Skip to main content

Nuclear proliferation

Image
By
Let me understand this: Saudis violate human rights openly. Their foreign workers are slaves. They still consider Christian and Jews as their enemy.
They destroyed Yemen etccc
Now, they get nuclear weaponry?
Is that against the non-proliferation policy?
The Trump administration is dangerous to our security and world peace.
Perry is definitely incompetent!

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/29/rick-perry-saudi-nuclear-democrats-3662906

Comments

Anonymous said…
Just to be clear, the article is about nuclear power (electricity generating), not nuclear weapons. I realize the two are not inseparable but neither are they the same thing. I'm not expressing an opinion about the Saudis or about providing them with nuclear power technology.
7/30/2019 9:03 PM
Anonymous said…
Regardless of what is said about the Saudis and Trump, we ought to be clear-eyed about the situation. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, I would be willing to bet every dollar I have that, one way or another, the Saudis would soon possess nuclear weapons as well.
7/30/2019 10:40 PM
Anonymous said…
I agree that underneath the noise Saudi's do not like Jews and Christians.

However when Trump visited and to see Ivanka and Jared warmly greeted
is not a bad thing since they are both Jewish and their children as well,
despite lying Media saying Trump is anti-semitic hahaha, good one.

Also with Bibi having meetings with Saudis there might be the first Israeli airliner landing in S.A.
Of course all of this allying is because of all of our common enemy, Iran and might be superficial.

On a different matter,
China is MOSTLY afraid of Japan/S. Korea nuclear weapons
some day more than anything else.
7/31/2019 10:27 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more