Nuclear Options
Stop The ACLU ยป Did Clinton Give Nuke Plans To Iran?
I just wanted to repeat this headline, knowing it will drive the Bush haters _and_ the Bush lovers insane. Both sides will flash this as some kind of trump-card in an argument.
I've been thinking about our nuclear options: We are dealing with essentially an 80 year old technology. How the hell are we going to stop a nation from obtaining any 80 year old technology? It would be like trying to keep Steam Power a state secret until we owned the world's rail lines. It just isn't going to work.
We have the technology, and we have it for sale. We can do it better, cheaper, safer, and we can make the market such that no one could compete with it. We should offer to lease Iran uranium. However much they want or can pay for. In a manner designed to slow down any "upgrade" to weapons-grade materials.
We know we really can't, forever, keep anyone from getting nucler power who has the financial resources to do so. I mean, gun control doesn't work anywhere in this country, how the hell can we expect it to work between countries. (Personally, I think letting kids play with guns is the individual equivalent to letting Iran have a nuclear weapon. I am trying to see into their wisdom but just see an arrogant little prick jumping up and down and saying "I want it". I still think the "Sandbox" theory of international relations is the most accurate. But I digress.)
So here's my deal on behalf of the US: Should any nation in the world want nuclear fuel, they can lease all they want from us. We'll even give them good financial terms.
Condition 1- They must accept some nano/programmable/chemical identifier or nuclear watermark built into the goods so that the original can always be identified. In other words, you take it, try to refine it, and we will know. Period. No guesses where the material came from. Batch 332 belongs to Iran. Or Batch 334 belongs to General Electric.
You are responsible for these materials, any theft of which means you accept, as a precondition to the lease, the immediate entry into your nation of a UN or US fighting force with absolute military authority to recover said goods.
You can't nationalize it. You can't keep it. You can't even move it. It stays where we put it.
The UN must agree to go in within 30 days of notice of the theft of the goods - no vetos, asshats, not even ours - and immediate authority is granted to the UN to go in if any identifier of weapons grade plutonium points to a particular nation as source.
Condition 2- We bring sealed containers that plug into our GE/GM/Haliburton comptetively designed nuclear fuel standardized containment systems. We'll tell you standard plug sizes and you build any kind of power plant you want around that. You, nation or corporation, will run the plant yourself - it's on your land, and you aren't going to launch it at us, so we don't care - and every 2 years or so we bring them a fresh batch by swapping in a new container. We retrieve and reuse the containers and dispose of/recycle/neutralize/store whavever the spent fuel.
*Note* - This is certainly _not_ an environmental post. We will of course figure out the cost to our environment and pass that cost on to the consumer - which is the nation and its citizens.
Condition 3 - Should you design your plants poorly that they blow up we shall not be obligated to clean up your mess. We reserve the right, however, to go in and pick up any recoverable material. Or leave it in a steaming hulk. Our call. You would be well advised to hire our advisors for the cleanup job, nontheless.
Final Condition: You pay a tax of 10% for the power you produce to the UN to help developing nations finance their power projects.
There you have it. They want it bad enough, they can pay for it. It's got to be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to do it from scratch - even with plans. We're the capitalist society with the technology, they want to keep their oil money in the ground. Sounds like something ripe for a deal, eh? Think of the economics of spending for a "re-invent the nuclear wheel" program no longer needed.
We beat the Russians and Chinese to the nuclear market with India. Time to press the economic advantage this creates. We could hardly object to Iraq having the same type of deal with Russia as we do with India. But why can't we have the same deal with Iraq? Or any other nation in the world.
I just wanted to repeat this headline, knowing it will drive the Bush haters _and_ the Bush lovers insane. Both sides will flash this as some kind of trump-card in an argument.
I've been thinking about our nuclear options: We are dealing with essentially an 80 year old technology. How the hell are we going to stop a nation from obtaining any 80 year old technology? It would be like trying to keep Steam Power a state secret until we owned the world's rail lines. It just isn't going to work.
We have the technology, and we have it for sale. We can do it better, cheaper, safer, and we can make the market such that no one could compete with it. We should offer to lease Iran uranium. However much they want or can pay for. In a manner designed to slow down any "upgrade" to weapons-grade materials.
We know we really can't, forever, keep anyone from getting nucler power who has the financial resources to do so. I mean, gun control doesn't work anywhere in this country, how the hell can we expect it to work between countries. (Personally, I think letting kids play with guns is the individual equivalent to letting Iran have a nuclear weapon. I am trying to see into their wisdom but just see an arrogant little prick jumping up and down and saying "I want it". I still think the "Sandbox" theory of international relations is the most accurate. But I digress.)
So here's my deal on behalf of the US: Should any nation in the world want nuclear fuel, they can lease all they want from us. We'll even give them good financial terms.
Condition 1- They must accept some nano/programmable/chemical identifier or nuclear watermark built into the goods so that the original can always be identified. In other words, you take it, try to refine it, and we will know. Period. No guesses where the material came from. Batch 332 belongs to Iran. Or Batch 334 belongs to General Electric.
You are responsible for these materials, any theft of which means you accept, as a precondition to the lease, the immediate entry into your nation of a UN or US fighting force with absolute military authority to recover said goods.
You can't nationalize it. You can't keep it. You can't even move it. It stays where we put it.
The UN must agree to go in within 30 days of notice of the theft of the goods - no vetos, asshats, not even ours - and immediate authority is granted to the UN to go in if any identifier of weapons grade plutonium points to a particular nation as source.
Condition 2- We bring sealed containers that plug into our GE/GM/Haliburton comptetively designed nuclear fuel standardized containment systems. We'll tell you standard plug sizes and you build any kind of power plant you want around that. You, nation or corporation, will run the plant yourself - it's on your land, and you aren't going to launch it at us, so we don't care - and every 2 years or so we bring them a fresh batch by swapping in a new container. We retrieve and reuse the containers and dispose of/recycle/neutralize/store whavever the spent fuel.
*Note* - This is certainly _not_ an environmental post. We will of course figure out the cost to our environment and pass that cost on to the consumer - which is the nation and its citizens.
Condition 3 - Should you design your plants poorly that they blow up we shall not be obligated to clean up your mess. We reserve the right, however, to go in and pick up any recoverable material. Or leave it in a steaming hulk. Our call. You would be well advised to hire our advisors for the cleanup job, nontheless.
Final Condition: You pay a tax of 10% for the power you produce to the UN to help developing nations finance their power projects.
There you have it. They want it bad enough, they can pay for it. It's got to be a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to do it from scratch - even with plans. We're the capitalist society with the technology, they want to keep their oil money in the ground. Sounds like something ripe for a deal, eh? Think of the economics of spending for a "re-invent the nuclear wheel" program no longer needed.
We beat the Russians and Chinese to the nuclear market with India. Time to press the economic advantage this creates. We could hardly object to Iraq having the same type of deal with Russia as we do with India. But why can't we have the same deal with Iraq? Or any other nation in the world.
posted by Ed C:\> at 8:20 PM
1 Comments:
Leasing nuclear power to other countries actually sounds a lot like the Clinton proposal for dealing with North Korea, at least if I recall properly.
BTW, I know Bush is meeting with Hu Jintao (no idea if that spelling is right, the Chinese "president") and Bill Gates met with him today. Gates was supposed to complain to China about piracy, and Bush is talking trade relations.
Anyone talking human rights, or did that stop when we realized there was a lot of money at stake?
Post a Comment
<< Home