Subject: EEE会議（"Atoms for Peace”５０周年会議）
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:14:30 +0900
From: "kkaneko" <kkaneko@eagle.ocn.ne.jp>

各位殿

皆様ご承知のとおり、本年は、米国のアイゼンハワー大統領が１９５３年１２月８日
の国連総会で、「平和のための原子力」(Atoms for Peace)と題する画期的な演説を
行い、原子力平和利用を提唱してから丸５０年の記念すべき年で、世界各国で各種の
記念行事が予定されております。その皮切りに米国カリフォルニア州のローレンス・
リバーモア国立研究所（LLNL)で４月８−１０日、かなり大規模な国際会議が開催さ
れますところ、同会議の第１パネル（小生も参加）で行われる議論の問題点リストを
主催者から事前に送って来ましたので、その１部をご参考までに高覧に供します。　

実は、当EEE会議でもできれば同趣旨のシンポジウムのようなものを本年末あたりに
東京で開催し、日本の原子力平和利用と核問題の来し方行く末を大いに議論したいと
考えておりますが、このリストはその意味でも参考になるのではないかと存じます。
このリストは米国の立場でまとめられており、２０数年前米国主導で行われた「国際
核燃料サイクル評価」（INFCE）会議を髣髴とさせる内容ですが、日本人の立場から
みてこのリストに追加すべき問題点、その他お気づきの点があれば、どしどし提起し
てください。

金子熊夫

***************************************************

Sample Questions for Panel No. 1

・ The original Atoms for Peace concept envisioned an international
bank of uranium and fissionable material from which nations could draw as
needed for peaceful purposes. Is this approach still relevant for today?

・ Are multilateral approaches to preventing nuclear proliferation
inherently flawed or has their enforcement not been sufficiently aggressive?


・ Many states (Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Brazil, etc.)
decided not to develop nuclear weapons or dismantled existing programs. How
have recent events ? especially Iraq and September 11 ? affected nations’
restraint calculations?

・ Are multilateral measures needed to avoid the emergence of the
“nuclear crowd” that Albert Wohlstetter envisioned?

・ The Acheson-Lillienthal report introduced the premise that the
pursuit of peaceful nuclear use would invariably lead to its military
development, in spite of pledges to the contrary. Has history borne this
out and is it time to reexamine this premise?

・ What might have been done differently during the past fifty
years to have strengthened the nonproliferation regime, for example, in
enforcement and penalties, expanded safeguards, and technology?

・ Although the US and the former USSR had many thousands of
nuclear weapons during the Cold War, the significant fact is that not one
was used. Isn’t the non-use of nuclear weapons the real issue, not their
possession? Wouldn’t it be better to recognize that some states will
acquire nuclear weapons regardless of attempts to prevent that from
happening, so what we really should do is establish agreements or other
structures that would lessen the probability of their use?

・ Given the realities of today’s world, other than health,
safety, and environmental factors, why should there be any constraints on
any country using or developing civilian nuclear applications?

・ How can the signatories to the NPT approach the problem of
ineffective enforcement? What is needed?

・ What role, if any, has the development of an indigenous nuclear
power industry had in the ability of a country to develop nuclear weapons?