[HN Gopher] Project Sapphire 20th Anniversary (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
Project Sapphire 20th Anniversary (2014)
Author : sklargh
Score : 32 points
Date : 2024-11-24 20:52 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nsarchive2.gwu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (nsarchive2.gwu.edu)
| fractallyte wrote:
| 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_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
| _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."
| Jgrubb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind.
| pythonguython wrote:
| I wasn't counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised
| mostly of Kazakhs.
| cocodill wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| these are early nineties problems, so you have to look at
| data from the early nineties.
| aguaviva wrote:
| Then perhaps you should try communicating more clearly.
|
| When someone says "Kazakhstan is comprised of ...", and
| you say "This is wrong" -- you're obviously referring to
| the present tense.
| pythonguython wrote:
| During the Soviet Union the ethnic Russians came from
| Russia, lived in the large cities, had most of the high
| paying jobs and then left when Kazakhstan had their
| independence. They were colonized and now they have their
| own country.
| cocodill wrote:
| if you're talking about colonization, the second sentence
| should note that they brought civilization to those
| places.
|
| In fact, even before the Soviet Union, since the 1740s,
| these steppes were part of the Russian Empire, and
| Russians built cities there.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _They brought civilization to those places._
|
| That's the same nonsense justification used in support of
| all colonial projects.
|
| Simply put - it's a lie.
| rurban wrote:
| It is also important to note that Kazakhstan still has the
| world largest Uranium production, by far. Almost half of the
| world production comes from there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w
| iki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
| nrki wrote:
| Not really, Uranium itself isn't dangerous or even that
| scarce.
|
| Super-enriched Uranium, however _is_ super rare, expensive
| and desirable.
| rurban wrote:
| Really. Raw Uranium is still pretty rare, the US got it
| from Congo/Canada, the Russians from Czech/East Germany.
| You still need a thousand tons to get a bomb and if you
| got no reactor to produce it for you easier.
|
| The enrichment to weapon-grade U235 is trivial, you just
| need enough good gas centrifuges or a reactor.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| > The Semipalatinsk test site ruined the health of so many
| Kazakhs
|
| that cannot be true. It was really middle of the semi-desert
| with no people around
| pythonguython wrote:
| You're mistaken. They purposefully didn't evacuate villages
| so the doctors could study the health effects on unknowing
| citizens. The radioactive dust traveled for miles and
| miles. Semey, a medium sized town near the test site had
| skyrocketing cancer rates and birth defects. The number of
| people affected is measured in the hundreds of thousands.
| Read "The Atomic Steppe" if you want to learn more.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| > They purposefully didn't evacuate villages
|
| WHAT villages? Could you name one? Polygon was literally
| build in the desert, no villages inside or outside.
| Muromec wrote:
| >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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| _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 wrote:
| In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its
| own alliances.
| aguaviva wrote:
| 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
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> 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.
| deepnet wrote:
| The USA & Russia made a pact to defend the Ukraine, based on
| the Ukraine giving up their nukes.
|
| " 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 doesn't defend them adequately the USA will have
| broken their 1994 agreement - with all the trust implications
| for future agreements.
|
| By invading the Ukraine, Russia broke its 1994 deal.
|
| 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 - which gives the lie to NATO membership as a cause
| !
|
| Russia agreed in 1994 that the Ukraine had the right to join
| NATO or anything else it wanted to do - that is the the
| definition of autonomy and sovereignty.
|
| Thus implicitly, in fact, Russia agreed to defend the
| Ukraine's right to join NATO.
|
| Russia has broken treaties to invade many of it neighbours
| recently, this needs to be questioned not apologised for.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| More concretely, if Russia is allowed ANY success in
| Ukraine, it puts the nail in the coffin of nuclear non-
| proliferation. If the only thing the world does is bow to
| anyone who can hold it hostage with a nuclear threat, the
| only defense is your own nukes. If you want to avoid
| countries fighting nuclear war, you are better off fucking
| over Russia right now, and understanding that their nuclear
| talk is all bluff (for now) rather than wait until hundreds
| of tiny and unstable countries have nukes that they want to
| fire at each other.
|
| If the West defends Ukraine from a nuclear armed nation,
| then we can convincingly tell the rest of the world "You
| don't need nukes, so don't build them".
| deepnet wrote:
| Indeed this is the risk if Trump breaches the USA's 1994
| treaty agreement by surrendering territory in a 'peace-
| deal' then not only will the USA be oath breakers but who
| will trust a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the
| future.
|
| Perhaps Trump will not want to look weak and stand firm
| but it seems not unlikely that he will Kowtow to Russia
| and give them what they want at the expense of our
| Ukrainian allies.
| aa-jv wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Please make your substantive points without crossing into the
| flamewar style.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| deepnet wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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), 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-
| greatne...).
| RecycledEle wrote:
| A lot of people want to eliminate nuclear weapons, but how many
| if them have looked at the consequences?
|
| Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, and as a result hundreds
| of thousands of people have died.
|
| I am not aware of any significant casualties from the possession
| of nuclear weapons by any nation that has had operational nukes
| for more than 2 years.
|
| It seems that if we want to reduce casualties, then we want
| everyone to keep their nukes.
|
| Please tell me if I am wrong.
| Onavo wrote:
| If you view the utility function of the modern geopolitics as
| keeping the maximum number of people safe, then reducing the
| number of entities with control of nuclear technology is the
| optimal approach, with the cost of smaller nations being
| sacrificed for the "Greater Good".
| Mistletoe wrote:
| You are right right now. It remains to be seen if you are right
| forever. When have humans not done the stupidest thing possible
| that is available to them?
|
| To your first question, I wonder what the outcome would have
| been if Ukraine had nuclear weapons? Ukraine and Russia just
| unloading on each other? This question isn't rhetorical or
| sarcastic, I don't know.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternateHistory/comments/15mjkut/w...
| Muromec wrote:
| >It seems that if we want to reduce casualties, then we want
| everyone to keep their nukes.
|
| More guns meaning more safety is very logical idea, it makes
| total sense until the next school shooting happens and reminds
| everybody that people in general aren't consistently reasonable
| and well-meaning.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Nuclear weapons shift from a very high probability of something
| with relatively small consequences (conventional war) to a low
| probability of something with absolutely catastrophic
| consequences.
|
| What risk of global catastrophe is worth it to reduce or end
| conventional war? One in a million per year? One in a thousand
| per year?
|
| The actual risk of nuclear war is extremely hard to estimate.
| My reading of Cold War history is that it's closer to one in a
| hundred per year than one in a million. Having a multitude of
| nuclear-armed states makes it worse. I don't find this tradeoff
| to be even remotely worthwhile.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| How does this work? Let's say tomorrow China attacks India and
| doesn't at all nuclear weapons - what do you think India will
| do? Just use nuclear weapons on China and then of course Chinna
| does that too and they happily annihilate each other into
| sunset? I can imagine this being done by a completely failed
| state with nothing to lose and that too is maybe (NK? Maybe
| even PK though I am not really sure about this one).
|
| As cheeky as it sounds we might need "greener" and "safer"
| alternatives to nukes but retaining the power for immediate
| devastation :D
| ls612 wrote:
| Modern weapons have pretty little fallout compared to the
| stuff they were testing in the open air in Nevada and
| Kazakhstan in the 50s so I'd say we are already mostly there.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| There's several other counterfactuals you're not considering
| besides "Ukraine keeps their nukes and doesn't get invaded".
| Like, what if Ukraine kept their nukes, but Putin invades
| anyway[0]? Either they launch to make good on the threat and
| break the nuclear taboo, or they don't launch, in which case
| they wasted a bunch of money maintaining a nuclear arsenal that
| isn't useful.
|
| "Breaking the nuclear taboo" is a problem because the only
| advantage nukes have is deterrent. They are very good at
| killing civilians and terrorizing states into surrender[1]. But
| throwing a nuke at a line of incoming Russian tanks would be
| utterly stupid. They're just too damned big. And the more you
| normalize the use of nuclear weapons, the less that deterrent
| effect matters, even outside of the usual "mutually assured
| destruction" scenario of a superpower vs. superpower nuclear
| exchange.
|
| The significant casualties you're ignoring are as follows:
|
| - Wasted taxpayer money from maintaining very expensive
| missiles and nuclear material that don't actually stop invading
| forces
|
| - Low, but _not non-zero_ probability of a nuclear accident
| caused by mishandling the nuclear material in the weapon (e.g.
| that one time we almost nuked North Carolina[2])
|
| - Extremely low, but still not non-zero, probability of
| escalation to superpower conflicts that would result in the
| destruction of major population centers in a matter of
| hours[3].
|
| [0] Remember, Putin is dumb, he thought he'd crush Ukraine in a
| matter of hours. Do you really think nukes will stop him?
|
| [1] e.g. how we got Japan to go from conditional to
| unconditional surrender by flattening two cities
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
|
| [3] Yes, this is _potentially_ survivable, if you happen to be
| in a concrete basement, aren 't in the fireball radius, follow
| proper decontamination procedure, have uncontaminated food and
| water for several days, etc. You still don't want this.
| protocolture wrote:
| Ukraine IIRC barely had the money for their conventional
| military until a few years ago.
| ls612 wrote:
| The entire field of game theory was originally developed to
| answer your question and so far the result of the combined
| efforts of 70 years of scholarly research has been "you are
| probably right but there are a lot of asterisks about
| communicating information and if some ayatollah gets both
| religious fervor for the afterlife and thermonuclear weapons it
| could go poorly".
| PrismCrystal wrote:
| "if some ayatollah gets both religious fervor for the
| afterlife and thermonuclear weapons"
|
| Among that majority of the Iranian population who now
| dislikes the regime, it is a common belief that the regime is
| really only interested in preserving its wealth and power; it
| is no longer sincere religious fanaticism like back in
| Khomeini's day.
| protocolture wrote:
| My memory is that they had the weapons, but not necessarily the
| capability to launch them or compile them into a functional
| nuclear weapons program. What they had was leftovers from the
| soviet union. A lot of them may never have left the silos even
| if they could find the go button.
|
| Having nukes you cant use is worse than no nukes. You are a
| target for terrorists trying to lay their hands on materials,
| you are a threat to the entire planet (especially your new
| large neighbor) it was a losing proposition.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-27 23:01 UTC)