At the Review and Extension conference for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was held between April 17th and May 12 at the United Nations, many non-nuclear weapon states urged the nuclear weapon states to quickly conclude an agreement to halt the production of fissile material for military purposes. This fissile material "cut-off" would be one signal that the nuclear weapon states are committed to disarmament. The issue of halting the civilian use of plutonium, however, was largely ignored by the NPT delegates, even though civilian plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Indeed, many states continue to view plutonium as the key to their energy futures.

On April 25, IEER hosted a breakfast meeting in New York for delegates to the NPT conference in order to discuss the dangers from the world's growing stockpiles of plutonium. The goal of the meeting was to educate the delegates, who were influential officials in their governments, about the consequences of both military and civilian plutonium programs. Over thirty delegates, including ambassadors, experts, and counselors, attended from countries such as Russia, Japan, the Netherlands, Hungary, China, Italy, and Australia.

Arjun Makhijani spoke to the delegates for about fifteen minutes, outlining the security, economic, and environmental liabilities of plutonium, and then opened the floor to discussion. One delegate disputed that commercial plutonium could be used in nuclear weapons. After some debate about this issue, Paul Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, a DC-based NGO, quoted Robert Selden of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: "All plutonium can be used directly in nuclear explosives. The concept of....plutonium which is not suitable for explosives...is fallacious." This quote seemed to end the debate at the breakfast, but denying the weapons-usability of civilian plutonium will undoubtedly remain a key tactic of those who support civilian plutonium programs.

Another delegate admitted that his countries' plutonium program was not economical at present, but he argued that it needed the technology for the future, when uranium, which is the main alternative to plutonium, might become scarce. Makhijani responded that this reasoning is like building un-needed apartment buildings now because they might be needed in fifty years. He added that an international reserve of uranium reactor fuel should be created by "blending-down" highly-enriched uranium from dismantled warheads so that countries would not be so concerned about uranium scarcity.

One diplomat approached Dr. Makhijani after the meeting and asked if he really thought that morality had a role to play in policy-making about plutonium and in international relations in general. Makhijani responded that he realizes that morality does not play much of a role now but he hopes that by raising moral questions, morality may come to play a role in the future.

All of the delegates were provided a copy of IEER's recent book, Fissile Materials in a Glass, Darkly, and many delegates took notes during the meeting. The meeting was useful in providing a note of realism about the dangers posed by plutonium, since the governments and nuclear establishments in many of the countries represented at the breakfast remain very wedded to plutonium use.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

Last updated: August, 1996