The Nuclear Summit

[Lemur]

By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less. You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

[Louis VI the Fat]

US diplomacy has made great strides the last year towards cooperation with China to thwart Iran´s nuclear ambitions.

Considering that a western boycott, technologically or economically, is useless when Tehran has the luxury of choice, this is a great step.



Few fear Canada*, or doubt its resolve to keep nuclear fuel out of the wrong hands. Canada may have agreed to send spent nuclear fuel to the US to make it politically palatable for the Ukraine to do the same. Such is my entirely subjective intuition at least.


*Except Canada´s environmental track record, which will destroy the world before a nuclear armaggedon does.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why so sour this wonderful spring morning?

By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

Who said anything about ignoring them? I thought the point of this summit was to do something about them. Unfortunately, it seems to have accomplished very little. Hence the thread.. to discuss it.

If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less.

Actually, I was very hopeful that the summit might produce some tangible results. They are scant at best. So why shouldn't the president's performance be criticized? He promised the nation better results through diplomacy, but he doesn't appear to be particularly skilled at it.

As an aside, I have noticed that anytime anyone is critical of this president you launch in to rhetoric about how it has nothing to do with the issues and its all about him personally. Noted.

You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

No, my response was a comical way of saying that the "accomplishments" of the summit were not particularly great.

[Lemur]

So why shouldn't the president's performance be criticized? He promised the nation better results through diplomacy, but he doesn't appear to be particularly skilled at it.

By what metric? What, exactly were you hoping for? If you want to be taken seriously, then propose something serious. Blanket criticisms of a man you despise don't count for much.

I have noticed that anytime anyone is critical of this president you launch in to rhetoric about how it has nothing to do with the issues and its all about him personally.

If your entire argument rests on the WND/FoxNews meme about bowing, well, you get what you paid for, which ain't much. Propose a serious argument and you'll get a serious response. Recycle rightist memes and you'll get a pimp slap.

Then dispense with ad hominem attacks and focus on substance.

And the substance is ...? Care to inject your deep understanding of nuclear proliferation issues here?

All we've done is relive certain, mostly friendly countries, of the burden of securing enriched uranium. It's like offering to collect used hypodermic needles so they don't was up on our shores. The truth is that this summit has done little to ensure our security.

Another deeply unserious response. Explain, in 200 words or less, why enriched uranium stockpiles are a concern for U.S.A. security.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think the question is really about uranium stockpiles. More like what more should have been done.

Didn't they sign a new treaty with Russia a few weeks back to reduce stockpiles of warheads by 1/3 though? That's decent.

[Lemur]

Didn't they sign a new treaty with Russia a few weeks back to reduce stockpiles of warheads by 1/3 though? That's decent.

Details here.

Casting aside years of rancor, President Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia signed the biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation yesterday, lacing the moment with new warnings of sanctions for an intransigent Iran. [...] The pact commits their nations to slash the number of strategic nuclear warheads by one-third and more than halve the number of missiles, submarines, and bombers carrying them.

That still leaves the two countries with enough nuclear firepower to ensure mutual destruction several times over, but the move sets a foundation for deeper reductions, which both sides are already pursuing.

And a plutonium disposal agreement, with details here.

"When this mechanism starts working we expect its positive influence on the process of nonproliferation," Lavrov told reporters.

He described the event as having "significant importance." Clinton said the total amount of material involved is enough for nearly 17,000 nuclear weapons.

Both diplomats said the agreement prevents any future military use of the plutonium.

I can't wait to hear from the usual rightists how this is all symptomatic of Obama's abject failure at diplomacy. No metrics, no examples, no reasoning, just blind assertions which, due to their evidence-free and fact-free nature, are impossible to refute or even discuss like an adult.

[Vladimir]

And the substance is ...? Care to inject your deep understanding of nuclear proliferation issues here?


Another deeply unserious response. Explain, in 200 words or less, why enriched uranium stockpiles are a concern for U.S.A. security.

Very serious indeed. Oh yes, let's sing the left wing rally cry about Fox news.

Would you care do do the same? Again, you're attacking Panzer and not addressing the summit. Care to put your money where your fingers are...so so speak.

[Lemur]

Would you care do do the same? Again, you're attacking Panzer and not addressing the summit. Care to put your money where your fingers are...so so speak.

In other words, you are incapable of addressing the question, so you ask me to do your homework for you. Gladly.

Enriched uranium is the single-most-difficult element to manufacture when creating an atomic weapon. Background:

The most complicated issue to be addressed in making of an atomic bomb was the production of ample amounts of "enriched" uranium to sustain a chain reaction. At the time, uranium-235 was very hard to extract. In fact, the ratio of conversion from uranium ore to uranium metal is 500:1. Compounding this, the one part of uranium that is finally refined from the ore is over 99% uranium-238, which is practically useless for an atomic bomb. To make the task even more difficult, the useful U-235 and nearly useless U-238 are isotopes, nearly identical in their chemical makeup. No ordinary chemical extraction method could separate them; only mechanical methods could work.

So having large stockpiles of enriched uranium sitting about in underfunded facilities in the former Soviet Union is what most proliferation experts would call an abysmally bad idea.

Your comparison to used hypodermic needles shows how unserious you are on this issue. If you have a neighbor who won't take care of, say, some medical waste, it's not a big problem. If, on the other hand, your neighbor has a stockpile of gasoline, gunpowder and thermite fuses that he won't secure, you might consider it a security issue.

-edit-

There appear to be two groups that are unhappy with President 44's nuclear maneuvering: American rightists and Immadinnerjacket's government. I doubt this is the last time we'll see these two in alignment.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told United Nations leaders that the U.S. was attempting “nuclear blackmail” by retaining the option of using atomic weapons against his country.

Ahmadinejad, in a letter dated April 13, cited Secretary of Defense Robert Gates as saying that “all options are on the table” regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran in response to an attack. The statement was part of President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review that was released last week.

[Strike For The South]

Will someone explain the bowing thing to me? I realize a true American never bows to nobody, unless of course he's presidnet, because they all bow....Even to the pope, which I find much more egregious than anything else.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, I think you can joke about Canada, but less enriched Uranium in the Ukraine would seem to be very worthwhile. Uh, well, my only reason for saying that is that it's a lot closer, I don't actually know anything about the Ukraine.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Will someone explain the bowing thing to me? I realize a true American never bows to nobody, unless of course he's presidnet, because they all bow....Even to the pope, which I find much more egregious than anything else.

Obama is just being your typical uncultured American. A bow is never supposed to be done together with physical contact, as Obama does in the picture of the OP. It's a laff.*

Although I suppose the criticism is that Obama is grovelling to a foreign leader again. I might in fact share this criticism, but I can't make up my mind where cultural sensitivity ends and grovelling begins. There is something refreshing, instead of laughable, about typcial American culturally sensitivity, which contrary to public perception is something the Americans excell in and always make an effort to.


* Incidentally, while I'm at it, in the modern age, one does not kiss a woman's hand. You're not a dog, and she doesn't need your saliva all over her hands. Your lips move close to her hand, then blow a little.

[PanzerJaeger]

By what metric? What, exactly were you hoping for? If you want to be taken seriously, then propose something serious. Blanket criticisms of a man you despise don't count for much.

I know it may be pushing the envelope a bit, but an actual binding agreement of some kind would have been great. Actions against known weapons proliferators with nuclear capabilities such as North Korea would have been an accomplishment, as well. And, as crazy as it sounds, I actually hoped the Nuclear Summit would result in sanctions against Iran, or at least meaningful progress towards that end.

Really though, you can pick any metric you like besides "meaningless rhetoric" and this summit fails to measure up. IIRC, the last time a president convened a summit this large, the United Nations was formed.

If your entire argument rests on the WND/FoxNews meme about bowing, well, you get what you paid for, which ain't much. Propose a serious argument and you'll get a serious response. Recycle rightist memes and you'll get a pimp slap.

Ah, but my entire argument does not rest on Obama bowing, but on the substance of this summit - which is lacking. It is interesting that you are trying to paint this as some sort of rightist propaganda. Criticism of the summit has come from all political corners.

So having large stockpiles of enriched uranium sitting about in underfunded facilities in the former Soviet Union is what most proliferation experts would call an abysmally bad idea.

Your flippant, ignorant comparison to used hypodermic needles shows how completely unserious you are on this issue. If you have a neighbor who won't take care of, say, some medical waste, it's not a big issue. If, on the other hand, your neighbor has a stockpile of gasoline, gunpowder and thermite fuses that he won't secure, you might consider it a security issue. If you had your brain even slightly plugged in.

Holy ad hominem, Batman!

Who is saying that proliferation isn't a concern? That’s the point! Very little was done at the conference to deal with it.

[Lemur]

I know it may be pushing the envelope a bit, but an actual binding agreement of some kind would have been great.

So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?

Actions against known weapons proliferators with nuclear capabilities such as North Korea would have been an accomplishment, as well. And, as crazy as it sounds, I actually hoped the Nuclear Summit would result in sanctions against Iran, or at least meaningful progress towards that end.

What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.

Really though, you can pick any metric you like besides "meaningless rhetoric" and this summit fails to measure up.

So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra of debate!

Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia, a plutonium disposal agreement with same, an increase in help from Russia with Iran, and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.

Who is saying that proliferation isn't a concern? That’s the point! Very little was done at the conference to deal with it.

I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?"). Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like trying to box a cloud.

[PanzerJaeger]

So your "abject failure" argument boils down to the fact that there were agreements, but not in writing. And there were steps taken toward non-proliferation, but not big enough for your taste. That's a rather different take than "failure President does nothing but bow," yes?

Is that a serious question? Tell me what an agreement, especially concerning geopolitics, is worth that isn't in writing. Those in writing are already flimsy enough.

Further, could you describe a situation, in Lemur's world, in which this summit could have been a failure?

What's the biggest barrier between us and meaningful action against Iran and NK? Would that be China and Russia? Or did you have something else in mind? And if we are having improved relations with, say, Russia, and they are increasingly siding with us when we speak out against Iran, does that qualify as ... well how does that factor into your Republican playbook? A non-narrative fact which must be discarded? Or would you care to describe how we're going to deal with Iran without Russia's help (or at least acquiescence)? That I'd really like to hear.

I appreciate your willingness to give lessons on information everyone is already readily aware of, but I'm wondering what any of that has to do with the summit. Russia has been nominally on our page for a while now. And what of China?

So fact-free, I can consume as much as I like without gaining weight! Your arguments are like the olestra of debate!

And your insults are increasingly desperate.

Any metric I like? Okay, how about a nuclear reduction agreement with Russia,

Now you are reaching to try to tie in events having nothing to do with the summit to bolster your position.

plutonium disposal agreement with same,

Good stuff. One wonders if it took a world summit to update an existing treaty between the US and Russia.

increase in help from Russia with Iran,

You keep linking to an article about a speech Medvedev gave at the Brookings Institution restating a position Russia had before the summit as if it is some sort of grand alliance forged at the summit. What meaningful, real steps were taken toward sanctions from either Russia or China?

and an agreement to remove Ukraine's enriched uranium. There, facts win, rhetoric loses. That was shockingly easy.

Yay. So essentially what we've got is an update to an already existing treaty and a deal with Ukraine for its uranium. For a conference of this magnitude, I'd call that shockingly little in real gains.

I'm sorry, I believe your OP implied that nothing was done ("what was actually accomplished?").

No, those are words you're putting in my mouth. You'll note that the only position I staked out was a general agreement with Kyl.

The summit's purported accomplishment is a nonbinding communique that largely restates current policy and makes no meaningful progress in dealing with nuclear terrorism threats or the ticking clock represented by Iran's nuclear weapons program.

And now you are going to proceed to argue against the position you've created for me in your head...

Now you've shifted to "very little"? And how shall we quantify "very little"? That's a slippery little phrase if ever I saw one. "Very little" can mean whatever you like; it's hard to think of a more subjective choice of verbiage. I can declare that "very little" was done in the industrial revolution. Arguing against that sort of vagueness would be like attempting to hold a boxing match with a cloud.

I see what you did there.

So, in Lemur's world, would this conference be considered a complete and unmitigated success? I'm not as good as you at reading other people's minds, so I'll let you answer that before I just ascribe a position to you.

And to reiterate my earlier question, in your opinion, were there any possible outcomes to this summit in which you would be prepared to declare it a failure, or are you in agreement with the far left talkers that the very existence of the summit is a success?

[Lemur]

Further, could you describe a situation, in Lemur's world, in which this summit could have been a failure?

Happily. Unlike you and the Republican minority whip, I don't think the important stuff happens at these summits. They're a photo op, but the real negotiations happen behind closed doors. So demanding to know whether a summit was a failure or a success is kind of weird in my book; summits are summits. They exist. They serve their purpose. It's a bit like asking if your prom was a success or a failure.

I'd rather look at the overall picture with the players, and see which way things are moving. When it comes to nuclear proliferation/containment, I'd say they're moving in the right direction. I'm sorry you see all of these other developments as "reaching to try to tie in events having nothing to do with the summit," but I don't think considering a summit in isolation is a useful exercise, unless you've got a political axe to grind, and are attempting to score a political talking point for the day.

I don't think you've done much to answer my question, which was what you wanted to see happen. Yes, I know, North Korea disarmed and Iran contained permanently. No hint of how that would happen, of course, but anything short is deserving of your scorn.

[Vladimir]

By all means, let us ignore the enriched uranium stockpiles around the world. After all, it's not as though anyone wants to do anything with them.

If I thought you had the slightest interest in nuclear issues, we'd have something to talk about, but let's be honest; this is just another platform for you to bash the Prez, nothing more or less. You claim that nothing was accomplished, literally: "what was actually accomplished". Your words. When they are refuted, you dodge into a bit of silliness about how enriched uranium stockpiles don't matter, betraying your utter lack of seriousness on the subject.

Then dispense with ad hominem attacks and focus on substance. As he brilliantly illustrates, this summit is heavy on symbolism and short on substance. All we've done is relive certain, mostly friendly countries, of the burden of securing enriched uranium. It's like offering to collect used hypodermic needles so they don't was up on our shores. The truth is that this summit has done little to ensure our security. Proliferators are free to proliferate and China hasn’t moved an inch. It's another feel good and silly performance for the President. That's why he bows so much.

[rory_20_uk]

Is this aimed at all Presidents and their inability to scrap all WMDs in one fell swoop and balance the books, or merely as currently it's a Democrat who'se doing these things?

Of course it is rogue states with undeclared nuclear stockpiles that are dangerous, such as North Korea and Israel, of which neither countries leader attended.

But by reducing amounts in the world in other countries will apply political pressure to countries who are amenable to these things... not countries such as north Korea and Israel, of course.