4 ms·

>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors withou

>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start getting into weapon-making territory. Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility", not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I agree that you can run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons. However, investment in nuclear reactors and in nuclear research reduces the cost of nuclear weapons, so they are indeed dual-use. Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc... So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.
ashwagary 5y ago
Nuclear is a bad example because of enrichement differences. Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.
qiskit 5y ago
> Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility" By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority. > not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade. Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.

sudosysgen 5y ago

I agree that you can run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons. However, investment in nuclear reactors and in nuclear research reduces the cost of nuclear weapons, so they are indeed dual-use. Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc... So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.

ashwagary 5y ago

Nuclear is a bad example because of enrichement differences. Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.

qiskit 5y ago

> Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility" By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority. > not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade. Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.