The Nuclear Fuel Cycle and the Proliferation "Danger Zone"

被引:13
作者
Herzog, Stephen [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Kennedy Sch Govt, Int Secur Program, Project Managing Atom, Belfer Ctr Sci & Int Affairs, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
[2] Yale Univ, Dept Polit Sci, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
关键词
Nuclear proliferation; nuclear fuel cycle; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Japan; South Korea; NORTH-KOREA; WEAPONS; BOMB; DETERMINANTS; LOGIC; IRAN;
D O I
10.1080/25751654.2020.1766164
中图分类号
D81 [国际关系];
学科分类号
030207 ;
摘要
Horizontal nuclear proliferation presents what is sometimes referred to as the "Nth country problem," or identifying which state could be next to acquire nuclear weapons. Nuclear fuel cycle technologies can contribute to both nuclear power generation and weapons development. Consequently, observers often view civilian nuclear programs with suspicion even as research on nuclear latency and the technological inputs of proliferation has added nuance to these discussions. To contribute to this debate, I put forth a simple theoretical proposition: En route to developing a civilian nuclear infrastructure and mastering the fuel cycle, states pass through a proliferation "danger zone." States with fuel cycle capabilities below a certain threshold will likely be unable to proliferate. States that pass through the "danger zone" without proliferating will be unlikely to do so in the future. I support this proposition by introducing preliminary analysis from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle (NFC) Index, a new heuristic tool to complement political assessments of the connection between civilian nuclear energy development and nuclear weapons proliferation. I conclude with policy implications for contemporary Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea. Taken together, this article calls for increased policymaker interaction with historical cases and more sophisticated academic engagement with the nuclear fuel cycle.
引用
收藏
页码:60 / 86
页数:27
相关论文
共 117 条
[1]   Pakistan's nuclear weapons program - Turning points and nuclear choices [J].
Ahmed, S .
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 1999, 23 (04) :178-204
[2]   Unraveling the A. Q. Khan and future proliferation networks [J].
Albright, D ;
Hinderstein, C .
WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, 2005, 28 (02) :111-128
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1968, TREATY NONPROLIFERAT
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2014, BARGAINING NUCL TEST
[5]   Public opinion on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: The attitudinal nexus in the United States [J].
Baron, Jonathon ;
Herzog, Stephen .
ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2020, 68
[6]  
Bin Salman M., 2018, VISION 2030
[7]  
Bollfrass A.K., 2017, THESIS PRINCETON U
[8]   Saddam, Israel, and the Bomb Nuclear Alarmism Justified? [J].
Brands, Hal ;
Palkki, David .
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 2011, 36 (01) :133-+
[9]   Revisiting Osirak Preventive Attacks and Nuclear Proliferation Risks [J].
Braut-Hegghammer, Malfrid .
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 2011, 36 (01) :101-+
[10]  
Braut-Hegghammer Malfrid., 2016, UNCLEAR PHYS WHY IRA