Non-Weapon Nukes

[BigJon@Work]

Is there any current nuclear power technology that can’t be weaponized? I was wondering if we could appease Iran by giving them such technology to forestall their own nuclear program.

[Shapley]

BigJon,

Part of the Carter-brokered agreement with North Korea was that we would provide them with two pressurized-water reactors for power production. The idea being that such waters are not well-suited for weapon-fuel production.

However, the reactors do contain fissile material that can be used for weapons use. In addition, much of the Uranium-238, which the primary isotope of natural Uranium, will convert to Plutoniom-239 during reactor operation. The Plutonium can be extracted from the spent fuel rods. Any Uranium or transuranic fuel can be adapted to weapons use.

India produced their nuclear weapons using expended fuel rods from "Atoms for Peace" reactors provided to them by the United States.
I believe Iran's reactors are also a benefit of that programme. It is an extreme Irony that the "Atoms for Peace" programme has done so much to aid nuclear weapons development worldwide.

Ultimately, a bomb is the simplest form of reactor, you only have to control when and where the fission occurs, not the level of reaction once you've decided to let it go. With a power reactor, you have to control when, where, how much and for how long the reaction will occur. You also have to equip yourself with the ability to stop the reaction once it has begun, which is a capability you do not have (and cannot have) with a bomb. A reactor is fitted with enough material to produce a very powerful bomb, but the geometry of the core is specifically designed to prevent it from becoming one. Once you've given that material to a nation intent on using it to produce a weapon, you have little or no control over what they do with it.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 12-02-2005, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

Sounds sensical:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178351,00.html

[dai bread]

It' only the right to tender, and seems to be aimed squarely at heading off any pre-emptive strike by Israel.

[DavidS]

How shall we relate to recent statements by Iran's leaders (about wiping Israel off the map; transferring the population of Israel to Germany or Austria)?
Is WW3 (with nukes) going to be prevented?

[dai bread]

By recognising that the man is spouting hot air for the benefit of his constituents, but being ready to send in the troops if he turns his ramblings into action.

If that happens, I think you will find the U.S. actually has some support from the rest of the world, unlike the Iraq affair.

[DavidS]

You know that, and I know that, but does HE know that (as I said about "A barking dog never bites")?

[Shapley]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4535452.stm

[Haggis@wk]

I posted this elsewhere but it seem more appropriate here.

Charles Krauthammer

” Lest you get carried away with today's good news from Iraq, consider what's happening next door in Iran. The wild pronouncements of the new Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have gotten sporadic press ever since he called for Israel to be wiped off the map. He subsequently amended himself to say that Israel should simply be extirpated from the Middle East map and moved to some German or Austrian province. Perhaps near the site of an old extermination camp? . . .

Everyone knows where Iran's nuclear weapons will be aimed. Everyone knows they will be put on Shahab rockets, which have been modified so that they can reach Israel. And everyone knows that if the button is ever pushed, it will be the end of Israel.

So a Holocaust-denying, virulently anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, on the verge of acquiring weapons of the apocalypse, believes that the end is not only near but nearer than the next American presidential election. (Pity the Democrats. They cannot catch a break.) This kind of man would have, to put it gently, less inhibition about starting Armageddon than a normal person. Indeed, with millennial bliss pending, he would have positive incentive to, as they say in Jewish eschatology, hasten the end."


it's hard to believe that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually believes there were green rays coming out of his head as he claimed to newspapers in Iran after his speech to the UN last month, but if he does, then we better start doing some serious worrying. Think about it; a paranoid schizophrenic as head of state, sort of like Caligula, but with nuclear arms.

I predicted earlier this year that if Iran continues to try and develop nukes that Israel will strike at Iran before the end of the year. I sorta hoped I was wrong but now…..

It will be hard for the U.S. to support Israel if they do conduct preemptive raids, but in the current situation and the not so comforting thought that maybe he really is a nut job then I don’t see we will have much choice but to back Israel’s play which will earn us some new enemies

[analog]

Bigjon - the tricky parts of the Manhattan Project were the enrichment process, which Pakistan has now pretty well disseminated, and the high explosive lenses that push the fuel together. So if Iran already has a munitions industry and gets even a fledgling nuclear industry, they can become armed and dangerous.


I expect that saner heads in that part of the world will become suppportive of intervention.

[BigJon@Work]

Originally posted by analog:
I expect that saner heads in that part of the world will become suppportive of intervention.

Intervention at missile tip, or through diplomatic channels?

[analog]

I'd guess they'll try to foment an internal revolution first, and should that fail ask for outside (military) help.

[BigJon@Work]

EU is of a similar mind as to offering Iran non-weapon nukes
Dunno whether to be proud or scared.

[BigJon@Work]

I had another, more esoteric, thought on this topic. What if we created nuclear "embassies" in various countries. Just like an embassy, it would be a little patch of soil that the US would control and we would put in a reactor and route power lines out. Whatever happened outside of the embassy borders would be of no concern to us. Do you think any countries would go for this if we gave 'em everything for free?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

What if we created nuclear "embassies" in various countries. Just like an embassy, it would be a little patch of soil that the US would control ...

"control" might be tricky. Remember the last embassy we had in Tehran?

... and we would put in a reactor and route power lines out...

We could do that part.

...Whatever happened outside of the embassy borders would be of no concern to us...

That part I have a little trouble believing.

... Do you think any countries would go for this if we gave 'em everything for free?

They'd love it. And then they'd figure they had a right to their own stuff, too, and do what they originally planned to, anyway.

[BigJon@Work]

What if we created nuclear "embassies" in various countries. Just like an embassy, it would be a little patch of soil that the US would control ...

"control" might be tricky. Remember the last embassy we had in Tehran?

I hope we learned some lessons from Tehran.

...Whatever happened outside of the embassy borders would be of no concern to us...

That part I have a little trouble believing.

I meant infrastructure-wise. We wouldn't be responsible for installing the lines or billing for the power.

... Do you think any countries would go for this if we gave 'em everything for free?

They'd love it. And then they'd figure they had a right to their own stuff, too, and do what they originally planned to, anyway.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that would be part of the deal. All native work on nuclear stops or we pull the fuel, vaporize everything inside the reactor building and go home.

[Shapley]

BigJon,

Isn't that sort of what happens when an American corporation opens shop in a foreign land? They build a factory, and they run it using local labour, but they still own it, at least in most countries. Some countries prohibit foreign ownership of property, which causes problems for the corporations that run them.

It seems like a viable idea, except that it would difficult to defend the 'nuclear embassy' if the government decided to nationalize it by force, unless you're envisioning an armed fortress surrounding it.

Another option would be ship-mounted nukes. They could be 'plugged in' to the power grid, but it would simplify the pull-out in the event the political situation necessitated it. It would also provide access to the sea for the removal of potentially exploitable waste materials.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Isn't that sort of what happens when an American corporation opens shop in a foreign land? They build a factory, and they run it using local labour, but they still own it, at least in most countries. Some countries prohibit foreign ownership of property, which causes problems for the corporations that run them.

It seems like a viable idea, except that it would difficult to defend the 'nuclear embassy' if the government decided to nationalize it by force, unless you're envisioning an armed fortress surrounding it.

An embassy would truly be US soil, and yes, that way I could put a heavily armed fortress around it. The business in a foreign land is almost always dependant on local security forces if any.

Another option would be ship-mounted nukes. They could be 'plugged in' to the power grid, but it would simplify the pull-out in the event the political situation necessitated it. It would also provide access to the sea for the removal of potentially exploitable waste materials.

I could get behind that. How about if the landlocked power plants would be capable of being picked up by a giant helicopter or three the size of those Soviet monsters. Then we could fly them out of there on a moment's notice. The new mini nukes can easily be moved about in that fashion.

[Shapley]

Apparently, the Russians are reading this bulletin board!

[GreatCarouser]

Putin meets with 'The Madman