Llewellyn
King
Read Llewellyn's bio and previous columns
August 18, 2008
Needed: A New Approach To Nuclear Proliferation
The trouble with the
diplomatic argument against nuclear proliferation is that it is
patronizing. Simplified it is the nuclear weapons state saying to any
nuclear aspirant, “Trust us because we do not trust you.” This
unpleasant message is often amplified by race and religion. After all,
the primary force in containing proliferation is the United States,
backed up by its western European allies. Sure there are blandishments
that can tip the scale, as happened with Libya. But by and large,
proliferation is a national goal for many countries.
The surprising thing
about proliferation is how slowly it has spread. For awhile, it even
looked as though it was in retreat, when Argentina, Brazil and South
Africa quit the race.
To understand the
pressure to proliferate, we need to look at each potential proliferator
and its aspirations separately.
Small countries, with a
high respect for their history and a deep commitment to the well-being
of their people, tend to eschew proliferation. Britain got into the club
very early, but it is not likely that any British government in recent
time would have elected for Britain to seek the nuclear deterrent. At
times, it was hard enough to keep it. Bertrand Russell’s Committee for
Nuclear Disarmament was a powerful force in British politics throughout
the 1950s and 1960s.
Proliferators generally
need a large land mass for concealment and testing, a defined sense of
threat from outsiders and a desire for regional dominance. Classically,
Iran meets these criteria. North Korea’s motivation is more bizarre, but
so is its leadership. It already has conventional weapons superiority
over South Korea, but it cannot hope to be a dominant player in Asia.
Security alarmists
constantly pose the proposition that a non-governmental organization,
like Al Qaeda, could build a weapon in secret and introduce it into the
Middle East, Europe or the United States. This is the worst of all
scenarios, but it is also the least likely. Building a nuclear weapon is
a huge industrial undertaking, requiring secrecy, specialized materials,
skilled scientists and engineers, and an open money spigot.
True, it has gotten a
little easier since it has become clear that plutonium from civilian
nuclear reactors can be diverted to weapons. It is also clear that
centrifuge now offers the potential for a highly enriched uranium bomb –
something that was not really available with World War II enrichment
technology.
The bad news on nuclear
proliferation and the intractable problems of proliferation by Iran and
North Korea is that these realities have come at a time when the world
clearly needs an enormous increase in the amounts of civilian nuclear
power deployed. Countries that have been reluctant to build new nuclear
power plants are going ahead. In Europe, this has been stimulated by the
growing fear of dependence on fossil fuels from Russia. In many
countries, this is heading toward 50 percent of their electric
generation. And when the new Baltic pipeline starts deliveries into
Germany, it could be as much as 70 percent dependent on Russian gas.
Super-green Finland is building a fifth reactor. And the green-leaning
Labor government in Britain has sanctioned more nuclear.
In Europe, new reactors
raise few hackles on the proliferation front. But what to say about King
Abdullah of Jordan’s desire to build a nuclear plant? He is a firm
friend of the West and a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. The
question is how long will his monarchy survive? It was the United States
that urged a nuclear future in Iran, and reactor construction was
happily under way when the Shah was deposed by the Islamic Revolution.
Diplomacy works in
10-year cycles or less. Nuclear reactors are designed to last 30 to 50
years. Neither friends nor foes can be identified over that time
horizon. Ergo, a new proliferation strategy may be needed.
The United States had
the makings of a strategy before Jimmy Carter was elected president.
Simply, it was that the United States would dominate all facets of the
nuclear fuel cycle and encourage nuclear club members to do the same
thing. When Carter suspended the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the
United States, the possibility of controlling the fuel cycle for
"clients" ended.
Subsequently the policy
has been diplomatic persuasion, followed by sanctions, followed by a
plea for multinational talks. It may or may not be working with North
Korea, and so far it has produced no results with Iran.
In the Cold War, the
United States assisted the Soviets with making their weapons safer by
sharing aspects of fail-safe technology and giving them the technology
for insensitive high explosives. The fear was accidental detonation and
the collaboration on preventing it was impressive.
Primitive nuclear
weapons are dangerous – so much so that Little Boy and Fat Man, dropped
on Japan, were partially assembled on the aircraft that was delivering
them. Their designers were terrified that they would blow up
unintentionally.
In a world in which
there are more dangerous weapons in the hands of more dangerous people,
there is not much hope that ambitious states can be deterred. But by
working with them on safety, the old-time nuclear states, led by the
United States, might establish new diplomatic channels and get a better
idea of what they have got. Candidate One for safety collaboration might
be Pakistan.
© 2008 North Star
Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This
is Column # LK059.
Request permission to publish here. |