The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm fine with that, but I understand the argument against it. One mistake and you spread nuclear waste thru the whole atmosphere.

It would be an expensive "add on", but if we were going to use that route, we could encase the waste in a container designed not to take significant damage should a failure occur, maybe even with a protected parachute compartment. I doubt that idea would survive a risk-cost/benefit analysis.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm fine with that, but I understand the argument against it. One mistake and you spread nuclear waste thru the whole atmosphere.

I'm not convinced that your "whole atmosphere" concern is realistic - a nuclear weapon scatters like that because the force of the explosion blasts the spent fuel into tiny aerosol-like particles that can spread with the wind. If a rocket carrying a solid lump of waste blew up, it would pretty much just fall to the earth as a few lumps - Challenger's and Columbia's debris didn't scatter through the atmosphere. Still nasty, but not doomsday.

The number of launches is what kills the idea - the largest system even proposed to date (Space Launch System Block 2) can get a 130,000 kg payload to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). From there, at least half of your "payload" would actually need to be the fuel to launch to the sun. Figure another 25% for the structure of your solar craft, and the max waste per launch would only be about 32,000 kg. There have been 69,720 metric tons (69.7 million Kg) of nuclear fuel used in the last 40 years, so you'd have to do more than 2,000 launches. Even if there were only a 0.001% chance (no way this is conservative) of a catastrophic event that scatters waste over a large populated area, if you flip that coin 2000 times, you'd have a 2% chance of killing lots of people in a really nasty way.

The number of launches are an economic problem, as well. Here's an estimate of $50,000 per pound ($110k per kilogram) just to get to Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), so 69.7 million kg = $7.7 trillion dollars, which is 77 times more than the $100B spent on Yucca Mountain (and the fact that it has been that much is a travesty and a national embarrassment).

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

What, pray tell, does a British law enacted over 150 years ago at the behest of railroad special interest groups have to do with the proper disposal of radioactive waste? Are you arguing that "green" energy groups are lobbying for such legislation as we speak?

I don't think anyone has a problem with said waste getting disposed of in North Dakota (hell, I already said it's the perfect place! ), but even North Dakotans deserve some measure of precaution and protections taken to ensure their valuable farmland and oil sands are still industries and resources that can be counted on for the next several decades, without fear of a nuclear accident putting them at risk, no?

Because tree huggers oppose everything. Because in tree hugger speak "appropriate regulation" means "no." Because tree huggers live in mortal fear that the energy revolution will lead once again to American energy independence. Because tree huggers like OPEC, long gas lines and high gas prices (and freely admit it). Because tree huggers think we should abandon our automobiles while they continue to drive their SUV's. Because tree huggers are quite content to lie, cheat, and put their collective thumbs on the scale to manipulate research data to advance their preferred policy and legislative agendas. Because tree huggers haven't got the first idea of how our economic system works. And even if they did, they'd reject it in favor of some utopian vision. Because millions of people have died because of tree huggers and their hysterical war on DDT. Because tree huggers are as full of sh*t as a Christmas goose. And they would certainly approve of a modern day version of the Red Flag Act if it would advance their narrow, cribbed view of the world, and to h*ll with the rest of us. See: Kyoto Treaty. Because tree huggers are hungry for more government regulation and interference in our economy. Because tree huggers continue to blather on about wind, geo-thermal and solar while categorically rejecting the only real solution to these problems: nuclear. As long as they reject nuclear, they cannot be taken seriously.

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And if there is anyone who knows what it feels like to not be taken seriously....

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And if there is anyone who knows what it feels like to not be taken seriously....

Wow! Never expected you to be criticizing Obama's lack of foreign policy too!



Totally agree with your sentiment. If you issue an ultimatum, no matter how petulant or intemperate, you must follow through, or no one will take anything else you say seriously afterward.

Any doubt there is a direct connection between the failure to enforce the "red line" in Syria, and the annexation of the Crimea?





PS. It would have been far better never to have made that "red line" statement in the first place. But you cannot unring a bell.

[Priceless]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Wow! Never expected you to be criticizing Obama's lack of foreign policy too!



Totally agree with your sentiment. If you issue an ultimatum, no matter how petulant or intemperate, you must follow through, or no one will take anything else you say seriously afterward.

Any doubt there is a direct connection between the failure to enforce the "red line" in Syria, and the annexation of the Crimea?





PS. It would have been far better never to have made that "red line" statement in the first place. But you cannot unring a bell.

Whooosh!

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Any doubt there is a direct connection between the failure to enforce the "red line" in Syria, and the annexation of the Crimea?

Ummm...Fishy, the direct connection was the removal of the pro-Rooskie President of the Ukraine. Syria has absolutely nothing to do with it, although perhaps Bush II's lack of response when Putin pulled this in Georgia might be more relevant! (ducks while Fishy's head explodes ).

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

No question Putin isn't impressed by Obama's foreign policy moves. That said, Putin would probably have grabbed Crimea regardless. Putin is playing on his home court and our direct options are quite limited.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So we (the US government) supported the Ukranian protests that ended up overthrowing the elected President of the country because it was the Will of the People. Then we (again, the government) castigate the Crimeans for voting to remove itself from Ukraine and rejoin Russia... even though it was the Will of the People. The Ukrainian government called the Crimean vote illegitimate because it wasn't a constitutionally permitted vote, yet overthrowing your own president in the middle of his term is considered fair game?

The more and more we look at this situation should tell us that there are no good guys here, there's no reason to keep a unified Ukraine. You have two completely separate ethnic groups that want to be parts of different countries. Both sides have taken shady actions and for the US to take an official side only opens us up to cries of hipocrisy.

We just need to stay away from it all.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Crimean vote was also illegitimate because Russian thugs controlled the country. Not exactly an environment where folks opposing annexation by Russia would feel comfortable voting. And it was boycotted by folks like the Tatars. Plus of course who knows how legit the counting of the votes was. A sham election all the way around.

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The Crimean vote was also illegitimate because Russian thugs controlled the country. Not exactly an environment where folks opposing annexation by Russia would feel comfortable voting. And it was boycotted by folks like the Tatars. Plus of course who knows how legit the counting of the votes was. A sham election all the way around.

I agree, and Putin screwed up with his Soviet-like 95% in favor for succession.

Having said that, IMHO a strong majority of those people DO want to join Russia, and you know what? Let 'em I say. If they want to join a declining entity that bad, have at it. Its sorta like people joining the GOP! Its a sinking ship, but if you want to jump on it that bad go right ahead.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I believe ethnic Russians are only a slight majority, about 58 percent or so. And if Stalin hadn't deported the Tatars to Central Asia (after wiping out half their population through starvation etc.), that number would be much lower. Prior to Stalin's actions, the Tatars were the largest ethnic group in Crimea.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I believe ethnic Russians are only a slight majority, about 58 percent or so. And if Stalin hadn't deported the Tatars to Central Asia (after wiping out half their population through starvation etc.), that number would be much lower. Prior to Stalin's actions, the Tatars were the largest ethnic group in Crimea.

So perhaps we should only count the votes of the few remaining Native Americans in this country, eh?

Regardless of the presence of the Russian military or whether you believe the first digit of the vote tally, it seems pretty clear to me that joining Russia is the will of the majority of people in Crimea, so I don't know what US politicians think they're gaining by stamping their feet and wishing aloud that things had turned out differently.

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I believe ethnic Russians are only a slight majority, about 58 percent or so. And if Stalin hadn't deported the Tatars to Central Asia (after wiping out half their population through starvation etc.), that number would be much lower. Prior to Stalin's actions, the Tatars were the largest ethnic group in Crimea.

I'm sorry for what happened to them, but unfortunately that doesn't change what seems to be the reality on the ground today which is these people by and large don't want to be a part of Ukraine anymore. I guess a follow up question would be where do the rest of the people stand. I was under the impression 80% were Russians but I probably got that from CNN so take it for what its worth.

[Rover]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

So perhaps we should only count the votes of the few remaining Native Americans in this country, eh?

Regardless of the presence of the Russian military or whether you believe the first digit of the vote tally, it seems pretty clear to me that joining Russia is the will of the majority of people in Crimea, so I don't know what US politicians think they're gaining by stamping their feet and wishing aloud that things had turned out differently.

Russia should pay a price economically for this, as we don't want more powerful countries swallowing up the territory of weaker nations just because they have some citizens there. Crimea is a somewhat unique situation as it was Russian before given away by the leader of a defunct empire 50 years ago. Beyond putting the squeeze on Putin and his buddies however, there's little more the US should be doing. I would boot them out of the G-8 however and he can kiss off hosting any more splashy international events ever again to boost the image of his kleptocracy.