Sign in to follow this  
astro

UN issues warning to US

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, mikewof said:

[crickets] Crickets [/crickets]

Look, I tire of doing your homework for you. 

Just google NPT article six and us compliance 

and you'll get a ton of references. 

Your overall assertion that the US abides by UN treaties is ludicrous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Look, I tire of doing your homework for you. 

Just google NPT article six and us compliance 

and you'll get a ton of references. 

Your overall assertion that the US abides by UN treaties is ludicrous. 

We abided by Article 6. I've no doubt that there are complaints, and debate over the fine-tune of our treaty compliance, it's not a trivial thing for decades-long compliance efforts to span administrations.

For the imperfections there are, so much was performed. We dismantled nukes, pulled nukes out of active service, stopped making new fissile materials. We did these things mostly because we were under the eye of the IAEA and it's very hard to hide certain materials. But we did do them.

Like the end of your NZ letter, "they" is not "us."

"Us" is the community of the Americans who built, serviced and maintained these weapons of hell because their country asked them to do so. And then the compliance for the treaty mostly came from these same people.

I know some of them still, and they did a good job. It was technical and difficult ... not just pushing paper, but dissembling and decommissioning decades worth of nukes, even exposing themselves to alpha emitters in the process. Those Americans helped us to comply with probably the single most important treaty in history.

And they didn't know what was in front of them, that we would successfully avoid a nuclear war until this moment, many of them were scared that they were walking into a Soviet trap, one of them told me that. But they did it.

I know what the quibbles are, but what are your complaints about.our NPT compliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Look, I tire of doing your homework for you. 

Just google NPT article six and us compliance 

and you'll get a ton of references. 

Your overall assertion that the US abides by UN treaties is ludicrous. 

Ignore the Woofers. He's a nationalistic fanboi of the worse sort. He's an "America, Fuck Yeah!" cheerleader.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so mikey's going to hang his hat on 1 treaty?

and a treaty which maintains the USA's dominance in the area of nuclear weapons?

too funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 3:46 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Really - Libya was just as much a French project as the US; and the intervention had full NATO acquiescence. 

You should know that.  

If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that america initially raised the topic, but then went v v quiet and a week later the Europeans were suddenly talking about it.

There was no way the Europeans were going to be able to sell another american war so soon after the debacle in Iraq. It was always an american-led project, but for PR purposes they didn't take the public lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Ignore the Woofers. He's a nationalistic fanboi of the worse sort. He's an "America, Fuck Yeah!" cheerleader.

Not actually. If you pay attention you will notice he just pretends to be. He is really an "Israel, Fuck Yeah!" cheerleader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

There was no way the Europeans were going to be able to sell another american war so soon after the debacle in Iraq. It was always an american-led project, but for PR purposes they didn't take the public lead.

It was a US war, but had to be sold to the empire - aka Blob? 

But you raise a fair point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

Not actually. If you pay attention you will notice he just pretends to be. He is really an "Israel, Fuck Yeah!" cheerleader.

It's always really bugged you that I think both Israel and Palestine have a mutually beneficial future.

You seem to feel more comfortable with the typical "good guys versus bad guys" routine. It's easy to wish for the doom of a few tens of millions of people when you're 10,000 miles away in a suburban paradise and you've already managed to kill off most of the natives and claim their land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

so mikey's going to hang his hat on 1 treaty?

and a treaty which maintains the USA's dominance in the area of nuclear weapons?

too funny.

You seem to know nothing about the NPT. You should read something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

so mikey's going to hang his hat on 1 treaty?

and a treaty which maintains the USA's dominance in the area of nuclear weapons?

too funny.

That "1 treaty" is the most widely signed and adhered treaty in human history.

AJ still hasn't responded, I'm not sure of his complaints about our compliance on Article 6, but we've gone above and beyond on Article 6, the treaty didn't require disassembly of nukes, just removal from active status, butt we did it anyway.

So now, Mr. Easy, what complaints do you have about U.S. compliance with our treaties? I've no doubt that you can find some transgressions if you look, treaties and compliance are human constructions after all.

We violated treaties left, right and center before the advent of the UN, with our Native tribes, and with Mexico, pretty much the same as Britain, Australia, Canada and everything even remotely connected to the Commonwealth.

But you claimed our lack of adherence to UN-administered treaties, so do you have something specific, or is it human rights violations, like locking up immigrants in prison camps in Nauru or Guantanamo or San Antonio?

You might have noticed that I complained about U.S. transgression of the Geneva Accord when President Obama personally called trigger orders through the video feed with Hellfire attacks. The President is not a "combatant" per U.S. Law. I've no doubt Trump has violated that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

AJ still hasn't responded, I'm not sure of his complaints about our compliance on Article 6

Do your own homework - it's just a click away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Do your own homework - it's just a click away. 

Do you mean like you, AJ? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Do your own homework - it's just a click away. 

I used to work there, I was a accredited there for a few years, I did my "homework" all that time.

I've no doubt that if insist, you'll come you with a few timeline transgressions on Article 6. But that's real life, complex actions create complexity.

But let's be clear here ... without the USA funding and pushing the NPT, and then being transparent with our nuclear programs and keeping access open to the IAEA inspections, there would likely have never been an NPT.

Yeah, I get it, the "Reichistas" and all that, but our work on the NPT came on the backs of a lot of hard work from Americans who wanted the USA to lead in nonproliferation.

And regardless your claims, we adhered to the NPT and led by example. Would South Africa have disengaged from their fully functional nuclear program without the carrot of NPT compliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:

That "1 treaty" is the most widely signed and adhered treaty in human history.

AJ still hasn't responded, I'm not sure of his complaints about our compliance on Article 6, but we've gone above and beyond on Article 6, the treaty didn't require disassembly of nukes, just removal from active status, butt we did it anyway.

So now, Mr. Easy, what complaints do you have about U.S. compliance with our treaties? I've no doubt that you can find some transgressions if you look, treaties and compliance are human constructions after all.

We violated treaties left, right and center before the advent of the UN, with our Native tribes, and with Mexico, pretty much the same as Britain, Australia, Canada and everything even remotely connected to the Commonwealth.

But you claimed our lack of adherence to UN-administered treaties, so do you have something specific, or is it human rights violations, like locking up immigrants in prison camps in Nauru or Guantanamo or San Antonio?

You might have noticed that I complained about U.S. transgression of the Geneva Accord when President Obama personally called trigger orders through the video feed with Hellfire attacks. The President is not a "combatant" per U.S. Law. I've no doubt Trump has violated that too.

So how many times over can American nuclear weapons kill all of Earth's inhabitants? 6 times? 7 times?

The treaty you are hanging your hat on strengthened the hand of those that already had nuclear weapons. It limits the ability of others to acquire nuclear weapons.

By your own admission, it doesn't require disassembly. And everyone knows that removal to storage, can be reversed.

 

The premise of this thread, that America supports and ignores the UN depending on if it suits, is well supported.

Even by your "shoot yourself in the foot" defence....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So how many times over can American nuclear weapons kill all of Earth's inhabitants? 6 times? 7 times?

...

 

I don't know, but we have decommissioned a huge amount of the nuclear warheads in the US arsenal. The days of MAD and overkill are gone. Precision guidance has reduced the need for huge blast zones in weaponry.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had only enough nuclear weapons to kill all life on Earth only one and a half times over.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I don't know, but we have decommissioned a huge amount of the nuclear warheads in the US arsenal. The days of MAD and overkill are gone. Precision guidance has reduced the need for huge blast zones in weaponry.

I wouldn't be surprised if we had only enough nuclear weapons to kill all life on Earth only one and a half times over.

- DSK

The decommissioning did happen, some stuff was old and far from "efficient".

Luckily, it was replaced with new and improved stuff. Not 1 for 1 but how many times does a person have to be killed......

 

PS, the ICBM, the huge blast zone weapon, is still going strong.

Smaller, tactical stuff has seen rapid advances. Even then, were talking mainly delivery systems, which may not carry a nuke normally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

The decommissioning did happen, some stuff was old and far from "efficient".

Luckily, it was replaced with new and improved stuff. Not 1 for 1 but how many times does a person have to be killed......

 

PS, the ICBM, the huge blast zone weapon, is still going strong.

Smaller, tactical stuff has seen rapid advances. Even then, were talking mainly delivery systems, which may not carry a nuke normally.

 

Actually the ICBMs force has been drastically reduced AFAIK. We don't have tens of thousands of megatons on ready-to-launch status any more. The last I read up on it was about ten years ago, and most of what i was interested in following was the ballistic missile subs. They've been re-MIRV'ed with more, smaller, more accurate, and on board countermeasures. We have fewer deployed. Nowadays the boomers are cruising around with half a load out of cruise missiles, half FBMs.

The Cold War is over, nowadays it's all drones.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't know, but we have decommissioned a huge amount of the nuclear warheads in the US arsenal. The days of MAD and overkill are gone.

As of 2019, the U.S. has an inventory of 6,185 nuclear warheads; of these, 2,385 are retired and awaiting dismantlement and 3,800 are part of the U.S. stockpile...

Wikipedia

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually the ICBMs force has been drastically reduced AFAIK. We don't have tens of thousands of megatons on ready-to-launch status any more. The last I read up on it was about ten years ago, and most of what i was interested in following was the ballistic missile subs. They've been re-MIRV'ed with more, smaller, more accurate, and on board countermeasures. We have fewer deployed. Nowadays the boomers are cruising around with half a load out of cruise missiles, half FBMs.

The Cold War is over, nowadays it's all drones.

- DSK

According to Wikipedia, 1000 minuteman in the 70's to approximately 400 now.

With multiple warheads and better accuracy.

So yes, definitely less.

 

My point was more about effectiveness than raw numbers. Dead, is dead.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

And regardless your claims, we adhered to the NPT and led by example. Would South Africa have disengaged from their fully functional nuclear program without the carrot of NPT compliance?

Well, actually South Africa gave up their bomb because they did not want to turn it over to Nelson Mandella and the ANC that were on the cusp of taking power. 

But I'll take it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

Well, actually South Africa gave up their bomb because they did not want to turn it over to Nelson Mandella and the ANC. 

But I'll take it. 

And it's not like a middling power like sth africa or Australia would get any real value out of nuclear anything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
6 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, actually South Africa gave up their bomb because they did not want to turn it over to Nelson Mandella and the ANC. 

But I'll take it. 

And it's not like a middling power like sth africa or Australia would get any real value out of nuclear anything....

In the era of MAD, it sort of made sense to have a counterstrike capability if the US would subsidize it (which we did)

 

25 minutes ago, Zonker said:

As of 2019, the U.S. has an inventory of 6,185 nuclear warheads; of these, 2,385 are retired and awaiting dismantlement and 3,800 are part of the U.S. stockpile...

Wikipedia

 

Thanks, I should have checked.

Dismantling those weapons is not a trivial task. IIRC it's the Dept of Energy's job which is why we should not have a pinhead who wants to disband DoE put in charge of it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And it's not like a middling power like sth africa or Australia would get any real value out of nuclear anything....

Well, NK seems to have avoided the fate of Saddam and Muarmmar . . 

I'll bet one of their last thoughts was, "Now why did I give up those nukes again?"

Moral of the story - Why would any mid-range power even dream of giving up its nukes?  

Ozz - take note 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 7:50 PM, Jules said:

So much for the shining city on the hill...

The rest of the original sermon about the shining city on the hill was if the shining city on the hill fucked up, it would be derided as bunch of vain idiots, worthy of nothing but derision by the world over......

But if you need a call to authority....

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/book-review/how-modern-leaders-got-john-winthrops-city-on-a-hill-wrong/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So how many times over can American nuclear weapons kill all of Earth's inhabitants? 6 times? 7 times?

The treaty you are hanging your hat on strengthened the hand of those that already had nuclear weapons. It limits the ability of others to acquire nuclear weapons.

By your own admission, it doesn't require disassembly. And everyone knows that removal to storage, can be reversed.

 

The premise of this thread, that America supports and ignores the UN depending on if it suits, is well supported.

Even by your "shoot yourself in the foot" defence....

Decommissioned nuclear weapons and elimination of enrichment absolutely did not "strengthen the hand" of USA, USSR, Britain and France, it reduced the probability of a major fuck-up by reducing the number of nuclear armed missiles in the silos and launch positions.

And yes, that's the POINT of the NPT, it's literally in the name, NONPROLIFERATION, to limit new nuclear states.

What kind of idiotic psychopath complains about limiting nukes? Do you realize that your hatred of the USA now has put you on the side of nuclear proliferation, to make a political point?

Even your country had a nuclear program that it only partially shitcanned. You weren't as advanced as South Africa, but you did have a program. And even still, Australia wouldn't sign the TPNW. Perhaps you should look at your own country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, NK seems to have avoided the fate of Saddam and Muarmmar . . 

I'll bet one of their last thoughts was, "Now why did I give up those nukes again?"

Moral of the story - Why would any mid-range power even dream of giving up its nukes? 

Ozz - take note 

A mid-range power DID give up its nukes. South Africa gave them up in compliance with the NPT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

And it's not like a middling power like sth africa or Australia would get any real value out of nuclear anything....

If what you say is true, why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable."

What do they get out of it? Probably much the same thing they get out of dragging their feet on the Test Ban Treaty, and they still haven't signed the TBNW because it doesn't fit with their plans with the USA's nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well, actually South Africa gave up their bomb because they did not want to turn it over to Nelson Mandella and the ANC that were on the cusp of taking power. 

But I'll take it. 

Sure, and Mandela didn't want them anyway. But without the NPT, that program could have and would have gone anywhere. It was immensely valuable. But because of the NPT, the weapons were dismantled under IAEA supervision, and the remnants are still inspected to this day.

The NPT performed there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

If what you say is true, why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable."

What do they get out of it? Probably much the same thing they get out of dragging their feet on the Test Ban Treaty, and they still haven't signed the TBNW because it doesn't fit with their plans with the USA's nukes.

U does not form a high enough proportion of uranium in its natural state for the uranium to be useful as a fuel. The natural occurrence of about 0.7 per cent 235U needs to be increased—‘enriched’—to around three per cent

235U.[8] Uranium producers in Australia do not attempt this process which needs highly specialised and expensive equipment. This enrichment process is carried out overseas using Australian-exported uranium. Eventually the
235U-enriched uranium is used to manufacture fuel rods for nuclear power reactors in countries prepared to sign Australian nuclear safeguards agreements.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp06

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually the ICBMs force has been drastically reduced AFAIK. We don't have tens of thousands of megatons on ready-to-launch status any more. The last I read up on it was about ten years ago, and most of what i was interested in following was the ballistic missile subs. They've been re-MIRV'ed with more, smaller, more accurate, and on board countermeasures. We have fewer deployed. Nowadays the boomers are cruising around with half a load out of cruise missiles, half FBMs.

The Cold War is over, nowadays it's all drones.

- DSK

Many years ago, my ground school class was recruited by the Air Force, and there was a cruise missile in the hanger. I'm quite sure that it wasn't nuclear equipped, but the guide was clear to point out that it could have been nuclear equipped.

I touched the cruise missile, and it turns out that it's covered in a kind of spongy neoprene, apparently to absorb long wave light.

The feeling of that cruise missile changed me, it was this hellish instrument of death, but it had this otherworldly soft texture to it, like a stuffed animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

U does not form a high enough proportion of uranium in its natural state for the uranium to be useful as a fuel. The natural occurrence of about 0.7 per cent 235U needs to be increased—‘enriched’—to around three per cent

235U.[8] Uranium producers in Australia do not attempt this process which needs highly specialised and expensive equipment. This enrichment process is carried out overseas using Australian-exported uranium. Eventually the
235U-enriched uranium is used to manufacture fuel rods for nuclear power reactors in countries prepared to sign Australian nuclear safeguards agreements.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp06

UUranium has to be enriched to be useful. Australia doesn't have the economy of scale to do it efficiently, but laser-excitation enrichment is done there, it's just not commercialized yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mikewof said:

UUranium has to be enriched to be useful. Australia doesn't have the economy of scale to do it efficiently, but laser-excitation enrichment is done there, it's just not commercialized yet.

cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikey is full of shit.

You can't believe a thing he posts, he is a disinformation agent.

847eed2503bf544f997b97a76a573cde.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

U does not form a high enough proportion of uranium in its natural state for the uranium to be useful as a fuel. The natural occurrence of about 0.7 per cent 235U needs to be increased—‘enriched’—to around three per cent

235U.[8] Uranium producers in Australia do not attempt this process which needs highly specialised and expensive equipment. This enrichment process is carried out overseas using Australian-exported uranium. Eventually the
235U-enriched uranium is used to manufacture fuel rods for nuclear power reactors in countries prepared to sign Australian nuclear safeguards agreements.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp06

Mikey's having a bad few weeks.

 

I told you before that there was plenty of stupid to go around....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

A mid-range power DID give up its nukes. South Africa gave them up in compliance with the NPT.

Really?

So they didn't figure out that the expense of having something they couldn't use wasn't affordable?

That getting rid of them and signing a bit of paper would give them valuable international leverage, more than actually having a bomb?

FFS, you think small.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mikewof said:

If what you say is true, why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable."

What do they get out of it? Probably much the same thing they get out of dragging their feet on the Test Ban Treaty, and they still haven't signed the TBNW because it doesn't fit with their plans with the USA's nukes.

Paragraph #1  we don't.

Paragraph #2  we aren't

Paragraph #3  we signed and ratifird all test ban treaties and we won't sign  a tbnw because we host your ships, idiot.

3 swings and 3 misses Mikey.

Tell your story walking.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for Mikey to tell us about his leadership role in a 9/11 Truth movement.

I heard a rumour that they eventually picked him for a government shill and kicked his arse out of town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost a thousand views of this thread . .  

Is there a single one of you out there that buy's Mike's claim that the US has adhered to UN treaties ? 

Speak up !! 

And in case you are on the fence, here are the words of the UN Charter . .  

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, . . 

To answer the question of how the US has followed this clear precept, you might want to ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Chilenos, Brazilians, Nicaraugans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Indonesians, Iranians, and many others: and this is only a partial list of the "use of force" - for the "threat" of force, the list is much longer. 

I don't really relish having to point this out, but it happens to be the truth - and the truth matters, including uncomfortable truth. 

This is also substantially why I joined Vets For Peace 

image.jpeg.c19571738882ed79c05750ed263f29d0.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Almost a thousand views of this thread . .  

Is there a single one of you out there that buy's Mike's claim that the US has adhered to UN treaties ? 

Speak up !! 

And in case you are on the fence, here are the words of the UN Charter . .  

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, . . 

To answer the question of how the US has followed this clear precept, you might want to ask the Vietnamese, Iraqis, Chilenos, Brazilians, Nicaraugans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans, Indonesians, Iranians, and many others: and this is only a partial list of the "use of force" - for the "threat" of force, the list is much longer. 

I don't really relish having to point this out, but it happens to be the truth - and the truth matters, including uncomfortable truth. 

This is also substantially why I joined Vets For Peace 

image.jpeg.c19571738882ed79c05750ed263f29d0.jpeg

But now you're mixing you Dulles Brothers treason with our U.N. agreements. Our murderous operations in Latin America were often enabled by reckless agreements we made with tyrants over there.

Let's pick the U.N. agreements apart first. You wrote that the USA violated our Article VI obligations, and when I asked you about them, you just told me to look them up myself.

IYO, what is our most flagrant violation of Article VI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Mikey's having a bad few weeks.

 

I told you before that there was plenty of stupid to go around....

Dp you have a comment about uranium enrichment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Paragraph #1  we don't.

Paragraph #2  we aren't

Paragraph #3  we signed and ratifird all test ban treaties and we won't sign  a tbnw because we host your ships, idiot.

3 swings and 3 misses Mikey.

Tell your story walking.....

 

Australia absolutely maintains enrichment technology. You're wrong about that one.

Australia is considered nuclear capable, did you look at the IAEA metrics?

Australia is not a puppet of the USA. If you want to sign the TBNW, then sign it, same as your neighbors. But why would you blame the USA for your own failings?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mikewof said:

If what you say is true, why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable."

What do they get out of it? Probably much the same thing they get out of dragging their feet on the Test Ban Treaty, and they still haven't signed the TBNW because it doesn't fit with their plans with the USA's nukes.

 

15 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

U does not form a high enough proportion of uranium in its natural state for the uranium to be useful as a fuel. The natural occurrence of about 0.7 per cent 235U needs to be increased—‘enriched’—to around three per cent

235U.[8] Uranium producers in Australia do not attempt this process which needs highly specialised and expensive equipment. This enrichment process is carried out overseas using Australian-exported uranium. Eventually the
235U-enriched uranium is used to manufacture fuel rods for nuclear power reactors in countries prepared to sign Australian nuclear safeguards agreements.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0910/10rp06

 

15 hours ago, mikewof said:

UUranium has to be enriched to be useful. Australia doesn't have the economy of scale to do it efficiently, but laser-excitation enrichment is done there, it's just not commercialized yet.

 

15 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

cite?

 

56 minutes ago, mikewof said:

For what? For the basics of uranium processing or the small scale laser excitation?

The enrichment technology to which we are clinging that makes us "nuclear capable"

"why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable." "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

The enrichment technology to which we are clinging that makes us "nuclear capable"

"why does Australia cling to their enrichment technology?

As long as they.have it, they are considered to be "nuclear capable." "

It's not just that. The "nuclear capable" states fit a certain series of checklists with the IAEA. It's not accusatory in any way, it's more a testament to Australia's manufacturing infrastructure. To be nuclear capable, you need the demonstrated expertise (check) you need the demonstrated manufacturing precision (check) and access to the components, (check).

The laser-excitation technology is a tech transfer product from Lucas Heights, currently licensed to one or more Japanese companies for their own work, link. My limited understanding of laser excitation is that the entropic gradient is even higher than the old gas centrifuge methods, so it's not necessarily suited for energy, but it can be good for precise work, like unit-cell induction for weapons manufacturing. Part of the reason Australia was able to get it to work is because of that "nuclear capable" thing I mentioned up there.

CSIRO committed just a few high-value areas to Australian research, because you have such a small research community, one of which is quantum optics, normally used for computation, but I believe that's where the spin-off of well-trapping and resonance for the laser excitation came. It's a non-trivial thing, it might actually be really useful for some point inthefuture.com, when, HOPEFULLY the world has moved sufficiently from nonproliferation that we no longer even have conventional enrichment technology, but we'll still need isotopes for medical radiotherapy. Small scale excitation might be perfect for making those kind of isotopes in small quantities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Almost a thousand views of this thread . .  

Is there a single one of you out there that buy's Mike's claim that the US has adhered to UN treaties ? 

Speak up !! 

@mikewof  Mike, you are batting zero for one thousand. 

I think that is, and should be, a message for you . .  

I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest - you hijacked this thread from what might have been a good discussion of the US and UN; BLM  and human rights. 

Shame on you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So Australian scientists are multi skilled and that's why Australia is a nuclear power.

Well, in what I might refer to as "Nukespeak", Oz has what is referred to as a "break-out capability" 

which means we better nuke you now just to be on the safe side. 

On a more serious note, I'm going to organize a small vigil next Thursday (Aug 6) 

to mark the 75th anniversary - and apologize for my country's great crimes back then. 

Explaining the unimaginable: How do nuclear bombs work? - ExtremeTech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

@mikewof  Mike, you are batting zero for one thousand. 

I think that is, and should be, a message for you . .  

I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest - you hijacked this thread from what might have been a good discussion of the US and UN; BLM  and human rights. 

Shame on you. 

You wrote something you eirher can't support or don't want to support, about the USA not complying with the NPT.

I have spent enough time at the U.N. as a reporter to know a good bit about these treaties. The USA wasn't perfect but we kept to our obligations.

That's not because we're highly moral, or because we're intelligent, it's because the USA could.AFFORD to do so. Our obligations to most of those treaties are made compliant by U.S. Code. That makes it easier.

In those endless strings of  U.N. subcommittee meetings where sometimes all of five people were in a surprisingly large assembly hall in the Secretariat, and the majority of those five were either inebriated reporters or dead sober translators. In those meetings, AJ, everyone knew who wasn't compliant. And it wasn't because that nation was derelict, it was usually because that nation struggled with poverty, corruption, tyranny, hatred, or violence. The USA had the luxury of council scattered throughout the State Department, the DOE, the DOD and Congress. Some of these countries may have had a single attaché to do all that work, and half of the time it was a plum assignment made to someone's nephew, so even less got done, because nephew had too much fun partying and banging Portuguese chicks at the embassy apartment in Milan.

Shit was fucked up, AJ. And yet somehow, by a fucking miracle, the NPT stayed sufficiently intact to deter at least a dozen budding nuclear programs.

Even Australia was moving down the nuclear highway, and a good number of Brits gave them gas for that guzzler. But out of little more than a few hundred conversations on a few hundred golf courses, Dwight Eisenhower planted, replanted and then re-replanted the seeds of nonproliferation. He was tireless, it eventually killed him, but he did a man's job, he turned the nuclear tide, and he codified what he and others found. For all I know, Atoms For Peace may not have necessarily been the gigantic fuck-up that I always assumed it was, maybe it was part of the plan to get some hands dirty.

But for all the complaints about NPT. It worked ... the most successful treaty in the history of mankind, and the most important.

The "shame on you" nonsense, you may know politics well enough to get tenure. But the U.N. is to politics what Brylcreem is to a Hollywood Red Carpet. I was once told by a certain Egyptian diplomat who had risen meteorically through his years in the Tudor City parties, that the "NPT is the tail that wags the dog."

If you think that what I'm writing isn't relevant to a thread about the U.N., then it's probably because you didn't spend five hours locked in transcription room with the Namibian delegate and his fruitless efforts to keep me from getting shitfaced on Green Label Jack Daniels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So Australian scientists are multi skilled and that's why Australia is a nuclear power.

FFS.   

Skill, access, materials.

Australia has all three. Nuclear capable.

Now fuck off to PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Skill, access, materials.s

Australia has all three. Nuclear capable.

Now fuck off to PA.

um.. he's in PA, you're in PA..forgetting which forum you are in is not a good sign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

Now fuck off to PA.

um.. he's in PA, you're in PA..forgetting which forum you are in is not a good sign

I think he means Pennsylvania

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

um.. he's in PA, you're in PA..forgetting which forum you are in is not a good sign

No shit? This is PA? How did you deduce such a cunning and accurate conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Mouth, Ears, Brain

You have all 3. Learning capable.

But no......

 

Let's just step away from this shitfight for a moment ...

How can you be so profoundly ignorant of your own country that you are clueless that Australia is nuclear-capable? Do you not read books? Do you not talk to people about anything deeper than politics and different flavors of beer?

We weren't shitfighting about some obscure political nuance, you claimed that your own country, the land of your birth and life isn't nuclear capable. This isn't an obscure reference. The ability of a country to produce nuclear weapons is something of a hallmark of our era, and I would hope, considerably more important to an average Australian than discussing the politics of some country that is half-a-world away from them.

Proliferation should be kind of important to you. Learn. Read. Here is something to start you off on the right foot ...  http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

. Learning capable.

I'm thinking not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mikewof said:

 

Let's just step away from this shitfight for a moment ...

How can you be so profoundly ignorant of your own country that you are clueless that Australia is nuclear-capable? Do you not read books? Do you not talk to people about anything deeper than politics and different flavors of beer?

We weren't shitfighting about some obscure political nuance, you claimed that your own country, the land of your birth and life isn't nuclear capable. This isn't an obscure reference. The ability of a country to produce nuclear weapons is something of a hallmark of our era, and I would hope, considerably more important to an average Australian than discussing the politics of some country that is half-a-world away from them.

Proliferation should be kind of important to you. Learn. Read. Here is something to start you off on the right foot ...  http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-5.html

by your logic, your partner is orgasm capable.

doesn't mean its going to happen......

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

by your logic, your partner is orgasm capable.

doesn't mean its going to happen......

Cripes, okay, "Ease the Sheet" is right and Australia is not capable of building nukes.

Feel better now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia doesn't need or want nuclear weapons.

Australia's major military effort, with a strong US Marine and Air Force presence, is mainly based around Darwin. In a brilliant strategic move, we have leased the Port of Darwin to the Chinese for 99 years, so the fuckers won't be bombing that. Now all we have to do is lease Tyndall airbase to them as well, and we'll be bulletproof. They already own much of the prime real estate in all the major cities, so we're covered there too.

What Australia needs and wants is higher wages for nurses, the abolition of the pokie machine industry, and cheaper beer and smokes. And legal weed.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Happy said:

the abolition of the pokie machine industry

This I can certainly get behind. Fucking things are bad shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Capable is not a synonym for has, will, did.

Surely you learnt that in primary school?

"Capable" is capable. It is not a synonym for has, will, or did.

You finally wrote something correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Happy said:

Australia doesn't need or want nuclear weapons.

 

Once they have them, nobody really wants them other than maybe a handful of fanatics, lunatics, and Toronto Maple Leaf fans. Nukes are expensive, dangerous and unlike magic flying robots, they just sit there, not fun at all.

Thus the success of the NPT. With the exception of Britain and France, the nuclear powers wanted the weight from off of their neck, and the USA and USSR specifically didn't really fuck around with the trivialities of the treaty. They did what they had to do, under the watch of the IAEA inspectors because if they got flippant with the details (as some here have suggested) then the whole mess would start anew. The NPT is so far the most successful treaty in the history of mankind, and thank heavens for small miracles like that.

The most remarkable thing about the NPT is really in what it locked into amber, specifically India, Pakistan and Israel. Even without participating in it, the treaty created a kind of regional immunity that prevented those three from needing to escalate too far.

And of course, South Africa is the wet dream of the nonproliferationist, because those weapons were disengaged into slag, rather than moved to Britain.

Australia isn't really a high stakes country with nuclear, y'all benefit from being a backwater. But without Eisenhower, progressive Australian thought that essentially told the Queen to fuck herself, and the roadmap of the NPT, I've little doubt that Britain would have drawn your continent into the nuclear era too, they clearly were working in that direction.

Eisenhower lost the war of human decency against the Dulles Brothers, but the NPT is testament to every waking moment of his life to what he did at the end of his term and how he spent his last years of life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nations of the world got so sick of the nuclear powers failing to live up to their treaty commitments (especially the US), that in 2017 they wrote . . 

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the goal of leading towards their total elimination. It was passed on 7 July 2017. 

Here is a summary of the issue from ICAN, of which Vets For Peace is a member. 

https://www.icanw.org/first_committee_foreshadows_disarmament_fights_at_2020_npt_review_conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The nations of the world got so sick of the nuclear powers failing to live up to their treaty commitments (especially the US), that in 2017 they wrote . . 

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, with the goal of leading towards their total elimination. It was passed on 7 July 2017. 

Here is a summary of the issue from ICAN, of which Vets For Peace is a member. 

https://www.icanw.org/first_committee_foreshadows_disarmament_fights_at_2020_npt_review_conference

This is a lovely narrative, but it isn't true. You might have written it in a way that makes it sound true, but that doesn't make it true.

TPNW is not in effect yet, and it's not in effect because it was never designed to be fully passed before at least 2028 or so. There are too many NPT signatories that are still following the plans laid out by the NPT. Regardless what you write, the NPT-compliant nuclear powers have absolutely "lived up" to their treaty obligations. The TPNW was conceived from first stroke as an add-on to the NPT for nations that neither have nuclear capability, nor feel the need to align themselves with those who have nuclear capability. There is actually no specific mechanisms in the TPNW itself to de-nuclearize, the entire treaty has to ride on the NPT for nonproliferation purposes. Given the the NPT is still in the middle of these draw-downs with the nuclear states, there is no way that they could possibly agree to the TPNW, let alone even vote yes or no on it. TPNW was designed as such, it's a "political treaty" in that the mechanisms are not built into the treaty, it's more of a pledge. North Korea isn't NPT compliant, but they thought the TPNW was a great idea, and they supported it. That should tell you what kind of teeth the TPNW actually has.

And worse, it's this weird 'wink-and-a-nod" kind of agreement, because Australia supports it, but they won't actually vote on it because like like their nukes to be allocated to their defense, safely in the hands of the American taxpayers. Rinse and repeat throughout the world.

 

We absolutely need to continue to get rid of nukes and we need nonproliferation. The TPNW is not the way to do it, because it seeks to move mountains with a teacup. The NPT however, is a mountain mover. It has proven itself decade after decade, it made the impossible happen. The USA and Russia want to escalate nonproliferation, and Britain, France and eventually India, Pakistan and Israel are going to have to get on board too. We can ramp up Article VI, and make it happen, then strongarm India, Pakistan and Israel with the weight of the superpowers. It won't be fun, but it's the only way.

But that's not at all the same thing as saying that these NPT-compliant countries have not fulfilled their NPT obligations of the treaty. We have, they have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Capable is not a synonym for has, will, did.

Surely you learnt that in primary school?

heh, i have fresh eggs, and butter..i hate omelettes.

who gave mike the opportunity to ramble on again?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Paging mike to the covid death aisle...

put the stick down

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Paging mike to the covid death aisle...

How are we doing on our death wager? I think you're a lot closer than I am.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

who gave mike the opportunity to ramble on again?

I guess it might have been me - pleading sorta guilty for even engaging that loon. 

Mea Culpa !!  I'll try not to let it happen again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, mikewof said:

Once they have them, nobody really wants them other than maybe a handful of fanatics, lunatics, and Toronto Maple Leaf fans. Nukes are expensive, dangerous and unlike magic flying robots, they just sit there, not fun at all.

Thus the success of the NPT. With the exception of Britain and France, the nuclear powers wanted the weight from off of their neck, and the USA and USSR specifically didn't really fuck around with the trivialities of the treaty. They did what they had to do, under the watch of the IAEA inspectors because if they got flippant with the details (as some here have suggested) then the whole mess would start anew. The NPT is so far the most successful treaty in the history of mankind, and thank heavens for small miracles like that.

The most remarkable thing about the NPT is really in what it locked into amber, specifically India, Pakistan and Israel. Even without participating in it, the treaty created a kind of regional immunity that prevented those three from needing to escalate too far.

And of course, South Africa is the wet dream of the nonproliferationist, because those weapons were disengaged into slag, rather than moved to Britain.

Australia isn't really a high stakes country with nuclear, y'all benefit from being a backwater. But without Eisenhower, progressive Australian thought that essentially told the Queen to fuck herself, and the roadmap of the NPT, I've little doubt that Britain would have drawn your continent into the nuclear era too, they clearly were working in that direction.

Eisenhower lost the war of human decency against the Dulles Brothers, but the NPT is testament to every waking moment of his life to what he did at the end of his term and how he spent his last years of life. 

Its weird how you list a number of important, relevant and practical reasons why having nuclear weapons for most countries is not good.

 

Then you bang on about the importance of the npt.

The npt is not why countries don't develope nukes, it's those previously mentioned reasons.

 

Your attachment to quaint, elderly documents is noted.

Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Its weird how you list a number of important, relevant and practical reasons why having nuclear weapons for most countries is not good.

 

Then you bang on about the importance of the npt.

The npt is not why countries don't develope nukes, it's those previously mentioned reasons.

 

Your attachment to quaint, elderly documents is noted.

Again.

No, the NPT is why nations don't START to develop nukes. The other reasons are part of why nations adhere to the NPT.

The NPT is a big part of why your own country finally shitcanned their nuclear efforts.

Actually kind of hilarious that you're so ignorant of history that you think the NPT is a "quaint, elderly document." There is no longer a chance to use any measure of ration with you in this conversation if you even believe half of the nonsense you wrote here. From now on, to the subject of the NPT, you are "Quaint-Elderly-Sheet."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

I guess it might have been me - pleading sorta guilty for even engaging that loon. 

Mea Culpa !!  I'll try not to let it happen again. 

And yet, you still haven't shown the USA's disregard of Article VI of the NPT.

It's good that you run from your untenable positions, and also the reason why "Political Science" is an oxymoron, as it's adherents often have little interest in scientific rigor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

heh, i have fresh eggs, and butter..i hate omelettes.

who gave mike the opportunity to ramble on again?

For having no actual contributions here, you seem oddly interested in suppressing the opinions of others.

Is that why they threw you out of Wooden Boat Forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mikewof said:

For having no actual contributions here, you seem oddly interested in suppressing the opinions of others.

Is that why they threw you out of Wooden Boat Forum?

I think I swore too much :D

Calling people "buggers"  over there seems to trigger the owner :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

No, the NPT is why nations don't START to develop nukes. The other reasons are part of why nations adhere to the NPT.

The NPT is a big part of why your own country finally shitcanned their nuclear efforts.

Actually kind of hilarious that you're so ignorant of history that you think the NPT is a "quaint, elderly document." There is no longer a chance to use any measure of ration with you in this conversation if you even believe half of the nonsense you wrote here. From now on, to the subject of the NPT, you are "Quaint-Elderly-Sheet."

 

Your first paragraph?

Did Australia start developing nukes?

Did we stop because of the other reasons?

Because your kinda contradicting yourself....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would find it very briefly amusing if the UN and NATO kicked the USA out of  their organizations..... Only very briefly though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2020 at 8:59 PM, Navig8tor said:

Instead you are well on the way to shithole tin pot banana republic, but you’re winning.

Why did you insult shithole tin pot banana republics?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I think I swore too much :D

Calling people "buggers"  over there seems to trigger the owner :D 

You can swear all you like over here apparently, and getting thrown out of SA is more gift than punishment I found. But it's a pyrrhic victory, because as I've found from my last thee time-outs, the actual reasons are often fabricated from a boilerplate.

So, why is it that you feel the need to squelch opinions here, when you have not taken a position on the topic? Is that the way you make friends? Is it a stress relief to help you quit?

In their own ways, most of the folks here have a ration to their irrationality. But you seem to have an irration to your rationality.

I find it mildly disturbing when anyone urges a cult-like censorship of opinions and personalities that do not jibe with their own. And few of us anti-charimatics crew even have that ability. Yet it seems you embrace a unifomity of outlook for some reason, as if you have convinced yourself that truth belongs to you alone.

Remember, the only real danger is the moment that people like you convince yourself that the racists, fascists, homophobes, sexists, ageists, anti-semitics, and radicals are "them" rather than "us."

Many people go to the grave without recognizing their inherent impotence as an individual, and their deadly potence as part of a crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this