From: miket@hermes.tcs.com (Michael Turner nmscore Assoc.)
Subject: Re: Plutonium
Organization: Teknekron Communications Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:02:29 GMT

In article <BxL0zo.Cpo@world.std.com> cmr@world.std.com (Charles M Richmond) writes:
>I must admit that I find the transfer of the bulk of the _worlds_ supply
>of fissionable plutonium to Japan to be incomprehensible.

I'm not so sure that "more than a ton" is necessarily the bulk of the
world's supply.  Aside from that, I also don't see why it's incomprehensible.
Japan is one of the most nuclear-powered nations on the planet.  So is
France.

>							    I do not 
>understand why the Japanese would want such a large supply and I especially
>do not understand why they would allow this quantity of such a dangerous
>element on their territory given their previous experience.

Given their previous experience with *what*?  Nuclear power?  In that
case, they probably already have much more plutonium inside Japan.
Or with having nuclear weapons used against them?  Then the plutonium
they are importing is that much less likely to be used against them
in bombs.

Still, it will be interesting to see how this shipment is received in
Japan, given its supposed ban on having nuclear weapons of any kind on
or near its shores.

>								I do not
>understand why the US was willing to go along with this. (Note that since
>the original material had a US source that the US had maintained the right
>to veto any transfer, even though France was the seller)

Sounds like the U.S. is not just going along with it, but supporting it,
if they have a U.S. Navy Seals team on board, U.S. submarine escort, and
U.S. satellite surveillance.

>						      I do not understand
>why the transfer is being done in what seems to be a very vulnerable way.

Hey, I've got a great idea: let's try sending it by rail through a half-
dozen world flashpoints.  Or break it into 20,000 pieces and FedEx them
individually.  Seriously, what's your idea of a *less* vulnerable way?

>(Note that plutonium is not just radioactive, it is also highly toxic and
>that small quantities {*can someone find the exact measures*} can poison
>large numbers of people and animals) After reading the following newsclip
>I understand why the Americans are doing this(see article) but I do not 
>understand why they are not making Japan pay heavily, especially since 
>the Americans do have the authority to stop the transfer. 

First, plutonium is highly toxic in oxide form, but not in ingot form.
The news report says nothing about which form this shipment is in.

Second, how do you know that Japan isn't paying?  Or hasn't, already,
in some sense?  I seem to remember a little uproar about a matter of
some $10 billion contributed for the Gulf War.  And "heavily"?  For
some satellite time, and redirecting some subs that have little else to
do anyway in these post-Cold War times, add in nominal combat pay for
those Navy Seals...  I wouldn't say you're spending more than a few
million.  As we saw from the lobbying fees posted awhile back, that's
chicken-feed, lost in the mix.

Still, what IS going on here?  Japan might be starting on a nuclear weapons
program, but I think that's a long-haul goal at best.

Honestly, if I had a ton of weapons-grade plutonium, and no bombs and missiles
I wanted to put it in, and I desire to make some money off of it, I could do
worse by my conscience -- and my pocketbook -- than to sell it to Japan.  Japan
is a peaceful nation with lots of money, a strong national-security apparatus
under a stable government, a relatively high-quality nuclear power industry
(on par, perhaps with France's), and a powerful sense of insecurity about its
energy supply.

What's in it for Japan?  A little more energy security, perhaps.  A strong
message to the Koreas, possibly.

What's in it for France?  Some yen, certainly.

What's in it for the U.S.?  Maybe the Bush administration wants to kick-start
Japan as a deterrent force in the Pacific, but this is hard to believe.
More likely, some people in Washington who will be out of jobs in 1993 are
currying a little favor with some possible future clients.
---
Michael Turner
miket@tcs.com