NUCLEAR FUEL BANK. I agree with Sam Nunn: a nuclear fuel bank would be a very good idea. First, a fuel bank would help solve the dangerous dual-use problem. Currently, signatories to the NPT are allowed to develop the full fuel cycle, as long as the fuel is used for civilian rather than military purposes. Unfortunately, many of the facilities that can create civilian-oriented nuclear fuel can also be used to produce nuclear weapons. A fuel bank, combined with an amendment to the NPT, might resolve this problem, as it could ensure access to fuel without the necessity to develop the entire cycle in every state. Second, the fuel bank could provide states with the security that they need in order to give up the fuel cycle. Several of the proposed resolutions on Iran's nuclear program involve the supply of nuclear fuel from the U.S. or Russia to Iran for civilian purposes. The problem is that such a supply arrangement would leave Iran in a dangerously precarious position; if Russia or the US suspended shipments, the Iranian energy situation could be devastated. A nuclear fuel bank wouldn't entirely solve this problem (it would be controlled multilaterally, and the US can throw around a lot of weight in multilateral institutions), but nonetheless would represent an improvement. If Iran feels more secure, Iran is more likely to give up its weapons program. As a multilateral initiative that involves nuclear power, I suspect that this proposal will meet with howls of derision from the conservative community. That's solid evidence that it's a good idea. --Robert Farley
