Realistically, the world is going to have to switch to nuclear energy in the near future. Wind and solar energy just don’t cut it: wind isn’t constant and sunlight only lasts half the day and both are affected by the weather. Wave energy isn’t much better: many countries are landlocked and who knows what damage a storm would do? So absent an energy revolution, it’s going to have to be nuclear fission.
Given this, we’re going to have to allow countries to build nuclear powerplants. So, once they’ve got the nuclear powerplants, how do we stop dodgy countries from developing atomic weapons? We’ve not exactly done a good job of stopping North Korea. Can you imagine it if almost every country could have nuclear arms?
Not only can I imagine it, I think eventually it’s pretty much inevitable, unless all the developing world and third world stays the way it is for ever more.
Nuclear power does not on its own begat nuclear weapons - nuclear fuels are nowhere near rich enough for weapons use, and civilian reactors are not optimised for plutonium production or Pu 241 minimisation. Both however are a first step. Having the technology to even handle highly radioactive material such as spent fuel rods is a second step. Re-processing technology is a third step, and so on…
There are a few things that can be done to delay nuclear propagation, but to be honest I think propagating democracy, eliminating poverty and vanquishing hatred are the only real solutions to this one.
They probably have. I was merely indicating that a working reactor is not necessarily a nuke on a platter!
I’m not sure there’s much we can do about it anyway. The western world may attempt to restrict nuclear technology to democracies, but the world is changing. India is developing its own breeder reactors to take advantage of its thorium reserves. China is developing the pebble-bed technology pioneered by the South Africans. And they may decide to sell to whoever they wish.
There’s a number of technological steps that can be taken - reactor designs where all the fuel is present right at the start and you run it for thirty years and then fill the thing with concrete, for example. So there is no facility for extracting spent fuel and reprocessing it, and improvising such equipment is challenging.
I still think that ultimately, building a world where nobody thinks the bloody nukes are necessary is the best bet. Tall order though.
Nuclear weapons will be necessary until something even more destructive comes along in case some state goes rogue. And for use against targets in space like moving asteroids from a collision course.
I disagree with the first. That’s like saying it’s necessary for everyone to keep rocket launchers in a peaceful neighbourhood in case one of the neighbours goes rogue with their rocket launcher. The UK doesn’t have Trident for fear of the Belgians going nuts! International politics doesn’t have to be like the ending to Reservoir Dogs, with everyone looking down the barrel of everyone elses gun.
Your second point is valid, but doesn’t apply to my argument. I’m saying there is no way to allow all the world’s nations to develop similar educational, technological and productive levels to the “West” and prevent them developing nukes, ICBMs, stealth bombers or anything else we care to name. Either we work to keep the rest of planet poor, ignorant and strife-ridden to maintain our technological superiority, or we try and turn the whole world into something like the “West”. I’m talking about making nukes unecessary for agressive purposes.
The possibly necessary proliferation of nuclear technology for power generation means that we’d better make our minds up sharpish and get on with it, because the clock is ticking. I vote for the second option.
