Report - Stephen A. LaMontagne

Multinational Approaches to Limiting the Spread of Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Cycle Capabilities

    Author:
  • Stephen A. LaMontagne
| Apr. 05, 2005

Introduction

The international crises over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea have exposed a critical loophole in the nonproliferation regime. Under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), non-nuclear weapon states can acquire sensitive nuclear fuel cycle capabilities – uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing – under the cover of peaceful nuclear power development. These states can subsequently divert fuel cycle capabilities to the production of nuclear weapons, sell sensitive technologies to third parties, or leave stockpiles of nuclear materials vulnerable to acquisition by terrorist groups.

The proliferation threat is especially alarming given the current global resurgence of interest in nuclear power. As states gradually turn to nuclear power to meet their domestic electricity needs, they may become increasingly interested in acquiring indigenous enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. The international community must therefore find a way to limit the spread of these capabilities while at the same time satisfying the legitimate fuel needs of states with civil nuclear power programs.

This report evaluates one potential approach to closing the loophole in the nonproliferation regime – creation of a multinational supply regime that would guarantee nuclear fuel cycle services to countries that agree to forego indigenous enrichment and reprocessing. In particular, this report evaluates various options for such a regime in the context of the following research questions:

- Is a multinational supply regime economically viable?
- Is a multinational supply regime politically feasible?
- How should a multinational supply regime be structured and implemented?

The international crises over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea have exposed a critical loophole in the nonproliferation regime. Under the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), non-nuclear weapon states can acquire sensitive nuclear fuel cycle capabilities – uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing – under the cover of peaceful nuclear power development. These states can subsequently divert fuel cycle capabilities to the production of nuclear weapons, sell sensitive technologies to third parties, or leave stockpiles of nuclear materials vulnerable to acquisition by terrorist groups.

The proliferation threat is especially alarming given the current global resurgence of interest in nuclear power. As states gradually turn to nuclear power to meet their domestic electricity needs, they may become increasingly interested in acquiring indigenous enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. The international community must therefore find a way to limit the spread of these capabilities while at the same time satisfying the legitimate fuel needs of states with civil nuclear power programs.

This report evaluates one potential approach to closing the loophole in the nonproliferation regime – creation of a multinational supply regime that would guarantee nuclear fuel cycle services to countries that agree to forego indigenous enrichment and reprocessing. In particular, this report evaluates various options for such a regime in the context of the following research questions:

- Is a multinational supply regime economically viable?
- Is a multinational supply regime politically feasible?
- How should a multinational supply regime be structured and implemented?

Please see the pdf below for the full text of this article:

Downloads

For more information on this publication: Belfer Communications Office
For Academic Citation: Lamontagne, Stephen A.. “Multinational Approaches to Limiting the Spread of Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Cycle Capabilities.” Stephen A. LaMontagne, April 5, 2005.
57
.

The Author

Stephen A. LaMontagne

Recommended
In the Spotlight
RSS
A detailed look at China’s development of a hydrogen bomb in fewer than three years, quicker than all other initial nuclear weapons states.
'New Cold Wars' are “more complex, more dangerous than the old one, because China and Russia are teaming up together.”
While U.S. media reports blame Iran and its drone attacks for “pouring gasoline on a region that is already in flames,” there's a lot more to the story, and “most of it reflects poorly on the United States.”
Most Viewed

Tags