam-hole 3rd world country will get a shiny new A bomb and have to blast the  toejam-hole 3rd world country next door and it will probably escalate and presto..the end of the world..  this will probably happen long before we develop fusion power (that would make atomic energy obsolete)

[ra]

Can we as a race evolve enough in the next 50 years

Human nature never changes, and it never will.

[Modas]

As much as I would like to think we could, I don't think we can.  The human race as a whole is nuts.  I just hope I flame out before things REALLY go into the sh**Ter.  Course we ain't far from that now.  

[Ping]

It seems the only people that will be safe are stranded on the space station.

[Charon]

I'm half surprise we still have India and Pakistan around. I imagine there is not a lot flexibility with "use it or lose it" reaction time pressures, particularly with five-minute flight times (even by aircraft in many potential cases) and no NORAD around. I imagine command and control raises some concern as well with the hothead base commander, etc. (Jack Ripper syndrome ). You could centralize command and control, but if you only have a few warheads you increase vulnerability, etc... At least the impact of some 3rd world Nuclear war will be somewhat localized

I also think disposing of nuclear waste, particularly with developing nations, may be more of an issue than the developed world even with civilian projects. Otherwise, nuclear does have plenty of advantages if serious waste disposal considerations, such as geologically stable siting, is followed.

Charon

[Ripsnort]

How many of you voted as an "Optimist" in my "optimist/pessimist" poll awhile back?

[ra]

I was gonna vote "optimist", but then I thought, nah, that'll just jinx me, so I voted "pessimist".

[Preon1]

Originally posted by ra
Human nature never changes, and it never will.

I can agree with that in part.  Humans have not made very many fundamental changes in nature in the last thousand years, but look at how we've changed as a society.  We have gotten a lot better at understanding our nature and then either utilizing or finding ways around its quirks.

I agree that we has humans are slow to evolve, but I think society evolves much more quickly than you give it credit for.

[Charon]

How many of you voted as an "Optimist" in my "optimist/pessimist" poll awhile back?

Some subjects are hard to be optimistic about. Optimistically, I think nuclear power can be managed effectively if all the safeguards are followed for waste storage. Beyond that...

Charon

[Charon]

LOL, and just how did you vote Rip

I've always had 6 weeks water, food, and fuel(generator) since I was married simply because we live 25 miles from a volcano and considering I was in the Pacific Northwest when St. Helens erupted, it only makes sense to be well prepared in the event of a diaster such as an earthquake or such.

Good thing for this latest world crisis though, maybe a few more folks will do what glock is doing so the US doesn't have to come bail yer tulips out everytime you have a natural diaster.  

Ripsnort

Charon