Could humans ever live harmoniously

[Rroff]

Genuine question, are you attempting to assert that a proliferation of Civil Nuclear Reactor technology has no meaningful impact on nuclear defence proliferation and even might prevent nuclear defence technology proliferation.

I'm asking because my Professor of Energy and Power production at Southampton (despite his mostly positive stance on nuclear power) really wouldn't have supported that!

Obviously in the case of India the Canadian/Indian reactor, observably it did generate weapons grade plutonium.

That is mostly BS - there is a small impact from the proliferation of civil nuclear programs but there is only a weak correlation at best as things stand currently with a wider driver for military nuclear program proliferation.

I wouldn't take Professors too seriously sometimes my old electronics engineering one was insistent at one time we would never see CPUs that would operate past 900MHz because it "wasn't possible" to make transistors switch faster.

 

[stewski]

Yeah one country out of 30+ that isn't a pattern - there are only I think 4 countries total that have gone the route of using it as a stepping stone one of those having subsequently supposedly stopped its nuclear weapons program.

hahaha

A moment ago you state there are only 9 (known) countries with nuclear defence capabilities.

At least 1/9 is not a trend that matters in many instances, increasing the probability of the destruction of our species isn't actually one of those instances I'm afraid.

 

[Rroff]

hahaha

A moment ago you state there are only 9 (known) countries with nuclear defence capabilities.

At least 1/9 is not a trend that matters in many instances, increasing the probability of the destruction of our species isn't actually one of those instances I'm afraid.

Yes those are like the US, Russia, the UK and France, etc. where military application was not in response to the progress of power generation programs and the main countries responsible for nuclear weapon proliferation.

EDIT: For instance in the case of the UK:

The Maud Committee on the uranium bomb was formally constituted in 1940, under the
Ministry of Aircraft Production; its task was to monitor and support British work on
nuclear energy. Its report (1941) was in two parts: the first was on the use of uranium for a
bomb, the second, much shorter, on the use of the fission process “to provide a machine
which will release its energy in the form of heat, in a continuous manner”. Such a machine
“promises to have considerable possibilities for peacetime development but we do not
think it will be of great value in this war.”

 

[stewski]

That is mostly BS - there is a small impact from the proliferation of civil nuclear programs but there is only a weak correlation at best as things stand currently with a wider driver for military nuclear program proliferation.

I wouldn't take Professors too seriously sometimes my old electronics engineering one was insistent at one time we would never see CPUs that would operate past 900MHz because it "wasn't possible" to make transistors switch faster.

There are some professor's who's position/expertise I didn't respect also, however in this case, you are picking the wrong one.
He was highly respected in the Uni and by students, but openly had a "right leaning" privatisation political position I was pretty opposed to, even so he marked one of my exams on the topic of energy production at 90% despite virtually everything I suggested (whilst well referenced and I think, well written) being diametrically opposite to his likely preferred answers/world view.

Still random internet dude who has been shown wrong on one of the nine, do tell me more.

 

[Rroff]

Still random internet dude who has been shown wrong on one of the nine, do tell me more.

I was quite well aware of India's position on it and even alluded to it in my post earlier where India's development of weapons capabilities from their civil programs resulted in a response from Pakistan.

I've also posted about this previously on these forums.

The causal link between having a civil nuclear power program and subsequent development of a military nuclear program is weak - partly due to the NPT and partly because most countries with a standing nuclear weapons program developed it in the original arms race while the potential for nuclear power generation was still being explored. Your professor in this case is completely and demonstrably wrong - compare the list here with those having military/defence programs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country and compare the military programs with those involved in the original arms race post WW2.

 

[stewski]

Yes those are like the US, Russia, the UK and France, etc. where military application was not in response to the progress of power generation programs and the main countries responsible for nuclear weapon proliferation.

EDIT: For instance in the case of the UK:

Unfortunately, you now seem to be making a case for an argument no one has made.

 

[Rroff]

Unfortunately, you now seem to be making a case for an argument no one has made.

Not at all merely clarifying the position that the majority of those that do have a nuclear weapons program are irrelevant here to any pattern of a civil nuclear power program enabling the development of military applications.

 

[stewski]

I was quite well aware of India's position on it and even alluded to it in my post earlier where India's development of weapons capabilities from their civil programs resulted in a response from Pakistan.

Oh sorry then I didn't realise you were alluding to 2/9 developing weapons capability through civil programs when you posted:

Its only countries like Iran that have tried to use nuclear power as a stepping stone to nuclear weapons.

Thanks for simply stating that the Professor Of Energy and Power at Southampton University and an adviser to Government at the time was wrong to suggest that nuclear energy programs may increase weapons proliferation, because you say it isn't so, as several countries created their programs during or near WWII (a point no one disputes) whilst some others have created them following and in tandem with civil nuclear energy production/research.

Lets remember there are only 9 known states (today) apparently increasing the number of nuclear energy capable states, presents no material risk of that widening despite, expert opinion and history!

Bash away internet dude

 

[Rroff]

For your argument the number you need to compare against is the 30+ that have civil nuclear energy programs - take away the 5 or so that produced military weapons on the tail end of ww2 as a military response and out of the 26+ that remain you are mostly looking at India, Iran (who have since "abandoned" their pursuit) and North Korea (which is a less straight forward case) - there might be one other I forget now. Pakistan developed their nuclear capabilities in response to losing parts of their country as a military deterrent further given impetus and the program starting proper with the surprise detonation of India's first test and not related or facilitated by any pursuit of a civilian nuclear energy program.

So that is basically 2 out of 26+ - a weak link at best.

 

[stewski]

For your argument the number you need to compare against is the 30+ that have civil nuclear energy programs - take away the 5 or so that produced military weapons on the tail end of ww2 as a military response and out of the 26+ that remain you are mostly looking at India, Iran (who have since "abandoned" their pursuit) and North Korea - there might be one other I forget now. Pakistan developed their nuclear capabilities in response to losing parts of their country as a military deterrent further given impetus and the program starting proper with the surprise detonation of India's first test and not related or facilitated by any pursuit of a civilian nuclear energy program.

So that is basically 2 out of 26+ - a weak link at best.

You (falsely) inflating (at least) 2/9 nuclear defence capable countries known to have benefited from a civil program to 2/26+ is not really an argument.

Every additional actor in a mutually assured destruction scenario increases the probability of that destruction occurring, in both cases these figure look awful.

You could at least attempt to present something of a counter argument, say the benefits of energy not "as" reliant on localised natural resources may reduce potential boarder disputes and wars, at the moment your idea that even 2/26+ is not significant, show a massive error in assessing the level of risk wider nuclear proliferation (defence or civil) presents in my opinion!

 

[Rroff]

You (falsely) inflating (at least) 2/9 nuclear defence capable countries known to have benefited from a civil program to 2/26+ is not really an argument.

Every additional actor in a mutually assured destruction scenario increases the probability of that destruction occurring, in both cases these figure look awful.

You could at least attempt to present something of a counter argument, say the benefits of energy not "as" reliant on localised natural resources may reduce potential boarder disputes and wars, at the moment your idea that even 2/26+ is not significant, show a massive error in assessing the level of risk wider nuclear proliferation (defence or civil) presents in my opinion!

Your argument was that civil nuclear energy programs drive proliferation of military/defence nuclear programs - the only way to objectively look at that argument is to compare those countries that have pursued a civil program against those that have benefited from it to also develop a military program - that number stands at a generous 2 out of 26 at best. With the NPT we have no clear evidence anyhow for how it would be unrestricted but the numbers as currently stand show a very weak link by any metric.

Whichever way you look at the numbers 2 out of 9 nuclear weapons capable countries benefited from a civil energy program, 29+ out of 30+ (depending on which figures you use) that have a civil nuclear energy program have not benefited from it to produce military nuclear programs.

Again tends to support the rather trite quote of "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches." when it comes to Professors.

 

[stewski]

Your argument was that civil nuclear energy programs drive proliferation of military/defence nuclear programs - the only way to objectively look at that argument is to compare those countries that have pursued a civil program against those that have benefited from it to also develop a military program - that number stands at a generous 2 out of 26 at best. With the NPT we have no clear evidence anyhow for how it would be unrestricted but the numbers as currently stand show a very weak link by any metric.

Again tends to support the rather trite quote of "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches." when it comes to Professors.

So you'd like to re-frame my position with words I haven't used. let's consider 2 questions below.

Which of all the countries who have developed nuclear weapons, benefited from civil nuclear programs?
Could civil nuclear program proliferation increase the risk of nuclear weapon proliferation?

Clearly despite the main development of nuclear weapons technology occurring during or near a time of war, 2 (recent) entrants of the 9 countries who have nuclear weapons, benefited from their civil programs, on that we can surely all agree!

Despite the above, you claim no risk in nuclear civil/energy proliferation, I and the Professor of my youth, suggested that your position was/is not likely correct!

All this leads me to the less catchy "He who isn't an adviser to governments and/or a teacher, talks rubbish on internet forums".

 

[Rroff]

^^ You know you are losing an argument when you take to insults.

Despite the above, you claim no risk in nuclear civil/energy proliferation

I'm not saying no risk, I'm saying the numbers we do have suggests very low odds, the NPT at the end of the day masks any firm conclusions.

 

[stewski]

I'm not saying no risk, I'm saying the numbers we do have suggests very low odds, the NPT at the end of the day masks any firm conclusions.

I'm glad you are not saying no risk, In a world where history shows the 2 most recent entrants into the list of 9 known nations with nuclear weapons clearly linking civil and defence programs and a world where several nuclear capable nations linked their defence and civil programs and budgets, stating no risk would be a bit silly, no?

^^ You know you are losing an argument when you take to insults.

And Yet

Again tends to support the rather trite quote of "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches."

 

[Rroff]

Your original posts tried to make an disingenuous link between those with military nuclear capabilities and their civil programs of which demonstrably India is the only clear cut example with NK being a complex debatable case that is hardly the basis for a pattern especially when we can see that the larger number of those with civil nuclear programs haven't used it to benefit their military programs:

" historically nuclear technology has proliferated which in all probability has made our world an increasingly dangerous place. How many nuclear defence capable states have never had a nuclear energy program?"

and a claim of a correlation between proliferation (which by definition is a rapid or large increase) of civil programs and military ones:

"So is your position that the proliferation of nuclear energy production had and has no relationship to a "coincidental" proliferation of nuclear defence technology"

Which again isn't supported by the numbers we have.

I'm not saying there is no risk but claims of an observable proliferation aren't supported by the evidence.

And Yet

Which wasn't aimed at you.

 

[Chojin]

do you really want to be spending your life, subsistence farming a ****** plot of land till you die?

it didnt cost humanity it liberated humanity.

Liberated is a big stretch. Humans lost their freedom when they succumbed to agriculture. They traded it for convenience, and along came concepts such as 'bosses', 'creditors' and 'governments'. Now we have people living in places they really shouldn't be. If supermarkets lost their supply, how soon would you last without food? There are countries in a drought needing to import water of all things, reliant on the state to stay alive. Is that liberated to you?

 

[stewski]

Your original posts tried to make an disingenuous link between those with military nuclear capabilities and their civil programs of which demonstrably India is the only clear cut example

Just to be clear this time, you are specifically stating here that Pakistan's nuclear energy program established in 1956 had no bearing on the states capability to later produce an atomic weapon and that India remains the only one of the current 9 states (that we know of) that has atomic weapons that also developed them in conjunction with a civil energy program?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Initial_non-weapon_policy

I ask as frankly, that position seems wholly unlikely to be accurate and your continued decision to underrate the importance / issue / risk of even a single extra nuclear weapons capable state/actor in the world seems astonishing.

By the way any perceived personal insults about those who cant teach speaking rubbish on internet forums is really in the eye of the beholder.

As an ex teacher I could apply both "insults" to myself. Still I'd just take either on the chin without whining if someone who's position I attack through insults then throws similar back my way.

 

[Rroff]

Pakistan's military nuclear capabilities were largely facilitated by China I believe. It could be argued that India using its civil capabilities to benefit and develop its military capabilities was a large catalyst in Pakistan's developments. That however doesn't support civilian programs being a driver in the proliferation of nuclear weapons that we've seen it has fringe implications at best.

EDIT:

“China, a staunch ally of Pakistan’s, provided blueprints for the bomb, as well as highly enriched uranium, tritium, scientists and key components for a nuclear weapons production complex, among other crucial tools. ‘Without China’s help, Pakistan’s bomb would not exist’ said Gary Milhollin, a leading expert on the spread of nuclear weapons.”

I've never denied the risk or downplayed that it would be a bad thing - I am however taking exception to the disingenuous link you are trying to draw with regard to current circumstances to support the argument.

 

[stewski]

Pakistan's military nuclear capabilities were largely facilitated by China I believe. It could be argued that India using its civil capabilities to benefit and develop its military capabilities was a large catalyst in Pakistan's developments. That however doesn't support civilian programs being a driver in the proliferation of nuclear weapons that we've seen it has fringe implications at best.

EDIT:



I've never denied the risk or downplayed that it would be a bad thing - I am however taking exception to the disingenuous link you are trying to draw with regard to current circumstances to support the argument.

Why do you continually use words I did not say, to attack a position I have not made.

Now you post a quote of an expert opinion (obviously not a teacher wtf do they know) that doesn't really look to be supported on the wikipedia article about the topic.

If you have a position of faith (and that's exactly what it appears to be at this point) that proliferating the technology for civil nuclear energy production is not a serious consideration in the concerns of nuclear weapons proliferation. I can and will argue that of the 9 states holding nuclear weapons 2 of the most recent (known) entrants were clearly affected by nuclear energy technology proliferation.

Any 26+ this or not a trend that seem ridiculous hand waving for a topic discussing the risk of increasing the chance of mutually assured destruction.

 

[Orionaut]

Genuine question, are you attempting to assert that a proliferation of Civil Nuclear Reactor technology has no meaningful impact on nuclear defence proliferation and even might prevent nuclear defence technology proliferation.

No, not really.

I am more suggesting that The two branches of technology are linked in much the same way as Steel production can be used to make both Motor Cars and Battleships.

Obviously they are linked technologies based on similar knowledge.

However, for a NPT signee to attempt a clandestine weapons program using typical civil nuclear tech to manufacture weapons grade Plutonium is tricky. (And that is before we go into the issue of actually turning that Plutonium into a reliable and practical device without anybody noticing)

As I said, a PWR type reactor (The most popular type for civil reactors) is extremely impractical for this. weapons Plutonium breeding requires the fuel to only remain in the reactor for a short time (Otherwise you end up with the wrong sorts of Plutonium and the bomb wont work properly) Typical PWRs need to be shut down for refuelling and the frequent refuelling cycle to produce weapons material would be very obvious and would give the game away.

Obviously in the case of India the Canadian/Indian reactor, observably it did generate weapons grade plutonium.

A Pressure tube reactor like a CANDU could be operated in a clandestine manor since individual tubes could be refuelled while the reactor was operating under load.

And then you would need a "Windscale" to carry out the reprocessing and chemical separation, again, difficult to hide.

But, for all sorts of reasons, A clandestine program based on uranium enrichment is a far more practical route nowadays. Not least because PWRs require enriched fuel and (IIRC) in terms of "Separative Units" (A measure of how much effort a degree of enrichment entails) the 5% or so required for a typical PWR is nearly halfway there as far as weapons grade enrichment is concerned.

(It is complicated further because Nuclear Marine propulsion typically uses near bomb grade uranium, so non-nuclear weapon states might still have an entirely legitimate requirement for 90%+ HEU)

Overt Nuclear weapons states typically use special reactors for Plutonium production, though the early MAGNOX power stations were based on Plutonium production piles (And were intended as dual purpose reactors)

Similarly the RMBK Chernobyl reactor was also based on military piles and was likely also designed to serve a dual function (It was also a pressure tube design)

TL;DR

Civil and Military Nuclear technologies can crossover (But with a lot of effort and the acceptance of significant difficulties that means that this is only practical for a clandestine program) but typically the technical objectives are sufficiently different that different technical approaches are required which are not really compatible with one another.