Evan Prodromou

What sort of nuclear program should non-nuclear powers pursue?

#EvanPoll #poll

No nuclear program
37.4%
Public nuclear program w/int'l inspections
45%
Secret nuclear program
14%
Other (please specify)
3.5%
Poll ended at .
Jun 23 at 12:39amWeb
Show threadEvan Prodromou15h ago

Thanks, all. I think a public nuclear program with participation in the Non-Proliferation Treaty is still the best policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

Show threadSoatok Dreamseeker1d ago
@evan Thorium nuclear power? :p
Show threadSpace Catitude 🚀1d ago

@soatok @evan

Would be a very useful contribution to develop.

Show threadJames M.1d ago
@evan "should", morally? None. "Should", for self-preservation in the face of psychopathic and malevolent state actors? Secretly, probably.
Show threadBruce Elrick1d ago
@evan
Jeepers, controlled energy generation or warheads?
Show threadM. Grégoire1d ago
@virtuous_sloth
That's the question. I suppose @evan probably has the former in mind, as few would answer that countries ought to pursue nuclear weapons.
Show threadEvan Prodromou1d ago
@mpjgregoire @virtuous_sloth should any countries have nuclear weapons? And if yes, which ones?
Show threadM. Grégoire1d ago

@evan
The world would be better off if no countries had nuclear weapons. Most people believe that, don't they?

@virtuous_sloth

Show threadEvan Prodromou1d ago

@mpjgregoire @virtuous_sloth right. I think that's the point of the non-proliferation treaty: that non-weapons-holding countries can develop nuclear power without making weapons, and that countries with weapons will disarm.

Four countries (India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) didn't sign the deal, and now have weapons.

Right now, the US is bombing one NPT signatory on behalf of one of the non-signatories.

So, should countries be like Israel, or like Iran?

Show threadEvan Prodromou1d ago
@mpjgregoire @virtuous_sloth it's better if no countries have them. But some countries *do* have them. So what should other countries do?
Show threadM. Grégoire1d ago

@evan People keep telling me these days that renewables are cheaper than nuclear power plants, so maybe now no country should have nuclear programmes, peaceful or otherwise. I certainly don't think a Gulf State should be spending money on nuclear energy — they have no shortage of sunlight or of fossil fuels.

My answer to the poll was "No nuclear programme". Though I meant more that countries that don't have one shouldn't start, than that France should shut down Areva.

@virtuous_sloth

Show threadStefan Monnier1d ago
@mpjgregoire @evan @virtuous_sloth Yup, the only valid purpose I can see is scientific research and medical applications (not sure where I stand w.r.t nuclear powered vehicles like aircraft carriers and submarines), both of which rely on very small reactors, AFAIK.
Show threadOlivier Mehani19h ago
@evan @mpjgregoire @virtuous_sloth I voted no program, thinking weapons, but you can't do that without trust, though. Ukraine did the right thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum, and is now getting attacked by one signatory, and extorted by another.
Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

Show threadPhilip Mallegol-Hansen1d ago

@evan My, admittedly super naive, not carefully considered, take is: If anyone has them, it’s unreasonable to expect others not to attempt to get on par.

Why should some powers hold permanent leverage over the rest? Why should anyone trust them not to abuse the position?

I would prefer a world where they simply don’t exist, but given that they do, here we are.
@mpjgregoire @virtuous_sloth

Show threadAndy Nortrup  🌳1d ago
@evan I would have said nuclear power generation. But there days renewables and storage are so much cheaper and safer to deploy.
Show thread☮ ♥ ♬ 🧑‍💻1d ago
@evan advanced Geo/solar/dynamic system power and battery technology
Show threadbananamangodog1d ago
@evan if non-prolifetation was really the objective currently nuclear armed countries would build nuclear power plants in or near countries that want nuclear power and give it to them for free. It would cost less than forever wars, inspection overheads, sanctions, etc and support the quality of life of all those citizens making them far less likely to hate you.
But I guess that last part is the whole point!
Show threadEvan Prodromou1d ago

@bananamangodog that's mostly what the Non-proliferation Treaty is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons?wprov=sfla1

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

Show threadbananamangodog1d ago
@evan kind of but not in reality. Instead of being obligated to assist with abundant electricity the nuclear armed states abuse their power and demand more than simple non-prolifetation as per the agreement. It's an abuse of power which is exactly why states pursue nuclear weapons in the first place. So effectively as the agreement stands it functions as a trigger for the perpetual war machine and war capitalism.
Show threadLee 🌏1d ago
@evan CND
Show threadcoldclimate1d ago
@evan what ever they like
Show threadEvan Prodromou1d ago
@coldclimate so open-minded!
Show threadcoldclimate1d ago
@evan who are we to impose our decisions on other sovereign nations?
Show threadTony Finch20h ago
@evan fusion and fission reactors for civilian electricity
Show threadInfoseepage19h ago
@evan You're not going to keep a nuclear program secret, so what you do is develop capacities under guise of civilian use while building parallel facilities very deep underground and allow no inspections. You keep a degree of non-declarition and ambiguity of what you are doing and what milestones you've hit. You don't try and use it as political leverage.
Show threadInfoseepage19h ago
@evan You wait to announce your status as a nuclear power once you've got an assortment of delivery options and enough bombs to ensure serious retribution if one of the great powers tries for a forcible end to your program, regime change, etc.
Show threadInfoseepage19h ago
@evan As a small nation, you probably can't reach MAD status, but you can make any action against you come at too high a cost. Think NK with their ~50 nukes. That is your target as a nation that doesn't want to get pushed around in this era in which the big powers are trying for imperial conquest once again.
Show threadNathan A. Stine19h ago

@evan Other: public nuclear program without int'l inspections.

Either everyone gets inspections or no one does.