WI: Seperate Civilian and Military Nuclear Agencies/Programs

Delta Force

Banned
Some argue that civilian nuclear technology is so controversial because it has never been able to escape its link with the military, especially nuclear weapons and nuclear tests. It probably didn't help that government agencies charged with developing nuclear energy, such as the United States Atomic Energy Commission (later the Energy Research and Development Administration and then the United States Department of Energy), United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, and the French CEA all had and continue to have a dual role.

What if the agencies charged with research and development of nuclear technology had split into separate civilian and military agencies/programs, just like the space programs? Could that have dampened some of the over civilian nuclear technology, perhaps in conjunction with more openness at the civilian agencies?
 

Delta Force

Banned
For example, suppose after civilian nuclear applications are emphasized and Shippingport comes online, a decision is made to split the civilian side from the military side. The civilian side of things has different needs, and it also would help its development if it can deal with an agency that is more open due to having no need to keep military information secret.
 
The problem I see is that you cant really split the knowledge base involved, you can split what you do in your jurisdiction but if you have a open civilian program it will tell the rest of the world how to build bombs.......
 

Delta Force

Banned
The problem I see is that you cant really split the knowledge base involved, you can split what you do in your jurisdiction but if you have a open civilian program it will tell the rest of the world how to build bombs.......

It depends on the type of reactor technology being promoted. Light water cooled and moderated reactors don't make good production reactors.

However, there was a period in which it was considered necessary to have enrichment and reprocessing facilities to have a proper nuclear program.
 
The UK did split things as far as they could, with the UKAEA considering themselves purely a civilian programme and any diversions of material to the military side deeply resented. Didn't help much with the public perception of the nuclear power stations...
 
It depends on the type of reactor technology being promoted. Light water cooled and moderated reactors don't make good production reactors.

However, there was a period in which it was considered necessary to have enrichment and reprocessing facilities to have a proper nuclear program.

But how many technologies are only involved in bombs rather than any other uses ?

You can give none nuclear powers kit reactors and provide them the fuel ready made, but actually teaching them so they can take a full part developing reactors and have open peer reviewed discussions on all the technologies involved gives anybody cheating towards a bomb a massive help... (not having this peer review like most other subjects, would on the other hand massively harms reactor development science as OTL probably ?)
 
WI nuclear reactors were developed as stationary engineering plants to provide heat and electricity to isolated bases or mining towns.
An earlier oil crisis would encourage development of local power sources.

Unionized stationary engineers develop massive amounts of experience but their union stubbornly refuses to have anything to do with weapons development.
 
Unionized stationary engineers develop massive amounts of experience but their union stubbornly refuses to have anything to do with weapons development.
Makes no difference - the connection with weapons is in the fuel cycle, not operating the plants. The plant engineers have no control over that part, so no matter how stubbornly they refuse to have anything to do with weapons their plants are still supporting the military programme.
 

Perkeo

Banned
There are about thirty countries who have nuclear power reactors, but less then ten of them have a nuclear weapons program. So more often than not the civilian program is separated from the military and still the reputation of nuclear power is as bad as it is.
 
There are about thirty countries who have nuclear power reactors, but less then ten of them have a nuclear weapons program. So more often than not the civilian program is separated from the military and still the reputation of nuclear power is as bad as it is.

But that's just because the other 20 have signed bits of paper saying they will not use the capability they have to make bombs, its just a balance for each country of are nuclear bombs worth the balance of pissing of the more powerful world powers or not ? Many of the 20 could use what they have to build bombs relatively quickly if they accept the internal opposition/sanctions/attacks/loss of alliances that would result form breaking the NNPT.
 

Delta Force

Banned
But how many technologies are only involved in bombs rather than any other uses ?

You can give none nuclear powers kit reactors and provide them the fuel ready made, but actually teaching them so they can take a full part developing reactors and have open peer reviewed discussions on all the technologies involved gives anybody cheating towards a bomb a massive help... (not having this peer review like most other subjects, would on the other hand massively harms reactor development science as OTL probably ?)

It depends. In the early days of nuclear power they were very closely related. Nuclear reprocessing and breeder reactors were originally developed for producing fissile material for military purposes before being promoted for commercial use starting in the 1950s. By the 1970s it was clear that uranium was plentiful and there was no business case to be made at the time for civilian reprocessing or any application of breeder reactors, but work continued on both. Japan of all countries is a world leader in nuclear reprocessing.

If a country was establishing a new nuclear program though, people would be very skeptical of it acquiring reprocessing capabilities. They probably wouldn't care about breeder reactors though, since at current prices it would be less expensive to just build standard power reactors to produce military plutonium.
 

Perkeo

Banned
But that's just because the other 20 have signed bits of paper saying they will not use the capability they have to make bombs, its just a balance for each country of are nuclear bombs worth the balance of pissing of the more powerful world powers or not ? Many of the 20 could use what they have to build bombs relatively quickly if they accept the internal opposition/sanctions/attacks/loss of alliances that would result form breaking the NNPT.

Every fertilizer factory can be used to make explosives - indeed it is a significant issue to produce and store some fertilizers without having them explode by mistake. Among WMDs, it's not unusual either: A facility that makes vaccine can produce biological weapons, and and many chemical plants can produce weapon-grade chemicals.

So I keep asking: Why is there so little concern about the proliferation risk of other technologies and so much about nuclear power? I don't think fission bombs are that much more dangerous than biological warfare.
 
Top