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."
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
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
[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.
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".
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."
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.
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/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_p...
Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind.
I wasn’t counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised mostly of Kazakhs.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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).
In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its own alliances.
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
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.
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.
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
>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.
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...
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.
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".