Nuclear Power and Foreign Policy (Iran, North Korea, and others)

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

One of the issues that's likely to become only more pressing with time is that of who is allowed to possess nuclear technology. Sanctions are levied by the international community (most, if not all, of whom already possess nuclear technology) against other countries attempting to obtain nuclear technology, regardless of the reason that nuclear technology is desired.

The primary argument against nuclear proliferation is over the fear that nuclear technology will find its way into weapons. Nuclear weaponry is more destructive than conventional ballistic weaponry, and the potential destruction that could be caused is immense. In order to prevent nations deemed unstable or untrustworthy from acquiring nuclear technology, the international community imposes sanctions against those who seek it and attempts to lightly subsidize the needs of those who do not attempt to acquire it.

One of the underlying premises behind the Nonproliferation Treaty is that the reward for a country to not research nuclear weapons is that the nuclear powers will help them to develop nuclear technology for energy production. But the creaks and cracks in the treaty are apparent in the nuclear hotspots around the world.

This is an especially pressing problem since nuclear energy appears to be the only long-term energy alternative out there unless there are some radical changes in the way people live. It's probably going to be inevitable that much of the world will go in the direction of nuclear energy, so the best thing to do is to make it as safe and as sustainable as possible. There are lots of promising ideas in this field and the biggest obstacles are in terms of politics (both international and local).

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

It's ALOT easier to make a "dirty"bomb than a thermo nuclear device and you don't even need weapon grade Uranium nor Plutonium to create a dirty bomb.
Just obtain high energy reactor waste, and a pestle to achieve maximum toxicity.
You don't even need to blow anything up, just pour it in to the water system and/or have the powder carried by wind.

Terroists somehow developing a termo nuclear bomb by obtaining raw ingredients is complete rubbish.

Dirty bombs are also nowhere nearly as destructive as some sources would like to suggest. Most of the evidence would seem to indicate that it's not really any more dangerous than a regular fragmentation bomb.

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

Nuclear waste is just as dangerous as nuclear bombs, but no one thinks like that because you never hear the term "nuclear waste and terrorist coined together" it's always "terrorist" "bomb" "nuclear."

On the contrary, the toxicity of nuclear waste is vastly overblown. The most dangerous nuclear material has a very short half-life and it'd normally have to be ingested to be fatal. The less radioactive material is only lethal if one is under prolonged exposure to it. What gets people up in arms is the threat of a chronic exposure to relatively small amounts of radiation, but that's generally about the same level of threat as a chemical spill and the like.

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Ah, nuclear waste. How do you dispose of the stuff? I don't know about you, but some landfill has to accept this stuff. Oh, and pray that it doesn't contaminate the groundwater.

The best way to deal with nuclear waste is to reprocess it. Reprocessing will not only reduce the total amount of waste but it can also generate the most amount of energy from the raw materials possible. Unfortunately, reprocessing technology can also create weapon-grade material so it's an extremely sensitive technology to give to non-nuclear powers.

And as Mumitroll pointed out, nuclear waste isn't anywhere nearly as difficult to dispose of as it's popularly depicted. The procedures that can take care of other (and usually much more volumous) toxic chemicals can deal with nuclear waste. It's just that the latter have much worse press.


While the discussion about Isreal and geopolitics and so forth is pretty interesting, I think that it's outside of the scope for this thread, which was to discuss the potentials and dangers of nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. I suggest that you take it to PMs or a different thread.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Dirty bombs are also nowhere nearly as destructive as some sources would like to suggest. Most of the evidence would seem to indicate that it's not really any more dangerous than a regular fragmentation bomb.

I would like tp know on what information you based yourself on this one.
I would agree than Dirty bomb on a battlefield is not that usefull, but on a civil area. it would have great impact , psychological at first, but let a little time and peoples will die.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I would like tp know on what information you based yourself on this one.
I would agree than Dirty bomb on a battlefield is not that usefull, but on a civil area. it would have great impact , psychological at first, but let a little time and peoples will die.

There is very little literature out there that suggests that a dirty bomb is all that it's hyped up to be. SFGate has a good read up on the dangers one represents: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG427JIH21.DTL

An excerpt:

Originally Posted by SFGate

To understand the details, let's walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I'll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you'll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That's called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you'll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.

To try to enhance the damage, let's use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square, or .6 of a mile. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to cause radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.

While such a weapon can kill a few people, it's not a particularly frightening threat.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

While such a weapon can kill a few people, it's not a particularly frightening threat.

True, but that depends on how much the government values the life of a citizen. Obviously, if the government considers their citizens as cannon fodder or expandables, then that's not even a threat to begin with. Otherwise, it is considerable threat.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

There is very little literature out there that suggests that a dirty bomb is all that it's hyped up to be. SFGate has a good read up on the dangers one represents: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG427JIH21.DTL


While such a weapon can kill a few people, it's not a particularly frightening threat.

Sorry but this article is dis-information since it really does not tell the true threat of a dirty bomb which is accumulation of high energy particles through digestion and respiration.
The article only talks of radiation poisoning through close proximity but if you enhale or digest even minute amount of high energy dust particles it will cause cancer and/or leukaemia.
The death toll numbering up will be slow but will be consistant for over a five+ year period.

[ganbaru]

And even if there little casuality, it the psychologic impact that is important.

[Tri-ring]

Coming up with plans to maximize the damage is mind boogling like dusting corn fields with high energy particles and wait for announcing the attack until AFTER harvesting and shipping.
When announced the whole harvest of that season will be deemed unusable subduing the entire American agricultrual industry to their knees.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

True, but that depends on how much the government values the life of a citizen. Obviously, if the government considers their citizens as cannon fodder or expandables, then that's not even a threat to begin with. Otherwise, it is considerable threat.

A dirty bomb is an exaggerated threat in the sense that the vast majority of casualties will be inflicted by the explosion rather than the radiation.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Sorry but this article is dis-information since it really does not tell the true threat of a dirty bomb which is accumulation of high energy particles through digestion and respiration.
The article only talks of radiation poisoning through close proximity but if you enhale or digest even minute amount of high energy dust particles it will cause cancer and/or leukaemia.
The death toll numbering up will be slow but will be consistant for over a five+ year period.

The principle remains that a dilution of radioactive materials will also decrease its toxicity. With a concentration of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, there's going to be very little in the way of ingestion. In any case, pretty much all credible sources of information about dirty bombs point to the same relative low risk they pose. Do you have any numbers to show how this is an elevated risk?

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Coming up with plans to maximize the damage is mind boogling like dusting corn fields with high energy particles and wait for announcing the attack until AFTER harvesting and shipping.
When announced the whole harvest of that season will be deemed unusable subduing the entire American agricultrual industry to their knees.

Never mind that this is a much more far-fetched plan than a dirty bomb due to logistics and complexity, but how would it even work? The necessarily low concentrations of radiation involved aren't going to be much of a health risk, and if a high concentration is present in food, then it's actually not all that hard to detect and quarantine. Anybody going to such weird plans would be better off using anthrax or other easy to use (and transport and hide) toxins.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

And even if there little casuality, it the psychologic impact that is important.

That's precisely what would cause the most damage from any such radioactive device. The best defense against this is education on how such radiation poses a danger, and in what conditions it's relatively safe.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The principle remains that a dilution of radioactive materials will also decrease its toxicity. With a concentration of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, there's going to be very little in the way of ingestion. In any case, pretty much all credible sources of information about dirty bombs point to the same relative low risk they pose. Do you have any numbers to show how this is an elevated risk?

No but I do know seeing the victims that nuclear fall out is worst than the actual blast.
What you and the article fail to adimit is the mid/long term damage through long term exposure to radioactive particles lodged into people's lungs and or blood stream.
I do believe that there is a standard amount of radiation humans and considered hazardous exeeding that certain level.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Never mind that this is a much more far-fetched plan than a dirty bomb due to logistics and complexity, but how would it even work? The necessarily low concentrations of radiation involved aren't going to be much of a health risk, and if a high concentration is present in food, then it's actually not all that hard to detect and quarantine. Anybody going to such weird plans would be better off using anthrax or other easy to use (and transport and hide) toxins.

Actually it is not at all far-fetched as you claim since crop dusting is the norm.
You just mix radioactive dust into the pesticide/fertilizer and have the un-witting crop dusters do the rest.
You maybe able to quarentine some but the facility will be deemed hazardous, the crop land that had been dusted will be needed to be shut down due to radioactive contamination with the top soil needed to be replaced and as a result the US corn market will plumet like a rock.
It will make the mad cow fiasco look like a mild case of the flu compared to this if it happens.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

No but I do know seeing the victims that nuclear fall out is worst than the actual blast.
What you and the article fail to adimit is the mid/long term damage through long term exposure to radioactive particles lodged into people's lungs and or blood stream.
I do believe that there is a standard amount of radiation humans and considered hazardous exeeding that certain level.

The effect of nuclear fallout is going to be nothing like that of a dirty bomb. To start with, we're talking about vastly different amounts of radioactive material involved and the size of the respective explosions is nothing alike (to say the least!). On top of that, part of the reason why there were so many casualties from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima fallouts is because the Japanese had no idea of the dangers involved - this is supported by the fact that able-bodied adults died disproportionately from this cause. And if you read over the article, it actually does talk a little about the dangers of ingesting some of the radioactive dust, but the concentrations are so low that there's little threat attendant to it. This position is consistently repeated by just about any source I've ever come accross concerning dirty bombs, so unless you've got something more concrete than speculation, it's hard to take such claims as all that credible.

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Actually it is not at all far-fetched as you claim since crop dusting is the norm.
You just mix radioactive dust into the pesticide/fertilizer and have the un-witting crop dusters do the rest.
You maybe able to quarentine some but the facility will be deemed hazardous, the crop land that had been dusted will be needed to be shut down due to radioactive contamination with the top soil needed to be replaced and as a result the US corn market will plumet like a rock.
It will make the mad cow fiasco look like a mild case of the flu compared to this if it happens.

The reasons why I said that this is a far-fetched idea isn't because crop dusting isn't widely used. It's because it's a plan with:

1. many points of failure
2. high risk of detection in the execution stage
3. high risk of detection in the distribution stage
4. limited gains

Moreover, there's all sorts of toxins which would be far superior for such purposes. Heck, for that matter, it's totally unrealistic to affect more than a couple of adjacent farms, so even the damage would be kept to tiny areas. This is a complete non-threat - the only reason it gets any play is because it's good for an uninformed scare (and even most of those involve more useful agents like anthrax).

The reason the mad cow scenario was so problematic was because nobody knew how widespread it was and because testing for it was both expensive and difficult to perform. Geiger counters are nowhere nearly so difficult to use.

[Demongod86]

This whole OMFG ISRAEL HAS N00KS thing can be analogized quite simply.

If I'm a responsible human being, does it matter that I own all manners of assault weaponry if I haven't ever gone on a killing rampage? No.

However, what happens when you give an ideological maniac a handgun? He'll have a higher chance to shoot someone than the responsible guy with the latest BFG in his closet.

The solution to evil ideological nations with nukes is simple:

If they want to play with fire, remove them overnight. Make an example of the first nation so stupid as to try to use nukes without Free World permission.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If I'm a responsible human being, does it matter that I own all manners of assault weaponry if I haven't ever gone on a killing rampage? No.

However, what happens when you give an ideological maniac a handgun? He'll have a higher chance to shoot someone than the responsible guy with the latest BFG in his closet.

The trouble with this analogy is that a nation is not one person, and you're not just denying them a "handgun" - you're denying them a source of energy, something that is arguably necessary for them to prosper and develop as a nation.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The trouble with this analogy is that a nation is not one person, and you're not just denying them a "handgun" - you're denying them a source of energy, something that is arguably necessary for them to prosper and develop as a nation.

That is the boner. It really is not that far in between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. You almost certainly get them both, or not at all.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

This whole OMFG ISRAEL HAS N00KS thing can be analogized quite simply.

If I'm a responsible human being, does it matter that I own all manners of assault weaponry if I haven't ever gone on a killing rampage? No.

However, what happens when you give an ideological maniac a handgun? He'll have a higher chance to shoot someone than the responsible guy with the latest BFG in his closet.

The solution to evil ideological nations with nukes is simple:

If they want to play with fire, remove them overnight. Make an example of the first nation so stupid as to try to use nukes without Free World permission.

Who's this Free World you're talking about? For that matter, what are the evil ideologies?

And how well did this policy work out for you in Iraq (setting aside the fact they didn't even have nukes)?

[Mumitroll]

If I'm a responsible human being, does it matter that I own all manners of assault weaponry if I haven't ever gone on a killing rampage? No.

was Harry S. Truman a responsible human being? why did he go on a killing rampage killing 200,000+ innocent people within 3 days? and why wasn't he hanged right after?

The solution to evil ideological nations with nukes is simple:

If they want to play with fire, remove them overnight. Make an example of the first nation so stupid as to try to use nukes without Free World permission.

lol.. by that logic the US should be removed first. it fits the definition of an evil ideological nation with nukes best, from the world's standpoint (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/usa.iran), and moreover is the only one to have actually used them.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Demongod86

If they want to play with fire, remove them overnight. Make an example of the first nation so stupid as to try to use nukes without Free World permission.

That is far too oversimplist.
''Free World permission'' ,do no not exist. Even the nation whan would only ripost to nuclear attack with nuclear attack will be criticize by everyone else.

[mike_z]

However, what happens when you give an ideological maniac a handgun?

Why do you think that rulers of Asian countries are ideological maniacs?

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

was Harry S. Truman a responsible human being? why did he go on a killing rampage killing 200,000+ innocent people within 3 days? and why wasn't he hanged right after?

Please. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unusual, but no more cruel than conventional firebombing which the USAF had been using in Germany. The nuking sped things up, but I'm sure liberal firebombing won't be any less cruel/effective.

The US may not be "right" all the time. (Nice job in Indochina, not just Vietnam.) But, I'm still more willing to trust them than Russia.

[mike_z]

>>I'm still more willing to trust them than Russia.

why?

[Mumitroll]

Please. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unusual, but no more cruel than conventional firebombing which the USAF had been using in Germany.

lol Kamui above made it a point to show that it was the UK doing the *fire* part (incendiary bombs) of the bombing. the USAF did the regular bombing part.

The nuking sped things up, but I'm sure liberal firebombing won't be any less cruel/effective.

that was Tokyo. and yes it was also pretty effective. the point though still remains that the US under Truman killed more innocent people at once than anyone else in history.

But, I'm still more willing to trust them than Russia.

as the above poster said, why? the US has killed a lot more people than Russia since WWII.