How To Safeguard Loose Nukes

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 20, 2013 @02:54PM from the in-the-wrong-hands dept.

Lasrick writes "The Bulletin has an interesting article about the likelihood of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. 'Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has logged roughly 2,000 cases of illicit or unauthorized trafficking of nuclear and radioactive material. Thirty illicit radioactive trafficking incidents were reported in the former Soviet region alone from 2009 to 2011. As Obama said in December, "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."'"

167 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The real worry is 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 14:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Soon, with the whole periodic table available in one giant print cartridge, people will be able to 3D print nuclear weapons. If someone manages to download plans for the Tsar Bomba, we're cooked.
1. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by letherial · 2013-02-20 19:23 · Score: 2
  
  Well considering that most material that is made, this includes all of earth and every molecule in your body was at one time a bunch of hydrogen under very intense pressured being cooked together basically, and most materials cannot be just made without these conditions...i think we are safe from terrorist printing nukes in the foreseeable future.
2. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by myowntrueself · 2013-02-21 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Soon, with the whole periodic table available in one giant print cartridge, people will be able to 3D print nuclear weapons. If someone manages to download plans for the Tsar Bomba, we're cooked.
  But the Feed is closely monitored for exactly this kind of thing. By the time your matter compiler is half way through you'd be splattered. Its when someone figures out how to make the Seed that we are all in deep shit.
  Or maybe not...
  http://orwell.ru/library/articles/ABomb/english/e_abomb
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
3. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by rossdee · 2013-02-21 01:27 · Score: 2
  
  And what would the cost of that cartridge be? Add in the cost of the packaging (lead shielding) and then the normal markup on printer cartridges, and the economy of the galaxy would collapse if somebody bought one. (see the history of Magrathea)
4. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by damien_kane · 2013-02-21 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  But the Feed is closely monitored for exactly this kind of thing. By the time your matter compiler is half way through you'd be splattered. Its when someone figures out how to make the Seed that we are all in deep shit.
  There's always ways around the feed-sourced compilers; backwater compilers and such off the grid, for those who wish to print nuclear weapons, or pirate the latest hyper-interactive AI-enhanced children's story for their daughter.
5. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  That is a bit like saying because a dinosaur can only go 7mph in a fast sprint nothing will ever move faster. I believe we will get to this level of "make any atomic element you want" in your super duper high tech toy era. We know its possible because it happened in stars. Now its only a matter of shrinking the process. (And we already kind of do it with super colliders.)
6. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by NeverVotedBush · 2013-02-21 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  A fusion reactor print head... That would be innovative.
7. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by NeverVotedBush · 2013-02-21 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  That's going to be a big print head seeing how the Large Hadron Collider has a circumference of 17 miles...
  
  It's going to be a long time before anyone figures out how to make a desktop 3D printer that can transmute elements.
  
  I think we're safe from that scenario.
8. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by NeverVotedBush · 2013-02-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Finally an HP ink cartridge seems cheap!
9. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by AK+Marc · 2013-02-21 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  Bah, Star Trek did it decades ago.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by myowntrueself · 2013-02-21 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  But the Feed is closely monitored for exactly this kind of thing. By the time your matter compiler is half way through you'd be splattered. Its when someone figures out how to make the Seed that we are all in deep shit.
  There's always ways around the feed-sourced compilers; backwater compilers and such off the grid, for those who wish to print nuclear weapons, or pirate the latest hyper-interactive AI-enhanced children's story for their daughter.
  Someone would print a nuclear weapon AND a motorcycle and sidecar...
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
11. Re:The real worry is 3D printing by RockDoctor · 2013-02-25 22:42 · Score: 1
  
  That would be innovative.
  ITYM "explosive."
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Obama also said he would close Gitmo by e065c8515d206cb0e190 · 2013-02-20 14:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
1. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by c0lo · 2013-02-20 15:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
  "Be afraid, be very afraid! That all you need to know" - seems like a good point to me (even if it's not necessary good for me or, for the matter, for the rest of about 7 billions with the exception of the people in power).
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by anagama · 2013-02-20 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
3. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by c0lo · 2013-02-20 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  About the only part not gutted, is the GWB popularized phrase "make no mistake." Which makes sense given Obama's record -- why just embrace and extend GWB's policies when you can use his phrasification as well?
  Hmmm... I don't know, I was expecting a bit of a higher "class" from him.
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
4. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by girlintraining · 2013-02-20 15:47 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Seriously, what's the point of that Obama quote?
  To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever, as opposed to people who kick it up in the woods and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps here, but aren't? Just a thought.
  I'm sure there are terrorists out there... but I'm also reasonably sure they are so few in number as to not be a serious threat. Even if a 9/11 happened every year, it wouldn't be serious, in terms of economic damage and loss of life. However, there are legions of people who have been labelled as such because it's the only way to justify spending trillions of dollars... I mean, what if there were only 300 terrorists in the whole world. What then? We spend a trillion dollars to "contain" them... when we really ought to just pay them 3 billion dollars each to move to a secluded island and live out their remaining days in luxury. Bonus: It would be cheaper than what we've been doing so far...
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
5. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by fredprado · 2013-02-20 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. They are the Bogeyman, and if you don't behave they will come for you when you are sleeping.
6. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by girlintraining · 2013-02-20 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hint: they don't want luxury and they don't want peace, until their flags are flying over all corners of the civilized world and their ideas about Islam (not just any brand of Islam either) dominate.
  Three billion dollars buys a lot of change in thinking. You can get a Congressman to sell his soul for a lot less.
  
  They are America's sworn enemies. We can't wish or negotiate that away, we have to defend ourselves. And the best defense is a good offense. That's why Obama's administration deserves huge props for taking out Bin Laden. That's how it's done, Dubya. That's how it must always be done.
  Yes! We must bomb them! shoot them! Drop nukes! At a cost of many trillions of dollars! Because they don't want money! They don't want to be rich! They're poor, living in mud huts in the desert, and don't wanna change! Not ever! Not one single one! So passionate is their belief, they would happily choose suicide over spending the rest of their days rolling in hundred dollar bills naked! YES! I BELIEVE YOU!
  Also, your fly is down.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
7. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  The point of Obama quote is 'I do not know how to handle Pakistan and terrorism breeding there.'
8. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:35 · Score: 0
  
  We can't really help that you're a sucker can we?
9. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  Idiot. Bin Laden wasn't short on money. Your plan of giving away money would accomplish exactly nothing.
10. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  A good chunk of them would be perfectly happy if the US just stopped meddling in the Middle East, as they have been for forty years or more. A good chunk of the rest of them are motivated out of nothing more than anger at this meddling. Very few of them are really religiously motivated, aside from when that religion can be used to motivate others -- which, that last part, is no different than the US.
11. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  We can't really help that you're a sucker can we?
  Define "we".
12. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by boundary · 2013-02-20 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  They hate your freedom.
13. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 17:26 · Score: 1
  
  This whole thread is like a whole troop of monkeys trying to fuck the same football.
14. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by TFAFalcon · 2013-02-20 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  The only problem is that the current methods for taking them out end up just creating more of them. For every terrorist killed a dozen new ones sign up to fight America, since they've just seen their family/friends become collateral damage.
  Sure in the short term that's fine - the new guys are untrained cannon fodder. But it does mean that the war on terror will have to continue indefinitely - it can never actually defeat the terrorists, just divert their attention to 'easy' targets, such as US personnel in the terrorist's back yard.
15. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  He's absolutely right. (cf. 8-6-45)
16. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by khallow · 2013-02-20 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Given how important the Middle East is currently to the rest of the world, why shouldn't the rest of the world meddle?
17. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by sjames · 2013-02-20 19:04 · Score: 2
  
  To be fair, Obama's approach has been much more effective than GWB so far. I would like to see our forces completely withdrawn from the region and replaced by small specialized forces to hunt down the actual terrorists (yes, even using drones) while NOT shooting up the countryside and generally convincing common people that the terrorists are right about us.
  Sadly, nearly anything would be cheaper and more effective than our invasion has been.
18. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by lesincompetent · 2013-02-20 21:48 · Score: 3
  
  To continue the fascade that a bunch of people who kick it out in the desert and shoot their guns in the air at weekend training camps are evil because they're muslims or whatever[...]
  Yes. They are (doing) evil (things) because of their religion. Like some christians. Religion is the problem here.
  
  Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
  -Steven Weinberg
19. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by discord5 · 2013-02-20 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  So passionate is their belief, they would happily choose suicide over spending the rest of their days rolling in hundred dollar bills naked!
  It's the rolling naked in hundred dollar bills that has them scared really. The papercuts would be horrifying.
20. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  Given how important the Middle East is currently to the rest of the world, why shouldn't the rest of the world meddle?
  could just fuck 'em and buy oil from russia, us and norway.
21. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by tehcyder · 2013-02-21 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Luckily, we'll always be at war with Eurasia.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
22. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by tehcyder · 2013-02-21 00:32 · Score: 2
  
  try looking at the facts... obama had NOTHING to do with taking bin laden out. in fact he would have stopped it from happening if he had more info and had a chance....
  Yeah, it was George W Bush that killed Bin Laden. With his bare hands. But the goddamned liberal media spun it to be pro-minority, as always.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
23. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by DarkOx · 2013-02-21 00:44 · Score: 2
  
  To be fair, Obama's approach has been much more effective than GWB so far. I would like to see our forces completely withdrawn from the region and replaced by small specialized forces to hunt down the actual terrorists (yes, even using drones) while NOT shooting up the countryside and generally convincing common people that the terrorists are right about us.
  Based on exactly what?
  It was the troop surge that worked. Bush pretty much started with the small force go after high value targets strategy we are using now and it failed then. It turned out you had to establish basic control and security before you could move to a precise targeting strategy. To my knowledge none of our military strategists and commanders have gone on record suggesting these strategies would have been viable without doing the surge and many have cautioned against over dependance on special operations. In other words people who make a living studding this stuff still see it as a support role.
  The drone program is by many accounts hurting Al Qaeda quite badly but is by many accounts harming lots of civilians, and further endangering the stability of already tenuous various states like Pakistan and Yemen. This may be causing a general break down of society in places as people fear going out because of the drones, seeding the idea their government is not sovereign and dose not represent them but is a US puppet breading contempt for the law by the people there, and finally creating more generalized hatred of the USA. Its likely we are attacking the hydra with sword here, cutting off the Al Qaeda heads in the fashion is growing the terrorists of tomorrow.
  Its still very unclear the Federal government in Afghanistan can survive after we complete the troop withdrawal. The Iraqi government slowly moves from one corruption scandal to the next; ever since we left (and somewhat before we did too).
  We more or less left the Egyptian public hung out to dry while their society becomes a military dictatorship at worst, one election than permanent theocracy probably, or just another failed state situation. I am not sure what we could have or should have done but what we have done by simply continuing to prop up the military with foreign aide and weapons there is morally bankrupt on all kinds of levels. We should have at the vary lease been "hands off until you all work it out." unless we could come up with something better.
  Libya is a slow moving disaster as well. I am not referring to the embassy in Benghazi either, but to the fact that the government is not able to provide basic security to people living there. Various militia groups are the 'law' in many parts; and they don't have a great human rights record. Its not unlikely that Libya will also become a failed state.
  All in all I don't see much out there suggesting the quality of life has improved for people living in those regions, basic justice and human rights are not be better protected, American influence in the region has not been enhanced, popular opinion of the USA is not much better. All in all I don't Obama's foreign policy as being much different than Bush's except in the most superficial use of language; and in general no more or less successful. You can argue we only got into some of these messes because of Bush and I will partly concede that point; but I think the Libya intervention and the general aggressive expansion of the drone program servers as a strong indicator that Obama in actually not any less hawkish. Had he been in the Oval Office on Sept 11th I really have strong doubts our national response would have been a whole lot different.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
24. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by tehcyder · 2013-02-21 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
  I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't say that was fair. What you do need is good people who believe in something, whether it's God, Communism or their Homeland.
  As people tend to believe in something rather than nothing, because a life entirely without purpose or meaning just leads to amorality anyway, you'll always have good people doing evil things.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
25. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by pv2b · 2013-02-21 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  If being a terrorist was a job that paid three billion dollars, I think you'd end up creating a lot of terrorists. Supply and demand.
26. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Pecisk · 2013-02-21 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pacifist, and I'm telling you that's quite naive POV. Breaking it down:
  "Yes! We must bomb them! shoot them! Drop nukes! At a cost of many trillions of dollars!"
  Of course you shouldn't do that. Both wars were costly mistakes both in reasoning and strategy. Sans that having good and able military would repel fanatics or making think twice anyone to support them.
  "Because they don't want money! They don't want to be rich!"
  That's over generalization of Islamic and Middle East people. Most of them want to live in relative prosperity (as anyone), and Middle East has been hub of trade and business for years. They want money, they want to be capable to live their lives like they like to.
  Of course there's faction of "true believers" or deniers of Capitalism, etc. etc. (as in Western) Difference is this has religious hatred overtones for hundreds of years. Difference is they aren't afraid to die for their cause, or take other people if they/world doesn't agree with them.
  "They're poor, living in mud huts in the desert, and don't wanna change! Not ever! Not one single one!"
  That's clear BS. They maybe not want full American way, but they clearly want peace, change for better, etc.
  I know you want to take clear political stand in this. Unfortunately for you, there isn't one. Wars were bad. US overstepping it's own oversight boundaries when policing world - outrageous. But dangers for peaceful people are out there. How to react to them, how to deal with them - that's another question of strategy. They could be different.
  Problem is that I don't hear offers of these different strategies. We already figured out that wars are very very bad. What's next? For example, how to solve Syria?
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
27. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by necro81 · 2013-02-21 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  Even if a 9/11 happened every year, it wouldn't be serious, in terms of economic damage and loss of life
  Did you even slow down to consider the full magnitude of a statement like that? A 9/11 happening each year would be a 20% increase in the homocide rate. Air travel would plummet. Air travel did stop for a few days immediately afterward. NYC suffered tremendous economic losses - the loss of a couple billion dollars of prime real estate, the disruption of business for weeks and months, the suspension of trading and subsequent drop in stock markets, the strain on emergency services, the long term costs of cleanup and rebuilding, long-term disability for those that were there, the loss of tourism, the psychological trauma, the erosion of freedom... need I go on? Yeah, maybe we would get used to it, and the next 9/11 would not be as bad as the last, but there are costs associated with that kind of normalization, too. You think that these are inconsequential or "not serious"?
28. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Jooz already gots one nukez!
  No eyez dont! But eyez do haz cheezburger!
29. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Given how important the Middle East is currently to the rest of the world, why shouldn't the rest of the world meddle?
  Meddle is just code for regulations
  You can make the same case that government should meddle with the lives of rich people and businesses, since they're so important to the whole world (the economy and all that)
  Is that the road you want to tread?
30. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by jbengt · 2013-02-21 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  It was the troop surge that worked.
  The most effective part of "the surge" was us hiring militias to work on our side.
  
  Bush pretty much started with the small force go after high value targets strategy we are using now and it failed then.
  On the contrary, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were based on overwhelming military force, just not overwhelming numbers of troops. It's true that our military's original strategy stupidly assumed that the people would instantly rally to our side, start new democracies, and go merrily on their way, and the GWB strategy downplayed the potential for fighting among factions, within factions, and resentment of foreign invaders. So we did go in with too little force to force the establishment of a new civil order, but that is not the same as just going after Al-Qeada leaders and terrorists.
  
  It turned out you had to establish basic control and security before you could move to a precise targeting strategy.
  Only because they wanted to overthrow the existing governments and establish new governments that would follow their neo-con ideal for governance.
31. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by drinkypoo · 2013-02-21 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  We spend a trillion dollars to "contain" them... when we really ought to just pay them 3 billion dollars each to move to a secluded island and live out their remaining days in luxury.
  Well, that was astoundingly stupid of you. That will only create more terrorists, as they will have it proven for them that you can profit by being one. That's why we don't deal with terrorists. Dealing with pirates created more pirates, which is why sinking them is the preferred solution, rather than paying them.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
32. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  There is a wooshing sound. The whole second paragraph is tongue in cheek.
33. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  That he has the propensity for stating the obvious while simultaneously avoiding anything requiring complex thought? Seems to be a trait among liberals
34. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Fr33z0r · 2013-02-21 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you pay x people billions of dollars for acting like maniacs, how many more would start behaving like maniacs just for the payoff?
35. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by sjames · 2013-02-21 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Obama actually found and killed Bin Laden (not personally, of course), the one person we are quite sure was involved in an attack on the U.S. Bush had us farting around in Afghani caves while Bin Laden giggled at us from a Turkish mansion.
  You worry about the civilians who Obama's drones while ignoring the over 100,000 Bush killed in Iraq? WOW! I don't think we have enough drones to kill that many people even on purpose. As for taking advice from military experts, they said that invading Iraq would take ten times the force ten times longer than Bush promised the public.
  The first step to improving lives in the Middle East is for the U.S. to stop shitting all over them. We have at least made progress on that front. I would like to see more of that sort of progress including a complete troop withdrawal and closing Gitmo.
36. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by khallow · 2013-02-21 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  You can make the same case that government should meddle with the lives of rich people and businesses, since they're so important to the whole world (the economy and all that)
  Well, one of the reasons we have governments is to keep other governments at bay.
37. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by AK+Marc · 2013-02-21 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Zero. But we'll never find out until we try.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
38. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's a template portraying the general political mind set: Make no mistake, if [optional] get [optional], they will use it.
39. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by ralphaostrander · 2013-02-21 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  For a retard like you he was wasting his breath. Lucky for humanity there are enough people left that are not rock stupid.
40. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  I can tell you now it's non-zero. Paying *billions* to terrorists would make terrorism an outrageously lucrative career choice.
41. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 07:49 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense! GWB has more class in his pinky today than Obama will amass in his entire life.
42. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by cellocgw · 2013-02-21 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  A 9/11 happening each year would be a 20% increase in the homocide rate. Air travel would plummet.
  Comparing individual homicides with terrorist bombings is a completely false equivalency. As to air traffic: if if plummeted, so much the better as far as i'm concerned. People travel far more than necessary (Mr. Business Meeting Manager, I'm talking to you), and air travel is by far the least energy-efficient.
  As to your other points: first of all, if anyone in the Cheney-Rumsfeld administration had the slightest bit of brains, they'd not only have suspended stock trading (which would not have affected the 98% in the least), but would have reversed every short sale in transportation (air travel in particular) companies. They let terrorist groups make zillions off the 9/11 attack that way. As to collaterals such as damage cleanup and 'psych trauma,' well, the cleanup effort cost the equivalent of a couple days worth of the Iraq invasion, and most of the psych stuff was deliberately amplified and extended by our own lovely government. If we'd had a president who said, "Damn, we lost some good people. But fuck those terrorists. We aren't going to change and we aren't going to give in," (and specifically NOT created several Ministries of Fear such as DHS and TSA) the whole country would have settled down in a few months.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
43. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  "Have no fear for atomic energy, 'cause none of them can stop the time"
44. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by fustakrakich · 2013-02-21 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Bin Laden wasn't short on money.
  Just how many followers do you think he would have if they were as rich as he was? You think all this 'terrorism' shit is free? Forget your fanatical bullshit. All these guys and their families get paid just like everybody else. In other words, terrorism is just a another commodity. The defense industry is it's biggest trader on the stock market.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
45. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by AK+Marc · 2013-02-21 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  I can tell you now it's non-zero.
  You are certain of an alternate present/future? Sounds like you are lying. It's never happened before, even when the US paid rebels, as they have done, so what makes you think it would happen in the future? Oh yeah, your lie supports your opinion, even if it violates reality.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
46. Re:Obama also said he would close Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  I can tell you it is definitely not zero.
  You could guarantee at least one... Me.
As Obama said in December, by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
This coming from the world's biggest terrorist, the Drone Ranger
1. Re:As Obama said in December, by c0lo · 2013-02-20 15:17 · Score: 2
  
  "Make no mistake,
  Translation
  
  --
  Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
2. Re:As Obama said in December, by stephanruby · 2013-02-20 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
  The same goes for all governments that acquire nukes for the first time.
  An initial demonstration is almost always necessary to make others believe your threat is real
Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

People need to stop conflating radioactive materials and nuclear weapons. The only 3 isotopes that matter for nuclear weapons are U-233, U-235, and Pu-239. These are the fissile nuclides. Get enough of these together and you can level a city. Contrast this with any dirty bomb material. If you get enough of that together and blow it up, you've simply provided contractors with 3 months of decontamination work with pressure washers. Not the same thing.
1. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 15:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You're forgetting, panic = ratings
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by thesupraman · 2013-02-20 15:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And dont forget, it better be a pretty damn small city, and you need a way to get the (not small...) bomb to correct altitude, AND it would have to work..
  It would probably be much more effective, and one hell of a lot easier to mail what ever fissile material you have to the local media, claiming to have a bomb...
3. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Mr.+Slippery · 2013-02-20 15:44 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Contrast this with any dirty bomb material. If you get enough of that together and blow it up, you've simply provided contractors with 3 months of decontamination work with pressure washers.
  "The Federation of American Scientists...says a bomb made using just one piece of radioactive cobalt [of the sort used in food irradiation] could make [New York] city uninhabitable for decades, and seriously contaminate one thousand square kilometres of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York."
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
4. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Bomazi · 2013-02-20 16:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Neptunium-237 is weapon-usable as well.
5. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons
  
  You're forgetting, panic = ratings
  Both true. Panic is useful (for the enemy). For a (potential) victim, perception may be enough to cause action.
6. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by girlintraining · 2013-02-20 16:25 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  It would probably be much more effective, and one hell of a lot easier to mail what ever fissile material you have to the local media, claiming to have a bomb...
  You're telling me it would be too hard for someone to take a big pile of conventional explosives, grind up the fissile material, and then load it into a rental truck and drive it downtown? Why do you think a bomb means "big mushroom cloud of doom"? It could just be a conventional explosive used against a soft target, but with the added collateral damage of having the entire area contaminated with radioactive debris. And once you're done, claim you'll do it again in 48 hours unless (insert terrorist demand here).
  Yes. I can see how the average terrorist would find this plan to be dizzyingly complex, and would opt instead to simply drop it in the post with a note saying "me haz big bang, woo woo."
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
7. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I read that and I find that rather stupid. I'll tell you why.
  You see, I just spent part of this week getting a new Cobalt-60 source exactly like is described in the article installed in the facility where I work. 2500 Curies. You definitely don't want to be around it when it is exposed. If you were to steal it, grind it up, and evenly dust it over a thousand square kilometers, you'd have 2.5 Ci per sq kilometer, or 2.5 microCuries per square meter, or about 3700 dpm/m^2.
  Just so that you know, the typical standard of cleanliness when cleaning up an area which has been exposed to a Co-60 spill is about 200 dpm per 100 cm^2, or about 20000 dpm/m^2. In other words, the dirty bomb scenario described in the paper would be barely within the limits of detection, and if someone performed a contamination test, the area would register as "clean".
  Now, of course, in real life the dust would not be spread evenly, but then we aren't talking 1000 sq km as the article said, now are we? In real life, it would also be fairly easy to clean up as well, at least to a livable standard.
  I get really tired of dealing with all the locks, alarm systems, etc. that are now required just to have one of these sources on site. I totally understand and approve safety precautions like interlocks, etc. But having to get a key to unlock the key box to get the other key that unlocks the bunker where the source is, when it takes 12 hours to install or remove the source, just so that phantom terrorists don't steal it is a daily pain in my ass.
8. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. Someday, somewhere, someone will use a dirty bomb. And it will kill a few people (same as a regular bomb), and everyone will flee the area. There will be a brief period of doom and gloom as the media presents the area as "lost for decades". Then it will rain. The rest will be cleaned up the hard way. Afterwards people will see how much of a non-issue it is, and no one will be afraid of dirty bombs anymore.
9. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  Hypothetically, heavy lithium on its own might be interesting if somebody can figure out how to build a portable overunity hot-fusion reactor. The trick is to break the lithium down and saturate the fusion reaction with the resulting hydrogen isotopes without quenching the fusion process itself. It's likely something at the edge of known theory, and currently fissile devices are needed for the energy necessary to trigger the rest of this kind of reaction in the meantime.
  Then again, I'm probably just some lamer with seemingly too far-fetched ideas after reading some interesting sci-fi.
  However if somebody actually does figure that kind of "holy grail" out, the current nuclear governments would be shitting themselves over what to do about practically untracable nuclear weapons.
10. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Brits are as loony about spreading fear as our local media/authorities in the US. Actual advice from British F&C Office for tourists to US:
  
  There is a general threat from terrorism in the United States. Attacks could be indiscriminate, including in places frequented by expatriates and foreign travellers. We remind British nationals of the global threat of terrorism and need to remain vigilant.
  I happen to live in the NYC, and there are marines with machine guns stationed all over the place.... so it must be true.
11. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by Swampash · 2013-02-20 18:11 · Score: 2
  
  Afterwards people will see how much of a non-issue it is, and no one will be afraid of dirty bombs anymore.
  Yes, in exactly the same way that nobody is afraid of terrorists getting on airliners any more.
  Let me rephrase because the sarcasm didn't really work. If there is a successful attack with fissile material, America will lose its mind so hard that the post-9/11 insanity that persists today will seem like a happy memory.
12. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by clemdoc · 2013-02-20 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  The point was, I think, "level a city". For doing that, you need a really "big bang". Things that have mushroom clouds as a byproduct help with that.
13. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by semi-extrinsic · 2013-02-20 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the terrorists were really serious about levelling a small city, I think a massive fuel-air bomb would be much easier to execute than an actual nuke, even a small tactical one. Start out with a big tank of liquefied natural gas, use a small explosive to rupture the tank and let the LNG go through a rapid phase transition and subsequent turbulent mixing with air, wait a little before detonating the second small explosive to ignite the vapor cloud. Hang this from a blimp or whatever for added effect.
  
  Also, unlike nukes, fuel-air explosives have a history of being used by terrorists.
  
  --
  for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
14. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by tehcyder · 2013-02-21 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's not like terrorists ever killed 3000 people and levelled a couple of skyscrapers by flying planes into them is it?
  Clearly, the terrorist threat is entirely imaginary.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
15. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by AK+Marc · 2013-02-21 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Good, I hope it happens sooner than later so that the public might notice we have a corporate dictatorship (called Fascism in the 1930s), where the figurehead of the government changes every 4-8 years so the people don't catch on. R or D doesn't matter anymore. We've been trained to fight about marriage for gays and other moral issues that we don't notice the rest of the issues, the ones that actually matter.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
16. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by cellocgw · 2013-02-21 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's not like terrorists ever killed 3000 people and levelled a couple of skyscrapers by flying planes into them is it?
  Still? sheesh and damn.
  Haven't you noticed that death-by-plane-crash-into-building stopped being a feasible method after the first 3 such events? Plane #4 was stopped (albeit with loss of life) by onboard civilians. The next umpty-million commercial flights had locked doors and flight crew that knew better than ever to give up control. Stop thinking that some terrorist is magically going to do it again. Better yet, stop thinking that a series of ever more expensive and ever more intrusive Maginot Lines of *Agencies is going to help.
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
17. Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons by BlueParrot · 2013-02-21 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you were to steal it, grind it up
  You know, of all the things I might try to steal, a Co-60 source is not exactly the most attractive. May as well try to french kiss a black mamba.
As Obama said in December by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:06 · Score: 0

"Make no mistake, if [guys] get [pornographic material], they will use it."
It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Nyder · 2013-02-20 15:08 · Score: 1, Informative

If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete, then there wouldn't be so many nukes out there. Sure, we here in the USA might be able to keep our stuff out of other peoples hands, but we can't control Russia, China, UK, or France, and that's not talking about what Israel, India or Pakistan really have. Of course, North Korea is now maybe testing weapons.
Not to mention the USA policy of bullying other nations into doing what it wants? I think the problem is that the USA government knows that everyone is getting fed up with them and people are going to start doing something about it.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:13 · Score: 0
  
  Abstinence is the key. If the nukes weren't so loose...
2. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, let's just sit around complacently and wait for the next 9/11.
  You dumbass.
3. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by confused+one · 2013-02-20 15:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete....
  We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. In fact, we've been gradually decomissioning them, in step with Russia, as we reach new treaty agreements.
4. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Nyder · 2013-02-20 15:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, let's just sit around complacently and wait for the next 9/11.
  You dumbass.
  considering how much rights the people of the united states lost due to laws after 9/11, I don't think we could handle another one. They have no choice but to lock up everyone since taking away our rights wouldn't of worked.
  9/11, we get attack by "terrorist" so we go invade a country that has nothing to do with it.
  Like I said, the USA is a bully.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
5. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by NalosLayor · 2013-02-20 15:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How many nuclear weapons do you think the US has built in the last twenty years? Hint: It's zero.
6. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  I say we light em all off next 4 july. Get rid of em all at once.
7. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  Wasn't the next 9/11 the next Pearl Harbor? And wasn't that the next Nimitz? Or something. "Never again" is used way too often as an excuse.
8. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by viperidaenz · 2013-02-20 15:31 · Score: 1
  
  If you didn't keep building nukes, you'd have three eyes and you'd be speaking Russian.
  The French do it because they're arrogant and want to prove they're not just cheese eating surrender monkeys.
9. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:37 · Score: 0
  
  9/11, we get attack by "terrorist" so we go invade a country that has nothing to do with it
  9/11 and Iraq were two different events. Yes, Bush and the Republicans conflated the two, at least at the time. More intelligent Americans didn't, but we weren't in the majority until about five years later.
  Let's talk about 9/11. The foreign policy of the USA can NEVER, EVER be, "let's just mind our own business and try to help out where we can, and then for the most part other countries will leave us alone." That didn't work for the US in 1917 or 1941 or 2001. It completely ignores history. Anybody who proposes pacifism is either not concerned with the best interests of the US, or is a dumbass.
10. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by anagama · 2013-02-20 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I agree with the idea that America can't survive another terrorist attack -- I don't mean of course, the political entity, I mean the ideals America is supposed to be built on -- things like privacy, the right to a fair trial before the government kills you or executes you, the right to travel ... you know, freedom.
  In fact, if you really think about it, it seems we didn't survive 9/11.
  And of course, 80% of the populace likes it this way.
  What will be interesting is whether after the next terrorist attack -- there will be one because it is completely impossible to prevent every such possible instance of terrorism -- is whether we will just overtly shift into police state mode. The unitary executive theory will sure prove handy to whoever is president at that time.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
11. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by gman003 · 2013-02-20 15:42 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The USSR built nearly twice as many warheads as the US.
  Informative chart
12. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  And the real issue isn't nuclear weapons that anyone has built in the past. The big issue is the nuclear material shared around the world by the US under the "Atoms for Peace" program. Highly enriched uranium - meant for use in reactors - shared with "friendly" (at the time) nations around the world. It has not made the mainstream media much, but since 2008 the NNSA has been working tirelessly to repatriate as much of this stuff as possible, but there is a lot of material not accounted for.
13. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by ganjadude · 2013-02-20 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  I dont think that 80% "like it this way" I think that most are more worried about the new "ohh shiney" instead of the things that could happen. I lost 16 friends/ family members in the WTC collapse, and I dont think I could handle that now (i was 16 in 01) but to say that such a high number think that we are better off... id say the majority of those you claim think we are better off are just passive and dont pay attention one way or another. Id say the number who want us to be weak are much lower
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
14. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Most people are worthless, unintelligent followers. If someone passively accepts violations of freedom, then they are just as unintelligent as those who support it.
15. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by stephanruby · 2013-02-20 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades. In fact, we've been gradually decomissioning them, in step with Russia, as we reach new treaty agreements.
  How about "bunker-busting" tactical nukes, which the US claims, are exempt from current treaties?
  Or how about armor-piercing depleted uranium ammo? Granted, that last one probably wouldn't qualify as a nuclear weapon, but at least, don't tell me that a tactical nuke is not a nuclear weapon.
16. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by stephanruby · 2013-02-20 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  What about the so-called "bunker-busting" tactical nukes? The US claims those types of nukes are exempt from existing treaties.
17. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by ganjadude · 2013-02-20 16:23 · Score: 1
  
  i would say 80% of us here agree with that..... ;)
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
18. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by NalosLayor · 2013-02-20 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure those never actually got built.
19. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  "Bunker-busting" tactical nukes were never actually developed. They were theorized and funded when conventional bunker-busters (then recently made relevant with the advent of smart bomb accuracy) entered the spotlight, but was ultimately shelved due to lack of targets and impracticality. (Deeper/bigger targets required impractically large nuclear payloads, conventional bunker-busters got the job done well enough by simply target ventilation systems and it was obvious that the enemy would react by building large numbers of smaller bunkers instead of a few, huge/deep bunkers.)
20. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  This is slashdot. In this reality they were built, and it's fine to hammer america with it. This is slashdot. Repeat.
21. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by ganjadude · 2013-02-20 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  right...its all our fault, because being a nuke power for 70 years, and only dropping them on one country (regardless of if you agree or not) negates everything else. we can argue whether or not the USA is right, its not always right, concerning world issues, but regardless of if we are right or not, just because we have something than can destroy an entire city, we should just let everyone have one right? hell some people want to take some types of guns away from americans, yet usually these same people have no issue with other countries having nukes?? disarm america, yet arm the world... thats a great idea right?
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
22. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by hedwards · 2013-02-20 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the only thing that really matters at that point, is that it makes it that many more nukes that can potentially get lost. The US and the USSR towards the end of the '80s had so many nukes that they could have unilaterally dismantled most of them and still had enough in reserves to blast the other one into oblivion if they needed to.
23. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by stephanruby · 2013-02-20 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure those never actually got built.
  I'm pretty sure they were..
24. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by stephanruby · 2013-02-20 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  Are you kidding me? I know this is Slashdot, but it wouldn't hurt you to google once in a while. There is not any controversy that those tactical nukes do exist and are not being counted in the official statistics.
  Check out my previous post for the citation.
25. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 18:34 · Score: 0
  
  [citation needed]
26. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by khallow · 2013-02-20 18:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or how about armor-piercing depleted uranium ammo? Granted, that last one probably wouldn't qualify as a nuclear weapon
  It wouldn't and you should know that. Nuclear weapons aren't stuff that just has uranium in it.
  
  How about "bunker-busting" tactical nukes,
  
  Ok, how about them? I see that the US has yet to dare use one.
27. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  What right could we possibly lose, the right to bear nuclear arms?!
28. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 20:36 · Score: 0
  
  America only survives if we embrace the possibility of MULTIPLE additional terrorist attacks as a necessary & inevitable cost of maintaining our freedom.
  Terrorism has by all rights INCREASED, despite all compromises on civil liberties we have made collectively in exchange for empty promises. Suffice it to say, the "bad men" continue to exist as a slightly-larger, yet still statistically irrelevant, threat to our safety. The reassurances were without credibility then, and this will always be the case.
  Reacting to terrorism by spending atrocious amount of money chasing shadows is taking the piss hook line and sinker. Asymmetrical warfare is not a new concept. It is utterly amazing to me that anyone is surprised by the current fiscal deficit when we have spent the last decade punching ourselves in the wallet and calling it CPR.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
29. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by aaaaaaargh! · 2013-02-20 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  The foreign policy of the USA can NEVER, EVER be, "let's just mind our own business and try to help out where we can, and then for the most part other countries will leave us alone." That didn't work for the US in 1917 or 1941 or 2001. It completely ignores history.
  You're right about that. Isolationism doesn't work.
  
  Anybody who proposes pacifism is either not concerned with the best interests of the US, or is a dumbass.
  That's a complete non-sequitur. It is a proven fact that the post 9/11 "war on terror" has increased terrorism and that's also not very surprising. If you occupy a country, be it Afghanistan or Iraq, there will be a huge number of fighters in this country who will strife to free themselves from occupation, and since the warfare is asymmetric they will become terrorists, since they could otherwise not achieve their goal. You know, Al Qaeda's main goal has always been to get US out of Saudi Arabia - a dictatorship and a big ally of the US. Interventionist politics and CIA coups such as those in Chile, Iran or Egypt that seem to have been forgotten by many are and have always been the biggest recruitment tool for enemies of the US.
  Pacifism works well when it is accompanied with economic and cultural embrasement via international contracts and the usual clandestine intelligence work. You can be pacifist without hailing terrorists and fundamentalists. Signing international contracts means giving away power but in the long run makes conventional wars between countries impractical. A good start for the US would be to finally ratify the International Criminal Court document like 121 other nations did. The US have signed it already but they refuse to ratify it and even vowed military action against ICC should they ever get the idea to persecute a US citizen. Signing and at the same time threatening military action, that's schizophrenic and tells you something about how fucked up and clueless US foreign policy really is. If you're so clueless about international relations (thanks to Harvard, btw), then of course you'll resort to violence at every possible occasion.
30. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please, World Wars 1 & 2 had nothing to do with you. 2001? Wtf? Don't you know that you have been meddling in other countries affairs since the second world war, or actually way before it. How would you know leaving other countries alone would not work, as you have never actually tried? CIA has put in power assload of puppet dictators, who have all turned against their former puppet masters. I don't think you track record shows even one successfull meddling campaign. ( Ok, this is not true, you have gained more riches for your rich ). Keep murdering, raping and pillaging in 3rd world counties and then wondering why they don't like you. They do hate your freedom, as they have seen the side of it that kills their brothers and sisters and mothers and sons.
31. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure they weren't.
  We have:
  "While a nuclear penetrator (the "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator", or "RNEP") was never built, the U.S. DOE was allotted budget to develop it, and tests were conducted by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory."
  and this:
  "The Bush administration removed its request for funding[8] of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, then U.S. Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the U.S. Department of Energy's 2006 budget at the department's request."
  And on top of that, if they *were* to do such a thing it would likely involve refitting something like a B61, which is technically converting an existing weapon.
32. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by dunkelfalke · 2013-02-21 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Funny thing, that, because the facts disagree with you.
  USSR have pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, while the commanders of American Strategic Air Command have favoured preemptive nuclear strikes for quite a long time.
  Besides, what is wrong with speaking Russian? Every foreign language broadens your horizon.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
33. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not really old enough (25) to compare pre and post 9/11 without doing some historic research. Especially since I'm just observing it all from far away, across an ocean.
  But I'm pretty sure you didn't survive it but for reasons that already existed decades long before.
  Its strangly fascinating to watch the aftermath, wondering how it will all turn out.
34. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by necro81 · 2013-02-21 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Do you know what the "depleted" in depleted uranium means? Depleted uranium is what's left over from uranium enrichment. Naturally occurring uranium is a mixture of U-238 and U-235 (plus some other stuff). Enrichment separates the fissile U-235 for use in power plants and bombs, leaving the U-238 behind. The U-238 is slightly radioactive, but isn't considered a nuclear fuel. This is why it's called depleted uranium - all its usefulness as a nuclear fuel has been separated out. Depleted uranium gets used in armor-piecing weapons because it is impressively dense (2/3 denser than lead), is harder than lots of other dense metals, is an abundant leftover of the nuclear industry, and spalls in just the right way. No one considers it a nuclear weapon, because there is nothing "nuclear" about its mechanics as a weapon. Ballistics aside, depleted uranium's greatest problem is that it is still a really toxic metal.
35. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by j00r0m4nc3r · 2013-02-21 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  let's just sit around complacently and wait for the next 9/11.
  
  We've had a 9/11 every year since the dawn of the Gregorian calendar, and so far only one of those has been bad...
36. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by viperidaenz · 2013-02-21 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying if USA had only one nuke in the Cold War, it would have ended differently?
37. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by dunkelfalke · 2013-02-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  Probably, and much more peaceful, I think. Soviet leaders were scared shitless of American nukes, that was the reason for the totally unneeded arm race which bankrupted the Soviet Union and lead to the Russia of the 1990ies and numerous bloody conflicts. This was also the reason why Khrushchev's peaceful coexistence doctrine ultimately failed and he was ousted, which was, in my opinion, unfortunate - USSR could have started something like perestroika a decade earlier.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
38. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by fustakrakich · 2013-02-21 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not really old enough (25) to compare pre and post 9/11 without doing some historic research.
  A little history lesson:
  After the war (the big one, WW2) the earth cooled. Then came rock and roll. It's been all downhill since.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
39. Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes by fustakrakich · 2013-02-21 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  We haven't built any new nuclear weapons in decades.
  And we can confirm this... how?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
it's like obamacare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:20 · Score: 0

you're definitely getting taxed. you might even get healthcare.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2013-02-20 15:29 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sane foreign policy... by Darkness404 · 2013-02-20 15:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US needs to adopt sane foreign policy, our entire stance on nuclear weapons is this mythical idea that no country other than allies of the US can reproduce an invention from the 1940s. If a third-world country wants to be assured that it won't be invaded by the US, it needs to have nuclear weapons.

Consider the different attitude the US has when discussing negotiations with nuclear-armed states and states without nuclear weapons. Nuclear-armed states are treated with much more respect and resort to diplomacy rather than outright invasion.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Sane foreign policy... by fustakrakich · 2013-02-20 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  Nuclear-armed states are treated with much more respect and resort to diplomacy rather than outright invasion.
  Maybe that explains why the US is so chummy with Saudi Arabia
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
2. Re:Sane foreign policy... by jklovanc · 2013-02-20 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  There are three countries that are not allies with the US that have nuclear weapons; Russia, China and North Korea. All of these countries have large armies to back up the nuclear threat.Even without nuclear weapons these countries would be a bloodbath to invade.
3. Re:Sane foreign policy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  N.Korea just may lob a nuke at S.Korea, Japan, or the US. Castro almost pushed the button during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ironically, many conservatives probably wish he did knowing what DC has became these days. Hindsight 20/20 and all. Pakistan is filled with oppressive Islamist where God commands them to kill the infidel. India would thing twice about making them cats take another spin around the wheel of life...etc
  Never project your own morals and beliefs onto others. Culture isn't just a word. It really means something. In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
4. Re:Sane foreign policy... by khallow · 2013-02-20 18:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
  It's worth noting that none of the cultures you mention count. There's two problems that people often don't get about nukes. One is the crazy person with nukes. For whatever reason, including the above mentioned "completely alien" culture, you could have someone far more willing to use nukes than you would expect.
  
  Another is extremely short decision time frames. There are countries which because they are near one another, have only a few minutes to decide whether some blips on a screen (or the equivalent) are either innocuous (could be flaws in the detector hardware, rocket test, whatever) or the end of their civilization. The faster this decision needs to be made, the more likely it is that someone makes a bad choice, such as launching a retaliatory strike.
  
  Proliferation increases the chances that either of the above potential problems becomes an actual problem that kills lots of people.
5. Re:Sane foreign policy... by cold+fjord · 2013-02-20 19:27 · Score: 1
  
  So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?
  So could you explain why it is that you think the United States wants to invade sane, peace loving North Korea - a genuine light to the world guided by the enlightened Kims? Is it for the nonexistent oil? And how does it plan to invade? The US has about half of a division there - it is outnumbered about 50:1. And since they have been pursuing nuclear weapons since the 1960s, do you think they can see into a future where they will be called part of the "Axis of Evil"? Or do you think it might be that they are pursuing their own goals independent of what the US does - perish the thought! The US has technically been at war with North Korea for nearly 60 years - why invade now?
  I would also like to hear your ideas about why the breakdown of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty and a world-wide nuclear arms race among third world nations is a good idea?
  I'm not sure you are really qualified to identify what is sane, or even a good idea. You seem to want to empower third world thugs, dictators, and genocidal maniacs againt what you apparently claim as your own country. Why is that? Some sort of pathology?
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
6. Re:Sane foreign policy... by dunkelfalke · 2013-02-20 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  So the US has an insane foreign policy compared to Saddam's Iraq (invaded, fought, or threatened pretty much every country around them), North Korea (hurl missiles and threats against it neighbors), Iran (covert operations against governments of many countries in region, threaten others, including barely veiled genocide against former ally Israel)?
  Well, worded like that it actually not dissimilar to the foreign policy of the United States of America.
  Invasion and covert operation against countries in the region? Check (Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra affair, invasion of Grenada)
  Threating others? Check (aw come on, you really need examples for that?)
  Including barely veiled genocide against former ally? Check (Operation Dropshot, Plan Totality - basically plans to wipe out three quarters of Soviet citizens).
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
7. Re:Sane foreign policy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  N.Korea just may lob a nuke at S.Korea, Japan, or the US. Castro almost pushed the button during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ironically, many conservatives probably wish he did knowing what DC has became these days. Hindsight 20/20 and all. Pakistan is filled with oppressive Islamist where God commands them to kill the infidel. India would thing twice about making them cats take another spin around the wheel of life...etc
  Never project your own morals and beliefs onto others. Culture isn't just a word. It really means something. In some cases, some cultures are completely alien to another.
  N. Korea will just blackmail food for their people and shiny things for the leaders. Islamist couldn't care less about infidels if they didn't need outside enemy to stay in power. Funnily enough cultures mean nothing while you are at the top of the heap. Normal behavioral patterns mean nothing to you when your community can't really force them on you.
8. Re:Sane foreign policy... by Demonantis · 2013-02-21 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  US has the largest military budget. The Chinese beat them in man power though. Arguably in a battle of attrition a lot of countries would have the US beat. Nuclear devices kill and destroy indiscriminately. They are not good at making objectives. They aren't really that useful except for posturing and negotiating in warfare.
9. Re:Sane foreign policy... by khallow · 2013-02-21 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. This is unlike the US, which a) hasn't had crazy people in charge of nukes (yet) and b) doesn't have a nuclear power within a few minutes of its borders, unless one counts the few missile subs the Russians have.
Obama catch phrases by phantomfive · 2013-02-20 15:53 · Score: 4, Funny

"Make no mistake" is what Obama says so you'll think he's serious. When he tells someone they're wrong, he says, "let me be clear." "It will not be easy" means you should vote for him (the voting booth is just down the street, you can do it!), and when he says, "here's the deal" who knows what it means.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Obama catch phrases by gregOfTheWeb · 2013-02-20 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's a drinking game, what will President Erkel say next.
  
  --
  blah
2. Re:Obama catch phrases by a_hanso · 2013-02-20 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  So like George "Read-my-lips" Bush?
3. Re:Obama catch phrases by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Characters. All of them.
in pyongyang by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 15:54 · Score: 0

in pyongyang
obama also said... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:02 · Score: 0, Insightful

republicans want to let grandma eat dogfood and kill social security.... sorry if i take anything he says with a grain of salt.... posting anon because I know the /. crowd.....
1. Re:obama also said... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 19:33 · Score: 0
  
  ? Sorry, but I can't take an unsourced, ungoogleable statement seriously.
Isn't the correct answer... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:04 · Score: 0

to nuke the nukes from orbit since it's the only way to be sure?? Only half joking
Rejecting reality by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:10 · Score: 1

Assuming more cobalt-60 than has been produced, no decontamination, and the *OMFG NUCULAR* reactionaries...
According to Bayes ... by mxxspii · 2013-02-20 16:18 · Score: 1

P(terrorist, nuclear) = P(terrorist | nuclear) * P(nuclear)
Because "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."
P(terrorist | nuclear) = 1
P(terrorist, nuclear) = P(nuclear)
we are doomed ...
Loose nukes by bug1 · 2013-02-20 16:35 · Score: 1

How To Safeguard Loose Nukes
Tie them down good with rope, and remember, if you cant tie knots, tie lots.
Or maybe put them in boxes, they shouldnt roll away then.
the [] by Americium · 2013-02-20 16:42 · Score: 1

did he really say "if get, they will use it" ?
1. Re:the [] by deuterium · 2013-02-21 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  If use it boom
star wars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 16:59 · Score: 0

Kim shot first
Duck tape this gerbil of a program. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 17:08 · Score: 0

Ummm... based on first glance at title, I'd guess there's no such thing as led lined duck tape.
North Korea by PerMolestiasEruditio · 2013-02-20 17:20 · Score: 2

1/ They have the bomb.
2/ They are desperate for money, and have few qualms, and seemingly little good judgement about doing whatever it takes to get money to maintain their fucked up internal power structure. $2 billion per year exports at moment, but $3 billion imports and $20 billion external debt
3/ There are numerous groups in the world who do not like the west (some 'terrorists', some countries) who could probably raise a few hundred million to a billion dollars to buy a nuclear bomb.
4/ Short of hitting them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike North Korea cannot be invaded/stopped without massive risk/destruction to South Korea, Japan, and possibly USA (nuclear weapons + ICBM), also huge danger from China if it comes to a shooting war/invasion.
Pretty good chance that North Korea will sell a bomb to someone to use on a western city. Iran and pakistan are also moderately dangerous. I wouldn't feel particularly safe living in coastal USA cities, or Israel for that matter in the next 20 years.
1. Re:North Korea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't feel particularly safe living in coastal USA cities
  These are constitution-free cities you are talking about. We feel very safe here. Our phone calls and Slashdot posts are logged, and enemy combatants get detained and sent to torture chambers sooner than they can detonate their underwear, or call a lawyer for that matter.
  Hold on a second, someone's at the door...
2. Re:North Korea by MozeeToby · 2013-02-21 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  There's a big difference between building a test nuke in an underground chamber and building a nuke that is light and yet durable enough to launch on an ICBM, especially the types of rockets that NK has available. Not to mention heat shields and guidance systems and the fact that NK has no way of doing any of the preparation in any way that is hidden from US spy satellites. The risk is non-zero, but at this point insignificant.
the article is very biased by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 19:55 · Score: 0

A very realistic point of view: this article is trying to heighten tension and create more chaos
The world has been under threat from nuclear weapons since 1945 and we coped fine
The terrorists possess Hiroshima like abilities, not US/USSR doomsday power
Life goes on, even if NYC is nucked by the Tsar bomba
Re:Not IF but WHEN by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-20 21:07 · Score: 0

Terrorists kill hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and govt. workers every year. Why do you think the Pakistani govt. wants to slip them some nukes?
Focused on the wrong area by WindBourne · 2013-02-20 23:50 · Score: 1

The fact is, that nuke tech is spreading all over and every one of these nations are heavily connected with China. North Korea. Iran. Burma. And now, Venezuela is said to be working on nukes. The reason is that China is developing their own NATO in which all of their allies have nukes. Combine that with it suddenly becoming obvious that China has 3000+ nukes and not the 300 that they claim, and life will be far more interesting than the idea of terrorists getting access to a nuke.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm not sure by gelfling · 2013-02-21 01:23 · Score: 1

Obama was saying that's a bad thing.
Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 02:06 · Score: 0

Maybe that's the French way...but we don't shoot our kids in schools...
Read this and stop worrying by Lawrence_Bird · 2013-02-21 02:40 · Score: 1

This book is dry, boring and very wonkish. But after reading it you won't really worry much, if at all, about this subject any more.
We already know how by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 05:13 · Score: 0

Problem is Safeguard was canceled in the 1970's.
Most likely countries to use nukes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-21 05:20 · Score: 0

What do you guys think are the most likely countries to use nukes? My list would go like this:
1. USA: We already did
2. Israel: They almost did but didn't at the last minute because they got lucky and the battles started going their own way.
3. North Korea: They are just crazy enough to try it.
4. Some terrorist group.
Hey, it was used correctly! by cellocgw · 2013-02-21 06:13 · Score: 1

Maybe the first time on /. this year, the word "loose" was properly used. This could make me loose my mind ... ooops, winning streak is over.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw