Slashdot Mirror


Why China Is Worried About Japan's Plutonium Stocks

Lasrick (2629253) writes A fascinating account of why China is so worried about Japan's excessive plutonium stocks: combined with its highly sophisticated missile program, "Chinese nuclear-weapons specialists emphasize that Japan has everything technically needed to make nuclear weapons." It turns out that Japan has under-reported a sizable amount of plutonium, and there have been increasing signs that the country might be moving toward re-militarization. This is a particularly worrying read about nuclear tensions in Asia.

16 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm... by Nexion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not too worried about Japan... I wouldn't cut off their fuel supply however.

    1. Re:Hmm... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Informative

      Last time we cut off their fuel they bombed Pearl Harbor. They don't teach history anymore?

  2. Logical Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China worried about the logical consequences of its own provocations against Japan as well as failing to heel those of North Korea (who essentially only China has open lines of communication).

    1. Re:Logical Consequences by adamgundy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, this seems a bit silly.

      Japan is already protected by the US nuclear program, so nothing really changes.

      so was the Ukraine, in exchange for giving up their ex-Soviet nukes. see how well that worked out for them?

      when push comes to shove, the US may, or may not, honor its commitments. it all depends on how much they want to go to war with China.

    2. Re:Logical Consequences by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. There were no deals involving military intervention in any way and form.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      However, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that the Budapest memorandum does not apply to the 2014 Crimean crisis because separation of Crimea was driven by an internal political and social-economic crisis. Russia was never under obligation to force any part of Ukraine's civilian population to stay in Ukraine against its will.

      Russia knew the US would look for any conceivable way to avoid living up to their obligations. So they created one and the US bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should be involved in any of this nonsense. We shouldn't be signing such things if we're not willing to live up to our obligations, but if in the event we do... like we did with Ukraine, we should be following through. Because we failed to, our other treaty partners don't trust us to live up to our agreements and develop their own weapons.

    3. Re:Logical Consequences by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know if you're just trying to be histrionic or what, but to be clear:

      http://www.un.org/en/ga/search...

      - The context of the Ukrainian "surrender of it's nukes" was that after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, they ended up with the ownership of a number of nuclear warheads.
      - Given the context of the time, and granting the facts that they could neither secure them properly nor likely even use them as the arming codes were in Russian hands, the US, UK, and Russia signed a memo of understanding with Ukraine in exchange for their sending the warheads for reprocessing.

      In the first place, this memo stated that the signatories: "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine..." and "...refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine...." Further, they agreed to seek UN security council action "...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"

      As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no guarantee of territorial integrity (as has been implied heavily by media reporting). No terms of mutual defense, or assistance.

      Finally, that this was a MEMO and not a ratifiable treaty lies at the heart of the matter: it was a dead-letter the moment it was signed, not worth the ink used to print it. Without treaty status it was merely an agreement in principle, of the moment, and utterly without binding power by the long-accepted standards of geopolitics.

      By the letter of the memo, the US and UK have in fact fulfilled their obligations. (Russia clearly didn't "...respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.")

      It should be clear, then, that Ukraine wasn't exactly beating its swords into plowshares; more accurately they were giving away their swords that they couldn't use anyway, in return for a tepid, unenforceable agreement that only was relevant in the event of an actual nuclear exchange. Was it worth it? It's been 20 years during which - pretty much - Russia has paid Ukraine's bills, sold them cheap gas, and largely subsidized their entire existence.

      I'd agree that the spirit of the thing was much more broadly (and inaccurately) celebrated; on whose responsibility that rests, I'll leave to others. The fact is that in geopolitics and diplomacy, details MATTER.

      Don't get me wrong; I don't believe Putin's seizure of the Crimea was legitimate by ANY standard. He's an old school Soviet (if not Tsarist) Man who has adroitly outmaneuvered the severely-outclassed US and EU administrations with a coup akin to Munich 1939.

      Neither am I giving Obama a pass. The US was never going to (nor should it reasonably ever consider) become directly involved in a territory adjacent to Russia. Any rational view would recognize that Ukraine is substantially within the Russian sphere of influence. NEVERTHELESS, the US has ample tools in its toolbox to deal with "bad actors" in many indirect ways, and reassure our actual allies of our firm commitment to their security. Yet the US response has been confused, dilatory, impotent, and in many ways strengthened Putin's propaganda hand (The US sent the head of the CIA to a state where Russia accused the public movements of being 'inspired' by the west....seriously?). That Russia has - by most measures - pulled this off without lasting diplomatic consequence is shameful.

      My point is this: the characterization of the Memo in the media has been deeply flawed. For all the criticisms that can be fairly laid at the doorstep of the west on this matter, failing to live up to that memo is NOT one of them.

      --
      -Styopa
  3. Re:Serously? by Shatrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot more people died from conventional bombs in WWII than nuclear ones, even in Japan, and we're all still building and dropping those.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. Re:Conflict between Japaneese and Chineese by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And, yet, China seems to be the one annexing islands and redefining boundaries.

    By some standards, China is more or less invading both Japan and Vietnam now.

    Who is the bigger threat? The closed communist government whose every public statement is a deluded fit of lies gets my vote. Have you ever read a press release out of China? It reads like bad fiction written by a delusional psychotic.

    Maybe if China is 'worried' about Japan, they need to look at their own actions and understand why Japan might be feeling the need to be able to protect themselves.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Sounds like FUD from China by timrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea that Japan could enrich plutonium and turn it into nuclear weapons, which China is trying to push here, is full of "mights". Their logic is essentially:

    - Japan didn't report 640kg of Mixed Oxide Fuel in an offline reactor because they didn't believe they had to. MOX is useless for making nuclear weapons by itself without further processing.

    - Plutonium can be extracted from MOX, and Japan is doing this, but they reported all of the plutonium they extracted from MOX to the IAEA.

    - Japan has a surplus stock of plutonium that they're not really supposed to have, but this is understandable given that plutonium is probably a pain to move around, and they have plans to use it as fuel in breeder reactors in the future.

    - Japan has shown no inclination to produce nuclear weapons outside of a few studies, all of which are well over a decade old and have been known about for years.

    - In China's mind, all of these things, which are circumstantial at best, indicate that Japan MIGHT be considering the production of nuclear weapons.

    From what it sounds like, Japan could've had nuclear weapons years ago if they really wanted to. China merely doesn't want them to have the capability because it means they'd have a much harder time bullying Japan over things like the Senkaku islands.

  6. Re:Serously? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everybody in the modern world should get out of bed every morning and thank $deity for Harry Truman's decision to drop those two little bombs. If the world hadn't seen firsthand what those bombs were capable of, we certainly would have found another excuse to try them out, lots and lots more, with much bigger yields. Maybe Korea, maybe the Cuban Missile Crisis, maybe Viet Nam; first a "tactical" nuke or two, then an all-out exchange. Harry Truman should be sainted.

  7. Re:Serously? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually deaths from conventional firebombings were of similar in magnitude of lives lost and destruction.

    And (like coal), burning things produces a lot of long term pollutants that raise the cancer and early mortality rate. It is more what you are "used" to. Coal actually kills 167.5 people per terrawatt each and every year than nuclear. Coal deaths number in the thousands and when coal seams get set on fire- the area can be uninhabitable for decades (like nuclear) and be polluted for centuries with mercury and dioxins (very similar to radiation). Fukishima made 780 square kilometers uninhabitable. The Jhaqira coal fire has made 700 square kilometers uninhabitable. And the smoke affects 400,000 people continuously day in day out.

    Conventional bombs from world war I are polluting water in france and belgium and killed two belgium workers in march.

    We have some weird reaction to nuclear because we are not used to it. Conventional mines have left some areas uninhabitable and are still killing and maiming people decades later.

    The after effects of acoustic shock from "ordinary" bombing can linger until a persons premature death years later.

    I agree nukes are terrible. But I think your "comfort" and familiarity with conventional weapons leads you to overestimate their long and short term safety.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  8. Re:Serously? by Ancil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China is still a little sensitive regarding military actions of Japan

    All it takes is one charismatic mad-man.....

    Japan is a little sensitive about China sitting on dozens of ICBM's and claiming a large part of the western Pacific Ocean as their own.

    All it takes is one prudent leader.

  9. Re:Two-thirds of a metric *TON*?! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not really much plutonium. Sure, you can make about 40 city-sized Fat Man bombs out of it, but the scale is kind of pointless now: with a little hydrogen, you can turn a 14kg bomb up to eleven, and get yields that could blow up half of Japan instead of one small city.

    So, Japan can make 40 bombs. If Japan had only 20kg of plutonium, it could still make 3 or 4 devastating small warheads with fusion-boosted-fission, enough to blow holes in Russia or devastate the United States.

    If you think that's unrealistic, take a crash course in nuclear weapons. Fat Man had 14,000 grams of plutonium; it converted less that 1 gram into energy before the plutonium core blew apart. A fission-boosted-fusion bomb uses that explosion to trigger nuclear fusion in a second stage, which provides compressive force to hold the core together: the plutonium ball that burns a gram and blows apart now gets crushed together. With the right structure, you can burn 100 grams of the fuel, making the bomb 100 times bigger. A 1kg bomb would still be 7 times bigger than the 14kg Fat Man bomb.

    Some serious upgrades have been made to nuclear weapons. They're largely conventional explosive, with a little nuclear core; some are boosted with fusion, which sometimes has startling effects--once, they had a blast go off 100 times bigger than the models projected.

    Nuclear weapons are devastating. A handful of nuclear fuel is an arsenal. When you start getting into truckloads of fissile material, you're just wasting effort.

  10. Re:Serously? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh come on. The Japan of 2014 is not the Japan of 1945. Virtually everyone from that generation is dead or beyond any political influence. I have some issues with Japan over its acceptance of some its activities during its empire days, but all in all, it has been a well behaved member of the international community and one of the West's most important Asian allies. I doubt it even wants to have nuclear weapons, but considering the way China has been behaving of late, any prudent Japanese government is going to want to make it clear that it's lack of nuclear deterrent is due to the decision not to have one, and not because of any technical difficulties.

    China cannot continue to poke its neighbors with sticks and not expect that those neighbors will not begin to ponder just how much longer they're going to be poked. Japan is a major industrial power, one of the wealthiest and most advanced nations on the planet, and if China doesn't want to feel threatened by Japan, then it needs to stop pushing buttons itself.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. Re:Serously? by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Japan was not "tapped out". It's well documented that their backs were against the wall and they were prepared to throw the bodies of every last fighting man, woman and child into the expected land invasion by the allies, and it would have been a horrific bloody mess. So many casualties were anticipated from the planned allied invasion that the US started pumping out Purple Heart medals in advance of the action and so many were manufactured that those same medals are still being awarded today.

    Hell, even AFTER the nukes were dropped some of the more rabid Japanese commanders still wanted to continue the fight and nearly mutinied. If the bombs hadn't been dropped to show overwhelming tactical advantage, their collective spirit wouldn't have broken, and the deaths, casualties and mass suicides during the Okinawa invasion would have been repeated on a far larger scale.

  12. Re:Serously? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

    You do realize that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are currently inhabited, don't you? In fact, they were inhabited shortly after the bombs there exploded.

    Nuclear weapons are not designed to render areas uninhabitable. They're designed to make a gigantic explosion, and that's it. Making the area uninhabitable, sorta like the Romans did with Carthage, is not one of the design goals.