Nuclear technology and proliferation

[uppi]

http://www.nature.com/news/us-grants-licence-for-uranium-laser-enrichment-1.11502

US grants licence for uranium laser enrichment

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this week granted a licence to allow construction of a plant that uses a controversial uranium enrichment process — one that critics fear could pose a serious nuclear-proliferation risk. The plant, which would be built through a partnership between General Electric (GE) and Hitachi in Wilmington, North Carolina, could be used to enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply using a process that involves a laser.

GE and Hitachi claim to have developed a technology (involving lasers) that could potentially cut the price of enriching uranium by a factor of 3. This could cheapen the operation of nuclear power plants (or maintaining a nuclear arsenal). A week ago the US granted them a license to build such a plant.

However critics say that an operation enriching uranium with the new method could be much easier to hide. It would use much less power and would not involve the operation of a lot of complicated and easy to sabotage centrifuges. They fear that building a plant to enrich uranium this way would encourage nations we do not want to have nukes to build such a plant themselves and this might be very hard to detect.

So what do you think:
Will building a plant in the US make it easier for other nations to implement it? What is the rate of technology "leakage" for such projects?

Would any economic benefit justify the construction of such a plant?

Should the government forbid the construction of such a plant, or should the free market rule the enrichment of nuclear fuels?

Should research on methods that carry a high proliferation risk be banned altogether?

 

[Cutlass]

If the theory works, anyone who can copy it will. So the genie is already out of the bottle just in announcing it.

 

[tokala]

If the theory works, anyone who can copy it will. So the genie is already out of the bottle just in announcing it.

This.

By the looks of it from that article, the only technologically challenging part of the process is the laser and it should be much easier to aquire the expertise for getting it right than for comperatively specialized technologies like ultra-centrifuges or industrial-scale diffusion enrichment.

But actually building an operating plant will certainly make the technology much more vulnerable to espionage.

The cost of fuel is already almost neglegible for the economic viability of nuclear power plants, trying to get it even cheaper by increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation appears irresponsible if you really care for constraining proliferation.

 

[Winner]

I first heard about laser enrichment years and years ago. This is hardly something completely new.

Will building a plant in the US make it easier for other nations to implement it? What is the rate of technology "leakage" for such projects?

I doubt they'll let Iranians or North Koreans work in that plant, so the answer is "very low", unless the US counter-espionage really really sucks.

Would any economic benefit justify the construction of such a plant?

It clearly does.

Should the government forbid the construction of such a plant, or should the free market rule the enrichment of nuclear fuels?

Nuclear technology has never been a subject of free market rules, so the question is grossly misleading. However, I see no point in denying yourself the benefits of a new technology used responsibly just because there is a risk someone else might use it less responsibly. It's not as if the US is giving anyone blueprints for the technology.

Should research on methods that carry a high proliferation risk be banned altogether?

What are we going to ban next, then? Biotech research, because there is a risk someone might use the knowledge to develop a biological weapon?

We of course need to be careful about these kind of technologies, but progress is progress, you can't stop it.

 

[Virote_Considon]

The plant is located in North Carolina. The operators are firms based in two countries which already have access to weapons-grade nuclear enrichment if they so desire.

 

[Winner]

Maybe Japan is about to build a few nukes... I wouldn't blame them, considering their neighbourhood.

 

[uppi]

If the theory works, anyone who can copy it will. So the genie is already out of the bottle just in announcing it.

There is a difference between a proposal that works in theory and a demonstration that it can work in practice. The theory is actually quite simple, and a proof of concept experiment would be mainly limited by the availability of the necessary hardware. But the design for a plant that can produce enriched uranium efficiently and cheaply is the difficult thing.

I first heard about laser enrichment years and years ago. This is hardly something completely new.

I know that research on that is not new. Two years ago, the IAEA showed up at our institute and wanted to inspect the lab for laser enrichment. They were told that the lab was closed 10 years ago and I guess their answer was probably: Yeah, we heard that one before...

It seems that the technology has now reached a level where it can be applied on industrial scale (and the rapid advancement of laser technology probably helped a lot), so there now is a real risk that it can be applied by people we do not want to apply it.

We of course need to be careful about these kind of technologies, but progress is progress, you can't stop it.

What exactly do you consider "being careful" in this instance?

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe Japan is about to build a few nukes... I wouldn't blame them, considering their neighbourhood.

Japan? Building nukes? Won't happen.

 

[Agent327]

So what do you think:
Will building a plant in the US make it easier for other nations to implement it? What is the rate of technology "leakage" for such projects?

The problem with research results is that they tend to spread. (It's impossible to keep a secret forever.)

Would any economic benefit justify the construction of such a plant?

Does economic benefit justify increased risk of nuclear proliferation?

Should the government forbid the construction of such a plant, or should the free market rule the enrichment of nuclear fuels?

The 'free market' never has.

Should research on methods that carry a high proliferation risk be banned altogether?

I'm not sure how that could be implemented.

 

[Winner]

Japan? Building nukes? Won't happen.

It could, eventually. Right now the constitution doesn't allow Japan to have WMDs and people are obviously totally opposed to nuclear weapons, but things change. Japan is competing with China for the alpha dog position in Asia, and the US won't be around forever to shield it.

What exactly do you consider "being careful" in this instance?

Export controls, increased oversight, etc. Simply put, make sure you don't sell this stuff to the wrong people. They can still develop it on their own, but there's no way to stop them (unless you want to kill them).

 

[Leoreth]

It could, eventually. Right now the constitution doesn't allow Japan to have WMDs and people are obviously totally opposed to nuclear weapons, but things change. Japan is competing with China for the alpha dog position in Asia, and the US won't be around forever to shield it.

Sorry, but "it could happen" is not very convincing to me. It could also happen that the Chinese leadership embraces Buddhist teaching and becomes pacifist.

 

[Glassfan]

Maybe Japan is about to build a few nukes... I wouldn't blame them, considering their neighbourhood.

Japan? Building nukes? Won't happen.

It could, eventually. Right now the constitution doesn't allow Japan to have WMDs and people are obviously totally opposed to nuclear weapons, but things change. Japan is competing with China for the alpha dog position in Asia, and the US won't be around forever to shield it.

Sorry, but "it could happen" is not very convincing to me. It could also happen that the Chinese leadership embraces Buddhist teaching and becomes pacifist.

There's a concept from the 1970s that might be applicable here. When the Carter Administration decided to build the "Neutron Bomb", there was much debate over how it would affect the SALT Treaty with the Soviets. One scenario was to build the components of the weapon but not assemble them - plausible denial.

Then of course, it was speculated that scientifically advanced countries like say Germany, Switzerland, Japan or Taiwan could do the same. They could deny they had nukes, but if threatened could slap a few together in minutes and have an instant credible nuclear deterrent.

 

[uppi]

Does economic benefit justify increased risk of nuclear proliferation?

For me it would, if here was a huge benefit, but a small risk of proliferation. It wouldn't if the benefit was minimal with high risk of proliferation. The question is where to draw the line.



I'm not sure how that could be implemented.[/QUOTE]

A total ban might be difficult to implement, but limiting access to funding and raw materials, refusing to grant licenses to build experimental plants would seriously slow down the speed of research. For example, research on nuclear energy is not outright banned, but still very difficult in Germany, because it is politically undesired.

 

[Agent327]

For me it would, if here was a huge benefit, but a small risk of proliferation. It wouldn't if the benefit was minimal with high risk of proliferation. The question is where to draw the line.

That was my point. And my question was ofcourse rhetorical: no 'huge' economic benefit would outweigh a 'minimal' risk of proliferation, IMHO. Making something hard to come by only makes it highly valuable to certain parties.

I'm not sure how that could be implemented.

A total ban might be difficult to implement, but limiting access to funding and raw materials, refusing to grant licenses to build experimental plants would seriously slow down the speed of research. For example, research on nuclear energy is not outright banned, but still very difficult in Germany, because it is politically undesired.

I think that therein lies the crux: politics may change and nuclear non-proliferation means a solid political determination for an indefinite amount of time. (In essence, huma nature works against it.)

 

[Leoreth]

There's a concept from the 1970s that might be applicable here. When the Carter Administration decided to build the "Neutron Bomb", there was much debate over how it would affect the SALT Treaty with the Soviets. One scenario was to build the components of the weapon but not assemble them - plausible denial.

Then of course, it was speculated that scientifically advanced countries like say Germany, Switzerland, Japan or Taiwan could do the same. They could deny they had nukes, but if threatened could slap a few together in minutes and have an instant credible nuclear deterrent.

I didn't think much about non-proliferation treaties or foreign politics. This would require the Japanese government to even make the decision to build nuclear weapons, which I would consider highly unlikely considering popular opinion on the topic (you know what happened to Japan?). Even the peaceful use of nuclear energy doesn't seem to be hugely popular in Japan for equally obvious reasons at the moment.

 

[Glassfan]

I didn't think much about non-proliferation treaties or foreign politics. This would require the Japanese government to even make the decision to build nuclear weapons, which I would consider highly unlikely considering popular opinion on the topic (you know what happened to Japan?). Even the peaceful use of nuclear energy doesn't seem to be hugely popular in Japan for equally obvious reasons at the moment.

I don't wish to overstate my case, but how much decision-making power does the Japanese government actually have?
Furthermore, while it may be obvious when a technologically backwards country like North Korea is earmarking a substantial percentage of it's GDP on nukes, it might be less so when a wealthy, scientifically sophisticated state does so. The North Koreans have had to beggar their society in their efforts to get the big stick. A nation like Japan or Switzerland with kilotons of uranium and plutonium in their energy and research programs could fabricate a few secret nukes using petty cash. And whereas dicktatorships like NK have to show-off, ostensible allies of the USA, under it's questionable protection, would naturally act with subtlety.

 

[Agent327]

What on earth would Switzerland (and for that matter Japan) need with nukes? You might choose your examples a bit better. France, for instance, developed a force de frappe quite on its own under De Gaulle, but no subsequent government has reversed that decision. Iran, despite repeated statements to the contrary, is suspected of wanting the same.

 

[Glassfan]

This is just a theoretical argument - that a wealthy, technologically advanced state could very easily and quickly transition into a nuclear power should it feel threatened.

For the the record, Switzerland did briefly look into the development of atomic weapons back in the 1960s, but soon backed out. Japan began an atom bomb program during WW II but also gave it up.

As for the "What on earths" (the why?), rationale for military procurement can either be long term or change overnight. Japan is currently in a downwards spiral with China over war guilt, territory and economics. Hopefully it will all settle down soon. But what if it doesn't? Switzerland seems safe now, but what might Europe look like in ten years? What if the Euro collapses? It isn't any stretch of the imagination to see conflict in Europe in our lifetime - it's historically overdue.

I suppose when Professor Einstein wrote his famous letter to the President, there probably were plenty of "What on earths" going around then, too.

 

[Winner]

Then of course, it was speculated that scientifically advanced countries like say Germany, Switzerland, Japan or Taiwan could do the same. They could deny they had nukes, but if threatened could slap a few together in minutes and have an instant credible nuclear deterrent.

And right now, many 'experts' believe that's what Iran is aiming to do - produce enough weapon-grade fissile materials, obtain technology to manufacture warheads for their missiles, and then keep everything close and handy in case the international situation deteriorates and they quickly need to demonstrate a capability of nuclear retaliation. A closeted nuclear power, in other words.

Sorry, but "it could happen" is not very convincing to me. It could also happen that the Chinese leadership embraces Buddhist teaching and becomes pacifist.

The respective likelihoods of those events happening are a bit different.

Japan is not lead by 'people', it's led by its political elites. It is a democracy, but it is not a Western democracy. If its leadership at some point comes to the conclusion that Japan is to be abandoned by the US and thus left at China's mercy, their political imperative as well as 'honour' (can't let the Koreans have nukes while we don't) might compel them to do something similar to what Glassfan has mentioned above. That is, reach some nuclear near-capability and let its main rivals know Japan has it through secret channels. If it leaks out, there are ways to either deny it and back off, or explain it to the public as a necessary deterrent against aggressive neighbours.

 

[Cutlass]

What on earth would Switzerland (and for that matter Japan) need with nukes? You might choose your examples a bit better. France, for instance, developed a force de frappe quite on its own under De Gaulle, but no subsequent government has reversed that decision. Iran, despite repeated statements to the contrary, is suspected of wanting the same.

The main reason for acquiring nukes at this point is to seen as a serious enough player that no one can really try to push them around.