It is a point for them to coexist. It’s called plausible deniability.

What exactly are you trying to argue? That it’s not a good reason for a country to get a bunch of uranium without raising questions?

There was absolutely no incentive to research more about alternative fuels, uranium and plutonium were materials the nuclear powers wanted. For more than just 1 reason…

If countries REALLY wanted nuclear power without Uranium. They would have researched it. Like China have. But no one else has. Well some have, but they all gave up a long time ago.

Sweden was researching it, but decided to go with Uranium, coincidentally, they just happened to also research nuclear weapons… very strange coincidence that… (Sweden was later encouraged to halt all nuclear weapons research)

Yes. They compete for the same raw material. That’s the whole point. Gives you a perfectly good reason to excavate it.

It gives you a reason to access the materials you need for nuclear weapons.

Who is saying they’re using the fuel for reactors to make the weapons? Just you.

And not that I count it. But they do infact make weapons from spent uranium. They make artillery shells from it. Buy like I said. I don’t even count that.

US experiments were broken off because it gives no excuse to attain materials for nuclear weapons. Same excuse everyone else use.

It says each member will assist the attacked party/parties, as it deems necessary.

My interpretation of the article is that assistance is mandatory. What type of assistance is up to the member to decide

https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/topics_110496.htm?selectedLocale=en