World faces nonproliferation turning point – START 1 negotiator

[bananas]

http://www.globalzero.org/en/world-faces-nonproliferation-turning-point-%E2%80%93-start-1-negotiator-1

World faces nonproliferation turning point – START 1 negotiator

Monday, September 13, 2010

The world is at a turning point in efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly in the Middle East, a former US arms treaty negotiator said on Friday at the Global Policy Forum in the Russian city of Yaroslavl.

“The problem is if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, then three or four others could then make the decision. For example, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,” said Richard Burt, former United States ambassador to Germany and chief negotiator of the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

“We could then find ourselves within a period of 10 years in a situation where there are five or six nuclear powers in the world’s most dangerous and most unstable region in the Middle East. That is why we have to act now,” he added.

Burt said he wants to see and will propose both the United States and Russia announce early next year that they are going to resume negotiations on a treaty that will substantially reduce further their nuclear arsenals.

Burt has been working with Igor Yurgens, an adviser to President Dmitry Medvedev, in “Global Zero,” an international organization dedicated to the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

[DrGregory]

1. and the logical nexus is WHAT?

Burt said he wants to see and will propose both the United States and Russia announce early next year that they are going to resume negotiations on a treaty that will substantially reduce further their nuclear arsenals.
===========================================================

What good will that do?

I don't think Iran wants nuclear weapons because the USA and Russia have them.

I think Iran wants nuclear weapons because Iran wants to be a "regional superpower".

Actually, the WEAKER the USA and Russia are; the MORE important are the Iranian nukes.

( Take it to the logical extreme - if the USA, Russia, UK, France... had NONE, and
Iran had SOME; Iran would be the nuclear SUPERPOWER )

Dr Greg

[kristopher]

2. MIT findings

MIT 2003 nuclear study "The Future of Nuclear Power" – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed, four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

None of these problems are able to be addressed except by not spreading nuclear technology.

[DrGregory]

3. You can quote my alma mater - it's your interpretation.,,,.

None of these problems are able to be addressed except by not spreading nuclear technology.
=============================================

Have you learned the Laws of Thermodynamics yet?

First, there's ZERO reason the USA can't expand the domestic
use of nuclear technology - because that doesn't "spread"
nuclear technology.

It is SIMPLISTIC and UNINTELLIGENT to lump both nuclear
reactor / nuclear power technology and nuclear weapons
technology. It's like saying we have to deny someone
the benefits of fire because we don't want them to make
chemical explosives.

One could spread a nuclear power technology that makes
material that is IMPOSSIBLE to make into weapons; such
as the Integral Fast Reactor of IFR:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?

A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.

It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of
the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible
for someone to make a weapon."

The last point was confirmed by Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I know
you don't like to hear it - but I remind you that MIT does NOT have
weapons experts. They rely on generalized statements that have been
declassified by the weapons labs as to what can / can not be made into
a weapon. However, a determination was made by the weapons experts at
Lawrence Livermore SPECIFICALLY about the IFR; and Dr. Till is correct.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

4. ROFLMAO. You get more absurd every day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=258338&mesg_id=259002