For Iran, a nuclear reactor, that's stated use is the production of electric power, is bad.
For Pakistan, a plutonium reactor, for the mass production of nuclear weapons, while not good, is acceptable.
Just a reminder about Pakistan. While it is, at this time, a military Dictatorship, it has a very strong political party that, if ever in power, will love having access to nuclear weapons. The MMA is a collection of political parties that express a strong desire for a theocratic Islamic nation, and oppose many of our actions in the region.
It can be argued that the MMA's power and organization has slipped in the past couple of years. This is a legitimate position. What has not changed is the dynamic that led it to massive electoral victories in the past couple of years, or the radical nature of it's policy that the people supported.
And in a few years, these fine folks, or a new version of these fine folks, may have a very nice nuclear arsenal to play with.
Now, lets get back to freaking out about Iran.
Tags
Iran Pakistan
3 comments:
Funny theory I heard about nuclear weapons and "rogue states:" they would never use them on the US or likely any other nation unless they were provoked.
When you think about it, it seems quite reasonable. Despite how insane their leaders could be (see: N. Korea), they realize that if they launched a nuclear weapon at anyone, we and the rest of the civilized world would pounce on them. They would likely not give nuclear weapons to terrorists because they would have no control over how the terrorists would use the weapons (see: 24 season 6). Additionally, nuclear weapons can be traced. Anyone who has nuclear weapons knows we can trace them if they gave them to a terrorist group who used them. Giving over a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group could not be in the leadership's best interest. They would even be especially careful in guarding them because "rogue nations" don't have the relationship with the rest of the world that would allow it to believe that the weapons were stolen and not given.
Not that I am saying nuclear proliferation is a good thing. The more countries with nuclear weapons, the more likely they will be used or stolen.
That theory appears very sound to me. Most despots are most concerned with staying alive and in power. Knowing that any nuclear attack on the US will mean instant destruction tends to lead them to find a less agressive position.
Also note that, unlike Pakistan's heavy water reactors, Iran's light water reactor is largely worthless for making nuclear weapons. You'd have to repeatedly short-cycle the reactor in order to avoid accumulating too many infissible plutonium isotopes in the fuel rods, and a light water reactor is down for days when you short-cycle it because, unlike a heavy-water reactor, you have to actually shut the thing down to access the fuel rods.
Sure, it could be used to make nuclear weapons. But if the Iranians did it (short-cycled the reactor), it would happen only once, because the reactor would be a glowing radioactive cloud shortly thereafter, because you can't hide short-cycling a light water reactor. The Iranians aren't so stupid as to think they could hide short-cycling the reactor. I believe them when they say they're building the nuclear power plant in order to produce electrical power.
Now, their uranium enrichment project, on the other hand... given that there is already a surplus of enriched fuel on the planet (thanks to former Russian nukes dismantled for their U-235 warheads), it makes no sense. Unless they intend to use it to build weapons. So Washington has a big reason to believe that the aim of the uranium enrichment project is a bomb. But the nuclear power plant... that's a red herring. Literally.
-BT
Post a Comment