Venezuela’s nuclear program – the alarmists are right

[kristopher]

Venezuela’s nuclear program – the alarmists are right
By Calvin Garner, Staff Editor
December 13, 2010

Venezuela’s national assembly recently ratified a measure that allows for civilian nuclear energy cooperation with Russia. The vote was part of an agreement made two years ago between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. The deal calls for Russia to provide Venezuela with technical support to develop two reactors for power generation and a third small-scale research reactor.

It might seem alarmist to equate a civilian nuclear program with the weakening of the non-proliferation regime, the threat of a nuclear arms race, or the further deterioration of U.S.-Russia relations. Unfortunately, history and the facts support such a conclusion.

A Venezuelan nuclear program is bad for global non-proliferation efforts. The civilian program is a necessary precondition for a weapons program and makes such a program possible. Venezuela’s close ties with Syria and Iran should cause observers to doubt just how seriously it will take its non-proliferation requirements under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the 1967 treaty making all of Latin America a nuclear weapons-free zone. Assuming that Chávez has the best of intentions now, there is the possibility that in the future he will choose to pursue nuclear weapons as a way to blunt U.S. power, shore up domestic support by rallying his people behind a nuclear crusade, or assert Venezuela’s role in the Americas. It is worth noting that leaders rarely announce that they plan to use peaceful nuclear technology as a stepping stone to a weapons program. Given Venezuela’s rich oil, gas, and hydroelectric resources, the need for a nuclear power program seems questionable.

Considering Chávez’s willingness to stand with those who snub the global non-proliferation regime and his hostility towards the United States and western institutions, he must be considered a candidate to say one thing and do another on the nuclear issue. Playing cat-and-mouse with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has proven to be a good way to win international attention, exact concessions from the West, or raise fears in neighbors’ minds about the possibility that a country has nuclear weapons capabilities. Unfortunately, the IAEA has not come up with a good way to keep leaders from stonewalling or punish those who do so. Even if Chávez neither has nor develops the intention to pursue nuclear weapons, he will find it increasingly attractive to evade or complicate the IAEA inspection regime for other reasons. In so doing, he will provide yet another example of ways to exploit weaknesses in the global non-proliferation regime.

Mixed signals from a nuclear Venezuela...

http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/240

[aquart]

1. We don't invade countries with nuclear weapons.

Other nations would be foolish not to notice that.

[FBaggins]

2. Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

Seems there was a little military activity there not so long ago. :)

[Someguyinjapan]

6. 4 helicopters full of guys

Is hardly the same as an Iraq-style invasion. I think the Pakistanis would know the difference, and their reaction might have been a bit different as well.

[bananas]

4. New Orleans was nuked by Katrina, Bush+Cheney didn't care.

And they wouldn't care if it had been a nuclear weapon instead of a hurricane.

[FBaggins]

5. Don't be ridiculous.

Had it been a nuclear weapon they would have had someone else they could declare war on.

Do try to think these things through. :)

[txlibdem]

7. That's the absolute truth

We find out that Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, has been harboring Osama Bin Laden for 5 or 6 years. Are we planning a regime change there? No, we're going to continue giving them $3 Billion each year.

Iraq, no nuclear weapons, we bring in the tanks and take out the leaders.
Afghanistan, no nuclear weapons, ... same
Honduras, no nuclear weapons, the CIA trains and equips death squads to install and prop up a pro-corporate despot
Nicaragua, Columbia, Chile, we've CIA'd them all and none had nuclear weapons, millions have died
Iran in 1953, we didn't like the leader so we installed the Shah and helped him murder any democratic opposition, leaving only the militant Islamists

North Korea, has "the bomb" and you better believe that "Dubya" wanted to be rolling tanks across the border. But he didn't and we never will. Because they have nuclear weapons.

When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons.

[kristopher]

8. So you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?

[txlibdem]

9. That phrase was not in my post, nor the one I was replying to

Putting words in my mouth is so much easier than proving your anti-nuke point with actual facts, actual quotes, actual data.

Anti-nuke = :dunce:

[kristopher]

10. You have a strange view of communication then.

This is a thread about Venezuala getting a civilian fission reactor and the negative effects of widespread fission energy deployment on international nonproliferation regime. In that context you wrote "When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons"

To ensure I'd understood your message I asked, "So you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?"

To which you responded, "That phrase was not in my post, nor the one I was replying to. Putting words in my mouth is so much easier than proving your anti-nuke point with actual facts, actual quotes, actual data. Anti-nuke = XXX"

If - in a thread about spreading nuclear energy and proliferation - you say "When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons" you are NOT saying that you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is the associated proliferation of nuclear weapons then just what are you saying?

[txlibdem]

11. My post (#7) was in response to #1, DU is nice enough to display that in the right corner

of header on each post. Reread those posts in order and you will see that your claim is baseless.

One of has a strange view of communication but it isn't me.

[kristopher]

12. what does that change in the meaning of your remark?

You've made similar comments several times in the past; always in threads about proliferation, so I'd like some clarity about what your meaning is if it isn't what I took it to be. Do you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is the associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?


Here is the exchange so far for your reference:
This is a thread about Venezuala getting a civilian fission reactor and the negative effects of widespread fission energy deployment on international nonproliferation regime. In that context you wrote "When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons"

To ensure I'd understood your message I asked, "So you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?"

To which you responded, "That phrase was not in my post, nor the one I was replying to. Putting words in my mouth is so much easier than proving your anti-nuke point with actual facts, actual quotes, actual data. Anti-nuke = XXX"

If - in a thread about spreading nuclear energy and proliferation - you say "When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons" you are NOT saying that you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is the associated proliferation of nuclear weapons then just what are you saying?

[txlibdem]

13. See post #1. Then see post #7. Did I type this slowly enough for you this time?

I sure hope so because your approval means the world to me, (we are dating now after all, right?).

The sub-thread was about countries with nukes never having to worry about being attacked, overthrown, or CIA'd by the good ole US of A. Please try to keep up.

[kristopher]

14. Why are you tap-dancing?

You wrote "When you look at the facts and the history of American Imperial aggression and oppression we should all be 100% in favor of every nation possessing nuclear weapons"

To ensure I'd understood your message I asked, "So you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?"

You've made similar comments several times in the past; always in threads about proliferation, so I'd like some clarity about what your meaning is if it isn't what I took it to be. Do you think a positive aspect of nuclear energy is the associated proliferation of nuclear weapons?

I don't understand why you are tap-dancing around this instead of just giving a straight answer.

[txlibdem]

15. Does Iran have the technical ability to build "the bomb" - does Iran have a nuclear reactor?

Yes to the first. NO to the second.

Your childish attempts to glue nuclear weapons onto the back of peaceful, zero-carbon nuclear power plants is just another of your anti-nuker talking points. Or is that one of your pro-fossil fuels talking points??? I sometimes don't know exactly which hat you wear on a given day.

In another OP it was shown that even coal ash can be used as the starting point for "the bomb" and one poster even made the outlandish claim that the dirt from someone's back yard near a coal plant could conceivably be the raw materials since each and every coal plant spews out about 2 tons of Uranium-235 each year (the average coal deposits being agreed to be 1.3 ppm Uranium, 0.071 ppm Uranium-235, and around 3.25 ppm Thorium).

But the same paper used to show that the amount of radiation from coal is too low to be worried about states that actual deposits in the USA range from 1 ppm to 10 ppm Uranium (with the other two elements increasing in their proper proportion).

So your transparent attempts to link peaceful nuclear power to nuclear weapons has failed. All it takes is money and determination to make enough material.
And by continuing to use gasoline or diesel fuel in our vehicles we are providing ample amounts of American cash to do just that.

PS, to my point about the millions of people who have been slaughtered or "went missing" around the world for their crimes of being in the way of American Capitalist expansion? I guess you are more focused on something else to give a crap about millions of people dead or tortured by death squads trained by the American CIA... My point in that comment was right on the money.

[txlibdem]

16. Update to my post above

Iran now has a nuclear reactor which began operation in August 2010.

Yet "Dubya" has been screaming about their "nook-yoo-lur" program for a decade.

At least I admit when I'm wrong. Since Iran's nuclear enrichment program began long before August of 2010, Iran still proves that one is possible without the other.

[kristopher]

17. Unfortunately I know you are not kidding...

Iran does have a reactor. They haven't fired it up yet, but they have one.

They also have a program to enrich their own fuel for their reactor. The enrichment facilities for the fuel for their reactor are the same enrichment facilities that they need to produce fissile material for a bomb.

They justify building the enrichment facility by claiming the right to energy self-sufficiency via nuclear power.

Without nuclear power, they would not have an avenue acceptable to the world community allowing them to build the enrichment facility.

That is precisely the pattern that is recognized as the link between civilian fission reactors and nuclear weapons proliferation.

Can you predict the political climate in Iran 10 years from now? How about 30 years from now? 50? If not, you cannot guarantee or even give a reasonable assurance that Iran is a place most would want to have nuclear weapons.

As for you not having the integrity to own your often stated position that nuclear proliferation is desirable, well, I doubt anyone is surprised that you refuse to own up to it even though you quite obviously just wrote it on this very thread.

[txlibdem]

19. See post #16 and post #18

I've posted it enough times over the past few months... and you're only now attempting to smear my character re my comments about nations that have nuclear weapons DO NOT get attacked by the US Military, DO NOT have their Democratically Elected leaders assassinated or overthrown by CIA-backed puppet despots?

You just haven't been paying attention at all. And unfortunately, you are also blissfully ignorant of the facts that the CIA and the US Military have been behind the deaths of tens of millions of people --whose only crime was that their nation DID NOT possess nuclear weapons and they democratically elected leaders who weren't "ok" with US Corporate Domination.

If those are your charges... I stand guilty as charged!

[txlibdem]

18. Look at the list of nuclear reactors in the world -- then factor how many nations have "the bomb"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Chile
Columbia - A CIA puppet with a history of training insurgents for US-backed overthrow of Democratically Elected leaders. Right on the border with Venezuela.

The list goes on... None of these nations possess a nuclear weapon IIRC. So your premise that the two go hand-in-hand is false. We both know it, why keep "banging that broken drum" to steal a phrase from one of your zombie posters.

[kristopher]

21. .

Iran does have a reactor. They haven't fired it up yet, but they have one.

They also have a program to enrich their own fuel for their reactor. The enrichment facilities for the fuel for their reactor are the same enrichment facilities that they need to produce fissile material for a bomb.

They justify building the enrichment facility by claiming the right to energy self-sufficiency via nuclear power.

Without nuclear power, they would not have an avenue acceptable to the world community allowing them to build the enrichment facility.

That is precisely the pattern that is recognized as the link between civilian fission reactors and nuclear weapons proliferation.

Can you predict the political climate in Iran 10 years from now? How about 30 years from now? 50? If not, you cannot guarantee or even give a reasonable assurance that Iran is a place most would want to have nuclear weapons.

As for you not having the integrity to own your often stated position that nuclear proliferation is desirable, well, I doubt anyone is surprised that you refuse to own up to it even though you quite obviously just wrote it on this very thread.

[txlibdem]

23. This is just an exact copy of your post #17.

I'm sorry I called that other poster the "King of Copy and Paste." I didn't know how much you coveted that title.

Please see the original reply to your original post (#17).

[damntexdem]

3. All nuclear programs, weapons AND energy, are threats to the world.

But the U.S. is in no position to do much preaching about it.

[Nederland]

20. Chuck full of lies

The civilian program is a necessary precondition for a weapons program and makes such a program possible.

This statement flies in the face of the historical reality that a majority of those countries that have nuclear weapons acquired them before they had civilian nuclear facilities of any type. Civilian nuclear programs are not necessary to build a bomb. They never have been, they never will be.

[kristopher]

22. Good job. That would be lie #6 in fact

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


Playing word games doesn't change the nature of nuclear fission nor the reality of global geopolitical relationships. Your claim is on a par with climate denial and no academic or industry figure with any stature would deny that deployment of nuclear fission reactors, at the scale needed to contribute even one wedge towards the solution to global warming, is associated with a very real problem of nuclear weapons proliferation.

For example, pronuclear MIT 2003 "The Future of Nuclear Power" identifies proliferation as one of 4 problems that must be solved BEFORE widescale deployment should take place:
"Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks."

[txlibdem]

24. Now we've come full circle. We're back on proliferation fear, Fear, FEAR again...

All the anti-nuclear power posters have is fear mongering. Rational people understand facts from reputable sources versus blather from the fear merchants and agents of the status quo.

Let me remind you:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the list of nuclear reactors in the world -- then factor how many nations have "the bomb"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Algeria
Argentina
Armenia
Bangladesh
Belgium
Brazil
Chile
Columbia - A CIA puppet with a history of training insurgents for US-backed overthrow of Democratically Elected leaders. Right on the border with Venezuela.

The list goes on... None of these nations possess a nuclear weapon IIRC. So your premise that the two go hand-in-hand is false. We both know it, why keep "banging that broken drum" to steal a phrase from one of your zombie posters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of these nations are dangerous to the world. Well, with the possible exception of Belgium --those chocolates are ADDICTIVE!!!