nuclear undone
  • blog
  • about
  • experts
  • consulting
  • members
  • contact

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Nonproliferation versus nuclear trade

11/18/2013

9 Comments

 
By Lenka Kollar

The commercial nuclear industry is unique in that it was essentially born out of weapons and military programs. The technology used to develop nuclear weapons was also found to be beneficial for energy production, and thus nuclear reactors to power submarines and then to produce commercial electricity were developed. Nuclear technology inherently has the risk of weapons proliferation and must be controlled. Most countries with nuclear industries, including the United States, have stringent export control laws that control the trade of nuclear (and related) technology. These laws control the international exports of things like nuclear reactor designs, nuclear fuel, and even accelerometers that could be used in a weapon missile. The nuclear industry often complains that the U.S. export control laws are too stringent, inhibiting trade. At the same time, those in the nonproliferation community often say that they are not strict enough, because of the historical cases in which countries have obtained nuclear technology and developed nuclear weapons.

It seems that nonproliferation and nuclear trade are often at odds with each other. Could both the nonproliferation regime and nuclear trade be strengthened if the "versus" was removed the the two sides worked together? A recent American Nuclear Society position statement makes the point that U.S. global nuclear leadership is strengthened through export-driven engagement. In other words, we have a better seat at the "nonproliferation table" if we are a leader in the nuclear energy industry. Right now, the United States is losing dominance of the global nuclear industry because of several reasons, one of which may be strict export control laws. In order for a country to do significant nuclear business with the United States, they must negotiate a so-called "123 Agreement." 

A new 123 Agreement was recently signed with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and included the provision that the UAE will not pursue enrichment and reprocessing (the nuclear technologies that are most closely related to weapons development). Some people in the U.S. government and Congress have coined this as the "gold standard" agreement and that we should impose this provision on all countries. However, it was UAE's choice to make it a law in their country to not pursue enrichment and reprocessing. Not all countries that want to do nuclear trade with the United States will forgo their right (according to the Nonproliferation Treaty) to have enrichment and reprocessing technology.

What is the right balance between nonproliferation and nuclear trade? Let's use Jordan as an example. Jordan is strongly interested in developing nuclear energy to meet it's electricity needs and become more independent from importing energy (read article). If Jordan signs a 123 Agreement with the United States, and a U.S. company sells them a nuclear reactor, then Jordan's nuclear industry is based on U.S. technology. This gives the United States more control in Jordan regarding nonproliferation and safety. On the other hand, if another country, such as Russia or China, sells Jordan a nuclear reactor, then that country has more control in Jordan and possibly that region. What if, in either case, there is an arms race in the Middle East and Jordan decides to go against their Nonproliferation Treaty obligations and develop nuclear weapons from the nuclear technology that was exported to them? (This is not an easy endeavor and would require different technology than a nuclear reactor, although the material from the reactor could theoretically be used for weapons.) In the case of proliferation, export control would have failed no matter which country the technology came from. The real question is, would Jordan be more likely to proliferate if the United States or another country owned the nuclear technology? 

The reality is that Jordan has already selected a Russian company to supply its first nuclear power plant (read article) and the United States has still failed to negotiate a nuclear trade agreement with Jordan. Even though Jordan has been completely compliant with And Jordan is not the only example, other countries that are developing new nuclear industries are not buying from the United States. 

In order to remain a leader in the global nuclear industry and stay influential in the nonproliferation regime, the United States needs to start exporting nuclear energy technology on a much larger scale, or at least equal the efforts of other nuclear suppliers, such as Russia. 

How can we balance nonproliferation goals and nuclear industry exports?
9 Comments

Is the nuclear nonproliferation regime effective?

11/13/2013

9 Comments

 
By Lenka Kollar


There is an embedded topical meeting on nuclear nonproliferation at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) conference in Washington, DC this week. A common theme among speakers and attendees is about how effective the nuclear nonproliferation regime has been. The regime includes many measures instituted by countries and international organizations to mitigate the spread of technology and material that can be used for nuclear weapons and to disarm the current fleet of nuclear weapons. 

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of this regime and signed by 190 countries. President John F. Kennedy said that this treaty was important because he warned that there would be dozens of nuclear weapons states by now. There are currently five countries recognized as "weapons states" by the NPT, including the United States, Russia, China, France, and United Kingdom. There are three countries commonly known to have nuclear weapons, India, Pakistan, and Israel, and they are not signatories to the NPT. Finally, there are a couple of countries that are accused of violating the treaty by attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, it can be said that the NPT has been successful because there are a total of 8-10 countries that have nuclear weapons, and not dozens, as was predicted in the 1960s.
Picture
Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (also founder of the Nuclear Threat Institute) was a speaker at the ANS conference opening plenary on Monday and shared his concerns about the nonproliferation regime. He stated that the biggest issue today is the security of nuclear materials and technologies from rogue and terrorist organizations. Currently there is no global regime for nuclear security but there are many measures being taken by the United States and other countries, as explained by Laura Holgate (Senior Director, National Security Council) during the nonproliferation opening plenary on Tuesday. 

In the same session, Rose Gottemoeller (Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security) stated that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been successful. She also highlighted that disarmament of nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States is moving along. Did you know that about 10% of the total electricity in the United States comes from old Soviet weapons? Russia actually dismantles nuclear weapons and downblends the uranium to a concentration that cannot be used for weapons. This uranium is then sent to the United States and fabricating into fuel for our commercial reactors. The fuel is the same as the regular fuel that is used in reactors, where the uranium is mined from the ground instead of downblended from nuclear weapons.

It seems that the government officials implementing policies and programs (Gottemoeller and Holgate) are more optimistic about the nonproliferation regime than those outside of the government that are advocating for more action (Nunn).

Do you think the nuclear nonproliferation regime is effective?
9 Comments
Forward>>
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013

    Categories

    All
    American Nuclear Society
    Climate Change
    Diversity In Stem
    Energy
    Environmentalists
    Fuel Cycle
    I'm A Nuke
    International
    IYNC
    Navy
    Nonproliferation
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Energy
    Nuclear Engineers
    Nuclear Technology
    Policy
    Radiation
    Reactors
    Science Education
    Sustainability
    UAE
    Women In Engineering

    RSS Feed


    Follow on Bloglovin
Nuclear Undone is a new venture, please contact us for sponsorship and consulting opportunities.