The dilemma is brought into focus by the problem we have with Iran. Iran says it is building a nuclear reactor for commercial reasons - to produce electrical power. We don't believe them. We think they want to build an atomic bomb. What do we do?
We are suspicious because Iran is building enrichment facilities. Yes, you need Uranium enrichment to produce a commercial nuclear reactor. In other words, you need to separate from U-238 the small amount of U-235 needed to produce power - 3% U-235 will do. Unfortunately the same enrichment process may be used for further enrichment to 90% U-235 - enough for a bomb.
The same considerations apply to any country wanting to develop nuclear power. There are many countries eager to do this. Is it worthwhile taking a chance?
For awhile we had a nuclear proliferation treaty. Once we gave nuclear technology to India, that treaty was shot. How do we control nuclear proliferation?
At present we have a system where it is OK for some nations and not-OK for other nations. J. Peter Scoblic in the April 23rd issue of The New Republic, presents his solution:
One answer, albeit an ambitous one, would be to require all states to forgo uranium enrichmaent and reprocessing. That is, ownership and operation of existing facilities - whether held by private, quasi-private, or government entities - would be transferred either to the IAEA or to a new institution and the faclities themselves would be granted extraterritorial status, like the UN headquarters in New York. A moratorium wuld be placed on new reprocessing facilities and any new enrichment plants that were built to meet growing fuel demand woud have to be intrernationally controlled.
This would be tough to accomplish. If we can't do something like this we are still faced with the nuclear dilemma. In that situation, I would say that we not build nuclear power plants.
Comment here.
