Russia to Curtail Nuclear Security Efforts With U.S. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Russia has informed the United States that it is planning to reduce its participation next year in a joint effort to secure nuclear materials on Russian territory, a move that could seriously undermine more than two decades of cooperation aimed at ensuring that nuclear bomb components do not fall into the hands of terrorists or a rogue state. Sergey V. Kirienko, the head of Russia’s state nuclear company, has told senior Obama administration officials that no new projects in Russia are “envisioned” in 2015, according to American officials. The officials still hope to persuade the Russians to continue work next year on some current projects, though Russian officials have yet to agree. The reduced cooperation is a byproduct of the general downturn in relations between Russia and the United States, which has been compounded by President Vladimir V. Putin’s decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine. But it also stems from longstanding concerns among Kremlin hard-liners about a program that brings American nuclear experts to Russia’s nuclear sites and that, they fear, may create the impression that Russia is in need of outside help. Russia also announced last week that it was planning to boycott an international security summit meeting that is to be hosted by President Obama in 2016. But the message delivered by Mr. Kirienko is the first time that the rising tensions between the Kremlin and the Obama administration have threatened to disrupt some of the practical efforts that the two sides initiated at the end of the Cold War to help Russia safeguard its nuclear materials. “There is a real danger that 20 years of U.S.-Russian cooperation to secure nuclear material will simply stop at the end of this year, and some of the gains we have made could slip away,” said Matthew Bunn, a Harvard professor who, during the administration of Bill Clinton, supervised a classified government study on protecting nuclear materials in Russia. A senior Obama administration official said the United States still planned to work with the Russians on nuclear security efforts in third countries and hoped to persuade the Russian government to continue cooperation in Russia. “We would hope that the door can be left open to any and all forms of cooperation in this important area,” said the administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic exchanges. “If a reasonable project comes up that is on Russian territory, we would hope they would consider it.” The joint American and Russian efforts began in 1991 as fears grew that the collapse of the Soviet Union would make its nuclear weapons vulnerable. As the program has evolved, the United States has spent billions of dollars to finance security upgrades and improve procedures to keep track of nuclear materials, efforts that are intended to guard against the risk that highly enriched uranium or plutonium might be stolen and sold to terrorist groups or rogue states. “Nuclear security in Russia has improved dramatically since the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union,” the Belfer Center at Harvard concluded in a March report. “Unfortunately, sophisticated conspiracies to steal valuable items continue to plague Russia.” Hundreds of buildings in Russia, for example, still contain nuclear material that could be used in weapons. One American and Russian effort has sought to consolidate the material in fewer buildings, while improving the security of transporting nuclear material. The United States and Russia have also been working to convert Russian research reactors to use low-enriched uranium instead of highly enriched uranium, which is suitable for bomb purposes. The Energy Department has also helped Russia’s customs service install radiation detection equipment at border crossings. Last year, the United States and Russia began narrowing the scope of their efforts. Under a new protocol, Russia’s Ministry of Defense stopped participating in projects, which meant an end to American help in destroying Russia’s strategic weapons or securing its warheads. But the Energy Department has continued to work with Rosatom, the state-owned nuclear company, and other Russian organizations to improve the security of Russian facilities and materials. As tensions have grown, however, the prospects for future cooperation have come under a cloud. In September, Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department’s senior arms control official, led an American delegation to Moscow that sought unsuccessfully to resolve an American allegation that Russia had violated a 1987 Soviet-American treaty banning intermediate-range missiles based on land. During this visit, Ms. Gottemoeller also met with Mr. Kirienko, the Rosatom chief, and stressed the importance of continued cooperation on nuclear security, despite the tensions in American-Russian relations. Typically, the Energy Department signs contracts with Russian labs or other institutions on projects to provide security upgrades or training. And Ms. Gottemoeller noted that the Obama administration was concerned about the prospects for joint security efforts if new projects were not agreed on before the current contracts expired at the end of this year, according to accounts by American officials. Mr. Kirienko said the Russian government did not “envision” that new contracts would be concluded for 2015, though he expressed a willingness to work on nuclear security issues in other countries. Mr. Kirienko conveyed a similar message that new contracts were not envisioned “under current circumstances” in a meeting with Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz that was held later in Vienna, officials said. The administration also plans to encourage efforts to work jointly on nuclear security in countries like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Poland and Uzbekistan by repatriating to Russia highly enriched uranium that Moscow supplied to these nations for nuclear research purposes. There is no indication, however, that the administration plans to reverse its earlier decision to suspend an American-Russian scientific cooperation agreement, which could have included projects on nuclear energy and planetary defense against asteroids, because of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March. Still, some American experts say that a new approach is needed, one that treats Russia more as an equal. By proposing the joint research and development of ways to secure and account for nuclear material or the joint training of teams that test security at nuclear sites, the United States could address some of Russia’s complaints and increase the chances that some projects might be sustained, said Dr. Bunn, the Harvard professor.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/world/europe/russia-to-curtail-nuclear-security-efforts-with-us-officials-say.html[/url]

because russia has proven that its competent in securing nuclear material gg

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46496743]because russia has proven that its competent in securing nuclear material gg[/QUOTE] What are you trying to refer to? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] Also what the hell does even "securing nuclear material" have to do with end of nuclear proliferation treaties?

[QUOTE=millan;46496752]What are you trying to refer to? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] Also what the hell does even "securing nuclear material" have to do with end of nuclear proliferation treaties?[/QUOTE] Probably making sure that shit like weapons grade material isn't just sitting in like an office fridge somewhere.

[QUOTE=millan;46496752]What are you trying to refer to? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] Also what the hell does even "securing nuclear material" have to do with end of nuclear proliferation treaties?[/QUOTE] russia doesnt have the most stellar track record in the nuclear materials department. people have literally walked past security in the past. maybe you should read up on the subject.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46496814]russia doesnt have the must stellar track record in nuclear materials department. people have literally walked past security in the past. maybe you should read.[/QUOTE] Source please

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46496819]Source please[/QUOTE] [quote] In the wake of the Soviet collapse into 15 independent states, hundreds and perhaps thousands of grammes of nuclear material - including highly enriched uranium used in atomic bombs - were spirited away from Russia's nuclear heartland.[/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/moscow-struggle-protect-nuclear-material-201421710591960385.html[/url] [quote]Mainly in Russia. Before its collapse in 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. Since, severe economic distress, rampant crime, and widespread corruption in Russia and other former Soviet countries have fed concerns in the West about loose nukes, underpaid nuclear scientists, and the smuggling of nuclear materials. Security at Russia’s nuclear storage sites remains worrisome[/quote] [quote]Russian authorities say that in the past three years alone they have broken up hundreds of nuclear-material smuggling deals. In October 2001, shortly after the World Trade Center attacks, a Russian nuclear official reported having foiled two separate incidents over the previous eight months in which terrorists had “staked out” a secret weapons storage site. [/quote] [url]http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549[/url] you are a big boy and i am sure you can find the rest yourself

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46496872][url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/moscow-struggle-protect-nuclear-material-201421710591960385.html[/url] [url]http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549[/url] you are a big boy and i am sure you can find the rest yourself[/QUOTE] This is literally irrelevant to what the "deal", or better end of the deal, is about.

Russia you're playing a dangerous game.

[QUOTE=millan;46497151]This is literally irrelevant to what the "deal", or better end of the deal, is about.[/QUOTE] Except SexualShark's whole point is that, left alone, Russia is (in his opinion) going to be incapable of keeping nuclear materials from escaping state control. The implication is that someone like a terrorist group would obtain it and cause problems. So, those are relevant in supporting his argument.

[quote]'Nuclear security' is the prevention and detection of, and response to, theft, sabotage, unauthorized access, illegal transfer or other malicious acts involving nuclear material, other radioactive substances or their associated facilities. The response element of the definition refers to those actions aimed at ‘reversing’ the immediate consequences of unauthorized access or actions (e.g. recovering material). Response to the radiological consequences that might ensue is considered part of safety. 'Nuclear security' is often abbreviated to 'security' in IAEA publications on nuclear security. 'Security' may thus mean 'nuclear security' unless otherwise stated.[/quote] [url]http://www-ns.iaea.org/standards/concepts-terms.asp[/url] [quote]WASHINGTON — Russia has informed the United States that it is planning to reduce its participation next year in a joint effort to secure nuclear materials on Russian territory, a move that could seriously undermine more than two decades of cooperation aimed at ensuring that nuclear bomb components do not fall into the hands of terrorists or a rogue state. what do you think are the components of a nuclear weapon?[/quote] what do you think nuclear weapons are made of?

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46496872][url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/moscow-struggle-protect-nuclear-material-201421710591960385.html[/url] [url]http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549[/url] you are a big boy and i am sure you can find the rest yourself[/QUOTE] [quote]In the wake of the Soviet collapse[/quote] [quote]2001[/quote] Totally relevant now.

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46497328]Totally relevant now.[/QUOTE] b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶o̶v̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶2̶0̶0̶1̶ ̶h̶u̶n̶d̶r̶e̶d̶s̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶h̶a̶p̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶g̶r̶a̶m̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶u̶r̶a̶n̶i̶u̶m̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶u̶n̶a̶c̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶t̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶e̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶i̶s̶k̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶.̶ ̶ nope russia you have your shit locked up tight.

So is it bad that due to Russia's recent activity in Ukraine and elsewhere that I expect this to be the first step in a false flag dirty bomb attack somewhere? Am I crazy or is my idea of Russia's foreign policy being that of a Bond villain totally justified?

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;46498049]So is it bad that due to Russia's recent activity in Ukraine and elsewhere that I expect this to be the first step in a false flag dirty bomb attack somewhere? Am I crazy or is my idea of Russia's foreign policy being that of a Bond villain totally justified?[/QUOTE] You are crazy

[QUOTE=millan;46496752]What are you trying to refer to? [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] Also what the hell does even "securing nuclear material" have to do with end of nuclear proliferation treaties?[/QUOTE] when the US and Russian federation first started this back in the early 90's some of the first americans at these russian facilities took note that they could literally get in a truck, ride up to these nuclear facilities, open the door and walk out with nuclear materials without any checks what so ever, so like anyone who knew where to look could have walked out with a nuclear bomb provided they had the right equipment to move them [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] i'm not saying they don't have it locked up today, but with so much stuff in that region, not working with the US is a huge step backwards towards nuclear disarmament

[QUOTE=piddlezmcfuz;46498049]So is it bad that due to Russia's recent activity in Ukraine and elsewhere that I expect this to be the first step in a false flag dirty bomb attack somewhere? Am I crazy or is my idea of Russia's foreign policy being that of a Bond villain totally justified?[/QUOTE] Maybe if Russia wanted the entire world to turn on them they would do that

You know at this point if the general plot of BF3 occurred everyone would instantly lock in Russia as the perpetrator. They have the recentrack record where even if they deny involvement of something it will be very definitely assumed they did it anyways. And that sort of creeps me out. You'd rarely believe a false flag attack could work. At least the shameless vidya reference is relevant here

[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46498440]You are crazy[/QUOTE] Thank you. I was concerned I had a sane vision of the future. Though with many things happening recently the world seems more and more like a bad TV show script, so we will have to wait and see.