The window to shape the global nuclear order is narrowing. By pooling capital, components, and construction capacity, the U.S., Japan, and South Korea can move from pilot projects to scaled deployment.
“The United States knows that peaceful power from atomic energy is no dream of the future. That capability, already proved, is here—now—today.”—President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Atoms for Peace speech, 8 December 1953[i]
China, Russia, and the United States are all jockeying for competitive advantage as the world reconsiders nuclear power amidst a resurgence of geopolitical tensions and growing demand for electricity.[ii] Nuclear power pre-eminence sharpens the competitive edge for whatever countries or coalitions of countries can prevail.[iii]
From an American perspective, an important question thus arises: is it time for an Atoms for Peace 2.0? If so, should the United States offer a vision for a safe nuclear future built hand-in-hand with Japan and South Korea?
Here is a roadmap for how to achieve that outcome.
Nuclear Power Anchors Generational Partnerships
Ceding the 5G market to Huawei was a strategic error. Letting China National Nuclear dominate the global nuclear power would be far worse because of 60-to-80-year asset life and fuel lock in. For countries around the world, buying nuclear reactors will be a bit like buying fighter jets: it won’t be a “cash and carry” transaction.
Rather, the signing will usher in a multi-decade technological partnership and the price tag will be in the billions or tens of billions. Nuclear energy systems are perhaps the ultimate physical manifestations of long-term international partnership. Fighter jets create a 25 year partnership, but nuclear reactors can anchor one for 60 years or more, making nuclear power an essential component of great power competition.
Chinese nuclear dominance would also exert geopolitical alignment effects, and likely, technology standards dominance that would come at the expense of the Japanese, Korean, and US industrial bases.
Choosing nuclear power equipment suppliers and the building out of corresponding supply chains will likely coincide with (or help create) broader geopolitical and technological alignments. A lack of competitive “allied nuclear rail” alternatives paves the way for Chinese and Russia kit to make its way into more markets. This dynamic unfolds now in Kazakhstan as it has chosen Rosatom to build its first large nuclear power station but immediately expressed a desire to have China build a second.[iv]
It is now clear that civilian nuclear exports are an intensely contested space that will yield long-term strategic advantages to the countries that become the global providers of choice. It is also contested in a way few other international business spaces are. Buyers sign contracts for gas turbines as a purely private matter but nuclear technology sales occur with national interests standing right next to the table.
For the US and its partners, competing with state-owned Chinese and Russian entities therefore requires an integrated nuclear geoeconomic strategy that not only promotes scalable deployment in home markets but also offers competitive alternatives for other countries seeking energy security. Speed, scale, technical excellence, geopolitical reliability and desirability will all factor into national decisions on nuclear procurement.
How We Win: The 5-Layer Battle Plan
To make “Atoms for Peace 2.0” a reality, we must move past framework agreements and into aggressive action that turns technological and capital markets strengths into enduring strategic advantage.
To compete with state-backed giants like Rosatom, the U.S. cannot act alone. We need an integrated design-build-finance platform that leverages the unique strengths of three partners:
- Japan: Precision manufacturing and specialized engineering (Hitachi and IHI).
- South Korea: The “Foundry.” Doosan Enerbility is a global powerhouse, having already supplied 34 reactor units and 124 steam generators worldwide.
- United States: Capital, software innovation, and R&D.
Here are the 5 core layers that will help us accomplish that objective.
The Industrial Layer
To outcompete state-backed giants like Rosatom and CNNC, the United States, South Korea, and Japan should consider adopting a “Design-Build-Finance” joint platform. This strategy transforms the trilateral relationship into a massive industrial engine, utilizing an SMR Consortium where American IP and designs are forged in South Korean facilities—like the world’s first dedicated SMR fab in Changwon—and outfitted with Japanese precision modules. By treating nuclear reactors like semiconductors, the “Foundry Model” allows U.S. innovators to scale their designs at a pace that matches the global demand for 24/7 carbon-free power.
Equity Cross-Ownership and Technical Cooperation can cement this cooperation. Major Korean and Japanese industrial players would be encouraged to take equity stakes in U.S. firms, creating a unified industrial fabric that shares the risks and rewards of large-scale deployment. Meanwhile, technical collaboration on multiple dimensions of large reactor and SMR components as well as fuel research ensures that the partnership remains the global gold standard for nuclear safety and innovation.
The final, and perhaps most critical, piece of this narrative is the Unified Financing Stack. By coordinating the power of Export Credit Agencies like EXIM, K-SURE, and JBIC, the three nations can finally match the “Build-Own-Operate” terms that have made Russian and Chinese deals so attractive to emerging markets. This creates a “plug-and-play” export model that doesn’t just sell a reactor, but offers a total package: the financing to build it, the technology to run it, and a multi-decade geopolitical alliance that ensures global energy security for generations.
The Structuring Layer
To move from industrial theory to physical deployment, the partnership requires a rigorous foundation of Regulatory Harmonization and Diplomatic Scaffolding that clears the path for cross-border nuclear trade. On the regulatory front, the plan leverages the ADVANCE Act and a new International Recognition Pathway, allowing the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to accept safety reviews from Korean and Japanese counterparts to eliminate redundant testing for global reactor designs.
Diplomatically, the framework is anchored by the landmark 2025 KEPCO–Westinghouse Global IP Settlement, which resolves long-standing legal disputes and clears the export path for high-capacity reactors under a 50-year royalty and equipment-purchase agreement. By aligning national security protocols through CFIUS and “Atoms for Peace 2.0” summits, the three nations can transform nuclear energy from a series of individual commercial projects into a unified geoeconomic endeavor.
The Regulatory Layer
The trilateral alliance translates industrial integration into four distinct export product lines designed to attain pre-eminence in a $500–740 billion global market. By combining American designs with South Korean construction and Japanese precision parts, the alliance could offer Large Reactor Bids for national grids and a modular SMR Export Package tailored for emerging nuclear markets like Ghana and the Philippines.
A cornerstone of this strategy is the novel “Allied Electricity” Package, which bundles nuclear power directly with AI data center hardware to ensure a secure, sovereign-scale compute layer that prevents a repeat of the 5G/Huawei dependency.[v] Finally, the partnership seeks to counter Russian dominance in niche sectors with Floating SMR Platforms and Gen-IV advanced reactors, securing long-tail strategic relationships that last up to 80 years. It could also consider preferential financing for projects that seek to replace legacy Russian nuclear reactors with modernized reactors and fuel sourced from nuclear alliance members.
Packaging and Product Layer
The final layer of the strategy presents a high-stakes competition where the US-Korea-Japan Trilateral alliance goes head-to-head with the state-backed nuclear machines of Russia and China. While Russia’s Rosatom currently leads in export volume through its “zero up-front capital” model and China’s CNNC offers rapid technological scaling, the trilateral bloc counters with a superior combined capability of dozens of global SMR designs and a proven track record of delivering projects like the UAE’s Barakah plant on time.
The core value proposition for the alliance rests on the Rule of Law and nonproliferation standards, offering buyer nations a reliable “Allied Rail” for their energy and AI compute needs that contrasts with the geopolitical dependencies of its rivals. Ultimately, the framework frames the global nuclear market as a binary choice: nations will either lay their long-term infrastructure on democratic, integrated trilateral rails or align their energy futures with the state-directed influence of Moscow and Beijing.
Final Layer: Comparing the Blocs
US policy already seeks to ensure as much of the world as possible runs on allied AI rails. The same logic applies to nuclear energy — and the lock-in is even longer. The choice is stark: will the next 60-80 years of global nuclear infrastructure be built on allied trilateral rails, or laid by Moscow and Beijing?
Suggested Citation: Gabriel Collins and Henry Haggard, “Atoms for Peace 2.0: The Trilateral Playbook to Stop a Chinese-Russian Nuclear Lock-In,” The Sinews of Civilization, Substack, 20 April 2026. https://gabrielcollins.substack.com/p/atoms-for-peace-20-the-trilateral
Thanks for reading The Sinews of Civilization: Fire, Food, Water, Force! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
This piece is based on: Henry Haggard and Gabriel Collins, Nuclear Geoeconomics: A Trilateral Action Plan for Japan, South Korea, and the United States (GWIKS–FPF Publication, 2026), https://emma-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/0oueb/cb87e44df58e6005bf73d97ae63e16f9/2026_GWIKS_FPF_Pub_Haggard_Collins_Final.pdf
[i] Atomic Heritage Foundation. “Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Speech.” National Museum of Nuclear Science & History. Accessed June 24, 2025. https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/eisenhowers-atoms-peace-speech/.
[ii] Gabriel Collins, “America Should Lead the Fight Against Global Energy Poverty,” Foreign Policy, 20 March 2025, https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/03/20/america-energy-poverty-china-power/
[iii] Gabriel Collins, “A US-Led Energy and Food Abundance Agenda Would Reshape the Global Strategic Landscape” (Houston: Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, April 11, 2024), https://doi.org/10.25613/k0mb-7y09.
[iv] Агентство Республики Казахстан по атомной энергии. “Казахстан выбрал Росатом.” AtomInfo.Ru, June 14, 2025. http://atominfo.ru/newsz08/a0574.htm.; “Китайская CNNC станет лидером консорциума по строительству ещё одной АЭС в Казахстане.” AtomInfo.Ru, June 14, 2025. http://atominfo.ru/newsz08/a0575.htm.
[v] Gabriel Collins and Christopher Bronk, “AI Geoeconomics: Allied Electricity and Secure Data Centers,” Rice University Baker Institute for Public Policy, December 18, 2025, https://doi.org/10.25613/T8RH-7H63
Leave a Reply