« Sunday Morning Book Thread: 10/22/2017 |
Main
|
The Best Of The Best »
October 22, 2017
Uranium, Russia, Obama, Clinton, Money: A Match Made In Hell
A few days ago, JackStraw, long-time commenter, seafood aficionado, jibe-master, Mets fan and ocean racer sent me a seven-year-old article about enriched uranium transfers from Ukraine to Russia. U.S. Helps Ukraine Send Uranium to Russia. It was the catalyst for a short email exchange about exactly what the hell is going on.
Ignoring the tongue-bath that CBS gives Obama, it really is odd that we would facilitate these transfers, with the expectation that Russia is going to do what they say they will do.
This week's removal of more than 110 pounds of highly enriched uranium followed a pledge by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to get rid of all of his country's highly enriched uranium by April 2012. The material will be blended down in Russia, rendering it useless for bomb making.
Anyone care to bet on whether that "blending' actually occurred?
And as JackStraw pointed out:
Note the connection to Yanukovuch, the ex-Ukraine president who is in the middle of the Uranium One scandal and exiled to, yep, Russia.
Andrew McCarthey writes in his National Review article:
The Obama Administration's Uranium One Scandal
Let's put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads -- the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
This is the real scandal, and one that should be aggressively investigated.
But it also brings up a larger point; should the world try to control nuclear proliferation? There are two issues that confound those attempts. The first is the obvious difficulty in controlling technology and knowledge. I am confident that there are enough people on this blog with enough skill and knowledge to build a nuclear weapon. Is it realistic to try to prevent sovereign nations from doing the same?
The second issue is: How reasonable is it to try to control the behavior of those sovereign nations? Americans bristle at the idea of the United Nations merely criticizing our internal policies. Imagine if they tried to embargo some critical material or technology!
I think a better strategy is to try to control the material and technology with the expectation that we will eventually fail, but at the same time make it abundantly clear what will happen if one of those sovereign countries goes nuclear.
Gee...I guess President Trump isn't so dumb after all!