5 ms·

"Drive and fly well, pray you don't crash" seems to be the how you keep it safe. Wasn't there a ban on making new nukes at the time? What did the US do with th

"Drive and fly well, pray you don't crash" seems to be the how you keep it safe. Wasn't there a ban on making new nukes at the time? What did the US do with the uranium?

Maakuth 5y ago
Enriching (to much lower concentration of U-235) is also a part of nuclear fuel cycle, so a peaceful way of getting rid of this material would be to dilute it and make fuel.
Terry_Roll 5y ago
There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention anything about "upgrades" which is akin to building new nukes. Not the first time the US has done this when considering how Nato only provided a verbal agreement they wouldnt expand towards Russia and here we are now. Oh and lets not forget Crimea region (assuming sea area) is reportedly supposed to have the 4 largest oil deposits which always comes in handy when the Saudi's are running out hence the massive diversification drive seen in the middle east. I did notice someone felt uneasy about anthrax spores contaminating soil so decided to have a bit of a bonfire on Anthrax Island in the UK! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60892350 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-608... It wouldnt have taken much to find some spores, wild bird nesting sites will turn soil over and could still offer up some spores post bonfire, but it doesnt take much to bring on your own dormant biological weapon anthrax spores in todays world with easy access to knowledge across borders. Cows & Sheep are natural carriers, sheep more so due to their high copper content which is needed to make wool, which is why they used sheep in the original Anthrax Island experiment, but its basic biology growing your own bacteria now a days! Militaries around the world when they did these sorts of experiments decades ago, never thought communication would improve to todays standards ie the internet which means alot of things they thought they could keep secret is no longer the case! One of their tactics with sensitive stuff is to use older people because they die off more quickly and the secrets die with them, plus old people dont get to spend time with the younger generation that could be an easy way to pass on secrets. Moral of the story, talk to the older generation which might have worked in the military doing secret stuff to find out what they know. However even your grandparents who might have been in that situation, wont tell you everything they did, because it might protect you, so talk to random older people to find out stuff, less obvious connection then.
- te_chris 5y ago
  “Here we are now”. Oh please, not this rubbish. No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour.
  - danbruc 5y ago
    No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour. Sure, but. The USA did not tolerate Soviet missiles on Cuba and I am not sure this has changed - would the USA tolerate Russian or Chinese missiles at its border today? Therefore just saying that the Ukraine or any other Russian neighbor are sovereign states and can do whatever they want is at least somewhat of a double standard. And just to be clear, I am not justifying the invasion, I am not saying that there was no attempt to find a compromise, I am not saying that Russia is not responsible that no compromise was reached, I am just saying that states constantly have interests in what other states are doing or not doing, and saying Ukraine or any other state is sovereign and can do whatever they want without consequences is naive a point of view and at best yields the correct conclusions by accident. With that said, I still hope that the Ukraine will defeat the Russians as quickly as possible, with as little casualties as possible on both sides, and regain control of the entire territory as it was until 2014.
    - ovi256 5y ago
      There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.
      - danbruc 5y ago
        There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.

"Drive and fly well, pray you don't crash" seems to be the how you keep it safe. Wasn't there a ban on making new nukes at the time? What did the US do with the uranium?

Maakuth 5y ago

Enriching (to much lower concentration of U-235) is also a part of nuclear fuel cycle, so a peaceful way of getting rid of this material would be to dilute it and make fuel.

Terry_Roll 5y ago

There was a ban, but the US got around it by claiming they were upgrading existing one's or something like that. The key point being the agreement didnt mention anything about "upgrades" which is akin to building new nukes. Not the first time the US has done this when considering how Nato only provided a verbal agreement they wouldnt expand towards Russia and here we are now. Oh and lets not forget Crimea region (assuming sea area) is reportedly supposed to have the 4 largest oil deposits which always comes in handy when the Saudi's are running out hence the massive diversification drive seen in the middle east. I did notice someone felt uneasy about anthrax spores contaminating soil so decided to have a bit of a bonfire on Anthrax Island in the UK! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-60892350 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-608... It wouldnt have taken much to find some spores, wild bird nesting sites will turn soil over and could still offer up some spores post bonfire, but it doesnt take much to bring on your own dormant biological weapon anthrax spores in todays world with easy access to knowledge across borders. Cows & Sheep are natural carriers, sheep more so due to their high copper content which is needed to make wool, which is why they used sheep in the original Anthrax Island experiment, but its basic biology growing your own bacteria now a days! Militaries around the world when they did these sorts of experiments decades ago, never thought communication would improve to todays standards ie the internet which means alot of things they thought they could keep secret is no longer the case! One of their tactics with sensitive stuff is to use older people because they die off more quickly and the secrets die with them, plus old people dont get to spend time with the younger generation that could be an easy way to pass on secrets. Moral of the story, talk to the older generation which might have worked in the military doing secret stuff to find out what they know. However even your grandparents who might have been in that situation, wont tell you everything they did, because it might protect you, so talk to random older people to find out stuff, less obvious connection then.

te_chris 5y ago
“Here we are now”. Oh please, not this rubbish. No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour.
- danbruc 5y ago
  No one forced Putin to invade and commit war crimes in a so-called “brotherly” neighbour. Sure, but. The USA did not tolerate Soviet missiles on Cuba and I am not sure this has changed - would the USA tolerate Russian or Chinese missiles at its border today? Therefore just saying that the Ukraine or any other Russian neighbor are sovereign states and can do whatever they want is at least somewhat of a double standard. And just to be clear, I am not justifying the invasion, I am not saying that there was no attempt to find a compromise, I am not saying that Russia is not responsible that no compromise was reached, I am just saying that states constantly have interests in what other states are doing or not doing, and saying Ukraine or any other state is sovereign and can do whatever they want without consequences is naive a point of view and at best yields the correct conclusions by accident. With that said, I still hope that the Ukraine will defeat the Russians as quickly as possible, with as little casualties as possible on both sides, and regain control of the entire territory as it was until 2014.
  - ovi256 5y ago
    There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. Also, it's only Russia's fault it has no friends.
    - danbruc 5y ago
      There is no need whatsoever that Ukraine, having joined NATO, to then have NATO bases, nuclear weapons or even any strategic weapons on its territory. This could be made a legal requirement by the joining treaty. I completely agree, after all that is the situation with Norway. And as I said, I am not claiming that there were no such attempts nor am I blaming one side or the other that this didn't lead to a solution. I am just opposing this notion that sovereignty is all that counts and therefore Russia's opinion can not possibly matter. That this is threat to Russia is a Russian propaganda talking point. This I just can not understand. If you have a thousand tanks a thousand kilometres away from my border, then you are a smaller threat than if you have your thousand tanks right at my border, even if the only difference is that it takes you some time to drive to my border which gives me some time to prepare for your attack. We can argue all day long how big a difference it makes, but I can not see how you can argue that bringing NATO assets closer to the Russian border threatens Russia less than having the further away.