The Policy Blender

Let's not give Iran the Bomb.

At least until they develop a political system that pushes the craziest rabid psycho to the top.

You wouldn't give a baby a razor blade. So don't give the mad-mullahs the Bomb.

I, of course, meant that they should develop a political system that DOSEN'T push the madmen to the top...

doh.

Anyway, it goes back to your Bill Hicks sketch...

Actually I didn't know much about the science behind nuclear weapons and power, but I've since learnt all one needs to know from the ever helpful BBC.

As explained by the BBC you need either a reprocessing plant of enrichment plant in order to produce weapons grade material. So as long as we don't allow them to build one of those they wouldn't be able to produce the material themselves, surely?

Although I suppose that buying power station fuel would be a good cover for buying weapons grade material.

I guess the concern is that the purification process could easily be done in secret. It's a matter of transporting all the parts to the building in small cars - cause the spy satellites would spot somewhere regularly visited by heavy machinery. And if you have the patience, and the radiation suits, you could probably purify uranium in a school laboratory.

Apparently Iran has been accused of using 'laser enrichment' which is dreadfully inefficient. But then, if they develop nuclear power, they'll have a cheap, low-pollution source of energy, so efficiency probably won't bother them.

The other concern (which the Beeb don't seem to cover) is that depleted reactor fuel can be used in some way to make nuclear weapons. I can't remember exactly how though.

Apologies, they do cover it.

The situation is summed up very well by the Hawks at the American Spectator:

"It is important that such a regime not acquire nuclear weapons. It would be even better for it to fall. The problem, though, is that if we believe Iran is right around the corner from going nuclear, and that ongoing diplomatic efforts to convince it to halt production are doomed to fail (and they are), then those two goals may conflict. The mullahs are hated by the people of Iran, particularly the youth (and Iran has an especially young population). America, as the sworn enemy of their oppressive leaders, is admired among the discontented population. But if the U.S. takes aggressive action to stop Tehran's nuclear weapon development, that could change. A full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran, with all that the American military has to contend with at the moment, is impractical, so military action would mean bombing Iranian nuclear facilities to delay their progress. Such an operation would not be "clean"; the regime has been careful to place many of its nuclear facilities so as to maximize civilian casualties. An attack would stoke nationalist anger at America and cost the goodwill of the Iranian people, which is the best thing we have going in the country."

So more of the Eastern Europe style 'gentle push from within' then. The CIA guys in Iran will have earnt a long holiday by the time the revolution comes.

I have no idea when it will - Iran seems to have been on the brink of revolution for years...

the depleted reactor fuel is alledged to be used in 'dirty bombs', which are about as effective as pissing in a swimming pool.

And now I've read it, you'll see the bit about the reprocessing plant being easily housed in an 'ordinary looking building'. This is probably why the UN are insisting that, if they pursue nuclear power, they must export all spent fuel. How much of a guard this will be, I don't know.

Ben - no, not dirty bombs. The 1% plutonium in used reactor fuel goes into a plutonium bomb. 3% is waste and 97% returns to the reactor. You only really need about 100kg of Uranium fuel to make a bomb, since a 4kg core will hit critical mass, and detonate with no trouble. You're right, dirty bombs are pretty useless in terms of destruction, but your swimming pool analogy is a good one if you consider a swimming pool which you can never leave, and which is your only source of drinking water.

crikey. I stand corrected.

what's your position on nuclear power over here.

No thanks. It produces waste we can;t get rid of, except by dropping it brutally on middle eastern countries. We already corner the market in making nuclear waste safe (that is, packaging it in lead and sinking it to the bottom of the ocean), which is sometihng I feel we'd also be better abandoning.

But unfortunately, the alternatives don't really exist. Which is why I'm really very keen on continued research into fusion power. It's much much cleaner than fission, produces more energy and has a fuel you can find in water. The tricky thing is that it needs a lot of energy to start.

A compromise would be lots of H-Bombs being dropped on one part of the surface of the earth, and then collecting the energy with heat engines and wind and wave power technology. I don't think this will be popular with anyone. Except the French.

That's it then.

Amazing how many of these discussions end with a resolution to bomb France.

Actually fairly recently some progress was actually made on the front of fusion. After (I believe) a decade of indecision over where the fusion test reactor will be located (europe wanted it in France, the Americans and Japaneese wanted it in Japan) it is to be build in France. Therefore I vote we wait a while before blowing France up in the name of energy... they might end up doing it themselves.

In seriousness though, it'll be an interesting experiment, I just hope it works!

yes, and that fusion thing sounds promising too...