Remix.run Logo
fractallyte 17 hours ago

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."

pythonguython 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

rurban 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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...

Iwan-Zotow 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The Semipalatinsk test site ruined the health of so many Kazakhs

that cannot be true. It was really middle of the semi-desert with no people around

pythonguython 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re mistaken. They purposefully didn’t evacuate villages so the doctors could study the health effects on unknowing citizens. The radioactive dust traveled for miles and miles. Semey, a medium sized town near the test site had skyrocketing cancer rates and birth defects. The number of people affected is measured in the hundreds of thousands. Read “The Atomic Steppe” if you want to learn more.

cocodill 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind.

pythonguython 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I wasn’t counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised mostly of Kazakhs.

Jgrubb 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

Muromec 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>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.

TacticalCoder 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

aguaviva 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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).

amanaplanacanal 13 hours ago | parent [-]

In some people's minds Ukraine is not allowed to choose its own alliances.

aguaviva 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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

ImPostingOnHN 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's highly unlikely Putin would have attacked [, raped, tortured, and genocided Ukrainians] had there not been preparative talks for Ukraine to join the EU

It's even less likely that putin would have done all that if he weren't alive, or had he simply minded his own business, yet I don't see you advocating for either of those paths to resolution.

Instead, you advocate for an independent country of tens of millions of people to lose their independence, to lose their agency, to lose their sovereignty, to lose their identity, to lose their lives, simply because russia wants them to.

Curious.

aa-jv 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>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.

The USA and its partner states have exceeded this standard by a large margin. Do you also call for its removal from the UNSC?

Did you forget that the American people murdered 5% of Iraqs population on the basis of utter lies? World War 3 started on March 19 2003 with the illegal invasion of Iraq by an evil coalition of willing lackey states, and the world has been set on fire by their actions every year since.