Obama to call for nuclear-free world

Thank You Obama for Saving the World! You can't appear on Jay Leno without sounding like an imbecile, what makes you think you're going to eliminate nuclear energy, something that was decades in the making? But then again, I almost forgot...wasn't it your nomination to be prez that caused "the rise of the oceans to slow" not to mention that "our planet began to heal"?......Thank you bleeding heart liberals for reminding me! My bad!

Don't hold your breath, President Obama.

um...settle people. gosh, more vitriol than i spew at kuffar.

that said, i have to agree that nuclear energy does not represent the threat it is made out to. I would prefer green energy, and the current administration is pushing for it harder than ANY previous administration I know of. But it's not the end of the world to use nuclear energy. I'd like to see more research done into making it safer faster, remember that article about worms who were found eating heavy metals? lets do something like that, get some viruses or bacteria in there and decompose the shit.

regardless, it's all around better than coal.

Janforgore strikes back,

Darth Jan takes offense that "some wonk telling you something is much more credible."

More credible that what? Or who - you?

Yes indeed! Compared to your skewed arguments, my friend is far more credible, and reliable.

He is a professional physicist. Are you? Do you have multiple degrees in Physics? His credibility far exceeds yours, his knowledge of the subject likely is beyond your comprehension.

But zealous ad hominem anti-Obamaite that you are, you couldn't resist attacking a source unknown to you, while deliberately obscuring the pertinence of what he said.

As for bias? Yours against Obama is blatant and long established at Current. You sing from the same hymnal with others on this page - as devotedly anti-Obama. But you are more odd than they are. A supposed Gore-loving Democrat you somehow hate Democrats. A post election PUMA? Go figure.

Instead of applauding a progressive initiative to reduce nuclear weaponry, or contributing to the campaign, where do you go?

-- "I just think certain people don't want Obama to look bad. It is always about the man over the issue to some here."

Who, more consistently than you, makes it "about the man" when it is in any way connected to President Obama? Post haste, you lurch to another non sequitur,

-- "The only bias here is what you and others hold for those who hold Obama accountable like every other politician."

The ONLY Bias? You poor victim!

Ridiculous. You dream that there is a terrible grudge against those who hold Obama (and EVERY other politician) accountable? Accountable for "what" specifically? You never say. Do you not recognize how ridiculous and irrational that "accountability" generalization is?

Yet what else could you possibly say? You recognize that by admitting bias you render your arguments untenable. Yet you can't be seen actually agreeing with the President. Not after investing so much energy and time insisting that he should never be President! You'd look bad!

So trying to make Obama look bad - in any way you can - is all you have left, and can only flow from your frustrated desire that he not be President. What else is your objective on this page?

The wonk who lacks credibility? The wonk who ignores relevant argument, in fact is you. Instead of finally recognizing your own rage, you resort to another strawman.

You insist on a ludicrous precondition. President Obama must please you. He first must eliminate "all nukes" from the planet. Then perhaps you'll say, "Well done! Who knew you had it in you?"

How generous. Having in no way contributed to the effort except to oppose the same initiative, from day one, you graciously bestow qualified thanks...

And this you regard as reasonable and mature? Guess again.

Your research tends to be excellent, but your "valid concerns" too often are hyperbolic and over-dramatized.

Those dismissive attitudes? Are they not typical of sore-losers, radicals and extremists everywhere?

A physics wonk of my acquaintance told me some years back that to conceal nuclear material from sophisticated detection requires that it be encased in ten feet of lead.

Which puts a dent in the "suitcase nukes" coming-to-a-neighborhood-near-you theory, doesn't it? I hesitate to say, it "explodes" the myth.

______________
Oh yes, some wonk telling you something is much more credible. Please. The only bias here is what you and others hold for those who hold Obama accountable like every other politician. Again, I will believe it when there are NO NUKES left, and have presented valid concerns whether you believe them to be or not. Don't like that opinion, oh well. I'm sure you'll find something else to bloviate about that your mutual admiration society can recommend up concerning my opinion since it takes time out from actually having to present any evidence to the contrary.

oh please! Slow newsday? Obama opens his mouth and they print it. I want to see the U.S. disarm anything before any other country would. He is on his Rock-Tour and spews all this goodness lol. But yet he sends our kids to war's that are senseless.

A physics wonk of my acquaintance told me some years back that to conceal nuclear material from sophisticated detection requires that it be encased in ten feet of lead.

Which puts a dent in the "suitcase nukes" coming-to-a-neighborhood-near-you theory, doesn't it? I hesitate to say, it "explodes" the myth.

But what should be a technical debate about quotas quickly is diverted to become a strawman argument about the President's final intentions.

It looks like this...

-- That crazy new President (who nobody truly virtuous ever should have voted for) wants to strip crucial nuclear weapons from countries which have no other deterrent as their defense!"

Golly whiz! Has the Prez no shame? Does he not comprehend the desperate illogic of his position? The rotter! How could he!

Well, who exactly claims they know the precise policy intentions of the President and his administration?

Who do we know who has ready access to that kind of intel? Intel BTW which would be illegal if distributed outside Washington's inner circle. .

Who believes specifically that this cannot possibly be a bargaining position used to pressure states to reduce weaponry? As in, "The aim to is agree to a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 1), which led to the biggest-ever bilateral cuts in nuclear weapons, but expires in December."

Why look! It's --

Janforgore! Who tells us. "I just think certain people don't want Obama to look bad. It is always about the man over the issue to some here."

That's your big issue, Jan, Obama should always be made to "look bad" and who better to indulge her whimsy than --

Janforgore! Who throughout the run up to the Presidential election couldn't contain her contempt and anxiety about a law professor becoming President.

Objectivity benefits from blatant bias?

Are they now compatible? To whom?

"such as might be made by terrorists. Although the explosive yields of such bombs would tend to be unpredictable, varying from case to case for the same bomb design"

"All nuclear weapons require plutonium or highly enriched uranium"

"Although use of highly enriched uranium in nuclear power plants has been sporadic and rare, substantial quantities have been used for R&D purposes-as fuel for research and test reactors"

All of which just goes to show that research is needed to make weapons is for the purpose of destruction and there are more steps needed to be taken to turn reactors into weapons.

If those steps are taken then those that oppose nuclear weapons would get rid of the converted weapons too.

The research that can also be done to eliminate the waste and the improve the safeguards on power plants can also be done for benefical purposes.

Research could also be done to make solar power satellites into high energy lasers as beam weapons of mass destruction also but that doesn't prove that solar energy should be gotten rid of either.

If you think countries will simply pull off their warheads and trust that no other country is clandestinely making weapons under the table then you are naive. And concerns and skepticism regarding this are very valid in light of the world we live in. It is not being stupid or confused. If you (in general) claim to want a nuclear free world, you are a hypocrite unless you call for its elimination across the board in any manner it can be used as a potential weapon. And no amount of namecalling or smugness is going to change that.

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons, By Theodore B. Taylor

"Reactor grade plutonium can also be used for making relatively crude nuclear explosives, such as might be made by terrorists. Although the explosive yields of such bombs would tend to be unpredictable, varying from case to case for the same bomb design, their minimum explosive yields could credibly be the equivalent of several hundred tons or more of high explosive.3 Such bombs, transportable by automobile, would certainly qualify as weapons of mass destruction, killing many tens of thousands or more people in some locations.

All nuclear weapons require plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Some use both. The required amounts vary considerably, depending on the desired characteristics and on the technical resources and knowhow available to those who design and build the weapons. Estimates of the maximum total number of U. S. nuclear warheads and of the total amount of plutonium produced for those warheads correspond to an average of about 3 kilograms of plutonium per warhead.4 The minimum amount of plutonium in a nuclear explosive that contains no highly enriched uranium can be significantly smaller than 3 kilograms.

Nuclear power plants typically produce a net of about 200 kilograms of plutonium per year for each 1,000 megawatts of electric power generating capacity. Some 430 nuclear power plants, with combined electrical generating capacity of nearly 340,000 megawatts, are now operating in 32 countries. The plants account for about 7% of total primary energy consumption worldwide, or about 17% of the world's electrical energy. Total net annual production of plutonium by these plants is nearly 70,000 kilograms, enough for making more than 10,000 nuclear warheads per year. 5

So far about four times as much plutonium has been produced in power reactors than has been used for making nuclear weapons-about 1 million kilograms, most of which is in spent nuclear fuel in storage, compared with about 250,000 kilograms for weapons.6

Nearly 200,000 kilograms of plutonium have been chemically separated from spent power reactor fuel in chemical reprocessing facilities in at least 8 countries (Belgium, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States).7 This is typically stored as plutonium oxide that can relatively easily be converted to plutonium metal for use in nuclear explosives.

Research and test reactors can also produce significant amounts of plutonium that, after chemical separation, can be used for making nuclear weapons. This has apparently been the route to nuclear weapons followed by Israel and started by North Korea.

Although use of highly enriched uranium in nuclear power plants has been sporadic and rare, substantial quantities have been used for R&D purposes-as fuel for research and test reactors, and in connection with development of breeder reactors. Principal suppliers have been and now are the five declared nuclear weapon states. It has been estimated that the world inventory of highly enriched uranium for civil purposes is about 20,000 kilograms.8

Although this is dramatically smaller than the more than 1 million kilograms of highly enriched uranium associated with nuclear weapons, it may be extremely important to some countries that are secretly developing the technology for making nuclear weapons.

Facilities for enriching uranium in its concentration of the isotope U-235 to the levels of a few percent needed for light water power reactor fuel can be used for further enrichment to high concentrations used for making nuclear explosives. The technology for doing this is proliferating, both in terms of the numbers of countries that have such facilities, and in the variety of different ways to carry out the enrichment."

That leaves out the difference in enrichment in the fuel used in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.

If you're going to go the extra mile in assuming more research done by people making weapons from reactors then why not go the extra step of research done to make reactors safer and ways found to eliminate the radioactive waste?

What is stupid is assuming one set of circumstances without assuming the other just FYI

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons, By Theodore B. Taylor

And I'm not stupid, just FYI.

Anything can be made terrorists targets like dams, steam electric plants, railways and airports that doesn't mean they should be closed down either.

Confusing the the threats between things that have beneficial uses and those that have none is stupid.

Good to hear but before we can expect other country to cancel their nuclear programs we need to cancel ours and dismantle all our nuclear power plants.

How can nuclear plants be made safe? As long as they can be used as terrorist targets they are not safe, and neither is the radioactive waste they make. I just think certain people don't want Obama to look bad. It is always about the man over the issue to some here. NO nukes means NO NUKES.

Yes, thank you, as you continue to send our children into harms way in Afghanistan and will not hesitate to do it elsewhere all while under the guise of spewing "peace" as your syncophants make excuses for it by using this as a diversion. Again, I'll believe it when I see it. He and the Russian president have Afghanistan as a common thread. It of course would be advantageous to make a "deal" in order to get access to something else. The poppy trade perhaps? If there is one thing I have learned in all my years of reading these bogus headlines, it is that nothing in politics is ever attained unless the parties involved get something in return.

But that misses the point that it is unintended consequences of power plants and can be made safer theoretically.

No matter what damage was done at TMI they certainly didn't plan on it and if plants could be made to produce no waste they would do it since the purpose of those plant is to generate electricity and any improvements in the design would be beneficial to make them safer

That has nothing to do with the threats posed by nuclear weapons since it is a different type of nuclear material used for those arms, all they can do is cause destruction and any improvements in their design would just cause even more destruction.

That is why they can't be lumped together in the same subject.

It is like comparing hydro-electric dams to torpedos since you can't aim a dam only use it as a weapon on the people under it and you can't generate any electricty with a torpedo.

Actually, nuclear plants cause plenty of trouble even if nothing does go wrong, since the problem of dealing with nuclear waste is a "gift" we'll be leaving to many, many future generations.

And incidentally, don't take at face value the claim that very little damage was done at Three Mile Island. As better data and research methodology are being applied to the issue, it looks more and more frightening:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/134977/startling_revelations_about_three_mil...

There is a HUGE difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, since the weapons are INTENDED to cause massive destruction the only benefits are threats to force those to do your bidding and there are a lot better ways to do that

The power plants only cause destruction if sonething goes wrong and the benefits are the production of electricity on a wide scale so the intent is a LOT more positive.

It might be possible sometime in the future to find ways of dealing with the waste products of power plants but it is not possible to make nuclear arms safe since their whole purpose is to cause destruction.

So equating the 2 things is like comparing apples and oranges, it just distorts the subject to bring that into it

As long as we allow nuclear power plants to dot our Earth and contaminate our waterways under the guise of now being green, it is not nuclear free. Does he mean them too? Nuclear free means nuclear FREE. Not just posturing about warheads to get concessions from countries he wants to play ball with him. It would be nice to actually see this as a reality, but again, that must then mean NO nuclear power plants either. And really, is that even possible now? And if he is doing this as a gesture to show he is a "peaceful" man, it sure looks hypocritical with him just sending more troops to Afghanistan. I think if that is the case he has to go a little further in preaching peace. Unless this was really just a way to get a good headline to get people to forget that over 600,000 people were just laid off.

Let's hope Obama can pull it off and has better luck than Reagan did when he tried it.

The point being that you never heard the administrations between Reagan's and Obama's support getting rid of the nuclear arms.

Obama said his goal of "a world without nuclear weapons" won't be reached soon, "perhaps not in my lifetime."

So if Obama can't convince others to support it and continue to get rid of them after his admisitration then it won't get done this time either.

Good call. It realy made my Sunday to see this truely newsworthy article.

When the real country-to-country horse-trading begins this noble objective will diminish to what is acceptable in any given region.

This initiative returns us to a process begun decades ago to take seriously the risk of global annihilation in a series of fireballs. A process abrogated by Mr. Preemptive Strike.

How it will pan out?

It's a suspicion, nothing more, but trial balloons such as these rarely lift off without considerable behind the scenes bargaining already in progress. Depending on what has already been agreed to in principle, we could be surprised.

Depending on the degrees of emasculation paranoia this provokes - "Shame! Scandal! Horrors! Obama wants to take away our NUKES!!" - the process could be very bumpy.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Pentagon has to say. And will Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be the one to lead the agenda?