> Overblown issue when you think about it. >> Assume good faith. I think about it and I come to a different conclusion. Thank you for stating that I type such

> Overblown issue when you think about it. >> Assume good faith. I think about it and I come to a different conclusion. Thank you for stating that I type such a long message without thinking about it. > And there are many reactor designs and fuel cycles that make it totally unpractical for a whole host of reasons. I am not convinced this is true. Please suggest a fuel cycle which could not be use for proliferation when one is allowed to spike it with other materials and one also can add steps to the waste nuclear processing to extract products? Fuel cycles also don't address nuclear waste which can be processed further allowing at least dirty bombs and fuel can be disposed in manners which violate out western sensibilities in totalitarian states. > The reality is, its a very unlikely vector, if a nation has the finances to do it, they will just do it. Well having nuclear capabilities makes it a lot more feasible to have the means and money to build them. > you basically have the same thing as a Concentrated Solar Plant. Except instead of solar mirrors which can be taken care of by every country you have a highly complicated plant which locals might not be able to maintain, build in slightly unsafe ways, not inspect properly, not maintain properly, not shutdown when it needs to be shutdown, shutdown wrongly or use for proliferation. > So every country could be safe in assuming that they would continue to have power even if international trade was blocked. This would be objectively be a bad thing though. Isolationism is what allowed for war in the last century. Borders which goods cross, soldiers (or nukes) do not. It also would weaken human rights in countries which are no longer dependent on the good will of the world. I hope that you were not aware of these implications.