Nuclear arms summit...

Wonder if Obama could draw us up one of them treaties...

All hail bryan1.

HiTech said:

From what I've read only Russia and the US agreed to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles leaving each of them with still well over 1000 weapons- enough to assure complete mutual annihilation and enough fallout to kill off many other nations on earth. Besides, the weapons reduction is focused at only aging, high maintenance missles and mobile launchers that are years old. Both countries would still keep their newer models. Don't forget their navies are the best platform for delivering nukes throughout the world. There hasn't been any mention of chemical and biological weapons reduction nor other cutting-edge large scale weapons. I consider the (bogus) effort from both the US and Russia to be more of smoke 'n mirrors.

Click to expand...

yeah not often i say this but i totaly agree with you

BrownOut said:

The fall of the economy came, not because of government action, but government inaction. Hopefully, the lesson will be learned this time, and reform will prevail.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I think it's wait and see on the economy "yet" I don't think big Gov is the answer. Let me clarify, that is to say like laws in place are not adhered too or ignored! we did have an "agency" at the time who could have seen into this and discovered it.

But there effective powers had been cut. Long before. Why didn't they remember the failed S&L's of the 80's. The agency was there just for that purpose and was well designed. As always someone else is smarter than everyone and knows the answer. Greenspan, is a smart man. Saying the market was self correcting and that it wouldn't suffer at the hands of greed.

But, what he didn't see was the people at the top who are the same or similar people who created the depression. He did not believe so many people would want to sell America down the river for a fast buck.

His was more or less that greed would turn upon itself and the market would discover them by itself. We didn't need meddling hands to stop the flow of money in the economy.

The market would correct itself if we would have left those companies die. But instead, we bailed out their failures and set them up for another decade of pure greed.

I don't know what big or small government really means, but I know that it should never defer to private enterprises.

Although this really has nothing to do with the topic.

smanches said:

The market would correct itself if we would have left those companies die. But instead, we bailed out their failures and set them up for another decade of pure greed.

I don't know what big or small government really means, but I know that it should never defer to private enterprises.

Although this really has nothing to do with the topic.

Click to expand...

Yes and No. Well, it's just when Politics are concerned it seems to draw everything into it.

Like a Black Hole.

It's still just a pointless, piece of paper. Mostly an excuse to divert money, to be used for who knows what. How do the figure on inventorying, and cataloging all the nuclear weapons and materials available on the planet? Will we just take the word of the countries that sign the paper? How many countries actually know what all they actually have on hand? If I was the leader of some nuclear country, I doubt I would give a 100% accounting. I'd want to hold enough on the side, just to make sure it's available, if needed. Besides, radioactive stuff probably has a much greater potential, than we've yet tapped it into. Seems like we've on stuck with the quick, cheap, and relatively safe for decades. Would be kind of a rip off, if there was a safe and stable way to draw electricity more directly from the rocks. Nuclear plants are still only steam generators, like from a hundred years ago. Kind of tough to get your hands on a suitable quantity to experiment with, and that door really isn't open to very many people.

I doubt the terrorist really care that much about going nuclear anyway, as it seems like the are making our lives miserable enough without it.

I’m sure there are controls for verifying and cataloging the nuclear inventory. And it won’t be all nuclear material, as not all material is suitable for dirty bombs. But as in the past, agreements came with methods of verifying the control over the material. Even in Iraq, after years of no UN inspections, UNSCOM was able to verify the material that was locked down after the 1st Gulf War was still controlled before the 2nd war began ( as opposed to what Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al was saying ) Only after the invasion began did the material disappear. Had the inspectors been allowed to stay in the country and do their jobs, the material would have remained under control and accounted for. The same thing can be accomplished because it’s to each of the countries' advantage to cooperate and get control over this material. I’m absolutely sure the terrorists would love to get their hands on it, because that’s their goal, to cause as much havoc and destruction possible. They are trying to acquire the material as I type this, I am sure. There are also reports that terrorists and rogue nations are interested in refining lesser nuclear material like uranium to make it potent enough for a highly destructive dirty bomb, and so getting control of even the material that’s not high enough grade will be important too. Every ounce of material that’s controlled is an ounce that’s out of the grasp of those who wish to harm us.

To bad it's not just a few ounces, but several tons of material. Still think you are wrong about what you call a 'Dirty-bomb'. You seem to think that a nuclear reaction is needed to shower the masses with a radioactive cloud of dust and debris. They could still deliver the same mess with their stand back-pack bomb, just throw in a few chunks. No shielding needed, since the bomber won't live long enough to die of radiation poisoning...

Oh, welcome back...

*Was going to ask about the oil spill in the gulf, but remembered you are in Alabama. The mess is suppose to be hitting the shoreline any day now. Wondering why they waited so long to start burning it off. Still a mess to clean up, just not as slimy. Haven't heard what caused the explosion either, but seems like it came, just as they were talking about allowing more offshore drilling...

I never said it was just a few ounces, but that each and every ounce that comes under control is an ounce that is out of the reach of terrorists. The point should be simple; that controlling the material makes it increasingly harder for bad people to acquire it. So, at worst, it will decrease the risk of terrorists using the material to make a dirty bomb, and at best might prevent it. I never said a reaction is needed to make a dirty bomb; however, material of high enrichment is required for the kind of widespread damage that is the worst possibility. Low level radiation won't make that much of an impact.

BrownOut said:

I never said it was just a few ounces, but that each and every ounce that comes under control is an ounce that is out of the reach of terrorists. The point should be simple; that controlling the material makes it increasingly harder for bad people to acquire it. So, at worst, it will decrease the risk of terrorists using the material to make a dirty bomb, and at best might prevent it. I never said a reaction is needed to make a dirty bomb; however, material of high enrichment is required for the kind of widespread damage that is the worst possibility. Low level radiation won't make that much of an impact.

Click to expand...

Sorry but that's not true, the bulk of what will be cataloged is stuff that's already in safe or relatively safe known locations, such as military bases and Nuclear fascilities with security measures.
I hope you don't find this offense as it's not meant to be but that statement shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of reality. Look at the worldwide drug trade and other black markets as a case in point.

At worst it will waste money with no benefit to the world at large, at best it will fractionally reduce the chances of a terrorist acquiring nuclear material it will NEVER eliminate the threat, and we'll never know because there is no way to calculate those chances.

Also, highly enriched material is NOT required, simple introduction of even low grade radioactive materials into a water source or ground into a fine powder and introduced into an air source... Many low level radiation sources are completely harmless to the outside of the body, ingested or inhaled can be fatal.

Sceadwian said:

Sorry but that's not true, the bulk of what will be cataloged is stuff that's already in safe or relatively safe known locations, such as military bases and Nuclear facilities with security measures.
I hope you don't find this offense as it's not meant to be but that statement shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of reality. Look at the worldwide drug trade and other black markets as a case in point.

At worst it will waste money with no benefit to the world at large, at best it will fractionally reduce the chances of a terrorist acquiring nuclear material it will NEVER eliminate the threat, and we'll never know because there is no way to calculate those chances.

Also, highly enriched material is NOT required, simple introduction of even low grade radioactive materials into a water source or ground into a fine powder and introduced into an air source... Many low level radiation sources are completely harmless to the outside of the body, ingested or inhaled can be fatal.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's the above quoted text that shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of reality. Although much of the material might be "locked down", it's kept in regions of questionable stability, like the satellites that make up the former Soviet Union and other countries which I won't mention. Other stockpiles are in areas that are geologically unstable, and in very recent times, those stockpiles have been in some danger of disappearing due to the confusion that follows earthquakes. Those regions would benefit from better security. Aside from that, there are a number of highly enriched fuel rods that are plain missing. Not to mention all of the less enriched yellowcake that disappeared from Iraq.

What I said was that it takes a highly enriched material to make a dirty bomb. This is the most likely scenario that would cause widespread damage. Putting a material of less enrichment would be a lesser threat, but is also capable of causing damage and panic, but on a much smaller scale. That's why the highly enriched material is the first priority, because the potential is much worse, and then the less enriched material would be secured afterwards. Sure there will always be a threat, but securing this material mitigates the threat, and makes it harder for those nasty "evildoers" to do us harm.

. Aside from that, there are a number of highly enriched fuel rods that are plain missing.

Click to expand...

So this treatise and the summit are a waste of time because it won't find the lost materials which are the most likely source for a terrorist. It can never prevent what it is intending to prevent.

What I said was that it takes a highly enriched material to make a dirty bomb.

Click to expand...

It does not, ANY radioactive material can be used as a 'dirty bomb' if you're qualification that a dirty bomb has to require enriched materials to be called one then you're using an overly precise definition.

Putting a material of less enrichment would be a lesser threat,

Click to expand...

Untrue as well, as it would be also less likely to be secure because of it's perceived non-threat and so easier to obtain by default.

That's why the highly enriched material is the first priority, because the potential is much worse, and then the less enriched material would be secured afterwards.

Click to expand...

As already stated because of simply put lost materials this priority is moot because it is doomed from it's start to be garunteed to miss what we don't know is out there. Also less enriched materials especially those creatable from medical equipment are a more likely target as what they lack for it raw power they gain in being easily accessible, comparative to high grade materials.

Sure there will always be a threat, but securing this material mitigates the threat, and makes it harder for those nasty "evildoers" to do us harm.

Click to expand...

Mind you that the countries that didn't go to this treaty are the ones most likley to end up being the source of such materials making all the best efforts of the "gooddoers" pointless.

It's like being able to get a gun or drugs illegaly almost anywhere. Making them illegal does nothing, given enough of a profit margin (and there always is) there will always be a way to circumvent exiting material control schemes. You can never solve this kind of problem by stopping the perceived evil, as in the case of all three drugs, guns and nuclear materials it is bad people that are the problem, they'll find s ome way to do bad things no matter what. I'd rather see a global peace summit designed to help increase communication and understanding between various global cultures, or a moral summit to say loud and clear the very basic of common morality. That might do some good.

I don't the terrorists are driven to find the highest quality, most efficient, or best money can buy, when in comes to backpack contents. They seem to use whatever they can get their hands on. Instead of wounding a dozen or two, maybe killing a few, they could effect a whole neighborhood. Higher grade, would also mean more careful handling and storage, they wouldn't want to get sick and die, before they had a chance to blow it up.

The treaty really on covers 'known' materials, not the stuff lost or misplaced, or material that some countries deny ever having... Who will track down all these small quantities, and who will be in charge of babysitting? Still, it will rely on humans, who can be bought. People all over the world, steal from their employers, even presidents and CEOs.

The Cold War, and Arms treaties have been around all my life, and really don't see a whole lot of difference.

Just to recap that entier last post very briefly. What you're saying is that a screen door on a sub is a good way to stop water from getting in. On a world scale the screen of security and monitoring can never be tight enough to completly prevent said materials from entering the black market, not with fist size holes in it from the countries and groups with enough power/money to make the holes.

So this treatise and the summit are a waste of time because it won't find the lost materials which are the most likely source for a terrorist. It can never prevent what it is intending to prevent.

Click to expand...

It's not a waste of time. The material can be found. They said the original WTC bombers would never be found, but they were.

It does not, ANY radioactive material can be used as a 'dirty bomb' if you're qualification that a dirty bomb has to require enriched materials to be called one then you're using an overly precise definition.

Click to expand...

That's false. Highly enriched material is required (or other high grade material).

Further, less enriched material would be harder to use against us. Highly enriched material of a soft-ball size could be use to cause widespread and immediate damage.

As already stated because of simply put lost materials this priority is moot because it is doomed from its start to be guaranteed to miss what we don't know is out there. Also less enriched materials especially those creatable from medical equipment are a more likely target as what they lack for it raw power they gain in being easily accessible, comparative to high grade materials.

Click to expand...

High grade material is the biggest threat, as described above.

Mind you that the countries that didn't go to this treaty are the ones most likley to end up being the source of such materials making all the best efforts of the "gooddoers" pointless.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. There will be some rogue states that won't go along, but most of the countries have an interest in securing the loose material.

Clearly, we're not talking about drugs or guns. It's not like someone can grow highly enriched uranium in a field in Mexico. We know where most of the material is, and most likely can secure it. The threat will never be eliminated, but with proper effort, it can be drastically decreased.

BrownOut, I'll believe that right after I see the full cost benefit analysis that's scientifically based and completely unbiased to any side. At best they're guessing about severity, and there's no actual risk values associated to this versus say spending the same amount of money on bettering communication between the factions that are actually the problem in the first place. All the nuclear material in the world wouldn't matter if no one wanted to use it to prove a point like terrorists do.

I still have no idea why you're saying a dirty bomb requires enriched materials, again I think you're using a very narrow definition of it, bombs are not required to explode that is simply one defintion of them, the one you seem to have chosen arbitrarily. A device that would release low level powdered radioactive materials into a water stream or air dispersal system can be called a bomb as well, you seem to be excluding all the other possible definitions of bomb without justification for your narrow meaning. Mind you your opinion does not chose the definition of a word.

You could grow highly enriched uranium in a field in Mexico... if you had low grade Uranium and a cetrifuge. You forget how much of the drug market depends on processing of an otherwise unusable product into what is peddled on the streets, some of the modern ones are completely synthetic, there is no distinction at all. Guns same thing, highly enriched uranium can do bad things, so can guns, guns and uranium are legal, though controlled, both can kill indiscriminately or be extremely useful tools. Locking down nuclear materials will do no more good than making drugs illegal, won't prevent bad people (those that don't legally own guns say) from obtaining or creating or using them. Addressing the social problems at their core, or at least funding understanding of what problems are actually at their core would be money better spent in my opinion. Not that no good will be done, but more good could be done in other ways.

It in my opinion it's pork barrel spending and/or a political photo op for a 'good cause' without any hope of making a dent in the true problem, except it's on a global scale.

Well, I believe it now. There is no question as to what havoc can be wrought with dirty nukes. This is the most powerful force ever deployed my man. I don't think it's a guess; the threat is real, as real as real gets. Better communication is a good thing, and that is one of the goals of the ongoing efforts. Communication and cooperation between countries, along with a concerted effort to find and secure the loose nuclear materials are all part of the stated goals.

Yes, what is referred to as a "dirty bomb" requires high grade materials. Just dispersing low grade material is not the same thing, and is not on the same level in terms of a threat. As has been discussed, the potential for widespread damage is much more likely to come from detonating a dirty bomb than spraying low grade material in water supply ( not to say that isn't a threat, but it's a much different animal ) But when we talk about detonating a dirty bomb in a densely populated area, it's a very deadly device made from the most deadly material. It's not my definition; it's the definition that's most widely used.

Highly enriched uranium doesn't grow in Mexico HA! The processing that's required is so different that any comparison is just useless. Nothing that's used to process drugs comes close to the sophistication that is needed to enrich nukes. You just can't make these kinds of nukes with what is common in drug processing. Even firearms don’t use anything that's close. That said, rogue states are getting closer to acquiring the necessary equipment. That makes it even more important to increase the level of cooperation between nations.

Well, I believe it now.

Click to expand...

What you believe does not make it real.

There is no question as to what havoc can be wrought with dirty nukes.

Click to expand...

This has nothing whatsoever to do with this post, or any post before this.

the threat is real

Click to expand...

A threat can't be real, it is by definition a fabrication or intent and has no reality only possibility.

Better communication is a good thing, and that is one of the goals of the ongoing efforts. Communication and cooperation between countries, along with a concerted effort to find and secure the loose nuclear materials are all part of the stated goals.

Click to expand...

Yes, all the good people can sit and talk about how good they are and how they're trying to better the world, while those with ill intent do whatever they want, highly effective.

Yes, what is referred to as a "dirty bomb" requires high grade materials. Just dispersing low grade material is not the same thing, and is not on the same level in terms of a threat.

Click to expand...

Quote your sources, there is no concrete definition of what a dirty bomb is, it's just two words put together your opinion of what a dirty bomb is does not mean that's the only way nuclear materials could be employed uising the exact same words as they're just words with very broad definition. I won't accept singular articles as a 'definition' please explain with great detail how you arrived at your definition of dirty bomb.

Highly enriched uranium doesn't grow in Mexico HA! The processing that's required is so different that any comparison is just useless. Nothing that's used to process drugs comes close to the sophistication that is needed to enrich nukes. You just can't make these kinds of nukes with what is common in drug processing. Even firearms don’t use anything that's close. That said, rogue states are getting closer to acquiring the necessary equipment. That makes it even more important to increase the level of cooperation between nations.

Click to expand...

Nukes as in nuclear bombs are NOT the problem it's the radioactive material that is and delivery methods that can be used to distribute the materials lethally. All it takes to purify to lethality nuclear materials is a freegin high speed spinning tub =) Doesn't have to make it so that the material can go critical, it just has to make it radioactive enough that it can be put into a form that can be diffused in a lethal manner to the population.

That said, rogue states are getting closer to acquiring the necessary equipment. That makes it even more important to increase the level of cooperation between nations.

Click to expand...

Which because the rogue states aren't part of this summit renders it useless for this purpose.