Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nuke Summit Is a "BFD"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:07 PM
Original message
The Nuke Summit Is a "BFD"
(I'm on a Google "Biden alert" list, receiving links to articles in which he is mentioned. Imagine my surprise when I found this supportive Opinion on Fox.)

By Judith Miller - FOXNews.com

Efforts to increase the protection of enriched uranium and plutonium and dissuade nuclear states from making even more of it can significantly complicate efforts by rogue states and the world’s Al Qaedas, which boast of their determination to acquire nuclear bombs to kill as many of us as possible. -- And that, as Vice President Joe Biden, would say, is a big -- uh--deal.

What would it take to blow up a large part of Manhattan? Or Chicago? Or Los Angeles? A fairly primitive atomic bomb composed of some 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium packed tightly in two hemispheres the size of a grapefruit – a very heavy grapefruit – and an explosion to force them together to start a chain reaction.

And if you were a rogue state or a terrorist, where could you find this material? There’s more than 100 tons of it scattered throughout the world in countries with nuclear arsenals but also nuclear power reactors and research reactors, for starters. In many places, it’s not very well protected.

This is why 1,800 leaders, senior officials, and nuclear experts from over 45 states have flocked to Washington, D.C. at President Obama’s invitation for the first major official international gathering ever on this critical topic.

No, the summit won’t directly help the U.S. and its allies persuade North Korea to abandon the nuclear weapons it has already tested. Nor will it dissuade Iran from trying to get WMD. Neither former President Bush nor Mr. Obama has had much success doing that. And since Pyongyang and Tehran are part of the problem, not the solution, neither was invited to the two-day affair.

But efforts to increase the protection of enriched uranium and plutonium and dissuade nuclear states from making even more of it can significantly complicate efforts by rogue states and the world’s Al Qaedas, which boast of their determination to acquire nuclear bombs to kill as many of us as possible.

nuclear triathlon. Last week’s events included a complex treaty with the Russians reducing our nuclear arsenals by a third and the vehicles to deliver them in half – another milestone of the so-called START process.

Then the administration unveiled a new doctrine, its so-called “Nuclear Posture Review,” which limited the circumstances under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. Though both are important, these acronym events have mostly fixated members of the nuclear priesthood and other national security policy wonks. Complicated and controversial, they received respectful coverage by the mainstream news media. But securing material that can kill millions is something that everyone can understand and should embrace.

It is also a truly bipartisan effort, which began back in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union when Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana and former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia created the Cooperation Threat Reduction program. Since then, the billions invested have resulted in the dismantling and protection of thousands of nuclear weapons and dangerous material throughout the former Soviet Union. President Obama wants more than gauzy communiqués at the end of this two-day nuclear gab fest. He wants each state to commit to a four-year work plan with specific budgets and programs. On the summit’s first day, he had something to show for all the cups of coke and tea with foreign dignitaries: The Ukraine announced it would give up the stockpile of highly enriched uranium it has been storing since 1994 and convert its nuclear reactors to work on low-enriched- uranium which cannot be used in weapons.

Obama also wants to expand the kind of cooperation we recently saw in Chile. Soon after its devastating earthquake, Chile asked the U.S. for help in safely extracting about a bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium it was storing. This was 19th time since 2002 that the U.S. has quietly helped a friendly state solve such a nuclear problem.

Finally, the administration hopes that the pattern of cooperation launched here will generate the political momentum needed to solve more vexing nuclear challenges, such as the uphill effort to impose crippling sanctions on Iran for failing to abide by its international nuclear commitments. OK. That’s a long shot. But there aren’t a lot of attractive alternatives.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/13/judith-miller-obama-nuclear-security-summit-atomic-bomb-blow-manhattan/#

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. And a 'BFT. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. I didn't know this..thanks!
"Obama also wants to expand the kind of cooperation we recently saw in Chile. Soon after its devastating earthquake, Chile asked the U.S. for help in safely extracting about a bomb’s worth of highly enriched uranium it was storing. This was 19th time since 2002 that the U.S. has quietly helped a friendly state solve such a nuclear problem."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, it is.
On a number of levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
4. He's earning that Nobel Peace Prize.
As some of us knew he would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did you catch this:
"Neither former President Bush nor Mr. Obama MR Obama? Bush is addressed as "Former President" and the current President is addressed as "MR". Unfucking believable. Just gotta get those Birther jabs in wherever they can..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bcool Donating Member (62 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Normal writing style...
Nothing to complain about there....it's normal writing practice. Since it's the first time Bush was mentioned, the reference is to "President", while it's a subsequent reference to Obama, so he's called "Mr.". No harm, no foul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yeah you're right..
overreaction... my bad :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-13-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. Judith Miller. Foxnews. Cited as a supportive opinion...
Ummm yeah... I'm going to have to go ahead and urge people to be wary and keep eyes where this "support" is coming from, and to keep questioning "why?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC