"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
Quote
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
Well, I would say that everyone has now crushed Tim.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 08:55:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 08:55:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
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).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 08:55:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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.
Quote from: sbr on April 13, 2010, 09:52:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 09:47:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 08:55:06 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 13, 2010, 08:40:59 PM
"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".
Quote from: Neil on April 13, 2010, 08:57:04 PM
Well, I would say that everyone has now crushed Tim.
Well he was asking for it.
I hope the next bomb gets used in an area with the most Languishites present...
Where's the next FagFest gonna organize?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 10:42:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 14, 2010, 01:59:12 AM
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).
Quote from: sbr on April 13, 2010, 09:52:02 PM
I think it is extremely more likely that a terrorist group will use a bomb before a state will, by many magnitudes.
Hard to say. India and Pakistan are pretty likely, as far as those things go. Pakistan is massively outclassed in a potential conflict, while India is pretty sure that Pakistan will go there, and confident that they can win a nuclear war.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 10:42:00 PM
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.
On reflection I agree with both points.
I disagree.
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.
It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.
It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.
Why?
Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area. Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.
Quote from: Siege on April 14, 2010, 11:50:44 AM
I disagree.
Further support for my change of opinion on the subject. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2010, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.
It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.
Why?
Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area. Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.
To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2010, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.
It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.
Why?
Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area. Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.
To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.
Why is that? I thought the radioactivity spread with the wind.
You dont need to actually destroy anything. Just make it uninhabitable.
To take another tact. Are you saying we dont have much to fear regarding terrorists getting their hands on dirty bombs?
Terrorists may be more likely to use one, but a nation state is more likely to use hundreds.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2010, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:46:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2010, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:06:04 AM
A dirty bomb would be devastating to a city.
It would have to be pretty fucking enormous.
Why?
Most commercial districts in even major cities dont spread over that wide an area. Take that out and you effectively take out the heart of most cities.
To "take it out" you need a LOT of material.
Why is that? I thought the radioactivity spread with the wind.
You dont need to actually destroy anything. Just make it uninhabitable.
To take another tact. Are you saying we dont have much to fear regarding terrorists getting their hands on dirty bombs?
How it spreads depends on which form the radioactive material takes. Even if we assume 100% of the material in the bomb gets dispersed over the area in question (not realistic, much of it will be concentrated close to the blast, especially in a man-made canyon like a city) then we have a part of a city that has a layer of radioactive dust. Send in the cleanup crews. Stone and concrete and asphalt are not that hard to clean, just hosing it down will take care of a lot of the dust. After the cleanup you will have some radioactivity left. For this remnant to make the area uninhabitable the initial amount will have to have been pretty great, and this is if you make a conservative estimate that cleanup success is a fixed percentage.
In the initial blast people outdoors in the area will get radioactive dust in their lungs and digestive tracts. Some will likely suffer health effects because of this.
The exact danger posed by a Bq of radioactivity depends a lot on the isotope in question and, for inhaled and ingested material, on its chemical composition. Alpha emitters (like Americium, Uranium and Plutonium) are much more dangerous than gamma emitters when inhaled, but are harmless as long as they remain outside your body. Gamma emitters (like Co-60 and Cs-137) will give you dose as long as you are near them but they are because of this very easily detected and therefore easy to clean away. And then there's the rarer beta emitters such as Sr-90. I cannot say which is the most likely to be used in an attack but the alpha emitters are generally harder to come by in any quantities, for obvious reasons. Co-60 and Cs-137 are commonly used in a number of industries. There's a bunch of short-lived isotopes in industrial use but they are not very useful for this application.
The basic problem that a dirty bomb terrorist faces is that radioactivity just isn't very dangerous. You can, for a limited time make a part of a city over the recommended limits for everyday living, sure. To make the area uninhabitable in a practical sense you need a LOT of nasty material. Consider that the other Chernobyl reactors remained in use after the disaster in reactor 4.
My personal impression is that the physical effects of any likely dirty bomb will be surprisingly small. The material is also a LOT harder to move around undetected compared to conventional materials because of its radioactivity. If I were a terrorist I wouldn't spend scarce resources on the dirty bomb approach.
Actually, given the panic and the relatively small effects, a dirty bomb would result in an excellent investment opportunity.
So...how about Obama being a secret ev0l muslim with the summit having a Islamic crescent for a logo and all that?
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Dunno. The Romanian Germans haven't told us yet. Probably they don't want to speak with their mouths full (of Slavic cock).
Why would they be worried about being polite?
Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2010, 06:40:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 14, 2010, 10:07:50 AM
Dunno. The Romanian Germans haven't told us yet. Probably they don't want to speak with their mouths full (of Slavic cock).
Why would they be worried about being polite?
Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful. :(