Figure of Hourai
Or you're not clear, because I can't see what else you're actually talking about. "If a country feels threatened it is perfectly entitled to develop nukes" and "this shouldn't be held against them" are sentiments that go against the entire point of having a non-proliferation treaty in the first place. Especially when this means more nuclear weapons in an already unstable region where the parties involved are far more likely to use them on each other than the nuclear powers are to consider non-conventional warfare.
And it seems excessively lenient when the entire reason there was a deal with sanctions in the first place was because of breaching this fundamental "let's not turn the world into a nuclear hellscape" agreement.
Not to mention that they could withdraw from the NPT. They've even threatened to.
Avatar Source
A procrastination in of itself
Except the world is bigger than just the US and Iran, Iranian nukes are a threat to more than just a US invasion, that’s why other countries were part of the Iran Deal.
As for Iran acting to maintain its own security, there are other legal means to do that. It could invoke the clause in the NPT that lets you exit if facing an imminent threat, it could request guarantees against a US invasion, it could offer to end its nuclear program in exchange for Russia placing nukes in Iran to deter the US, what it doesn’t get to do is throw out international law because the US broke an agreement.
If we threw out all international laws after one country broke them and got away with it we’d have none left. We live in an imperfect world where it’s not always possible to right past wrongs.
You’ve not been clear on much of anything in this discussion. I’m trying to understand your argument, but you’ve still not responded to many of my points, so it’s pretty difficult.
Edited by Silasw on Feb 22nd 2021 at 6:21:25 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Except the world is bigger than just the US and Iran, Iranian nukes are a threat to more than just a US invasion, that's why other countries were part of the Iran Deal.
As for Iran acting to maintain its own security, there are other legal means to do that. It could invoke the clause in the NPT that lets you exit if facing an imminent threat, it could request guarantees against a US invasion, it could offer to end its nuclear program in exchange for Russia placing nukes in Iran to deter the US, what it doesn’t get to do is throw out international law because the US broke an agreement.
If we threw out all international laws after one country broke them and got away with it we’d have none left. We live in an imperfect world where it’s not always possible to right past wrongs.
I hope you're joking, guarantees against US invasion are completely worthless.
If they're facing an imminent threat leaving the NPT wouldn't solve the problem, you can't just magic up a nuke on short notice.
If Russian nukes were a viable option it would've been done already, either Russia or Iran wouldn't accept it.
You’ve not been clear on much of anything in this discussion. I’m trying to understand your argument, but you’ve still not responded to many of my points, so it’s pretty difficult.
I was extremely clear about my argument, if others cannot understand it that's not my problem.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
A procrastination in of itself
Then I think we’re at an impasse. I and others can’t understand what point you’re trying to make and you don’t consider that your problem, so it looks like we’re done.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Yes, I agree, if you can't read my post that's not a problem I can solve.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 22nd 2021 at 11:35:59 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
A Self-inflicted Disaster
Reading this discussion gives me two questions:
1. How did India and Pakistan get away with building nukes? Yes, they did not sign the NPT, but then just because North Korea left the NPT doesn't mean North Korea should be allowed to develop nukes unfettered.
2. While international law prevents any new nuclear powers from emerging, are there any rules regarding which countries are allowed to have nuclear latency
(not having nukes but the ability to build them quickly)? Of course, it's a bad idea to let unstable countries have weapons-grade nuclear material, but are there any rules on what countries can be trusted with plutonium/highly enriched uranium? Or is this decided on a country-by-country basis?
Figure of Hourai
If you want even more baffling international weirdness, there's the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which is an international agreement for nuclear disarmament, passed by the UN, and has come into force.
Most, if not all, of NATO and none of the nuclear powers are signatories to it, so it's beyond pointless.
Edited by RainehDaze on Feb 23rd 2021 at 11:44:51 AM
Avatar Source
Regarding the second point, not all countries on the "nuclear threshold" are equivalent - Canada has both native uranium resources and nuclear reactors which can be easily used to turn said native uranium resources into weapons-grade material, whereas Iran lacks the former and only has enrichment facilities.
India obtained its nuclear material by deceiving the Canadian government about the purpose of a Canadian-type nuclear reactor they built, if memory serves.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Figure of Hourai
As for why India got away with it... presumably because the international community looked at the benefits and costs of trying to stop it and concluded that India is probably not going to nuke anyone. It's already been mentioned that Pakistan's been nothing but a headache.
India was sanctioned at one point but those were lifted.
Avatar Source
India also started its nuclear program before it was even independent. And it was apparently already able to produce nuclear weapons for tests four years before the NPT was signed.
Pakistan received assistance from the United States as early as the 1950's regarding the development of nuclear energy via "Atoms for Peace", but apparently showed little interest in obtaining nuclear weapons until they lost Bangladesh and India did "Smiling Buddha" in the 1970's. I'm not sure why Pakistan never signed the NPT when it first entered into force in 1968 (there's no plausible way they would now, of course) — maybe they saw India not sign it and felt it was better to stay off just in case?
This is country-by-country because trying to get all existing nuclear powers to agree on anything diplomatically is like herding cats. When it comes to mining nuclear material itself you're out of luck since that's basically geographic luck in play. The remaining steps take a ton of monetary investment and technical assistance to get, which effectively can only come from the major developed economies who are already big international players one way or another. It'll be exceedingly obvious that some country's potential nuclear capability is on the increase — it's up to some power either regionally or globally to not like it and raise a fuss about it.
Edited by megarockman on Feb 23rd 2021 at 7:21:38 AM
That applies both ways, you know. Iran being nuclear-armed seriously jeopardizes America's security interests in the Middle East, ergo, America has every reason to use whatever tools are available to it to stop Iran from getting nukes.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I agree, well mostly, I think it would be better to say "to use whatever tools that are useful". Invasion isn't acceptable (ethically or practically), nor is a bombing campaign.
I know you haven't said that but there are absolutely actors who support it.
Anyway, that's why I support the Iran deal. So we can fulfill both our and their security interests.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 23rd 2021 at 8:56:28 AM
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
A procrastination in of itself
It was a game of nuclear dominoes.
China was allowed nukes and started testing, India already had a lot of nuclear knowledge due to being part of the British Empire and possibly got “look the other way” assistance from the US. India’s nuclear program did get some action against it but it’s a hard country to sanction and it was geopolitically advantageous for many countries for there to be a nuclear counter to China.
Pakistan got away with it because China wanted a counter to the Indian counter to it, while the US didn’t want to loose a key regional ally (The US had sided slightly with Pakistan over India because India was sympathetic to the USSR) Pakistan also basically bankrupted itself with the program.
Part of why nuclear proliferation is taken seriously now is because of the domino line of China-India-Pakistan. A single allowed nation resulted in three nuclear armed states all on top of each other.
No, but it is a thing lots of nations care about. It’s come up before with Iran, with some countries wanting Iran to both lack nukes and to lack the ability to easily develop nukes.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Well also Homi J Bhabha (father of the Indian nuclear program) was a respected scientist in his own right. They could have developed nukes even more quickly than they did, but Nehru forbade it. It's notable that as soon as he died, the program began in earnest.
Cringe but free
Democrats Want Biden to Relinquish Sole Authority for Nuclear Launches. Note that Rep. Ted Lieu (D) and Sen. Ed Markey (D) have already introduced two similar bills in the past few years.
Now, lawmakers of the current president’s own party are asking President Joe Biden to surrender that unilateral power.
Giving one person such authority “entails real risks,” according to a letter endorsed by 31 Democratic members of the House. “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that causes other officials to express concerns about the president's judgment.”
The letter, led by Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Ted Lieu, both from California, calls for officials, such as the vice president and speaker of the House, to concur with a launch order before it can be issued.
“My colleagues and I are requesting a straightforward review of our nation’s nuclear command-and-control structure to determine how we can have a safer nuclear weapons launch authority, not to jeopardize but to enhance and bolster our national security,” said Panetta in a statement to VOA on Thursday.
“Based on our president’s distinguished record and leadership on nuclear arms control, for our country’s nuclear forces, we’re recommending that he continue his thoughtful and professional analysis of ways for additional checks and balances within the nuclear command-and-control structure.”
The letter, which was sent to the White House on Monday, “proposes several alternatives to investing the president with the sole, unchecked and final authority to order the use of nuclear weapons,” Jeffrey Lewis, a professor and a director at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, California, told VOA. “Any of the alternatives would be better than the current arrangement.”
On January 8, two days after a mob supporting then-President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her fellow Democrats she had spoken with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “about preventing an unstable president” from ordering a launch of nuclear weapons.
"The situation of this unhinged president could not be more dangerous, and we must do everything that we can to protect the American people from his unbalanced assault on our country and our democracy," Pelosi said in a letter.
The letter to Biden from the Democratic lawmakers, including two members of the House Armed Services Committee, mentions Trump by name only in the footnotes, as well as referring to concerns about the mental stability of President Richard Nixon shortly before he resigned in August 1974.
“Since there are inherent risks in the present system, as was made apparent by our ex-president, it’s our responsibility in Congress to ensure that the administration conducts this type of review in order to have a safer, more secure nuclear weapons launch authority,” Panetta told VOA.
“The old argument was that it was safe to give the president this power because the election was the ultimate safeguard,” Lewis said. “Trump’s election shows that an unfit, amoral and dangerous person can, in fact, gain power in the United States.”
Trump, during a period of feuding with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, boasted that his nuclear button was “much bigger” and “more powerful” than the one possessed by Kim.
The proposed change is being criticized by three prominent Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee.
In their statement, Liz Cheney, Mike Rogers and Mike Turner contend “the president of the United States must have the exclusive ability to command and control our nuclear deterrent. Democrats’ dangerous efforts suggesting a restructuring of our nuclear command-and-control process will undermine American security, as well as the security of our allies.”
The Democrats’ recommendations, “if enacted, would leave Americans vulnerable, destabilize the nuclear balance and shake our allies’ confidence in the nuclear umbrella,” according to the three Republicans. “Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping would cheer if the United States adopted such a unilateral restriction.”
John Maurer, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is also concerned about altering how a president can respond.
“More important than speed is predictability,” Maurer told VOA. “Deterring adversaries requires that adversaries know that American warheads will fly under certain circumstances. Perhaps more importantly, reassuring American allies requires that American warheads fly under certain circumstances in their defense.”
American law already contains provisions that can check presidential launch authority, according to Maurer, who is also a professor of strategy and security studies at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies at Air University, headquartered at Maxwell Air Force Base.
“The vice president and Cabinet can suspend a president's powers under the 25th Amendment if they are really concerned about his mental state, which effectively suspends his ability to launch nuclear attacks,” Maurer said. “American military officers can also refuse to carry out unlawful orders. A blanket check on presidential authority is unlikely to accomplish much more than these existing provisions already do.”
Maurer added, “It’s not clear to me that a check on the president's nuclear authority by Congress would be constitutional. The Constitution establishes that the president is the commander in chief of the U.S. military, so Congress' ability to tell him what to do with nuclear weapons under military control may be limited.”
Ankit Panda, a nuclear policy senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argued that while sole authority made sense during the Cold War, times and circumstances have changed.
“In the post-Cold War environment — and in particular, after President Trump — sole authority is seen as a liability,” Panda told VOA. “First-strike concerns are less acute. Command and control is robust and still modernizing. So, the U.S. can and should explore alternative postures.”
No choice, when it comes to the authority for launching nuclear weapons, will be entirely risk-free, Panda acknowledged, “but we need to think about what kinds of risk we’re willing to live with when it comes to our own nuclear posture.”
“I would certainly have to look at the letter and talk to our national security team,” replied White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki when asked on Friday aboard Air Force One about the Democrats’ letter. “I have not seen the letter. I can talk to them and see if we can get you a response.”
Wasnt Lal Bahadur Shastri against the development of nuclear weapons too? From India after Gandhi,
Cringe but free
Boris Johnson’s vision for post-Brexit ‘Global Britain’ includes more nuclear weapons.
In the sweeping review of its priorities for the coming decade, the 110-page document titled “Global Britain in a competitive age” declared that the U.K. would raise the cap on the number of nuclear warheads aboard the Royal Navy’s Trident submarines — from 180 to 260, an increase of more than 40 percent. The document also vowed to maintain a fleet of four nuclear-armed subs, so it would always have one at sea, ready to respond.
The new goal appears to mark a profound shift away from Britain’s long commitment to nonproliferation. For decades now, Britain seemed content to reduce its aging nuclear arsenal, not bolster it.
Britain has around 200 warheads, and past Conservative Party governments had pledged to reduce the number to 180 by the mid-2020s.
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told reporters the country was not seeking a new arms race but simply wanted to maintain a minimal credible deterrence.
“Why? Because it is the ultimate guarantee, the ultimate insurance policy against the worst threat from hostile states,” Raab said.
The review released Tuesday, which was two years in the making, foresees a possible proliferation of nuclear weapons outside Britain, alongside advanced conventional weapons and “novel military technologies.”
The document states that Britain “will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 (NPT).” But it adds: “We reserve the right to review this assurance if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary.”
The British government said the increase in warheads was “in recognition of the evolving security environment, including the developing range of technological and doctrinal threat.”
Experts reviewing the language said it suggests in the event of crippling biological, chemical, cyber or “dirty bomb” attacks of mass proportions, then Britain would consider a nuclear counterattack.
Britain’s smaller political parties condemned the move. A Green Party member of parliament, Caroline Lucas, called the increase a “provocative, illegal and morally obscene use of resources.” The Scottish National Party tweeted: “A shameful sum of money that could be used to tackle child poverty instead.”
Labour Party leader Keir Starmer said his party remains committed to the Trident submarine program and the maintenance of a credible deterrent, but he told the House of Commons that Johnson’s plan to increase the armory “breaks the goal of successive prime ministers and cross-party efforts to reduce our nuclear stockpile. It doesn’t explain, when, why, or for what strategic purpose.”
Kate Hudson, the general secretary of U.K.-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said in a statement: “This is no time to start a new nuclear arms race. As the world wrestles with the pandemic and climate chaos, it beggars belief that our government is opting to increase Britain’s nuclear arsenal.”
Hudson noted that President Biden and his Russian counterpart, Vladmir Putin, last month “agreed to further reduce their nuclear arsenals by renewing the New START Treaty.”
I feel like this is more or less the right place to put this. From the Associated Press: Japan to start releasing Fukushima water into sea in 2 years
TOKYO (AP) — Japan’s government decided Tuesday to start releasing treated radioactive water from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean in two years — an option fiercely opposed by fishermen, residents and Japan’s neighbors.
The decision, long speculated but delayed for years due to safety concerns and protests, came at a meeting of Cabinet ministers who endorsed the ocean release as the best option.
The accumulating water has been stored in tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi plant since 2011, when a massive earthquake and tsunami damaged its reactors and their cooling water became contaminated and began leaking. The plant’s storage capacity will be full late next year.
Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said ocean release was the most realistic option and that disposing the water is unavoidable for the decommissioning of the Fukushima plant, which is expected to take decades. He also pledged the government would work to ensure the safety of the water and to prevent damaging rumors.
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., and government officials say tritium, which is not harmful in small amounts, cannot be removed from the water, but all other selected radionuclides can be reduced to levels allowed for release. Some scientists say the long-term impact on marine life from low-dose exposure to such large volumes of water is unknown.
The government stresses the safety of the water by calling it “treated” not “radioactive” even though radionuclides can only be reduced to disposable levels, not to zero. The amount of radioactive materials that would remain in the water is also still unknown.
Under the basic plan adopted Tuesday by the ministers, TEPCO will start releasing the water in about two years after building a facility and compiling release plans adhering to safety requirements. It said the disposal of the water cannot be postponed further and is necessary to improve the environment surrounding the plant so residents can live there safely.
Residents, fisheries officials and environmental groups issued statements denouncing the decision as ignoring environmental safety and health, while adding a further blow to Fukushima’s image and economy.
Japan Fisheries Cooperatives chairman Hiroshi Kishi said the decision less than a week after he met with Suga “is absolutely unacceptable.” Noting the government’s pledge not to act without the fishing industry’s understanding, Kishi said the decision “trampled on” all Japanese fisheries operators.
Lawyer Izutaro Managi and his colleagues representing residents in Fukushima and nearby areas said the government and TEPCO should not dump the water “only to impact the environment again” — referring to the radiation that still contaminates land closest to the damaged plant. The lawyers alleged in a statement that ocean release was chosen for cost effectiveness and that forcing the plan “underscores their lack of regret” for the disaster.
Protestors also gathered outside the Prime Minister’s Office to demand the plan be retracted.
TEPCO says its water storage capacity of 1.37 million tons will be full around fall of 2022. Also, the area now filled with storage tanks will have to be freed up for building new facilities needed for removing melted fuel debris from inside the reactors and for other decommissioning work that’s expected to start in coming years.
In the decade since the tsunami disaster, water meant to cool the nuclear material has constantly escaped from the damaged primary containment vessels into the basements of the reactor buildings. To make up for the loss, more water has been pumped into the reactors to continue to cool the melted fuel. Water is also pumped out and treated, part of which is recycled as cooling water, and the remainder stored in 1,020 tanks now holding 1.25 million tons of radioactive water.
Those tanks that occupy a large space at the plant interfere with the safe and steady progress of the decommissioning, Economy and Industry Minister Hiroshi Kajiyama said. The tanks also could be damaged and leak in case of another powerful earthquake or tsunami, the report said.
Releasing the water to the ocean was described as the most realistic method by a government panel that for nearly seven years had discussed how to dispose of the water. The report it prepared last year mentioned evaporation as a less desirable option.
About 70% of the water in the tanks is contaminated beyond discharge limits but will be filtered again and diluted with seawater before it is released, the report says. According to a preliminary estimate, gradual releases of water will take more than 30 years but will be completed before the plant is fully decommissioned.
Japan will abide by international rules for a release, obtain support from the International Atomic Energy Agency and others, and ensure disclosure of data and transparency to gain understanding of the international community, the report said.
China and South Korea reacted strongly to Tuesday’s decision.
Koo Yun-cheol, minister of South Korea’s Office for Government Policy Coordination, said the plan was “absolutely unacceptable” and urged Japan to disclose how the water is treated and its safety is verified. Koo said his government will demand IAEA create a monitoring regime. South Korea has banned seafood imports from parts of Japan since 2013 and could increase those steps.
China criticized Japan’s decision as “extremely irresponsible,” saying it had not considered the health concerns of neighboring countries.
Kajiyama is set to visit Fukushima on Tuesday afternoon to meet with local town and fisheries officials to explain the decision and says he will continue to make efforts to gain their understanding over the next two years.
___
Associated Press writer Kim Tong-hyung in Seoul, South Korea, contributed to this report.
Cringe but free
Yeah, the fuss over this has been going on forever. The water has already been treated to remove most of the radioisotopes; all that's left is tritium, which is the stuff in your glow-in-the-dark keychain and cannot be fully removed in any practical fashion because it's an isotope of hydrogen and thus really, really tiny. It's a low-energy beta emitter, meaning that its radiation cannot affect the insides of the human body unless you ingest a comically huge amount of it at once.
And speaking of quantities: we're talking about maybe just over 2-3 grams of radioactive tritium in total. In over a million tonnes of treated water. That they're planning to release over 30 years, across a wide stretch of ocean. There's a lot of heinous things that we as a species have done to our seas in recent times, but this is about as risk-calculated a disposal plan as you could get. Else, we could just keep all that water in a tank complex somewhere and see what happens when the next major earthquake hits.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Apr 12th 2021 at 11:46:56 AM
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
Thanks, now please give us a way to ram these statistics into people's heads.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
A procrastination in of itself
Yeah that’s the problem, also others will react to people having baseless fears. I believe that Japanese fishermen have been opposing the release not because it will harm the local fish, but because it might harm the reputation of Japanese fish due to people mistakenly thinking it’s done something to the fish.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
This is the first thing I thought of when I saw this headline. Whatever radio active isotopes are leftover will be so diluted it won't affect anything. If anything the safety measures they have taken to treat and filter the water as well as dispose it over such a vast area over such a long time are overkill.
People can be really stupid when it comes to understanding nuclear energy
Edited by Xopher001 on Apr 13th 2021 at 12:39:10 PM
It doesn't help that the most recent story about "nuclear water" is the Florida reservoir that's leaking. That was certainly on my mind until I read enough of the details to realize that this Fukushima water has been as thoroughly cleaned as possible and will have a controlled release, pretty much the opposite of the Florida situation. I don't like the idea of the tritium, as that's been a warning sign that the local nuclear plant wasn't up to code, but again, a power plant in operation sending more tritium into the river than it should be is a different situation.
A procrastination in of itself
Which shows how the story has been misrepresented, the situation in Florida involves a mine and a fertiliser production plant, there’s no involvement from nuclear power at all.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
"The US applied unfair sanctions therefore a country is entitled to build nukes" is a stupid position.
Yeah, you're definitely arguing in bad faith.
I was very clearly talking about more than just the sanctions, that you're unwilling to recognize that shows how uninterested you are in good-faith discussion.
If Silasw wants to talk with me I'll respond but I don't see any benefit in wasting more time interacting with you.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn