Welcome to blog.chinoy.com Sign in | Join

May 2006 - Posts

Incandescent Proposal

posted Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:29 AM by hussain

Yesterday, France, Britain and Germany were considering giving Iran a light water reactor (LWR) in exchange for Iran's assurance not to continue enriching uranium. A LWR is considered less proliferation-worthy since it's byproducts/waste aren't as usable in further refining processes, such as a heavy water reactor's (HWR) plutonium waste product. All this and LWR's are considered a-ok under the NPT by the IAEA. Iran's in the process of building a HWR in Arak, Iran.

I find all of this rather curious, as if that whole "doomed to repeat it" business about history's excluded from the IAEA's thinking. Let's review:

  • 1956: The British, US, and Canadians, in good faith, give India nuclear technology, ostensibly for peaceful, domestic purposes, as specified in the contract for the Cirus HWR and heavy water supply. May, 1974: India has a nuclear bomb and tests it. India's latest 2006 agreement with the United States excludes their military nuclear reactors from oversight. The US agrees.
  • 1994/1997: The United States, in good faith, offers LWRs (and oil) to DPRK in order to have Kim Jong Il retreat from pursuing nuclear weapons, KJI's stated goal. A few years later, sometime after 2002, the addition of LWR technology helps DPRK become a nuclear power.
In the words of our silver tongued, esteemed President from 2002 "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

That's right, no third time, and even the second time was a flub. You heard it. Additionally, Washington officials asked to comment on this plan have stated that they'd oppose such an offering.

Apparently, the European nations who're mulling over offering Iran a LWR aren't big history buffs. My favorite quote out of the supposedly tentative and secret discussions is from a French official:

"We are not going to offer them a finished reactor," he told the AP.
Mademoiselle, of course you're not. Rich, so rich. June 7, 1981 Israel bombs the French-made nuclear reactor given to Iraq. This reactor was delivered unfinished. Prior to its destruction, there were claims that the French delivered the reactor with a massive crack in its side - i.e. inoperable. The French are apparently either completely unaware of history or fully cognizent of their disengenuousness.

My advice to Iran would be to reject any offer like this and save the world the embarassment of this post.

As of this writing, Iran has. In the words of Iran's silver tongued, esteemed president "They say we want to give Iranians incentives, but they think they are dealing with a four-year-old, telling him they will give him candies or walnuts and take gold from him in return."

0 Comments

The Future of Futurists

posted Monday, May 08, 2006 10:55 AM by hussain

As per usual, I'm in the middle (or beginning) of a bunch of books, and Ray Kurtzweil's Singularity is Near is one of them. I'm a big fan of having excuses to ignore what passes as "work" these days, so I'm a bit sad that I just found out about The Singularity Summit going on at Stanford in a few days. I totally would've been up for an excuse to ditch this and pretend to be really smart.  (My last escapist travel / personal betterment failure was the Ruby on Rails conference in Vancouver.)

Yaay for GNR (not guns & roses - Genetics, Nanotech and Robotics!)

0 Comments

Write me a letter

posted Monday, May 08, 2006 9:48 AM by hussain

Certain ex-girlfriends of mine have complained that I'd never wrote them letters. It's not true, I did write reams of words, but none were crafted enough for my insecure perfectionism to consider submittable. The latter writings, in particular, they wouldn't want to read, anyway.

So, when leaders write to each other, it's surely meant to express sweetness or anger or something they just can't talk about in person.

Reports that Ahmedinejad's written Bush a letter, delivered via Swiss Embassy courier, strikes me as pretty humorous, but also insightful into how stilted domestic rhetoric plays and bleeds over into international relations. The simple fact that Ahmedinejad's sending a letter means two things:

1. He's got a Khomeni complex.
This is obvious to Iran watchers due to Ahmedinejad's attempts to fire up his base with religious rhetoric. Iran, you might recall, actually has a council of Ayatollahs to do this if necessary, and Amedinejad's not an ayatollah (no matter what Americans who've been frightened think). Need further proof? Check out the historic letter that Khomeni sent to Gorbachev in 1989 [NYT summary].

"If you wish to put an end to the economic woes of socialism and communism by simply resorting to the core of estern capitalism, you will not only not ease the pains prevalent in the Soviet society, but others must come after you to offset the mistakes you will have committed," since communism will be relegated to the "museums of the world's political history, since Marxism cannot meet any of the real needs of human beings."

He wants his public to know that he's a leader of the highest caliber, emulating the guy who's created the modern state of Iran. Further, sending a letter into the international ether brings up the next point.

2. Diplomacy's still an option
I've said this all along: the 20+ year history of US-Iran relations has been so dominated by inflammatory rhetoric that rhetorical enemity means nothing more than that there's willingness to talk, the contents aren't as immediately relevant. That both the US and Iran have used (lately) the IAEA as go between for their issues and this letter is just the latest in the stable and ongoing pattern of talky. Note, not "bomby," but talky. Since there aren't any direct talks between the US and Iran (this has been overdue and really needs to happen), floating a letter in a bottle is about as effective a means of direct communications as exists. The international stage is exploited quite well by both Iran and the US to play out what seems to be high drama. (Thanks UN, for scurring and scrambling and the tearing of hair!) This latest in dramatics continues to highlight the very apparent void of behind the scenes, back channel diplomacy that could be going on, but apparently hasn't been.  Is this letter trying to say what they don't know how to say?  "What I learned in my last relationship: Communicate more."

0 Comments

Welcome, Moussaoui

posted Thursday, May 04, 2006 9:48 AM by hussain

Big Z's coming to Colorado. Specifically, to the ADX Supermax in Florence, where we keep all our traitors (Robert Hanssen), bombers (Hampton El, el Hage, Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols), and general nutcases (Kaczynski). Maybe he can have McVeigh's old cell?

Admitted and accused Al Qaeda member and on-again-off-again 9/11 hijacker Zacharais Moussaoui was sentenced to life w/o parole yesterday evening and this morning Judge Brinkema stated that his destination would be the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) here in Colorado.

Briefly, to have gone through our judicial system and in particular a trial-by-jury is an accomplishment and credit (albeit a phyrric one) to our system. The real insight here was that our judicial system and FBI completely fell down on the job and were wholly inadequate in preventing anything terrorist related. They barely caught Moussaoui whose only connection to Al Qaeda was ideations and delusions of grandeur. Catching what amounts to a decoy is like that mounted singing bass of late-night shopping channels.

Additionally, the spotlight put on how little closure is actually available to the 9/11 victim's families via Moussaoui is embarassing. Again, what's catching an insane person who had no ability to do anything going to assuage? He's not the "one" or even part of anything, people.

Some people may think the real travesty of this case is that the "ones" we do actually have in black sites (such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammaed, planner of 9/11, Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, etc.) will never go through the US judicial system and that the judicial system has failed us by not giving Moussaoui our country's harshest punishment. I firmly believe the judicial system is set up for a retroactive enforcements and is not the proper forum in which to "bring justice" to the real terrorists. With all its strengths and benefits, the judicial system will, would, and could not bring any sort of closure, clarity, or "justice" to terrorism. Terrorism operates outside laws by design, attempting to put stricture on its intents by forcing it within our judicial system or current judicial systems creates the stage of the absurd that only a master nutter like Moussaoui could consistently play such a grand part. It's what'd happen if any other terrorist were brought within the system: they'd jump around on our legal system like monkeys on a jungle gym.

Lastly, not killing him was the right thing to do from both a punishment and Moussaoui's perspective. The only better thing to do would have been to declare him insane and put him away for life, but our judicial system doesn't really allow for that too well. Why? Because insane people can't be martyrs in Islam. Apart from the fact that it's clearly evident since his capture and processing through the system that Moussaoui's totally lost it, his delusions hinge on him being a great Al Qaeda martyr who'll get to heaven by bucking the Great Satan's system. Well, nice try buddy, but not only is he not going to become a martyr, he's continuing his slow decline into insanity.

  • "God curse America, God save Osama bin Laden, you will never get him" "I fight for my beliefs. You think that you own the world and I will prove that you are wrong." - Moussaoui's last words
  • "Mr Moussaoui, when this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun… hear the birds… and they can associate with whomever they want. You will spend the rest of your life in a supermax prison. It's absolutely clear who won." - U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema
  • "Mr Moussaoui, you came here to be a martyr in a great big bang of glory. But to paraphrase the poet TS Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper." "You will never get a chance to speak again, and that's an appropriate ending." - U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema

Finally, and on edit, I urge you in the most strongly worded manner that an excess of verbiage can only muster, secondary to writing this as a UN resolution, to not read this article in the Washington Post, Judging the Moussaoui Jury, by Andrew Cohen, 05/04. Why? This article analyses the juries judgements and utterly destroys any high falutin' ideals one might have of our jury system. Contradictions abound in their conclusions. Cohen's conclusion is that it's fitting that a confused defendant, defense would create complexity and doubt and that's how the ends justify the means.

0 Comments