Phony firm got radioactive materials, easily

[d_goddard]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-11-dirty-bomb_N.htm

Great.
So, we suffer a further distortion of our economy -- yes another of those one thousand cuts -- and "they" now have to incur the expense of renting an office to succeed in their plan to blow up a dirty bomb. 

Did none of these bureaucrats see the great Mamet play (and Steve Martin film) The Spanish Prisoner?

[error]

Some of those GAO investigators get to have a lot of fun. Last year they smuggled radioactive material into the country from Mexico.

[d_goddard]

I kinda thought the above would make for a fun Stupidity bog entry

[error]

I kinda thought the above would make for a fun Stupidity bog entry

I passed on the previous story, and on this one, because the only solution presented is more big government, and I don't have a good free market solution. Got any ideas?

[KBCraig]

The GAO investigators do a great job of pointing out government failures. The problem is that the suggested "solution" is more government.

I had occasion today to be in a nuclear medicine lab. Hospitals are full of nasty schtuffs -- not just nuclear, but also biological (obviously!).

[Russell Kanning]

I kinda thought the above would make for a fun Stupidity bog entry

I passed on the previous story, and on this one, because the only solution presented is more big government, and I don't have a good free market solution. Got any ideas?

as far as I can tell .... they are no terrorists without government backing

[error]

Indeed. GAO rarely recommends less government. Which is why I usually don't repeat their recommendations.

But my question still stands: How would nuclear materials be handled in a free society?

[srqrebel]

But my question still stands: How would nuclear materials be handled in a free society?

In a truly free (global) society, without States and their arbitrary boundaries, what incentive would there be to use nuclear materials destructively?  Who would stand to gain from making war?

(BTW, please don't confuse my reference to a State-free global society with the UN; the UN's ultimate goal is one giant State, which would amount to tyranny of the worst kind.)

[penguins4me]

In a truly free (global) society, without States and their arbitrary boundaries, what incentive would there be to use nuclear materials destructively?  Who would stand to gain from making war?

There will always be violent and/or evil people who are willing to use any and all levels of force available to them for any number of non-productive reasons.

Only thing I have to add is that terrorism is overrated, and if we were worried so much about terror, we'd have banned automobiles by now (~4,000 civilians dead by "terrorism" since 1993, ~40,000 *yearly* dead by automobile).

[Roycerson]

In Heinlein's book Friday he puts out a good argument that conventional war is only effective against territorial based governments but completely useless against multinationals.  You can't bomb IBM and expect to accomplish anything.  IBM's home is a PO box.

[Rochelle]

Well, IBM does have a headquarters that one could bomb and inflict some serious damage upon it....

But that's not the point. In a truly free society, people could own nuclear weapons if they wanted to. If everyone owned a nuke, there would be perfect deterrence, don't you think ?

The second thing I would point out is that if it weren't for serious government backing in the way of inventing a nuclear bomb, I doubt we would even have one. If the private field had been in charge of nuclear discovery, they would have invented nuclear energy long before a nuclear bomb.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Well, IBM does have a headquarters that one could bomb and inflict some serious damage upon it....

But that's not the point. In a truly free society, people could own nuclear weapons if they wanted to. If everyone owned a nuke, there would be perfect deterrence, don't you think ?

If I, secretly, leave a nuke on a timer in your yard, and it goes off, you're not going to retaliate.

The second thing I would point out is that if it weren't for serious government backing in the way of inventing a nuclear bomb, I doubt we would even have one. If the private field had been in charge of nuclear discovery, they would have invented nuclear energy long before a nuclear bomb.

Einstein's earlier plans for nuclear energy involved blasting ( I assume )  a canal to bring melted Arctic ice to the deserts.  Nuclear explosives would have been invented, but, if governments stayed out of it, there wold be less proliferation.

[Rochelle]

If I, secretly, leave a nuke on a timer in your yard, and it goes off, you're not going to retaliate.

I'm going to have to secure my backyard better so that you wouldn't be able to do that without detection.

But I should have added that since nuclear weapons present a risk even if you don't use them (the possibility of getting exposed, dying of cancer, radiation poisoning, etc) it's unlikely many people would want to own them. Perhaps they'd be stored somewhere safe, in case of an emergency

Einstein's earlier plans for nuclear energy involved blasting ( I assume )  a canal to bring melted Arctic ice to the deserts.  Nuclear explosives would have been invented, but, if governments stayed out of it, there wold be less proliferation.

Yes, but I doubt that Einstein alone would have been able to get that far beyond the idea. Who was he employed by? My impression is that nuclear research during those times was nearly 100% government funded.
But I agree with your second statement.

[d_goddard]

A POET'S ADVICE

A poet is somebody who feels, and who expresses his feelings through words.
This may sound easy, but it isn't.

A lot of people think or believe or know they feel -- but that's thinking or believing or
knowing; not feeling. And poetry is feeling -- not knowing or believing or thinking.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can
be taught to feel. Why? Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you're a
lot of other people: but the moment you feel, you're nobody-but-yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself -- in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make
you everybody else -- means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight;
and never stop fighting.

As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a little harder
than anybody who isn't a poet can possibly imagine. Why? Because nothing is quite as
easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us do exactly this nearly all of the time -
and whenver we do it, we are not poets.

If, at the end of your first ten or fifteen years of fighting and working and feeling, you
find you've written one line of one poem, you'll be very lucky indeed.

And so my advice to all young people who wish to become poets is: do something easy,
like learning how to blow up the world -- unless you're not only willing, but glad, to feel
and work and fight till you die.

Does this sound dismal? It isn't.
It's the most wonderful life on earth.
Or so I feel.


-- e. e. cummings