Brinksmanship or just foolishness?
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices
The US government appears very serious about playing a shell game with nuclear energy in the Mid- and Far-East. At the same time as events appear to be coming to a head with Iran, they are putting together a proposal to Congress to amend the rules that to allow India to acquire nuclear material from the United States, heedless of the fact that India has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
That this is illegal by international law, seems to not bother the Bush Administration, indeed it seems to have hardly come up. If this was just one more example of the United States flaunting international law it would be one thing, but by unilaterally building a backdoor around the NPT, the United States has invited future abuses of the treaty by other states.
Okay, we've gotten use to the American bomb and the Russian bomb, even the French, Indian and Pakistani bombs. What about a Saudi bomb? Or an Egyptian or Sudanese bomb? What happens when Pakistan, which didn't get offered the same deal as India because "it's energy requirements and economic needs are different from those of India’s" decides to go to China or North Korea or one of the 'stans instead.
With its military stretched to the breaking point and allies keeping a respectful distance, now is not the time to be breaking international treaties and further destabilizing an already dangerous situation.
Actually,Gwynne Dyer has a really good column about this - it's all about forging a military alliance with India that the U.S. hopes will isolate the Chinese. Plus, don't forget the Israeli bomb.
Posted by
Dan |
Sun Mar 12, 11:42:00 PM
Actually, Paul - I have to disagree with you on that point - most of the cleaner energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro and tidal power, are limited as to location, intermintant in generation and/or are too land-intensive to make up much in the way of power generation - although they do have their places, don't get me wrong. Nuclear energy is the best way of large scale power generation and getting us off of the fossil fuel dependancy - unless we actually get workable fusion energy, which seems to be stuck in a perpetual '20 years from now' mode. That opinion, BTW is also held by such luminaries as James Lovelock, creator of 'The Gaia Hypothesis' and Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. As for nuclear waste, storing it is a problem, but it would still exist even without reactors, since about 85% of the nuclear waste produced in the United States is actually a by-product of hospital procedures. The Yucca Mountain site could actually be a great solution, if the U.S. could get it built.
Posted by
Dan |
Mon Mar 13, 12:20:00 AM
Paul,
Dan is absolutely right about nuclear power, in my opinion. Modern cities have such huge power needs that small scale wind farms and solar energy are not nearly enough without massive rethinking of the way they operate. Changes on that scale will take decades at least if they ever get started.
There is the possibility of super large scale generation like hydroelectric, but they come with their own environmental impacts and limitations.
I must admit to a poor knowledge of the economics of nuclear energy and whether or not it is economic without government subsidy, but I have a hunch that for the time being it might be the best option we've got.
Dan,
Yucca Flats is a pretty dreadful place for storing waste if what I've read is any indication. The basalt that forms most of it is very impermeable, however it is typically jointed and these joints will provide nasty water conduits.
I have read arguments that the only reason they have been looking at Yucca is that the military already owns it and large chunks are already marked off as hazardous owing to past tests.
Long-term storage of this stuff is still an open and big question.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Mon Mar 13, 12:40:00 AM
Well, according to Wikipedia, it's been used for atomic bomb testing in the past - so the likelihood that it'll be usable for any other purpose is remote. Not saying it's an ideal solution - I'll have to see if I can dig up my copy of Gregory Benford's "Deep Time" where he talks about the planning for it - I know from the little bit that I remember that there's some pretty impressive brainpower working on the engineering.
Posted by
Dan |
Mon Mar 13, 12:47:00 AM
You're right about the site not being used for anything else, but the problem is real longterm and it has to do with groundwater. This stuff gets in the water and site problems are only the beginning.
Posted by
kevvyd |
Mon Mar 13, 12:55:00 AM