Initiative to curb nuclear nonproliferation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the initiative aimed at curbing nuclear nonproliferation, particularly focusing on the collaboration between the US and Russia regarding the conversion of plutonium to commercial fuel. Participants explore historical context, current developments, and implications of the program.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of the nuclear nonproliferation initiative, suggesting it may inadvertently encourage proliferation.
  • One participant notes the initial goals of the program and the challenges faced in collaboration between the US and Russia, highlighting a lack of tangible results despite significant financial investment.
  • Another participant provides historical context, mentioning the instability of Russia during the program's inception and the subsequent changes in the political landscape that may have affected the initiative's direction.
  • Concerns are raised about the motivations behind Russia's adjustments to the program, suggesting that it may prioritize governmental needs over those of scientists and engineers involved in nuclear research.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the effectiveness and implications of the nuclear nonproliferation initiative, with no consensus on the outcomes or motivations behind the changes in the program.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various assumptions about the political stability of Russia, the motivations of its government, and the historical context of the nuclear nonproliferation initiative, which may not be fully explored or agreed upon.

Rach3
From AP staff writer Josef Hebert:

The program got under way with great fanfare in 2000 as an "unprecedented" initiative to curb nuclear nonproliferation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060722/ap_on_go_pr_wh/russian_plutonium

Illiterate!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Rach3, what is the point of the comment "Illiterate!"?

The US and Russia were supposed to be working in parallel on the conversion of Pu to commerical fuel. I had tentative approval of a contract (in place) to work on the Russian side, pending agreements with the Russians. It never happened. Then recently, the Russians decided to defer the disposition of Pu in VVER and FRs, in favor of GCRs. And the US has sent $100 millions to Russia with little to show for it. The AP article paints a fairly accurate picture.
 
To "curb nuclear nonproliferation" equals approximately to "encourage unbridled proliferation".

(double negative)
 
The program was conceived during the Clinton administration before Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris Yeltsin on December 31, 1999.

Then Russia was very unstable and there was widespread concern regarding the nuclear weapons (and ~30 MT) of Pu-bearing warheads, and the likelihood that one or more would be stolen and sold for big bucks, as well as concern that Russian weapons designers and manufacturers might be tempted to work for whomever paid them a reasonable amount of money.

There were many complications. :rolleyes:

However the situation has changed dramatically. Russia is now much more stable and concurrently, much more under control of a not-so-democratic government, and it is flush with cash from oil.

So Russia has changed the program to suit its needs, and not necessarily the needs of its people, particularly the scientists and engineers, at various labs. There is a lot going on behind the scenes, and its just one of the stories in the current global situation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
179K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K