4 ms·

>We know the path we chose, limited global use of fission power, mostly avoided nuclear weapons proliferation, and did avoid nuclear exchanges. So it's provably

>We know the path we chose, limited global use of fission power, mostly avoided nuclear weapons proliferation, and did avoid nuclear exchanges. So it's provably a successful (or probably successful) path. Only if you value the lack of nuclear exchanges over the impacts of climate change. Which one of the two is more likely to cause a mass extinction type issue on the planet, one puts the control in the hands of people and the other the forces of nature.

ethbr0 5y ago
I'd say I do. Climate change is colossal in problem magnitude, but temporally slow and distributed in impact. Nuclear weapons are terrifying fast and centralized in impact. Unfortunately, our civilization is also mostly centralized. Cities, ports, highly productive land : total land area. If you're talking persistent radioactive effects for a decade+, it doesn't take many to severely cripple the world. As an example, a 100kt weapon (or smaller dirty) could knock a port out of action. Now look at a list of ports [0] and imagine what would happen if one or more of them dropped off the global trade grid for multiple years. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_po...
- qwytw 5y ago
  How would the increase in the number of nuclear power plants lead to more nuclear weapons? There is no direct connection besides edge cases like Iran using it as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Someone please correct me if I'm speaking inaccurately, but early reactor design (1950s/60s/70s) focused on light water reactors, which meant enriched U-235 fuel (@ ~3%?). By design, these reactors also convert a portion of their U-238 to P-239, only some of which is then consumed in the reactor. Consequently, for widespread nuclear reactors (read: in many countries), you also had widespread proliferation of lightly enriched uranium (in the fuel) and proliferation of plutonium (produced in the fuel as the reactor runs). Both of these remove the most time and energy consuming step (low level enrichment) as an obstacle to state nuclear weapons development. And they're fundamental to the way light water reactor technology works, especially with the limitations of the period. So the only way you could have had proliferation-resistance would have been to have some sort of global fuel-control and -custody agreement (presumably run by the United States, USSR, and maybe France, depending on the time period). Which sovereign countries would have likely felt some kind of way about.
    - qwytw 5y ago
      The number of new nuclear reactors only stopped growing in the 80's. In any case I don't think access to material is the limiting factor in nuclear proliferation. If we're talking about the US and USSR, it's completely irrelevant, even if they had 100x more reactors since they already have more than enough bombs to more or less to blow up the entire world. Other western countries either have enough nukes already or don't need or want them and I don't see why would they export technology or material to countries which are hostile to them. It's not obvious to me that having more nuclear reactors in the US, Britain or Germany would had made it significantly easier for rogue states like Iraq, Iran or North Korea to developed nuclear weapons.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        So you're talking about having more nuclear power, but only in First World economies? That seems... ethically dubious.
        qwytw 5y ago
        Why is it anymore ethically dubious than having more solar or wind power in first world countries? But no, I'm not necessarily saying that. I just disagree with the claim that if nuclear power continued growing at the same rate as it did prior to 1979 that would somehow have lead to higher proliferation of nuclear weapons.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        It's ethically dubious because solar or wind power wasn't an option in the 50s-70s. So you're effectively gating the majority of the world off from nuclear power, enjoyed by developed economies. Which would have developed economies of scale (see: France) with the end result of developed countries having access to cheaper power than developing ones. And I'm confused. Your reasoning around why more reactors wouldn't have increased nuclear weapon proliferation was contingent on only the US, USSR, Britain, and Germany (and presumably countries like them, to an approximation) having more reactors. Either you get to say that (a) all countries, or (b) only "responsible" (for lack of a better word) countries should have used more nuclear power. If (a), then you have increased proliferation risk. If (b), then you're establishing (and presumably militarily enforcing) a two-tier ability to access cheap energy, that favors developed nations.

ethbr0 5y ago

I'd say I do. Climate change is colossal in problem magnitude, but temporally slow and distributed in impact. Nuclear weapons are terrifying fast and centralized in impact. Unfortunately, our civilization is also mostly centralized. Cities, ports, highly productive land : total land area. If you're talking persistent radioactive effects for a decade+, it doesn't take many to severely cripple the world. As an example, a 100kt weapon (or smaller dirty) could knock a port out of action. Now look at a list of ports [0] and imagine what would happen if one or more of them dropped off the global trade grid for multiple years. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_ports https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_container_po...

qwytw 5y ago
How would the increase in the number of nuclear power plants lead to more nuclear weapons? There is no direct connection besides edge cases like Iran using it as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Someone please correct me if I'm speaking inaccurately, but early reactor design (1950s/60s/70s) focused on light water reactors, which meant enriched U-235 fuel (@ ~3%?). By design, these reactors also convert a portion of their U-238 to P-239, only some of which is then consumed in the reactor. Consequently, for widespread nuclear reactors (read: in many countries), you also had widespread proliferation of lightly enriched uranium (in the fuel) and proliferation of plutonium (produced in the fuel as the reactor runs). Both of these remove the most time and energy consuming step (low level enrichment) as an obstacle to state nuclear weapons development. And they're fundamental to the way light water reactor technology works, especially with the limitations of the period. So the only way you could have had proliferation-resistance would have been to have some sort of global fuel-control and -custody agreement (presumably run by the United States, USSR, and maybe France, depending on the time period). Which sovereign countries would have likely felt some kind of way about.
  - qwytw 5y ago
    The number of new nuclear reactors only stopped growing in the 80's. In any case I don't think access to material is the limiting factor in nuclear proliferation. If we're talking about the US and USSR, it's completely irrelevant, even if they had 100x more reactors since they already have more than enough bombs to more or less to blow up the entire world. Other western countries either have enough nukes already or don't need or want them and I don't see why would they export technology or material to countries which are hostile to them. It's not obvious to me that having more nuclear reactors in the US, Britain or Germany would had made it significantly easier for rogue states like Iraq, Iran or North Korea to developed nuclear weapons.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      So you're talking about having more nuclear power, but only in First World economies? That seems... ethically dubious.
      - qwytw 5y ago
        Why is it anymore ethically dubious than having more solar or wind power in first world countries? But no, I'm not necessarily saying that. I just disagree with the claim that if nuclear power continued growing at the same rate as it did prior to 1979 that would somehow have lead to higher proliferation of nuclear weapons.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        It's ethically dubious because solar or wind power wasn't an option in the 50s-70s. So you're effectively gating the majority of the world off from nuclear power, enjoyed by developed economies. Which would have developed economies of scale (see: France) with the end result of developed countries having access to cheaper power than developing ones. And I'm confused. Your reasoning around why more reactors wouldn't have increased nuclear weapon proliferation was contingent on only the US, USSR, Britain, and Germany (and presumably countries like them, to an approximation) having more reactors. Either you get to say that (a) all countries, or (b) only "responsible" (for lack of a better word) countries should have used more nuclear power. If (a), then you have increased proliferation risk. If (b), then you're establishing (and presumably militarily enforcing) a two-tier ability to access cheap energy, that favors developed nations.