6 ms·

On the face of it, it sounds like an altruistic, benign operation: to safeguard Kazakhstan and prevent nuclear proliferation. However, keep in mind the nature

On the face of it, it sounds like an altruistic, benign operation: to safeguard Kazakhstan and prevent nuclear proliferation. However, keep in mind the nature of the 'Big Five' permanent members of the UN Security Council: 'The permanent members were all Allies in World War II (and the victors of that war), and are the five states with the first and most nuclear weapons. All have the power of veto which enables any one of them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of its level of international support.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_Unite...) Highly enriched uranium = nuclear weapons = POWER Remember the ending of the movie Oppenheimer? Oppie, a scientist at the peak of his field, willingly handed over the most powerful weapon known to humanity to... a person with a less-than-stellar moral code: President Truman ("Don't let that crybaby back in here.") That handover changed geopolitics forever, which was a major theme of the movie - and in real life too. Remember also that Ukraine was comprehensively disarmed, by the Budapest Memorandum, and as part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...). And now look what a mess resulted from that: a world war has already quietly started in Europe... (There is not enough made of the fact that Russia has involved Iran, North Korea, China, and a number of other countries in its effort to invade Ukraine. Russia has violated several articles of the UN Charter, even while it maintains an contentious seat on the Security Council, thus shredding the credibility and founding principles of the United Nations.) I'm writing this to add a better perspective of this operation. It was a lot more than simply "truck[ing] [the uranium] to the Y-12 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee to be blended down."

nrki 2y ago
> Oppie, a scientist at the peak of his field, willingly handed over the most powerful weapon known to humanity to... a person with a less-than-stellar moral code: President Truman As opposed to ... - not handing it over? Prison, then they figure it out anyway. - handing it to someone else during wartime? Prison or a firing squad, then they figure it out anyway.
- fractallyte 2y ago
  When he walked into the President's office, he held enough power at that moment that he could have told Truman to get out of his (Oppie's) chair, and GTFO of his (Oppie's) office. Obviously, in reality, it would have required much more planning and preparation, but that's essentially a statement of the balance of power at that moment in history. The Soviets were clawing at the door to get this new superweapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies), and even the UK - which was a partner in the bomb's development - was locked out of the technology (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatne...).
Jgrubb 2y ago
You're leaving out the part where this town in Kazakhstan, post Cold War, finds its only factory sitting idle as the Soviet Union has ceased to be. The manager of the enrichment plant there needs to figure out how to feed the people of his town and he's got one thing to sell. If this project hadn't worked out and the US hadn't purchased all of that _several hundred kilograms of weapons grade plutonium_ somebody else certainly would've.
pythonguython 2y ago
I think it’s important to note that Kazakhstan wasn’t just strongarmed into this. Public sentiment was very much against nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan in 1991. The Semipalatinsk test site ruined the health of so many Kazakhs, that there was a consequential anti nuke movement right as the country suddenly had independence. Maybe in hindsight it was a bad geostrategic decision (although KZ is doing fine right now), but the Kazakhs just wanted nukes out, and the US was happy to take them.
- cocodill 2y ago
  Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind.
  - pythonguython 2y ago
    I wasn’t counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised mostly of Kazakhs.
    - cocodill 2y ago
      you're a bit wrong. at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the population of Kazakhstan consisted of 40% Kazakhs and 38% Russians, 6% Germans and 5% Ukrainians, plus other ethnic groups. Kazakhs were not an absolute majority.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        At the time of the collapse of the USSR As far as attempts a spin are concerned -- this one's really quite ludicrous. Howabout we try the present tense: Ethnic Kazakhs make up 71%, Russians 14.9%, Uzbeks 3.3%, Ukrainians 1.9%, Uygur 1.5%, Germans 1.1%, Tatars 1.1%, and others 5.2%.
        cocodill 2y ago
        these are early nineties problems, so you have to look at data from the early nineties.
Muromec 2y ago
>Ukraine was comprehensively disarmed Let's just say that consensus in Ukrainian polity has shifted back to the original idea that exporting war is a more sustainable policy when you live on the undefencible plain with no committed allies to rely on.
TacticalCoder 2y ago
> And now look what a mess resulted from that: a world war has already quietly started in Europe... I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". The EU started to try to incorporate Ukraine. It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU. And it's no coincidence that there are now heavyweights on the worldstage now saying: "The only solution to this conflict is an independent Ukraine". By that they don't mean "Ukraine not annexed by Russia". They mean "Ukraine not annexed by the EU". The EU wans to annex Ukraine and a war was started because of that.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". Apparently you would, even though there's absolutely no reason to believe the line of causality ("Europe did X, which started the war") that you're implying. Starting a war from scratch like this (as Putin did) requires agency, and it's very obvious what the source of agency was in this case. "Ukraine not annexed by the EU". That's just hyperbole and nonsense. It was never being "annexed" by anyone (until Russia started invading in 2014).
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its own alliances.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      It's even deeper than that. In essence, the view is that Ukraine as such never really existed as a coherent society or country, anyway. So how can it have the agency to decide the integrate with the EU, or to form other alliances? See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42232758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42232758
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked [, raped, tortured, and genocided Ukrainians] had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU It's even less likely that putin would have done all that if he weren't alive, or had he simply minded his own business, yet I don't see you advocating for either of those paths to resolution. Instead, you advocate for an independent country of tens of millions of people to lose their independence, to lose their agency, to lose their sovereignty, to lose their identity, to lose their lives, simply because russia wants them to. Curious.
aa-jv 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deepnet 2y ago
In 1994 Russia and the USA agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty and its borders in return for the Ukraine voluntarily disarming its nukes: It was promised the USA AND Russia would provide the Ukraine adequate defense in lieu of giving up their nukes. Which gives the lie to “Russia invaded because of impending Ukrainian NATO membership” - the USA & Russia already promised to defend their 1994 borders AT THAT TIME. The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want. It is Putin that has broken his pact with the Ukraine by invading. “ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. “ If the USA cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia in a peace deal the USA will also have broken its 1994 agreement to defend the Ukraine’s 1994 borders and its autonomy ( to join NATO if it desires ).

nrki 2y ago

> Oppie, a scientist at the peak of his field, willingly handed over the most powerful weapon known to humanity to... a person with a less-than-stellar moral code: President Truman As opposed to ... - not handing it over? Prison, then they figure it out anyway. - handing it to someone else during wartime? Prison or a firing squad, then they figure it out anyway.

fractallyte 2y ago
When he walked into the President's office, he held enough power at that moment that he could have told Truman to get out of his (Oppie's) chair, and GTFO of his (Oppie's) office. Obviously, in reality, it would have required much more planning and preparation, but that's essentially a statement of the balance of power at that moment in history. The Soviets were clawing at the door to get this new superweapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies), and even the UK - which was a partner in the bomb's development - was locked out of the technology (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatne...).

Jgrubb 2y ago

You're leaving out the part where this town in Kazakhstan, post Cold War, finds its only factory sitting idle as the Soviet Union has ceased to be. The manager of the enrichment plant there needs to figure out how to feed the people of his town and he's got one thing to sell. If this project hadn't worked out and the US hadn't purchased all of that _several hundred kilograms of weapons grade plutonium_ somebody else certainly would've.

pythonguython 2y ago

I think it’s important to note that Kazakhstan wasn’t just strongarmed into this. Public sentiment was very much against nuclear weapons in Kazakhstan in 1991. The Semipalatinsk test site ruined the health of so many Kazakhs, that there was a consequential anti nuke movement right as the country suddenly had independence. Maybe in hindsight it was a bad geostrategic decision (although KZ is doing fine right now), but the Kazakhs just wanted nukes out, and the US was happy to take them.

cocodill 2y ago
Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind.
- pythonguython 2y ago
  I wasn’t counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised mostly of Kazakhs.
  - cocodill 2y ago
    you're a bit wrong. at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the population of Kazakhstan consisted of 40% Kazakhs and 38% Russians, 6% Germans and 5% Ukrainians, plus other ethnic groups. Kazakhs were not an absolute majority.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      At the time of the collapse of the USSR As far as attempts a spin are concerned -- this one's really quite ludicrous. Howabout we try the present tense: Ethnic Kazakhs make up 71%, Russians 14.9%, Uzbeks 3.3%, Ukrainians 1.9%, Uygur 1.5%, Germans 1.1%, Tatars 1.1%, and others 5.2%.
      - cocodill 2y ago
        these are early nineties problems, so you have to look at data from the early nineties.

Muromec 2y ago

>Ukraine was comprehensively disarmed Let's just say that consensus in Ukrainian polity has shifted back to the original idea that exporting war is a more sustainable policy when you live on the undefencible plain with no committed allies to rely on.

TacticalCoder 2y ago

> And now look what a mess resulted from that: a world war has already quietly started in Europe... I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". The EU started to try to incorporate Ukraine. It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU. And it's no coincidence that there are now heavyweights on the worldstage now saying: "The only solution to this conflict is an independent Ukraine". By that they don't mean "Ukraine not annexed by Russia". They mean "Ukraine not annexed by the EU". The EU wans to annex Ukraine and a war was started because of that.

aguaviva 2y ago
I'd rephrase it as "Europe has already quietly started a (world) war". Apparently you would, even though there's absolutely no reason to believe the line of causality ("Europe did X, which started the war") that you're implying. Starting a war from scratch like this (as Putin did) requires agency, and it's very obvious what the source of agency was in this case. "Ukraine not annexed by the EU". That's just hyperbole and nonsense. It was never being "annexed" by anyone (until Russia started invading in 2014).
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its own alliances.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    It's even deeper than that. In essence, the view is that Ukraine as such never really existed as a coherent society or country, anyway. So how can it have the agency to decide the integrate with the EU, or to form other alliances? See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42232758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42232758
ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked [, raped, tortured, and genocided Ukrainians] had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU It's even less likely that putin would have done all that if he weren't alive, or had he simply minded his own business, yet I don't see you advocating for either of those paths to resolution. Instead, you advocate for an independent country of tens of millions of people to lose their independence, to lose their agency, to lose their sovereignty, to lose their identity, to lose their lives, simply because russia wants them to. Curious.

aa-jv 2y ago

[flagged]

dang 2y ago
Please make your substantive points without crossing into the flamewar style. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deepnet 2y ago

In 1994 Russia and the USA agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty and its borders in return for the Ukraine voluntarily disarming its nukes: It was promised the USA AND Russia would provide the Ukraine adequate defense in lieu of giving up their nukes. Which gives the lie to “Russia invaded because of impending Ukrainian NATO membership” - the USA & Russia already promised to defend their 1994 borders AT THAT TIME. The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want. It is Putin that has broken his pact with the Ukraine by invading. “ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia. “ If the USA cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia in a peace deal the USA will also have broken its 1994 agreement to defend the Ukraine’s 1994 borders and its autonomy ( to join NATO if it desires ).