A first triumph at the nuclear summit
Outside the conference centre two marines do duty as traffic cops, stopping cars and lorries and waving them on.
A police car blocks the next street, and a trailer from Homeland Security's emergency response unit is parked alongside. A ring of big trucks provides further discouragement to would-be car bombers. The high security is understandable. The prime ministers and presidents of 40 countries are inside.
But all this high security would be blown away like paper in the wind by what President Obama is talking about. A nuclear bomb set off by terrorists. He says it is the highest threat to US security.
Of course film makers and novelists have long made us shiver at the sheer thought of such a possibility, and the whole perception of the danger of weapons of mass destruction after 9/11 led us into the Iraq war.
But perhaps some threats seem too much like fiction to be taken seriously. According to a poll by US network ABC, only 12% of Americans agree with their president that it is the biggest threat to their country.
President Obama appears to worry that other world leaders are just as complacent. Guarding or removing highly enriched uranium and plutonium is often seen as rather technical, almost geeky.
This summit is intended to give the world a signal that the president doesn't see it that way.
For him, it is an urgent political priority.
The carefully choreographed announcement that Ukraine is giving up its highly enriched uranium (HEU) is a first triumph. Expect more.
But I wonder if this is a danger that can ever really be eliminated.
More tomorrow, but thanks for all your good wishes for Easter (it was terrific), and nice comments about the eggs.
And I'm glad to see you can keep a discussion going without my prompting!
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I believe President Obama is on the right track in pursuing further reductions in our nuclear arsenal consistent with the spirit of the START signed originally by former President George H. W. Bush. I also believe he is correct in highlighting the dangers of nuclear material falling in the hands of terrorists.
While I doubt terrorists will ever get their hands on a nuclear warhead or bomb and be able to use it against the USA or any of our allies, the possibility of getting their hands on a dirty bombs and using it is definitely there.
Tragedies like 9/11, Madrid, London and others indicate that radical people will go to any length to inflict terror on whomever they consider an enemy or a threat to their vision and goals. Consequently, we must remain vigilant and ready to minimize risk, but that does not mean we should not reduce our nuclear arsenal and lead efforts towards global nuclear disarmament, regardless of how improbable that goal may be.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
That is very good news, regarding the First Triumph at the Nuclear Summit...And, welcome back!
(Dennis Junior)
Complain about this comment
Really happy to hear you had a terrific Easter, Mr Mardell. Ours was, also (eggs not as pretty as yours, but sufficiently endearing nonetheless, especially on the second go-around, which I could not resist).
I would have preferred to spend our Easter in England, but California was suitably balmy -- and I must say I was genuinely impressed with President Obama's Easter utterances. Pity it actually takes courage to say these things, and kudos to him for having the courage, and the words, to say them well.
Makes me think it is a similar courage of convictions that drives the present initiative with curtailing nuclear proliferation.
I agree with you that it will never be possible to completely remove all threats. But having seen the atrocities unleashed by seriously disturbed criminal syndicates on 9/11 in the US, 11-3 in Madrid, 7/7 in London -- not to mention Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, the ME & Russia -- and not to mention the many foiled attempts successfully prosecuted -- it is necessary to consider, actively, even the unthinkable.
Global warming may be a greater threat (you may agree or not) -- ignorance & injustice is most certainly a colossal & ongoing threat -- but nuclear terrorism is that unthinkable threat, that elephant in the room we have almost become accustomed to accepting as part of the décor -- that has the capacity to do dramatic damage on an unprecedented scale.
If the unthinkable were to happen, it would happen suddenly & the trauma would be long-lasting & profound. And so we must act prudently to obviate the threat -- as much as humanly possible. That we can do, not to a 100& certainty, yet to a considerable degree.
An important step would be to recognise that the security of ordinary people going about their business must be universally proclaimed to be inviolate & sacrosanct. Because even during the latest subway attacks, in Moscow, there were attempts by American journalists to interpret these crimes as events originating wholly in the specifics of the Russian defence of its territorial integrity along the Caucasus (historically volatile, as we all know).
Any time we make exception for "some terrorists" having a "cause" that precipitates attacks on perfect strangers and mayhem in public places, we undermine the entire programme: which is, simply, to put an end to this kind of extreme criminal activity. Because that is all it is: high-profile, high-impact crime against soft targets that are notoriously vulnerable, perpetrated by self-serving narcissists who resort to all kinds of demagoguery to wrap themselves in some kind of putative legitimacy.
As recently as last night, a car bomb exploded in the UK. How fortunate -- a blessing -- that none were maimed or killed. But really & truly such activities need to become firmly defined as being altogether inconceivable, to anyone alive. As inconceivable as cannibalism is. And until we collectively address the mindset that tolerates even the tiniest rationalisation for mass murder "under certain circumstances" (i.e. to garner attention for one's crazy cause), we are going to have no peace.
So we need to go through this process. President Obama is the right man to lead this particular effort, and I certainly wish him every success with it.
Complain about this comment
There were eastern block and western block contacts about this concern as far back as 1969-1970, and probably farther back than that. In the 60s and 70s, the rash of airliner high-jackings caused concern about nuclear security.
Also that far back, there were several stories of university physics majors writing cook-book type instructions on how to make a workable nuclear weapon. They were using library-available resources. Security restrictions were slapped on their papers.
These days, using the Internet, it is not difficult to discover what it takes to fabricate a nuclear device if the enriched Uranium or Plutonium is available.
It is difficult to keep track of the inventory of what is actually a boring material for those who guard it.
The problem is aggravated when one realizes how easily a person can be radicalized. It only takes a few of them to compromise a guard system and open the way to the theft of the material.
I am delighted that the Ukraine is giving up its material. The security of their material has been a worry since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hope the West richly rewards the Ukraine to help them with the cost of taking this step and once again after they complete this step.
Complain about this comment
The following is courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish' blog
“A nuclear-free world has been a 60-year dream of the Left, just like socialized health-care,” - Rudy Giuliani, NRO, 2010.
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” - Ronald Reagan, 1984, in China.
Complain about this comment
There is overiding issue the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Islamic terrorists or in the case of Iran a terrorist run country.
North Korea is a threat as an exporter.
Nothing else matters but that.
Not India or Israel: two responsible countries.
Complain about this comment
The nuclear threat faced by USA has nothing to do with A bombs (certainly not the vastly more complicated H bombs) with or without a missile.
The real, and actually IMMINENT, threat is some terrorists get an old barge, load it with a ton of high explosive and 20lbs of fissile material, tug it into NY harbor (or London or DC or Paris) and detonate it, thereby rendering NYC uninhabitable.
Complain about this comment
Ukraine's decision to dismantle its enriched uranium stockpile by 2012 is a huge success story, but let's not forget that there are several other countries with poorly guarded nuclear stockpiles that could easily fall in the hands of terrorists. Add corruption to the equation and I think it is fair to say that we have a very serious problem.
Hopefully, future meetings on this topic will include foes as well as allies and nations with whom we have friendly diplomatic relations. As significant as the Ukraine decision is, the hard part is going to be to convince countries like Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions, or at least allow UN inspectors to monitor their nuclear development to ensure it is limited to the development of nuclear power plants. Obviously, since NK says they already have nuclear weapons that's going to be a tougher nut to crack.
The ultimate goal must be verifiable nuclear disarmament, but considering the global circumstances we face, and the lack of support that the Obama Administration has on any issue they undertake, announcements like the one we had today and the fact that 40 world leaders are raising the level of awareness and trying to find solutions to this important issue is enough reason to rejoice.
Complain about this comment
Ref 5, J-I-D
I guess that's one of many reasons Ronald Reagan was President of the USA and Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYC!
Complain about this comment
Actually ....I believe that the biggest threat facing America right now is the fear that Israel is about to do a bombing run on Iran. The only way Obama thinks he can block this nightmare event is to build enough fear in as many countries as possible about the threat of nuclear material. That is what this summit is "all" about. If he can convince the world that Iran is going nuclear war head, then they will endorse the worst kind of sanctions on Iran that is possible. America's goal is to get Iran down on it's knees begging. It has nothing to do with what Iran actually has or plans but ...as Mrs. Clinton said....it is more about what they might want in the future.
Albright said the same thing about Iraq...months before the invasion she said that it was not so much about what Iraq had but what they might want to have in the future. (Why everyone was surprised they didn't find anything is a surprise because Albright made it very clear months before that they didn't think they actually had any).
America will have to support Israel when the bombing run starts. But all Israel has to do is start the run and America will be forced into it. This is America's biggest fear and I feel the media is once again missing the big story here. Just like they did on the Iraq issue.
This is going to escalate. Iran has every right to what it is doing. Despite what America says, they are not breaking the Non proliferation treaty in any way. They have stated very clearly that they do not want a bomb.
There are good inspection in place to account for all the processed material.
The west should have accepted Iran's generous and very fairoffer to exchange the lower processed material on Iran's soil. This was a fatal mistake by the west and war will result because of this blunder.
Complain about this comment
Our beloved President, Barrack Hussein Obama, is once again finding it a priority to tear down this nation. First he pushed socialized medicine on us even though the polls showed that the majority of people in this country did not want it. Now he wants to take away out "big stick" that has kept this country safe for so many years. He keeps telling us that we are not a Christian country and he ignores the REAL problems facing this nation. This person who was elected President of the United States of America appears to want to tear it down and has been given a free pass to do so and is being allowed to attack the core of our country. If I wanted to live in a country with a weak military and socialized medicine, and ridiculously high taxes, I would have moved to France. My apologies to any French readers, but I am just calling it the way I see it.
Complain about this comment
President Bush used what might be called Pearl Harbor Syndrome to get people to back the justified retaliation against the Al Qaida supporting Taliban. He then piggybacked the unjustified war on Iraq on top of that.
So God help any country that allows its territory to be used in a nuclear attack on the US, and God help us if the US government can't steer the reaction of the population into sane responses.
Control of nuclear material is a major problem, and preventing terrorist access to such materials has to be made as close to foolproof as possible [which means BTW keeping the ignorant and foolish well away from positions of power and authority, you betcha!]
Complain about this comment
A reduction in nuclear warheads and fissile material is welcome but Obama's policy announcement on the non-use of nuclear weapons was naive and de-stabilizing. If we must have these horrible weapons then their best use is to deter others from attacking us and that requires that our potential enemies must know that we have the weapons and the means to deliver them (no secret there) and they must also believe that we have the will to use them if sufficiently provoked. To unilaterally declare that we would not use nuclear weapons to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack does not make us, or our allies, safer. And to declare that we would be bound by whether a nation had fulfilled its obligations under the NPT before deciding to retaliate after a nuclear attack is sheer lunacy, not to mention political suicide in the event of such an attack. Does Obama really think that the American people will care whether or not a country complied with the NPT if it's nuclear material or weapons are used in an attack against the United States? "Sorry, we can't retaliate because the UN says they were in compliance." The only thing that might stop his impeachment after such a pronouncement would be a sober look at who would succeed him if he were removed from office. His own party wouldn't dare defend him for fear the political backlash would put the opposition in power for the next twenty years.
Still, he must know what he's doing. After all, he has that Nobel Peace Prize that proves he's a statesman, right?
So, one step forward for reducing nuclear warheads and material and one giant step backwards for making a muddle of our nuclear deterrent strategy. As for his persuading China to cooperate to deter Iran and North Korea from building nuclear weapons: talk is cheap, I'll wait for results.
Complain about this comment
To borrow a phrase from Dads Army - we're all doomed!
But seriously, we really can't afford to be complacent with the likes of AQ and Iran. These are people and regimes bereft of any humanity.
North Korea should be the last pariah state to have the dreadful WMD.
Complain about this comment
10. At 01:05am on 13 Apr 2010, deryk houston wrote:
"Iran has every right to what it is doing. Despite what America says, they are not breaking the Non proliferation treaty in any way. They have stated very clearly that they do not want a bomb."
"There are good inspection in place to account for all the processed material."
"The west should have accepted Iran's generous and very fair offer to exchange the lower processed material on Iran's soil. This was a fatal mistake by the west and war will result because of this blunder."
__________
Ah, the Iranian Ministry of Propaganda is back under a new name. What a surprise.
"They have stated very clearly they so not want a bomb"
LOL.
That's would be all fine and good, except that everybody knows the government of Iran is lying; it is consistent with a string of lies that have already been told and exposed, and there is no reason to believe that the Government of Iran won't continue to lie in the future.
That's the problem when you get caught lying. After that nobody believes anything you have to say. And these folks have lied, and lied, and lied, every step of the way.
And these people feel they need to lie about the processing of fissionable materials.
Now why would anybody lie about something like that?
----------
"There are good inspection in place to account for all the processed material."
Pull the other one.
In fact there are not good inspections in place. That is how Iran was able to hide (until recently) an entire nuclear processing facility under a mountain at a military installation. And, as usual, they lied about its existence until, oops, the facts came out and they couldn't lie any more.
And then there were all the lies about the election.
More and more and more lies.
Always more lies: Welcome to the government of Iran.
Complain about this comment
No. 6, MagicKirin, completely agree.
SaintDominick, No. 8: Yes, it is a huge boon that Ukraine is volunteering to give up its enriched uranium.
Notice that this only happened because Victor Yanukovich was finally allowed to be President. The entire time the Orange leader ruled from Kiev, no such thing was possible. The disgraced Yushchenko instead made much of the bloodthirsty Ukrainian partisans who murdered & tortured so many people during World War Two, not just for their ethnic ancestry, but also for being so presumptuous as to disagree with said partisans' agendas. Yushchenko's clear preference was for militarism. But the true preference of most Ukrainians, given the lessons of history, not to mention the legacy of Chernobyl, is to avoid rather than invite conflict -- and to limit their robust defence capabilities to strictly defensive, non-nuclear purposes.
And yes, it also took the presence of mind, and presence in power, of President Obama.
Sometimes if we actually allow people to elect someone they like (instead of second-guessing and micromanaging foreign countries' electoral processes) we get a good result.
Complain about this comment
11. At 01:13am on 13 Apr 2010, Steven_R_Hoag wrote:
"... Now he wants to take away out "big stick" that has kept this country safe for so many years. He keeps telling us that we are not a Christian country and he ignores the REAL problems facing this nation. This person who was elected President of the United States of America appears to want to tear it down and has been given a free pass to do so and is being allowed to attack the core of our country. If I wanted to live in a country with a weak military and socialized medicine, and ridiculously high taxes, I would have moved to France. My apologies to any French readers, but I am just calling it the way I see it. "
__________
Other readers here will find your comments regarding the desirability of living in France to have a certain humorous resonance. No doubt comparisons will be made with trailer parks in New Jersey.
In case you haven't noticed, if America doesn't put its economic house in order it isn't going to be able to afford the "big stick" of which you are so fond. In that regard, the President you so denigrate has spent much of the past year trying to prevent the economic ship of state from capsizing - and, at least to date, with some fair measure of success. Not out of the woods yet, though, so cheering would be premature.
You say he has ignored the "REAL" problems facing America. If the financial meltdown was not the largest and most urgent problem facing America in the last year, what, exactly, would you have considered a more serious problem upon which President Obama ought to have concentrated his attention?
Are you not aware that defense costs money, that wars are ruinously expensive, and that after eight years of dissipation of its defense assets America needs to be far wiser, far more careful in husbanding its resources, and far more economical in its conduct of foreign policy?
Are you not aware that even now, American defense spending dwarfs defense spending by any other country? A weak military? Show me any other nation that has anything comparable to America's conventional armed forces. Show me any other country that is in the same league as the US Navy, or Air Force, or Army. Weak military? Hardly.
Overstretched, and in need of a rest after some poorly planned overseas deployments? Yes, but that's a much different question, and certainly not something that can be laid at President Obama's door.
----------
America does not have "socialized medicine". The suggestion is laughable.
America doesn't even have universal public health care, even though that would save the country a great deal of money - something like 6 - 7 % of GNP.
Perhaps you think medicare and medicaid are socialized medicine, and are suggesting that a majority of Americans would like to abolish those programs? Or perhaps you think that you also have "socialized" police departments, and fire departments, coast guard, defense department, and so on.
What is this "core" of the country that the President is accused of attacking? Details?
On what day did President Obama say that America is not a Christian country?
Certainly, the United States is, by its Constitution, a country that deliberately chose not to have an established religion. Are you suggesting that you believe that the Constitution should be ignored in respect of religion, as it was by former President Bush-the-Younger? That the US should now have a state religion, like, say, Iran?
(Oh, and, in passing, was prepared to look the other way when it came to the torture or indefinite imprisonment of captives. Was that the kind of "core" value of America you mean?)
----------
The great irony here is that by many standards, President Obama is by belief, temperament, and outlook rather closer to the founding fathers of the United States than any recent President.
He is more of an intellectual than even Clinton and GHW Bush; he is more inclined to juridical approaches to policy questions than any President since Wilson or perhaps Taft; he is a defender of the Constitution in a manner that would have put him in the company of Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson.
In recent times, I do not recall any other President who was as vigorous in defense of the ideals upon which the country was founded. In some ways, I would say Eisenhower was the closest.
But somehow you see him tearing down "the country". Wow.
I'm getting the idea that one of the two of us does not understand the principles upon which America was founded, or the promise that America holds out as a beacon of hope to the world.
Complain about this comment
SaintDominick is quite correct that the use of an actual nuclear weapon by a terrorist organization is unlikely, unless a rogue nation willingly gives terrorists a weapon. The threat of the dirty bomb, however, is very real. Dirty bombs can be easily constructed from many, readily available sources. Do you recall the story, a few years ago, of a young girl in Brazil who got into some medical waste and died a horrible death from radiation poisoning? All nations need to work together to prevent terrorists access to these kind of materials that can be used for these terrible weapons.
Complain about this comment
This is truly a fictional scenario, in the 70's the buzz words in America was "the commies are coming and we have to build nuclear bunkers".
Communism was the terrorist then, now it's just plain label of terrorism that linked to nuclear dirty bomb. The american policy makers are very clever ar diverting their own countries problems. Give it a rest Obama do the job at hand you were elected for i.e. creating jobs and uplifting the economy. sanctions have never worked and it's this old fashioned ways of dealing with rogue countries that have not put a dent in their ways. The iranian theocracy and N. korea's Kim il Jong has outlived more than 5 US presidents. Time to have a face to face dialect (televised) so that the world knows what's really happening, no more close door negotiations and back door deals.
Complain about this comment
A strong endorsement of the comment posted #13 by Scott0962 - the reduction in nuclear munitions with their hideous destructive power is quite welcome; but the unilateral policy pronouncement by Pres. Obama shows an optimism that other nations, including N. Korea and Iran will be moved to follow his example borders on lunacy.
Sometimes madmen become saints - Francis of Assisi might have been one. But saints - virtuous men such as Jimmy Carter - are sometimes less successful than sinners with a pragmatic approach in running a large and powerful nation.
On other items, it would be desirable for the EU to take over their own defense responsibilities, and for the USA to close many bases around the world, turning them over to the local governments. Of course, this action would add to the number of adults seeking civilian jobs at home.
The longer I live, the more I think that isolationism, with the exception of our involvement in WW II, makes sense. If W. Wilson keeps the US out of WW I, the European nations will eventually arrive at some peace by mutual exhaustion. A peace without punitive conditions on Germany may have prevented the rise of the Nazi party, and consequent start of WW II. But we'll never know.
TeaPot562
Complain about this comment
First off, President Obama is trying to gain a reason to wear his Nobel Prize somewhat respectably in public. Second, he was looking for a reason to call Israel on the carpet. Nothing else matters in tis discussion. How could he be taken seriously holding actual "terrorists" accounatble with the current track record? You can't serve two masters, bow to the Suadi King and shun Israel, it's obvious what his intentions are... Actions speak louder than words...
Complain about this comment
So what this amounts to is the "Seven habits of a successful nuclear laden country, or whom have not pissed off the international community in the endeavor..."
Give me a break! why would you ever show those cards? That's the whole point!!!!
President Obama is not much of a poker player...
Complain about this comment
Ukraine. Stable. Door. Bolt.
What a lot of hot air and wind - Obama's going critical on us. Unable - or unwilling - to face off with Iran, kow-towing to all and sundry while the testing probes sent out by Russia's successful destabilisation of Kyrgyzia (the follow-up to its Georgian success), by China's proxy hijack of a Korean supertanker off Somalia, by burgeoning terrorist consolidation and propaganda success worldwide, he decides to grandstand, parading his 1960's Marxist peacenik credentials, giving his 'mates' a chance to look good and incidentally to slag off Israel. And, as always, the Beeb slithers and creeps along behind, failing to note the political or ideological credentials of any of our enemies in any news report, all too quick to name Israel as the root of all evil, allowing Nazi cant to ooze past the moderators while stopping any post that focusses on realities. Matey Mardell, the people's friend, doing our thinking for us - people like you are the reason I never, but never, call myself a journalist, despite 40 years in print.
I also think that 'politicalobserver' @ 19 has more than a grain of truth.
I've lived through a lot of American presidents, but this one is by far the worst, both for the world and for the US. Please, America, vote away his powerbase this November. He's dead-set to kill a lot more folks than some cobbled-together DIY nuclear device with refined-in-the-Ukraine material at its core...
Complain about this comment
Terrorists already have nuclear weapons and unless the US, UK and Israel are disarmed the world will face the threat of these terrorists wiping us all out.
Iran and North Korea have every right to have these weapons. Would Iraq be plundered if Sadam had had nuclear weapons? Would a million Iraqi's have been killed if he were able to wipe Tel Aviv from the face of the earth?
The US and it's petty allies are building a nice propaganda machine up for an eventual war with Iran, and Iran needs a deterrent to prevent these oil thirsty and obsessed nations from doing to it what's being done to and in Iraq.
And what about that genocidal, warcrimal, racist and apartheid state Israel? Why is that being permitted to laugh at 30 years of UN resolutions, while these little children point the finger of blame at Iran and North Korea? Israel is the Middle Easts number one terrorist state and is carrying out a (cultural) genocide on the people of Palestine and yet I see no criticism of that here.
It's tragic and sad.
Complain about this comment
Given the fact that the vast majority of Americans have never had a passport I am not surprised by the stat.
I am proud and pleased my President is hosting this conference, as I suspect some side business will also get done. I believe whether or not Prez Obama is a two term prez or not his legacy will be he always had many irons in the fire and did his best to exploit the opportunities of his office. That is what I desire of everybody. The question of the poll is phrased so poorly (as are many) as not to allow the stats to speak for themselves. What with Americans ADS you likely could not ask: Assuming the Federal Government is attending to all of it's business as it should be with a very high degree of efficiency. Do you support the first conference of it's kind in more than 30 years bringing together 46 countries of major importance being hosted by your President to address the possibility of nuclear weapons and their components falling into the hands of individuals and groups willing to commit mass murder on a scale rarely seen before in the history of the world and what we as a collective group can do to help each other to individually prevent this?
yes/no
Complain about this comment
A nuclear summit hosted by the only country to have used a nuclear bomb against a non-nuclear conutry. What a irony!
Complain about this comment
How MagicKirin can say that Israel is a responsible country. Let me see, a war against Lebanon causing $bn of damage and deaths among a civilian population, Gaza for which it is condemned in an independent report of war crimes, political assassinations, 30+ years of ignoring UN resolutions, annexation of Palestinian land, the war crime of collective punishment against that population etc. They have the nuclear bomb and everyone keeps quiet and the Western media maintain thier silence in the face of the Israel lobby and try to direct the worlds attention towards Iran. Israel is the problem. The collective failure of the West, in particular the US and its blind support of this rogue nation is extreme immorallity.
Complain about this comment
All good and well about reducing the nuclear stockpile. But this looks like the new "Swine Flu", or the new "Weapons of Mass Destruction in X ". Dor once I would like a well informed and critic press, analysing the information and reporting back accurately.
Complain about this comment
Deryk Houston: Where do you get your information? Are you interested in the truth? The UN is NOT satisfied with Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue.
The new head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has made that clear. Google IAEA-Iran, and you'll see what the UN has actually said.
Do you really believe the Iranian Government when it says it doesn't want the bomb? Why do you suppose many intelligence agencies and nuclear experts simply don't believe it?
If Iran really doesn't want the bomb, why doesn't it cooperate fully with the UN's IAEA? Again, google Iran-IAEA and see what is said about Iran's "cooperation?
Ok. It's obvious you wouldn't believe the U.S. Government's comments about Iran's nuclear program. Do you, then, believe Iran's denials that it's supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Shiites in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territory?
Whatever anyone may believe about Iran's intentions, you must have a good, credible, independent source, preferably more than one source.
Do you agree with the Iranian President that Obama is a war criminal and should be tried by an international court? That is Iran's position. Google Iran Obama, and read it for yourself.
Complain about this comment
No country is going to happily dance to Obama's tune and take steps to inventory and then rigidly guard nuclear materials out of concern that maybe the baddies will attack the US with a dirty bomb. The "dirty bomb" is much the same as a real nuke, it is a deterrent, not a weapon that you would use because the consequences of its use are devastating, while it's possession has enormous leverage.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the proofs that nations and indeed cities CAN survive nuclear attack, certainly at the level a dirty bomb would inflict...or even at the level that a 20 kiloton weapon ideally exploded in an air drop above a city calculated to give maximum blast effect would inflict, let alone a "terror bomb".
So, what is this conference about? It's a major exercise in CYA assuming that there is tangible proof that nuclear material is being gathered by baddies...and its about money. They US will foot the bill for the Ukraine's gesture. The logic is that the US should willingly spend say $50 Billion to avoid a calamity that would cost practically destroy our economy. Heck, we practically ruined ourselves and are STILL recovering from the effects of 3 deliberate airplane crashes...a pinprick really. So Obama is running around playing a "reverse protection racket" game..."Mr. I will pay you NOT to break my window!"
Any money the US hands out will be received with thanks, but it won't make us one jot safer. This conference is Obama to the core...full of sound and fury but signifying NOTHING!
Complain about this comment
Probably an exaggerated threat, however if AQ can let a dirty bomb off in London or New York they will, only solace is they would surely be warnings spread in Arab communities at some level so security forces would pick up on it
If Obama believes AQ are willing to do this, surely he can now see how the West is digging its own grave, follow the Japanese example, the West can make money from innovation, does not need to solely rely on war.
Complain about this comment
Coniderig that Ukraine gave up Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory to Russia at the fall of the USSR along with Belarus and Khazakhstan, it never had any desire for nuclear weapons and no use for them. It cannot reprocess HEU to downgrade it to fuel for reactors for its own use or resale, I don't think it has to technology or need. Therefore this material is a liability to Ukraine, not an asset in any conceivable way. Persuading them to get rid of it is not much of a victory. If that's all Obama comes up with this conference will have been a flop.
Russia will never entirely give up the only effective deterrant it has to being overwhelmed by a Chinese land invasion preceded by air and artillery attacks. Same for Israel in light of the Arab/Iranian threat. Nuclear weapons are the same deterrant for those nations as they were for the US and NATO during the cold war. Keeping them is the same rationale NATO used to justify them.
Complain about this comment
The advantage of a nuclear bomb for the intended victims is that radiation goes through anything.
So there could be nuclear detection devices on every plane so that it would be detected before the plane took off for the USA.
On every marker buoy in the sea. On every container crane. etc.
However good detection devices are, they could presumably be better. More research in that direction.
The greatest threat to the UK is the "EU"-Dictatorship.
Complain about this comment
Fortunately most of these threats ARE science-fiction. 'Suitcase bombs' are great for Fredrick Forsyth but in reality are effectively impossible to produce. The first atomic bombs the USA made weighed 10,000lbs and that was with the entire manufacturing base of 1940's america behind the project. North Korea has been unable to make a bomb detonate properly (and god knows how physically big their bomb is) Pakistan has had immense problems building a nuclear weapon small enough to fit a warhead (500-1000lbs). You cannot build a suitcase nuke in a Palestinian garage. Fortunately nuclear weapons have very short shelf lives (about 3 years before they need to be rebuilt) so even if some Soviet weapons actually went missing when the cold war ended (and all the evidence I've seen suggests they went missing on paper, not in reality) they won't work anymore.
A dirty bomb is far more practical but far less of a threat. It would be far easier to blow up a major industrial complex (like Bruntsfield oil terminal or a Bohpal style chemical plant) near a big city. As both those were accidents doing it intentionally wouldn't be hard.
Complain about this comment
26. At 06:37am on 13 Apr 2010, Yampat wrote:
A nuclear summit hosted by the only country to have used a nuclear bomb against a non-nuclear conutry. What a irony
Another person who chooses to forget that Japan killed half a million Chinese with germ and gas weapons. If they'd had nukes they'd have used them too.
Does your irony extend to Germany as well? Surely as the only country to have used industrial methods to attempt to completely exterminate another race Germany should be criticised whenever she comments on human rights? But of course not... the holocaust happened 70 years ago so that would be ridiculous. However holding Obama responsible for something that happened 20 years before he was even born is O.K. Right?
Complain about this comment
ref #27
cienfuegos wrote:
How MagicKirin can say that Israel is a responsible country. Let me see, a war against Lebanon causing $bn of damage and deaths among a civilian population, Gaza for which it is condemned in an independent report of war crimes, political assassinations, 30+ years of ignoring UN resolutions, annexation of Palestinian land, the war crime of collective punishment against that population etc. They have the nuclear bomb and everyone keeps quiet and the Western media maintain thier silence in the face of the Israel lobby and try to direct the worlds attention towards Iran. Israel is the problem. The collective failure of the West, in particular the US and its blind support of this rogue nation is extreme immorallity.
__________________
You convenitaly leave out a few points. Lebanon allowed a terrorist groups Hezbollah freedom to use their country as a missle platform. Israel defended itself and showed restraint most countries would have attacked with more force and less concern for casulties.
The so called U.N report was biased and did not address the U.N harboring the Hamas terrorists.
As stated before racism is still acceptible to much of the world when the victims are primarily Jewish.
You would think that since part of Obama's heritage is black he might understand that.
Complain about this comment
Ref 36, Magic
"As stated before racism is still acceptible to much of the world when the victims are primarily Jewish.
You would think that since part of Obama's heritage is black he might understand that."
Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group. Consequently, your allegation of racism is flawed.
Complain about this comment
Ref 32, Marcus
The reason Ukraine's decision to rid itself of its enriched uranium stockpile is a success is not because they had nuclear weapons development ambitions, but because their stockpile of enriched uranium was poorly guarded and was potentially accessible to terrorist groups and to the countries that we refer to as rogue nations.
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations tried, unsuccessfully, to convince them to rid themselves of their enriched uranium. The fact that they finally agreed to do it deserves praise, not the typical downplay or distortion that seems to be the only response the GOP can muster when President Obama achieves something that eluded his predecessors.
Complain about this comment
This summit "will not prevent Iran from nuking Israel (as it clearly and honestly stated it would) once they have got their act together, neither would it stop Israel from carrying out a pre-emptive strike prior to an Iranian launch, nor will it restrain India from striking Pakistan if Islamic militants take control of its nuclear arsenal" and it may not even curtail the surreptitious spreading of miniaturized nuclear bombs into the hands of those who are prone to detonate them in wrathful retribution.
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, Yampat
"A nuclear summit hosted by the only country to have used a nuclear bomb against a non-nuclear conutry. What a irony!"
It may be ironic, but since we are the only country in the world willing to undertake such an ambitious and controversial task I would say that until someone else decides to demonstrate leadership, vision, and commitment to ensure future generations live in a more stable and less dangerous world than the one we created the only options are to follow the leader or become a pariah!
Complain about this comment
Ref 11, Steven
"If I wanted to live in a country with a weak military and socialized medicine, and ridiculously high taxes, I would have moved to France."
Did you feel the same way when former President George H. W. Bush signed the first START agreement and reduced our nuclear stockpile? Did you feel the same way when former President George W. Bush agreed to further reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile? Why is it that the incremental reduction agreed to by President Obama suddenly represents a major threat to our security? Are you aware of the fact that this latest treaty still leaves the US with enough nuclear warheads, bombs, and delivery systems to destroy plant Earth many times over?
Incidentally, our federal taxes are small compared to those in the rest of the industrialized world. In fact, they are so small that they are insufficient to fund our government programs and pay for our wars and the government services we get, which happens to be the reason we consistently run budget deficits, borrow money, and add to our national debt.
As for France, it may surprise you to know that they have one of the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world. It may be tiny compared to ours, but very robust compared to most other nations. BTW, no need to apologize to them, they are very proud of who they are, how they live, their socio-economic model and the direction their country has taken.
Complain about this comment
If the United States and Russia continue this program of generally reducing there nuclear arsenal it will signal other countries to stop there programs because they no longer feel threatened. The real problem is that there is not enough pressure on countries like the United Kingdom and France to get rid of there arsenal. If these nations were to stop there programs that would really be an achievement and that would send a really positive message.
Although these are all important, the biggest focus should be on countries like Iran and North Korea. It is not safe for these unstable governments to have such powerful weapons. China is the last piece of the jigsaw to stopping Iran's program, if China forces sanctions on Iran, it would really force Iran to stop.
Obama is right when he said the "biggest threat to our security is nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists" we must do all in our power to stop this.
Complain about this comment
I must admit, like some others here, I really fail to see exactly what this conference is for. The 'nuclear threat from Al Quaeda', however is a red herring just brought out to keep the domestic audience a bit frightened and supposedly reassure them this administration takes 'terrism' seriously, no more than that. All that's been quoted as evidence are the same two tales that have been brought out year after year.
I suspect this conference is going to be a pointless exercise, simply because different countries seem to have quite different ideas about what it's for. So what are the possible agendas?
1) The Brits appear to think it's about revitalising the non-proliferation agreements around the world and beefing up the systems that Dubbya and the NeoCons effectively allowed to lapse;
2) Some others one presumes are looking for the substance of the reduction in nuclear stockpiles by the USSR and what Britain, France, India, Pakistan and China might agree to on the back of that. Unfortunately, since Netanyahu refused to go, that's redundant because (see above, too) Israel has excluded itself;
3) The US has perhaps only two disparate motives: one to get some kind of international agreement on sanctions against Iran. (But, see above, again; if Netanyahu and Israel's prospective action has still to be guessed at, that's not going to be very substantive;
4) and, secondly, the US wants to get full control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? (That's been pushed by a lot of thinktanks and pundits in the US for two or three years now.)
OK, I'm cynical, and I hate to sound like the Obama-haters, but I really have come reluctantly to the conclusion that this is only a 'Look I look like a
Complain about this comment
Maria Ashot wrote [3] :
"And until we collectively address the mindset that tolerates even the tiniest rationalisation for mass murder "under certain circumstances" (i.e. to garner attention for one's crazy cause), we are going to have no peace."
------------------
Agreed. But as this would first involve our governments disbanding their armies, which are the prime instruments of mass murder "under certain circumstances"; outlawing the manufacture and sale of weaponry in our own countries, which we currently support and subsidise; and refraining from the bombing, invasion and occupation of other people's lands - sadly it's not something we should expect to see in the near future.
The fact remains that "terrorists" have been - and continue to be - responsible for only an unimaginably miniscule fraction of the amount of carnage and mass murder enacted by "legitimate" governments.
When our governments turn round and admit "the greatest threat to world peace has been us, ourselves" then perhaps we can make our first tentative introductions to rationality and truth.
Complain about this comment
THE REAL THREAT TO US ALL
Dear Mark and all your readers,
If indeed a nuclear bomb set off by terrorists is "the highest threat to US security," then Obama really needs to reverse his decision to go ahead with pushing nuclear energy in the US and around the world as well. Nothing will proliferate nuclear arms capability and availability more for terrorism than the new Nuclear Energy Renaissance that is now being intensely pushed by industry and governments around the world today as a "safe, clean and green solution to global warming energy needs."
To understand this, Plutonium based MOX fuel, not Uranium, is the principal base combustible fuel material which is being used for the new fleet of over 700 nuclear reactors in the process of being built or approved to built around the world: including some 30 in the US, 15 in the UK, 50 in France, 17 in Germany, 15 in Italy, 100 in China, 80 in India and even more scary...1 to 3 in over sixty third world and developing nations around the globe where terrorism is known to have many many bases.
As a result, Plutonium, MOX and extremely dangerous nuclear waste shipments will be traveling by ship, train and trucks EVERYWHERE (like the recent train and boat shipment from Sellafield to Japan that was recently reported on BBC news online). Plutonium is nuclear bomb ready. Just one gram is enough to make an explosion equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT like that used at Nagasaki. Just one microgram--one millionth of a gram-- is fatal to a human being if exposed to it, turning the body into a green liquid including your bones in less than 3 weeks. And the stuff remains just as deadly for at least 250,000-500,000 years. In the new proposed "Plutonium Economy" the security and defense resources necessary to adequately safeguard all of the transportation networks, the power plants, storage facilities and plutonium fuel reprocessing factories from just a tiny bit of this terrible stuff getting into the wrong hands will be simply, humanly impossible for any industrialized nation(s) or regulating agency to control, obtain, or achieve. We are playing russian roulette...with huge stakes.
It's a fact: Nuclear energy plant = Nuclear bomb.
Ask anyone who has to guard one, especially when it runs on plutonium instead of uranium. And now we are planning to make a global network of nuclear energy plutonium fueled plants like a chain of Starbucks or McDonalds -- they will be everywhere. Each one a target for any kind of terrorist (state sponsored, Al Qaida affiliate, or just a plain mental whacko) who wants to really send a big and unforgettable message to us this time.
Wake up folks.
Posing for agreements to limit nuclear arms proliferation, while at the same time pushing the global proliferation of nuclear energy and all its lethal dangers to the public and planet in the name of a clean energy answer to global warming is massive and suicidal hypocrisy. Terrorists can only be watching, waiting and unfortunately, laughing. Stop the nuclear madness. Reducing and ending nuclear arms proliferation means also reducing and ending nuclear energy proliferation too.
Pass the word and inform your elected representatives asap.
No matter who causes it, the victims of this catastrophe will be us, civilians.
And it will no be longer be just a nightmare.
It will be the end of our world as we know it.
Complain about this comment
A nuclear arms race is insanity. A stockpile won't defend against some sneaky terrorist dirty bomb. "We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe." Johann von Goethe
Complain about this comment
Strikes me that some people are really not thinking.
1) Even after the proposed reduction, both the USA and Russia will have at least 2,000 warheads.
2) Other countries with nuclear weapons (i.e. the UK, France, India, Pakistan and Israel are believed to have somewhere between 30-60 each.
2,000 is not a 'deterrent', it's total destruction of half the damn world if they were all used.
3) Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did survive one basic nuclear bomb, detonated in the air, each. Many thousands of people, however, did not. Anybody who thinks radiation sickness is eminently survivable is welcome to go off to Chernobyl, walk about unprotected in the rubble, and try it. Or carry a small radioactive isotope from a hospital in their pocket for a month. Enjoy.
4) If 'Islamic militants' manage to manufacture some form of radioactive explosive device from whatever Pakistan holds, where do people think they are going to use it? It'll be as likely to be Karachi or Islamabad as London or New York. Anyone who imagines that anyone in Pakistan would want to risk that is just not thinking straight.
Complain about this comment
Ref 43, squirrelist
I agree that like so many other summits there is a high degree of smoke and mirrors and political posturing in this one, and that contrary to the claims being advanced by the far right, the nuclear arms reductions agreed upon by the US and Russia leave both countries, as well as our allies and foes, with enough nuclear capabilities to incinerate our planet many times over; but is that enough reason to do nothing about the real or potential threat posed by nuclear weapons and poorly guarded nuclear material? I think not, and in that light I believe President Obama did the right thing when he invited 46 nations to participate in this summit.
Geoffrey made excellent points on the proliferation of nuclear power plants and the inadequacy of the transport, storage and disposal of nuclear waste methods that are currently in use. Hopefully, that is part of the ongoing discussions, but I am not holding my breath.
GK's observation about the proportion of people slaughtered by terrorists to the horrendous carnages carried out by "legitimate" governments using conventional weapons deserves reflection.
Complain about this comment
ref #36
SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 36, Magic
"As stated before racism is still acceptible to much of the world when the victims are primarily Jewish.
You would think that since part of Obama's heritage is black he might understand that."
Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group. Consequently, your allegation of racism is flawed.
___________
In this case it is both.
no people have been more persecuted through history or descriminated against than follwers of the Jewish religion.
That many middle Eastern countries refuse to accept the state of Israel is proof of that.
If this was another moslem state they wouldn't care anymore than several of them did when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Complain about this comment
@Chuck: Quite right, that mess in Goiânia is proof of how radioactive material may be "lost", and how easily dirty bombs can be made. In fact, I suspect that a dirty bomb is al-Qaeda's next step. President Obama is correct in his concerns and objectives, but should not expect much of President Lula, a populist windbag who hosted Mr Ahmadinejad here in Brazil last November, much to the displeasure of many Brazilians. It is clear that the government of Iran has been lying all the time.
Wikipedia: Goiânia accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
Complain about this comment
Well yes the nuclear threat is very real but the threat initially only applies to three countries as I can see it, These countries entire history is based on death and distraction and there dizzier to have outer people on the planet to live there life's the way they demand.
I know for a fact that the Russian stock pile was left very unprotected after the fall of the soviet union, I made many comments about this in the UK Embassy here at the time but your diplomat's were not interested, Your problem.
Maybe it’s a good thing, It would certainly stop all the bullying, I can only say that the only thing that stands a chance of changing things is the prosecution of the mass murdering politicians from these countries, Sorry.
PS. people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Complain about this comment
"only 12% of Americans agree with their president that it is the biggest threat to their country."
Even americans are wising up. And there's a sentence I never expected to write.
Complain about this comment
#43. At 11:56am on 13 Apr 2010, squirrelist wrote:
//
The 'nuclear threat from Al Quaeda', however is a red herring just brought out to keep the domestic audience a bit frightened and supposedly reassure them this administration takes 'terrism' seriously, no more than that.
//
-And you are willing to gamble the lives of everyone you know and love, as well as millions of others, on what you perceive to be a 'red herring', are you?
-Fortunately, national leaders have to take a more cautious, and with all due respect, realistic approach.
Complain about this comment
Oh Sainted One;
For the most powerful nation on earth, persuading Ukraine to give up something it does not want, does not neeed, and cannot use should be childs play. All Obama probably had to do is remind Ukraine of whatever favors the US does for it (I don't know what they are but there must be many), how it wants to maintain good relations with Ukraine, and how important this is to us. That should have been enough. For all we know there was more "honey" promised to Ukraine that we don't know about. In the larger scheme of things, this was a drop in the bucket. Look at all the posibive publicity Ukraine gets for giving up something worthless to it, an added incentive.
Complain about this comment
Welcome back, Mark!
Our squirrels have it right: a nuclear strike and/or dirty bomb is NOT ultimately survivable. Any of us who are old enough to recall the stupidity of being taught to "duck and cover" in elementary school know that! The survivors will envy the dead...I remember my father saying that, as he solemnly explained to us (in Washington, DC, during the Cuban Missile Crisis), the realities of the situation in terms children could -- perhaps -- understand.
So, given the givens, ANY steps to lock down the loose nukes are in the right direction and ANY news on this subject is good news, even though the US does have to become the World Guardian of Nasty Nukes. OK, folks, show us some love for it.
Complain about this comment
"It's a fact: Nuclear energy plant = Nuclear bomb"
Nope, it isn't. Unless it has breeding reactors.
Industrial reactors can also by easily fuled with thorium which cannot be converted to weapon-grade uranium/plutonium.
2. Ukraine's stockpile has been well guarderd.
Unlike Pakistan's one.
The biggest problem now is highly corrupted Russian military forces.
From where almost any weapon can be bought if the price is right.
3. "Suitcase" bombs have existed for over 20 years.
[Not it's not a small suitcase; more like a large trekking backpack.
Btw. the smallest US warhead is merely 0.3 kT. And can be hand-carried]
4. Iran, North Korea, let alone AQ don't have to have ICBMs, SLBMs or strategic bombers, let alone "boomers" as means of delivery.
A 1 MT device can be easily put in a ship container and delivered FOB Baltimore, N.Y., Boston, L.A., or... Southampton.
In a retalition for the Crusades.
Ad maiorem suicidal Islamist aficionados' in the West gloriam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHOM GOD WANTS TO PUNISH HE FIRST DEPRIVES OF REASON.
Complain about this comment
50. At 1:02pm on 13 Apr 2010, Taarakian wrote:
Wikipedia: Goiânia accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident
__________
Thank you. That was well worth reading.
Here is another link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
Keep in mind that the vast majority of these acknowledged incidents occurred in the US, or in the UK, i.e., in countries with relatively good reputations for safety.
It would be surprising if the USSR, China, and perhaps others, had not had similar (or worse) accidents, but have been more coy about allowing the knowledge to become public.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A nuclear bomb set off by terrorists; Obama says it’s the highest threat to US security. Really?
If I were American, I would NOT be among those 12% of Americans who agree with their president's assumption.
Personally, I'm concerned about where the enriched uranium and plutonium will go. Do Americans feel safe about Yucca Mountain? I’ve heard that a great deal of this radiated crap (maybe American, maybe not) washed up on the shores of Sumalia after the great tsunami.
If President Obama presents nuclear material as urgent priority, you can be sure that he is talking about one thing; you are listening hard about that one thing, but in reality - Obama is speaking with forked tongue about some other American plot.
Ukraine announced that it would get rid of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium by the next Nuclear Security Summit in 2012.
Ukraine apparently has enough material to construct several nuclear weapons. Wow, before yesterday did you know that the Ukraine was such a high risk?
Where will the Ukraine send its highly enriched iranium?
Well, uh, the ultimate disposition is yet to be determined.
Is the President concerned that the United States might have to make itself a sort of world-wide storage facility for these materials"? Are we talking about more Yucca Mountains...or maybe just dumping the material in the offshore waters of some developing copuntry?
Apparently, the Ukraine has almost 70 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium in three (3) sites:
- Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology,
- Institute for Nuclear Research Institute in Kiev, and
- Sevastopol Naval Research Institute.
Again the United States talks to the world about “indisputable evidence” that dozens of terrorist groups have sought to buy a weapon of mass destruction. But the United States presents no evidence.
Again, the United States says that Al Qaeda is especially notable for its interest in acquiring weapons-useable nuclear material. Al Qaeda the US says has been engaged in the effort for over 15 years…and where is the evidence for this? Mumble, mumble – something about Sudan in 1994. Are we back to yellowcake?
Another interesting point, these nuclear materials have half-lives in the thousands of years, if not the tens of thousands of years. And Yucca Mountain was designed to store material for that length of time.
Will the United states in fact use all the material that is turned in for its own purposes, like blending it down for fuel? Clearly there are going to be a number of decisions re ultimate disposition (or use), but the US will likely receive world stockpiles, because “they” don't want to have any type of materials fall into the hands of terrorist groups (like the Uniteed States of America). Wow, that’s cricular reasopning!
It’s a matter of accounting (not financial accounting mind you). The US wants to account for nuclear material, put a number on it, have a place that it can inspect. (No mention of Israel anywhere.)
Okay, enough jibber to demonstrate the lack of facts or evidence that is being discussed at this world summit.
I’ve only got one question left; it is my most important question:
Why is the United States of America NOT going through the United Nations when there is already a convention for protecting the nuclear materials?
Complain about this comment
To me it isn't a matter of 'geeky' problems. To me it is a matter of fact that it would be incredibly difficult for a terrorist group to actually manufacture any kind of especially dangerous 'dirty bomb' to say nothing of how impossible it would be for a terrorist group to somehow gain practical control of a missile. In addition, to date I don't know of a group outside of Japan that has used anything except for conventional explosives. Lastly, my fears would be much greater if I didn't know that there were efforts to mitigate such threats.
Complain about this comment
Tis pure window dressing.....as per usual... there is enough nuclear material out there to produce 10's of 000's of dirty bombs... we all know the Ukraine recently anounced giving up its material is a smokescreen to the amount they have clandestinely lost through incompetance... Oh well ,makes the World leaders look self important as ever... pretending they are really doing something for the world... as for a nuclear free world... can't de-invent the bomb, once out of pandora box, can't put it away again.... whist there is suspicion in the world NO country will EVER abandon Nuclear weapons... even now with the derisory cuts announcement to 1550 missiles each for USA & Russia, thats still is more than enough to blow up the world a few hundred times with change to spare... we all know China, Israel, India, Pakistan, N Korea etc will NEVER give up its arsenal.... Oh well soon be time to move onto the next grande meeting for the world leaders to make themselves look good again....
Complain about this comment
Postings 58 to 63 (pre-emptive U-boat strikes) also remind one of the dangers of nuclear accidents at sea for ICBM-launching submarines, and for nuclear powered hunter-killer subs.
Yes, whoever may or may not have nuclear weapons now, any improvement in locking down and tracking these astonishingly dangerous materials can only be welcome.
Complain about this comment
Ref 54, Marcus
Does it matter how President Obama managed to convince Ukraine to give up its enriched uranium stockpile? If he used our traditional carrot and stick foreign policy strategy and succeeded where his predecessors failed, good for him. If the Ukranians gave it up voluntarily because they had no use for it, good for them. The point is that the world now has one less threat to worry about.
Ambivalence when faced with serious problems or challenges should never be an option, and the fact that progress is often achieved incrementally should not deter anyone from trying to solve what we know needs to be fixed.
Complain about this comment
Ref 49, Magic
"If this was another moslem state they wouldn't care anymore than several of them did when Iraq invaded Kuwait"
I have the feeling Saddam Hussein and his top echelon had a very different opinion than yours before they hanged...
On the issue of alleged "racism" against Jews, my point is that opposition to Judaism would be religious intolerance not racism.
Moreover, and considering that Middle Eastern Jews are semitic and most of the Jews that migrated to Israel since its creation are Europeans I think charges of racism will require a very broad redifinition of ethnicity, and since the Palestinians are also semitic we would have to lump them into the victimhood pot as well.
In any case, this topic is not germaine to the subject that is being discussed.
Complain about this comment
Re #11
To Steven_R_Hoag
why are Americans so myopic when it comes to France, (watching to many episodes of The Simpsons I suspect)
France has the world’s third largest arsenal of WMDs with over 300 operational nuclear missiles.
They also have the world’s third largest defence budget after the USA and Russia.
I'm afraid the UK's military look with envy at the size of Frances Armed Forces compared to their own
Complain about this comment
Ref 47, squirrelist
"Anyone who imagines that anyone in Pakistan would want to risk that is just not thinking straight."
I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't believe the government of Pakistan has any intention of giving enriched uranium, and much less a nuclear device, to terrorists. The concern is that poorly guarded stockpiles and corrupt government officials could do so, and if I remember correctly Pakistan has a proven record in that area.
The problem I had with previous nuclear arms reduction agreements, and there have been several, is that while they reduced the number of warheads and bombs they left the door opened to the development of more sophisticated and lethal weapons. The latest agreement ends that cynical travesty.
Complain about this comment
"Re: I’ve only got one question left; it is my most important question:
Why is the United States of America NOT going through the United Nations when there is already a convention for protecting the nuclear materials?"
Becasue UN is an inept, toothless and corrupt organisation.
[Cf. Food for Oil and "Food for Sex" scandals]
Which no New Yorker would like to see in the Lower Manhattan anymore.
BTW. IAEA was unable to detect Iran's nuclear violations for 17 years.
Complain about this comment
"Plutonium is nuclear bomb ready. Just one gram is enough to make an explosion equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT like that used at Nagasaki." (from GeoffreySmall at #45)
Not true.
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html
"The amount of plutonium used in fission weapons is in the 3 to 5 kilograms range. According to a recent Natural Resources Defense Council report(1), nuclear weapons with a destructive power of 1 kiloton can be built with as little as 1 kilogram of weapon grade plutonium(2). The smallest theoretical critical mass of plutonium-239 is only a few hundred grams." (from preceding linked document)
Building efficient fission weapons, i.e. with a small amount of plutonium, requires considerable engineering, without which you have a fizzle -- a dirty bomb.
Complain about this comment
Obama is right to highlight the dangers but it's also understandable that the public doesn't worry too much about it, if they did how could you enjoy life. I'm just pleased that I can continue working North of Capitol without too much disruption as downtown seems to be a nightmare.
Complain about this comment
Here is a link to a primer on MOX fuel (mentioned in post #45):
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry (#64) "Do Americans feel safe about Yucca Mountain?"
Many Americans in the state of Nevada don't. Americans elsewhere are not much concerned about it, in my opinion.
The Senate majority leader is from Nevada, and he is opposed to the use of Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. It's essentially a political issue, not a technical one, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
re # 17. At 04:25am on 13 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
"The great irony here is that by many standards, President Obama is by belief, temperament, and outlook rather closer to the founding fathers of the United States than any recent President. He is more of an intellectual than even Clinton and GHW Bush;"
Neither of which was remowned for their intellectual capacity.
"he is more inclined to juridical approaches to policy questions than any President since Wilson or perhaps Taft;"
Ah yes, Wilson and Taft, there are two presidential names to conjure with. Anyone recall anything they accomplished?
"he is a defender of the Constitution in a manner that would have put him in the company of Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson."
I wouldn't have included Lincoln as a defender of the constitution but you opened that can of worms: Obama probably has less regard for the constitution than any president since Lincoln. From a strictly consitutional view Lincoln had no right to stop the southern states from secceeding; he suspended the right of Habeus Corpus during the war and effectively left thousands of political prisoner languishing in jail without trial. Although it will never be challenged in court the Emancipation Procamation was arguably a seizure of private property without compensation--something the constitution specifically prohibits government from doing. And don't forget that in Baltimore and New York the United States Army fired on American citizens to suppress civil disorder caused by Mr. Lincoln's policies. If Lincoln had lived his legacy would have been clouded by these issues. All of which of course gets whitewashed because Lincoln was assasinated and everyone prefers to remember him as a dead martyr.
I'll spot you Robert Kennedy, he too believed results justified the means, but to put Obama in the same league as Jefferson and Adams is stretching it. Jefferson had a long career of public service before he became president in which he actually did more than vote "present" when called upon and neither Jefferson nor Adams went around apologizing for their country, they were proud of it.
"In recent times, I do not recall any other President who was as vigorous in defense of the ideals upon which the country was founded. In some ways, I would say Eisenhower was the closest."
I don't remember Eisenhower but I do remember Ronald Reagan and he had a very clear understanding of the principles the nation was founded upon, big government not being one of them.
"But somehow you see him tearing down "the country". Wow.
I'm getting the idea that one of the two of us does not understand the principles upon which America was founded, or the promise that America holds out as a beacon of hope to the world."
No, I think it's Obama who doesn't understand the principles upon which America was founded. America was founded to provide opportunity and a chance to rise as far as your talents and abilities would take you. Under Obama it's becoming a land of dependence on government from the individual all the way to the corporate boardroom. He's undermined our national security by mortgaging us to China to pay for his corporate bailouts and in the process saddled us with a crushing burden of debt. Now he's floating the idea of a VAT to pay for his deficits by sucking from our national veins what little economic life force remains. If you look at Obama's actions and ignore his words he seems to be working overtime to turn us from a superpower into a European style socialist state. What happens to that beacon to the world if he succeeds?
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry (#64) "Why is the United States of America NOT going through the United Nations when there is already a convention for protecting the nuclear materials?"
The United States is a party to the The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and has also been a leader in amending the convention " ... in order to combat more effectively the increased illicit traficking in nuclear and other radiological matierials ...". (Quote from Secretary of State Rice in a letter to President Bush introducing the amendment. It's from a PDF, so I have not linked to it.)
Here is a link to the Convention (1980):
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf274r1.shtml
If you believe that the United States is acting contrary to the terms of this convention, will you please state precisely how, and provide documentation to support this view?
Complain about this comment
Look out for Obama's comments after the private bilateral meeting with Kirchner. I will be seriously disappointed if he urges the UK to enter negotiations over the Falklands - Kirchner is sure to continue to push the issue after Clinton's assistance some months back. Obama should not be helping Kirchner raise populist sentiment to distract from her economic problems. Gordon Brown and David Miliband should quickly express deep disappointment with the Obama administration if this issue is again raised.
Complain about this comment
rammie1962 (#66), so is it your view that because we live in an imperfect world, we should just throw up our hands in despair and do nothing to try to improve it? What a bleak outlook on life.
Complain about this comment
re # 64. At 3:06pm on 13 Apr 2010, BluesBerry wrote:
"Personally, I'm concerned about where the enriched uranium and plutonium will go. Do Americans feel safe about Yucca Mountain?"
I guess you haven't heard. The project to build the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain was cancelled by the Obama administration because of objections by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada who is facing a tough re-election campaihn this year. That leaves all fifty states responsible for the safety and security of their own nuclear waste.
Sen. Reid's excuse? Waste from Yucca Mountain could someday leak out and threaten the ecology of the region. If you've never been there, Yucca Mountain is in the middle of a desert and part of the selection criteria was geologic stability and remoteness from sensitive ecological features like lakes, rivers, underground aquifers, etc.
I don't know about you but I certainly don't feel any safer.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ref #16 Maria Ashot wrote:
Notice that this only happened because Victor Yanukovich was finally allowed to be President. The entire time the Orange leader ruled from Kiev, no such thing was possible. The disgraced Yushchenko instead made much of the bloodthirsty Ukrainian partisans who murdered & tortured so many people during World War Two, not just for their ethnic ancestry, but also for being so presumptuous as to disagree with said partisans' agendas.
How far does Russian influence and propaganda reach? Such matter-of-fact comment is absolutely offensive not only to a large part of Ukrainians who didn't vote for the "former mechanic/criminal", but to anyone who ever cared to explore Ukrainian history. While Yushenko and his staff was largely impotent and a disgrace to all those who stood for him during Orange revolution, Yanukovich is the lowest point in the Ukrainian political arena since 1991. Aside from the Russian and criminal allegiance and politics that will first and foremost serve his "big brothers" in Kremlin this man will do nothing other than what people before him have done, serve himself. Yushenko was by far the most pro-western persona we have ever seen. And there is certainly no hope for moving into EU with this one.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
wow who's asleep
Complain about this comment
Tea break time was it
Complain about this comment
so the true liars only today.
Complain about this comment
True too is a previously banned poster .
should the rules not apply even;ly
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
G_K_, No. 44: I do not consider the Bush-Cheney administration a "legitimate government." Last I checked, I was not alone in that opinion.
The worst violence of the past decade came out of initiatives launched by the Bush clan, which had as a curious byproduct the capacity to enrich them and their inner circle.
There is a niche in American culture that such personality types occupy. It is unfortunate that they managed to attain as much power as they held for as long as they did.
Having said that, we have examples all over the world of military operations that fall into the 'unavoidable' category. Consider the long battle for peace in Sri Lanka. The ongoing operations Pakistan's armed forces have finally undertaken to restore peace & tranquility to their northern reaches.
There is currently and for the foreseeable future will be a need to recruit, fund, train, equip and deploy armies -- as well as police forces. To imagine otherwise is childish (sorry!), given the enormous population of the world, and the many conflicting agendas, the legitimate needs of populations to be protected while they go about the simple business of keeping body and soul together vs. the outrageous demands of some pirates in Somalia, drugs tycoons in Mexico, child sellers, arms merchants, bank fraudsters etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
Humankind can at times attain sublime heights of virtue & accomplishment. Would be nice if that happened more frequently. But our capacity to go berserk on each other is an impediment to advancement. It won't simply go away if we take away the elements of restraint altogether.
What we do need to do is far easier to achieve than complete disarmament & demilitarisation. All we actually need to achieve, as a first step, is to prevent the likes of Bushes, or their bosom buddies, from ever being put in positions of great authority again. (And I would put it to you that Saddam Hussein had more in common with the Bushes than might at first appear: narcissism & and a delusional conviction of some intrinsic right to be so privileged & to do whatever he chose with all that power.)
Preventing the narcissist from commanding arsenals and treasuries would not really be so difficult to manage, were we to make it a priority.
Ben: please elaborate on No. 24, especially the first paragraph. I read what it says & understand your meaning (I think): only that meaning actually makes no sense at all as written. Seriously.
There is a difference between drugging your girlfriend, packing her full of explosives, and sending her out to blow little children and random strangers to bits -- and deploying military or special forces in response to such outrages.
Life does not come with too many guarantees for the newborn human. But being able to make it to school or the school cafeteria without being blown to bits is not an unreasonable demand to make -- and it used to be generally accepted, in all political systems, that at that most basic level of personal safety, we were all quite safe to get through our day in one piece, with loves ones intact as well.
Not so much any more. That's the real face of terrorism.
Complain about this comment
No. 54, Marcus Aurelius II: Unlikely there was much "honey" -- the US is short of honey; have you heard of the bee crisis? --but it was a smart PR move from Yanukovich. And I suspect it was entirely his own initiative, besides.
Don't begrudge even the people you don't like all that much some credit. OK, if it mattered so little, why did the Ukraine hang on to the HEU for the past five years?
Because Y&T were much more likely to trade some for "honey" -- if they could. Only they were not all that competent besides being not very honest. And, truthfully, no one liked them enough to trust them -- except for maybe the tie-chewer in Tbilisi.
Like just about everyone else, I would probably not have gone after the nuclear reductions as a first priority. But it turns out it has actually been a slam-dunk for the Big O, so why begrudge him that?
First-strike & the Bush doctrine are babies only a mother like Sarah Palin could love... enough to defend. These are really & truly rubbish-heap ideas.
Imagine a US first-strike on anyone... And then imagine the big black screen of Nothing that will follow.
The US State Dept led by the former First Lady -- let's give her some credit, too -- that achieved the remarkable feat of giving Russia what it wanted on the missile defence pipedream, while at the same time not giving it to them.
That, in textbook diplomacy, earns an A+. Maybe even an A++. Or what you would call a First, in the UK.
All I want is a world at peace. Starting by having the civilised & enlightened parties at peace with each other would seem a logical First Step.
So then we can concentrate, in concert, on everyone else: the thugs, crooks, drugs networks, slave networks, and so forth. That would include the terrorists as well as your homegrown local-yokel sadistic violent criminals, as well.
There's no way we can completely all renounce nuclear arsenals. President Sarkozy has a right to his position about France. We have to be prepared even for the unlikeliest of scenarios, in which, let's imagine, a civilisation we did not even know existed arrives from Saturn and decides it likes French children for breakfast.
But I think it is a legitimate thing for a US President to say: "No, we will never have a war between the US & China, or the US & Russia, or the US & India, or the US & France..." I mean, really! That it has to be said as explicitly as that is a sad commentary on the paranoia in some corners, but it is reassuring to have it said, because, honestly: can we even remotely imagine having such wars? After everything we saw & learned in the 20th century, even keeping the two detonated nuclear weapons out of it?
Complain about this comment
BluesBerry, No. 64: Valid points, but not a reason not to have the summit & get the subject out in the public fora after a long holiday from discussing the prospects of actual "world peace."
In answer to your question: the UN is a good place for nuclear security issues, but lacks credibility with most Americans.
The single biggest accomplishment of what President Obama has undertaken in this initiative is actually getting Americans -- average Joes (minus the Lieberman who has already said he is opposed to the concept) -- to back away from first-strike & the Bush doctrine, to accept the world has entered a different phase in its development, to accept that rogue bands are more dangerous today than sovereign states (except for the obvious NK & Iran, who are currently under irrational leadership lacking legitimacy), and to finally lay to rest the Red Scare (after almost a century) & the myth of the US needing thousands upon thousands of nukes to deter Chinese or Russians, and to defend from invasions which would otherwise be imminent.
Just getting Americans to hear these kinds of ideas coming at them from authoritative sources over the TV screen is pretty amazing. It is indeed a milestone, and if he succeeds, I would say President Obama was the US President who actually ended the Cold War on the US side. Because the Russian side ended it long ago, way back under Mikhail Gorbachev. And the Chinese ended it under Deng Xiaoping.
Complain about this comment
Mark: Welcome back! I hope your time off was restful.
All: While any agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles may be useful, that agreement has to be (a) assessed against the nuclear weapons programs of other countries and (b) assessed against the larger threat spectrum.
WRT (a), I note with interest, for example, that some of our adversaries appear to be spending money modernizing their nuclear capability, and we are not. That doesn't seem wise to me. We should be matching them in capability...not trying to overbuild, or trying to underbuild to "persuade them to go along". Yes, it's more of the stupid minuet, but that's the way real deterrence works, and has to work. Our parents and theirs backed down slowly from the summit of fear; we get to continue the slow process of backing down today, and our children probably will do the same dance as well. Those who are impatient with the pace of that backing down have to remember that we are dealing with human nature, not just human intellect, and while we may be intellectually persuaded that nukes are bad, the factors of human pride, greed, and lack of faith will limit the pace at which we can safely come off the summit of fear.
WRT (b), if we suddenly find that everyone is willing to take reductions in the nuke stockpile, is it because they think there's better stuff to use out there now? What's happening, for example, with biological weapons? Certainly certain strains of biology have the potential to kill far more folks than would die in a typical terrorist incident, and biology is far harder to detect and clean up. What about directed-energy weapons? What about attacks on our (or someone else's) physical infrastructure (the electric grid is a particular concern of mine here in the US), or financial infrastructure? The point is that a sudden willingness to reduce nuclear arsenals may or may not point to any kind of "enlightenment"; it may only indicate that some new threat is nearing operational status.
There is another possible viewpoint, which is terribly cynical: This announcement was made to distract folks from other things they should be more concerned about. Certainly the state of the finances of the Western democracies, and the state of their societies, might be a larger concern; they are to me, at least. A more optimistic assessment might be that this illustrates that government can actually accomplish something. That's not news to me, but it may be to some folks.
In short, I'm grateful for the decision, and welcome it. Now back to the hard work of dealing with our debt, finances, infrastructure, labor, taxation, and the things that should be occupying the bulk of our time.
Regards to all!
Arclight
Complain about this comment
I'd like to address the UN involvement question and Yucca Mountain:
A) They are modifying a treaty between nations, not a UN agreement, hence the modification occurs between the parties to the treaty, not within the UN
B) My nuclear engineer acquaintance have said that the waste, meant to be stored in Yucca mountain or your backyard wherever that might be, can actually be cost effectively recycled into fuel for the nuclear plants...pretty much all of it....but the current non-proliferation treaties prevent this cost effective and rational recycling, which leads to C
C) Iran, if recycling fuel, and if recycling fuel was permitted, might not actually be in violation of anything any more (ie, "could" does not mean "would" in a partially sane world)
Complain about this comment
Abandoning the Yucca Mountain repository merely transfers the political controversy elsewhere. It makes perfectly good sense to store neclear waste from the Pacific Northwest, at least, at Hanford, but people in Oregon and Washington don't want it either.
To me the principle issue is vitrification, which like the rest of the business is way behind schedule. Here is a link to a description of the vitrification process from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website:
http://www.seattlepi.com/specials/eternity/vitri1.html
As far as I am concerned, these cannisters can be stored on the surface at Hanford and other federal reservations.
Complain about this comment
Here's a link to an interesting discussion of the risks of MOX fuel from the Nuclear Control Institute of Washington, D. C.: http://www.nci.org/b/berlin.htm
Complain about this comment
77. At 5:10pm on 13 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
""... He is more of an intellectual than even Clinton and GHW Bush;"
"Neither of which was remowned for their intellectual capacity."
__________
Huh?
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. The man is brilliant. Probably brighter than President Obama, but not such a pure academic, and not as ascetic in his thinking - or in his lifestyle.
GHW Bush does not have the academic qualifications of either man, but is, nonetheless, very clearly an extremely intelligent man, and, I would say, an intellectual, completely unlike his son. Jimmy Carter is also a very intelligent man.
----------
""he is more inclined to juridical approaches to policy questions than any President since Wilson or perhaps Taft;""
"Ah yes, Wilson and Taft, there are two presidential names to conjure with. Anyone recall anything they accomplished?"
The issue is not their accomplishments. I pointed out that their intellectual approaches were juridical. Nothing you have said contradicts my point.
Taft went on to become Chief Justice of the United States.
Wilson was an academic, and a difficult, aloof personality. His style tended to be legalistic in nature.
----------
"I wouldn't have included Lincoln as a defender of the constitution ..."
Well that pretty much ends rational discussion right there, doesn't it?
----------
"... the Emancipation Procamation was arguably a seizure of private property without compensation--something the constitution specifically prohibits government from doing."
----------
Excuse me, am I to understand that you are now defending slavery?
The central issue of the war, for which hundreds of thousands of Americans died, was whether human beings could be defined as property, as chattels.
Did you miss that part in school?
And suggesting that Abraham Lincoln should be criticized as not defending the Constitution because he put an end to it?
-----------
"I'll spot you Robert Kennedy, he too believed results justified the means, but to put Obama in the same league as Jefferson and Adams is stretching it. Jefferson had a long career of public service before he became president in which he actually did more than vote "present" when called upon and neither Jefferson nor Adams went around apologizing for their country, they were proud of it."
----------
I didn't suggest he had a long career in public service, and fail to see how that comment is anything but a non sequitur.
My point is that as President he has been a vigorous defender of the Constitution.
Please identify the time, date, and place, at which President Obama has "apologized" for his country.
----------
"I don't remember Eisenhower but I do remember Ronald Reagan and he had a very clear understanding of the principles the nation was founded upon, big government not being one of them."
How does this comment have anything to do with anything?
Eisenhower called out the Army and the National Guard to enforce the civil rights of the weak and disadvantaged. He was not by nature a trident man, or somebody who you would have expected to find in a civil rights protest march. But he knew the difference between right and wrong, and he stood up for the law when it counted.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan was, unfortunately, the one who started the country on the disastrous back-door obliteration of separation of church and state.
----------
"... He's undermined our national security by mortgaging us to China to pay for his corporate bailouts and in the process saddled us with a crushing burden of debt."
Excuse me? The budget was in surplus when Junior Bush arrived at the White House. The trade deficit with China ballooned long before January 2009, and the bailout being made now was made necessary be his predecessor's actions. Difficult to see how you can blame him for problems that arose before he came to Office, but don't let logic stop you.
----------
"Now he's floating the idea of a VAT to pay for his deficits ...."
If that's true I have one word for it:
Good.
----------
There is broad consensus that shifting the balance of taxation away from income and toward consumption would be good for the American economy. Have you not noticed that over the last 50 years almost all rich western economies have done this? It is long past time America to do the same thing.
The present system of taxation punishes savings and investment, and subsidizes consumption. It, and the ridiculous provision for subsidizing residential mortgages through the tax code, are two significant factors in creating credit bubbles. America has way, way too much, and way too easily obtained consumer credit. This is why America is borrowing so much from China (and others) - because its own savings pool is too weak; and why America has such a large trade deficit, not only with China but many nations. This is a well known structural imbalance in America's economy. The conventional means for correcting this flaw is precisely a shift in taxation away from incomes and toward consumption.
If the present administration were to shift to a value added tax, and thereby encourage saving, it would be a hugely welcome step in putting the US economy back on firmer footing. Every economist in the country would stand up and cheer.
Long overdue.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#67) "Postings 58 to 63 (pre-emptive U-boat strikes) also remind one of the dangers of nuclear accidents at sea for ICBM-launching submarines, and for nuclear powered hunter-killer subs."
Not many nuclear submarines have been lost at sea, and the reactors do not present a big environmental problem. "Of possibly greater concern is the radioactive waste dumped at sea." (quote from following linked article)
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/24/science/soviet-nuclear-dumps-disclosed.html?pagewanted=1
Nobody (except possible the rogue states) wants to dump radioactive waste in the ocean today.
Complain about this comment
One of the most amusing facets of this issue is the position taken by the right wing concerning the terrorist threat. Now that President Obama is talking about the danger of terrorists getting their hands on weapons-grade nuclear material - and using it against us and/or our allies - the right wing finds itself in the uncomfortable position of playing down the danger they loved to highlight when it was a convenient tool for them to achieve their goals.
I wonder how much support President Obama is going to have in Congress when the latest START agreement comes up for a vote? I believe 86 Democrats supported former President George W. Bush when he signed a similar agreement...any bets on how many Republicans will support President Obama on this issue? Actually, I would not be surprised if Sen. Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham and others support it, but I am not so sure about Sen. McCain. He is fighting for his seat and looking tough while being challenged for not being "conservative" enough is bound to be high in his list of priorities.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#117) "And suggesting that Abraham Lincoln should be criticized as not defending the Constitution because he put an end to it?"
Normally, I defer to you on questions of history, on which you are quite well informed, however I have to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery generally. It freed slaves in those states in rebellion against the United States (excluding Maryland, which soon ended slavery on its own). What put an end to slavery generally was the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Complain about this comment
Ref 111.
How can one person be so wrong on so many things at once? The stupider one is, the clearer one sees.
Complain about this comment
@117 (IF): "If the present administration were to shift to a value added tax, and thereby encourage saving, it would be a hugely welcome step in putting the US economy back on firmer footing. Every economist in the country would stand up and cheer."
As with many things, "it depends". If the VAT were part of a rigorous plan to manage finances, including paying down the debt (which, as we have discussed, is effectively at some $60T right now) rather than generating new spending opportunities, the benefits would probably balance the costs. Congress has demonstrated over your entire lifetime, however, that they do NOT have the discipline to do this. A VAT will be just another way for them to find new money to pay off contributors, reward friends, and punish enemies.
With regard to the "surplus": Since there was no action taken to retire long-term debt, then regardless of whether the money was counted to show a "surplus" or not (and it's all in the counting), the Executive and the Congress continued their irresponsible behavior toward our finances. Further, both the Executive and the Congress should have known that that bubble (made up by mutual-fund managers sinking $3T of 401K and other retirement funds into "dot.com" efforts that were doomed to lose money in a la-la land of "the New Economy") was unsustainable; this further compounds their guilt in not properly managing the finances.
Let's be clear here: Both parties, and both sets of political persuasions, have equally-bloody hands with regard to our finances; their willful mismanagement of our finances goes back some 90 years or so. The central financial question in my mind now is whether or not the level of private and public spending we both "want" to do and absolutely MUST do in order to maintain this Republic is sustainable with the private wealth base that must sustain it. I have increasing doubts that it can be sustained; if I'm correct we are busy consuming our seed corn right now, and when that's exhausted we will well and truly be on our way to a real loss of personal freedom, on a scale that we cannot imagine. If that's really true then this "nuclear summit", for all its value, is a sideshow.
I've tried very hard to be optimistic that we can find solutions for the challenges in front of us, but as I continue to observe more and more items in finance and jobs, and as I continue to see lack of real attention from our leaders of all persuasions and in all fields (we get the typical left-vs-right nonsense instead) I am becoming more and more concerned.
Complain about this comment
120. At 8:31pm on 13 Apr 2010, GH1618 wrote:
"What put an end to slavery generally was the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution."
___________
Quite so. And it is true that he was criticized for waiting so long before making the Emancipation Proclamation.
Still, I am not accustomed to criticism of Lincoln for failing to defend the Constitution, ...
... or of reading postings seeming to argue that it was wrong to abolish slavery. Had thought that issue was settled.
Complain about this comment
MariaAshot;
Obama's strategy is as transparent as cellophane. The reduction treaty, the meeting now is all a buildup to a future attempt to demand sanctions against Iran. When they are not approved or don't work that will give him the political cover to attack. He can twist China's arm right off if he wants to badly enough. A trade ware would shut China Inc down lock, stock, and barrel. Without the US, China would revert to an impovrished nation. It might anyway if the US doesn't recover from the depression.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#123) "Still, I am not accustomed to criticism of Lincoln for failing to defend the Constitution, ..."
This generally comes up in connection with his suspension of habeas corpus.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
re# 117. At 7:15pm on 13 Apr 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
77. At 5:10pm on 13 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
""... He is more of an intellectual than even Clinton and GHW Bush;"
"Neither of which was remowned for their intellectual capacity."
__________
Huh?
Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. The man is brilliant. Probably brighter than President Obama, but not such a pure academic, and not as ascetic in his thinking - or in his lifestyle."
OK, Bill was a Rhodes Scholar. He got a fancy degree from a university in Britain but he didn't learn the meaning of the word "is", that lying to the public when you're sure to get caught is stupid or that messin' with the help was just asking for scandal.
Yep, brilliant. And as phony as a three dollar bill.
There was a nice bit of footage of President Clinton attending a funeral for U.S. diplomats killed in a plane crash in the Balkans. If you watch it you see him laughing and talking with someone in his entourage, then he spots the camera and his whole demeanor changes, a tear rolls down his cheek and he's the very picture od the somber statesman--but it was all for show. In all due fairness to the man he probably missed his calling, he would have been a brilliant actor.
__________________
"If the present administration were to shift to a value added tax, and thereby encourage saving, it would be a hugely welcome step in putting the US economy back on firmer footing. Every economist in the country would stand up and cheer."
The problem with that scenario is the assumption that the VAT would replace existing taxes instead of being added in addition to our existing tax structure. Anyone with experience of government knows they never give up a revenue source unless forced to and it's very unlikely the income tax would be an exception. Oh to be sure it would be reduced as part of the sales pitch for the VAT but it wouldn't be entirely eliminated and it wouldn't be long before the rates began to creep up again, at first only on "the rich" but the definition of rich would slowly change to include the middle class as well.
VAT? No thank you, unless it's VAT 69.
____________________
"Excuse me? The budget was in surplus when Junior Bush arrived at the White House. The trade deficit with China ballooned long before January 2009, and the bailout being made now was made necessary be his predecessor's actions. Difficult to see how you can blame him for problems that arose before he came to Office, but don't let logic stop you."
Granted, Bush spent money like a sailor on shore leave--with the asisstance and connivance of Congress. It's part of the reason why the Republicans lost their hold, they acted like Democrats while in power taxing and spending to their heart's delight. So yes, Obama inherited a deficit--which he promptly mushroomed into the largst in American history with his economic bailout policies.
And now he's giving us a health care plan that no one is sure how we are going to pay for in spite of Congress' shennanigans to trick the CBO into saying it will save money. The idea that insurance companies are going to offer everyone coverage without raising rates or excluding high risk people ignores the actuarial realities that insurance is based on. It's almost as though the plan as curently written is designed to fail so Congress wil be forced to step in and fix it by converting to a government run single payer system. If I hear one more Congressman glibly tell us that it will be paid for by eliminating waste in the current system I may throw up. One has only to look at Medicare to see how well the government deals with fraud, waste and abuse in the medical business and the record is not impressive.
Obama may not be personally responsible but by the time honored rules of politics the president gets credit for whatever happens on his watch, good or bad.
Complain about this comment
126. At 00:34am on 14 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"OK, Bill was a Rhodes Scholar. He got a fancy degree from a university in Britain but he didn't learn the meaning of the word "is", that lying to the public when you're sure to get caught is stupid or that messin' with the help was just asking for scandal...."
__________
I didn't say he was virtuous. Richard Nixon was a bright man, but had flaws of Shakespearean proportions. Bill Clinton has the presence of a great Shakespearean character, too. Someday, somebody is going to write a brilliant biography of Bill Clinton. There is so much meat there.
I have a long enough appreciation of history not to think that there is anything particularly new or surprising in finding that men in positions of power enjoy the company of (young) women. In fact, it is somewhat comforting: it is easy to understand; it make them seem subject to the vices and failings of humanity generally.
It is sometimes more difficult to be comfortable with the ones who don't have those flaws. Nimitz was as upright as they come, and a decent man to boot, so you do find them sometimes.
On the other hand, I think the world of Harry Truman. But I wish to heavens he had had the gumption to cheat on his wife, openly, brazenly, and without a hint of shame, even if only just once. In the rather peculiar circumstances of his domestic life, both his marriage and his Presidency would have been a darn sight better for it.
Whatever the case, I stand by the comment that Bill Clinton was, and is, a brilliant man. You may think he's a phony, but his intelligence is for real. As time passes his Presidency looks better and better.
Complain about this comment
126. At 00:34am on 14 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"The problem with that scenario is the assumption that the VAT would replace existing taxes instead of being added in addition to our existing tax structure. Anyone with experience of government knows they never give up a revenue source unless forced to and it's very unlikely the income tax would be an exception. ..."
__________
Even were that true, a value added tax would still serve to shift the balance between consumption and savings - which America desperately needs to do.
America has among the lowest taxes of major industrialized nations. Notwithstanding what the right wing nuts may say, Americans are not overtaxed, and are not likely to be overtaxed anytime soon.
The hugely distorting tax relief on mortgage interest needs to be phased out - admittedly difficult to do during a housing slump, but it needs to be done sooner rather than later. If either taxes on consumption or elimination of tax breaks on consumption have the effect of increasing revenue and making it possible to bring the budget closer to balance, so much the better.
There is one place in the economy where taxes do need to be cut: namely investment income of those earning less than $ 100,000/year and having less than $1,000,000 in non-housing assets. Right now we subsidize mortgage debt and tax savings income - exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. As a public policy choice this is insane.
It is important for industrial credit to be cheap and widely available. We want resources to be available to reduce the cost of investing in plant and equipment. At the same time, the economy would benefit from a big reduction in the availability of cheap-and-easy consumer credit, (which is mainly fueling investment in consumer industries overseas) and a rise in the cost of consumption relative to saving, as compared to pushing for reduced taxes.
Complain about this comment
126. At 00:34am on 14 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"So yes, Obama inherited a deficit--which he promptly mushroomed into the largst in American history with his economic bailout policies."
___________
Ok, so what would you have done instead?
The market was undergoing a severe credit contraction that was on the cusp of strangling the economy. The classic remedy is to pump in liquidity with a firehose. That's what they did. It prevented a catastrophe.
Now the market is awash in liquidity and they have the even trickier job of slowly and carefully pumping out the excess without spooking the markets. We can't have interest rates at 1/4% forever. They need to rise to a more normal 3% - 5%. That is going to require a very gentle and subtle hand on the throttle.
Complain about this comment
126. At 00:34am on 14 Apr 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"And now he's giving us a health care plan that no one is sure how we are going to pay for ..."
"... It's almost as though the plan as curently written is designed to fail so Congress will be forced to step in and fix it by converting to a government run single payer system."
__________
Well, look, if you want to save money on health care, you go to a government run single payer system like every other major industrialized economy. They save, typically, 6 - 7 % of GNP as compared to America.
That's what America should have done in the first place, but implacable Republican opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition made that an impossibility.
Every feature that is going to drive up cost was supported by the Republicans. They refused to support any measure that would have reduced cost. On the contrary, they tried to make the system as expensive as possible to discourage people from supporting the package. Failure to put their country ahead of themselves? Irresponsible? Cynical? Politics at its worst? Yup.
Not a single Republican leader spoke in favour of a public system, or even of a public option, when a public single payer system is clearly in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.
This isn't the President's fault. This one I would lay squarely at the feet of the Republican leadership. They are the ones to blame for a system that will be far more expensive than it need be.
It will be fixed, eventually, over the next 20 years, but the price for this mule-headed obstructionism will be high in the meantime.
And the Republicans expect to pick up seats in November on the basis of the health care package? Why are they not ashamed of themselves? Why aren't they afraid to show their faces in public? Why aren't they facing a debacle in November? This is something I just do not understand.
Why doesn't the Obama administration plaster their photos on billboards, point to them, and say: "these people are why health care in America is going to cost 6 - 7 % of GNP more than it needs to"?
Complain about this comment
To our friends in a country south of Detroit.
Theres is no new health care scheme.
Obamacare was to be introduced in 2014.
Long after BHO is gone. And forgotten by DNC.
Just like Jimmy the Peanut and Bill the Zipper were.
Next question from move.org members?
Complain about this comment
"A first triumph at the nuclear summit".
What "Triumph"?
The U.S. didn't win a thing. Who were the victors?
Iran, Russia, China, and India.
Did I mention Iran?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS