Skip to main content

More on South Africa and Enrichment

Earlier this week we noted South Africa's announcement that it was considering creating its own uranium enrichment program. Today, Commentary South Africa has some more thoughts on the announcement.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

GingerMary said…
These arguments are so tired. Why should some countries be stopped from enriching uranium and not others? Is there no world wide democracy? I am a South African living in South Africa and really do not jump at joy at my country's policital policy sometimes in the same way that I know many people feel about George bush. But any argument that any country except those will the power should not develop stronger weapons or enrich uranium etc makes me mad. Yes some countries are dangerious, but once again, why should only the United states have the right to make their decisions without interference?

GM
Maktab said…
It's all about responsibility. The United States, France, Britain and other such countries are responsible nuclear powers, who can be relied upon to not go nuts and start lobbing nukes at somebody just because they happen to dislike them.

I would even include India, Pakistan and Israel in this category. The former two have resisted the temptation to go nuclear, despite open conflict at times, while Israel has refrained from using its nukes even when it was very close to being overrun in 1973, adding credence to their claim that the weapons are for last-gasp self-defence only.

Iran, on the other hand, cannot be trusted in this way, nor can North Korea. Iran's ongoing support for terrorist groups and its constant (and unwarranted) threats against Israel should give anyone cause to doubt their professed "peaceful" intentions, whilst NK's policy of selling nuke tech to whomever wishes to pay for it doesn't do wonders for non-proliferation.

Thus it makes sense to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, because its threats and actions (most especially the intense secrecy which surrounds its enrichment program) make it clear that it seeks not peaceful nuclear power but rather nuclear weapons. Not only is this in breach of the NPT, but it's undesirable from the standpoint of anybody in favour of peace and stability.

With that in mind, the impression I got from the Commentary post was not that they were saying that South Africa should not be allowed to enrich uranium, but rather that it had no convincing economic or strategic reason to do so. Certainly, the international community is not wary of SA's intentions and there's no worry about us going nuclear again, so any uranium enrichment by SA will be ignored.

For this reason, if SA's enrichment plans are indeed an attempt to show some sort of hollow solidarity with Iran, then it is quite plainly stupid (arguably just as stupid as showing solidarity with Iran in the first place). And as a South African, you really should be wary of our government potentially spending millions on a program which will run at an economic loss and bring no tangible benefit to us in any way.
GingerMary said…
Off course I am weary of a government spending money on something that is not needed, but when are weapons needed? It seems ludicrious to spend money on weapons in times of peace and there are a million arguments for and against. The question I am asking is - where do you draw the line when "allowing" something. Who allows it? The world community? And who is the community? Those for or against? The very essence of democracy is market forces. In the same way the very essence of world power should be the same principle. Iran would not start using their nuclear boms if they knew that if they did they would be wiped out in a second. Yes I agree. SA showing solidarity with Iran is stupid as many other policies. But why control something by force. Why insist on having a communist approach to managing world power? Why not allow the world to grow the way it is meant to be.
Anonymous said…
The problem GingerMary, is whether the Iranian rulers can be regarded as rational in regard to your one question. When their current president expresses admiration for Hitler, talks of how he felt divinity when addressing the UN and engages in banter about the blessed afterlife, well, are you really going to feeling comfortably living on the same road as them when they possess a few thousand tons of TNT?

In regard to your other question the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty through the International Atomic Agency determines who is suitable. The main powers, including Russia and China are regarded as more stable and better custodians of such weapons for obvious reasons. Would you like a small regime that engages in drug smuggling, counterfeiting and spends 50% of it's GDP on arms while threatening to also start sharing atomic warheads with terrorists that could nuke your city? If you would know that it does exist - it's called North Korea.

If every individual or small nation must have the right to possess atomic warheads then you must also be prepared to start erasing cities from maps. After all, the increasing promotion of suicide bombers shows that the 'rational individual' argument is not a guarantee.

Apartheid South Africa possessed atomic bombs. If the 'verkramptes' had won the succession battle in the NP in the late 1980's and the country had collapsed into civil war do you think they wouldn't have been used?
GingerMary said…
I'm not proposing the "rational indivudal" argument. Exactly the opposite. I'm saying that terrorists are not rational individuals. I'm saying that they bank on the fact that the world is rational. Although I do not at all agree with the war on terror or the way the war was fought I do believe that there is some truth in that if you are wronged you should retaliate (hmm..after you have found out the right facts though...). I'm not saying that we should let the crazy people out there run wild. I'm saying that we should let the world decide. Coming from South Africa, seeing how the world evolves, I see how, in the end, if you leave something, good does win. It's when you tinker on that power, it's when people start telling other people what to do because they think they have the power when things go wrong. YOu used the example of South AFrica. Exactly my point. When the "apartheid" regime was in power, the thought they had the right idea. All I am saying is that one person should never think he has the power over another. Is that not what democracy is all about?

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…