http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/01/obama-warns-about-nuclear-terrorism-risk/
>Hosting world leaders in Washington, US President Barack Obama has urged them to do more to safeguard their nuclear facilities amid fears that groups like ISIL and al Qaeda want to unleash radioactive “dirty bombs”.
>“By working together, our nations have made it harder for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear material. We have measurably reduced the risk,” Obama said at the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit.
Honestly why are corrupt as fuck countries trusted with nukes? What makes you think for example that North Korea won't be secretly giving nukes to ISIS if they paid enough money?
I don't think anyone cares, seeing as the US just gave Iran everything it needs to make nuclear weapons
>>35902
Have you tried to take a baby's security blanket away?
>>35953
No they're just trying to power air conditioners with the nuclear power, you see!
>>35953
dirty jew detected
>>36136
"Sidney Duke" doesn't sound like a Jewish name...
>>36138
Neither does Scarlett Johansson
>>35902
With all of the unaccounted for nukes after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Best Korea and Iran I really and surprised that a nuclear terrorist attack has not occurred yet.
>>36138
They take the names of the locals they live amongst.
>>36168
Using a nuclear weapon basically indicates that you want your government to be destroyed by every military power on Earth.
>>36230
Doubt it, as long it doesn't affect them directly I don't think most countries will give a shit.
At worst sanctions will follow and US / NATO will interfere.
>>35902
>We need to prevent terrorists from acquiring nukes!
>Ignore this deal I made with Iran a few months ago allowing them to produce and refine Uranium.
His foreign policy is really, really bad.
>>36258
Not necessarily. Relieving sanctions on Iran could work in the West's favor. The Iranian public have been suffering from these sanctions really bad, so letting them get a taste of a life without them now will make them want to maintain the good life. Meaning that when Iran fucks up hard enough, the US applies sanctionS baxk on and the Iranian people get really pissed, and cause internal tensions which may lead to a regime change in the mid to long term.
tldr the Burger giveth and the Burger taketh away.
>>35902
They would, which is why the new sanctions have powerful anti smuggling measures like mandatory inspection of every transport out of NK. China is onboard too so they won't be moving nukes anywhere.
>>36255
No, there would definitely be a heavy-handed reaction.
If the world powers didn't act strongly against an act of nuclear terrorism, it would set a precedent for every other terrorist organization that they could get away with using nuclear weapons.
>>36279
Terrorist organizations would likely use a nuke if they got their hands on it.
You think ISIS / Al Qaeda gives a shit?
>>36270
Doesn't the Ayatollah not give a shit about the people of Iran though? We also had the chance to do that during the Arab spring.
>>36294
>We also had the chance to do that during the Arab spring.
That was a false chance, because any US intervention would have made it seem like the US was behind the uprising (and thus de-legitimize the uprisings) which is why the US was so hands-off during most of the Arab spring revolts. The US only intervened in Libya when it got violent (and it took the French and Italians leading the push for anything to happen) and now Syria as ISIS has gotten too big to ignore.
>Doesn't the Ayatollah not give a shit about the people of Iran though?
It doesn't matter; if the people are sufficiently angry they can outright overthrow the Ayatollah. Obviously this would require significant unhappiness through all ranks of Iranian society to occur.
>>36230
That's why I said terrorist attack. Those nations hate the west and there are non-state organisations that are willing to strike the west and do not care about death and have no nation to face retaliation. It wouldn't require too large of a leap to have one funnel material to the other.
>That feel when I learned about missing radioactive waste from Metal Gear
>>35953
>inspections
>very low refinement %
Yeah, it's like they handed them a bomb
>>35902
America's nukes are on the coast of the UK so they have nothing to worry about.
Fucking gringos.
>>35902
America plans to give ISIS nukes so they can kill Iran's population.
Not an expert here but isn't manufacturing a nuclear bomb whilst also staying undetected pretty hard? You need considerable facilities right? Are they fearing terrorist nukes or 'just' dirty bombs?
>>35953
>>36258
The Iran deal would strip away the majority of their centrifuges and refining equipment, making it take them extraordinarily longer to build a nuclear weapon than it would currently. So one point is that we're slowing that development down considerably.
Another point is that you can't just simply take the 3% refinement power plant grade uranium and use it to make a bomb. You may as well get brand new 90% Uranium from someone else because it's basically useless to you. So we have to understand that a nuclear power plant does not lead to a nuclear weapon. Also, >>36258 they already have some refining processes going on, but now we'll be able to regulate it with near 100% oversight.
>>36595
He's mostly talking about dirty bombs. However, a majority of the world's nuclear stockpile actually has surprisingly low security and an insider could possibly help smuggle nuclear weaponry given the chance.
Here's a neat article on past cases of almost-accidental nuclear detonation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961
t. ex-nuclear engineer
>>36279
Just like there was a heavy handed reaction after Hiroshima eh?
