How Greenpeace Learned to Love the Bomb

In an irony worthy of the anti-war satire, "Dr. Strangelove, or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb," the anti-nuclear activist group Greenpeace – which was formed to protest nuclear weapons – has now taken to protesting against nuclear disarmament.

To understand this Stranglovian turn of events, one has to go back to the 1980s, when our previous "cowboy president," Ronald Reagan, signed the first of a series of treaties that, for the first time, reduced the number of Soviet and U.S. nuclear missiles, and in the case of the intermediate-range nukes in Europe, eliminated them all together.

The problem remained, however, that while the missiles themselves were destroyed, the warheads they were designed to deliver remained in frightening numbers. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early '90s, the United States was faced with the very real possibility that some impoverished Russian nuclear scientist – or disaffected military officer or simply a janitor with the right key – might sell one of these still lethal bombs on the black market, where it would end up in the hands of terrorists.

In fact, such a scenario very nearly played out in 1994.

That was when the United States learned that Iran was trying buy weapons-grade uranium stored in unsecured facilities in Kazakhstan. In a highly secret operation known as "Project Sapphire," the United States flew two C-5 transport planes to bring the uranium back to the Oak Ridge laboratory in Tennessee. Reportedly, empty canisters with Iranian addresses were found in the room nearby. The United States later compensated the Kazaks for the uranium, which was estimated to be enough to make somewhere between 20 and 50 bombs.

It was to get control of this kind of situation that the ingenious and highly successful Megatons to Megawatts program was created. Originally run by the Department of Energy, the program is now carried out by a fully privatized company, the United States Enrichment Corporation, at no cost to the American taxpayer. USEC buys uranium from old Soviet bombs, dilutes it in Russia through a multi-step process that makes it useable in nuclear power plants (but no longer useable to make nuclear bombs) and then markets it to power companies in the United States.

In its 11 years of operation, USEC has turned some 9,839 nuclear warheads into fuel. The chances are reasonably good that your computer is being driven (or your light bulb lit, or house heated) by electricity derived from a Russian bomb that was once mounted on a missile and aimed at an America city.

Notice the three essential elements of this program: 1. It actually eliminates the bomb-grade uranium; 2. It pays for itself, so it doesn't have to rely on the sometimes unpredictable whims of Congress to keep going; and 3. It gives the Russians a fairly hefty monetary incentive to keep control of their warheads and stick with the program.

Following on USEC's success, Duke Power, together with the Department of Energy, is gearing up a similar program to deal with Russia's weapons-grade plutonium – and this is where Greenpeace's strange behavior comes in.

As the modified (non-weapons grade) plutonium fuel – known as MOX – was being trucked out of the port of Charleston on its way for the first test in a U.S. civilian reactor, Greenpeace activists followed in a convoy to protest.

Other opponents of nuclear power soon piled on because – in the words of the co-director of Nukewatch – "It will worsen our country's nuclear waste problem." Instead, Greenpeace, Nukewatch and their colleagues propose that Russia bury its plutonium.

The problem is, of course, that what's buried can easily be dug up again, and that simply telling the Russians to bury their weapons-grade plutonium gives them no financial stake in keeping it safe. Meanwhile it will remain a highly valuable commodity to many people who might like to buy it, such as the mullahs in Iran, or even al-Qaida.

There's nothing new about using plutonium as fuel – 30 or so civilian reactors in Europe already do, and many new ones are planned for Japan. The fact is, plutonium is potentially a much more efficient fuel than uranium and could significantly reduce the cost, already low, of nuclear-generated electricity, making it an even more compelling alternative to other sources of energy – which is the reason opponents of nuclear power have spent the last three decades trying to stop its use in the United States.

Until this spring – when Duke carried out the its first test of MOX fuel at its Catawba plant in South Carolina – they had been successful, and they still hope to kill the program.

And that's why they find themselves standing in the way of nuclear disarmament – the very thing they are purportedly for. You probably have to be an anti-nuclear activist not to appreciate the irony.