| ▲ | fractallyte 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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... | | |
| ▲ | nrki 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Not really, Uranium itself isn't dangerous or even that scarce. Super-enriched Uranium, however _is_ super rare, expensive and desirable. | | |
| ▲ | rurban 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Really. Raw Uranium is still pretty rare, the US got it from Congo/Canada, the Russians from Czech/East Germany. You still need a thousand tons to get a bomb and if you got no reactor to produce it for you easier. The enrichment to weapon-grade U235 is trivial, you just need enough good gas centrifuges or a reactor. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Kazakhstan is not just for Kazakhs. Be kind. | | |
| ▲ | pythonguython 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I wasn’t counting anyone out, but Kazakhstan is comprised mostly of Kazakhs. | | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | you're a bit wrong. at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the population of Kazakhstan consisted of 40% Kazakhs and 38% Russians, 6% Germans and 5% Ukrainians, plus other ethnic groups. Kazakhs were not an absolute majority. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | At the time of the collapse of the USSR As far as attempts a spin are concerned -- this one's really quite ludicrous. Howabout we try the present tense: Ethnic Kazakhs make up 71%, Russians 14.9%, Uzbeks 3.3%, Ukrainians 1.9%, Uygur 1.5%, Germans 1.1%, Tatars 1.1%, and others 5.2%.
| | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | these are early nineties problems, so you have to look at data from the early nineties. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Then perhaps you should try communicating more clearly. When someone says "Kazakhstan is comprised of ...", and you say "This is wrong" -- you're obviously referring to the present tense. | | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Thanks for the valuable linguistic advice, but perhaps you should read how that discussion started. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pythonguython 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | During the Soviet Union the ethnic Russians came from Russia, lived in the large cities, had most of the high paying jobs and then left when Kazakhstan had their independence. They were colonized and now they have their own country. | | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | if you're talking about colonization, the second sentence should note that they brought civilization to those places. In fact, even before the Soviet Union, since the 1740s, these steppes were part of the Russian Empire, and Russians built cities there. | | |
| ▲ | pythonguython 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | They had civilization. The Islamic golden age touched Central Asia, The Silk Road passed through Central Asia, bringing wealth and ideas to the region. The people of the Kazakh steppe were largely nomadic but they had civilization. The Russians came and forced them to live in cities and work largely non-arable land. The Russians certainly kick started their process of industrialization, but they had civilization. | | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | No, it is not quite so. The real wealth and prosperity was to the south, in Bukhara and Samarkand. The territory of (present-day) Kazakhstan was not particularly affected. Some rudiments of civilization were in Kazakhstan in the pre-Mongol era. After that nothing much happened there, there was a steppe where nomads grazed their cattle. I think that's where the history of those you call “they” begins. Great development and industrialization took place only after WWII. |
| |
| ▲ | aguaviva 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | They brought civilization to those places. That's the same nonsense justification used in support of all colonial projects. Simply put - it's a lie. | | |
| ▲ | cocodill 7 months ago | parent [-] | | I hardly met any people there who would swap their house and car for a yurt and horse. They must be living in this one lie. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Iwan-Zotow 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 7 months 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. | | |
| ▲ | Iwan-Zotow 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > They purposefully didn’t evacuate villages WHAT villages? Could you name one? Polygon was literally build in the desert, no villages inside or outside. | | |
| ▲ | pythonguython 7 months ago | parent [-] | | One would be Karaul. It was partially evacuated but a group of locals was designated as group of Guinea pigs for testing. And remember, this dust traveled for many miles. This is the Steppe, so dust gets picked up and travels with little vegetation impeding it. With all due respect, I think you should read more about this instead of acting like I’m spouting nonsense, when you clearly know little about this topic. I have been to Semipalatinsk and seen their exhibit on victims to nuclear testing and I’ve read the literature. | | |
| ▲ | Iwan-Zotow 7 months ago | parent [-] | | > One would be Karaul. this one was close to 200km south from test site, like I said, everything inside and out of the polygon was moved. Semipalatinsk was something like 150km east. It was and is zero-populated area. > It was partially evacuated but a group of locals was designated as group of Guinea pigs for testing. At 200km distance test WHAT EXACTLY? You are repeating stories which were and are pure garbage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jgrubb 7 months 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. |
|
| ▲ | deepnet 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In 1994 Russia and the USA agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty and its borders in return for the Ukraine voluntarily disarming its nukes: It was promised the USA AND Russia would provide the Ukraine adequate defense in lieu of giving up their nukes. Which gives the lie to “Russia invaded because of impending Ukrainian NATO membership” - the USA & Russia already promised to defend their 1994 borders AT THAT TIME. The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want. It is Putin that has broken his pact with the Ukraine by invading. “ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.
“ If the USA cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia in a peace deal the USA will also have broken its 1994 agreement to defend the Ukraine’s 1994 borders and its autonomy ( to join NATO if it desires ). |
|
| ▲ | nrki 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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 As opposed to ... - not handing it over? Prison, then they figure it out anyway. - handing it to someone else during wartime? Prison or a firing squad, then they figure it out anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | fractallyte 7 months ago | parent [-] | | When he walked into the President's office, he held enough power at that moment that he could have told Truman to get out of his (Oppie's) chair, and GTFO of his (Oppie's) office. Obviously, in reality, it would have required much more planning and preparation, but that's essentially a statement of the balance of power at that moment in history. The Soviets were clawing at the door to get this new superweapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies), and even the UK - which was a partner in the bomb's development - was locked out of the technology (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28866320-test-of-greatne...). |
|
|
| ▲ | Muromec 7 months 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 7 months 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 7 months 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). | | | |
| ▲ | deepnet 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The USA & Russia made a pact to defend the Ukraine, based on the Ukraine giving up their nukes. “ As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.” If the USA doesn’t defend them adequately the USA will have broken their 1994 agreement - with all the trust implications for future agreements. By invading the Ukraine, Russia broke its 1994 deal. The USA and Russia also agreed in 1994 to Ukrainian autonomy and sovereignty, e.g. the freedom to join NATO and the EU if they want - which gives the lie to NATO membership as a cause ! Russia agreed in 1994 that the Ukraine had the right to join NATO or anything else it wanted to do - that is the the definition of autonomy and sovereignty. Thus implicitly, in fact, Russia agreed to defend the Ukraine’s right to join NATO. Russia has broken treaties to invade many of it neighbours recently, this needs to be questioned not apologised for. | | |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 7 months ago | parent [-] | | More concretely, if Russia is allowed ANY success in Ukraine, it puts the nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation. If the only thing the world does is bow to anyone who can hold it hostage with a nuclear threat, the only defense is your own nukes. If you want to avoid countries fighting nuclear war, you are better off fucking over Russia right now, and understanding that their nuclear talk is all bluff (for now) rather than wait until hundreds of tiny and unstable countries have nukes that they want to fire at each other. If the West defends Ukraine from a nuclear armed nation, then we can convincingly tell the rest of the world "You don't need nukes, so don't build them". | | |
| ▲ | deepnet 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Indeed this is the risk if Trump breaches the USA’s 1994 treaty agreement by surrendering territory in a ‘peace-deal’ then not only will the USA be oath breakers but who will trust a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the future. Perhaps Trump will not want to look weak and stand firm but it seems not unlikely that he will Kowtow to Russia and give them what they want at the expense of our Ukrainian allies. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 7 months 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 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
