Guess what country Bush is helping develop nuclear power

If you’re not already convinced that the world—or at least the leader of the most powerful country in the world—is mad, read this, by Democratic congressman Edward Markey writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Here’s a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world’s largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?

If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you’re right.

- end of initial entry -

Ron L. writes:

The Bush family is owned by the house of Saud. Neil Bush is a lobbyist for them.

It is utter insanity. Even if we could trust the Wahabbist Saudi clan, who is to say that they will properly control all nuclear material or that they will not be overthrown one day?

Even if you only believe that the problem is Islamic terrorists, the simple fact is that Al Qaeda was formed by Saudis.

What I don’t get is the silence of the “all powerfull” AIPAC.

A. Zarkov writes:

Markey doing some grandstanding here, and most of what he says is nonsense. To make nuclear weapons you need either highly enriched uranium 235 (not exactly so but close enough) or Plutonium 239. Reactor grade uranium has about 2-3 percent U-235 while weapon’s grade is over 90 percent U-235. A reactor will manufacture Pu-239 as a by product of fission where U-238 captures a neutron, decays to Neptunium 239 which then decays to Pu-239. The Pu-239 must then be extracted chemically from the nuclear fuel rod which is mostly U-238. However the reactor created Pu-239 also contains some Pu-240 which would cause a fission bomb to fizzle. Thus to get pure enough Pu-239 the bomb maker has to separate the isotopes Pu-239 and Pu-240 which cannot be done chemically. It is possible to construct a bomb from reactor grade Pu, but that’s tricky. Pu that’s more than 7 percent Pu-240 is reactor grade and not suitable for making a bomb, With an appropriate reactor design and periodic inspections by the IAEA, a Saudi reactor need not be a proliferation worry. Many countries operate reactors.

Now why would the Saudis want nuclear reactors when they have all that oil? I’ll hazard a guess. At current prices, oil is pretty valuable. It’s a waste to use oil to generate electricity. It makes more economic sense to buy a reactor for electric power and sell the oil. To put it another way, oil is a liquid fuel with high energy density that makes it most suitable for transportation. We use coal and reactors to generate electricity. The Saudis have no coal. In any case if the Saudis don’t buy from us they will buy from someone else.

Of course I personally would not sell the Saudis anything because I don’t like them. For me they’re the Kingdom of Hate.

LA replies:

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was made by extracting Plutonium 239 from spent reactor cores. Why wouldn’t the Saudis be able to do it? Are you saying that a reactor can be set up to operate in such a way that the Plutonium 240 it produces will be above a certain percentage of the Pu 239 that it also produces, and that in that case the Pu 239 will be useless for a fission weapon, regardless of extraction techniques?

Phil M. writes:

Re: “Many countries operate reactors.”

This comment illustrates why Edward Teller was a great advocate of civil defense to save lives from limited (i.e., non-superpowers’) use of nuclear weapons. The ability to construct weapons is over 50 years old. Teller understood that it is just a matter of time before a mad man decides to “even the score.”

This is from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine website.

Teller writes:

“If defense is neglected these weapons of attack become effective. They become available and desirable in the eyes of an imperialist dictator, even if his means are limited. Weapons of mass destruction could become equalizers between nations big and small, highly developed and primitive, if defense is neglected. If defense is developed and if it is made available for general prevention of war, weapons of aggression will become less desirable. Thus defense makes war itself less probable. The third reason is of a most general character. One psychological defense mechanism against danger is to forget about it. This attitude is as common as it is disastrous. It may turn a limited danger into a fatal difficulty.”

LA replies:

I’m not sure how this is relevant to the present question of whether nuclear reactors can be designed in such a way that the plutonium they produce is not usable for fission weapons.

Phil M. replies:

I understand now that you were looking for someone to confirm or refute your previous comment. I can’t comment technically about whether reactors can be made “Pu-239 proof.” I was merely responding to the previous commenter’s somewhat cavalier comment about reactors and countries. My personal belief is that any nuclear proliferation is undesirable and should certainly not be aided. But, as in 1939, adversaries will try to make one. Teller was convinced that Western nations will not be able to control this desire and hence recommended a strong defense.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 10, 2008 08:17 PM | Send