Nuclear proliferation

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 10:19 pm

The Obama administration is persuing a nuclear treaty with North Vietnam. With nuclear proliferation becoming a growing threat to the security of the world, this seems like a good move. However, Obama is not insisting on a non-enrichment clause in the agreement and I think that is not a wise move.

It seems like he is backing down on this meaningfull restriction so that he can get an agreement signed and gain political capital. Without a provision to stop enrichment, it waters down the effectivness of the whole thing. After all, enriching uranium is the hard part, building a bomb and a delivery system is much easier in comparision.

By FOSTER KLUG, Associated Press Writer Foster Klug, Associated Press Writer – Sat Aug 7, 5:29 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has told U.S. lawmakers that a nuclear cooperation deal with Vietnam is unlikely to include a coveted promise by the Hanoi government not to enrich uranium, congressional aides say.

The United States had sought a no-enrichment pledge, which the State Department promotes as the "gold standard" for civilian nuclear cooperation accords.

It would have been modeled on a deal last year in which the United Arab Emirates pledged, in return for U.S. nuclear equipment and reactors, not to enrich uranium or extract plutonium from used reactor fuel — procedures that would provide material that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

The Obama administration has been eager to send a strong nonproliferation message, especially to Iran, which the United States and others accuse of covertly seeking nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, but it has resisted international pressure to stop enriching uranium.

Link to full article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_vietnam_nuclear

Is it hypocritical for a nation like the U.S. to say to others countries like North Korea, North Vietnam, U.A.E., Iran, Brazil, etc.... that you cannot have nuclear weapons when we do have them? Or is it vital to the security of the world to do every thing to prevent more countries from going nuclear?

Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:21 pm

Enrichment of uranium is a double edged sword. Most of the Uranium for Iran is enriched in france I believe as it needs to be done else it is useless in a nuclear power station. Doing it yourself saves money..... being forbidden as you are deemed a threat is where it gets sticky.
Korea is a closed society and even more difficult to comprehend as the countries motto when translated from Koren to English actually says
"Up Yours" It is a little more than that as it is a derisive term towards the world in that they want to go it alone and want to do it without help from anyone.
Ok thats out of the way.....
Now my 2 cts on the matter are simple....... if we in the west really wanted to have a peaceful co operation with lands as Iran and many others we would
A: stopped interfering with these countries.
B: send our tech out there to assist in the building of infrastructure and offering sensible and safe use of nuclear power for energy.

Instead we offer sanctions that have been proven not to help but harm the populace and in turn does nothing more than assist in breeding contempt for the western world.
In our need for money almost all western nations are guilty of leadership manipulation in other lands. We have happily pursued the sowing of seeds for distrust among other neigbouring nations so that they feel the need to let their peoples starve but have the most up to date weaponry we can get away with.
Bottom line is bullets are more profitable than bread and now we are facing the reality of this world that in many respects we created.
If a leader any western leader really had Balls he would apologize and build a lasting peace based upon assistance and a desire to leave the past behind and move forward.
Let the Iranian leaders have the glory and home town media coverage for convincing the west to help as opposed to hinder. Sanctions my arse.....I disagree with them They hurt the little man. The wife cannot feed her kids and the husband is easily manipulated as these leaders in such countries can solidify their strength behind the mask of defending them from the west and its harsh sanctions. Problem is its hard to convince these citizens its not true when all we do is discuss even more sanctions.....
More guns in Africa than cattle.
I am sick and tired of the big stick attitude....
Don't get me wrong, I don't want lunatic nations having nuclear arms but the only solution is to help these lands not continue to threaten them.
In the west we moan that we cannot employ our own people anymore and yet 65% of the world needs the very skills that our own workers have who are now sitting at home and suffering from no income or only subsistance level handouts. If we really want to offer aid then we should be taking our skilled but unemployed and employing them to go build roads hospitals schools etc in these lands and by doing this we would be building a lasting peace.

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:32 am

Nice post as usual Johnno. You make some good points.

The proposed treaty with North Vietnam which does not include enrichment restrictions is not gonna cut it. In 2009 an agreement was signed with U.A.E. that called for the U. S. to provide technical support and enrichment Link . This was [indirectly] tied to a BIG aid package. I don't think that your contention that it costs more for a country to obtain their enriched uranium from an outside source is more expensive is valid. The U.S. will bend over backwards and offer support to prevent countries from doing it themselves. What is valid is your statement that many countries don't want to be seen as needing our help.

Sanctions are always problematic and ineffective [Iran]. They always end up hurting the common man for the transgretions of the government. How do you influence the actions of the government w/o them? In the case of Iran and North Korea there seems to be no way to work with them.

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:53 am

its a very sticky situation in that no country wants its leadership to appear to buckle under pressure from an outside source.
If Obama were to truly offer a hand of Peace and Assistance to Iran the backlash could be so severe from us citizens that any benefit for all would never be realised. The ability to offer skilled labour and tradesmen to help cement a lasting relationship would be destroyed before it ever became possible.
It needs a serious change in attitude.We continually inform our own nations of the evils of the opposer. The average western joe thinks that the Iranian leader is a Madman.
The Iranians regard Western leaders as Devils who want to destroy their land by imposing sanctions, not allowing them to move forward etc etc.
if we could cease this blackballing then attitudes may change.
here at the world expo in China it is amazing to see members of the very countries we discuss talking and sharing time together.
bottom line again for me is that the people if left alone find a way to get along. Its our governments on all sides that perpetuate the cycle of distrust.
I often wonder what would happen if a country as Iran should suddenly announce in international news papers that they seek skilled western labour for 1 or 2 year contracts.
A bit like Oman, UAE, Brunei etc did in the 70's.
Would these adverts be censored?
Would those that wish to go be allowed?
Would the people that go be deemed traitorous?
some many if's what's and why's.
Essentially dialogue is needed and we all can agree on that point.
However we in the west have a habit of
A: Demanding dialogue
B: imposing rulz about what you can or cannot speak about.
C: Often we demand who we want to speak with as opposed to speaking with those that have the power.
in this sense we show our own nations we are ready to talk and go shoot ourselves in the foot by being so bloody rude to the people we want to talk to.......no finger pointing here as all sides are equally guilty of being childish and playing "Tit for Tat"

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:20 am

I like your logic Johnno23, ever consider running for office? As I am one of those unemployed skilled trades guys, I would go build some nuclear power plants overseas if giving the chance.

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:44 pm

Thanks for the support James but office would be out of my league....I can't lie as well as those that are in power.
I would like to see attitudes change though. If people were to see a little further than what the controlled media present to us then we would find a world filled with opportunity.
Many countries on the defensive have barriers around them both social and political. They have become entrenched in a war of words and yet behind the scenes a lot of big business and finance is going on.
If the tit for tat were to slow down then it would be possible to help all countries. those that have mineral wealth and oil reserves could use the income to employ skilled labour. This in turn means that those lands with skilled labour being left at home trying to survive could in fact go out and work. We see all talk of import export trade inbalance etc.... Human resources in an area of immense value that is often left untapped.
If USA or UK could send 200,000 skilled workers to another land where these individuals can earn a good salary it would do several things.
1. Relieves the cost to the state
2. Enables families to have a good income
3. Enriches the home state as all earnings are form overseas
4. Helps build the other mans infrastructure but in all probability would help build trust.
5.If other lands were to move forward they also become possible consumers for items we regards as normal and they regard as luxury.
6. ITS ALL TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE
I shout point 6 because I shake my head in bewilderment so often as the world is our home and those that we distrust are our backyard. If we could just stop for a moment and look to the opportunities that helping each other can offer there would be a lot less crisis.
On a personal note I have never been asked as an individual by people from other lands "why do YOU do this to us" I have on many occasions been asked "why is YOUR government so inflexible" inflexible can be substituted for many words but do not want to open a can of worms that creates a side debate.
I firmly believe that any individual if given an opportunity to meet work and interact with what is perceived as an opposite can find common ground.
Even if that common ground were to be perceived as "Threat" then at least there can be dialogue as to why each has the same feeling. Without discussion the barrier remains and to steal from Pink Floyd the tit for tat just adds another brick to the wall.

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:49 am

I want to reduce the population on the planet to around half a billion. So I want/need to cull....Hmmmm.....What sort of stuff can I get up to then.......

50 wars/conflicts in 70 years and trying to be 'the nice guy'...he he thats funny, I'd put my trust in a bit of paper..........

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:46 am

why so few?
Take a flight across most continents and you will see that a small part of the landscape is utilized....plenty of space just too many people living in confined areas as they are drawn to the dreams of wealth....
Re-evaluate what is wealth and there is so much that our planets environment can offer without the needless rape.
This could also apply to the nuclear energy issues if this planets people were to diversify and return to smaller rather than mega communities....

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:05 pm

johnno23 wrote:

why so few?
Take a flight across most continents and you will see that a small part of the landscape is utilized....plenty of space just too many people living in confined areas as they are drawn to the dreams of wealth....
Re-evaluate what is wealth and there is so much that our planets environment can offer without the needless rape.
This could also apply to the nuclear energy issues if this planets people were to diversify and return to smaller rather than mega communities....

Absolutely 100% agree. But we need some sort of control but not fascism or communism. No idea on that 1 myself...

Also, it would be an idea to share the technology already achieved this century which is for the few, albeit under strict control so as not to be mis-used because we are just not either ready or trustworthy enough to be given control yet. If the microwave is about 70 years old then god only knows what else the 'underground' scientists have cookin' Smile

Surely we could have free food, power, transport, etc by now. It ain't rocket science (kidding)

Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:20 pm

North Vietnam ? There no longer is a North Vietnam, just Vietnam... hasn't been since 1976.

Still... just shows that Double Standards are becoming the norm and, well, the standard modus operandi.