Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] dealing with the media +- evolution

I wrote the below the "--------" before finishing Hugh's post. However, I'll leave the Wiki, etc. below and add:


It
forbids the have-nots from obtaining weapons, and enjoins the haves
from taking steps to reduce their inventories, ultimately to get rid
of them altogether. So far the haves have been quick to demand that
the have-nots live up to their end of the bargain, but very reluctant
to do anything toward living up to their end.


Hugh, do you not mean the opposite of the above?

and

Furthermore, the US, in particular, has been instrumental in
preventing the disarmament conference[,] that is supposed to be working
toward strengthening the NPT[,] from achieving anything.


"," not necessary, but I did have to read it twice.

bc


-------------------------------------------
I thought the less enriched the greater the efficiency in producing fissionable Pu.

I also thought that in exchange for ratifying the non-proliferation treaty a country was permitted to build reactors. This is why Iran objects to the sanctions and allows the IAEA to inspect. I think the actions against Iran are disingenuous and for a completely different reason, e.g. their support of the Palestinians, et al.

The third pillar;


The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the Treaty). As the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "Achilles heel" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.[5]

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA and sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations, [6] and later withdrew from the NPT and tested a nuclear device; Iran violated its NPT safeguards obligations by pursuing a clandestine enrichment program for nearly two decades;[7][8] and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003. In 1991 Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non- compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to acquire nuclear weapons.[9]



[edit]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty



bc

p.s. Iran above most states needs nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from the US imperialism -- remember the CIA (w/ the British) overthrew their democratically elected government. The result was blowback -- another similar action will likely result in a much more disastrous blowback.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson



On 2008, Apr 05, , at 22:29, Hugh Haskell wrote:

At 22:39 -0500 4/5/08, cliff parker wrote:

There is only one
reason for Iran to produce enriched uranium and that is to eventually have
the capability to produce atomic bombs.

I suspect that is true, but it remains conjecture, since we don't
have evidence yet that they are attempting to enrich uranium beyond
about 10%. And although all reactors produce plutonium, not all
plutonium is suitable for use in nuclear weapons. The longer the
uranium fuel stays in the reactor, the more it becomes contaminated
with Pu-240, and if the concentration of Pu-240 gets to be more than
about 10%, then the Pu produced in the reactor won't make very good
bombs, due to the high rate of spontaneous fission that Pu-240
undergoes, which speeds the explosive fission up to the point where
it is too fast for the critical mass assembly to complete before the
weapon blows itself apart.

It doesn't mean that the weapon won't work at all, just that it will
be a lower yield than can be obtained with weapons grade plutonium
(>90% Pu-239). It is the fact that non-weapons-grade Pu can still be
used to build nuclear weapons, albeit of lower efficiency, that makes
the reprocessing of spent fuel a serious weapons proliferation risk,
and thus something that should be strongly discouraged, aside from
the fact that reprocessed fuel is about 3 times as expensive as
once-through fuel, as well as a major chemical pollution source due
to the complex refining process required to separate the plutonium
from the rest of the spent fuel.

A breeder reactor designed to produce weapons grade plutonium has to
have its fuel rods changed on about a one-two month schedule. Pure
power reactors leave the fuel rods in place for 3-4 years (changing
1/3-1/4 of the rods each year).

Now a reasonable argument may
perhaps be made concerning the right of a country such as Iran to possess
such a bomb but no reasonable argument exists as to why they are enriching
uranium.

In fact, Iran put its right to obtain nuclear weapons on hold when it
signed the NPT. Of course they can withdraw from the NPT, as North
Korea did, but so far, they haven't seen fit to do so. Technically,
therefore, they do not at present have the right to build nuclear
weapons.

However, the NPT also says that the nuclear weapons nations are
obligated to assist non-weapons nations to obtain peaceful nuclear
power, and both Russia and the US have been very reluctant to abide
by that article of the NPT, so Iran has essentially taken that as an
excuse to build their own enrichment capability (the Russian-built
plant at Bushehr, is almost complete, but Russia still hasn't
delivered the fuel to run it), claiming that they have that right as
part of the NPT. I think the NPT is a bit vague on that point, so
they may be able to stretch it to cover their enrichment plant.

Unfortunately, the NPT is a deeply flawed document, creating a
two-tier structure of nations--the weapons haves and have-nots. It
forbids the have-nots from obtaining weapons, and enjoins the haves
from taking steps to reduce their inventories, ultimately to get rid
of them altogether. So far the haves have been quick to demand that
the have-nots live up to their end of the bargain, but very reluctant
to do anything toward living up to their end. And, at least in the
case of Iran and Norht Korea, the haves have been reluctant to honor
their obligation to assist the have-nots in obtaining peaceful
nuclear power.

Furthermore, the US, in particular, has been instrumental in
preventing the disarmament conference that is supposed to be working
toward strengthening the NPT from achieving anything.

If Iran decides to leave the NPT, then it will no longer be bound by
its restriction on obtaining nuclear weapons, but other nations are
also no longer bound to offer them any further assistance on their
nuclear power program. So are, Iran has seen greater advantage to
them in staying inside the NPT structure. That may change.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Hard work often pays off after time. But Laziness always pays off now.

February tagline on 2007 Demotivator's Calendar
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l