Archives

Search Archives

Transforming Secondary Education: New $100 million initiative to improve education quality across the nation.
Learn More »

Recent Spotlights »

View all Archives - Environment and Development »

Nuclear Theft: Risks and Safeguards







For example, governmental material accountancy requirements may largely build upon inventory controls adopted by the plant management in the interest of efficient processing operations. As another example, both public health and safety and safeguards against theft point toward the use of specially developed heavy containers for the shipment of nuclear materials. However, plutonium that is shipped in the form of an oxide power is less hazardous to public health, but slightly more of a bomb risk in the event of theft, than plutonium that is shipped in the form of a liquid nitrate solution.

PURPOSES OF A NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS SYSTEM

Perhaps the most difficult task of all in developing and implementing a nuclear safeguards system is the formulation of meaningful objectives. It was relatively easy to develop an objective for the U.S. space program in the 1960s. President Kennedy did this in 1961 when he said: "We shall place man on the moon and bring him back to earth before the end of this decade." It is also possible to develop "full employment" as a continuing national goal and then to define a 4 or 5 percent level of unemployment as unsatisfactory performance. Though it is much more difficult for the United States to maintain full employment than to place a man on the moon, both objectives are meaningful to government, to industry, and to the man in the street.

When it comes to nuclear safeguards, what should be the objective of U.S. policy? We may initially and tentatively state the purpose of a nuclear safeguards systems as follows: to provide effective assurance against acts of nuclear violence using material unlawfully obtained from the nuclear power industry. When words are strung together in this way, the result is an opaque and abstract statement of the problem. However, it should be noted that many statements of purpose in legislation and administrative regulations are even more vague and less meaningful. For example, the legislative standard in the Atomic Energy Act for evaluating U.S. nuclear materials safeguards is that the controls must provide assurance against activities "inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public." Nevertheless, our tentative formulation of purpose set forth above is useful as a point of departure.

We have avoided use of the word "goal" in our statement regarding safeguards because this word seems to imply the existence of some milestone which, if reached, signals the completion of a task. The risks of nuclear theft will persist in the foreseeable future, though it will be possible to reduce their likelihood and impact considerably. Consequently, the development and maintenance of effective safeguards will require continuing effort. Specific goals and objectives will probably have to be revised often in the light of advances in nuclear technology, growth of the nuclear industry, changes in the level and character of acts of violence (not necessarily nuclear), national and international