Josh Cryer wrote:Non-poliferation isn't about keeping people out of the club, it's about minimising ones ability to be a big player in the club.
Not the original intent. The original intent of the NPT was to keep the club
static. That has failed.
After new players join the club, scale up is only a matter of time.
Josh Cryer wrote:NK made their first nuke (a fizzle more than anything).
I'm not so sure about that. They may have used reactor grade plutonium in that device. Generally useless for weapons, but possibly sufficient to test the design reliably. And it spares on the rare weapons grade fissionables.
Josh Cryer wrote:I don't think Carter was necessarily wrong, as non-poliferation doesn't ban nuclear power, it highly regulates it.
It worked well for 30 years or so. Not a bad run.
Josh Cryer wrote:Nuclear power plants "failed" in the USA primarily due to the competitive nature of coal, and if you look at a chart of US electrical usage nuclear has managed to fullfill the gap pretty well (while no new plants have been built power upgrades have been made).
Fear of everything nuclear ratcheted up after 1965 and went stratospheric after TMI. IMO the primary reason for the "failure" of nuclear power in the US has been fear-driven suppressive regulation and lawsuits.
Josh Cryer wrote:Likewise a program for Polywell would probably fall under the same sort of scrutiny, but as long as people are burning pB11 we ought not care one iota.
IIRC the pB11 Polywell should be capable of burning all the other fuel cycles, given appropriate reworking of its power conversion systems.
I just don't see a comprehensive regulatory regime as being practical for polywells, even assuming weaponization fears are justified. Too many second tier states have "come of age" since the NPT was promulgated in 1968. Those states want "adulthood," which means nuclear weapons and immunity to Western attack and most political pressure. And once the details are worked out, building polywells should be relatively simple.
Josh Cryer wrote:Don't think that Republicans are "pro-poliferatin." It would go against their whole, yaknow, strong on foreign policy thing.
True.
Greater comfort with hydrocarbon emissions would intuitively seem to indicate higher tolerance of things potentially "dirty" in perception and reality. And anything with the word "nuclear" attached has had 'dirty' connotations for more than a generation.
Tho after review, Roger was correct that the perspective on the institutional Left does seem to be shifting productively. For this I am very grateful.
Josh Cryer wrote:When Roger posted his KOS diary he got a lot of very promising responses from people you might call rapid left wingers.
The more the merrier.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Polywell is a distinct effort and we can all march side by side on it, whilst returning to the paintball range to take pot shots at each other every other Saturday.
Josh Cryer wrote:The few leftists I do know who are opposed to nuclear power in any form are afraid of it, believe that the "anti-nuclear movement" quelled nuclear power stations from being built (it didn't, it was the market), and simply have no idea what they're talking about. I don't think most modern liberals (or Democrats) are opposed to fusion to any significant extent. At least not enough to *stop* Polywell from succeeding.
I would agree about Democratic leaders NOT wanting to stop fusion research or power. I remain concerned over the influence of their environmental/anti-nuclear absolutist wing, but the party establishment seems to have them under control. I wouldn't agree about the market vs psychology/ politics
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
. But the fear of nuclear power prevalent for the last generation does seem to be dying down. No emotional state lasts forever.
And, from my perspective, it is both ironic and reassuring that we are starting to get murmurs of support for nuclear power from the Environmental movement.
Josh Cryer wrote:Of course this is all assuming the thing works, but I'm hopeful.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Ditto. Implications here and elsewhere are highly promising.
Josh Cryer wrote:And Pure Fusion = 1-100 tons of TNT? OK. A bit of fertalizer would beat the low end projections of that thing.
Its entirely scalable Josh. A Teller-Ulam bomb is typically two stages but can notionally be "stacked" to any scale. So too a 4G nuke. Wrap it in U238 metal and use the 4G as the "spark," build the rest in stacked stages conventionally...
Curses of starting one's interest in nuclear sciences as an Orioneer.
Duane