Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

publicintegrity.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#121

Post by DanielBMarkham »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #91
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was -- and is -- an insane period of time to live through. What concerns me is that during the last days of the old Soviet Union, they knew the jig was up. They knew it was all falling apart. So they started hiding stuff. Everywhere. Papers were destroyed. Chemical and biological weapons were taken out and buried. So there's one problem with "dangerous stuff we know about and we're worried that it's not being prot…

luckily almost all biological and chemical weapons are not stable, and quickly degrade without sophisticated storage. This is especially true of the most nasty stuff (nerve gas, viral agents, etc), which can break down within days of lacking precisely controlled refridgeration.

Thank you for reminding us of this. This was also in the book, and I forgot to mention it. It's a little ray of hope.

Of course, between CRISPR and the fact that much of the knowledge about these bio agents have been in people's heads for decades, there is still a considerable amount of risk in this area.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#122

Post by acqq »

selimthegrim wrote: post #112
ajmurmann wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being downvoted?

because Sharia law is a non sequitur?

Because it surely can't mean that the environment can be stimulating for the sympathisers, supporters or members of ISIS?

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#123

Post by xyzzyz »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #120
mikeash wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a reason why they didn't help Poland, not something that made it so that they did help Poland (as was claimed above). I also don't believe that's true. At the time, the French had about 5 million men, 4,200 tanks, 11,000 guns, and 3,000 airplanes. The Germans had about 4 million men, 3,500 tanks, 7,000 guns, and 4,000 airplanes. That's rough parity, not even counting the UK's potential contribution. And…

Your numbers are meaningless. The German weapons were modern. The French were not and the UK's were virtually non-existent. The UK had no reason to declare war in 1939 other than their promise to defend Poland. We went into a global war that lasted 6 years, took half a million of our lives, bankrupted us and caused us to lose a global empire (well that was a good side effect). Bear in mind that this was ~20 years aft…

The UK had no reason to declare war in 1939 other than their promise to defend Poland.

That's the whole crux of this thread: that British military assistance promises are worthless.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#124

Post by jessriedel »

mikeash wrote: post #117
jessriedel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole crux is the line you've left as a parenthetical. "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim…

That's fair, but I see two big problems with this. First, to what degree can we say Ukraine is threatened by nuclear weapons, when we know (not because of empty promises, but just the realities of nuclear weapons) that nukes are not on the table? Would we say that Iraq or Afghanistan were threatened by nuclear weapons? I certainly wouldn't. Second, let's say the mere possession of nukes by the attacking party does qu…

I think there is easily a greater than 5% chance of Russia using nukes in the case of an all out war between Russia and Ukraine. (Remember how realistic it was for the US to develop small bunker-buster weapons just a few years ago? What sorts of tactical nukes do you think Russia has stored away somewhere?) Any that's plenty of risk to dramatically influence the conflict, whether diplomatic or violent.

So now you're talking about a case where the US is violating both the spirit (no UN petition) and the letter (no meaningful aid) of the memorandum, although doing each in different ways. At that point, I think the damage is done. Other countries will not and should not expect the US to honor agreements it makes, even on the deathly serious issue of voluntarily giving up nuclear weapons.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#125

Post by selimthegrim »

acqq wrote: post #122
selimthegrim wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because Sharia law is a non sequitur?

Because it surely can't mean that the environment can be stimulating for the sympathisers, supporters or members of ISIS?

You do know there's not one monolithic body of Sharia jurisprudence, right? ISIS supporters hew to specific juristic readings and would abhor the Sharia of many other sects...

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#126

Post by acqq »

selimthegrim wrote: post #125
acqq wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it surely can't mean that the environment can be stimulating for the sympathisers, supporters or members of ISIS?

You do know there's not one monolithic body of Sharia jurisprudence, right? ISIS supporters hew to specific juristic readings and would abhor the Sharia of many other sects...

ISIS members and supporters would certainly not be against stoning, as a small example. Both stonings and beheadings are the things done by Mohammad, and Sharia's principle is, in simplest, "do what Mohammad have done." I agree, not everybody actually wants to do everything he did, but some do try.

There are countries, luckily, with Muslim majority which don't employ Sharia officially. Even some of the countries that do today, didn't only a few decades ago, like Pakistan:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_sharia_law_by...

I also agree that we should not mix the logical relations: => and aren't the same. Of course we can't conclude that everybody who supports Sharia in his country directly supports ISIS. But there was never a claim like that here.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#127

Post by superuser2 »

AUmrysh wrote: post #59

If western intelligence knows about this and wants to get it off the black market, why don't they just buy it themselves? Surely the criminals selling it don't care where the money comes from.

I wouldn't be remotely surprised if this had happened several times already, quietly.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#128

Post by PerfectDlite »

igivanov wrote: post #118
mikeash wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a weirdly common misconception that the agreement in question requires the US and UK to protect Ukraine's territorial integrity. All it does is require them to respect it. This is the actual wording, taken from your link: "The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against…

It's not an agreement that requires anything. It's just a memorandum (IOW a memo) no more binding than the famous verbal promise not to extend NATO towards Russia's borders.

> famous verbal promise not to extend NATO towards Russia's borders

Famous promise that no one can remember exactly but it was spun up by Russian propaganda anyway?

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#129

Post by acqq »

selimthegrim wrote: post #125
acqq wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it surely can't mean that the environment can be stimulating for the sympathisers, supporters or members of ISIS?

You do know there's not one monolithic body of Sharia jurisprudence, right? ISIS supporters hew to specific juristic readings and would abhor the Sharia of many other sects...

http://icsr.info/2015/01/foreign-fighter-total-syriairaq-now...

According to the estimates, there are more active ISIS fighters coming from Sweden than those coming from Sudan, even if Sweden has four times less people.

Re: Fuel for nuclear bomb in hands of unknown Russian black marketeer, officials say

#130

Post by mikeash »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #120
mikeash wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a reason why they didn't help Poland, not something that made it so that they did help Poland (as was claimed above). I also don't believe that's true. At the time, the French had about 5 million men, 4,200 tanks, 11,000 guns, and 3,000 airplanes. The Germans had about 4 million men, 3,500 tanks, 7,000 guns, and 4,000 airplanes. That's rough parity, not even counting the UK's potential contribution. And…

Your numbers are meaningless. The German weapons were modern. The French were not and the UK's were virtually non-existent. The UK had no reason to declare war in 1939 other than their promise to defend Poland. We went into a global war that lasted 6 years, took half a million of our lives, bankrupted us and caused us to lose a global empire (well that was a good side effect). Bear in mind that this was ~20 years aft…

What's the point of declaring war on the basis of their promise to defend Poland, if they never actually did anything to help Poland?

It's not nearly so simple as that. For example, the French had better tanks, as well as more tank. There were plusses and minuses on both sides, but the result is far from clear and certainly not an overwhelming advantage in either direction. Combine this with the German army being busy in Poland for several weeks, and the French and British had a great opportunity to start their part of the conflict on their own terms. Some highly-placed Germans stated after the war that they would have been totally screwed if the Allies had invaded then.

The Battle of France revealed that the Germans were capable of completely smashing the Allied forces. This was partly because the places where the Germans had the advantage (aircraft, communications, doctrine) were key. But it was also just that the leadership was so afraid of getting drawn into a repeat of WWI that they let themselves be overrun. It's interesting to note that nobody expected the Germans to have that level of success, not even the Germans. Even Hitler, who was the optimistic one, thought they'd lose a million soldiers in that fight. I don't know if you're basing things off this experience, but it can't be used to show that the Allies thought they couldn't beat the Germans, nor probably even to show the Allies couldn't actually beat the Germans if they had struck first.

Post reply on HN