Nuclear Security Summit Advances Our Goal of a World Free From Nuclear Danger

April 16, 2010
Nuclear Security Summit

About the Author: Hillary Rodham Clinton serves as the U.S. Secretary of State.

The Nuclear Security Summit ended on Tuesday, bringing to a close a substantive two week period in which the United States signed an arms control treaty with Russia, reoriented our defense posture toward the threats of the 21st century, and worked with our allies and partners to secure all vulnerable nuclear material over the next four years.

I was honored to be a part of the Nuclear Security Summit in which representatives from 47 nations, as well as the European Union, United Nations and IAEA, joined together to keep vulnerable nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists or criminals.

This is not something any nation can do alone. At the Summit, leaders committed to safeguard nuclear materials under their control. And they agreed to work toward signing key international treaties on nuclear security and nuclear terrorism.

During the course of the Nuclear Security Summit, I held numerous bilateral meetings with my counterparts and leaders. For example, my Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, and I signed an agreement that cleared the way for the disposal of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium -- enough to make 17,000 nuclear weapons. This will help establish a framework for eliminating even more plutonium in the future.

We also reached agreements with Ukraine, Canada, Mexico and Chile -- to name a few -- to secure enriched uranium and separated plutonium.

But the Summit is only part of our broader commitment to reduce the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

Last week, the Obama Administration released the latest Nuclear Posture Review. This provides the strategic framework for our nuclear weapons policy and pledges for the first time that the United States will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are in compliance with their obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

I also recently traveled to Prague with the President to witness the signing of our New START agreement with Russia. The new agreement will reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads by our two countries to a level not seen since the 1950s.

All these steps make America and the world safer and more secure.

More on theNuclear Security Summit



New Mexico, USA
April 16, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Dear Madam Secretary,

Thanks for taking time from your hectic duties to grace Dipnote and its readership with your thoughts on these grave matters.

I just want to say, I hope we're not too late.

Safe travels,


Chuck L.
Florida, USA
April 16, 2010

Chuck L. in Florida writes:

I hate to say it but both Russia and the United States are NOT the strong countries they once were. We have to face the facts. One or both of them might not exist in 50 years. That being said we need to get rid of our nukes before some unknown power takes over and has control of those nukes. The sad thing is I'm not talking about terrorists.

Wake j.
Virginia, USA
April 16, 2010

Wake Jr. in Virginia writes:

It is very encouraging seeing meaningful sincere diplomacy yield positive tangible results. Contrary to GOP beliefs diplomacy is not a dead art.

Virginia, USA
April 16, 2010

Sarah in Virginia writes:

It is truly to wonderful to hear from the country's chief diplomat. I look forward to seeing her future blogs.

Best Regards,
Sarah G.

Rosario d.
April 17, 2010

Rosario in India writes:

Thanks for the insight! There is a lot of helpful information within those links.

saman b.
April 18, 2010

Saman B. in Iran writes:

It's a last my warning to world community, especially U.S. government; on the subject of atomical activities Iran.

A question that now available, and always it's on the top news; when is the ultimatum for Tehran regime?

Iran positions are sink in their vain aims, this include, destroy America and clear Israel on the earth, and reach to extremely power; these impossible tries, unless with nuclear weapons. Iran is a vast country (but possession territory) and best place for stealthy atomical activities; rather than that Iran is in neighbouring of two countries who have the nuclear weapons.

I want to know what is the final alternative for Tehran regime?

Is there reverse numbers for Iran?

Michael K.
April 18, 2010

Michael K. writes:

The Nuclear Security Summit is a realistic step in a right direction.

A modest earthling is just simply not reaching the ways at a global level to trace efforts of safeguarding the nuke material under nation leaders’ personal controls.

United Kingdom
April 20, 2010

T.J. in the United Kingdom writes:

#- Saman B,

Thank you my friend. You are trying to tell us that, the Mullahs regime -- which would love to destroy USA and Israel -- needs it's Nuclear Weapons to achieve that goal.

To confront this threat head on, would be painful, but, NOT to confront this threat, would be painful for many generations to come.

Richard W.
California, USA
April 19, 2010

Richard W. in California writes:

Why wasn't Israel's clandestine, secret, illegal nuclear weapons program in Dimona on the table? Was Mordechai Vanunu's 18 year imprisonment, 11 of it in solitary, not convincing enough for the US to take action?

Honestly I don't know how anybody can't view these proceedings as a farce.

Iran has not been shown to be in violation of the IAEA, and the often repeated lie that Ahmadinejad said he intended to wipe Israel off the map has only exposed our media to be nothing but propaganda. Scott Ritter again is being diligently ignored, and again the US government is going to make the same "mistake" like they did in Iraq. McCarthy looks like an honest politician compared to so-called leaders we have today.

New Mexico, USA
April 19, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Richard W.

A few things to consider:

1. Saman B. from Iran's post here expressing his concern with his government's nuclear activities is credible.

2. Israel has fought a number of conflicts without resorting to threat or use of nuclear weapons even if the have them, which isn't neccessary anyway given the nuclear umbrella the US has long offered Israel.

3. I guess Dimona isn't so secret if you know about it, is it?

4. I watched Aminidijad's unveiling of 3rd generation centerfuges and witnessed state-sponsored chants of "Death to America", never mind Israel for the moment.
I don't know about you but after 31 years of this, me and a lot of your fellow Americans are flat fed up with it.

5. Folks are about to sanction Iran for the 4th time precicely because they are in violation of their NPT obligations and being not in just violation of IAEA protocols, but actively working to decieve the agency at every turn for years on end.

6. Your government is not the problem, the problem lies with those that call us "enemy" and it's good not to forget that while we still call them "adversaries".

(interesting lexicon I might add, given the facts on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of Iranian made IED's.)

April 26, 2010

C.L. writes:

Dear richard,

everyone fights his own battle...every morning an antelope gets up and knows that has to run faster then a lyon...every morning a lyon gets up and knows that has to run faster then the antelope... really doesn't matter if you are the lyon aor the antelope...Just try to run please

Virginia, USA
April 20, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Good post Richard!

New Mexico, USA
April 20, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:


"Promiscuous women are responsible for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told worshippers in Tehran last Friday that they had to stick to strict codes of modesty to protect themselves.

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," he said."


Dear Madam Secretary,

There are moments when one wonder whether the Iranian government is enriching to produce A-bombs, or a time machine to reach future dark ages.

Problem is, they've forgotten to practice the words of Mohammed's (PBWH) last sermon on Earth. It seems the depths of hypocracy know no boundaries among ethical infants.

I know women's rights are very important to you, and this connects with nuclear security on a spiritual and sociological level.

TJ in UK wrote;

"To confront this threat head on, would be painful, but, NOT to confront this threat, would be painful for many generations to come."

The diplomacy of sanctions will not change the calculus of ethical infants.

There is no rationality to be found in the minds of madmen, no matter how perverse the logic of insanity in their march over oblivion's cliff.

"A duty to inform" exists to the rest of the world in all aspects of this.

In it's totality, the abysmal human rights record, the long-standing support for terrorism, and nuclear ambitions; I believe it would be criminally negligent for any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer than the truth be told.

Someone smarter than I once said, "All truth goes through three phases. "First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it becomes accepted as self-evident."

On last week's question of the week on this blog I revealed a bit of truth about having been in the right place at the right time to have had the honor and opportunity to make a difference.

I doubt very much that the Dipnote staff would be comfortable in publishing all the proof you'd need to look into the things I've spoken of.

I suppose I could, as I have simply said here to you that "I hope we're not too late." and leave it at that.

I think they'll be ok posting this, as a brief excerpt of a little "ghost-writing" I've done in some very close consultation with folks.

An excerpt of a letter sent to your predecessor on Feb 1, 2005;

"These are times of hope and opportunity as well for both our peoples. Both you and the president have set the course for the future in your welcomed public statements.

America will have no better friend beside her on this road to freedom and a more prosperous world than the Iranian people in the months and years to come.

It is our hope that just as your own opportunity has come about through civil
rights reforms, that you will illuminate the plight of women in our country and across the Middle East who still suffer under gender apartheid conditions, and that no more
can women be relegated to "the back seat" of society. Many occupations and areas of study are forbidden to them despite the regime's claims that 63% of students are women.
Therein lies many of our future professionals and civic leaders, but only if they are given the chance now denied
them under repressive and discriminatory theocratic laws.

We have struggled long for freedom and liberty, seeking to free ourselves from the yolk of tyranny that the Islamic Republic regime has burdened us with and we sincerely
appreciate the efforts of the Department of State in shining a brilliant spotlight on the international terrorism, human rights abuses, and atrocities that are conducted daily by this evil regime. In particular, we thank as well the people of the Department's Iranian
Security desk in these ongoing efforts."

-end excerpt-

Please give my best regards to Henry W. if he's still in your employment at the Iran desk.

He once asked me if I was patient, and my reply was simply; "I am sir, but I cannot speak for others who've been waiting decades."

It appears that I have a tendancy towards understatement rather than exaggeration.

And if the Managing Editor of this blog gets a phone call from overseas, he should pay very close attention to the words spoken from the source at the heart of the matter.

Unusual perhaps, but a point of contact I believe I place trust and faith in to relay vebatim to you the proof neccessary to burn off any fog of illusion and "disbelief" of what the Iranian regime is capable of producing this year...not three to 5 years from now.

We need to reexamine our own calculus Madam Secretary because no one likes suprises.

Those who blog from Iran at great personal risk to get the message out have earned my respect long ago.

Today I must stand in public solidarity with their courage, for it being a "duty to inform" and a matter of national security.



New Mexico, USA
April 24, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:


I want to correct the historical record stated by Gen. Cartwright in hearing, It took us only 27 months to design,

build, overcome all technical hurdles with only theories to go on in WW2 to complete the first atomic weapon , test

it, and deliver it on target, after building an industry from scratch trying three different methods of enrichment,

and building a city from scratch to complete the assembly in secret. It's a matter of family history.

But that's getting into a whole different problem alltogether where it concerns how long it will take ethical

infants to build them. You folks are only guessing and setting yourselves up for nasty suprises with, along with all of us out here in the world at large endangered by it.

Now the trick to solving these problems is for the needed mil. to mil. and diplomatic relations between nations to

allow for a global investment, in a cooperative venture for peace and security including the combined use of force

if deemed the only option left on the table. Combine resource and talent and policy and craft a working program

from a simple concept of disposal of immenent risks and about how to get to where we want to go. In all aspects.

But with specificity to creating a better world for our kids and their kids to live in, these are challenges that

must be met head on, with courage and perseverance. And ultimately must come out of the shadows of "closed"

hearings to gain the public's support for policy.

For convincing the public that an off planet solution carries less risk and cost over time, pound for pound, than

storing nuclear materials and guarding it for thousands of years, is a matter of realizing this as self-evident.

I'll let accountants run the numbers, but they should offset the 100 billion that Yucca mountain would have cost,

opposed to the cost of a robust manned space program as an added benefit. From a hole in the ground as opposed to a

hundred billion dollar investment in a space program and equal additional funding by partner nations and the

private sector; one that has overcome the technological hurdles to land a man on Mars in my lifetime, and I'm a

year older than the President.

Let's just say I'm in a hurry...(chuckle). I'm sure he'll appreciate this.

Folks often ask,

"Why go to space when we have problems to solve on Earth?"

I agree, so we might as well solve a few problems on the way to meet the Martians(sic). It's going to take

building the ship to get there, in orbit. We need to perfect the construction techniques and grow the orbital

workforce and make the tools to do it with. Got a better plan to do that?

So I think it makes sense to match funding and programs with goals and priorities and combine them to stretch the

taxpayer dollars and end up having a lot more to show for it than otherwise might be less fiscally responsible and

less effective.

I told a staffer the other day, "I'm going to try and connect a few dots for the Senators.", and I don't see

anything in this concept that detracts from goals outlined by the President for NASA, or any other goal related to

this nuclear quandry in totality. Instead I think it will provide a rather elegant solution to a number of pressing

problems, and resolve a few issues raised in hearing.

I'm not privy to what's said behind closed doors, but if this idea hasn't been brought up as an alternative

"phased adaptive approach", is it because we lack the confidence, capability or will to get it done?

Let me simply suggest that a lot of pieces are coming into place that never have before that may allow for this

possibility to be seriously considered at this point in time.

The President has said repeatedly that "All options are on the table." I'm hoping this will prove to be an option

that solves many problems for the long-term.

So when folks say the concept is "science fiction", "too dangerous", or "too expensive", and that "we can't

possibly trust folks and share technology and talent without compromising national security.", therin lies your

friendly challenge to prove them wrong and come up with a plan.

And this cannot involve a partisan, or nationalistic distraction to lend excuse for failure.

Nor can the willfull threats posed by ethical infants be allowed to continue to stand in the way of getting this

job done.

Sometime back on this blog I stated my intention to change the nature of the conversation if I was ever invited to

speak at the Nuclear Security conference, or the NPT gathering.

Short of that, I hope someone will pass my thoughts on.

Thanks for your consideration of an out of this world idea,


New Mexico, USA
April 24, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Dear Madam Secretary,

I have invited a few Honorable members of this government to entertain a friendly challenge...

"Where do we go from here?"

I've watched the President lay out his vision for a world free of nuclear weapons. I've watched him lay out his

vision for NASA. I've whatched him bring nations together to honor the Non Proliferation Treaty and address the

threat of nuclear terrorism. As well as calling for words to mean something.

I've watched the Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs committees of the Senate in hearing on the Nuclear Posture

Review and pose many question of the capabilities of ethical infants to many experts and debate what the nuclear

giants of the world should do about the legacy of the cold war detrius that's in need of securing from ethical

infants, and basicly clean up our collective act as a project for humanity. For a better world awaits.

I've seen a new mindset evolve over the years, and yet folks have this big fear to overcome in getting to where we

want to be.

Now, do you think we can jetison all the high level nuclear waste and excess bomb material off the planet with a

little modification of existing technology and human ingenuity?

I figure you folks might be interested in getting the most dangerous materials well outside the reach of

terrorists, and I think this concept can pay for itself in part, with funding from the nuclear power industry.

I'm talking about a zero possibility folks, and I think any military strategist will be happy to tell you what he

thinks of a fixed target of opportunity. That where there's a will, there's a way to compromise it.

So with that in mind, no matter how well you store it, or guard it, folks are still sitting atop powder kegs.

We dug a 10 billion dollar hole in the ground out in Nevada to prove that to ourselves I guess, and I think it's

only reasonable to pose an alternative and ask folks in my government to ask themselves if what is being proposed

here makes sense, and is both desirable and do-able.

So if Yucca Mountain would have ultimately cost 100 billion, it is only logical in my mind to ask what could NASA

do with a budget like that to take care of the very same problem?

Let's say we could convince the European space agency, the Russian space program and the Chinese (since it makes

no economic sense for them to have to relearn all the mistakes we made getting into space) as well all nations

concerned; To combine talent, resource and technologies to create a standard operating system, to create a robust

manned/unmanned sustained global construction project in orbit and the means to reliably involve the private sector

in the sustainability of nuclear power as a solution to reducing carbon emmissions, by getting nuclear waste to a

place that we'll never again need be concerned by it.

Unless the waste problem is addressed, what are we actually doing for future generations other than leaving them a

mess to clean up?

That x1 solid motor concept? Pony that stage to to the Atlas and rig the X-37b mini-shuttle atop, and can you

deliver payload to geo sync and la-grange points? I leave these question to engineers and specialists.

I'm not an expert, I'm asking you if the idea is do-able with enough money and enough desirability.

Most have kids, some with grandkids. Motivation enough I suppose to ensure their future.

Build an erector set in orbit-nothing fancy, strap boosters to the frame and load it up with the cargo , send it

into the sun and you have permanent disposal into the largest nuclear furnace in four light years. Add a science

package to go with it. Add a couple ESA throwaway moduals converted to orbital construction shelters/transport for

astronauts with the space station as a "home base". Some way to refuel them in orbit and use it as needed for

transport, tug duties, repairs and so on, I'm sure there's a lot of ways it can serve the concept outlined here.

(continued ...)

May 3, 2010

P writes:


Nuclear debate doesn’t need a demagogue

Last Updated: May 02. 2010 8:36PM UAE / May 2. 2010 4:36PM GMT The UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and his chief of protocol probably slept poorly last night. On the eve of a UN conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, today’s opening speaker was already causing an uproar. How many delegates will walk out when he speaks? Will hotels in New York City deny him a room?

The object of this hand-wringing is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At the last minute, the Iranian president shrewdly decided to come to the twice-a-decade meeting, which is normally attended only by foreign ministers and UN ambassadors. Under UN rules, a head of state trumps other government representatives, so Mr Ahmadinejad gets to speak first.

While the political savvy of the perennially smiling Mr Ahmadinejad is impossible not to acknowledge, we have deep reservations about his qualifications to beat swords into ploughshares. Indeed, with a friend like this, disarmament and nuclear transparency – two of the most pressing issues of our time – need no enemy.

If Mr Ahmadinejad’s past is precedent, he will no doubt make the most of the occasion to emphasise the hypocrisy and secrecy of nuclear-weapons states and the oft-cited flaws of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. India and Pakistan – both nuclear weapons states – are not signatories. North Korea withdrew from the treaty to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Most of all, he will lambast Israel, which neither confirms nor denies that it possesses nuclear weapons and follows a policy of calculated ambiguity, which the United States has historically tolerated, if not indulged.

Give Mr Ahmadinejad credit: he knows a soft spot when he sees one. The prospect of him railing against the existing non-proliferation regime and against Israel’s nuclear arsenal has spurred the Obama administration into action. It is not mere coincidence that in recent days, Washington has hinted that it will reveal at the conference the size of its nuclear weapons stockpile which, until now, has been a carefully guarded secret. Nor is it coincidental that the US has made it known that it is negotiating with Egypt a proposal to make the Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone.

Mr Ahmadinejad has spurred some action but he should not be confused for a champion of disarmament, or a champion of the powerless against the powerful. In fact, he is tainted beyond reprieve. He has repeatedly denied the Holocaust, called for the destruction of Israel and promoted a nuclear programme that many believe is aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Not least, he brutally shut down Iran’s pro-democracy movement last summer.

Now, by miring the international community in a debate about the complexities and contradictions of nuclear history, he hopes to prevent tougher UN sanctions against Iran for failing to come clean on its nuclear programme. Mr Ahmadinejad is a leader of a government that holds our region in thrall to its unclear nuclear ambitions. It would be ironic, indeed, if he emerged today as anything more than a champion of Iran’s own eccentric ambitions.

New Mexico, USA
May 3, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ P,

I fully expect Iran to withdraw from the NPT publicly, there's no logical reason for Aminidijad to want to be there at the NPT conference otherwise, just take the golden opportunity to stick it the world's face.

In a way, his presence will reinforce the need for nations to re-afirm their non-proliferation treaty obligations and stick it right back in in his face, up close and personal.

I'm kind of hoping our president will take the opportunity to do that on a level of "engagement" that sends Aminidijad packing back home with his tail tucked between his legs.

While the whole world watches in "shock and awe" as common sense prevails.

Let's just say that I think the President was just getting warmed up during the Correspondent's dinner w/ Jay Leno, and that there's too much truth in humor to pass up this opportunity to roast this "drama queen" (not demagogue) over the burning coals of logic and skewer Aminidijad's agenda like shishkebob.

Since words must mean something, might as well make them memorable.

And if Pres. Obama's speach writers arn't up to it and he's looking for inspiration, there's always Dipnote, and all that I've ever said about any of this.

He's certainly welcome to borrow Bill Mauldin's logic if it makes sense to him.

"When you see a stuffed shirt, poke it. When it's really stuffed, punch it."

I favor the traditional New Mexican method of diplomacy, in that we will only be so happy to lend Aminidijad (or anyone else) all the rope he needs to hang himself with.

It's the only material support for terrorists that is allowed here.

And the only form of negotiation with them that amounts to anything positive.

It's doing like psycotherapy on someone suicidal, you pull out your gun, load it, then hand it to the subject and say, "Go for it."

That generally works to put a stop to the subject's complaints about life in general, one way or another.

Does make one have to think about it.


Virginia, USA
May 5, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Well, they didn't withdraw.

That was a good post, P.

New Mexico, USA
May 5, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Not yet, formally. But Flavius, I think not meeting their obligations under the NPT is a form of withdrawl for all intents and purposes in practical application.

Iran has in the past threatened to withdraw from the NPT, and try to name just one international agreement or obligation that this regime has upheld its commitments to...just one.

Then you might have a case to say that they won't withdraw from the NPT within say...90 days from now.

As a reaction to a fourth round of UN sanctions being imposed if my guess is correct.

So, we can have this conversation again within three months and I'd like to be wrong on this, but the trends are what they are, and my words only reflect the results of their pattern of behavior over time.

As it is, to attack the founding pricipals of the NPT the way Aminidijad did in his speech sends a clear message that the Iranian government neither respects the terms of the treaty nor has any intent to abide by its tenants.

So their "withdrawl" from the NPT is already a done deal in model respects except for the formality of an anouncement.

I don't know if P wrote that post or copied it strait from a media source, but it was good enough for me to bounce an theraputic idea off of.

Virginia, USA
May 6, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Could be that your timing was a little off. Just that you said:

"I fully expect Iran to withdraw from the NPT publicly, there's no logical reason for Aminidijad to want to be there at the NPT conference otherwise, just take the golden opportunity to stick it the world's face."

But it didn't happen that way. Greater men than yourself have been wrong.

Predictions are annoying that way.

And you know, he might have pasted that from somewhere else. Judging by the "dateline," I'm inclined to think he did. If he did, shame on him for the crime of plagiarism. This is the Internet and this is a blog, though, and the grand old rules don't seem to apply anymore (sigh).

Still was a good analysis, so thanks for passing it on, P. But if you didn't write it yourself, ATTRIBUTE!

You see, Eric has this dog...

New Mexico, USA
May 6, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well honestly Flavius, every time I "expect" something I'm always reminded of why I should simply "anticipate" them.

But that's not really a prediction if it is already reality on the ground.

"As it is, to attack the founding principals of the NPT the way Aminidijad did in his speech sends a clear message that the Iranian government neither respects the terms of the treaty nor has any intent to abide by its tenants.

So their "withdrawl" from the NPT is already a done deal in model respects except for the formality of an announcement."

I'd have to say that in allowing Iran to become such a problem to the peace and security of the world today, a whole lot of people have been wrong about a whole lot of things over the years in dealing with the threats posed, and there's no excuse for failure to deal with it effectively now that the lack of effectiveness over the years has produced a totally unacceptable situation for the public's peace of mind.

Did you catch his speech on C-span, Flavius?

Or Clinton's reaction?

Press Availability at the United Nations

May 3, 2010
The United Nations
New York, New York


"But we’ve also heard some destructive rhetoric, rhetoric meant to divide and obstruct us. And we cannot let that rhetoric stand. Iran is the only country represented here found to be currently in violation of its obligations under the NPT. As the IAEA Board of Governors has stated clearly and publicly, the Iranian Government has repeatedly rejected the injunctions of the UN Security Council and refused to cooperate with the IAEA’s investigation of its activities. It appears that Iran’s president came here today with no intention of improving the NPT. He came to distract attention from his own government’s failure to live up to its international obligations, to evade accountability for defying the international community, and to undermine our shared commitment to strengthening the treaty." -Sec. of State Clinton
(end excerpt)
See Flavius, there is no being wrong about this when he did as I expected he would in taking "the golden opportunity to stick it the world's face."

Now did I say it would be a "formal" withdraw? No, I didn't. But they have withdrawn from the treaty in every respect, save stating the obvious in a formal announcement.

I'll give P the benefit of the doubt in that forgetting to post the source is not a deliberate act of plagerism.

Found P's editorial's source by the way...

Karen H.
Oregon, USA
May 7, 2010

Karen H. in Oregon writes:

This is not a good time in history for nuclear weapons because the world's leaders are jockeying for power, and no one knows who to trust. In the hands of someone who is "backed into the corner" in some way, there is a great potential for triggering a major crisis.

Iran would like to continue to create their nuclear power program to enable them to compete regionally as equals, but by declaring their desire to go after Israel, they cannot be trusted to confine their program to peaceful purposes. They must address conflict resolution issues first.

Offering them technology to generate power that can only be used for peaceful purposes enables the US to discern their true motives.

One more issue to address concerning nuclear power relates to the structure of the Universe. Atomic structure is not what scientists believe it is. Atoms are actually universes within universes, and when we rip them apart, we are tearing apart other universes. Mankind does not have the right to do so. Technology that affects everyone should face multicultural review, and when someone objects to what is going on, it should not be allowed to progress until everyone is in agreement for it to do so.

Virginia, USA
May 7, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

@ Eric in New Mexico:

Honestly, Eric, I hardly have time to watch TV. Early to bed, early to rise and all that. I'm jealous of your access to this stuff. Even if I had TIVO I just don't have the TIME. What little time I do have is spent reading because it seems more efficient and enlightening.

Even if P "forgot," it is no excuse. I'm in the intellectual property business. I was a journalism student in college. I signed an honor code.

I think I might post a little play I wrote called "Hamlet" and forget to tell everyone that some other guy wrote it.

As for the rest of what you said, hey, thanks for another rendition of your greatest hits.

New Mexico, USA
May 7, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius:

Well Flavius, the very fact that you take the time to blog your thoughts here says a lot about your commitment to the success of this nation's foreign policy goals.

With your background, I can understand your sentiments regarding attribution.

I have to go under the presumtion of innocence before guilt is proven, and it's still not clear whether P is the author of that editorial. He may work for the publication after all.

Perhaps P will enlighten us, but I think his post may be a "one-off", and we won't be hearing from him/her on any kind of regular basis.

Correction on prev. post; I meant to say CNN covered the speech sorry, I had c-span on the brain regarding another post I wrote recently.

As far as being jealous is concerned...don't be.

The condition upon which the time I have rests is not of my choosing nor is it economicly sustainable, but since the Federal Government has seen fit to sustain my existance for the time being till I'm back on my feet, it's a process of giving back something of value to the common cause of a better world to live in.

In order to make any sense at all, I've had to give myself one heck of an education over the last decade, involving a tremendous amount of reading, research and outreach to obtain the level of understanding needed, without having the means to go back to school and get a degree.

I can say this without ego that I'm now perfectly capable of holding my own with Phd's and experts on a number of subjects.

But I'm still on a very steep learning curve, as I think just about everyone in government or society in general finds themselves in today's world, with all its dysfunctionalities.

So perhaps you could entertain a professional question about intellectual property.

In the unlikely event that the "out of this world" idea posed on this thread by your's truly were to meet with Presidential approval;

Does it then become the President's idea, owning it lock , stock and barrel by the decision he makes to implement it?

Or should he "attribute"?

And why?

Virginia, USA
May 7, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

To the point, the president would not have to attribute you, UNLESS HE USED YOUR VERY WORDS. And there would only be a legal question of that if you had a copyright on them. Otherwise, it would just be “bad form.” That sort of bad form can ruin an academic (or it used to until Doris Kearns Goodwin and Stephen Ambrose). It does nothing to a politician. Example: “A chicken in every pot.” Nobody attributes Henry of Navarre, and they don’t have to. Nobody cares. Or remembers. Except me.

The concept of sending nuclear waste to the heart of the sun is probably as old as space rockets and nuclear waste. It might even be older than either. I told you that I’d thought of it as a ten year old some thirty seven years ago. Just like I thought of attaching a translucent plastic tube to a flashlight not more than three weeks after the opening of the original “Star Wars.” Me and about 10,000 other kids. But, you see, at least one of those kids filed for a patent. And now he or she is drinking Chardonnay and nibbling Brie while getting a Swedish massage at San Tropez.

I hate that person. Lousy thief!

What you could do is write an essay and copyright it. Something so lucid and profound that it would inspire the president. And then he would be FORCED to give you credit. And if it were really popular (like that Shakespeare guy), he wouldn’t have to attribute at all because your words would attribute THEMSELVES. Ah, that’s what immortality REALLY is.

“Alas, poor Eric. I knew him well.”

Another idea would be to actually invent a way of making the idea a reality. Say, “Method and apparatus for the disposal of nuclear waste into a nearby stellar mass.” If you can design a way to get the waste off planet safely then that would be patentable. Meaning a rocket that has as close to a 100% success rate as one could possibly have. Robert Goddard just got a hernia even though he’s long dead, he’s laughing so hard. Or there might be some other way. That space elevator, for instance. All we need is half a trillion dollars and an equatorial landmass. A geologically stable equatorial landmass.

Well, we managed it Panama, once.

Life is so difficult.

Virginia, USA
May 7, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

My commitment is not necessarily to the success of the nation's goals. It is, rather, to the success of the NATION. My country and I often don't see eye to eye. But she's beautiful and I love her and I, like you, want her to do the right thing.

Mostly, I wander around and post here and there to try to get a little bit more of the truth out there on the plate for people to consider. Perhaps my screen name should be "Jaundiced Eye."


As for my taking time to post here, let's just say "it's a lunch thing." And a break here and there thing. You'll not see me post in the wee hours.

Good luck on your recovery by the way. My brother's on SSI and it isn't nearly enough.

New Mexico, USA
May 10, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ Flavius,

So your basically saying that the President is like everyone else in that he should give credit if credit is due. Ok I buy that.

See, I have no idea how many people might have thought of it, but like you I was about ten when a model rocket I had just launched got lost in the glare of the sun and inspired the thought.

But I haven't seen anyone brave enough or crazy enough to put the idea in print form, and now that Dipnote published it, that sort of represents a "poor-man's copyrite" by my understanding having worked in the music industry, recording studios etc. at one time.

In any case, he's welcome to it, I figure if he's willing to go the distance and commit to it, it's his idea. let him take credit for having the courage to make such a decision.

I honestly can't recall hearing of a launch failure of an Atlas V in decades, so that's part of why I think we can do it.

And if they used Johnson island (currently DOD's missile testing launch facility for ABM studies and reliability testing.), let's just say even in a worst case scenario, a launch failure wouldn't even come close to doing the damage to the environment that a single above-ground nuclear test has done, ever.

And there's been 2900 of those all told, under ground, above ground, underwater.. etc.

So the danger to the public is actually pretty minimal.

I find it hard to understand how this nation could be successful if it did not meet its goals, but I agree that there is much legitimate debate about how to get there from here.

Folks are looking at environmental catastrophe in the gulf of Mexico right at the moment, Imagine if you will what would happen if a cooling pond were suddenly drained at Savanna Nuclear power plant and it went critical. The entire Eastern seaboard would be rendered uninhabitable for centuries.

That is an unacceptable risk to the public, period.

Any number of studies have been done to illustrate the risk I'm speaking of, yet no one is posing a viable alternative to Yucca Mountain.

Do we wait 50 years for a space elevator to be proved a trustworthy method in practice?

Because that's what it will take as far as a time line.

As Churchill once put it in so many words, America always does the right thing, it's just that we try all the alternatives first.

Until now that is, when we just can't afford to get it wrong and not have a "plan B".

Nuclear power as climate's savior has a five hundred pound gorilla sitting quietly in the corner capable of destoying it.

If we are to live free from fear, we're going to have to make some decisions about this, and get very creative in finding the means to create peace of mind.

Food for thought on your lunch break.

Virginia, USA
May 10, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Well, you know, you're right about the pressing need to find a way to get rid of this stuff. And you're right about the Atlas too.

It's just that it isn't foolproof. You know, like offshore oil rigs are foolproof? Why, we just can't conceive of any way this could fail! And lo and behold...

I don't know about your numbers on catastrophic failure of disposal rocket vs. above ground nuclear test, but there is a reason WHY we don't do those anymore and just because we have done it before doesn't give us the excuse to do something that's not QUITE so bad as that NOW.

You often say that attitude is everything. I say that perception is everything. You can lay out all the science you want in the world, but if people think we're all going to turn into Morlock and Eloi if we're exposed to too much radiation, then that's the truth to them. It will take a lot of education to change that.

I mean, we can't even sell irradiated food in this country, even though there's nothing radioactive about it!

There just isn't the political WILL to take the risk, yet.

And like we discussed before, if you could find a way to make it inert, there really wouldn't be much reason to throw it to Ra for disposal.

Also, your doomsday scenario is about an active plant, not disposal, correct? Your argument seems to be against fission period, not just the disposal of byproducts.

As far as I'm concerned, Yucca Mountain seems to be the best solution NOW for disposal. Alas, there's politics involved. I don't think nuclear power is the final solution to our troubles (an unfortunate choice of words, perhaps) but we're in kind of a bind here, don't you think? Better we do it like the French and the Japanese though. Standardize it. The way we designed and built the plants before was just plain silly. And stupid.

You know, you might want to go to and throw this question at Wayne Hale (Manager, Space Shuttle Program). He'd give you all the ins and outs better than I could, certainly. Check out his blog there. I gather he has a habit of answering his emails and his comments. I cannot recommend his blog more strongly to everyone reading.

New Mexico, USA
May 11, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

(part 2-continued) I'm trying to kill two birds with the same buck, and that's a good thing if it gets us to where we want to be eventually. I think what would help in the perspective end of things is as the General said, folks "believe more of what they see than what they hear". So we need a way to prove we can do it in a way that takes advantage of present hardware and infrastructure so that it can be economically viable.

So where does the State Dept. figure in all this? If we're going to have a global nuclear disposal service, we need to offer stock in it. As a complimentary process to the proposed nuclear suppliers group initiative to supply developing nations with fuel and take-back for their power plants. (no need to develop enrichment capabilities in-house)

So I look at this as something that is the "missing link" as it were, to the nuclear conundrum in many respects, for the long term. Once we prove that we can do this, we can strive to make it "routine". All we need is human perfection and to guard against Murphy's Law. If offered for public debate, the individual must make his own risk assesment, and wonder at the alternatives. Say this blows up at 150,000 ft and the pod falls into the sea and the sphere is in shards on the ocean floor @
5000 ft deep...We suction them up out of the sea floor by remote submersible and contain the hazard. Won't spread like oil. I recall seeing an oxygen tank (spherical) that survived with only a dent from Columbia in news footage, so if computer modeling is part of the study done to determine feasibility and safety design, then I think there's a lot to draw from by way of experience. And I would expect a real world re-entry test of a non-nuclear "Pod" before the real thing was tried, since our military likes to see just what kind of damage they can do to their hardware before they put it to battle.

Which brings me to the role of the world's militaries in all of this, since they are primarily responsible for securing it under their various policies they are implementing at the behest of their governments. Part of each of their collective budgets will have to go towards supporting the transfer and processing of the material to launch form. The same budgets that would have otherwise been allocated to long-term storage and security on site. So as attitudes and perspectives shift, so must the resources shift into the focus of the goal. If this is as a lot of experts have suggested, a National Security imperative, then the military resources and logistics of nations can help formulate the Earth-bound architecture of the global enterprise.

Oh, "but nobody trusts each other" folks will say...We will cooperate in our common survival. See, when those who say "It can't be done." are really forced to think about it, what are they really saying? That we can't find the political will to survive as a species? Tell that to a guy with two daughters, and I bet you I will be joined in bi-partisan Presidential support in telling folks where to stuff that notion. That's a sad misunderestimation I presume to forcably opine, or I wouldn't have bothered to(thunk) it through to this point in the first place..

With all due respect for presuming what might Presidents take upon themselves as a "dad thing" or not, their solemn job description involves the survivability of the nation and its people. I'm not suggesting this would be a strait forward prospect to convince folks that the time is now to put all the pieces in place to accomplish this, but we can do it if our minds are made up to do it, of that I'm certain. And it will take the same courage and resolve as it will in Afghanistan to bring this full circle with sustainability. I appreciate the risks involved just like you do.

My question is, where's the alternative to this? You can only recycle so much of it. We don't have a good place to bury it permanently given the whims of geography
and the cost of a throwaway booster is what compared with building a bunker to house and guard it? I'm trying to be practical here with this, and prove it doesn't have to exist on a virtual blog, but can indeed prove the ticket to man's continued adventures in space. As a more non-dysfunctional family of nations.

So that's why I posted the idea on State's official blog to see whether the Sec. herself was down with the concept, and the strategic value of it enough to wonder if she could hold up the diplomatic aspects of gathering a partnership of nations on board. Given all that's going on, now might be a real good idea to pop the idea to the international community if it has a reasonable chance of garnering further study and the will to form the cooperative venture needed. If that won't strengthen the NPT, I don't know what could to such an extent.

New Mexico, USA
May 11, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:
(part 2)

Let me give you an example...1949, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque New Mexico.

B-29 takes off from Kirtland with a nuclear bomb on board and slams into the Sandia mountains scattering bomb grade plutonium all over the impact site on the mountain side. (bomb wasn't armed in normal takeoff procedure).

It got cleaned up, and folks go hiking there today.

We're not talking about potential Chernobles if the stuff can't spread on the wind in a catastrophic launch failure, and the fact that the material has already been subjected to about 1200 degrees (f) temperature and formed into a spherical shape assures it's atmospheric survivability in case of a re-entry. It will bury a hole in the ground, but the material can be collected like you would a very "hot" meteorite.

That sphere would be encased in a "pod". (Donald in Virginia once talked about an idea for "escape pods" on commercial aircraft, but this is a bit different.) The "pod" in this case is three things.

A containment housing that is covered in the same tile that the shuttle orbiter has on its skin, and affords the working astronght that must secure it to the "barge" in geo-sync orbit a measure of protection from the additional radiation source on EVA. And third, a way to remotely monitor the package. (space suits may need modifications as well to accommodate the activity) Which brings us to the point of transfer from one vehicle to the next. Everything to this point has been automated, and if the Airforce mini-shuttle is the actual vehicle the pod is in. (the whole thing is about as big as a large satellite, then you need two things. A way to recover it if that fails and practical retrieval from low Earth orbit becomes needed.

Manned/unmanned using the space station as the hub of this operation. Then you want this barge built and parked in orbit where it isn't in the way of any space debris. Here's the interesting part, we already have a barge in orbit. Folks are going to retire the international space station and that provides both a challenge and an incentive. Here's how we can get age and obsolescence to work for us. It will take many launches to load up the material deemed to be fit to launch on a frame constructed as a modular extension of the space station, and that puts it at retirement age when it's full up and ready to go. (structural integrity of the space station under thrust will be addressed in this as well)

We have until about 2020 to figure out a way to strap engines on her and send it all on a one way ticket, jetison the load into the sun and put the engines and the station in a parking orbit around Mars on the return.

Then we'll have a home away from home when we get there. I'm trying to kill two birds with the same buck, and that's a good thing if it gets us to where we want to be eventually.



Latest Stories