How About a Megatons To Megawatts Program For US Nuclear Weapons? 146
Lasrick writes "Dawn Stover looks at the incredibly successful Megatons to Megawatts program, which turned dismantled Russian nuclear warheads into lower-grade uranium fuel that can be used to produce electricity. The 1993 agreement between the U.S. and Russia not only eliminated 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium, but generated nearly 10% of U.S. electricity consumption. The Megatons to Megawatts program ended in December, but Stover points out that the U.S. has plenty of surplus nuclear weapons that could keep the program going, without the added risk of shipping it over such huge distances. A domestic Megatons to Megawatts, if you will. This would be very cost effective and have the added benefit of keeping USEC, the only American company in the uranium enrichment field, in business."
Because 'Murica! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:doubtful. (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing about nukes and MAD is that it is counterintuitive. To have peace in a world with nukes you actually need more than 1x the amount required to have a robust counterstrike. When nuclear disarmament reaches so called reasonable levels say UK,France, China levels the danger is actually greater since you slip below the megadeath that has kept chemical weapons and nukes deeply inside national pockets for almost 100 years. As long as there is a superpower who is not worried about a decapitation strike actually working there is little incentive to have an itchy trigger finger and common sense gets a chance to work.
You still saw some chem weapons in places like Yemen civil war by Egypt where there was no threat of a counterstrike or in Iran/Iraq where Iran didn't have the capacity.
Nukes are only safe when held in safely large and well dispersed numbers by a powerful central government facing a similar opponent with sufficient arsenal making a decapitation strike unrealistic. The only other safe option is strictly verified 100% planetary disarmament.
Re:Because 'Murica! (Score:4, Insightful)
We couldn't possibly give up our strategic advantage in an area that has almost no usefulness in this period of time!
We could give up our strategic advantage, but it would be exceedingly stupid.
Weapons should be thought of as a form of insurance. In a perfect world, you'd never have to use it, but in the world we live in, it's foolish not to have it.
Re:Sherriff Bart (Score:4, Insightful)
If my destruction is already determined, and there is no other way out, then having a way to convince the aggressor that he'll be going down with me is a perfectly valid tactic. Really, it's the only valid tactic on some situations.
Re:Because 'Murica! (Score:4, Insightful)
You misunderstand the true value of weapons.
If you have to use a weapon, that means you didn't have a big enough one.
Um, no. It's more likely that if you "have" to use a weapon, you already failed at something else that would have precluded the use, or threat, of force in the first place.