US helps Ukraine secure 2 nukes worth of uranium...

US helps Ukraine secure 2 nukes worth of uranium...

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON — The United States has helped Ukraine send two atomic bombs worth of weapons grade uranium to Russia during a secret operation over the holidays, the Obama administration confirmed Thursday on msnbc's The Rachel Maddow Show.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This news broke about an hour ago on MSNBC - it appears that we are now openly in the business of escorting uranium for other countries...
The operation was conducted during Christmas weekend. I'm sure that this story is in multiple places on the web but I post it because the story just struck me in an odd way and I think it would make for interesting discussion in this forum. What do you make of it?
It's a little funny in an ironic sort of way...what with us basically handing uranium to the Russians when almost 30 years ago we were doing everything we could to undermine them and their nukes.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by coldkidc


When the old Soviet Union collapsed the US did many similar things with the Russians so that their scattered Nuclear forces would not fall into the wrong hands. It's not as unusual as you might think. The Russians are more trust worthy to have the nukes than say some former Soviet satellite country.

This occurred like a week ago as well. Russia was transporting nuclear material somewhere far north but none of the countries in between wanted anything to do with it so they had to transport it through the Mediterranean and all the way around Scandinavia or something. Apparently the US and Ukraine didn't mind helping out this time though. That was a nice gesture. Does it have something to do with START? Probably.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
It's not as unusual as you might think. The Russians are more trust worthy to have the nukes than say some former Soviet satellite country.

Exactly.

I don't find this story odd at all. It's fair to say the United States is more experienced in the handling and transport of nuclear materials than Ukraine (even though Ukraine did at one time technically have nuclear weapons) and probably has better security measures as a result, so the United States assisting in the transport of this uranium appears to be nothing more than a precautionary security measure to avoid possibility of sabotage.

Now to the question of why Russia could not simply transport it instead of the United States? I don't know. Ukraine possibly trusts the United States more than Russia. Ukrainian-Russian relations have not been so peachy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think this is a story where some may look too deep into it searching for something that is not there. This looks like nothing more than a security measure to me. I'm by no means an America cheerleader, but I'd rather have American nuclear specialists and security agents handling this stuff than Ukrainian ones... but that's just me.

reply to post by coldkidc


Of course Ukraine can have Nukes..
They have a Cenrtal Bank and loaned money from the IMF..

That seems to be the criterian to be recognized as one of the good guys..

reply to post by backinblack


Did you read the story or just the headline?

The removal of more than 111 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.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Just the headline..Me bad..

reply to post by asperetty


Here is an article about the nuclear transport from Germany along the coast of Norway to Murmansk. There was maximum security until the ship left Germany (the ship was not escorted). The nuclear transport ship Puma was leaking on its return trip and had to seek emergency assistance. These transports are not without risk, and that's not just because of potentional terrorists. There have also been similar transports from Poland: Nuclear cargo secretly shipped around Norway.

Good old american hypocrisy in action.. How about sanctions on ukraine now as they do have materials to make weapons.. Or is that just for countries that dont kiss amerikas arse ?

reply to post by Expat888


For someone who attempts [Badly] to portray himself as a Smarter than thou "Expat" one could say. [Not that I'm calling you this] You sound awfully stupid on certain topics.

russia is one of our friends these days, just look at the russia times they have loads of pro obama news. not the type of anti america stuff you would have expected a while back and some people would still expect today

Originally posted by backinblack
Of course Ukraine can have Nukes..
They have a Cenrtal Bank and loaned money from the IMF..

That seems to be the criterian to be recognized as one of the good guys..

Only two countries in the world do not have a central bank (Andorra and Monaco) and only eight are not members of the IMF (North Korea, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Cook Islands, Niue, and Vatican City).

So what you're basically doing here is claiming that anyone who has a central bank and is a member of the IMF is a "good guy" while also indirectly bashing the powers that be for suppressing Iran's development of nuclear weapons... even though Iran meets this criteria you have laid out. So I'm not sure which way you're going to go with this, but there's really only two options: A) Your criteria is false. B) Iran is a puppet and is doing exactly what it is being told to do and the whole situation is staged.

Please clarify.

I believe this has to do with the joint Russia/U.S Nuclear Agreement?.....

Anyone?...

reply to post by PETROLCOIN


or maybe Iran is a profit for the IMF and withstand their shenanigans as I seriously doubt Iran will ever be able to destroy the IMF