Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: More Nuclear Ambitions

  1. #1

    Default More Nuclear Ambitions

    Israel, Syria reveal nuclear ambitions

    Rivals seek nuclear power as alternative to other sources

    JERUSALEM - Mideast rivals Israel and Syria on Tuesday each announced ambitions to develop nuclear energy, with Israel facing the prospect that its plan could bring new international attention to its secretive nuclear activities.

    Both countries laid out their hopes at an international conference on civilian nuclear energy at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Civilian nuclear energy contributes far less to global warming than burning of fossil fuels but worries many because of the risks of long-term waste storage and the possibility of proliferation.

    "We need this energy source because it is environmentally clean," Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau told The Associated Press in Paris.

    He called Israel's need for nuclear energy "imminent" but gave no timeline for an atomic power plant.

    In an interview on the sidelines of the conference, Landau said his country would open up any nuclear plants to international inspections — but said he saw no reason for his country to allow inspectors into what are believed to be nuclear weapons sites or to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    Landau's announcement Tuesday could complicate U.S.-led efforts to impose a new round of sanctions against Iran for its refusal to cooperate with international nuclear inspectors.

    Tehran says its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful but several world powers suspect it is seeking weapons.

    Iran and North Korea, whose nuclear program has also drawn international scorn, were not invited to the conference.

    'Nuclear ambiguity'

    Landau stood firm against Iran's nuclear plans. Israel has never openly acknowledged being a nuclear power, following a policy it calls "nuclear ambiguity."

    "When it comes to Iran, you have a country that openly speaks about the destruction of a United Nations member state (Israel)," Landau told The AP.

    "Why does a poor country in the Middle East have to put so much economic resources (into nuclear activities) instead of feeding its own people, unless they have other ambitions, purposes on their minds?"

    Minutes after Landau spoke at the conference, another of Israel's rivals, Syria, expressed nuclear interest.

    Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad said his country "calls for the need to consider alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy" to meet its growing demands.

    "The peaceful application of nuclear energy should not be monopolized by the few that own this technology but should be available equally for all," Mekdad said, noting Syria's growing population.
    Mekdad did not elaborate on specific nuclear plans.

    The Israeli minister, asked about Syria's proposal, said any nuclear-energized country needs to have "responsible leadership that is also following all the measures and all the precautions ... to ensure that all the power plants that are built are used for peaceful means."

    Airstrike on suspected Syrian nuke site

    In 2008, Israeli warplanes struck a Syrian site the U.S. alleged was a plutonium-producing reactor under construction secretly with help from North Korea. Syria has maintained the site was an unused military installation.

    Between the two countries, Israel is seen as closer to actually developing nuclear energy in terms of know-how and infrastructure.

    Landau said nuclear plants built in Israel will be subject to strict safety and security controls, and even said his country would like to build them in cooperation with scientists and engineers from "our Arab neighbors." He did not elaborate.

    Israel currently uses natural gas and coal, blamed in part for global warming, to produce electricity.
    "Israel has always considered nuclear power to partially replace its dependence on coal," Landau said.

    Asked whether Israel would allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to supervise any new project, Landau said any nuclear plants "will undoubtedly be under the total procedures of those with whom we are in cooperation."

    Still, he dismissed calls to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty, which aims to limit the number of countries capable of developing nuclear weapons.

    "We don't see a reason why we should do it," he said.

    The idea of generating nuclear energy has been floating around for years in Israel. In 2007, one of Landau's predecessors said he was working on a plan to build a nuclear power plant in Israel's southern Negev desert.

    Landau met several months ago with the French Energy Minister Jean-Louis Borloo, and raised the idea of French-Israeli-Jordanian cooperation in developing a nuclear power plant.

    Borloo was enthusiastic about that idea, Landau said. France derives more of its electricity from nuclear power than any other country and has a highly developed civilian nuclear industry — and Paris sees export potential.

    It was France that, beginning in the 1950s, helped Israel build its nuclear reactor at Dimona. Israel is believed to have used that reactor to construct a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

    Israel also has a smaller nuclear reactor for research at Nahal Soreq, not far from Tel Aviv.

    "I don't think we need any inspections" at these sites, Landau told AP. "I don't think anyone in the international community has any problem with any of the Israeli initiatives in that area."

    Landau's office says no specific plans to set up a third nuclear facility have been drawn up so far.
    Source

    I can't really complain about Israel wanting to build civilian reactors, especially if they're going to allow IAEA inspectors. Syria, on the other hand, is a little more concerning. I currently don't buy that they're not just trying to find a path to develop nuclear weapons. Any thoughts on whether the poor handling of the Iran situation helped lead to this?

  2. #2
    Most likely in a "oh shit iran has nukes, we'd better get some too" kinda way.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  3. #3
    Senior Member Evidently Supermarioman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    483
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    Most likely in a "oh shit israel has nukes, we'd better get some too" kinda way.
    Fixed.

    Israel has had nukes for ages, Syria probably figured this would be a good time to get started.
    I enjoy blank walls.

  4. #4
    I only would worry about those countries which have actually detonated nukes in the past...

  5. #5
    France and Russia?
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  6. #6
    Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate Global Climate

    ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2006) — Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, university researchers have found.

    These powerful conclusions are being presented Dec. 11 during a press conference and a special technical session at the annual meeting of American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The research also appears in twin papers posted on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, an online journal.

    A team of scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder); and UCLA conducted the rigorous scientific studies reported.

    Against the backdrop of growing tensions in the Middle East and nuclear "saber rattling" elsewhere in Asia, the authors point out that even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) weapons in their arsenals; all told, about 40 countries possess enough plutonium and/or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals.

    Owen "Brian" Toon, chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at CU-Boulder, oversaw the analysis of potential fatalities based on an assessment of current nuclear weapons inventories and population densities in large urban complexes. His team focused on scenarios of smoke emissions that urban firestorms could produce.

    "The results described in one of the new papers represent the first comprehensive quantitative study of the consequences of a nuclear conflict between smaller nuclear states," said Toon and his co-authors. "A small country is likely to direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage," Toon said. Fatality estimates for a plausible regional conflict ranged from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country.

    Alan Robock, a professor in the department of environmental sciences and associate director of the Center for Environmental Prediction at Rutgers' Cook College, guided the climate modeling effort using tools he previously employed in assessing volcano-induced climate change. Robock and his Rutgers co-workers, Professor Georgiy Stenchikov and Postdoctoral Associate Luke Oman (now at Johns Hopkins University) generated a series of computer simulations depicting potential climatic anomalies that a small-scale nuclear war could bring about, summarizing their conclusions in the second paper.

    "Considering the relatively small number and size of the weapons, the effects are surprisingly large. The potential devastation would be catastrophic and long term," said Richard Turco, professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, and a member and founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment. Turco once headed a team including Toon and Carl Sagan that originally defined "nuclear winter."

    While a regional nuclear confrontation among emerging third-world nuclear powers might be geographically constrained, Robock and his colleagues have concluded that the environmental impacts could be worldwide.

    "We examined the climatic effects of the smoke produced in a regional conflict in the subtropics between two opposing nations, each using 50 Hiroshima-size nuclear weapons to attack the other's most populated urban areas," Robock said. The researchers carried out their simulations using a modern climate model coupled with estimates of smoke emissions provided by Toon and his colleagues, which amounted to as much as five million metric tons of "soot" particles.

    "A cooling of several degrees would occur over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions," Robock said. "As in the case with earlier nuclear winter calculations, large climatic effects would occur in regions far removed from the target areas or the countries involved in the conflict."

    When Robock and his team applied their climate model to calibrate the recorded response to the 1912 eruptions of Katmai volcano in Alaska, they found that observed temperature anomalies were accurately reproduced. On a grander scale, the 1815 eruption of Tambora in Indonesia -- the largest in the last 500 years -- was followed by killing frosts throughout New England in 1816, during what has become known as "the year without a summer." The weather in Europe was reported to be so cold and wet that the harvest failed and people starved. This historical event, according to Robock, perhaps foreshadows the kind of climate disruptions that would follow a regional nuclear conflict.

    But the climatic disruption resulting from Tambora lasted for only about one year, the authors note. In their most recent computer simulation, in which carbon particles remain in the stratosphere for up to 10 years, the climatic effects are greater and last longer than those associated with the Tambora eruption.

    "With the exchange of 100 15-kiloton weapons as posed in this scenario, the estimated quantities of smoke generated could lead to global climate anomalies exceeding any changes experienced in recorded history," Robock said. "And that's just 0.03 percent of the total explosive power of the current world nuclear arsenal."
    This is written really pop-sciency and I'm not a fan, might try to dig up the actual publications if I have time. But yeah, "limited nuclear exchange" in the mid-East won't exactly be a controlled operation vis a vis the surrounding populations :/
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  7. #7
    Oh FFS, not nuclear-induced global-cooling again. TTAPS was demonstrated to be deliberate distortion, junk-science by credible scientists who lied because they (reasonably) feared nuclear way, by multiple independent reviews. For some reason, I don't trust Turco's latest attempt to prove the thesis either.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 03-10-2010 at 03:48 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    Lesson here kids: pop sci is bad for you

    I went out looking if someone had worked out the fallout that'd flood over Europe
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  9. #9
    Am I missing something or is this a monumentally stupid thing for Israel to be proposing right now?

    I mean yes, nuclear power totally makes sense for them. But seriously? Now?

  10. #10
    Does it make much of a difference, really? Everyone already knows they have nuclear weapons. Civilian reactors aren't going increase the weight of hypocrisy complaints.

  11. #11
    Israel is actually a developed country that could use nuclear energy. It also knows that its supply of oil could be cut off at any moment by its nice neighbors. So it has a very good reason to develop nuclear power. Plus everyone knows it has nuclear weapons, so it's not like anyone's going to claim that Israel is using the civilian programs as an excuse to get nukes...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Israel is actually a developed country that could use nuclear energy. It also knows that its supply of oil could be cut off at any moment by its nice neighbors. So it has a very good reason to develop nuclear power. Plus everyone knows it has nuclear weapons, so it's not like anyone's going to claim that Israel is using the civilian programs as an excuse to get nukes...
    No, but they're going to point to their "archenemy" *who more than one of them still views as being in a state of conflict* openly using nuclear technology as the reason they must pursue it themselves and the basic truth of that position makes it more difficult to directly oppose. They are hamstringing the West's efforts to stop or contain the spread of nuclear power *with the attendant risks* in the Middle East.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #13
    They will / have been using Israel's nuclear weapons towards that end anyways. I'm not convinced Israel using nuclear technology in the civilian sector will really change anything significantly.

    Because Israel is willing to accept IAEA inspections, it might even be turned to an advantage. The West has proven incapable of really dealing with a nuclear Iran, but now we'd be able to claim that we only tolerate a nuclear Israel because they allow inspections.

  14. #14
    Of course Israel has good reasons to develop civilian nuclear energy, but starting reactors while refusing weapons inspections and not signing the NPT really undermines the effort on Iran, right?

    This seems like the minister was just musing to a reporter that Israel was energy-poor and had good reason to have nuclear power someday.

  15. #15
    Seems God didn't think things through when he picked a promised land.

    Speaking of which, http://www.oilinisrael.net/ and especially http://www.oilinisrael.net/oil-in-is...phecy/naphtali
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  16. #16
    I'm torn on this one. One the one hand, Israel doesn't have unlimited electricity generation capacity (it's actually quite close to their max demand) and they rely to a large extent on coal and natural gas imports. The latter has been alleviated somewhat by large offshore discoveries recently, but it's still a problem. Furthermore, Israel is looking to electrify more of its energy usage (notably with the upcoming electric car rollout from Agassi's company), and its developing sectors continue to increase their energy consumption as their wealth increases. Coupled with Israel's interest in reducing carbon emissions (which are awfully high per capita there), it makes sense to look into alternative energy sources. They've modestly expanded renewables (most solar and wind) and have a rather grandiose plan for its expansion by 2020 or so. The balance will have to be made up somehow, and nuclear energy seems attractive. The dangers of an attack on the facility are lessened by significantly increased Israeli ABM and anti-rocket defenses, and overwhelming air superiority. Furthermore, gas storage facilities are pretty dangerous if attacked - a few years ago, an attack on the Pi Glilot storage facility was barely averted... some estimates suggested that upwards of 10k people would have died if the whole facility had gone up.

    Additionally, one could make the argument that there is already precedent for Israel's proposed split between their alleged military program and a civilian energy program. India has notably managed to work out a deal whereby it can keep its military program under wraps (and outside the NPT) but can get help in developing an energy program. Israel already has regular inspections of its Nahal Sorek research reactor, and it hardly seems crazy to extend that to one or two energy-producing facilities. For that matter, a number of other Middle East countries are considering expanded nuclear programs - Egypt, some of the Gulf states, Syria, etc. It seems far more likely that those countries that don't already have established nuclear weapons arsenals would cause more concern in anti-proliferation circles than Israel.

    That being said, it is abysmal timing as is usual for Israeli politicians (see: announcing an expansion of a Jerusalem neighborhood when the US VP is visiting to restart peace talks). To be fair, I doubt there would be a 'good' time to float the idea given the long-standing concerns about Iran, and it's not like Israel hasn't talked about it in the past. It's just been picked up now by a single AP report which spawned all of this hullabaloo.

    Honestly I think Israel won't go anywhere with this. Currently their electricity costs are quite low, and are likely to stay there for some time to come. Eliminating the electricity monopoly, encouraging the use of renewables, and improving infrastructure will probably all improve efficiencies and costs enough to deal with any current issues, and would avoid the political headache and astronomical start-up costs of getting nuclear power. Israel's budget barely has enough money to build highways and railroads let alone antimissile batteries and fighter jets; nuclear power plants are pretty far down the list.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    No, but they're going to point to their "archenemy" *who more than one of them still views as being in a state of conflict* openly using nuclear technology as the reason they must pursue it themselves and the basic truth of that position makes it more difficult to directly oppose. They are hamstringing the West's efforts to stop or contain the spread of nuclear power *with the attendant risks* in the Middle East.
    They can do that anyway. And it's not like Israel can just wait until the Iranian crisis ends, seeing that it's been ongoing for the better part of a decade and probably will continue for at least half as long.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  18. #18
    I think from a strictly energy producing perspective, Israel has excellent grounds for building a nuclear power infrastructure. Their power supply is less stable than most.

    From an IR point of view, it's much more complicated, of course, and others have hit on the reasons. But there's no single thing that would argue that Israel has no right to nuclear power. They have no history of promoting terrorism, unlike the other players here (Iran, Syria). So, from the international perspective, there's far less threat from Israel building plants than Syria or Iran, both of which have horrible records, plus formal policies of trying to annihilate one of their neighbors (not just conquer, annihilate.)

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    I think from a strictly energy producing perspective, Israel has excellent grounds for building a nuclear power infrastructure. Their power supply is less stable than most.
    From a strictly-energy perspective, everyone has excellent grounds for developing a nuclear power infrastructure, even if they're oil-producing nations. As much as I sympathize with the Israeli energy position, I can't view it as controlling. From legalist and institutionalist perspectives, they're a rotten state to support or condone having a nuclear energy initiative. Unstable region, conflict-ridden country, prone to extra-sovereign exercises of violence, a democratic system prone to large shifts, they have an *unacknowledged* nuclear weapons program, they won't sign into the NPT regime. . .
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Fair enough critique.

  21. #21
    I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow Israel to enter the NPT as a nuclear power. Everyone already knows its a nuclear power, so this wouldn't really be challenging the status quo by much, and it would allow for inspection of Israel's military nuclear program. Not that I think this has much chance of happening.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    Actually, that would be a perfect compromise. Plus, Israel might find that they'd be less likely to so automatically draw censure if they'd play ball a little more often.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    From legalist and institutionalist perspectives, they're a rotten state to support or condone having a nuclear energy initiative. Unstable region, conflict-ridden country, prone to extra-sovereign exercises of violence, a democratic system prone to large shifts, they have an *unacknowledged* nuclear weapons program, they won't sign into the NPT regime. . .
    I'm not really sure that's a good critique. Generally I view a nuclear energy program being predicated on a handful of things: a strong and consistent command and control system, good internal monitoring and security, a robust and stable political system (not a stable government, but a system that consistently works and has clear delineation of powers), and a lack of interest in dual-use developments. Israel fits these criteria (including the last one; they already have dozens to hundreds of warheads, they don't have incentive to clandestinely divert their energy program as would Iran or any other non-nuclear aspirant); most of the other players at the moment do not. In fact, I think it's far easier to allow Israel nuclear energy on a practical level since they have no incentive to weaponize their program. Every other potential player (sans India and Pakistan) have plenty of potential interest in a weapons program in parallel with an energy program.

    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Actually, that would be a perfect compromise. Plus, Israel might find that they'd be less likely to so automatically draw censure if they'd play ball a little more often.
    It would never happen. Despite the fact that Israel was likely at least a rudimentary nuclear power when the NPT regime was first established, no one is willing to open the door for unofficial nuclear powers to gain legitimacy after being outside supervision and developing their own program. Then you'll get the likes of NK arguing that they should also be accepted into the NPT as a nuclear power (not to mention India, which has a far better case).

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow Israel to enter the NPT as a nuclear power. Everyone already knows its a nuclear power, so this wouldn't really be challenging the status quo by much, and it would allow for inspection of Israel's military nuclear program. Not that I think this has much chance of happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by ']['ear View Post
    Actually, that would be a perfect compromise. Plus, Israel might find that they'd be less likely to so automatically draw censure if they'd play ball a little more often.
    Agreed with Wiggin -- if that is allowed, then anyone can just develop a program and have it legitimized.

    It's important to remember that the French gave Israel nuclear technology basically in exchange for participating in the Suez war of 1956. Even in the 1950s they went to extreme lengths to get this technology outside of a conventional framework.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Agreed with Wiggin -- if that is allowed, then anyone can just develop a program and have it legitimized.

    It's important to remember that the French gave Israel nuclear technology basically in exchange for participating in the Suez war of 1956. Even in the 1950s they went to extreme lengths to get this technology outside of a conventional framework.
    To be fair to the Israelis, they developed the nukes before the non-proliferation regime was in place, and largely kept it secret to avoid starting an arms race in the Middle East that no one could win. And at least according to some accounts, Israeli scientists actually helped France with some of their nuclear program, so it wasn't totally a one-way street. So theoretically they have more legitimacy to be a sixth nuclear power in the NPT regime than any other current nuclear state outside the Big 5.

    I also would argue that there wasn't a 'conventional framework' for obtaining nukes in the 1950s. The US restricted exports of nuclear material and know-how in '46, but no one else really had strict rules about it. The UK developed nukes based heavily on knowledge obtained from their participation in the Manhattan Project. The French had some similar knowledge, and got significant materials (enriched uranium, among other bits) from the Brits, but didn't get around to a full weapons program until the late 50s. The Israelis collaborated on the French end, and also extracted an agreement to build Dimona. Hell, France was looking at exporting their knowledge and technology to other key allies - Italy, W. Germany, and others. It was only with spiraling proliferation and the issue of dual-use technology that the modern non-proliferation regime came into play, and Israel had the industry and know-how well before then, and may have even had a few warheads assembled.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Seems God didn't think things through when he picked a promised land.
    Excuse me, I have not seen any single signature of God or a recording where God promises any land. I only have seen a Bible written by men where they claim a promised land, a document written by men, not by God.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Agreed with Wiggin -- if that is allowed, then anyone can just develop a program and have it legitimized.

    It's important to remember that the French gave Israel nuclear technology basically in exchange for participating in the Suez war of 1956. Even in the 1950s they went to extreme lengths to get this technology outside of a conventional framework.
    Do you prefer the alternative, where we have 4 nuclear powers that are outside the system?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Oh FFS, not nuclear-induced global-cooling again. TTAPS was demonstrated to be deliberate distortion, junk-science by credible scientists who lied because they (reasonably) feared nuclear way, by multiple independent reviews. For some reason, I don't trust Turco's latest attempt to prove the thesis either.
    Do you have any links on this? I remember the Nuclear Winter theories from the '80s and I've heard claims in the past they were deliberately exaggerated, but I'd like to read up on something credible behind it.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  29. #29
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I think a reasonable compromise would be to allow Israel to enter the NPT as a nuclear power. Everyone already knows its a nuclear power, so this wouldn't really be challenging the status quo by much, and it would allow for inspection of Israel's military nuclear program. Not that I think this has much chance of happening.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but being in the NPT doesn't necessarily mean inspecting their military program, does it? It calls for disarming but I don't think that's formal, more of a desire.

    It would make everything a lot easier if they either enter the NPT, or get an exemption from the NSG like India did recently. But that basically requires following the same rules as incorporated in the NPT. Otherwise you can't get any nuclear technology from outside suppliers, like France.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Agreed with Wiggin -- if that is allowed, then anyone can just develop a program and have it legitimized.

    It's important to remember that the French gave Israel nuclear technology basically in exchange for participating in the Suez war of 1956. Even in the 1950s they went to extreme lengths to get this technology outside of a conventional framework.
    Don't agree. If you have a program you could be allowed in, provided that you adhere to the NPT rules about non proliferation, not using them without a damn good reason, dealing with other nations, etc. I don't see states like NK following any of those rules. I do believe Israel would.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Do you have any links on this? I remember the Nuclear Winter theories from the '80s and I've heard claims in the past they were deliberately exaggerated, but I'd like to read up on something credible behind it.
    No, I don't have links. I'm certain there's information available, but I'd have to sift through a bunch of searches to find good material, same as you.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •