So, here we go. You know the nauseating feeling and that metallic tang sensation you get on your tongue when you’ve narrowly averted a car crash or had some other close call? Well, a recent news article has left me with the same feeling.
According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, a group of middle eastern countries have signalled to the IAEA that they are interested in establishing a “common program in the area for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”.
The subtext of the Israeli article is that this move is a kind of equilibration by Sunni populations in response to Iranian/Persian Shi’ite nuclear development. The countries in question are Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Tunesia, and the United Arab Emirates.
According to the IAEA, 29 nuclear reactors are under construction in the world today. Seven of them are in India, which plans to increase their number 8-fold by 2022. China has four reactors under construction and reportedly plans a 5-fold expansion in the next 15 years. The IAEA keeps a handy list of new and retired reactors around the world.
Here is a nuclear joke you can tell to entertain your friends! Question: How many nuclear engineers does it take to replace a lightbulb? Answer: Fifty! One to replace the bulb and forty nine to figure what to do with the old one!
On the one hand, it is logically and morally precarious to deny others what you yourself have enjoyed since the end of WWII. That would be the reassuring hum of nuclear electricity and prospect of security through the overwhelming firepower afforded by fission.
On the other hand, the existing nuclear states have built infrastructure for the safe movement of nuclear materials through the system and folding new states into it may not be so hard. However, the existing nuclear states have a compelling interest in avoiding disruption of the nuclear fuel cycle. More demand means higher prices. Maybe the existing nuclear states should form something like OPEC to regulate the supply of nuclear fuel?
I’ll admit that I’m a bit nervous about the prospect of Middle Eastern states becoming handy in the nuclear arts. Any given “Atoms for Peace” program could degrade into a shell game that could hide a nuclear weapons effort.
A plain reading of history seems to show that if someone else is helping with some of the enrichment, straight fission bombs are not as hard to develop as one might have supposed. It’s hard if you start ab initio with a pitchblende mine, a cloud chamber, and F=ma. But if you can outsource reactors and fuel, it’s a lot easier. The art in bomb design appears to be wringing out the biggest bang for the smallest amount of fissile material. Fortunately for everyone, thermonuclear bombs seem to be substantially trickier to make- my conclusion based on the open literature.
If you think about it, a pre-nuclear state will almost certainly conclude that not having a nuclear weapon is tantamount to suicide. So the pressure to build nuclear weapons is irresistable to many regimes.
A nuclear arms buildup among the theocratic states seems especially worrisome, even though secular states like the USSR and North Korea make a poor case for secular stewardship. Like it or not, the notion of MAD- Mutual Assured Distruction- did provide balance in the cold war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Maybe what we are seeing is a nascent MAD in the middle east.
The worst case would be where the much desired Islamic Caliphate would have a “nuclear option”. We can only hope that islamic theocratic fever is quenched by the pragmatics of economic prosperity. This is where a levelheaded US government could lead the way.