2012’s Nuclear fault lines: Iran and Japan

[kristopher]

2012’s Nuclear fault lines: Iran and Japan
By David Worthington | February 15, 2012, 7:18 PM PST

The atom is starting to stage a comeback in the U.S., but some of nuclear power’s most nagging pitfalls might dominate deliberations this year. Concerns about non-proliferation and nuclear fallout could climb depending upon the outcome of events in Iran and Japan.

A 30-year lull in new reactor construction ended earlier this month when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved licenses for Southern Company to bring new capacity online this decade. Both government and utilities are advocating more modern reactor designs that promise enhanced safety.

However, fault lines could form in public opinion if nuclear technology isn’t used peacefully overseas, or could even literally in Japan. The Fukushima site is more earthquake prone than scientists previously knew.

Non-proliferation has helped establish treaty commitments for the peaceful use of nuclear technologies, nuclear safety, and security. That requires nations hosting reactors to have a strong, effective, and nuclear regulator like the NRC. Iran has abrogated its treaty commitments.

Iran’s implacable insistence on advancing its nuclear program ...

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/2012s-nuclear-fault-lines-iran-and-japan/13202

[kristopher]

1. Clear link between civilian nuclear power, nuclear weapons technology and nuclear proliferation

Japan atomic power defenders: keep ability to build nuclear weapons

Japan atomic power defenders: keep ability to build nuclear weapons
By Linda Sieg
TOKYO | Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:22am EST
Feb 13(Reuters) - Japan's nuclear power advocates have pulled out all the stops since the Fukushima crisis, even arguing that the only nation to suffer an atomic attack needs to keep its ability to build its own nuclear weapons.

Once, merely the public suggestion that Japan should debate ending its ban on such weaponry was enough to get a politician fired. But worries about North Korea's nuclear ambitions and an expanding Chinese military are eroding that taboo .

Last March's disaster at the Fukushima atomic plant, which spewed radiation and forced mass evacuations, has already prompted Japan to scrap a plan to boost nuclear power to over 50 percent of electricity demand by 2030 from 30 percent before the accident.

But...

..."If we had to start from basic research, it would take 5-10 years to create nuclear weapons, but since we have nuclear power technology, it would be possible to create nuclear weapons in the relatively short time of several months to a year," he said.

...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/japan-nuclear-arms-idUSL4E8DA2ZK20120213

[PamW]

2. Actually NOT!!!

Kris,

Don't you see the problem with your "logic". You are using the estimate from a group of people (the Japanese) who don't know how to do something ( design nuclear weapons ), as to how much time they will save by knowing nuclear reactor technology. If they don't know how to do something; how do they know how long it is going to take to learn? They don't know all the things they have to learn.

Let's use the experience of the Manhattan Project to estimate the relative complexity of the tasks.

The Manhattan Project had an effort they code named the "Metallurgical Laboratory" which was working at the University of Chicago under Enrico Fermi. They purpose of the Metallurgical Laboratory was to come up with the needed reactor design for the Hanford reactors needed to make Plutonium. The Manhattan Project started in December 1941, and the Metallurgical Lab got the first reactor working in December 1942. So it took them a year of research to learn to make reactors.

The bomb design project was done at Los Alamos. It took Los Alamos until July of 1945 to design the first bomb. So it took 3 1/2 years or 3.5 times as long to design the bomb as it did to design the first reactor.

You don't know this, because you are not trained or have knowledge in the sciences; but bombs are MUCH MUCH MORE COMPLEX to design than reactors.

I wouldn't put any credence in the estimate of a bunch of people who don't know how to design bombs as to how long they "think" it will take to learn. They have no idea of what they have yet to learn.

The reactor experience gives you VERY VERY LITTLE of what you need to know to design bombs.

This is actually my field, so I do know what I'm talking about.

PamW

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Save your breath, pam

It doesn't matter how many times you point out nuclear weapons came first: Kris is operating from his own personal history.

[kristopher]

5. Do you really think that is a relevant standard...

...by which to judge the role of current civilian nuclear power in the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Really?

[Dead_Parrot]

6. What, reality?

Apparently not.

[kristopher]

7. It is unfortunate you can't actually conduct a discussion.

There is no dispute about the spread of civilian nuclear power and the path it opens for nuclear proliferation - except from the propaganda arm of the nuclear industry. Perhaps you should broaden your sources to include something besides nuclear bloggers and the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Try the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's JFK School of Government.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Kris, you own article states civilian reactors aren't a requirement

I can carry a discussion quite well, but not with someone with their fingers in their ears.

[kristopher]

9. No you can't.

When it comes to anything nuclear you are obviously intent on protecting the nuclear industry above all else.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. Yes kris. I'm part of the huge nuclear conspiracy that's out to get you.

[kristopher]

11. ROFL

It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with messaging about the nuclear industry.

Look at your behavior in this thread.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. I see me pointing something out, and you ignoring it.

Hey, it's déjà vu again!

I'm more interested in your determined defense of fossil fuels in this thread, to be honest. It's much more exciting.

[kristopher]

13. You haven't pointed anything out.

You've pointed out nothing to refute the fact that the spread of civilian nuclear enables and encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. I have, but I can't make you see it.

I'm not an opthamologist. Or, in case you were wondering, Jesus.

[kristopher]

15. I don't blame you for trying to avoid clear descriptions of your positions

The one you are trying to hang your hat on in this instance is like saying people cut down trees before the iron age. While true in a limited sense it has absolutely nothing to say about the role of petroleum in modern tree harvesting.

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Tricky to make it much clearer, kris

My position is that you don't need nuclear power to develop nuclear weapons: A position I have formed by looking the countries with nuclear weapons, and noticing they didn't need nuclear power to do so.

[kristopher]

17. You can cut down a tree with a stone axe, but that doesn't mean there isn't an easier way.

Your "position" is little more than misdirection and serves only the interest of the nuclear industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. That there is an easier way doesn't mean you can't do it with a stone axe

Either way, the tree's fucked.

It would be better to make sure it stays up, no?

[kristopher]

19. Civilian nuclear power is an open invitation to nuclear weapons.

[Dead_Parrot]

20. One which...

... Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, South Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and The Ukraine have turned down.

And Japan, so far. Or are you saying than Japan is fundamentally lest trustworthy than these nations, and are going to get tooled up and start invading Hawai'i?

[PamW]

21. FAULTY ERROR ERROR

Kris,

Since WHEN have I EVER quoted nuclear bloggers and / or the NEI?

For your information, I have read the Belfer center offerings, and my colleagues and I have written a critique / errata of Graham Allison's book that we have shared with him.

Kris, nuclear power offers VERY LITTLE in the way of expertise pertinent for nuclear weapons. If you run a nuclear power plant, most of the work is running the Rankine steam cycle. The other work is loading and unloading nuclear fuel in the reactor. In order to do that, you must know how to monitor for radiation, but you could get that experience at your local hospital.

Evidently you don't realize that the things you really need to know to make bombs are classified and never have been released. Oh sure, there have been "cartoons" of the basics of nuclear weapon design, but anything that would allow one to actually build an operable weapon has been kept under wraps.

The Belfer Center is an example of people who don't know how to design nuclear weapons, but they are going to prevent people from designing nuclear weapons. I would proffer that the first thing you need to know about preventing someone from designing a weapon is what a weapon looks like.

When Bernard Baruch, the US ambassador to the UN right after WWII proposed that nuclear weapons be taken under the United Nations; there was a study as part of that proposal as to how to safeguard nuclear weapons knowledge. The result was a report called the "Acheson-Lillienthal" report.

One of the tenants of that report, and it is echoed in Nuell Pharr Davis' book "Lawrence and Oppenheimer" is that any agency that is going to police nuclear weapons has to be on the forefront of the knowledge of the field. Otherwise, they would soon not know what to look for.

I use as an example, suppose we wanted to outlaw radios back in the late '40s. What did radios look like back then? They used tubes, and had to be plugged into the wall because that's the only way to get enough energy to heat the cathodes in the tubes. You certainly wouldn't look for a radio in someone's pocket.

Of course that all changed with the work of Brattain, Bardeen, and Shockley who invented the transistor. That changed everything in terms of what a radio looked like and operated.

Likewise, you need people who know nuclear weapons design. That's why the real anti-proliferation workers are not found in the Belfer Center; they are found at the US nuclear weapons labs.

People who know the design of nuclear weapons are the ones who know what you need to embargo in order to thwart the efforts of a proliferant.

PamW

[PamW]

23. Harvard vs Stanford

Kris,

Look at the backgrounds of the people at the Belfer Center and you basically have political "scientists" and people who studied "government" or economics. I do see that one woman has a degree in Chemical Engineering. However, they really don't have anyone that really knows about nuclear weapons.

Contrast that to Stanford. Two of the people that Stanford put on their faculty are Michael May:

http://cisac.stanford.edu/people/michaelmmay

and Siegfried Hecker:

http://cisac.stanford.edu/people/siegfriedshecker

Michael May is formerly the Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Siegfried Hecker is formerly the Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory

One Michael May or Siegfried Hecker knows more about nuclear weapons and how to prevent their spread than ALL the pseudo-scientists on staff at the Belfer Center.

I wouldn't give 2 cents for what Harvard / Belfer Center says in comparison to May and Hecker at Standford.

May and Hecker are REAL SCIENTISTS and they know what they are talking about when it comes to nuclear weapons because both used to be a Director of a nuclear weapon design laboratory.

There's NOBODY at Harvard / Belfer with comparable experience / expertise.

PamW

[kristopher]

4. Actually not "NOT!!!"

You are always good for a laugh, Pam.

[PamW]

22. I'm alway surprised

I'm always surprised at what amuses you.

Then again, considering; maybe I'm not.

I can always count on you to NOT understand.

PamW