[extropy-chat] nuclear non-proliferation as energy strategy ?
sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Jan 17 19:03:32 UTC 2006
On Jan 17, 2006, at 3:52 AM, Robert Bradbury wrote:
> On 1/17/06, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> ... what does that mean for the balance of energy haves
> and have nots when the major industrialized nations, under the
> guise of
> the UN and IAEA, etc., can limit the use of those technologies ?
> Actually, as the article recently cited by Samantha points out,
> signing the NPT gives nations the freedom to perform uranium
> enrichment for peaceful applications (such as as power
> production). Iran has signed the treaty. Israel, India and
> Pakistan have not. Iran at this point seems to have the designs
> and parts for the centrifuges required to perform uranium
> enrichment. The problem comes down to the fact that it is a
> relatively small step from enriching uranium for generating
> electricity to producing highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
According to other recent articles Iran will not be in a position to
buid its own nukes, if it wants to, until 2009 at minimum. That
"small step" takes considerable time and dedication. Any half decent
oversight and inspection would make it much more difficult if not
impossible. So it is a bit early to scare folks with an Iranian
nuclear bomb wielding Iranian bogey man. It would be very misguided
if we set policy on the supposed immediacy of such fears.
> Generally speaking until Iran runs out of oil it seems to make
> little economic sense for it to be building nuclear power reactors.
On the contrary, nuclear is cleaner and oil sells to others really
well. Bottom line is that a sovereign country does not have to
explain its energy decisions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat