As we have crafted the main points of a proposed treaty, we and other people in the IPFM have concluded that the technical challenges to achieving a verified FMCT are manageable. But political challenges would have to be overcome, too. Countries that are still building up their nuclear-weapon stocks—especially India and Pakistan—would have to decide that they have enough fissile material. And countries and nuclear establishments within them that are reluctant to accept international inspections, including China, Russia and the U.S. Navy, would have to be willing to cooperate. A verified FMCT is an essential first step toward creating a system of international controls on nuclear materials that will allow nations to cut their weapon stockpiles deeply and move toward a world without nuclear weapons.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentWhy do the countries that currently have nuclear weapons have the "moral right" to tell other countries that they can not have them? It seems entirely logical that any country not currently possessing a WMD of some type would seek them as potection againest those with the weapons dictating the terms under which they are to operate in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA brilliant idea! Here here!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce the major nuclear holdings are gone, then the most powerful countries can actually force smaller nuclear countries to get rid of their arsenals, without appearing completely hypocritical.
We'll successfully turn our swords into plowshares before they turn us in plods.
The Genni is out of the bottle, so dictating that other countries are going to get this stuff.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would recommend using tactical nuclear weapons in a stealth aircraft at night. Then you could blame the explosion on the other country not handling their material correctly.
Ya, and let's ban murder as well. That way we won't have people wrongfully killing other people. Banning the production of weapons grade material only limits production by countries towing the international line. The problem is the countries doing that now are not the problem! No one is worried about the United States or Russia launching nukes! People are worried about North Korea, Iran, and etc. Do you really think banning weapons grade production will do a freaking thing in regard to these countries??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not against the ban. But I'm also not so naive to believe it will have any impact whatsoever on the countries it is intended to impact.
"Why do the countries that currently have nuclear weapons have the "moral right""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause democracy is a morally superior form of government. Therefore democratic nations have a moral right to tell dictator thug nations to tow the line.
It's that simple for someone not brainwashed by moral relativism.
"I'm not against the ban. But I'm also not so naive to believe it will have any impact whatsoever on the countries it is intended to impact. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's stupid to spend time creating something meaningless and useless.
The best ban against thug nations getting nuclear weapons is a bomb in the middle of their nuclear facilities.
The plutonium from nuclear power reactors is so contaminated by plutonium isotopes that is far too costly and dangerous to handle to be of any use in weapons production. All plutonium used in nukes has come from special cheapo reactors dedicated to that purpose not multi billion dollar power reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article and its silly remarks about fuel reprocessing is typical antinuclear propaganda.
Countries will enter into a treaty such as this when they believe it is in their national interest to do so. Consequently, they must feel confident that reducing stockpiles of fissle material and allowing inspection of facilities and material will not threaten the number of weapons presumed to be needed to defend the nation. When they are assured of this, compliance with the treaty will be more easily forthcoming. They would save some of the huge expense of building and maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dream, stature and expected security to be realized from nuclear weapons will not disappear. Some nations will always seek that. The benefit of a treaty such as FMCT is to take some of the material "off the street."
Super fantastic article. I wish all of SciAm's articles was as incredible as this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLittle countries, such as Pakistan, need to be reinsured that more powerful countries such as, Russia, United States, or Isrial will not ensalve or occupy them and if any of these nuclear capable countries would try to occupy them or Lord themselves over them, the UN would immediatly stop the occupation with unlimited military force and even assisation of that country's president; drastic times require drastic measures. If these countries were ensured of this fact, the nuclear disarmnent can begin.
It is common knowledge that nuclear power plants is a cover for the production of nuclear weapons. Elimate the production for nuclear ore and restrict countries who want to build nuclear power plants to using nuclear waste material...we have billons of tons of it. The technology exists and it should be implemented, and paid for by more power countries, like the US, Russia, India, and China, with all manufacturing of nuclear energy power plants. If any country is discovered manufacturing nuclear material to use in their nuclear power plants, the president of that country will be eliminated, or replaced with a more humane president from a neutral country until they can prove they are capabile of ruling themselves again. Scare these nuclear capable countries with a powerful force and they will comply.
If you "pussy-foot" around, you will never achieve a thing. Countries, with an agenda of destruction, war, and poverty only understand one thing..."If you develope nuclear war capabilities, we will destroy your president and government and replace it with a more capatible government of our choice until you prove yourself capable of ruling yourself with one of your countrymen...no questions asked".
Tough love will get you a long way. Without order, their
You need to establish a "World Judgment Committee" with representivies from every nation on earth (no exception), with the power to take immediate action with disorderly countries to get them back in order. If their intentions are to destroy...then their government will be destroyed or restructured with a world appointed leader until they can prove themselves capable of leading themselves again.
Ignorance must be overcome with intelligence. Destructive governments must be overcome with productive, humane governments.
Do not be afraid to enforce a world rule, or humanity. If you do not stop these destroyers, no matter who they are, then they will destroy every thing they can until you stop them.
Your responses are very typical of those in the United States....you believe that the world revolves around you and that your systems are the best. Not everyone in the world agrees....most do not in fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to your line of thought it would be acceptable for a third world democracy to develop nuclear weapons?? Seems pretty unlikely. US policy is to maintain the monolopy to maintain the power....that hardly seems fair though to the rest of the world
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike it or not, democracies don't attack other democracies.
Perhaps most other people in the world would agree if they were asked, but oh...that would be democracy...
so we ban plutonium. there goes any nuclear powered space vehicles... i totally understand the weapons part. but you have to understand the rest of the equation
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no ban on innovation, effort, and pioneering spirit. Rather than piss and moan about how U.S.'s position in the world is so unfair why don't other countries simply outperform the U.S. in terms of scientific, technological, and human rights advances?? No, instead of spending billions of their own money they just rely on the U.S. to do it. Then they just complain about how its unfair that the U.S. has something they don't.
Well, quite frankly I don't give a damn. Whether you think so or not democracy and the respect for free thought and human dignity is superior to totalitarian control. Its hardly just the U.S. who thinks this!
You know why the U.S. is superior in this regard? Say, hypothetically, Iran had nuclear weapons and ICBM's and the U.S. did not. What do you think the result would be? They would have blown us to kingdom come. We are superior because we actually respect life and freedom enough to not wish for the Iranian destruction but, rather, the liberation of its people. THAT is the fundamental difference. So you can blow your anti-American rhetoric and blow it our your ear.
The concepts of the nation/state, sovereignty, and treaties need to be reexamined. The new reality of people willing to spend their own lives and the lives of others to gain political or religious advantage is incompatible with our traditional solutions. The proposed treaty would neither prevent nor curtail nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. We must find another way!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIran wants a nuclear weapon. We have nuclear weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we should give Iran a couple.
Around 2:00 am. Tomorrow. That should do it.
May be, but for sure it is time to regulate activities that lead to economical crisis, a repeated untoward fact
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"why don't other countries simply outperform the U.S. in terms of scientific, technological, and human rights advance"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, most other democracies in the world are doing just that. The US' growing irrelevance in the world is shown in your statements.
Your position seems to be based on the idea that the US governmental system is democracy, and that in your opinion it is the best system of government; so the US has some right to have nuclear weapons and other countries without a democracy do not have these rights.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnder this type of thought process any country would seem to have to right, or duty; to impose on other countries whatever system of values that they feel is right. Personally do not want to see this perspective adopted worldwide. I do not want to bow to Mecca, or think women are inferior to men, so I feel that is a bad idea.
I suggest that the US has no right to stop other countries from developing nuclear weapons. Long term, nuclear weapons are really yesterdays technology anyway. If I were running a 3rd world country and wanted to be important on the world stage, I would be developing biological weapons. The technology is devastating, it costs far less to develop a really scary weapon, and all the development can be easily hidden under the guise of legitimate medical research. Plus you actually do get occasional medical breakthroughs as a by product.
Yes, my initial comment was just to see how people would react, but having lived much of my life outside the USA, you do get a different perspective.
This is not a science article. You are turning this magazine into a ploitical science propaganda organ to push your own prejudices. Scientific American has come a long way down from the days when I couldn't wait to get my subscription.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere are my responses to the questions posed by Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich arguments do you agree or disagree with? Why? Have the authors overlooked factors that could make a treaty more likely, less likely or impossible?
Although the Princeton-associated authors have supportable goals regarding a cut-off in weapons-grade fissile-material production, they have also contributed to its failure in the past 20 years, having introduced and commingled counterproductive anti-nuclear agendas.
Should a treaty apply just to future production of fissile materials for weapons or should it try to capture the large stocks of unsafeguarded fissile materials that already exist but are not assigned to weapons?
One obstacle to a universal treaty has been the technically unsubstantiated position (habitually associated with Frank von Hippel and Amory Lovins) that nations have or would make weapons out of inferior materials. Franks obdurate usage of imprecise terminology, such as weapons-usable, has been a factor contributing to lack of progress in negotiations. Moreover, his widely presented and discriminative posture against reactor advancements and nuclear-fuel conservancy complicates universal acceptance of a fissile cutoff.
If limited in scope to weapon-grade materials, a treaty might be more palatable.
What should be done with fissile materials in nuclear weapons that are no longer needed?
Half the power reactors in the United States now consume some fuel fabricated with weapon-grade uranium and/or plutonium. Surplus weapon-grade fissile materials can be profitably and irrevocably demilitarized by burnup in existing nuclear reactors.
Should controls and inspections of fissile materials apply equally to all nations, or should nuclear weapon states be treated differently, even for their civilian nuclear materials?
All nuclear materials warrant commensurate safeguards. Hyped up fears about established nuclear-weapon states making weapons out of low-grade materials should not have been allowed to become a show-stopper. With the Cold War having come to a passive end, hegemonic considerations that gave rise to a fissile-cutoff treaty has been superseded by new realities for international collaboration in equitable control and safeguarding of nuclear materials.
A. DeVolpi, PhD
Here are my responses to the “questions” posed by Scientific American:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Which arguments do you agree or disagree with? Why? Have the authors overlooked factors that could make a treaty more likely, less likely or impossible?”
Although the Princeton-associated authors have supportable goals regarding a cut-off in weapons-grade fissile-material production, they have also contributed to its failure in the past 20 years, having introduced and commingled counterproductive anti-nuclear agendas.
“Should a treaty apply just to future production of fissile materials for weapons or should it try to capture the large stocks of unsafeguarded fissile materials that already exist but are not assigned to weapons?”
One obstacle to a universal treaty has been the technically unsubstantiated position (habitually associated with Frank von Hippel and Amory Lovins) that nations have or would make weapons out of inferior materials. Frank’s obdurate usage of imprecise terminology, such as “weapons-usable,” has been a factor contributing to lack of progress in negotiations. Moreover, his widely presented and discriminative posture against reactor advancements and nuclear-fuel conservancy complicates universal acceptance of a fissile cutoff.
If limited in scope to weapon-grade materials, a treaty might be more palatable.
“What should be done with fissile materials in nuclear weapons that are no longer needed?”
Half the power reactors in the United States now consume some fuel fabricated with weapon-grade uranium and/or plutonium. Surplus weapon-grade fissile materials can be profitably and irrevocably demilitarized by burnup in existing nuclear reactors.
“Should controls and inspections of fissile materials apply equally to all nations, or should nuclear weapon states be treated differently, even for their civilian nuclear materials?”
All nuclear materials warrant commensurate safeguards. Hyped up fears about established nuclear-weapon states making weapons out of low-grade materials should not have been allowed to become a show-stopper. With the Cold War having come to a passive end, hegemonic considerations that gave rise to a fissile-cutoff treaty has been superseded by new realities for international collaboration in equitable control and safeguarding of nuclear materials.
–A. DeVolpi, PhD
Big Oil wants to keep competing technologies out of business. Big Oil has huge profits, which can be used for that purpose, paying bonuses to SciAm for good pro-oil articles, for instance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames davis-- What the heck are you smoking??? What great force is going to implement your directives??? LOL....Try to be realistic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisunderlining the significance of a FMCT, authors observe that it would strengthen resolve among "non-weapon" states for collective action against challenges like North Korea and Iran. How would FMCT urge non- weapon states on collective action against nuclear challenges of DPRK and Iran, while they themselves have already commited to non-production of fissile material for weapons under NPT? And by virtue of NPT they should have motivation to prevent breach of the treaty (NPT) by states parties like DPRK and Iran. A FMCT would affect weapon states; both NPT recognised and those outside it. It would not have ANY SIGNIFICANT DIRECT IMPACT on non-weapon states. Yes, as a significant move to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, it may encourage international community for further collaborative efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are dreaming if you think Iran, No. Korea or several others who want nuclear weapons will quit working on enriching Uranium for a nuclear weapon. The Muslim radicals want to blow us to Kingdom come and will stop at nothing to get their hands on such as weapon. They have and, currently, laugh at the US and UN warnings and our efforts to stop their production. You and our President must quit living in a dreamworld. Other countries will not behave as we would like and Obama is to weak to enforce any rules.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Joseph Prince, PH.D., MPH, ASCP. Braselton GA.
I think that this would be a stupid, unenforceable law. It would also pave the way for worldwide tyranny. Signing away national and local sovereignty in order to gain the mere illusion of safety would be a bad deal all the way around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of banning materials, we should ban actual bad behavior. Bans on materials will just lead to more pathetic impasses such as the UN versus Iran, the UN versus North Korea, etc., so forth.
Effectively, Iran got where it is today in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Informing them that any misuse of their nuclear arsenal will result in their nuclear obliteration - and maintaining a nuclear arsenal strong enough to do the job quickly and effectively - would be more effective and moral.
These efforts toward disarmament are well-intentioned and we really need to move in that direction but that will still leave nuclear weapons aplenty in the world and as long as they exist it seems only a matter of time until they get used again. Something has to be done to eliminate them entirely and one way to do that is to use them up. The way to do that is to revitalize the old Orion concept of atomic-bomb-powered spacecraft (not the latest NASA Orion project) and use them to propel tremendously large and heavy spacecraft carrying 50 or more scientists out to Mars and possibly even Jupiter and Saturn. Each mission would consume tens of thousands of bombs and deplete the supply until they're essentially all gone. Atomic detonations in the atmosphere could be avoided by blasting into orbit the raw materials at orbital velocity from a nuclear powered launching gun almost Jules Verne style, radioactive materials from the "gun" contained by a sliding boot or "sabot" which would stop at the top of the bore leaving the projectile to continue into earth orbit. The technologies are all there although much development remains before it could be accomplished, and it would require a huge commitment in resources and political capital that may not be attainable. But it's just one way toward a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear bombs by actually getting rid of them permanently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPFM proposed fissile material treaty may be technically affordable for the parties; it is not balanced in its demands. It primarily affects the Non-NPT weapon states, while for NPT weapon states, it only seeks to formalize their present commitments by placing their civilian and weapons-excess materials under IAEA safeguards. The treaty is mild on the issue of existing stocks and leaves out the core demand of substantial reductions, by obligation, in the huge fissile material stocks of NPT weapon states that can be used for building thousands of new nuclear warheads. The authors observe that US and Russia have each declared that about 40 percent of their Cold War stockpiles of HEU, and roughly 25 and 50 percent, respectively, of their weapon-grade plutonium is unneeded for military purposes. formalizing these declarations and placing the said materials under IAEA safeguards will significantly cut their weapon-usable fissile material stocks. OK. But it should not be overlooked that more than 60% of their remaining stocks could build thousands of weapons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUSA plays a World Policeman role in the whole world .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthey care about everything ,
This is incredibly foolish. There is no way, long term, that such a ban is good for anyone, and it cannot truly prevent the production of weapons grade uranium, nor plutonium. In fact, it creates a significant problem in terms of nuclear power generation. Despite the beliefs of many, uranium is an exhaustable resource, and the most efficient methods of using it for power generation inherently produce plutonium, which must be recycled as fuel for reactors, else we will exhaust the supply of fissile materials all the faster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are not yet at a point in our science and technology where we have an non-exhaustable source of energy even adequately prototyped, so that our ability to feed the population we have now, off into a distant future, is sure. And these nuts want to start reducing the available supply of energy from proven source? This is insane!
as a 64 year old who oppossed thhe Vietnam conflict, and war in general, it makes no sense whatsoever for nations to have stockpiles of weapons that could and would if used, either annihilate mankind, or alter our ability to continues as a species, let alone the other speciaes who call Earth home
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas a 64 year old who oppossed thhe Vietnam conflict, and war in general, it makes no sense whatsoever for nations to have stockpiles of weapons that could and would if used, either annihilate mankind, or alter our ability to continues as a species, let alone the other speciaes who call Earth home
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes i also like ( sarcasm ) to see more bans on all risky and questionable behaviors of people or governments any where. and everywhere. ha ha. no really i do kinda see a need for some readjustment in the marginal ratio of power between people and nations. would force a lot of even unsupected problems currently insoluble, to soluble again. in other words some way im certain that this would be a good thing. anybody out there see that as an ever widening, ever more wide, and distant gap! democracy.......you sir are deluded. democracy has long been extinct.who told you this order and law theory???? any more order and id rather be dead. and i am not joking there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reply to spectralmist, there was an interesting article in the Dec 2005 SciAm (pp64-71) about a type of reactor and a fuel cycle which would squeeze 99% of the energy from uranium ore instead of the current 5% or 6% while also greatly reducing the waste problem and never separating plutonium. Unfortunately, fast-neutron reactors seem to be regarded as too expensive. (Whether this takes into account that they could be used to put unwanted plutonium to good use, I don't know.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisban this all you want, it may help, but will not eliminate this threat due to human nature, as countries like N. Korea and Myanmar will subjugate their peoples with an elite that will definitely want nuclear force as a wild card, ala South Africa before assimilation of the masses of Zulu.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was a quality control nuclear inspector. One of the reasons that I live in Hawaii is I am 2700 miles upwind from the nearest commercial nuclear power plant. THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA!!!! Between the environmental damage caused from the mining and the 750,000 storage problem, this is a fools idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that radioactive waste should be stored in space. There is already a ton of radiation out there anyway, so it won't hurt to add a little more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cat is out of the bag. The USA, Russia, former soviet republics, France, Britain, Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea have nuclear weapons. Australia, Canada Japan, Germany etc could get them easily if they wanted to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA much more revelant issue is nuclear waste disposal and as far as I am aware the only practical approach is fast breeder reactors which produce plutonium as a by product. I am not sure about a Thorium cycle. Essentially irrelevant concern about nuclear weapons proliferation should not be used to stymie developments in new nuclear technology.
You will never stop proliferation while dominant countries continue to produce nuclear wastes. The solution is to run down the nuclear industry rather than making excuses to justify it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWish we could be free of TNT, dynamite bad karma and the list goes on. It's a weapon nothing more nothing less. And I know this will ignite passionate response but I'm glad we have them. It kept the US and USSR in check and with the right attitude it will keep the nut nation's in check as well. Let their terrorists now that "doing" NYC will result in certain capitol cities being vaporized in return.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou're right and we need to get out of that business!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne only has to look at history to see that this "solution" has been tried and failed. The UN has been powerless to stop any country from developing or enriching nuclear materials in the past and has nothing to enforce future development and enrichment. There has never been a time in history where countries, or individuals for that matter, can be forced to behave in socially acceptable / desirable ways, even with sanctions or criminal penalties are applied. There will always be the country who chooses to have nuclear weapons or who chooses to attack another country for gain of land, food, power, or natural resources. At times, it will be to amass power, and other times, to feed starving people. Likewise, there will always be individuals who choose to murder, steal, rape, or abuse others through verbal or physical control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, looking back through history, the only successful strategy for "world peace" or "personal responsibility" is to set desirable standards (which may be different for different countries and individuals) but have significant, sometimes violent sanctions for those who "CHOOSE" to not comply, e.g., death penalty or military eradication of those who are killing innocent populations. That is the ONLY successful strategy throughout history that will insure peace and prevent those who CHOOSE to harm/dominate/abuse others from doing so, either on a national or personal level. To believe that there will never be human beings who choose to behave in ways that harm others, either personally or societally, e.g., Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ted Bundy, Charlie Manson, is naive at best and ignorant at worst. Anyone who believes that "world peace" can be achieved by controlling human behavior or human nature will find that they have only enabled those who do not choose to be controlled to have an easier time dominating those individuals or countries or societies who allowed themselves to be controlled in the misguided belief that everyone else would do the same.
Like it or not, there will always be a need for violence or force through military or police action to control a significant number of people/countries/societies/dictators who refuse to follow the laws, norms, peaceful intentions, or even basic humanity that others in those groups value. To believe otherwise shows extreme ignorance of history or lack of education or lack of understanding of human nature / human psychopathology.
Iran has been inspected and noone has been able t find proof of any weapons grade production. HOWEVER Israel has one of the largest stockpiles of nukes in the world. Are we gonna fall for that old anti Islamic bromide again?(yellow cake-SadaamMushroom cloud) Israel is the trouble maker in the middle east. Not Iran. Not Afghanistan. Not Pakistan. These Hawkish people already control our media, our money, Isnt it about time that we took off the blinders regarding the jews. The Holocaust is not a carte blanche to act like a jerk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStart with Dimona.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it is important to keep a strong presence of nuclear authority in the world. Here are the most significant detonations in history...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.whatpoll.com/nuclear-explosions
I think it is important to keep a strong nuclear authority over the world. This history of nuclear power is etched on the minds of the whole world. This is the most significant events in history...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.whatpoll.com/nuclear-explosions
I do not agree with the premise that a specific treaty should be implemented banning weapons grade material production. My opinion is the ideas proposed in this article should be addressed by incorporating them into an ammended version of the NPT. Ammending or re-writing the NPT to ban HEU and Pu production would also allow other flaws in the 42 year old treaty to be addessed. For example, Article V of the NPT relates to the use of peaceful nuclear explosives (PNE) and the agreement by nuclear weapons states to provide non-weapon states with such devices upon request. Although Article V of the NPT is in conflict with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which bans all nuclear explosions, the CBT was proulgated by the UN in 1996, but has not been ratified or entered into force. As a consequence of the CBT not having entered into force, nuclear weapons states still have a theoretical legal obligation to provide non-nuclear weapons states with PNE under Article V of the NPT. I do agree a ban on Pu and HEU production is needed, but it should be addressed by ammedending the NPT to eliminate Article V which will provide congruity and clarity under international law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this