Originally posted by amannionStragetic alliances between countrys can change rather quickly. As I recall relations between Japan and the Allies went from friendly in WWI to unfriendly in WWII to friendly again after WWII, all in less than 50 years. Russia and China were part of the Allies in WWII and against their former allies only five years after WWII. Australia's close stragetic alliance with the USA could change rapidly. It probably won't, but it certainly could.
I can't.
(Do any of the scandinavian countries have enrichment programs for their reactors or do they get the fuel from someone else?)
But couldn't it happen?
I can't imagine Australia for example, developing nuclear weapons. Given our close strategic alliance with the US, we hardly need them do we?
Originally posted by DelmerYeah, I take your point, although you're talking about two very different cultural groups in Japan and the Allies.
Stragetic alliances between countrys can change rather quickly. As I recall relations between Japan and the Allies went from friendly in WWI to unfriendly in WWII to friendly again after WWII, all in less than 50 years. Russia and China were part of the Allies in WWII and against their former allies only five years after WWII. Australia's close stragetic alliance with the USA could change rapidly. It probably won't, but it certainly could.
Drop a group of Americans into any city or town in Australia, and I don't think there'd be much in the way of any sort of cultural confusion.
from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
Australia – Following World War II, Australian defence policy initiated joint nuclear weapons development with the United Kingdom. Australia provided uranium, land for weapons and rocket tests, and scientific and engineering expertise. Canberra was also heavily involved in the Blue Streak ballistic missile program. In 1955, a contract was signed with a British company to build the Hi-Flux Australian Reactor (HIFAR). HIFAR was considered the first step toward the construction of larger reactors capable of producing substantial volumes of plutonium for nuclear weapons. However, Australia's nuclear ambitions were abandoned by the 1960s, and the country signed the NPT in 1970 (ratified in 1973).
Originally posted by flexmoreYour point?
from wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons
Australia – Following World War II, Australian defence policy initiated joint nuclear weapons development with the United Kingdom. Australia provided uranium, land for weapons and rocket tests, and scientific and engineering expertise. Canberra was also heavily involve ...[text shortened]... bitions were abandoned by the 1960s, and the country signed the NPT in 1970 (ratified in 1973).
Originally posted by amannionif Canada had the same undesireable attributes as Iran, how far do you think they would get with an enrichment program?
I don't think being a NATO member gives them nukes.
Canada for example is in the same boat as Australia - that is, deciding whether enrichment is the way to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_enrichment
"Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U.
The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass required rapidly increases. However, judicious use of implosion and neutron reflectors can enable construction of a weapon from a quantity of uranium below the usual critical mass for its level of enrichment, though this would likely only be possible in a country which already had extensive experience in developing nuclear weapons. The presence of too much of the 238U isotope inhibits the runaway nuclear chain reaction that is responsible for the weapon's power. The critical mass for 85 % of highly enriched uranium is about 50 kilograms.
HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors as well as in nuclear submarine reactors, where it contains at least 50% 235U, but typically exceeds 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U.
[edit]
Low-enriched uranium (LEU)
Low-enriched uranium (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5 % 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the later concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.
Low-enriched uranium powder[edit]
Slightly enriched uranium (SEU)
Slightly enriched uranium (SEU) has a concentration of 235U between 0.9% and 2%.
This new grade is being used to replace Natural uranium (NU) fuel in some heavy water reactors like the CANDU. Costs are lowered because less uranium and fewer bundles are needed to fuel the reactor. This in turn reduces the quantity of used fuel and its subsequent waste management costs.
"
so, the second question is, if iran is pursuing a low-enrichment capability, what's all the fuss about? and why don't they prove it?
on the other hand, if they're pursuing something higher-grade, what's all the fuss about? they're on the same road as Iraq was. pursuing a WMD program or not pursuing a WMD program, and either way hiding their actions and purposes.