Nuclear Power and the NPT

I’m reluctant to involve myself in debates over nuclear power, because I don’t have enough of a technical grasp of the details to be able to make much of an original contribution. I must say that I am uncompelled by this argument, however. In short, John is arguing that because the most efficient way of generating nuclear power is also one of the best ways of creating weapons grade nuclear material, that the nuclear option should be taken off the table. I can’t comment on other anti-nuclear arguments, including those that focus on the efficiency of renewable energy sources or on general questions regarding waste.

My problem with John’s argument (which is that a non-nuclear country, using efficient fuel reprocessing methods, can get very close to having a successful nuclear program within the existing constraints of the NPT), is that the technical requirements of a nuclear program have never been the most significant obstacle to the development of nuclear weapons in industrialized countries. Yes, fuel reprocessing makes it easy for Japan or Germany to build nukes if they so desire. But, if they wanted to, they (and most any other advanced European country, and probably several South American countries as well) could easily build nuclear weapons within a short period of time. The constraint on such production is not now and has never been the availability of fuel or even of technology; it has been a combination of the US-French-British nuclear umbrella, cost given this umbrella, and a general social prohibition against nuclear weapons production.

I’m not optimistic about the future of non-proliferation, given both Iran’s drive for a weapon and the souring of the trans-Atlantic alliance. But I’m inclined to think that fuel reprocessing choices are almost wholly irrelevant to whether advanced industrialized countries will decide to pursue nuclear weapons programs.