It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Plans To Provide Atomic Fuel To Stop Nuclear Proliferation

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
The U.S. will provide highly enriched uranium to nations as a readily available fuel source as long as the IAEA verifies they are using it for their reactors and not enriching their own nuclear matter. However, some are not so sure this initiative will have any effect in stopping those who pursue nuclear weapons from creating them.
 



news.yahoo.com
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei has suggested setting up an independent, international system to provide states with a guaranteed fuel supply if they abandoned enrichment.

"We are working with major suppliers and the IAEA on a back-up supply mechanism for states that forgo investment in indigenous enrichment or (plutonium) reprocessing capability," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in a statement issued at the annual IAEA General Conference.

"The United States Department of Energy will reserve up to 17 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium for an IAEA verifiable assured fuel supply arrangement," he said.

It was unclear how or whether this would fit into any future plan for a fuel supply as envisioned by ElBaradei, who was re-elected to a third four-year term as IAEA chief on Monday.

ElBaradei, in a written statement to the IAEA's 139 members, said that operations related to uranium enrichment and plutonium separation are "a vulnerability" in the non-proliferation regime.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Their are two very good advantages here. One being the U.S. can gain a good amount of income by selling out this energy source to other countries. This also gives other countries wishing to enrich their own uranium, which cannot be gauranteed will not be used for weapons, the advantage of not having to worry about U.N. resolutions because they have a readily available supply to fuel their reactors for the purpose of producing energy as they claim.

However there is always the possibility that some nations may decide just to hoard enough uranium to be able to rapidly eject IAEA inspectors and rush a weapons program. Essentially pulling off a North Korea or Iran.

Perhaps this should go in hand with a U.N. resolution to immediately sanction any violating country and order air strikes on their facilities should they decide to do just that?

[edit on 9/27/2005 by DYepes]

[edit on 2-10-2005 by DJDOHBOY]




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Policeman: I'll give you a gallon of gasoline if your promise not to start any fires
Arsonist: I promise


On the surface, I don't like the sounds of shipping out fissle material to third world countries....but I see that they will probably develop nuclear weapons irregardless if we deliver or not. Ughhh...


LEU is not directly usable for weapons. However, as sophisticated enrichment technology spreads around the world, more groups will be able to overcome the technical barriers to producing HEU for weapons. For this reason, Pakistan's illicit transfer of advanced enrichment technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea is of grave concern to the international community. Moreover, the commercial enrichment facilities used to make LEU fuel for power reactors can be reconfigured to produce HEU for weapons. source



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Honestly, the nations that want to develop a nuclear program are going to do so, irregardless of UN or US treaty (and of late, the US isn't exactly well known for keeping their word).. I see this as more encouragement for other nations to develop nuclear capabilities, and furthering world conflict. We all know we don't need any MORE conflict than we already have (what we have is too much already).

I can see the logic in this, but I can also see that it's either highly flawed, or playing into some larger game. As I read this article, I heard screamings of NWO, world war, and "apocalypse."

If we want to salvage what little we have, this is a really BAD idea.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   

However there is always the possibility that some nations may decide just to hoard enough uranium to be able to rapidly eject IAEA inspectors and rush a weapons program. Essentially pulling off a North Korea or Iran.


Converting Uranium enriched to fuel grade into weapons grade is the most difficult part of the process.

They still need centrifuges spinning Uranium Hexafluoride, and associated hardware.

All you would save is the early chemical separation, and some centrifudge time.

And no, it is not any good for a dirty bomb...

[edit on 26-9-2005 by ArchAngel]




top topics
 
0

log in

join