Nuclear Proliferation: a Civilian and a Military Dilemma Nuclear Proliferation: a C Ivilian and a Military D Ilemma
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ilemma D NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: ivilian and a Military A CIVILIAN AND A MILITARY DILEMMA C A Nuclear Proliferation: The danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in proportion to weapons stockpiles, reversing Pyongyang’s nuclear buildup, and the number of new nuclear power stations all over the world. stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons-related activities. The hope There is no insurmountable division between the civil and mili- is that each of these efforts will be mutually reinforcing and tary use of this technology in spite of the efforts on the part of that progress in reducing existing nuclear weapons will per- the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to regulate suade the world’s nonnuclear weapons states to do more to stay this. The most recent example is Iran. At the end of the day clear of dangerous civilian nuclear fuel-making activities. This anyone who does not want to be regulated cannot be forced to set of nuclear hopes, however, is unlikely to be fully realised. do so. With the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow- Barring regime change in either North Korea or Iran, neither ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast breeders in Pyongyang’s renunciation of its nuclear arsenal nor Iran’s ces- order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give rise to the circulation sation of nuclear weapons-related activities is all that probable. of plutonium leading in turn to the creation of huge amounts of Meanwhile, the odds of China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, fissile material capable of making bombs – a horror scenario! and Israel agreeing to nuclear warhead reductions seem even With the run-up to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) more remote. Assuming that current nuclear trends continue, Review Conference in May of 2010, major states have focused then the next two decades will test international security as it as never before on reducing existing U.S. and Russian nuclear has never have been tested before. Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09 E [email protected] W www.boell.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: Nuclear Energy – a Dead End 3 Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy – Siamese Twins or Double Zero Solution? 5 By Otfried Nassauer Introduction 6 1. Non-proliferation efforts – a quick overview 8 2. Civilian nuclear installations – a quick overview 11 3. States as a proliferation risk 16 4. Non-state actor risks 19 4.1 Nuclear weapons in terrorist hands 20 4.2 Dirty bombs in terrorist hands 20 4.3 Nuclear materials smuggling 21 4.4 Non-state actors and fuel cycle safety 22 4.5 Other proliferation risks 22 5. Instruments to control and contain proliferation 24 5.1 Important treaties 24 5.2 Non-proliferation through safeguards 27 5.3 Non-proliferation by export controls 29 5.4 Non-proliferation by cooperation 30 5.5 Coercive non-proliferation and military counter-proliferation 31 6. A contradictory approach – non-proliferation policy under Barack Obama 33 6.1 The New START Treaty 34 6.2 The Nuclear Security Summit 35 6.3 The Nuclear Posture Review 36 6.4 Words and actions – problems and contradictions 38 7. A world in search of energy 40 Nuclear Weapons Proliferation, Energy Security, and Carbon Emission Reduction: 45 How to Overcome the Civilian-Military Nuclear Dilemma. By Henry D. Sokolski 1. Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Prevention: The Next 20 Years 46 2. A packed nuclear-armed crowd? 48 3. Making the most of zero 54 Conclusion 61 Glossary and list of abbreviations 63 Biographies Otfried Nassauer and Henry D. Sokolski 64 With the support of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Published by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels Printed in Belgium, September 2010 © The authors, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels All rights reserved Authored by Otfried Nassauer: Translation: Translation Agency LUND Languages / LUND Verlagsgesellschaft mbH English proof-reading and language editing: Yazgülü Zeybek, Alexander Tietz Coordination and final editing: Annett Waltersdorf Authored by Henry D. Sokolski: English proof-reading and language editing: Yazgülü Zeybek, Alexander Tietz Coordination and final editing: Annett Waltersdorf Print production: Micheline Gutman Cover picture: Gisela Giardino/ Original photo: unknown author www. giselagiardino.com.ar Some rights reserved for the pictures of pages 24, 33, 48. They are attached to the following Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ D/2010/11.850/7 This publication can be ordered at: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels 15 Rue d’Arlon B-1050 Brussels Belgium T (+32) 2 743 41 00 F (+32) 2 743 41 09 E [email protected] W www.boell.eu 3 Preface: NUCLEAR Energy – A DEAD END Anyone following the statements expressed subsidies and guarantees. It is noticeable that from time to time about the renaissance of nu- new nuclear power stations are built particularly clear energy could get the impression that the where the government and the energy industry number of new nuclear plants was increasing at form an unholy alliance. an immense and steady rate. In fact, more recent statistics show 60 plants in the process of being Up to now, nuclear power plants have been built, the majority in China and others in Russia, funded by massive public subsidies. For Germany India, South Korea and Japan. The USA is only the calculations roughly add up to over 100 bil- shown as having one actual building project. lion Euros and this preferential treatment is still However, this list (the VGB Power Tech) includes going on today. As a result the billions set aside numerous ancient projects that were never com- for the disposal of nuclear waste and the disman- pleted and are therefore de facto building ruins. tling of nuclear power plants represent a tax-free manoeuvre for the companies. In addition the Moreover, there are at the present time pro- liability of the operators is limited to 2.5 billion posals for about 160 new nuclear power plants Euros – a tiny proportion of the costs that would up to the year 2020, 53 of these in China alone result from a medium-sized nuclear accident. All and 35 in the USA, followed by South Korea and things considered nuclear energy proves to be Russia. In Europe, the UK heads the list with just as expensive as it is risky. eight proposed new projects, followed by Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Rumania and Lithuania. In addition to the routine arguments about France, that would like to bless the world with nuclear energy, there are some new ones. Firstly, new nuclear power stations, is itself only plan- the danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in ning one new plant. Most European states are not proportion to the number of new nuclear power entertaining any concrete nuclear plans. stations all over the world. There is no insurmount- able division between the civil and military use of As a matter of fact the number of nuclear pow- this technology in spite of the efforts on the part er plants in the world is continually decreasing. of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) At the present time there are still 436 reactors in to regulate this. The most recent example is Iran. operation. In the next 15 to 20 years more ageing At the end of the day anyone who does not want plants will go offline than new ones coming into to be regulated cannot be forced to do so. With operation. By no means will all declarations of the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow- intent be implemented. The more energy markets ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast are opened up to free competition, the smaller breeders in order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give the chances are for nuclear energy. rise to the circulation of plutonium leading in turn to the creation of huge amounts of fissile material The costs for new plants are also explod- capable of making bombs – a horror scenario! ing. For example, the building cost of the new nuclear power plant in Finland’s Olkiluoto has Secondly, an extension of the life span of ex- already increased from 3 to around 5.4 billion isting nuclear energy stations, and even more so Euros although not even the shell of the building the building of new plants, would act as a massive is standing yet. In addition, there are the unsolved brake on the development of renewable energies. problems of waste disposal and the high suscep- The claim that nuclear energy and renewable tibility of the technology to failure. Today, no energies complement each other is a myth since privately run energy conglomerate risks building not only do they compete for a meagre amount a new nuclear power station without government of investment capital and power-lines but at the 4 same time nuclear plants limit the growth po- tion to climate change nor is it necessary in order to tential particularly of wind energy owing to their guarantee energy supply. The exact opposite is true. inflexible continuous operation. On windy and Those who want to promote the development of low-consumption days the energy demand in renewable energy with the aim of producing 100% Germany is already covered to a large extent by of the power demand should oppose the building the wind energy supply. As the output of exist- of new nuclear plants as well as the life span exten- ing nuclear power stations (as well as the big sion of older ones. Despite the claims about nuclear coal-fired power stations) is not reduced at short energy it is not a suitable interim strategy leading notice for economic reasons, the surplus energy towards the age of solar energy.