3 ms·
That issue crossed by mind, but I think there's a fighting chance it could work out. I had in mind Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, or Kuwait. Those countries already have
by wahern 7y ago
That issue crossed by mind, but I think there's a fighting chance it could work out. I had in mind Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, or Kuwait. Those countries already have a long and comfortable relationship with the West and the UK in particular, stemming from colonial times. (At least a good relationship with the corporate and political elite.) Especially with the UK I think that relationship is strong enough to resist the boogeyman of terrorism and the optics of working with those regimes, which don't have particularly poor reputations in the UK or US, anyhow. The "special relationship" between the US and UK means the UK has more license to exploit those ties, even though I'd assume any outcry would be loudest from the US.
It would need to be made clear that Saudi Arabia would be kept at arms length, to mitigate (at least superficially) the threat of nuclear escalation between SA and Iran. But from a technical perspective I'd assume any proliferation risk would be minimal to nonexistent given the technology. Plus there's always the option of Rolls-Royce keeping the core know-how in-house, perhaps building most or all of the module in the UK, only fueling it in the host country.
With Brexit there will be tremendous pressure for the UK to find and develop such cooperative, bilateral projects. In any event, we all know nuclear is dying (and mostly dead) in the West. So it's either something like the above, or nothing at all.
- roenxi 7y agoIf a nuclear expert is working in the middle east they will seriously have "get assassinated by Mossad" on their list of concerns. And that isn't hyperbole, it is just reasonably unlikely. Planning a politically fraught project literally sandwiched between Iran and Saudi Arabia is a level of risk that needs very cautious consideration. It wouldn't be at all surprising if a major power just quietly says "No, you can't encourage that sort of expertise in this region". There are a whole bunch of "they wouldn't do that it is illegal" style possibilities that would not happen in the UK that could reasonably eventuate in the Middle East. Including invasions related to oil shipping. Finding an oasis in the desert does not mean one is safe from dust storms.
- wahern 7y agoSo I did some digging. Many countries in the Middle East already have plans in the works, often in cooperation with Western companies. But plans don't count for squat. The UAE, however, has already finished a reactor unit--supposedly to be started soon--with 3 more units nearing completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant Times have changed, particularly with the Saudi-Iran contest and Turkeys hard turn to the right, which have aligned Israel with the Arabs. Plus, as a nuclear power itself Israel should be a good judge of proliferation risk, and with strong HUMINT and SIGINT capabilities able to detect actual and even intended proliferation. As an side, interestingly Taiwan has nuclear reactors. I figured Taiwan would be a nuclear free zone. They're probably too democratic to support Rolls-Royce's project; it seems public pressure has already killed construction of a new plant, there. I initially excluded South Korea for that reason--AFAIU public sentiment has soured on nuclear even though South Korea has the best track record in the world at on-time, on-budget construction. If nuclear is gonna grow any time soon it's gonna have to be at the hands of non-democratic nations.