Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdtsc | Hacker News Reader

> that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the NRC predecessor nuclear licensing agency, had previously convinced the FBI not to open a criminal investigation into the material’s disappearance.

That is just ridiculous. After the Soviet Union fell I remember all these "experts" talking about the looming dirty bomb threat from stolen nuclear materials from Russia, Ukraine and other such places.

Yet nothing has happened, it turns out they do have a pretty good handle on it. And here is hundreds of kg of bomb grade uranium missing right from the country with the supposed many nuclear "experts".

I don't even know what to say. I guess, if you commit a crime, just commit such a fucking big crime that anyone would just be too embarrassed to admit such a crime even been committed.

> And any disclosures about Israel’s bomb program would of course have threatened the Carter administration’s Middle East policies.

In my book, some state with bomb grade nuclear material would surely derail any peace process, in pretty much any region. Look at the war in Iraq that was launched over "WMDs" that we still haven't found. Or the embargoes and threats again Iran over using centrifuges. Fuck they should have just stolen the damn nuclear materials right from the DoE and be done with it. DoE would have been too embarrassed to do anything about it. "Hey Bob, yeah we just found out Iranian agents stole 300kg of bomb grade Uranium from our storage facility...." <Bob, the head of DoE> "Yeah that is too embarrassing, we can't let anyone know about this.

I would not rule out the possibility that this "theft" story is a cover for what really happened.

...that we gave it to them, willingly.

Would that be a bad thing? (I'm just curious, and have no agenda. I'm ignorant in such matters.)

It seems like the proliferation of nukes has resulted in a more stable worldwide society. It's too early to tell, but in a century or two we'll be certain. Is it true that where there are nukes, war isn't?

Proliferation and stability are linked, but not a simple causal relationship. For example, look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn't even 'proliferation' just the addition of new attack vectors (namely, the much increased potential of a decapitation first strike against the USG) that nearly sent everything ablaze.

Basically, MAD only works when both sides are relatively symmetric. When you have weird asymmetric situations, and inability to actual cause true mutual destruction, especially when mixed in with certain ideological elements, nuclear weapons can be anything but stabilizing. For example, an enemy that is already willing to use suicide bombers, or trade civilian/innocent lives to counteract the opponent's advantages may not be fully deterred by nuclear weapons. Especially an enemy that happens to be a non-state actor.

You are of course correct - we do need the long view to actually tell. But I strongly believe that simply proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in situations without guaranteed mutual destruction is likely not stabilizing.

> For example, look at the Cuban Missile Crisis. It wasn't even 'proliferation' just the addition of new attack vectors (namely, the much increased potential of a decapitation first strike against the USG) that nearly sent everything ablaze.

Technically the new attack vectors were the installation of dual-key Jupiter IRBMs in Italy and Turkey.

The Soviet shipment of IRBMs to Cuba was a natural response to that poor decision.

The Jupiter missiles were all withdrawn, beginning in January 1963, as agreed with the Soviets.

Yeah, it turns out Zion isn't a place in the middle east, but a hypothetical place brought on by nuclear war. So in this case, nuclear proliferation is part of some crazy apocalyptic prophecy.

"It seems like the proliferation of nukes has resulted in a more stable worldwide society."

I think that holds only if all parties that have nukes believe they have more to lose if nukes are used than if not.

Ideology can change this decision. That's why nuclear proliferation remains a dangerous thing.

There have been many significant wars in the last few decades, including many proxy battles between nuclear powers. So I'd say your thesis is disproven right now without waiting.

None of them have been very significant, though, compared to WWI and WWII. None of them have been more than a schoolyard rock fight in comparison. (Not taking away from the horrors experienced by those countries involved, of course, just pointing out that nothing so horrific has happened on a truly global basis.)

What has changed for the worse, though, is the duration of the wars. For the US at least, WWII was a brief engagement compared to the time spent in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Regional wars are basically hobbies for wealthy, idle nations.

  > just commit such a fucking big crime that...

Kill one man, and you're put in prison.

Kill a million and you're the Emperor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com