Nuclear energy, as I said at the beginning, is inevitably connected with the nuclear weapon. In this respect, one factor which has slowed down the uptake of nuclear energy is the fact that there has been a fear, especially among the nuclear countries, that this technology might be imitated or copied by other countries, and other countries might also go in the direction of developing nuclear weapons. The idea of a world in which every country has a nuclear weapon is not terribly attractive, not terribly enticing. So there are five main nuclear countries that have a nuclear weapon, that's United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. These five countries, at some point, promoted the conclusion of a treaty called the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereby other countries, different from this five, would pledge not to develop a nuclear weapon, abstain from developing a nuclear weapon. This was, in a sense, a bargain that was struck in between the nuclear countries and the other countries, which in essence, gave up something that previously would have been right because there was no international law prohibiting them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In this bargain, the exchange was very clear, and when you read the treaty, it's a short treaty. In Article IV, it says, "Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with the Articles I and II of this Treaty," which said that they should not develop nuclear weapons. So the treaty clearly asserted a right for every country to develop peaceful use of nuclear energy. At the same point in Article IV also said that all the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have a right to participate in the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information, and so on. So there was a pledge on the part of the nuclear countries to facilitate the access of all other countries to nuclear technology so that they could more easily develop the peaceful use of this nuclear technology. So on one hand, the majority of countries gave up on the right to develop a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, they were expecting assistance and the facilitation for them developing peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The latter part of the deal has not really been [inaudible] , because for the most part, the nuclear countries have been reluctant to share nuclear technology, even if it was meant for peaceful purposes, because they, in essence, did not trust that this would go for peaceful purposes. They always were afraid that, "Okay, I'm dealing with one government today, but what if this government changes? So I prefer not to share this knowledge." The other key point of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that in Article VI, the nuclear parties pledged to engage to stop the nuclear arms race, which was in full swing at the end of the 1960s when this treaty was signed, it was signed in 1970. It said, at an early date, they pledged to engage in nuclear disarmament on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. Now, nuclear disarmament is not happening. There has been a reduction in the nuclear warheads in the possession of the United States in Russia. This has been discussed in the start negotiations and the start treaty. In addition, there are a certain number of countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So having not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, they are not bound by the limitations that are imposed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and this is a case in particular of three countries; India, Israel, and Pakistan. Each of them has developed a nuclear weapon. Although in the case of Israel, there is a certain ambiguity about the existence of an Israeli nuclear weapon. The Israeli state has never acknowledged that they have a nuclear weapon, but it's widely believed that they do have a nuclear weapon. In any case, they refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. So as long as this treaty is not very credible, not fully credible, because one side, the non-nuclear countries has avoided proliferation. But the other side, the nuclear countries, have neither extended the kind of support that was promised, nor disarmed, and on top of that, there are countries that have not signed the treaty and they are not in any sense being punished for that. In fact, not even facilitated in their access to nuclear technology as recently under an agreement signed between India and the United States. The incentive for the non-nuclear countries to remain non-nuclear is being eroded. At the heart of the debate is the fuel cycle and the possibility of recycling some of the spent nuclear fuel. Because the nuclear fuel, which is used at least in today's nuclear power plants, this may change with new technology, but at least in today's nuclear power plant is such that if it is recycled, it can be used many times, and so this greatly increases the availability of nuclear fuel. But at the same time, when it is recycled, it is possible to extract plutonium, which is what you need to build a nuclear weapon. So people tend to limit and maintain a close control over the recycling of spent nuclear fuel for fear of proliferation, and this is something that limits the durability in time of nuclear fuel and nuclear energy in general. Because if we cannot recycle the fuel, we might run out of uranium and fuel that we utilize in nuclear power plants within a shorter time horizon. While if we can recycle, the time horizon is very much extended into the future.