A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.
A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.
It's actually the opposite. Centrifuges are a cheaper and easier enrichment method. A single uranium centrifuge is on the order of $10,000 to $20,000. It's economical to run lots of centrifuges, but you could in theory get up to high enrichment just using the same centrifuge again and again.
Lot's of non-nuclear weapons states do have access, the Netherlands for example enriches more uranium annually than the UK. It's the components of centrifuges that are tightly controlled. Building enrichment facilities is well within the capabilities of pretty much any nation state, it's doing it secretly which is the hard part.
This alternative technique only makes sense at extremely small quantities. For their primary market of making medical isotopes, it makes a lot of sense. For nuclear reactor fuel it's incredibly impractical.
>And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.
It's not that difficult from an engineering perspective, the tech is almost a century old. It's just that we will drop bombs on anyone who tries.
Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
> It's just that we will drop bombs on anyone who tries.
I don't recall us bombing Pakistan, India, Israel, China, or North Korea.
> Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
The comedy hour at HN has arrived. See above ^^^
>I don't recall us bombing...China
As far as i know, USA was seriously considering doing this in 1964. However the soviets said that would mean war, so they didn't.
North Korea is so firmly in China and Russia's sphere of influence that bombing them would be hard, especially given how much conventional weapons they have pointed at south korea. That said, would you really want to be north korea? economic warfare has done a number on them. in many ways they are the poster child for nuke != winning.
Israel probably snuck through by doing it early enough and secretively enough that it was fait accompli. They probably tested their nukes before the nuclear non proliferation treaty was even signed.
so really you have india and pakistan. The fact there are so few exceptions kind of proves the system works.
> Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
It relies on getting nukes being an irrational move for most countries. Yes part of that is your enemies will start preventive wars to stop that. A very major part of it is the economic consequences of developing nukes is usually not worth it. Part of it is the smart strategy is to just do most of the work and stop before getting nukes - if shit hits the fan you can get nukes quickly, but going up to the line without crossing it has none of the negative consequences.
North Korea isn't doing so well, but it's doing better than Iraq, Libya, or Venezuela at least as far as the leadership is concerned. Their conventional forces being within artillery range of Seoul probably helps but having multiple credible nukes really has helped them to avoid being a target of regime change.
The US tried regime change in 1950. The issue was that china didn't want an american puppet state on its borders so intervened. That is just as true now as it was 75 years ago.
Iraq, Libya and Venezuela don't have powerful friends willing to go to bat for them.
You argued against your own point beautifully.
Nuclear nonproliferation relies on surveillance/monitoring and statecraft.
There are many, many steps before "drop bombs".
It's not difficult from a conceptual engineering perspective but it is difficult from an industrial scale perspective. It requires a tremendous amount of hardware and energy and precision equipment.
>And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.
low-enrichment (~20%) is what's happening here.
the bad stuff, for nukes, is ~90% enrichment.
It's the same process either way, and the first few percent are the hardest (as it's super dilute so you need to handle a lot of material). It's much easier to go from 20% to 90%, than it is to get to 20%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separative_work_units
5% enrichment (regular reactor grade) is 2/3 the way to weapons grade already.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
Hence there technically being no enrichment cap for any country that signed the NPT and stuff (not to be confused with protection from US bombs or rogue states that never signed the NPT).