Nuclear Weapon Research, the University of California, and Bechtel

The basis of nuclear weapons is the release of massive amounts of energy triggered by the fission or fusion of the nucleus - that central portion of all atoms. This was discovered by a number of scientists in the first half of the twentieth century - people like Lise Mietner, Otto Hahn, Leo Szilard, Madam Curie, and so on. Like most scientific discoveries, it came about due to the work of a great number of people, most of whom initially had no idea that their work would spawn the most destructive weaponry the planet had ever seen. They were concerned with the basic structure of matter - what are atoms made of?

The curve of binding energy is the curve that describes the relative 'desire' of atomic nuclei of different types to fission (split in two) or fuse (join together); for elements lower in atomic number the iron, the tendency is towards fusion; above iron, the tendency is towards fission. This issue is much less scary if we think about the evolution of the universe, which began as nothing but hydrogen. Physical processes in stars lead to the fusion of hydrogen to form helium, and more and more fusion up to the formation of iron. How then, might one ask, did the trans-ferric elements form (going past iron) if their tendency is to fission? According to stellar cosmologists and nuclear physicists, the answer is supernovae - the gravitational collapse of massive stars, during which the massive pressures involved lead to synthesis of the heavy elements.

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are made using two very heavy elements : uranium or plutonium. The fission of these heavy elements releases massive amounts of energy in the form of light and heat. Even the so-called thermonuclear or fusion weapons are built with a fission bomb at their core, which then triggers the fusion of heavy hydrogen isotopes, releasing even more energy. The first nuclear weapons, of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki era, were a thousand times less powerful than the current generation of thermonuclear weapons. Thanks to all this wonderful scientific progress, human beings now have the ability to turn the surface of the planet into a poisonous irradiated landscape. Not much has changed in this regard; people are still quite crazy.

What is rather odd, if not just plain crazy, is that the Bush administration is pushing nuclear weapons research as well as the spread of nuclear reactors on a global basis Witness the recent nuclear agreement with India, which Condi Rice is pushing as hard as she can. What exactly the terms of that contract are remains mysterious, and it is difficult to discover who are the actual beneficiaries are. My guess is that certain US engineering firms with experience in nuclear power construction are going to be getting even richer then they already are. None of the US plants have been economic successes, but the costs have simply been passed on to the public through higher electricity bills.

This brings us to the nuclear weapons research program in the United States. Managed for decades by the University of California, that management is now a 'joint partnership' between the UC and the engineering firm Bechtel, who you may have heard about from their work in Iraq. Currently UC-Bechtel manages the Los Alamos branch of the weapons program; in a few weeks they will submit their bid for the Lawrence Livermore branch of the weapons program. It appears that the Bush administration has made it very clear to the UC that they only way they will get to continue running the nuclear weapons labs is if they continue their partnership with Bechtel. Take a look at Bechtel's record in Iraq- lucrative no-bid reconstruction contracts went right into Bechtel's pockets - not that they did much very much reconstruction other then slapping some paint here and there. Bechtels other business interests include the privatization of water supplies on a global basis; they were just kicked out of Bolivia for trying to do this, and now apparently have turned their sights on California's water supply (a more lucrative market then Bolivia, by all accounts).

Let's get back to science, however and consider why the spread of nuclear energy for electricity generation is such a bad idea. Nuclear power is based on low-level fission of uranium isotope 235. In this process, heat and neutrons are released; the heat is used to boil water driving steam turbines which generate electricity. The problems in terms of nuclear weapon proliferation are two-fold. While nuclear reactors need U-235 that is enriched to 2-3% of the total uranium (most of which is isotope U-238) in order to operate, nuclear weapons need ~66% enrichment of U-235 to sustain the runaway chain reaction that is a nuclear blast. However, if you have access to enrichment technology there is nothing to stop you from taking a 2% enriched uranium sample up to a 66% enriched sample. The second problem is that the neutrons released from U-235 in the course of the nuclear reaction slam into the U-238 isotopes, creating plutonium. Now, plutonium does not need to be enriched in order to make a weapon! You can use it as is. Thus the spread of nuclear power means the spread of raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons. One operating reactor can therefore produce enough material every year for some given number of bombs - and this in an era of international terrorism and nation-state instability.

To sum it up, someone has a screw loose in our government. I'd like to put it down to sheer stupidity mixed with greed; that's a more pleasant notion then some sinister plot to start a nuclear war, which I find unlikely. The idea that a private company is managing the national nuclear weapons program, especially one with a track record of corrupt insider deals with the Bush administration, is really insane. What really tops it all off is that they want to do research on building a 'new generation' of 'tactical nuclear weapons' - I mean this is beyond the pale! The old ones apparently weren't enough? You can't make this stuff up - and where is the US mainstream media on this issue? You think it would be an important topic; you think some journalist would have been sent out to cover this by their editor, but no - not a word is spoken. Unreal.