Guess who's representing BP at the White House?

[gsvol]

BP’s and DNC’s own Jamie Gorelick will handle the destruction of all evidence.

The cheeky American public will never know about BP's payoffs to Obama, or the money British Petroleum pumped into Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, or BP's ties to the White House or Rahm Emanuel’s other connections to BP.

In 1989, Jamie Gorelick authored a 21 page booklet for The American Bar Association titled: "Conflicts of Interest in a Changing Legal Environment : Traps for the Unwary."

Also in 1989, she co-authored "Destruction of Evidence" with Stephen Marzen and Lawrence Solum. Published in New York: Wiley Law Publications, Description: xxvii, 516 p. ; 27 cm. Series: Trial practice library.

And again in 1989, she authored a 26 pages booklet for The American Bar Association titled: "Structuring the Internal Investigation When a Corporation is Faced With Parallel Civil, Criminal and Administrative Proceedings."

In 1988, for The American Bar Association, she authored a 41 page booklet: "Effective Representation of the Corporation, Its Directors, Officers, and Employees in Grand Jury and Agency Investigations.

In 1987, she co-authored a two volume book with Roger C Spaeder & Cono R Namorato: "Federal Enforcement 1987 : Representing Corporations, Their Officers, Directors and Employees, April 2-3, 1987, Loew's L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, Washington, D.C.: program materials. Published by The Center, Washington, D.C.

Then, in 2001, the Department of Justice published a volume of her addresses as Assistant Attorney General.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel lived rent-free in Washington, D.C., for years, thanks in part to a friend under contract with oil giant BP.

Emanuel lived for five years rent-free in an apartment owned by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and her husband, Stanley Greenberg, whose consulting firm was a prime architect in BP's efforts to recast itself as a "green" corporation and recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars awarded through a committee chaired by Emanuel.

Greenberg Quinlin Rosner's research also contributed to a $200 million advertising campaign in which British Petroleum attempted to shorten its name to "BP" and redesign its corporate insignia to emphasize a "Beyond Petroleum" theme.

Critics have characterized the BP advertising campaign prompted by Greenberg Quinlin Rosner research as "greenwashing," a process in which corporations disingenuously portray their efforts as fitting into a politically correct, "green," environment-oriented sensitivity to alternative energy.

Further, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid Greenberg's firm some $500,000 in 2006 and 2008 while Emanuel was living with Greenberg, and Emanuel was even in charge of the DCCC during the 2006 election cycle.

 

[MG1968]

Shakespeare was right when he wrote, "first, kill all the lawyers."

 

[volinbham]

Is she not also the author of the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence that was cited as a major impediment to preventing 9/11?

 

[MG1968]

she also collected a nice salary while working at Fannie Mae.

 

[golfballs]

i believe it. it's the chicago way

 

[gsvol]

Is she not also the author of the "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence that was cited as a major impediment to preventing 9/11?

That would be her, also served as a coverup on the 911 commission, even then Sandy Burglar had to steal classified documents from the National Archives to keep some things from coming to light.

She prevented the FBI from getting any information from the Justice department, that wasn't just her, it was a Clinton tactic that was probably motivated by his wanting to keep lots of things from being known by the FBI and the American public.

The first day Bubba took office he moved the FBI liason office out of the White House before noon and into a dilapidated old federal building down the street and had no contact with them for the next eight years. I knew a man who had worked in that office for years. Even the FBI director that Slick Willy had appointed said; "whatever moral compass Clinton was using, it was broken."

BTW, BP, along with Enron, was one of the first corportations that lobbied for cap and trade legislation.

 

[TennTradition]

BP thinks they are better positioned than other competitors on green energy, that is why they are lobbying for it, IMO. They figure it is going to come, they want it to be on the terms that help them the most.

 

[distrovol]

From my understanding, GE has more to gain from cap and trade than anyone. Which is especially dangerous because BP doesn't have a media empire in their fold to steer the debate. Until the oil spill, they were relentless in being an extension of the White House press office.

 

[gsvol]

BP thinks they are better positioned than other competitors on green energy, that is why they are lobbying for it, IMO. They figure it is going to come, they want it to be on the terms that help them the most.

Is there one of the major oil companies not signed on to supporting c&t?? Not to my knowldege.

 

[TennTradition]

Is there one of the major oil companies not signed on to supporting c&t?? Not to my knowldege.

I'm not sure about 'supporting c&T'. I tend to look to the US-CAP, which is the most prominent group of corporations signed onto climate action.

United States Climate Action Partnership

The only major oil company currently active is Shell. That is a bit deceiving because BP and Conoco Phillips just left a few months ago (along with Caterpillar). They left after the energy and climate bill passed, citing reasons from they disagreed with its lack of focus on appropriate bridge technologies to the fact that they felt the coalition was no longer needed now that there was legislation.

A member of the leadership team at Caterpillar's US operations is an acquaintance of mine from a few years ago. We had a conversation once about their interest in climate legislation. It seemed to me that there major focus was creating a level playing field for all their operations. They have a significant presence in Europe where they face climate restrictions, and they would like to have consistent standards for all their operations (and have their competitors in the US have to play by those same standards).

As for the oil companies, their reasons are likely varied. Exxon seems to be on a discover, patent, and sit on it unless needed approach. They are cocky about their position, but I don't know what it is. I can also say from multiple conversations that the people at Exxon I have talked with don't want to see C&T.

BP has a significant focus on alternative energy, particularly bio-fuels. This focus is likely a small percentage of their total operating budget, but it is a larger focus (external of the company, at least) than any of the others in my experience. Conoco Phillips has a large internal alternative fuels effort as well..and they are beginning to extend this to external, sponsored research. I was actually offered a job last fall with CP's alternative energy R&D program.

The funny thing is that Shell is still in the US-CAP, but I don't see them doing too much in the area of alternative research, but that's just my limited view.

These companies have various reasons for being in something like US-CAP. I think that some feel that they have a competitive edge under such market controls. However, I think that others know that the pot is being stirred, and they want to have a say in what is being cooked.

 

[gsvol]

Shakespeare was right when he wrote, "first, kill all the lawyers."

President Barack Obama announced on July 15th his selection of Michael R. Bromwich to lead the Administration’s efforts to accelerate reforms in the regulation and oversight of offshore oil drilling.

Bromwich received his law degree from the Harvard Law School in 1980. Bromwich will lead the effort to reform the Minerals Management Service (MMS), restoring integrity and rigor to the relationship between federal regulatory officials and oil companies. (the last head of MMS, instead of doing the job of overseeing and mandating safety standards over the deep sea horizon, has been working to promote alternative energy initiatives like wind and solar which even one with a nutty putty brain can understand has zero to do with minerals.)

Bromwich is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and Justice Department Inspector General. Prior to joining the law firm of Fried Frank (read grilled commie weiners) and served as Inspector General for the Department of Justice from 1994 - 1999.

Bromwich was best known for conducting special investigations into allegations of misconduct, defective procedures and incompetence in the FBI Laboratory; the FBI’s conduct and activities regarding the Aldrich Ames matter. (read whitewashing communist party activity at the highest levels of the US government.)

Bromwich was one of three courtroom lawyers for the government in the case of United States v. Oliver L. North.

I'm not sure about 'supporting c&T'. I tend to look to the US-CAP, which is the most prominent group of corporations signed onto climate action.

United States Climate Action Partnership

The only major oil company currently active is Shell. That is a bit deceiving because BP and Conoco Phillips just left a few months ago (along with Caterpillar). They left after the energy and climate bill passed, citing reasons from they disagreed with its lack of focus on appropriate bridge technologies to the fact that they felt the coalition was no longer needed now that there was legislation.

A member of the leadership team at Caterpillar's US operations is an acquaintance of mine from a few years ago. We had a conversation once about their interest in climate legislation. It seemed to me that their major focus was creating a level playing field for all their operations. They have a significant presence in Europe where they face climate restrictions, and they would like to have consistent standards for all their operations (and have their competitors in the US have to play by those same standards).

As for the oil companies, their reasons are likely varied. Exxon seems to be on a discover, patent, and sit on it unless needed approach. They are cocky about their position, but I don't know what it is. I can also say from multiple conversations that the people at Exxon I have talked with don't want to see C&T.

BP has a significant focus on alternative energy, particularly bio-fuels. This focus is likely a small percentage of their total operating budget, but it is a larger focus (external of the company, at least) than any of the others in my experience. Conoco Phillips has a large internal alternative fuels effort as well..and they are beginning to extend this to external, sponsored research. I was actually offered a job last fall with CP's alternative energy R&D program.

The funny thing is that Shell is still in the US-CAP, but I don't see them doing too much in the area of alternative research, but that's just my limited view.

These companies have various reasons for being in something like US-CAP. I think that some feel that they have a competitive edge under such market controls. However, I think that others know that the pot is being stirred, and they want to have a say in what is being cooked.

Back in the '60s I knew a guy who was a nuclear scientist employed in that field who quit a job paying $60,000 a year and that money back then would be at least $240,000 today, who quit and went to cutting firewood for a living.

Due to the 10 year contract he had signed that forbid him from divulging any secrets, he couldn't answer a lot of my questions but his basic beef was that he had no say-so it what was being done. That was left to the politicos who were in control and for the most part they didn't know their buttocks from a hole in the ocean. (aka barack ofreakingbama)

He thought that someday we would overcome the fission problem and not have to worry about nuclear wastes thereafter.

My thought is that what is the basic problem with taking nuclear fusion wastes and reprocessing them into more usable nuclear fuel.

Pardon my ignorance but from a laymans point of view, I would like to have an answer from someone who knows.

 

[TennTradition]

He thought that someday we would overcome the fission problem and not have to worry about nuclear wastes thereafter.

My thought is that what is the basic problem with taking nuclear fusion wastes and reprocessing them into more usable nuclear fuel.

Just a quick fix before I give my (limited) perspective on this...you mixed up fission and fusion. I think you meant to use fusion problem in the first paragraph and fission wastes in the second.

The issue at the heart of recycling nuclear wastes is political unwillingness stemming from several areas, but chief among them in my mind (because it is the hardest to overcome politically) is proliferation resistance. Right now, spent fuel is reprocessed using a process called PUREX (plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction). The problem with PUREX is that it separates an essentially pure plutonium stream during reprocessing. This plutonium is actually of sufficient quality to construct a nuclear weapon, though it would not be as powerful as plutonium obtained in other ways.

Jimmy Carter axed nuclear fuel recycling for this reason, and for the most part, it has been dead since. I am a proponent of nuclear energy and exploring advanced fuel cycles that would involve recycling of spent nuclear fuel, but there are some other, technical, concerns that must be addressed. In processes like PUREX, you can recycle a good chunk of the fuel, but there are still very nasty materials left over that are now even more radioactive because they essentially have been purified. We would still have to store these somewhere.

But that's PUREX, which is quite an old technology. There are other potential solutions out there, many with proliferation draw-backs, others with technical challenges. I don't know of a clear winner that exist today...but that is why I have always thought that there should be more funding of research (paired with tax breaks for private endeavors) into advanced fuel cycles. The problem is that they have generally been written off politically, so you just don't see that much activity.

If you would like to read more about advanced fuel cycles and the policy associated with them, I can point you to this paper. Please note that I wrote this as (an even younger) pup, so don't be too harsh. It's not written all that well, and even has some glaring grammatical errors. Perhaps most notable is some of the naivete going on it, for example, with regard to policy recommendations, but I also knew that at the time to some degree. I didn't mind being a bit idealistic when putting that together. The better stuff, and probably more interesting, is the historical policy perspective.

 

[volinbham]

On Gorelick:

the "Gorelick Wall", Fannie Mae, BP --- that's quite the resume. Can a stint with Halliburton be far off?

 

[DC Vol]

There were just as many "ties" between Bush and his crew and the method in which contracts were divied out. Not to mention the rabble rabble about Rummy and his stock in the company that makes Tamiflu just in time for the outbreak of the swine flu that was orchestrated by Rumsfeld and his contacts in order to make a profit.


Welcome to Corporate Politics.

 

[gsvol]

Just a quick fix before I give my (limited) perspective on this...you mixed up fission and fusion. I think you meant to use fusion problem in the first paragraph and fission wastes in the second.

The issue at the heart of recycling nuclear wastes is political unwillingness stemming from several areas, but chief among them in my mind (because it is the hardest to overcome politically) is proliferation resistance. Right now, spent fuel is reprocessed using a process called PUREX (plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction). The problem with PUREX is that it separates an essentially pure plutonium stream during reprocessing. This plutonium is actually of sufficient quality to construct a nuclear weapon, though it would not be as powerful as plutonium obtained in other ways.

Jimmy Carter axed nuclear fuel recycling for this reason, and for the most part, it has been dead since. I am a proponent of nuclear energy and exploring advanced fuel cycles that would involve recycling of spent nuclear fuel, but there are some other, technical, concerns that must be addressed. In processes like PUREX, you can recycle a good chunk of the fuel, but there are still very nasty materials left over that are now even more radioactive because they essentially have been purified. We would still have to store these somewhere.

But that's PUREX, which is quite an old technology. There are other potential solutions out there, many with proliferation draw-backs, others with technical challenges. I don't know of a clear winner that exist today...but that is why I have always thought that there should be more funding of research (paired with tax breaks for private endeavors) into advanced fuel cycles. The problem is that they have generally been written off politically, so you just don't see that much activity.

If you would like to read more about advanced fuel cycles and the policy associated with them, I can point you to this paper. Please note that I wrote this as (an even younger) pup, so don't be too harsh. It's not written all that well, and even has some glaring grammatical errors. Perhaps most notable is some of the naivete going on it, for example, with regard to policy recommendations, but I also knew that at the time to some degree. I didn't mind being a bit idealistic when putting that together. The better stuff, and probably more interesting, is the historical policy perspective.

Yep I'm always getting fission and fusion basackwards.

At least you understand what I'm saying.

(can't read your paper, this dinasaur can't read pdf.)

More dumb questions;

1. Can't the plutonium be used to produce electricity?

2. How can the US Navy be so efficient and accident free using nuclear powered subs and carriers all this time??

I've read that a 1,000 megawatt nuclear facitily only produces 2 cubit meters of waste per year, that doesn't seem prohibitive and perhaps someday we will learn how to recycle said wastes.

Can you name one thing that Jimmy Carter did right??

Carter demanded the Shah sell Iran's oil at $5 a barrel to Jimmy's cronies for the next fifty years and that's the main reason we now have this:

To Fight a Tyranny | FrontPage Magazine

During the Carter administration we had one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled off on the American people, ie; the oil shortage. I was employed by a company at the time who was under contract to the oil companies and can inform you with a 100% degree of accuracy, there actually was no oil shortage.

To top that off, hard on the heels of the gas shortage came the coal shortage. While people were still involved in talking about the gas shortage they seemed to not notice at all the coal shortage hoax. Newspapers splased the headlines; 'now we have a coal shortage.'

I watched daily as a mountain of coal at a TVA steam plant dwindled down to nothing, coal prices doubled. Then on page six in a small blurb it was announced that TVA had just signed with a coal company to supply coal at the inflated price for the next five years. As if by magic there was a new mountain of coal at the TVA steam plant. Two weeks later the coal on any coal yard was back to the pre-scare price.

There were just as many "ties" between Bush and his crew and the method in which contracts were divied out. Not to mention the rabble rabble about Rummy and his stock in the company that makes Tamiflu just in time for the outbreak of the swine flu that was orchestrated by Rumsfeld and his contacts in order to make a profit.


Welcome to Corporate Politics.

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies … If the American people ever allow the private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson

I certainly have problems with the republican party but still when it comes to selling out the American people the democrats really have no rival.

 

[TennTradition]

(can't read your paper, this dinasaur can't read pdf.)

If you're interested, you can try this...it's a google generated html of the .pdf....the tables and some images don't show up, but it generally converts OK....

1. Can't the plutonium be used to produce electricity?

2. How can the US Navy be so efficient and accident free using nuclear powered subs and carriers all this time??

The plutonium can definitely be used to create electricity. You can do it in advanced reactors, or even in current designs as MOX, or mixed oxide fuel (basically a mixture of uranium oxide and plutonium oxide). I think that is discussed in the paper...

As for the NAVY, I would first like to say that Admiral Rickover was kick-arse. I am amazed every time I learn more about our nuclear navy fleet. Actually, in a previous life, I used to support the processing of fuel for the nuclear navy.

The nuclear navy can run as well as it does for the same reasons that nuclear power, in general, has been a safe enterprise in the US. The technology is understood and we can do it pretty well. However, from a risk, and certainly a risk perception, standpoint, things change when you start putting even bigger reactors near population centers, as opposed to in the middle of the ocean. Also, the government as its own customer probably assesses the risk differently for the nuclear navy.

I've read that a 1,000 megawatt nuclear facitily only produces 2 cubit meters of waste per year, that doesn't seem prohibitive and perhaps someday we will learn how to recycle said wastes.

Because of the intense heat due to radioactive decay, you can only keep small amounts of material in any one container, and then that container also has to be huge for safety reasons...so the room that is necessary is larger than one would think when doing the math on the volume of the fuel alone. This is particularly true when you have to add spacing for proper cooling, etc., but it still isn't an insane amount of space. I personally think that technology is there for the most part, but until they are willing to yield on the 10,000 year guarantee of no leaks requirement, it's going to be tough to license anything, IMO.

 

[gsvol]

If you're interested, you can try this...it's a google generated html of the .pdf....the tables and some images don't show up, but it generally converts OK....




The plutonium can definitely be used to create electricity. You can do it in advanced reactors, or even in current designs as MOX, or mixed oxide fuel (basically a mixture of uranium oxide and plutonium oxide). I think that is discussed in the paper...

As for the NAVY, I would first like to say that Admiral Rickover was kick-arse. I am amazed every time I learn more about our nuclear navy fleet. Actually, in a previous life, I used to support the processing of fuel for the nuclear navy.

The nuclear navy can run as well as it does for the same reasons that nuclear power, in general, has been a safe enterprise in the US. The technology is understood and we can do it pretty well. However, from a risk, and certainly a risk perception, standpoint, things change when you start putting even bigger reactors near population centers, as opposed to in the middle of the ocean. Also, the government as its own customer probably assesses the risk differently for the nuclear navy.



Because of the intense heat due to radioactive decay, you can only keep small amounts of material in any one container, and then that container also has to be huge for safety reasons...so the room that is necessary is larger than one would think when doing the math on the volume of the fuel alone. This is particularly true when you have to add spacing for proper cooling, etc., but it still isn't an insane amount of space. I personally think that technology is there for the most part, but until they are willing to yield on the 10,000 year guarantee of no leaks requirement, it's going to be tough to license anything, IMO.

Thanks for the link, I'll finish reading it all asap.
(I'm down to page nine and getting sleepy.)

So who is behind the 10,000 year guarantee of no leaks and why?? I think the risk perception aspect is overblown by certain groups with an ulterior motive.

I agree with your accessment of Rickover and you know those ships do make port where there are large population centers.

Also, why don't we consider more numerous smaller reactors that wouldn't neccessarily need to be near large population centers?

You know Carter made the claim that he served on a nuclear submarine but in fact he was discharged from the Navy two years before we launched our first??

Again, mucho thanks for the valid information.

 

[TennTradition]

So who is behind the 10,000 year guarantee of no leaks and why?? I think the risk perception aspect is overblown by certain groups with an ulterior motive.

It stems from an EPA regulation. The regulation was established between 1999 and 2001. I can understand the reason for a long-term regulatory requirement in some ways, but in other ways...it just seems silly.

I agree with your accessment of Rickover and you know those ships do make port where there are large population centers.

Sure...but my line of thinking is that time at port represents a very small percentage of the total time the reactor is under operation. So, from the standpoint of risk assessment, this would 'help' your numbers immensely...

Also, why don't we consider more numerous smaller reactors that wouldn't neccessarily need to be near large population centers?

I have actually seen a renewed focus on this sort of approach. Small, relatively portable reactors that would allow for wider deployment. But, the idea for them was that it could help get power to remote areas where you don't want to run transmission lines for hundreds or more miles.

It could definitely work because these small reactors can get the job done. However, the security expense would be higher per MW than a normal plant, I would think. Many small, distributed reactors would each require a certain degree of security, leading to an operational and capital cost-savings for larger, concentrated plants. But, there are other cost-savings for these smaller units...it would be nice to see a good life-cycle cost analysis.

 

[gsvol]

It stems from an EPA regulation. The regulation was established between 1999 and 2001. I can understand the reason for a long-term regulatory requirement in some ways, but in other ways...it just seems silly.

The democrats and liberal media kept such a carcophony of complaints about Bush going for eight years you couldn't get a word in edgewise. My biggest complaint was that he didn't undo more of what Clinton had done.

France gets 78% of it's electricity from nuclear facilities.

 

[gsvol]

Part-owner of gushing well calls BP 'reckless' - Disaster in the Gulf- msnbc.com

Anadarko said that BP's behavior before the blowout likely represented "gross negligence or willful misconduct."
-----------

"mounting evidence clearly demonstrates" that the disaster that led to the explosion and sinking of a drilling rig and the deaths of 11 workers "was preventable and the direct result of BP's reckless decisions and actions."

 

[Daddy Gee]

If you would like to read more about advanced fuel cycles and the policy associated with them, I can point you to this paper. Please note that I wrote this as (an even younger) pup, so don't be too harsh. It's not written all that well, and even has some glaring grammatical errors. Perhaps most notable is some of the naivete going on it, for example, with regard to policy recommendations, but I also knew that at the time to some degree. I didn't mind being a bit idealistic when putting that together. The better stuff, and probably more interesting, is the historical policy perspective.

good read TennTradition ... haven't gotten all the way thru it ... the historical perspectives are interesting ... seems like the advanced/closed cycles would solve some waste storage problems if the security/proliferation concerns could be addressed ...

do you think proliferation is still as much of an issue with all of the rogue material that may be out there? ... e.g. from the old USSR ...

 

[TennTradition]

I personally think you worry about the proliferation of nuclear material, regardless of what else may be out there. The success of our infiltration of the black market supply of uranium enrichment technology, corruption of that technology/equipment, and derailment of (several) countries attempts to enrich tells me that the Soviet material isn't as widespread/good as the worst-case scenarios might suggest. We have a lot of that material now, and are still working on getting more of it. But, you're point stands....we can do all we want to prevent proliferation from spent fuel....but there are still other sources out there to worry about.

 

[Daddy Gee]

I don't know much of anything about the nuclear industry. While I understand the concern about proliferation, I was a little surprised at how real the possibility must be of somebody "walking out" of a nuclear facility with material. How would somebody go about getting away with something like that?

 

[TennTradition]

I don't know much of anything about the nuclear industry. While I understand the concern about proliferation, I was a little surprised at how real the possibility must be of somebody "walking out" of a nuclear facility with material. How would somebody go about getting away with something like that?

Good point. I don't mean to suggest that the risk is high of that happening under the nose of plant security. No one is going to be able to walk out with it.

Of course, you would always worry about an attack of a plant, and carrying away the material. The separated plutonium would be a much more valuable material than the material that could be obtained at current nuclear plants. Also, there may be a transportation element, which could provide an additional target. However, we currently secure other valuable material and security would be able to deal with this (but at a very pretty penny, I should add).

The harder issues to deal with starting inching in when thinking about proliferation of technology. If we roll out a wide-spread reprocessing program, we are going to better the technology in the process. If part of that isn't building in proliferation resistance, then all the people who work on the design are going to become trained in the art of making plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. So, you have elements of a knowledge proliferation issue. In addition, you are creating a larger market for the technology/equipment required to do this, so now you need to make sure that in this larger market, material doesn't get siphoned off to the people you don't want to have it.

The last issue is largely political, and it is therefore one of the harder ones...it's the most important in my mind because it's the fuzziest and hardest to address. If at any point you have a weapons-usable stream of material emanating from your civilian nuclear power program, you open yourself up to criticism of that program. The US would have much weaker legs to stand on internationally to call for country xyz to not have a nuclear power program (for fear of diverting it to a weapons program) if it could be argued that we are very likely doing the same thing. We would be in a much stronger position if we could build in inherent proliferation resistance.

 

[Daddy Gee]

I should have chosen my words more carefully. I'm sure it would be no mean feat to get away safely with some plutonium, either at a plant or during transport.

How far along would you guess that groups like al Qaeda have gotten in their quest to acquire some sort of nuclear device .. something like a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb? Is it far fetched to think that a terrorist group could get their hands on a nuclear device? After all, it takes a nation like Iran several years to get spun up on procuring the tools and the technology to make it happen. Along those lines, I would think that the threat is pretty significant of a US enemy supplying al Qaeda with such a device.

I can also see the possibility of al Qaeda, and possibly other enemies, playing a waiting game with us. Maybe they're very close to obtaining such a weapon, but they're waiting on other modes of attack to be ready... i.e. knocking out a power grid, cyber attack, etc.