Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Identifying Nuclear Scientists Willing To Sell Their Knowledge

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the update-your-resume dept.

Security 358

Harperdog writes "This is an interesting piece on U.S. programs most people don't know about: programs to identify and win over nuclear scientists who might be willing to sell their know-how to non-nuclear countries. Fascinating discussion, and points to the alleged Russian scientist who is reported to have sold information to Iran. How could he have been stopped?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How could he have been stopped? (4, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083722)

Someone please explain: why should he have been stopped?

Re:How could he have been stopped? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083744)

Free trade is only for big businesses. What would the world come to if ordinary people could start monetizing their assets? On the other hand, if you need an explanation why it happened anyway: the Iran nuclear scare is going to fill the coffers of "defense" companies worldwide. They can't wait for us to go to war against Iran.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083862)

This is the thing, though. Iran would benefit from having a nuclear weapon not because it could defend itself *directly* from the US but because they can start waving it at Israel if the Yanks start getting mouthy.

The Iranian government is presumably nervous about the US coming over and "liberating" them with the same level of wholesale destruction and slaughter as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've also got the Israelis who just love to herd Arabs into ghettos and kill them. Why *wouldn't* you want a nuke, with neighbours like that?

Re:How could he have been stopped? (3, Insightful)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083926)

Because the Arab ghettos are within the death zone of any nukes on the main population centres?

That, and everyone would come and fuck you up in retaliation. Nuclear or not.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

Master Of Ninja (521917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083960)

Because the Arab ghettos are within the death zone of any nukes on the main population centres?

That, and everyone would come and fuck you up in retaliation. Nuclear or not.

Are you sure? If the world politics/UN is anything to go by there would be some countries siding with Iran, some abstaining, some being in the retaliation camp, and then a veto or two against the whole plan by a country that's playing realpolitik. It would be a mess. But the power of having a nuke is that people start taking you more seriously on the world stage

Re:How could he have been stopped? (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084050)

Counterargument:
1. Iraq had no nukes. The US falsely claimed they did, and then used that as an excuse to blow them to smithereens.

2. North Korea has nukes, as well as a military much weaker than Iraq did. The US has generally rattled sabers but left them alone.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (5, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084146)

Let me almost fix that for you :).
Counterargument:
1. Iraq had no nukes AND OIL. The (G1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 Nth economic clubs) which the US is one of claimed they did, and then used that as an excuse to blow them to smithereens. This got a lot of Tax money moving around the system. War does pay well and it only kills poor people.

2. North Korea has nukes; but not as much oil, as well as a military much weaker than Iraq did. The US has generally rattled sabers but left them alone. When oil starts running ooohhhhh it's on baby.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084260)

North Korea also has China as an ally. Invading North Korea would effectively mean declaring war on China (just as invading Poland prevented the UK from remaining neutral in the second world war). That's far more important than the nukes that NK claims to have (as I recall, they only had one test, which was underground and didn't appear to cause any detectable increase in radioactivity - I was in the USA at the time, and it was amusing that the test was front page news, but when the lack of radioactivity was discovered it was on the BBC but completely absent from the US news sources that had been trumpeting the test).

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084090)

Laser guided bombs to try and minimize casualties of non combatants mean nothing to you? Check out how other countries deal with insurgents and militias, look up grozny. Better yet, look up rwanda or serbia where european UN troops stood by and let the people there to protect, get massacred. It seems that the rest of the world likes to either A: blow the town to hell even with civilians, or B: stand around and watch them die.

"wholesale destruction and slaughter" was what japan did to china and SEA. You are either purposefully trying force a lie into being believed, or you are truly ignorant to the meaning of those words and the appropriate situations they apply.

And the Libya example. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084094)

Give up your nuke program in exchange for normalized relations. Didn't work out so well for Gaddafi.

Re:And the Libya example. (4, Insightful)

SpzToid (869795) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084258)

Sure I'm feeding the AC trolls here, but I'll reason that once Gaddafi gave up his nukes everything turned around for the better, as far as he was concerned. It wasn't until his people turned against him, and he chose to fight them, that things turned out badly for him.

Re:And the Libya example. (3, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084428)

It wasn't until his people turned against him,

No - it wasn't until he suggested to the African states (especially oil rich Nigeria) that they drop the US dollar and accept gold or some other commodity in exchange for oil. An idea put forward several years ago by Chavez. An idea that is extremely dangerous to the US, because it's the only nation in the world allowed to print US dollars. Therefore the US gets its oil for free (well, in exchange for bits of paper it takes the trouble of printing up). Having to pay in gold or any other REAL currency that the US has to work for instead of print would severely affect the US economy. THAT is why Khaddafi was "taken out".

Re:How could he have been stopped? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084118)

They've also got the Israelis who just love to herd Arabs into ghettos and kill them. Why *wouldn't* you want a nuke, with neighbours like that?

Jew hating retards in my slashdot?

It's more likely than you think.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084386)

but because they can start waving it at Israel if the Yanks start getting mouthy.

Rubbish. Israel is far from defenseless and has its own nuclear arsenal. Iran is not going to threaten Israel at all. They can't afford to take that chance. What they can do, however, is stop being pushed around. Just like North Korea. Suddenly North Korea can shell South Korea and kill South Koreans and get away with "oh, sorry". That's what a nuke gets you. Not having nukes gets you, well, Libya.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084432)

Quite correct. At best, Iran will have 1/10th nukes and will not ever dare to start a nuclear war. Tehran (and suburbs) alone has 15 million inhabitants while the whole Israel does not have half that much.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

Groupers (2510190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084062)

You don't normally monetize your intellectual assets? Most people have jobs that do that.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083816)

Exactly. Is selling your knowledge suddenly a crime?

If it is about nuclear weapons it makes sense. But having nuclear science in general is the right of every country.

Besides, didn't foreign scientists contribute to nuclear science in US?

Knowledge isn't the problem. (4, Insightful)

satuon (1822492) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083892)

Lack of knowledge isn't what prevents most countries from building a nuclear bomb, lack of uranium and plutonium is.

Re:Knowledge isn't the problem. (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084488)

Yeah, building the bomb is easy, but building a rocket to carry it is much harder.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083876)

Isn't that a stupid question? I mean, it's clear why a government would want to stop him.

As for the HOW to the WHY, the answer is usually "make people feel appreciated".

Re:How could he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083998)

Isn't that a stupid question?

It is. It is a very stupid question.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

loonycyborg (1262242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084132)

All knowledge required to build nuclear weapons is already freely available, e.g. in physics textbooks. If they can't use it then no scientist would be able to help them. It's strictly an engineering challenge nowadays.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083882)

Someone please explain: why should he have been stopped?

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083970)

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Sorry, whatever protection you have against terrorists is highly inefficient. The only reason you aren't dead is because no-one rellay wants to kill you.
So no, you are wrong. Most muslims are good people that doesn't want to kill anyone.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084280)

He's not saying muslims want to kill people, he's saying Islam advocates the elimination of pagans/infidels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-Tawba_5
It's funny how muslim scholars want to defend the indefendable, saying that it has to be put into context, and is only aimed at a particular historic group of pagans. Riiiiight... These are meant to be the words of God, they should be perfect and therefore without ambiguity and understandable by everyone.
Anyway, don't laugh at children for believing in Santa Claus, there are adults who believe in crazier fairy tales.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (3, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084306)

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Sorry, whatever protection you have against terrorists is highly inefficient. The only reason you aren't dead is because no-one rellay wants to kill you.
So no, you are wrong. Most muslims are good people that doesn't want to kill anyone.

Exactly. Chrisq's commentary is based on utter ignorance. There was a large Gallup study about the Muslim community, the largest ever conducted about this topic, published as a book in 2008 [gallup.com] . In a nutshell, the study shows that Muslims are as peaceful as other people and share amazingly many views with e.g. most Americans. And, not very surprisingly, the very small militant minority among them is primarily motivated by political -- not religious -- reasons just like most other militants.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084402)

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Sorry, whatever protection you have against terrorists is highly inefficient. The only reason you aren't dead is because no-one rellay wants to kill you. So no, you are wrong. Most muslims are good people that doesn't want to kill anyone.

Exactly. Chrisq's commentary is based on utter ignorance. There was a large Gallup study about the Muslim community, the largest ever conducted about this topic, published as a book in 2008 [gallup.com] . In a nutshell, the study shows that Muslims are as peaceful as other people and share amazingly many views with e.g. most Americans. And, not very surprisingly, the very small militant minority among them is primarily motivated by political -- not religious -- reasons just like most other militants.

How about 28% of British Muslims wanting to make Britain an Islamic state [cbsnews.com] or 6% of British Muslims thinking that the tube bombings were wholy justified [telegraph.co.uk] That is over 170,000 muslims in the UK would like to see us killed. Sorry for ignorantly objecting to it.

and (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084178)

what about u.s., which invades countries to steal their oil and gold and then set up sharia ?

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1, Insightful)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084196)

Do you have any statistics or clue of how many each side (Muslims and non-Muslims) have killed from the other side? I bet more Muslims have been killed.

What is your definition of Evil?

Does it cover the thing which pushes a country to start/engage in at least 50 wars in 70 years and nuke civilian cities? Or just covers Muslims which fight occupiers in their lands?

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084244)

How far back do you want to go? Perhaps you are unaware that the Muslims started the wars that we call the Crusades (or at least those that were against Muslims) by invading "Christian" countries?

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084308)

If you are that good in going back (i.e. more than a thousand years), then you perhaps know how many humans were killed by religious Christians (in the name of religion) because they would not become Christians or would not like to accept whatever Church would say.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084342)

The muslims have been killing people and each other for thousands of years.

I really don't give a fuck if they want to continue killing each other. But when they start targeting anyone else.. Again.

Bomb the fuck out of them. We're going to have to do it someday.

Their religion is not compatable with anyone else. And eventually we'll have to do something about it. The sooner we do it. The less dead people there will be.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084456)

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions) and they are QUITE compatible and have more similarities than you think.

Abrahamic religions are too different from eastern religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism) and also those of Latin America.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (2)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084250)

Islam is an evil religion that tells them to kill non muslims. They would use it if teh could get away with it.

Not calling you bigoted or anything, but would you support laws to prevent Muslims from becoming doctors or cooks (at least for non-Muslims)?

Muslims account for over 1/5th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) of the world's population. Like Christianity, I find it doubtful that you could make any generalization which would actually apply to all Muslims. Peace.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083948)

The theory is that the more countries and NGO that have nuclear weapons, then the more likely they are to be used.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084030)

The theory is that the more countries and NGO that have nuclear weapons, then the more likely they are to be used.

Strange theory... last I know of, the only time a nuclear weapon was used in a war was at a time only one nation has had the technology.And they used it twice. And I heard/read some arguing that their use was gratuitous [wikipedia.org] , just for showing some muscles.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (5, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084336)

They were tests. Little was known about the effect on humans, animals, farmland and cities. They could easily have used their bombs on unpopulated islands or sparsely populated areas to for Japan to surrender (in fact one of the biggest factors in the decision was the threat of nuking Tokyo), but that wouldn't have told the much more than they already knew from tests on American soil.

The US was aware that other countries were trying to develop nuclear weapons and was naturally worried about the effect they would have on US cities. The two bombs they dropped used different designs because they were trying to maximise the amount of data they could collect. Many non-military targets such as Kyoto were considered but in the end they decided that they should at least make some effort to claim they were attacking ports and manufacturing.

Before the US became involved in the war they were against the targeting of civilians by British bomber raids on Germany. The British did it anyway in the grounds that the situation was desperate, even if it did violate the laws of warfare. That justification has been debated many times, but at least there was justification. Okay, in a conventional war more US soldiers would have died, but there was no chance of Japan invading the US or winning the war. Bad times indeed.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (4, Insightful)

Shoten (260439) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084338)

The theory is that the more countries and NGO that have nuclear weapons, then the more likely they are to be used.

Strange theory... last I know of, the only time a nuclear weapon was used in a war was at a time only one nation has had the technology.And they used it twice. And I heard/read some arguing that their use was gratuitous [wikipedia.org] , just for showing some muscles.

Actually, there's another theory...that the more countries (and in particular, the more unstable countries) have nuclear weapons, the more likely they are to fall into the hands of an actor where deterrence does not come into play. The best current example of this is Libya, who fortunately gave up their nuclear program before the recent rebellion and subsequent chaos. It isn't at all difficult to imagine that if weapons-grade material or even a nuclear weapon itself were somewhere in Libya during the uprising that there wouldn't be forces trying to locate and seize it that would be far more likely to use a nuke than a nation-state (which can be nuked in return). This is the real nightmare scenario, these days. As you've accurately pointed out, deterrence is remarkably effective at keeping nation-states from using nuclear weapons on each other, but when you put a weapon into the hands of a group that many countries are trying to hunt to extinction anyways, there isn't much to deter them.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083990)

Because possessing even 1 nuclear weapon is enough to not be harassed/invaded/bombarded by the US.
So of course the US doesn't like it, and will do anything legal or not to prevent it. Up to now the only country they can intimidate is Iran, seeing that NK already has the bomb, Pakistan has it, India has it. I doubt Iran is more crazy than NK or India or Pakistan, those last 2 almost went nuclear a couple of times.
Don't want the US bully knocking on your door ? Get yourself a couple of nuclear weapons.
So I say go go Iran. Get yourself an arsenal. It can't get worse and you might even avoid an US/Israel invasion/bombing campaign.

Re:How could he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084152)

The only reasons I can think of are those which Israel used to kill off Iran's nuclear scientists.
No, I do not think that they qualify as good enough to kill anyone. Israel playing such a game can't turn around and say "no fair" if their scientists were killed off in a similar fashion.
As a side note, Jimmy Carter said that Israel has at least 150 nuclear warheads in their arsenal. USA and USSR might have had MAD, but Israel and Iran having them is insane. Look at the Palestinian areas, ship boardings in international waters (piracy, legally speaking), and so on.

Everybody should have the weapons (4, Insightful)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083736)

It's being shown time and again that strong countries do not get attacked. All countries need to understand that it is really in their best interest to get nuclear weapons fast. Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq. I think at some point Iran will have their weapon - good for them.

Good for them. They should get as many as they can possibly put their hands on. You get fucked in the ass if you can't fight back, that's what we really know today, everything else is bullshit.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083770)

Is also well known that countries sometimes get mad or at least weird thinking leaders, like North Korea, Venezuela, Libya or US. You want that those leaders have access to superpowerful weapons capable of wipiing out countries or the entire world?

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083786)

yes.

But I am for everybody having a nuclear bomb. Every single person. Unfortunately it's impractical, but every state should have their bombs.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083854)

Sort of like what the gun lobby wants?

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (3, Funny)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083870)

I don't know what they want, I want everybody around me to have a nuclear bomb and myself. I think it would make people a little less likely to yell at each other.

You are yelling? Boom.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (3, Funny)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084358)

this would give a whole new consideration for road-ragers.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (4, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083868)

But I am for everybody having a nuclear bomb. Every single person. Unfortunately it's impractical, but every state should have their bombs.

I'm assuming that's just hyperbole, because nuclear weapons are only a deterrent for mentally stable people. If someone has no problem sacrificing themselves to blow others up, the whole idea of MAD and deterrence breaks down.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083884)

No, no hyperbole. I really wish everybody naturally had a nuclear arsenal. Every single person. Mentally ill, everybody. I think it would make the world a more interesting place, a more honest place.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084070)

It would also make the world a very quiet place. With a healthy green glow.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084080)

Similarly, door handles are for losers. The world would be a more interesting place if people burned down their houses when they wanted to go outside.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084346)

I didn't know that Insanity Wolf was on Slashdot...

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084328)

But I am for everybody having a nuclear bomb. Every single person. Unfortunately it's impractical, but every state should have their bombs.

I'm assuming that's just hyperbole, because nuclear weapons are only a deterrent for mentally stable people. If someone has no problem sacrificing themselves to blow others up, the whole idea of MAD and deterrence breaks down.

Except that there's almost never 1 person only who can actually launch the nukes, so all it takes is 1-2 guys somewhere in the chain of command who's not that stupid / crazy. Basically, you can stop a nutcase with a Stanislav Petrov [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083872)

What benefit is there to this that would outweigh the inevitable disasters?

What threat exists in the world that could make regular unpredictable nuclear explosions seem like the lesser of two evils?

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083924)

In a rainbow and unicorns world there would be a chain of command for authorizing a launch, the possibility for someone sane to do not follow order would be greater.

The final word is always in the guy who have to push the trigger and if the thing is done right he is in a bunker with a door that only opens from inside.

 

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084304)

In a rainbow and unicorns world there would be a chain of command for authorizing a launch, the possibility for someone sane to do not follow order would be greater.

There was in the USSR, and when the equipment malfunction ordered the launch he refused to fire and probably saved the life of a significant proportion of the world population. His reward? Early retirement and a lifelong holiday in Siberia.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084440)

Too late. Israel have already got their hands on nuclear weapons and have quietly been threatening behind the scenes to reduce much of the Middle East to radioactive rubble if they ever get invaded. Then there's countries like Pakistan whose current leadership probably wouldn't use nukes but is incredibly unstable and in danger of being overthrown.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083792)

Problem is that you need to be a big country to make your own nukes, so nuclear weapons place small countries at an even greater disadvantage than they already are at.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083894)

I never said it was going to be easy. But if you don't have a large stick and the monkeys around you do - you are fucked. And hey, maybe it's just they it should be. The bigger monkeys with bigger sticks fuck the smaller monkeys with no sticks. That's how it is in nature.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083912)

Pft, haven't you played RTS games?
Just spam the anti-nukes and throw some engineers on them to speed up construction of the missiles, you'll be invincible!

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083800)

Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq.

Yeah because it would have been great if one side had access to nuclear weapons in those civil wars wouldn't it? With smaller undemocratic countries the chances of nukes getting into the hands of some crazy rogue dictator is huge. Just look at all the suicide bombers, there are many people who don't care about death. If every country had nukes there would at least one dumb enough to use them.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2, Interesting)

wmac1 (2478314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083838)

Suicide bombers did not exist before Israel, US and some other countries effectively occupied middle east. Islamic extremism came to existence after Islamic countries got raped. Some of their people could not bear it and reached a state that they would explode themselves to force occupiers out.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083886)

Suicide bombers did not exist before Israel, US and some other countries effectively occupied middle east.

That's ridiculous. Suicide bombers have existed for just as long as bombs. Persuasive leaders have always been able to convince their followers to die for them.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

Coward1 (2483012) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083940)

i aint dying for nobody PERIOD.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083992)

Wife beaters did not exist before the rise of feminism.
Nuclear accidents did not happen before there were ecologists.
Drugs did not exist before war was declared on them.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084214)

the arab countries got raped by uk and other arab countries long before israel came to be again.

suicide bombers, martyrs and activists of all sorts did exist before that too though.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084410)

The other poster is right.. they've been around as long as the bomb.... and a needless example to.prove your thoughts wrong, would you not consider a Japanese kamikaze pilot a suicide bomber, since they knew before take off what their role was, used the plane as their bomb, and had religious beliefs in what they were doing just like any current bomber?

And obviously this was before "Israel" existed...

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084422)

Suicide bombers did not exist before Israel, US and some other countries effectively occupied middle east. Islamic extremism came to existence after Islamic countries got raped. Some of their people could not bear it and reached a state that they would explode themselves to force occupiers out.

the anarchists have a rather lengthy tradition of blowing stuff up - including themselves when necessary.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083904)

Actually you are right. I am for every single person owning a nuclear weapon - would make the world a more honest place or would unmake the world. Our choice.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084472)

would make the world a more honest place or would unmake the world

The second.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084074)

Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq.

Yeah because it would have been great if one side had access to nuclear weapons in those civil wars wouldn't it? With smaller undemocratic countries the chances of nukes getting into the hands of some crazy rogue dictator is huge. Just look at all the suicide bombers, there are many people who don't care about death. If every country had nukes there would at least one dumb enough to use them.

Just like Pakistan then ? ^_^
A country known to harbor terrorists, and known to finance them without problem just over the border.
Yeah now tell me again why we don't disarm Pakistan and India with force if necessary ? Yep, its because they have the bomb. So you see, even if you're a dictatorship that everyone hates, having nukes ensures that you will not be assailed bu the worlds #1 thug. That is a good thing.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084044)

It's being shown time and again that strong countries do not get attacked. All countries need to understand that it is really in their best interest to get nuclear weapons fast. Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq. I think at some point Iran will have their weapon - good for them.

Good for them. They should get as many as they can possibly put their hands on. You get fucked in the ass if you can't fight back, that's what we really know today, everything else is bullshit.

Yeah, but if you can't even afford to feed your own people, or your government is so corrupt that most of the money the state brings in goes straight the the bank accounts of the leader and his family/cronies, how are they going to protect these nukes? Nukes aren't a rifle, or a MANPAD; hell, it's not even a tank. These things have a limited damage potential (either in number of casualties, or portability/mobility). A nuke can be very small, and can kill hundreds or thousands of people very easily. There are people out there that would love to get their hands on nuclear weapons, and are just waiting for a 3rd world country to get some.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084282)

Right, because Germany did not attack France early in WWII and Japan did not attack the U.S. early in the same war. Sorry, the evidence suggests that balance of power world politics always leads to war sooner or later.

Re:Everybody should have the weapons (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084454)

Well to be fair it was France and Britain that declared war on Germany. But that only disproves the GP's point even further, since Germany was a strong military force in 1939, rivaled possibly only by Japan.

No I think the main point to consider where war is concerned is that logic and the rules of logic cease to apply.

Possible to do after the fact (2)

paper tape (724398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083758)

Once they've sold their knowledge, they can be identified, sometimes.

Keeping the knowledge from spreading isn't possible - eventually it will become commonplace. The challenge is making the raw materials and weapons grade nuclear material out of the hands of those who would misuse it.

A similar problem exists with bioweapons - eventually the knowledge to make them will become commonly available. The differences there are that raw materials for bioweapons are far easier to obtain, the equipment needed is far less expensive than for nukes, and the potential damage of bioweapons is far worse.

Could have been stopped easily enough (1)

S3D (745318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083768)

By giving him job with salary better that one of Nigerian garbage collector in Abuja.

Re:Could have been stopped easily enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083846)

It isn't just the salary, its the quality of life that comes with it. I'm speaking of things like traditional benefits, but there is much more. Things like, not having to commute two hours in traffic one way is one...

App ? (1)

shikaisi (1816846) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083780)

I"programs to identify and win over nuclear scientists who might be willing to sell their know-how to non-nuclear countries."

You mean there's an app for that? Oh boy, I'm going to install that right now.

Knowledge... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083822)

...doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Easy identification (4, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083930)

I would bet 100% of nuclear scientists are willing to sell their secrets. So the identification is the easy part.

The only question is: at what price? One will spill for a drink at the hotel bar, the other only when offered critical medical services for his sick child.

Re:Easy identification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084082)

What kind of scumbag would be willing to murder the entire world (including their child), in order to 'save' their child?

Re:Easy identification (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084184)

most of the knowledge required is freely available. it's a bit of a stretch to say that one scientist developed the whole program, ran the centrifuges and piles, developed the high explosive lenses, then built and dropped the bomb.

Re:Easy identification (1)

herr.lorenzen (1295230) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084322)

I would

Re:Easy identification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084362)

I would easily sell out every single person on this planet if I knew it would save my family.
The real problem would be convincing me that I wouldn't end up dead at the end of the deal.

Re:Easy identification (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084366)

What kind of scumbag would be willing to murder the entire world (including their child), in order to 'save' their child?

No one. But most people would accept a small risk of lots of people they don't know dying to save someone they do know. It's part of the pack / tribe mentality shared with a lot of other mammals.

Re:Easy identification (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084458)

most sane parents ?

we're wired to care a whole lot more for our next of kin than for complete strangers. so, i one government have a fucked up health care system, a sane nuclear scientist living there who's in need of care for his child _WILL_ sell his knowlege. his instincts will kick in and drive the decisions.

you'd know that if you were a parent.

Re:Easy identification (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084480)

Shouldn't be feeding trolls, but either you do not have a kid (I'm placing my money on this option) or you're the worst parent in the world.

No proof. (4, Insightful)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38083946)

There was nothing close to believable evidence for most of the "damning" allegations in the report, no sufficient information to justify taking them seriously even while reading the 20 odd pages. Most of the report was based on stuff that was shown by "one member state", and it happens to be the same member state that manufactured "evidence" for the war against Iraq. Excuse me if I delegate it to the trashcan without more extraordinary and unambiguous evidence than a table in yellow, orange and red.

From the rest of the report it was only evident that a) Iran has not succeeded in buying weapons tech or plans, b) Iran does not even have the fundamental science to develop weapons and c) all their efforts invariably end up in a brick wall.

Finally, while I keep hearing these scary stories about everyone and their dog develop nuclear weapon based on Russian know-how, it is, as a Russian combinator would say, a medical fact that ALL non-NPT nuclear programs except the Chinese are based either on US or NATO expertise.

Will we get a break from these scary, but largely baseless stories?

A scientist willing to spread his knowledge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083962)

Really? The question on everyone's mind is how to stop a scientist from sharing his knowledge? You could as well ask how to stop a banker from profiting, or a politician from lying...

Why SHOULD he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083964)

Why should anyone be stopped from pursuing a living? It is a Right we cherish here in the US.

If I have knowledge that is valuable on the market, why should I not be allowed to use that knowledge to earn a living?

Sure, we don't want IRAN to have nuclear facilities, but do we really have the Right to prevent them from it? No, we don't.

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38083968)

With a bullet to the head.

Reverse Prime Directive. (3, Interesting)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084022)

Gotta love how the real world is a lot different from TV..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Directive [wikipedia.org]

Instead of letting this culture/nation, Iran, Naturally develop their science to a high level, nuclear weapons, allowing them to flourish much as the USA has..

the US and the big guys on the anti nuke front are actively SQUELCHING the scientific advancement of Iran .. Pushing them further into the past because USA et al wont alllow them to develop naturally (or however iran develops..russian scientists or not)

I personally find it reprehensible that a nation would fight so hard to stifle the scientific understanding and development of a nation/culture/anyone.

The Reverse Prime Directive!! Don't let them get Warp technology! ITS DANGEROUS!

Re:Reverse Prime Directive. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084060)

Is there some benevolent use of nuclear weapons that I'm missing? You don't need to be able to weaponize the technology in order to build, say, power-generating nuclear reactors. The weaponry branch of nuclear technology is a scientific dead end, and the pun is very much intended. This is like saying that by stopping al'Qaeda from acquiring sarin nerve gas that we're just oppressing Arab chemists in their rational pursuit of novel uses for organophosphates.

Re:Reverse Prime Directive. (1)

Loki_666 (824073) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084296)

Perhaps the term Manifest Destiny - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny [wikipedia.org] - is still relevant for those in power in the US.

Its a bit hard to be the bully in the playground if those you want to squash also have equivalent tech.

"win over" (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084046)

Sure, they will "win them over" with a Predator drone.

How could he have been stopped? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084124)

By giving his name to Mossad.

There's a simple answer to this (2)

ndogg (158021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084174)

If he was employed, he wouldn't have been tempted to sell the information.

Did they identify the CIA? (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084266)

Did the identify the CIA [wikipedia.org] as being a source of nuclear proliferation to Iran?

just like battleships (2)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084268)

Just as the US (and British) bullied the Japanese in the 1920s and '30s, limiting the number of battleships they could have, bullying the Iranians about nukes will simply push them into the aircraft carrier equivalent for the 21st Century.

Ultimately, we can probably beat them in a war, or, at least, turn the livable parts of Iran into radioactive glass, but can we really block every single every avenue of damage to the US without turning the whole nation into even more of a gulag, with the attendant impact on innovation and productivity?

Knowledge is hard to contain (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38084316)

I teach on a Nuclear Reactor physics masters course. We teach students from all over the world - I've had Saudi and Iranian students in the past. Everyone who graduates our course could have a decent stab at building a bomb. Why is this myth that the physics of constructing a nuclear weapon is a well kept secret? You could teach yourself, easily, from publicly available materials.

The countries that the US and allies want to prevent from acquiring weapons are only held back by the lack of availability of the fissile materials. The physics is well known and the engineering is fairly straightforward.

Burn all the physics books (0)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38084350)

They contain nuclear knowledge!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?