Fake Banner
    Security And Science: Nuclear Proliferation
    By Sina Kashefipour | September 7th 2009 03:53 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    One of the larger topics concerning international security and science is the nuclear proliferation among states and potentially non-state actors. The genie has been let of the bottle so to speak. For this entry I'll discuss two forms of proliferation: dual use and modification.

    The issue of dual use has been most prevalent with the Iranian nuclear issue. (time line here) The argument from the Iranian perspective is that nuclear material, fuel, and power is needed to bolster a petrol based economy that is faltering and doesn't provide cheap energy for all.  Adding to this argument is that Iranian heavily subsidizes its refined petroleum products. Subsidizing in this case being the refined product that Iran should be able to produce internally is imported. Years of sanctions has destroyed Iran's ability to refine and lessened its ability to draw oil out of the ground. So Iran sells a limited supply of oil to import gas at a higher price, essentially an economically losing position. In terms of the Iranian logic in order to offset these heavy energy costs they need to develop a more efficient system of energy production, thus the need of nuclear energy.

    On the one hand Iran signed the NPT and is guaranteed access to nuclear power. On the other hand the issue since the Shah's time has been that Iran is diverting fuel and technology to a weapons program. And this diversion has been taking place since the Shah's time. This issue has sharpened greatly post 9/11 with Iran being placed squarely in the Axis of Evil for its support of terrorism.

    The issue becomes sharpest when the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with the tacit consent of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei begins to develop a stronger missile and nuclear program. Factor in some of the more controversial statements made by Ahmadinejad and the question remains: Does Iran aspire to be a responsible nuclear power or a belligerent?

    The other issue is the idea of modification. This is the idea of taking an existing technology and changing or modifying in such a way that it amplifies the damage of that particular weapon system. Damage, in this case, being the nuclear level.

    I think this story best exemplifies what I'm talking about. Since the eighties and then after 9/11 the United States has been transferring arms and technology to Pakistan first for defeating the Soviets then to fight the insurgency in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. Pakistan also has preexisting nuclear program and a very dangerous rivalry with India. Pakistan uses the missiles acquired from the United States changes the war head from a conventional to a nuclear, and presto a nuclear missile.

    The over arching theme here is the flow and use of information and the self-interest of states. On the one hand it is difficult to progress scientifically and develop beneficial technology without the free flow of ideas and information. But on the other there is the self interest and competition among states. It would seem that the context of competition shapes the science. And the science shapes the competition. Interesting equilibrium.

    Comments

    Maktub
    Interesting parallel about science and competition

    the context of competition shapes the science. And the science shapes the competition.
    Afraid I'm playing the constructivist's realist pawn on the board here: This nuke talk is about power and social constructs.  It's about unification.  All I see right now is an effort to unify the private part of the world.
    rejectionking
    Expand on what you mean by "unification."

    I think the nuke issue is more about leverage and control than it is about unification but that's me.
    Maktub
    Unification: A unification of national nuclear markets -- unified market. 

    I understand the leverage and control part.  But that's the deceiving part.  The markets are connected by the precept of profit.  Business comes first, then the nation.  I don't think very much about this issue, but I just have a hunch that this issue or debate is not as it seems.
     
    There's no way any gov't with a highly specialized weapons program would ever share the truth about the nuke market with the public.  Instead gov'ts decieve us to think everyone's against each other, meanwhile they're cutting deals, exchanging contracts, buying, selling and proliferating the spread of nukes in target areas around the globe.  Look at India.  Bush share information with them.  Look at Israel.

    I agree with you though, I just think it's more.
    rejectionking
    So according to your mode of thinking what Iran is really trying to do is to break into the state driven nuclear market. Yes/no?
    Maktub
    Yes.  Another way to say it is that Iran is trying to break into a private society of states driven market.
    Hfarmer
    So what are you saying it is inherently more dangerous for islamic, and/or brown states to have nuclear weapons?  You single out both Pakistan and Iran in your article.  They are both Islamic Republics. They are both peopled by non-white people as well. 
    You also mention the NPT.  Pakistan and India refused to sign the NPT citing the fact that most of the "nuclear weapons states" in it were a club of white/european states.  In the words of Gamal Nasser of Egypt "basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised
    it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before". As non signatories they have done
    nothing wrong. What's more is that both they and India have proven their responsibility, as they have been in direct armed
    conflict, and it did not automatically spiral into a full scale nuclear war.


    As for Iran what's wrong with them wanting the full fuel cycle for nuclear power?  Under the NPT it is their right.  They also don't want to depend on anyone for the technical know how it takes to make a reactor.  Again what's wrong with that?  Nothing as far as I can see.  As for nuclear weapons, they would at most have regional strategic parity with Israel who likely has hundreds of warheads.  Has had these warheads as it fought wars and never even used them.  


    My point is that the fear mongering over proliferation needs to stop.  If nuclear weapons ensure that no state will ever fight a war of conquest with another nuclear state then having them around will be a net positive. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Maktub
    You make interesting points Hontas. 

    But that's what people assume as the truth: That nuked states won't fight other nuked states.  

    Nuclear war is inevitable-- doesn't mean I wish for it but it's gunna be here. Perhaps time will tell to what extent it will be here, or perhaps something even worse will endanger humanity.
     
    I asked Dr. Mahdi Obeidi-- former nuclear physicist for S. Hussein who buried the plans for a nuke in his garden-- a question about the likelihood of a nuclear war happening within the next 10 years.  He said "He was very afraid, and with one more will follow."

    Your point about nuke fear mongering is spot on.  It's creating a social construction of acceptability. I just think though that at the present rate, this "new Cold War" mentality will not simply disappear.  The debate is used for the spread of democracy, the spread of hegemony or power over political, economic, and social dimensions.  I see this debate as more of a fear mongering to perpetuate hegemony, privately among the hegemonic elite in nations that now seem opposed.
    rejectionking
    Thanks for the reply.

    First, it is not about "Muslim" or "brown," it is about the competition among self-interested states.  With that being said I addressed Iran's legitimate energy concerns and the need to find alternative sources to oil. The caveat being here is the Iranians are a non proliferation treaty signatory along with 189 other countries.  That means the Iranians are afforded fuel and nuclear technology for civilian uses and in return they must give an international body, the IAEA, oversight into their nuclearization. The core of the debate is over the fact that Iran is non compliant in terms of its legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and supposedly enriching and diverting for a weapon, strictly illegal under it treaty obligations. 

    This is what I meant by duel use. The nuclear technology has a legit use but at the same time without supervision and abiding to legal obligations the situation can quickly spin out of control if not already. 

    Second,  there are non signatories to the NPT like Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.  That means they aren't really obligated to the NPT treaty wise (you could argue they are obligated under customary law because of the other 189 signatories) and they potentially are free to proliferate.  My argument behind the concept modification is that with uncontrolled and unmonitored nuclear environment that Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Israel provide it becomes harder and harder to control this inherently dangerous technology.   

    Lastly, the more nuclear powers there are doesn't necessarily mean a safer world with the concomitant reduction in violence.  If anything history has taught us is that more actors with more all-powerful weapons only heightens the tension and the chance for war and destruction.