Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security

[jimmy olsen]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more dangerous than global thermonuclear war.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-nuke-summit14-20100413,0,4265543.story

Summit endorses Obama goal on nuclear security

By Paul Richter and Christi Parsons, Tribune Washington Bureau

April 13, 2010 | 5:34 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The leaders of more than 40 nations, summoned to action by President Obama, agreed Tuesday to a voluntary but far-reaching program to prevent thousands of tons of weapons-grade nuclear materials scattered around the world from falling into the hands of terrorists.

World leaders gathered at a two-day conference vowed an unprecedented effort to crack down on nuclear smuggling, step up the sharing of nuclear information, and help develop common standards and procedures for the physical security of fissile materials.

Obama said the agreement, spelled out in a final communiqué, recognized a "cruel irony of history:" that after surviving a Cold War arms race and the threat of nuclear war, the world now must confront the even larger danger of nuclear terrorism.

"Terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda have tried to acquire the material for a nuclear weapon, and if they ever succeed, they would surely use it," Obama said. "Were they to do so, it would be a catastrophe for the world."

Yet, the four-year plan that emerged is highly ambitious, as Obama himself acknowledged during a press conference. It necessitates a crackdown on thousands of sites — at civilian nuclear installations, military and university sites — at a likely cost of many billions of dollars.

Obama acknowledged that there is no way to enforce the agreement except through the good intentions of world leaders who, he said, now share his view of the urgency of the program.

"We're relying on good will on the part of those who are signatories," Obama told a press conference Tuesday afternoon. "I believe they take their commitments very seriously."

Gary Samore, a senior National Security Council official, told reporters that enforcement mechanisms for national security policies are "not attainable."

"The effort to try to create such a regime would distract our efforts from the near-term need to secure these materials," he said.

Although cooperation with neighbors is important to halting nuclear smuggling, many countries in regions such as the Middle East and South Asia likely will be reluctant to cooperate with neighbors of whom they are suspicious. And many countries are generally wary of sharing information about their sites with other world powers, or even world organizations such as the UN"s International Atomic Energy Agency, that will be involved in the new program.

The communiqué acknowledges the rights of countries to pursue peaceful uses of nuclear power, a principle important to many developing countries. Indeed, many countries may take the view that international pressure to safeguard nuclear materials infringes on their rights to develop nuclear power — a view taken by Iran, for example.

Even as the agreement was discussed, Obama and other United States officials were pressing countries on the sidelines to cooperate in preparation of a new round of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran.

The nuclear security program sets out a series of objectives for participating countries.

They are urged to ratify two international treaties on the handling of nuclear materials. They also are asked to convert research reactors that use highly enriched uranium — which can be used in nuclear weapons — to low-enriched uranium, which isn't bomb grade.

The security program envisions that wealthier nations will help defray the cost of the effort for poorer ones. The United States has budgeted $3 billion in the current fiscal year for better securing nuclear material.

There are 1,600 tons of high enriched uranium and 500 tons of plutonium at risk in sites around the world, experts say, enough to build between 100,000 to 120,000 nuclear warheads. The highly enriched uranium is preferred by terrorist organizations because uranium-based nuclear bombs have a relatively straightforward design compared with plutonium weapons.

U.S. officials briefed during the conference on the efforts of Al Qaeda to obtain nuclear materials. The terror group has often approached other groups to try to obtain fissile material, and often been swindled by criminals.

U.S. officials announced that there will be another nuclear security summit in two years, in South Korea.

The location will put the meeting close to a country with a worrisome nuclear infrastructure, North Korea. The United States and allies believe Pyongyang is capable of spreading both nuclear know-how and material.

The Washington summit sidestepped many of the disagreements among countries on the issue.

[Monoriu]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more dangerous than global thermonuclear war.

There are two factors that affect how dangerous a given event is - consequences, and probability of happening.  The consequences of global nuclear war are indeed dire, but history has shown that the chance of that happening is close to nil.  These wars can only be started by large nuclear states, which are pretty rational. 

The chance of terrorists obtaining nukes and using them is much higher. 

[DGuller]

Depends on how you define danger.  What's more dangerous, a tiny chance of a total catastrophe, or a big chance of something merely humongously disastrous?  There are several valid answers. 

EDIT:  Ninja'd by Mono.

[Neil]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more dangerous than global thermonuclear war.

Nuclear weapons actually being used.

[crazy canuck]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more

The danger of world wide nuclear war was horrifying to live with but there was always the comforting thought that nobody who had the bomb actually wanted it to occur.

Now we live in a world where there are groups and perhaps nations that would not hestitate to use the bomb.  The old rules of MAD no longer apply.

[Neil]

Well, I would say that everyone has now crushed Tim.

[jimmy olsen]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more

The danger of world wide nuclear war was horrifying to live with but there was always the comforting thought that nobody who had the bomb actually wanted it to occur.

Now we live in a world where there are groups and perhaps nations that would not hestitate to use the bomb.  The old rules of MAD no longer apply.

If Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan is toppled by the Taliban and they nuke India, that isn't terrorism, that's nuclear war and falls under the old paradigm.

Is it really more likely Al Qaeda will manage to steal a nuke and use one than a state using one? I think not.

[sbr]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more

The danger of world wide nuclear war was horrifying to live with but there was always the comforting thought that nobody who had the bomb actually wanted it to occur.

Now we live in a world where there are groups and perhaps nations that would not hestitate to use the bomb.  The old rules of MAD no longer apply.

If Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan is toppled by the Taliban and they nuke India, that isn't terrorism, that's nuclear war and falls under the old paradigm.

Is it really more likely Al Qaeda will manage to steal a nuke and use one than a state using one? I think not.

I think it is extremely more likely that a terrorist group will use a bomb before a state will, by many magnitudes.

[grumbler]

If Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan is toppled by the Taliban and they nuke India, that isn't terrorism, that's nuclear war and falls under the old paradigm.

Is it really more likely Al Qaeda will manage to steal a nuke and use one than a state using one? I think not.

That's not relevant to what Obama said, so moot even if true (which I don't think it is).

[crazy canuck]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more

The danger of world wide nuclear war was horrifying to live with but there was always the comforting thought that nobody who had the bomb actually wanted it to occur.

Now we live in a world where there are groups and perhaps nations that would not hestitate to use the bomb.  The old rules of MAD no longer apply.

If Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan is toppled by the Taliban and they nuke India, that isn't terrorism, that's nuclear war and falls under the old paradigm.

Is it really more likely Al Qaeda will manage to steal a nuke and use one than a state using one? I think not.

I dont see the relevance of your post.  Whether it is terrorism or not (and I dont know why you would exclude a terrorist group from taking over nation state from the definition) the principles of MAD do not apply in a world of nuclear proliferation and that is why the world is much more dangerous now.

[crazy canuck]

"Even larger danger"? He can't seriously believe that bullshit can he? What man made problem can possibly be more

The danger of world wide nuclear war was horrifying to live with but there was always the comforting thought that nobody who had the bomb actually wanted it to occur.

Now we live in a world where there are groups and perhaps nations that would not hestitate to use the bomb.  The old rules of MAD no longer apply.

If Iran nukes Israel or Pakistan is toppled by the Taliban and they nuke India, that isn't terrorism, that's nuclear war and falls under the old paradigm.

Is it really more likely Al Qaeda will manage to steal a nuke and use one than a state using one? I think not.

I think it is extremely more likely that a terrorist group will use a bomb before a state will, by many magnitudes.

More likely, yes.  But by many magnitudes.  Not sure about that. The terrorist groups still have to obtain the bomb and a nation state is more likely to obtain that capability.

What is the most likely threat is Iran becoming capable of creating nuclear devices that can in turn be used by terrorists.  Either way it is foolish to call Obama's comment "bullshit".

[Razgovory]

Well, I would say that everyone has now crushed Tim.

Well he was asking for it.

[Alexandru H.]

I hope the next bomb gets used in an area with the most Languishites present...

Where's the next FagFest gonna organize?

[grumbler]

More likely, yes.  But by many magnitudes.  Not sure about that. The terrorist groups still have to obtain the bomb and a nation state is more likely to obtain that capability.

What is the most likely threat is Iran becoming capable of creating nuclear devices that can in turn be used by terrorists.  Either way it is foolish to call Obama's comment "bullshit".

Nuclear terrorism doesn't even need fusion or fission.  A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.

I'd argue, though, that it is likelier that a terrorist-employed actual nuke would likelier come from Pakistan than Iran, at least for the next few decades.  Iran won't have bombs to spare.

[grumbler]

Where's the next FagFest gonna organize?

Dunno.  The Romanian Germans haven't told us yet.  Probably they don't want to speak with their mouths full (of Slavic cock).