US signs nuclear technology deal with Vietnam

[Srinivas]

Build a nuclear bomb (nuclear reactor ) at the border with China. Any advancement of chinese troops will become an international problem .......

 

[cnleio]

self delete

 

[cnleio]

Russia protect VN in SCS(east sea) against China, who cares if China bow down beg for alliance

Fortunately today Russian is smart to choose China as her alliance including military and economy, and it's better to choose a strong and hopeful China as her helper.

Whatever u said, the truth is currently China and Russia were military alliance since S.O.C built, not Vietnam. If VN shoot China, ur Russian bros will punish u with Chinese together, or just stay outside and watch.

 

[cnleio]

Build a nuclear bomb (nuclear reactor ) at the border with China. Any advancement of chinese troops will become an international problem .......

The nuclear power planet (nuclear reactor) is not a nuke, even not a dirty bomb. Nuclear reactor can't explode, just leak nuclear pollutes on VN lands. Who care their nuclear pollutes ???

 

[Srinivas]

The nuclear power planet (nuclear reactor) is not a nuke, even not a dirty bomb. Nuclear reactor can't explode, just leak nuclear pollutes on VN lands. Who care their nuclear pollutes ???

This will be an issue just like Fukushima and gets world attention. Nuclear reactor is a controlled explosion and it also poses dangers to human kind if safe precautions are not taken.

 

[cnleio]

This will be an issue just like Fukushima and gets world attention. Nuclear reactor is a controlled explosion and it also poses dangers to human kind if safe precautions are not taken.

Bro, the explosion of Japan Fukushima mostly by Hydrogen and Oxygen mixture explosion, not the reactor exploded. The damage to nuclear reactor just lead to nuclear leak and environmental pollution.

BTW the nuclear rod used by nuclear power plant only 20% uranium, a real nuclear bomb at least need 15kg 93% uranium. So the nuclear reactor can not reach 'nuclear criticality' to explode like a bomb.

 

[Namin]

It seems like We soon can make our own Nuke warhead for our nuke capable missile Shaddock secretly

Niceguy, I don't want to condemn you, but you are nationalist extremist. We promised with American not enriching Uranium and they sell us equipments, so we need to keep our promise. We are not Chinese, who lay their own benefits above the promise.

 

[Rucking Fetard]

This nuclear deal is for peaceful purpose only if you know what i mean

 

[Namin]

Our big friend India deserves the right to own nuke as other superpowers owned it first and threaten the world security. Unfortunately, we already signed the treaty and we will keep our promise. India like Vietnam because we always keep our promise.

 

[BoQ77]

It's not any good thing to keep a nuke as last shield of defence.
We're staying among a peaceful community.

US trying to cover us, they actually leave us the right to enrich Uranium ( as you see in 123 Accord, that could lead to nuclear weapon material if we donot keep our words ),
that is the only thing, some body base on to say that Vietnam plan for a nuke

The good thing everybody should know that US believe in Vietnam even in atomic ownership not harm to everybody.

That's big difference to Iran, N. Korea, ...

So Vietnam could dream of an atomic power plant, submarine, aircraft carrier powered by atomic energy,

 

[BoQ77]

U.S., Vietnam Pursuing 123 Agreement
Aug 5, 2010


By Sarah Bulley

The United States and Vietnam are in the “advanced stages” of a nuclear technology exchange, the Wall Street Journal reports today. The deal would transfer nuclear technology and fuel to Vietnam, as well as allow for domestic uranium enrichment. Although some experts believe this will take a step back from the President’s nonproliferation efforts, the Administration believes that different countries require different policies.

Since first signing a memorandum of understanding in March, the United States has pursued “accelerated talks” with Vietnam. According to an unnamed U.S. official interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, the new “123 Agreement” with Vietnam would allow for the U.S. firms, such as General Electric and Bechtel to export nuclear reactors and other components to Vietnam. All facilities would be under the strict supervision of the IAEA and in compliance with Vietnam’s safeguards obligations.

"If we're able to have U.S. companies and technologies in play in Vietnam this gives the ability to exert some leverage," said the U.S. official briefed on the negotiations. "If we shut ourselves out, others may have different standards."

If the deal were to be finalized, there would be several implications for U.S. nuclear and nonproliferation policy. Last year, the Obama administration completed a deal with the UAE whereby the United States agreed to export nuclear reactors and other technology and the United Arab Emirates promised not to enrich its own uranium, but obtain nuclear fuel on the international market. According to an official quoted in the Journal, the standards required by the U.S. for Middle East nuclear partners and Asian allies will expose a double standard

This could cause Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other nations currently pursuing cooperation agreements with Washington to balk at accepting the same tough terms as the U.A.E.

"It's ironic...as nonproliferation is one of the president's top goals that the U.A.E. model is not being endorsed here," said a senior Arab official whose government is pursuing nuclear power. "People will start to see a double standard, and it will be a difficult policy to defend in the future."

The United States is currently in the process of negotiating a similar deal with Jordan. However, Jordan has indicated that it would like to enrich uranium domestically, a right it is guaranteed under the Nonproliferation Treaty. The official interviewed by the journal said that each “123 Agreement” is a unique case, and the deal reached with the UAE is not necessarily the shape of all nuclear agreements

"Given our special concerns about Iran and the genuine threat of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, we believe the U.A.E....agreement is a model for the region," said the U.S. official. "These same concerns do not specifically apply in Asia. We will take different approaches region by region and country by country.

South Korea also has a bilateral nuclear trade agreement with the United States, set to expire in 2014. The agreement does not allow for South Korea to enrich or reprocess its nuclear fuel, but South Korea hopes to amend that fact when the agreement is renegotiated, beginning this fall. If Vietnam retains the ability to enrich under a U.S. agreement, South Korea can hope to make a stronger case for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel when it meets with negotiators over the coming months.

According to the government official quoted in the Journal article, China was not involved in the agreement

U.S. officials this week said they haven't been briefing Beijing, or seeking its approval, while conducting the nuclear talks with Vietnam. "This is a negotiation between the U.S. and Vietnam," said the senior U.S. official. "We don't ask China to approve issues that are in our own strategic interest."

In fact, Vietnam recently signed a memorandum of understanding with China “boost cooperation on nuclear power projects between the two countries.” The agreement allows Vietnam to trade in nuclear technology with the Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, a state-owned atomic energy firm. Vietnam and China have had a nuclear cooperation agreement in place since 2000, and Vietnam’s budding nuclear energy program has been developed with primarily Chinese and Russian assistance.

The Vietnamese nuclear official said that although the draft U.S. agreement allows for Vietnam to enrich its own nuclear fuel, Hanoi has no plans to do so. It would put Vietnam in a precarious situation, he said. As the Wall Street Journal reported

Vuong Huu Tan, director of the Vietnam Atomic Energy Institute, a government office, said Vietnamese and U.S. officials reached an initial agreement on nuclear cooperation in March and hope to finalize the pact later this year. He said Vietnam didn't plan to enrich uranium, "as it is sensitive to Vietnam to do so."

One can only assume that enriching uranium would cause regional tensions. In addition to China, which provides Hanoi with nuclear assistance, the increased attention paid to Burma’s nuclear ambitions could cast additional attention on Vietnam if it chose to enrich domestically. However, if Vietnam does not plan to enrich uranium, why does the draft agreement purportedly include provisions that allow Hanoi to do so?

A nuclear agreement with Vietnam is a sign of both warmer relations decades after the Vietnam War and the U.S. desire to seek a stronger presence in East and Southeast Asia. The real winner in all of this, however, seems to be Vietnam. A recently inked nuclear cooperation agreement with China and a nearly completed deal with the United States will make for a robust domestic nuclear energy program. As to the implications for other “123 Agreements”, the coming months will demonstrate whether or not the Obama administration adopts a “country by country” approach to nuclear trade agreements.

//Nguyễn Thanh Quang under a Creative Commons License

The U.S. Atomic Energy Act Section 123 At a Glance
Latest ACA Resources

Nuclear Nonproliferation

U.S. Signs Arms Trade Treaty
(October 2013)
VIDEO AVAILABLE: Guarding Against A Nuclear-Armed Iran: Proliferation Risks and Diplomatic Options
(September 5, 2013)

Press Contacts: Daryl Kimball, (202) 463-8270 x107

Updated: March 2013

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 establishes the conditions and outlines the process for major nuclear cooperation between the United States and other countries. In order for a country to enter into such an agreement with the United States, that country must commit to a set of nine nonproliferation criteria. The United States has entered into nuclear cooperation agreements with 23 countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), and Taiwan.[1]

The nine nonproliferation criteria for section 123 agreements are as follows:

Nuclear material and equipment transferred to the country must remain under safeguards in perpetuity.

Non-nuclear-weapon states partners must have full-scope IAEA safeguards, essentially covering all major nuclear facilities.

A guarantee that transferred nuclear material, equipment, and technology will not have any role in nuclear weapons development or any other military purpose, except in the case of cooperation with nuclear-weapon states.

In the event that a non-nuclear-weapon state partner detonates a nuclear device using nuclear material produced or violates an IAEA safeguards agreement, the United States has the right to demand the return of any transfers.

U.S. consent is required for any re-transfer of material or classified data.

Nuclear material transferred or produced as a result of the agreement is subject to adequate physical security.

U.S. prior consent rights to the enrichment or reprocessing of nuclear material obtained or produced as a result of the agreement.

Prior U.S. approval is required for highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium obtained or produced as a result of the agreement. An agreement permitting enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) using U.S. provided material requires separate negotiation.

The above nonproliferation criteria apply to all nuclear material or nuclear facilities produced or constructed as a result of the agreement.

Section 123 requires that the Department of State submit a Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Statement (NPAS) explaining how the nuclear cooperation agreement meets these nonproliferation conditions. Congress has a total of 90 days in continuous session to consider the agreement, after which it automatically becomes law unless Congress adopts a joint resolution opposing it.

The President may exempt a proposed agreement from any of the above criteria upon determination maintaining such a criteria would be “seriously prejudicial to the achievement of U.S. non-proliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardize the common defense of the United States.” Exempted 123 agreements would then go through a different process than non-exempt agreements, requiring a congressional joint resolution approving the agreement for it to become law. There are no 123 agreements in force that were adopted with such exemptions.

In 2006, Congress passed the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act which amended the AEA permit nuclear cooperation with India, a country which is not a member of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and does not maintain full-scope safeguards. The Hyde amendment has been criticized for undermining U.S. international counterproliferation efforts.

A 123 agreement alone does not permit countries to enrich or reprocess nuclear material acquired from the United States and permission to do so requires a further negotiated agreement. A debate is currently raging in the nonproliferation community over the “Gold Standard,” named after the U.S.-UAE 123 agreement signed in 2009 whereby the UAE voluntarily renounced pursuing enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technologies and capabilities. The UAE agreement stands in stark contrast to the “blanket consent” granted to India, Japan, and EURATOM, who have ENR approval from the U.S. This consent is being sought by other countries as many 123 agreements are up for renewal and renegotiation in 2014, most notably South Korea.

ENR capabilities are controversial because the process transforms raw uranium or spent nuclear fuel into highly-enriched uranium. While these capabilities are generally used for energy purposes, because the same technology can be used for weaponization processes there are concerns of serious proliferation risks when a country obtains the technology. A Gold Standard for 123 agreements would require any country party to a 123 agreement with the United States to renounce ENR activities. The Department of Energy and the U.S. nuclear industry advocate a continuance of the case-by-case approach followed thus far in renewal agreements. A case-by-case approach allows countries to apply for ENR permission, and has been successfully pursued by India and Japan. South Korea is pushing for an agreement to permit reprocessing to develop its own nuclear industry, a major target in its economic development plans.

Thus far Congress has attempted several times to pass measures ensuring that future 123 agreements adhere to the Gold Standard. The most prominent of these bills was H.R. 1280, which among other amendments to the Atomic Energy Act declared that future 123 agreements must include “a requirement as part of the agreement for cooperation or other legally binding document that is considered part of the agreement that no reprocessing activities, or acquisition or construction of facilities for such activities, will occur within” the country. The bill also required states considering 123 agreements to be members of many international treaties and conventions promoting non-proliferation. Though reported out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in April 2011, it was blocked from floor consideration and died with the 112th Congress.

The executive branch has been less clear in its position. The George W. Bush administration coined the term Gold Standard when the U.S.-UAE deal was signed in 2009 and declared it the new standard for nuclear cooperation agreements. The Obama administration has not come out in favor of a Gold Standard, though their have been several interagency reviews soliciting opinions, the most recent during the summer of 2012. A 2011 letter from the Obama administration to Capitol Hill renounced the idea of a uniform approach to 123 agreements and advocated for a case-by-case approach in future negotiations. (See ACT, March 2012).





ENDNOTE:

1. A full list of countries with 123 agreements with the United States can be found at National Nuclear Security Administration, “123 Agreements for Peaceful Cooperation,” http://nnsa.energy.gov/aboutus/ourprograms/nonproliferation/treatiesagreements/123agreements

 

[visom]

Bro, this is a great opportunity to advance our technology and improve Vietnam's standard of living. There's no need to think of nuclear weapons yet.

 

[NiceGuy]

Fortunately today Russian is smart to choose China as her alliance including military and economy, and it's better to choose a strong and hopeful China as her helper.

Whatever u said, the truth is currently China and Russia were military alliance since S.O.C built, not Vietnam. If VN shoot China, ur Russian bros will punish u with Chinese together, or just stay outside and watch.

poor paranoid Chinese peasant , Russia bro treat u even worse than a dog, and u still try to lick his boots

Bro, the explosion of Japan Fukushima mostly by Hydrogen and Oxygen mixture explosion, not the reactor exploded. The damage to nuclear reactor just lead to nuclear leak and environmental pollution.

BTW the nuclear rod used by nuclear power plant only 20% uranium, a real nuclear bomb at least need 15kg 93% uranium. So the nuclear reactor can not reach 'nuclear criticality' to explode like a bomb.

problem is u cant check our enrichment process, only VN and US know how many percent do we enrich

Niceguy, I don't want to condemn you, but you are nationalist extremist. We promised with American not enriching Uranium and they sell us equipments, so we need to keep our promise. We are not Chinese, who lay their own benefits above the promise.

U need to grow up first, "communist" comrade

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Don't listen to NiceGuy. He's a Retard.

The Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (SEANWFZ) or the Bangkok Treaty of 1995, is a nuclear weapons moratorium treaty between 10 Southeast Asian member-states under the auspices of the ASEAN: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. It was opened for signature at the treaty conference in Bangkok, Thailand, on 15 December 1995 and it entered into force on March 28, 1997 and obliges its members not to develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons.

VN moves to ensure nuclear weapon-free ASEAN

Vietnam is working together with other ASEAN countries to ensure the region is free from nuclear weapons and calls on nuclear weapon states worldwide to recognise the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.

VN moves to ensure nuclear weapon-free ASEAN -- Vietnam+ (VietnamPlus)

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ilitary-news-discussion-31.html#ixzz2hNuLCL00

 

[NiceGuy]

Don't listen to NiceGuy. He's a Retard.

VN moves to ensure nuclear weapon-free ASEAN

Vietnam is working together with other ASEAN countries to ensure the region is free from nuclear weapons and calls on nuclear weapon states worldwide to recognise the Southeast Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.

VN moves to ensure nuclear weapon-free ASEAN -- Vietnam+ (VietnamPlus)

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ilitary-news-discussion-31.html#ixzz2hNuLCL00

So can u check our nuclear enrichment process ?? if we dont need to make nuke warhead, then why we demand the right to enrich uranium on our own soil ?? why Japan-Iran are not allowed to do the same ??

btw: ASEAN was formed to go against VN, we just join ASEAN to make friend wt u, not to promise we wont attack any one in ASEAN to revenge the time they supported US to bomb VN

From 1976 to 1978, ASEAN's differences with Vietnam were both symbolic and real. ASEAN, for example, proposed establishing Southeast Asia as a zone of peace, freedom, and neutrality and invited Vietnam to support the proposal. Hanoi refused but countered with its own proposal, calling instead for a region of peace, independence, and neutrality. Apparently, the Vietnamese objected to the term freedom because of their vulnerability to criticism on human rights issues. The term Independence, on the other hand, was promoted by the Vietnamese as a concept opposing all foreign military bases in Southeast Asia, an idea that many of the ASEAN nations did not share.

During the Second Indochina War, each ASEAN state pursued its own Vietnam policy. Malaysia and Indonesia maintained strict neutrality, whereas Thailand and the Philippines contributed personnel and materiel to South Vietnam. Perceptions of Vietnam as a possible threat to the region also varied among member nations. Indonesia and Malaysia viewed Vietnam as a buffer against Chinese expansionism, whereas Thailand, wary of possible repetition of historic patterns of confrontation with Vietnam, turned to China for protection following the war's end and the subsequent withdrawal of United States forces from Thailand.

Following the 1978 invasion of Cambodia, however, the ASEAN nations were united in their condemnation of Hanoi. They took the lead in mobilizing international opinion against Vietnam, and, in the UN General Assembly, they annually sponsored resolutions calling for withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and for internationally supervised elections. The ASEAN nations also were instrumental in preventing the Vietnam-sponsored Heng Samrin regime in Phnom Penh from taking over Cambodia's UN seat. In June 1982, ASEAN was instrumental in persuading three disparate Cambodian resistance elements to merge into a coalition resistance government.
http://countrystudies.us/vietnam/63.htm