World dignitaries launch anti-nuclear plan

[bananas]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5js3Q8R19c0qZhiEqBhV1XEOlaDeAD94VA9VG4

World dignitaries launch anti-nuclear plan

By ANGELA CHARLTON – 3 days ago

PARIS (AP) — Former world leaders and arms-control negotiators joined entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson and the queen of Jordan Tuesday to launch a project aimed at eliminating the world's nuclear weapons over the next 25 years.

<snip>

The group, called Global Zero, wants to start with U.S.-Russian negotiations to cut back nuclear stockpiles. Then a second phase would bring in countries such as China, Britain and France. Finally, it hopes to attract other countries such as Iran — which the West fears is seeking nuclear arms. Tehran insists its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity.

<snip>

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama said in July that, "We will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy."

<snip>

More than 100 political, military, business, religious and civic leaders have lent their support to the campaign, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and former top officials from India and Pakistan. Planners hope to stage a world summit in January 2010.

[madokie]

1. Sounds like a step in the right direction to me

[NNadir]

2. What you? It is hard to imagine, but anti-nukes often confuse themselves with dignity.

Given that they are all yuppie brats with contempt for poverty and contempt for humanity.

Richard Branson is a typical flake of this variety, flying his stupid luxurious aircraft with biofuels obtained from ground up rain forest in a meaningless gesture.

I flew a couple of times on Virgin Atlantic - something that I'm not particularly proud of - and I can tell you that these people don't give a flying fuck, excuse the pun, for humanity.

[wtmusic]

3. OP is (again) not distinguishing nuclear weapons from nuclear power

Most people know the difference, but this base appeal to ignorance is sometimes effective.

[kristopher]

4. You're kidding, right?

The OP is about weapons, not nuclear power. Your claim that it is a "base appeal to ignorance" is as absurd as one of Nnumbnuts' raving manifestos.

[NNadir]

5. The OP is like reading People Magazine.

Celebrity A says...nuclear is bad...

Celebrity B says...nuclear is bad...

I personally don't give a fuck what celebrities say about this and that.

You know one of the fun things about the celebrity Richard Branson is the number of http://www.looktothestars.org/news/315-richard-branson-attends-virgin-festival-in-baltimore">Richard Branson is concerned about the world festivals he holds.

His money would be better spent on getting a decent haircut, I think, but hey, there's no accounting for taste.

The "Richard Branson could make biofuels by thermally reforming his hair clippings" festival - which predictably included a shitload of biofuels - featured Sting.

Sting once made an entire movie called "Bring on the Night" which featured Sting pretending to not be a racist while consuming more than the nation of Botswana while launching into his unrestricted breeding phase.

The mindless consumer and singer of a scientifically illiterate song about the perils of carbon-14 and its relation to coal mining (Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?), Sting has had six children, each of whom consume more than the nations of Lesotho, Burma, Rwanda, and the Province of Catalonia combined.

He is however, an "environmentalist," because, even though his self laudatory film about his concert in Paris consumed more electricity than Suriname, he says he is.

If we would all just understand the wisdom of celebrities, we would not need to worry about climate change or the acidification of the oceans.

[kristopher]

6. You've nothing but false logic, insults and misinformation...

[bananas]

7. What the fuck are you talking about?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

[wtmusic]

9. What the fuck do nuclear weapons have to do with environment/energy? nt

[bananas]

10. You don't remember Scott Ritter, Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame?

You think Valerie Plame was just a "glorified secretary?"

[wtmusic]

11. And wtf do they have to do with E/E?

I know this is going to be good.

[bananas]

12. I thought it was obvious

Some examples:

- Countries which wish to acuire nuclear energy technology are required to open their facilities to IAEA inspectors to prevent diversion of facilities and material for nuclear weapons use. This is because nuclear energy facilities and material can be used or adapted for use in nuclear weapons.

- Much nuclear fuel today comes from Russian weapons stockpiles, a program which will end around 2013.

[bananas]

13. The Megatons to Megawatts program

For those who don't know about it:

<snip>

The Megatons to Megawatts Program is the name given to the program that implemented the 1993 United States-Russia nonproliferation agreement to convert high-enriched uranium (HEU) taken from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched-uranium (LEU) for nuclear fuel.

<snip>

Nuclear warheads that were once on guided missile ICBMs aimed at American cities are now providing 50% of the nuclear energy produced in the United States--one tenth of America's overall electric power production.

<snip>

Since the Megatons to Megawatts program is scheduled to end in 2013, this means the United States after 2013 will have to increase domestic production of uranium as well as increase uranium imports. <1>

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program

edit to add:
Half the US reactor fuel comes from Russian warheads - but you don't think disarmament programs have anything to do with nuclear energy?

[GliderGuider]

8. It would only take one day to destroy the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons

I worry that we may see the "destroy-through-use" option explored as the clusterfuck gets worse.

[bananas]

14. I'm not sure why this was moved to the Science forum.

I originally posted it in the Environment/Energy forum.
Unfortunately, it seems that many people are unaware of the ties between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, while others try to wish-away these issues and pretend they don't exist.

[Nihil]

15. Because it has SFA to do with Environment/Energy.

> I originally posted it in the Environment/Energy forum

... which was the wrong place for this article.

Most of your anti-nuclear posts there are in exactly the right place there
as they involve nuclear power (or fuel or waste products) but this one wasn't.

The OP article is consistently and openly about nuclear weapons.
The only time that "generating electricity" is mentioned is in the
obligatory booga-booga about Iran.

> Unfortunately, it seems that many people are unaware of the ties between
> nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, while others try to wish-away these
> issues and pretend they don't exist.

Unfortunately, still others insist on creating ties where none exist
and use their creations as "supporting evidence" for their anti-nuclear
posts. This thread is one of the latter.

[bananas]

16. You can't discuss fuel supply without discussing weapons.

Why were India's reactor running at 50% capacity?
Lack of fuel.
Why couldn't they get fuel from the NSG?
Because they wouldn't sign the NPT.
Why wouldn't they sign the NPT?
Because they wanted to make weapons.
Now they have a waiver, some of their reactors will be subject to IAEA weapons inspection, the rest will be used for weapons production, they are off-limits to IAEA inspectors. It's estimated nukes-for-mangoes will allow them to build about 50 warheads a year. China and Pakistan are responding to this escalation.

Another example:
Iran's enrichment facilities can be used to make weapons-grade uranium. That makes them a military target, which is why they're in underground bunkers that can only be destroyed with nuclear bunker-buster weapons. According to Seymour Hersh, that's exactly what Bush wanted to do.

You can't discuss fuel supply without discussing weapons.

[caraher]

17. I first saw the thread in Science

which confused me when I read the "why is this E/E?" posts

The division strikes me as quite artificial, underlined by Obama's selection of a scientist to head DOE - a most appropriate choice!