Zimbabwe, the next nuclear power

[Gurdur]

Well for starters I am fairly the certain the port is still there and is quite operational (cue ROTJ music).

Way to miss the point --- the harbour facilities were quite damaged and needed repair. They were (mostly) repaired, and the city itself is undergoing very slow repair.

Also, what happened in New Orleans, can't happen in most places in USA.

Uh, and so what? Not quite true, anyway -- see below.

9/11, on the other hand, can happen in every city at any time, so I would say that is more damaging, pshycologically at least.

Bit illogical on two counts.
First off, having such huges masses of people actually or potentially within only two skyscrapers is most definitely not a thing that happens in "every city"; most cities simply do not have such huge skyscrapers, IOW it couldn't "happen in every city at any time".

Secondly, few places are free of risk of natural distasters. San Andreas fault, remember? Yellowstone magma dome? etc.

Next off, for a counter-example, assume that it had been a meteorite that did the Twin Towers in --- same damage, same risks, roughly, but most likely far less hysteria, as well as far less really off-beat ideas like let's go beat up Saddam in revenge (an idea that was shoved willynilly in weaselwords around the place after 9/11 and after Afghanistan -- which at least was valid -- was done).

The difference in reactions is the myths used to surround them, or lack of myths.

 

[Gurdur]

You're equating an man-made disaster with a natural one, and they're not comparable. If you want to claim that 9/11 was not a justification for invading Iraq, fine, but that has zero to do with Katrina.

Real way to miss the point. The events are fully comparable in terms of differences in risk-management and reactions. I was examining exactly that. I look forward to your eventually joining the same page.


Just to really state the obvious, this grew out of a mini-discussion here on this thread on rational risk-management and irrational reactions.

Or, IOW, , when you should "stain your shorts" and when not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Just to really state the obvious, this grew out of a mini-discussion here on this thread on rational risk-management and irrational reactions.

Or, IOW, , when you should "stain your shorts" and when not.

I agree with you to the extent that the direct physical damage to property from Katrina exceeded the direct physical property damage from 9/11, but the economic impact of 9/11 was much larger because of our response to it. I suspect Mycroft may have misinterpreted you in this regard.

I would take issue, however, if you mean to imply that our response was irrational, and I suspect that possibility is what Mycroft is really objecting to (though to make it clear, I'm not sure if you meant this or not). Man-made violence is a fundamentally different sort of threat from natural disasters. For example, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was not clear if there would be more attempted attacks, and so air traffic was shut down as a precaution. This had a huge negative economic impact, but it wasn't irrational at all, it was a prudent move considering the lack of information we had at the time. In the case of a dirty bomb, much reaction likely would be irrational, but the difference in economic impact between natural disasters and human violence don't come merely from irrationality.

 

[Grammatron]

Way to miss the point --- the harbour facilities were quite damaged and needed repair. They were (mostly) repaired, and the city itself is undergoing very slow repair.

Well you said "effectively wiped out one of the major ports." That's different than damaged...

Uh, and so what? Not quite true, anyway -- see below.

Bit illogical on two counts.
First off, having such huges masses of people actually or potentially within only two skyscrapers is most definitely not a thing that happens in "every city"; most cities simply do not have such huge skyscrapers, IOW it couldn't "happen in every city at any time".

Secondly, few places are free of risk of natural distasters. San Andreas fault, remember? Yellowstone magma dome? etc.

Yes, San Adreas fault is there and it might cause a "big one" but it won't wipe out Los Angeles, or San Francisco.

Next off, for a counter-example, assume that it had been a meteorite that did the Twin Towers in --- same damage, same risks, roughly, but most likely far less hysteria, as well as far less really off-beat ideas like let's go beat up Saddam in revenge (an idea that was shoved willynilly in weaselwords around the place after 9/11 and after Afghanistan -- which at least was valid -- was done).

The difference in reactions is the myths used to surround them, or lack of myths.

You missed a point, it's not planes into buildings that people are afraid of, it's large-scale terror. That can happen any time any where. This is why it was more "damaging."

Now you may think the same about a meteorite, and I assure you that it will have similar...uh...impact if a big-enough one hits the Earth.

 

[Kerberos]

So who, exactly, do you think we should invade as a response to Katrina?

Well Katrina sounds kind of Russian if you ask me...

 

[Iamme]

What's with the countries that can't feed themselves pursuing nuclear technology?

You're kidding right?

Picture this: Zimbabwe dictator standing next to leader of country rich in food, with belt of nuclear bombs strapped around his waste, saying, "Soooo...you won't give us any of your extra food, ehhhh?"

Just call it the great equalizer.

 

[Gurdur]

Well you said "effectively wiped out one of the major ports." That's different than damaged...

No, it quite effectively wiped out the harbour and city --- for a period.
D'uh, the harbour and (far more slowly) the city were/are being repaired, nonetheless both were effectively wiped. Almost an entire city population were badly dislocated, amy remaining so. I would have thought that was obvious.

Yes, San Adreas fault is there and it might cause a "big one" but it won't wipe out Los Angeles, or San Francisco.

A relatively small quake did amazing damage to LA not so long ago, and SF 1906 was not small bikkies. You can always take lessons from Banda Aceh. I kinda marvel at your strong and nonsubstantiated faith, but it's beside the point.

You missed a point,.

No, you did. All I can recommend is that you go back and read all my posts in this thread, this is enough silliness for the time being. Others will get the point if not you.

 

[Gurdur]

I agree with you to the extent that the direct physical damage to property from Katrina exceeded the direct physical property damage from 9/11, but the economic impact of 9/11 was much larger because of our response to it.

But owing to the psychological stuff surrounding it, which is what I would like to explore.

I would take issue, however, if you mean to imply that our response was irrational,

Parts of it were. What sparked this off was the Zimbabwe bit, since Zimbabwe would have to be on the list of possible dangers down below Outer Mongolia, then the interesting angle on the "dirty bomb" that you brought up, which I thought was a very interesting subect.

Man-made violence is a fundamentally different sort of threat from natural disasters.

No so sure on the "fundamentally" bit, and the thingies are similar enough to be able to compare reactions and management.

For example, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it was not clear if there would be more attempted attacks, and so air traffic was shut down as a precaution. This had a huge negative economic impact, but it wasn't irrational at all, it was a prudent move

Agreed.

the difference in economic impact between natural disasters and human violence don't come merely from irrationality.

Let's examine that to see if it really fits.

 

[Grammatron]

No, it quite effectively wiped out the harbour and city --- for a period.
D'uh, the harbour and (far more slowly) the city were/are being repaired, nonetheless both were effectively wiped. Almost an entire city population were badly dislocated, amy remaining so. I would have thought that was obvious.

Listen if you don't mean what you type it would be very difficult to have a conversation with you. The port is operational thus wasn't wiped out.

A relatively small quake did amazing damage to LA not so long ago, and SF 1906 was not small bikkies. You can always take lessons from Banda Aceh. I kinda marvel at your strong and nonsubstantiated faith, but it's beside the point.

Well San Andreas fault can only produce an Earthquake around the magnitude of 8.5, so I wouldn't call '95 earthqake small, even relatively speaking. And SF circa 1906 wasn't exactly up to code.

No, you did. All I can recommend is that you go back and read all my posts in this thread, this is enough silliness for the time being. Others will get the point if not you.

You asked a question, I provided the answer. If you are not satisfied then ask a different question and don't blame me if you can't understand simple terms.

 

[Gurdur]

. The port is operational thus wasn't wiped out.

The port was not operational for a while. Without repair (and some repair to the city) it would not have become operational again. Sheesh, what is so hard to understand about this?
Even given hyper-literalness on your part, your quibbling does not make much sense.

And SF circa 1906 wasn't exactly up to code.

We are almost getting back on track here, , which would be risk-assessment and risk-management.

if you can't understand simple terms.

sigh, none of your projection necessary here. I don't suppose there is any chance of getting you to actually address the topic here, which is risk-assessment and risk-management? Or shall we just go through the ritual couple of flame exchanges till you duck out?

 

[Elind]

Rather immaterial. Zimbabwe would be in no position to develop or obtain any far-reaching missles; whether or not they sell enriched yellowcake to China is neither here nor there. Can't see at all why this should worry you.

Can't see why this should worry you?

Perhaps because you think they are ignorant blacks who can't grow corn enough to feed themselves, or because they are too dumb to negotiate with the likes of Kim whatshisname, or the hero of Pakistan?

Why are you here on this forum attempting to debate anything?

 

[Gurdur]

Can't see why this should worry you?

No, because I think any such concern as raised in the OP to be over-reaction verging on hysteria, but then, that was obvious already, you only needed to be able to read. Ah well, I shall correct you.

Perhaps because you think they are ignorant blacks who can't grow corn enough to feed themselves,

No. I think you are definitely ignorant, and moreover willfully so, but hey, that's another story.

or because they are too dumb to negotiate with the likes of Kim whatshisname, or the hero of Pakistan?

Listen, boy, if you want to auto-eroticise yourself into a rampant state of demented perturbation on the wacky thought of Mugabe exporting weapon-ready nuclear materials to Korea, be my guest. They already have their own.
The fact you would then be just being a very silly little git indeed should not stop you; just be yourself.
Not many others will join you in your insane little titillation, but that's because most can manage rational thought, but hey, why stick with the crowd?

Why are you here on this forum attempting to debate anything?

In a vague and forlorn hope of actually bringing you back down to Planet Earth. Hey, everyone needs a hobby.

 

[Ziggurat]

One aspect that hasn't really been mentioned (though it is implicit in some of the statements) is that even an attempt to start a nuclear program, regardless of whether or not if fails, will increase the misery and death going on in Zimbabwe. The country is collapsing, it cannot afford spare resources. So either Mugabe is purely bluffing (which isn't encouraging either, since it doesn't speak well of his judgment), or he actually intends to try to start a nuclear program. If he's serious, that means diverting a significant amount of resources to a program which cannot help the Zimbabwean economy at all. Right now, that's a VERY dangerous move, even if all it consists of is dumping that money in a pit. Is it a threat to us? Only if he can actually get enrichment working (Gurdur seems to think that impossible, I'm not quite so satisfied about that). But it's a threat to Zimbabwe if he even tries, and possibly a threat to his neighbors as well (violence has a tendency to leak through the borders of failing states).

 

[Gurdur]

One aspect that hasn't really been mentioned (though it is implicit in some of the statements) is that even an attempt to start a nuclear program, regardless of whether or not if fails, will increase the misery and death going on in Zimbabwe.

Not necessarily. The most likely scenario if uranium mining actually takes off there (not necessarily going to happen) is like so:

The most likely sources for the mining and processing expertise and investment necessary are:
South Africa
various shady companies at work already in the Congo
China

All of the above start to massively twitch anytime it might look as though they might come under hostile scrutiny, and considering that the USA already keeps a very close eye on freight shipping in the area (and not only the USA; Germany has naval forces operating out of Djibouti, an important transit port in this context, for example), and on people exporting nuclear technology of any kind whatsoever, then the most likely investors and tech experts will simply not have anything to do with anything that could be construed as being internationally illegal.
Given various factors (the amount of money needed, the tech expertise needed), the most likely "partner" investor would be China, on the search for yellowcake for Chinese power reactors. The Chinese have zero interest in allowing terrorists any interesting materials. Thus it would be a straight business deal, and the product well-controlled and most likely being unprocessed yellowcake being shipped to China for power reactor processing there.

Negative effects would be bad social problems (including HIV rises) in the mining camps and massive ecological pollution/destruction in the immediate vicinity of the mining operations, as well as sharp rises in business/government corruption, but these are not effects that are unknown today.

The country is collapsing, it cannot afford spare resources.

Not necessarily, see above. But any threat of processing allowing genuine weapons-ready material simply does not exist.

...... since it doesn't speak well of his judgment

Mugabe's judgment is on a par with Elind's, but then Mugabe has a much more powerful position, much to the sorrow of most of the Zimbabwen people, but even so, it does not translate into any significant threat outside Zimbabwean borders.

(Gurdur seems to think that impossible

Not totally accurate, see above.

But it's a threat to Zimbabwe if he even tries,

Only really in the immediate vicinity of mining operations. On a national level, a rise in corruption would go by unremarked.

and possibly a threat to his neighbors as well

Not in any way with dirty nuclear-related materials or weapons, The greatest threat Zimbabwe poses to its neighbours is the amount of its people trying to flee to neighbouring countries.

 

[Ziggurat]

Only really in the immediate vicinity of mining operations. On a national level, a rise in corruption would go by unremarked.

I'm not talking only about mining. I'm saying IF Mugabe tries to start an enrichment program (which is an unknown: it wouldn't make much sense, as you point out, but that's hardly a guarantee that he wouldn't try), then he's going to have to pour a lot of resources into it. That will require diverting those resources from other areas. Those other areas (in other words, the whole country) would then suffer even more than they do now. Like I said, maybe he's just bluffing, but his talk still makes me uncomfortable because I don't find him trustworthy or particularly rational.

[]The greatest threat Zimbabwe poses to its neighbours is the amount of its people trying to flee to neighbouring countries.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that point, but it's not a small threat, it's a rather significant one for Zimbabwe's neighbors.

 

[Gurdur]

Like I said, maybe he's just bluffing, but his talk still makes me uncomfortable because I don't find him trustworthy or particularly rational.

Mugabe is a power-mad, corrupt maniac, as the Ndebele and the urban poor in Zimbabwe know only too well to their sorrow. However, I'm saying that in this context (possible processing) it really doesn't matter.

I'm not talking only about mining.

I know. Give me some credit, Alzheimer's has not hit me yet. But what I am saying is even if Mugabe suddenly decided he wanted to Build Then Drop The Bomb Now, it would be impossible for him. There isn't even one existing reactor in the country, these things take a huge amount of (1) money and (2) expertise and (3) time to build, and Mugabe has none of the three, and would not be able to get any of the three; he's an old man, and his regime is on its last legs (if very nasty legs).

I agree with that point, but it's not a small threat, it's a rather significant one for Zimbabwe's neighbors.

Yes, if we're talking about the massive wannabe emigration of economic and political refugees.