A few hundred thousand dollars worth of tech replacing what used to be a massive industrial investment is amazing. And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.
Lot's of non-nuclear weapons states do have access, the Netherlands for example enriches more uranium annually than the UK. It's the components of centrifuges that are tightly controlled. Building enrichment facilities is well within the capabilities of pretty much any nation state, it's doing it secretly which is the hard part.
This alternative technique only makes sense at extremely small quantities. For their primary market of making medical isotopes, it makes a lot of sense. For nuclear reactor fuel it's incredibly impractical.
It's not that difficult from an engineering perspective, the tech is almost a century old. It's just that we will drop bombs on anyone who tries.
Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
There are many, many steps before "drop bombs".
I don't recall us bombing Pakistan, India, Israel, China, or North Korea.
> Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
The comedy hour at HN has arrived. See above ^^^
As far as i know, USA was seriously considering doing this in 1964. However the soviets said that would mean war, so they didn't.
North Korea is so firmly in China and Russia's sphere of influence that bombing them would be hard, especially given how much conventional weapons they have pointed at south korea. That said, would you really want to be north korea? economic warfare has done a number on them. in many ways they are the poster child for nuke != winning.
Israel probably snuck through by doing it early enough and secretively enough that it was fait accompli. They probably tested their nukes before the nuclear non proliferation treaty was even signed.
so really you have india and pakistan. The fact there are so few exceptions kind of proves the system works.
> Nuclear nonproliferation relies on active enforcement.
It relies on getting nukes being an irrational move for most countries. Yes part of that is your enemies will start preventive wars to stop that. A very major part of it is the economic consequences of developing nukes is usually not worth it. Part of it is the smart strategy is to just do most of the work and stop before getting nukes - if shit hits the fan you can get nukes quickly, but going up to the line without crossing it has none of the negative consequences.
Iraq, Libya and Venezuela don't have powerful friends willing to go to bat for them.
"Twenty-six years after the nuclear tests at Pokhran in May 1998 led to an embargo on several Indian atomic energy companies, the US is set to lift the sanctions, opening the route for closer cooperation in the civil-nuclear sector."
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/26-years-after-pokhr...
pakistan and india did it in secret.
incidentally, its alleged that one of the countries on that list killed a very prominent american in order to prevent us from stopping them from creating a nuclear program.
"Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945, R. S. Krishnan, a nuclear physicist who had studied under Norman Feather and John Cockcroft, and who recognised the massive energy-generating potential of uranium, observed, "If the tremendous energy released from atomic explosions is made available to drive machinery, etc., it will bring about an industrial revolution of a far-reaching character." He further noted, however, the difficulties in harnessing nuclear power for peaceful usage, "...a great deal more research work is needed before atomic power can be put to industrial use."
"In March 1946, the Board of Scientific and Industrial Research (BSIR), under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), set up an Atomic Research Committee under Bhabha's leadership to explore India's atomic energy resources and to suggest ways to develop and harness them, along with establishing contacts with similar organisations in other nations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India
US didn't much opose the nuclear programs in Pakistan and Israel (probably even supported nuclear program in Israel).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_affair
US bombed North Korea a lot.
low-enrichment (~20%) is what's happening here.
the bad stuff, for nukes, is ~90% enrichment.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
Hence there technically being no enrichment cap for any country that signed the NPT and stuff (not to be confused with protection from US bombs or rogue states that never signed the NPT).
For example you need 100kg of 60% enriched Uranium-235
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Critical-mass-of-a-bare-...