U.N. Calls On Bush To Give Up America's Nukes

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

So what, then nobody has any nuclear arms?

What's supposed to happen when the evil Jovian lizards finally attack us?

Clearly, the UN is but a puppet of the evil Jovian lizards.

Thats Jovial lizards, they're quite a happy bunch you know.

[Glocksman]

If they're smoking what the UN smoked, then they're happy indeed.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

So what, then nobody has any nuclear arms?

What's supposed to happen when the evil Jovian lizards finally attack us?

Clearly, the UN is but a puppet of the evil Jovian lizards.

Thats Jovial lizards, they're quite a happy bunch you know.

Dude, that Nadesico reference just went totally over your head...

[PainRack]

Welllll....., at the risk of sounding stupid, the USA nuclear security isn't that great either.

Much has been made about the manufacture of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and its potential abuse by terrorists. Furthermore, a review of security measures at nuclear plants does suggest that security responses were not up to standard at certain plants.

Although, didn't Britain allow two anti-nuclear activists to sneak onboard one of their nuclear submarines?

[Col. Crackpot]

Welllll....., at the risk of sounding stupid, the USA nuclear security isn't that great either.

Much has been made about the manufacture of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and its potential abuse by terrorists. Furthermore, a review of security measures at nuclear plants does suggest that security responses were not up to standard at certain plants.

Although, didn't Britain allow two anti-nuclear activists to sneak onboard one of their nuclear submarines?

yes, its simply horrible. we should be more like pakistan and actively sell shit to thris world shitholes. Now THAT is nuclear security!

[Nathan F]

Welllll....., at the risk of sounding stupid, the USA nuclear security isn't that great either.

Much has been made about the manufacture of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and its potential abuse by terrorists. Furthermore, a review of security measures at nuclear plants does suggest that security responses were not up to standard at certain plants.

Although, didn't Britain allow two anti-nuclear activists to sneak onboard one of their nuclear submarines?

Nuclear plants do not equal nuclear arms. The stuff in nuclear plants is HARDLY refined enough to be converted to weapons grade stuff. Security at plants is very tough, but you should see the security at our weapons facilities, security that many of the world's armies couldn't get through.

[Uraniun235]

Much has been made about the manufacture of radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and its potential abuse by terrorists.

The only potential abuse there is the making of a dirty bomb.

Didn't President Carter ban the reprocessing of spent fuel because reprocessed fuel was a lot easier to make nuclear weapons out of? Personally, I don't think it makes any sense, given that every other nation that uses nuclear power reprocesses it's fuel.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nuclear plants do not equal nuclear arms. The stuff in nuclear plants is HARDLY refined enough to be converted to weapons grade stuff. Security at plants is very tough, but you should see the security at our weapons facilities, security that many of the world's armies couldn't get through.

Indeed, typically power plants run on 2% enriched uranium. You need something like 99.9% enrichment to build a bomb. Stealing the stuff might make for an okay dirty bomb, except the terrorist would likely die of radiation poisoning before they could finish building the thing, but its no good for building an atomic bomb unless you have some very large industrial facilities. You'd need those anyway for the bomb building, though not on quite as large a scale, one big building perhaps rather then a whole complex.

[Symmetry]

What types of spent nuclear fuel contain plutonium? I know that Plutonium is a lot easier to refine, since its chemically different than the sorrounding Uranium (though of course that doesn't make it *easy*).

[PackMule]

So whats wrong with everyone getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? Bush and Co. made a big deal about Iraq have WMD's (yet to be found ...) and yet the moment someone suggests that the US gets rid of their WMD's people cry out.

Someone tell me, are people still burying nuclear waste because there is no proper way to get rid of it?

We only have this one planet, maybe we shouldn't nuke it . I would like to have my children grow up in something besides a nuclear wasteland.

[Vympel]

And they sure as hell don't realize that the US takes a wee bit more care of our nukes than say Kazakstan?

Kazakhstan gave all their nuclear arsenal to Russia, like all the other CIS states.

But Mr Bush, I thought you said free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction?

[Mr Bean]

So whats wrong with everyone getting rid of weapons of mass destruction? Bush and Co. made a big deal about Iraq have WMD's (yet to be found ...) and yet the moment someone suggests that the US gets rid of their WMD's people cry out.

Someone tell me, are people still burying nuclear waste because there is no proper way to get rid of it?

We only have this one planet, maybe we shouldn't nuke it . I would like to have my children grow up in something besides a nuclear wasteland.

Funny in a few ways, but anyhoo

This world won't be a Nuclear wasteland as long as a select few countrys have all the nukes, simply put as it makes no sense to ever use them except in a revenge sense, meaning somone else already use some meaning that your kids will all be growning up in a Nuclear wasteland that was America but on the plus side, whoever did it will be an even bigger Nuclear wasteland

[Stormbringer]

And they sure as hell don't realize that the US takes a wee bit more care of our nukes than say Kazakstan?

Kazakhstan gave all their nuclear arsenal to Russia, like all the other CIS states.

I realized that afterword and it was just a random example anyway.

But Mr Bush, I thought you said free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction?

I think the implications are obvious...

[PackMule]

Funny in a few ways, but anyhoo

This world won't be a Nuclear wasteland as long as a select few countrys have all the nukes, simply put as it makes no sense to ever use them except in a revenge sense, meaning somone else already use some meaning that your kids will all be growning up in a Nuclear wasteland that was America but on the plus side, whoever did it will be an even bigger Nuclear wasteland

Can you please re-phrase that for me so that I can better understand your point.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that only a few countries should have nukes, and they should only have them in case one of the other few countries with nukes should nuke America first.

WTF? Get rid of all nukes and there wont be anything to worry about.

Whats with America needing Nukes so they feel safe? Is it because they seem to not give a shit about the rest of the world and do what they want? Maybe if the CIA would stop funding third world rebels they wouldn't need to worry about them attacking the USA 20 years later. (Osama, Saddam etc.)

Simple solution -> get rid of all the nukes, stop pissing off other countries and then American's won't need to keep nukes to feel safe.

I love living in Nuke Free NZ.

[Nathan F]

Can you please re-phrase that for me so that I can better understand your point.

It seems to me that you are suggesting that only a few countries should have nukes, and they should only have them in case one of the other few countries with nukes should nuke America first.

WTF? Get rid of all nukes and there wont be anything to worry about.

Whats with America needing Nukes so they feel safe? Is it because they seem to not give a shit about the rest of the world and do what they want? Maybe if the CIA would stop funding third world rebels they wouldn't need to worry about them attacking the USA 20 years later. (Osama, Saddam etc.)

Simple solution -> get rid of all the nukes, stop pissing off other countries and then American's won't need to keep nukes to feel safe.

I love living in Nuke Free NZ.

Right, see, there's this thing called 'nuclear deterrence'. When someone get's an idea about using a nuke, they always have the fact that they'll soon become a piece of smoldering glass if they push the red button. Take Kim Dong Small, for instance. The only thing keeping him from running over South Korea is the fact that the US has the ability to turn the DPRK into a glowing desert the first time a shell hit's downtown Seole. The genie of nuclear arms is out of the closet, there's no way to stop that now, and the only way to keep someone from using one is the assurance that they'll be blasted back to the Stone Age the first time a launch plume of a missile is detected.

[Joe]

WTF? Get rid of all nukes and there wont be anything to worry about.

That's nice, but flowery rhetoric isn't going to make all the nukes in the world go away.

Whats with America needing Nukes so they feel safe?

It's not just America. The nice thing about nuclear deterrence is that it has a 100 percent success rate as a line of defence.

[Stuart Mackey]

Whats with America needing Nukes so they feel safe? Is it because they seem to not give a shit about the rest of the world and do what they want? Maybe if the CIA would stop funding third world rebels they wouldn't need to worry about them attacking the USA 20 years later. (Osama, Saddam etc.)

Male American politicians all have small dicks {a fact confimed by the KGB and Monica Lewinsky and sundry female interns} . By having a nuclear arsenal an American President, or any US politician, can feel smug when he says that they are the most powerfull man/nation in the world.

quo
I love living in Nuke Free NZ.

another Kiwi? excellent!

[Ma Deuce]

Nukes are the ultimate guarantee of national security, and they are usually built with the intent that they will never need to be used. Take India and Pakistan? What do you think has been keeping them from going all-out again? Why do you think they are still at the bargaining table with each other?
What do you think kept the Soviets from rolling into West Germany during the Cold War? What do you think keeps the Arab states from attacking Israel? Why do you think the USSR and China never had a full-scale war, even though relations between the two countries were quite bad in the late '60s and early 70s? (there were some border skirmishes along the Amur river, but nothing really big). In all cases, the answer is the same...

I would feel very insecure and unsafe in a world where the major nuclear powers actually decided to disband their arsenals...

[Stuart Mackey]

That's nice, but flowery rhetoric isn't going to make all the nukes in the world go away.

Correct, but that does not address the point.

It's not just America. The nice thing about nuclear deterrence is that it has a 100 percent success rate as a line of defence.

Correct, however it can be argued that that same deterrance alows for other means of aggression that cannot be delt with.

[Uraniun235]

What types of spent nuclear fuel contain plutonium? I know that Plutonium is a lot easier to refine, since its chemically different than the sorrounding Uranium (though of course that doesn't make it *easy*).

All types of spent reactor fuel. Reactor fuel contains both U-235 (which is the fuel for the fission reaction) and U-238 (which is in most circumstances not fissionable).

U-235 fissions on neutron absorption. U-238 transmutes to Plutonium-239 on neutron absorption; Pu-239 is fissionable like U-235. Indeed, a good chunk of the power being produced by nuclear power plants is coming from plutonium that has been produced over time within the fuel rods.

[Howedar]

Without nukes, there would undoubtedly be a lot more wars going on. That means more dead people. Conversely, the US (and Russian and British and French and Chinese and so forth) nuclear deterrent has cost precisely zero lives.

Taking away the nukes means more conventional war. War is bad.