Video Found in Belgium of Nuclear Official May Point to Bigger Plot | Hacker News Reader

Video Found in Belgium of Nuclear Official May Point to Bigger Plot

nytimes.com

43 pointsjstreebin19 comments

> authorities had “concrete indications that showed that the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks had the intention to do something involving one of our four nuclear sites.”

Just like the various authorities that jumped at the chance to claim the attackers relied on encryption? This entire article is using the usual fear-mongering over anything "nuclear" as another propaganda tool. Jacob Appelbaum's interpretation[1] of this kind of claim is much more believable: incidents like the Paris attacks were a failure in intelligence and a failure in traditional law-enforcement work. When the public conversation is framed with complex topics like encryption or nuclear power/medicine, the failures in more mundane topics are easily swept under the rug.

As for the article itself:

    "officials have asserted privately"
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    "may have been involved in planning several attacks"
     ^^^

    "But experts and officials speculated that it could have been part
                               ^^^^^^^^^^         ^^^^^
     of a plot to abduct the nuclear official, who was not identified."
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    "...if acquired, the material ... could also be used to make a dirty bomb..."
        ^^                            ^^^^^

    “'If they find a way to spread such material among the population,
      ^^
      they could do a lot of damage'”
           ^^^^^

I'm going to assume that this extreme concentration density of weasel words is a sign that someone is making this up either as filler or to push an agenda.

> he acknowledged that no additional guards had been hired or other measures taken to secure the perimeters of Belgium’s nuclear sites.

> ‘There is no specific threat to the nuclear facilities.’

That sounds a lot like confirmation that there is no actual story here beyond fear-mongering.

> radioactive material is expensive to clean up

So are many chemicals, which are much easier and cheaper to obtain. We've contaminated so many sites with dioxins, pesticides, heavy metals, and other dangerous industrial pollutants, we had to invent the "Superfund".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIP2RN0NlI8

Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to a peaceful nuclear program ought not to be absolute when a single failure to keep its materials and people secure can mean disaster for many other nations.

> Perfectly illustrates why more nuclear states are not needed until the challenges of command and control, and waste are addressed. For example Iran's "right" to a peaceful nuclear program ought not to be absolute when a single failure to keep its materials and people secure can mean disaster for many other nations.

"U.S. Air Force relieves nine officers following nuclear test cheating probe"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-ai...

"In Error, B-52 Flew Over U.S. With Nuclear-Armed Missiles"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_n...

"Bill Clinton 'lost vital White House nuclear codes"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8...

"Wikipedia: US Military Nuclear Weapons Incidents"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accid...

So when do we (I'm a US citizen) hand in our nuclear card? No nation state has any business having weaponized nuclear materials (or infrastructure to weaponize non-weapons grade material) in their possession.

Yes but some are more stable.

The US invaded a country on the pretense it had weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that did not exist. That is not what I consider "stable", as least from a military and foreign policy perspective.

The US Pentagon and US CIA are now fighting a proxy war, inadvertently, against each other based on the factions they're providing support for in Syria:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/america-is-now-fighting-a...

> No nation state has any business having nuclear materials in their possession.

Not even for medical imaging, radiotherapy, and so on?

Clarified my post you quoted.

Let's not also forget http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-u...

All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort. But, so what? Unless you're willing to invade, Iran has to agree with that consensus for it to have any impact.

> All else equal, everyone wants to minimize nuclear states, and nobody is happy about Iran having a nuclear program of any sort.

Not that I agree, but there was at least an argument for a nuclear Iran made in Foreign Affairs about three years ago (July 2012 issue). Though the situation has obviously changed since then, e.g. ISIS and the Iranian nuclear deal.

tl;dr: The Iranian government isn't as irrationally belligerent as the Western media and foreign policy establishment make them out to be, and that it would bring stability to the only remaining region with a single, unopposed nuclear power (Israel).

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/PSC%20504/Waltz.pdf (pdf copy linked because the article is paywalled on the FA site)

Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one). "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense, and that if these states would just turn over their materials and toe the line, they have nothing to worry about...

...except that Iraq did, and they were invaded. Libya did, and their leader was overthrown. Iran didn't, and they eventually got a negotiated settlement that left them with some nuclear capabilities. North Korea thumbed their nose at "us", developed and tested a bomb, and "we" sent them shipments of food and fuel in return.

Soooo...maybe not such a crazy motivation after all? I realize each case is unique (Gaddafi's fall wasn't directly linked to his compliance; Iran has numerous proxies operating on its behalf in the region; nobody wants a hungry, angry North Korea attempting any sort of military action, nuclear or no), but at least in the case of Iraq, "we" really screwed the pooch.

It's going to be at least a few more decades of good behavior before "we" can talk, again, about "minimizing nuclear states" and expect any non-nuclear states to take such talk seriously.

South Africa? Israel?

South Africa already had a nearly completed device by the time the rest of the world found out and, as a result, was gently nudged to "not do that". Israel is a nuclear state, as far as I know (not publicly acknowledged, yes, but probably the worst kept military secret in the world), and enjoys tremendous support from the west.

So, yes, again if you have nuclear capabilities you get the kid gloves treatment. If not, you can expect to be kicked around. Not exactly the sort of incentive structure you want to set up if eliminating nuclear states is your goal.

Your statement was "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by the US/the west (pick one)."

South Africa declared that their nuclear weapons program was to defend themselves from Soviet-backed regional threats. The USSR is neither the US nor the west, making the above statement incorrect.

Pakistan declared that their nuclear weapons program was a response to India's own program. India is neither the US nor the west, which would make it another counter-example.

Ah, ok...so modify the statement to "Every non-nuclear state that has attempted to gain nuclear capabilities has declared that they are doing so to protect against aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>."

The bottom line is that the behavior of states with nuclear weapons has, thus far, been categorically counter to the goal of reducing the proliferation of nuclear states.

You need to modify more than that. Your following statement was:

> "We", of course, proclaim that this is nonsense.

The "this" referred to "the US/the west". It now refers to any threat from a nuclear neighbor.

The US, France, etc. did not regard South Africa's concerns about Soviet expansionist policies in southern Africa as nonsense. Moreover, South Africa had a three phase defense plan (quoting http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html ):

   Phase 1: Strategic uncertainty in which the nuclear deterrent capability
     will not be acknowledged or denied.
   Phase 2: Should South African territory be threatened, for example, by
    the Warsaw Pact countries through the surrogate Cuban forces in
    Angola, covert acknowledgement to certain international powers, e.g.
    the USA, would be contemplated.
   Phase 3: Should this partial disclosure of South Africa's capability not
    bring about international intervention to remove the threat, public
    acknowledgement or demonstration by an underground test of South Africa's
    capability, would be considered.

Phase 2 would only work if the Western countries/USSR did not consider the threat as nonsense.

Nor, I think, did people regard Pakistan's concern about an attack from nuclear-armed India to be "nonsense", though I haven't researched that issue.

Also, your modification is "...aggression by <fill-in-nuclear-state-here>." South Africa was not concerned with aggression from the USSR but by regional attacks from conventional forces from Angola, Mozambique, etc. with Soviet backing. I don't think this falls even under your modified version.

Pakistan/India is more akin to North/South Korea. It is impossible for Pakistan or North Korea to maintain dollar for dollar defense spending with their rivals given the size of their economies.

How is this connected to jballanc's comment that the rest of the world considers South Africa's or Pakistan's declared reasons for acquiring nuclear weapons as a regional defense to be nonsense?

'Nuclear armed' states, possibly, but access to nuclear technology is a key part of the non-proliferation regime that's been around for nearly half a century. It's the other side of the deal signatories enter - you don't develop nuclear weapons, in return you get to play with all the other toys, with the assistance and supervision of the IAEA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com