Did Obama Administration Betray America in Uranium One Deal?

[Roma Downy]

In a recent New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

There was much talk on NSG about how a recent book that details alleged corruption by the Clintons might affect Sen. Clinton's chances for a Presidential run in 2016. However, that is small potatoes to the bigger picture, meaning that the President Obama's top cabinet members okayed a deal that eventually allowed Vladimir Putin to gain control of 20% of the U.S.A.'s uranium production.

Not only did Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, sign off on the deal, but also the Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, plus other Cabinet and Defense officials. And the President responsible for his underlings seems to have been either oblivious to the events or didn't think there was any problem whatsoever in the deal. Did he think that he could trust Vladimir Putin?

[Teemant]

I don't think it is the wisest move to give 20% of uranium producing capabilities to a country that has declared USA and NATO it's main enemy.

[Aviran]

Gotta love the NYT, sometimes they let their conservative writers go buck wild-they you get this...

[Roma Downy]

Gotta love the NYT, sometimes they let their conservative writers go buck wild-they you get this...

An ad hominem attack on the NYT writers?

I'd rather you focused in on the Uranium One deal.

[Aviran]

Gotta love the NYT, sometimes they let their conservative writers go buck wild-they you get this...

An ad hominem attack on the NYT writers?

I'd rather you focused in on the Uranium One deal.

Not the NYT Staff Writers as a whole, just this one.

Also, did you know it's a logical fallacy to identify logical fallacies?

[Teemant]

An ad hominem attack on the NYT writers?

I'd rather you focused in on the Uranium One deal.

Not the NYT Staff Writers as a whole, just this one.

Also, did you know it's a logical fallacy to identify logical fallacies?

So you're just gonna say it everytime some newspaper publishes an article that you doesn't like?

[Roma Downy]

An ad hominem attack on the NYT writers?

I'd rather you focused in on the Uranium One deal.

Not the NYT Staff Writers as a whole, just this one.

Also, did you know it's a logical fallacy to identify logical fallacies?

Again, please, let's stick to the Uranium One deal and the people who made/allowed it to happen.

[Teemant]

Not the NYT Staff Writers as a whole, just this one.

Also, did you know it's a logical fallacy to identify logical fallacies?

Again, please, let's stick to the Uranium One deal and the people who made/allowed it to happen.

People may like the article or not but the reality is that Rosatom (Russia) owns 20% of US uranium now.

[Haktiva]

The White House in general has been guilty of high treason for like what, 20 years? I find it hard to care

[AiliailiA]

Uranium is classed as a strategic resource, which is the only reason the Administration was involved at all.

Considering that access to raw uranium is in no way the limiting factor on how many nuclear weapons the US can build, considering that there aren't enough nuclear reactors in the US or anywhere to make the availability or price of uranium a serious concern for decades to come, and considering that the Uranium One deal only affects 20% of the US's uranium mining industry, I don't see it as a big deal.

Uranium shouldn't even be classed as a strategic resource. That might have made sense before arms limitation treaties, and it might have still made sense in the 70's when civilian nuclear was expected to grow at an accelerating pace, but it's just silly now.

There should still be Federal oversight of who owns uranium mines and where the uranium goes, but purely to prevent uranium being sold to non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not for some cold war legacy policy of uranium being a strategic resource. You may as well hoard helium for fear that enemies will build zeppelins.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Do we still have enough nukes to level all of Russia? Yes? Did Russia already have enough nukes to level all of America? Yes? Then I fail to see the issue at this point.

[The Remnants of Kobol]

Notice I will not defend the political figures involved, only attack the theories and assertions made by the author.

First, the conspiracy about paying off the Clinton's is hilarious. A total of $2.5 million in donations to generic political organizations? That's a drop in the bucket. $2.5 million is an extremely small contribution relative to other donations to political organizations. And $500,000 for a speaking arrangement? Sounds about the going rate for a previous President who is now night-lighting as a public speaker. So he got paid to talk to an organization. Would you turn down half a million just because you didn't like the person who wanted you to talk to them?

Second, I can tell you that all this means is that the company owns the rights to mine the ore. The ore is still US property until it is approved to leave the country (hazardous material laws and various regulation of nuclear material). As signatories of Non-Proliferation Treaty, neither the US or Russia would be legally able to use the ore for weapons production. If Russia did, this entire deal becomes void and goes back to the US. If anyone wants to say it will end up in the hands of "undesirables" (ie, terrorists, Iran, Syria, DPRK), that would be the dumbest thing Russia could do. All nuclear material as a unique "fingerprint." Should this fingerprint show up anywhere but a Russian stockpile or power plant, they would be held accountable by the ICC, UN, and most certainly NATO. Should it be weaponized and used, Russian would be opening itself to the US First Strike Policy.

So, this arrangement seems like not much is wrong. Economically, it will likely provide jobs (miners, new local management, etc). Politically, Putin isn't a dictator for life, despite what people say. He will be gone relatively soon and Russia will neutralize back out. This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia. Ecologically, nuclear power is extremely clean compared to fossil fuels.

Basically, this is being blown out of proportion and frankly, we'll have to see how this plays out before we can even see what to expect.

[Teemant]

Uranium is classed as a strategic resource, which is the only reason the Administration was involved at all.

Considering that access to raw uranium is in no way the limiting factor on how many nuclear weapons the US can build, considering that there aren't enough nuclear reactors in the US or anywhere to make the availability or price of uranium a serious concern for decades to come, and considering that the Uranium One deal only affects 20% of the US's uranium mining industry, I don't see it as a big deal.

Uranium shouldn't even be classed as a strategic resource. That might have made sense before arms limitation treaties, and it might have still made sense in the 70's when civilian nuclear was expected to grow at an accelerating pace, but it's just silly now.

There should still be Federal oversight of who owns uranium mines and where the uranium goes, but purely to prevent uranium being sold to non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not for some cold war legacy policy of uranium being a strategic resource. You may as well hoard helium for fear that enemies will build zeppelins.

Uranium is strategic resource and should remain one:

1) It is used for nuclear weapons
2) It is used for ammunition (not nuclear bomb)
3) It is used for military vehicles (armor plates)
4) It is used by nuclear plants

It has huge importance militarily (especially) as you can see.

[AiliailiA]

Do we still have enough nukes to level all of Russia? Yes? Did Russia already have enough nukes to level all of America? Yes? Then I fail to see the issue at this point.

Rosatom will try to corner the market and drive up the price of uranium. If they buy more assets (eg Australian miners) they may even succeed in driving up the price. But not in cornering the market.

We see from OPEC's attempt to corner the crude oil market that the effect of driving up prices is to open up new reserves which weren't previously economical to exploit.

From my perspective, driving up the price of raw uranium would be a good thing. For one, it would make Thorium more attractive for reactor fuel, and for another it would make reprocessing more profitable (and reprocessing reduces the problem of intractable waste which is a major public fear of nuclear power). If the Russians want to waste their scarce investment capital driving up the price of uranium to try to corner the market, they are helpful fools.

[Teemant]

Do we still have enough nukes to level all of Russia? Yes? Did Russia already have enough nukes to level all of America? Yes? Then I fail to see the issue at this point.

Rosatom will try to corner the market and drive up the price of uranium. If they buy more assets (eg Australian miners) they may even succeed in driving up the price. But not in cornering the market.

We see from OPEC's attempt to corner the crude oil market that the effect of driving up prices is to open up new reserves which weren't previously economical to exploit.

From my perspective, driving up the price of raw uranium would be a good thing. For one, it would make Thorium more attractive for reactor fuel, and for another it would make reprocessing more profitable (and reprocessing reduces the problem of intractable waste which is a major public fear of nuclear power). If the Russians want to waste their scarce investment capital driving up the price of uranium to try to corner the market, they are helpful fools.

Isn't OPEC trying to lower oil price to get rid of fracking because fracking is competitive starting around 60 dollars. If fracking is gone then supply to the market decreases so prices will go up eventually.

[The Remnants of Kobol]

Uranium is classed as a strategic resource, which is the only reason the Administration was involved at all.

Considering that access to raw uranium is in no way the limiting factor on how many nuclear weapons the US can build, considering that there aren't enough nuclear reactors in the US or anywhere to make the availability or price of uranium a serious concern for decades to come, and considering that the Uranium One deal only affects 20% of the US's uranium mining industry, I don't see it as a big deal.

Uranium shouldn't even be classed as a strategic resource. That might have made sense before arms limitation treaties, and it might have still made sense in the 70's when civilian nuclear was expected to grow at an accelerating pace, but it's just silly now.

There should still be Federal oversight of who owns uranium mines and where the uranium goes, but purely to prevent uranium being sold to non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not for some cold war legacy policy of uranium being a strategic resource. You may as well hoard helium for fear that enemies will build zeppelins.

Uranium is strategic resource and should remain one:

1) It is used for nuclear weapons
2) It is used for ammunition (not nuclear bomb)
3) It is used for military vehicles (armor plates)
4) It is used by nuclear plants

It has huge importance militarily (especially) as you can see.

1.) Illegal for either nation to produce
2.) Depleted Uranium ammunition is banned or in a legal limbo depending on what source you use
3.) The trend is going to reactive armor
4.) Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas area also used in energy production, yet Russia and US both export those as well

Yes, Uranium has a huge importance, but its not a game changer.

[Teemant]

Notice I will not defend the political figures involved, only attack the theories and assertions made by the author.

First, the conspiracy about paying off the Clinton's is hilarious. A total of $2.5 million in donations to generic political organizations? That's a drop in the bucket. $2.5 million is an extremely small contribution relative to other donations to political organizations. And $500,000 for a speaking arrangement? Sounds about the going rate for a previous President who is now night-lighting as a public speaker. So he got paid to talk to an organization. Would you turn down half a million just because you didn't like the person who wanted you to talk to them?

Second, I can tell you that all this means is that the company owns the rights to mine the ore. The ore is still US property until it is approved to leave the country (hazardous material laws and various regulation of nuclear material). As signatories of Non-Proliferation Treaty, neither the US or Russia would be legally able to use the ore for weapons production. If Russia did, this entire deal becomes void and goes back to the US. If anyone wants to say it will end up in the hands of "undesirables" (ie, terrorists, Iran, Syria, DPRK), that would be the dumbest thing Russia could do. All nuclear material as a unique "fingerprint." Should this fingerprint show up anywhere but a Russian stockpile or power plant, they would be held accountable by the ICC, UN, and most certainly NATO. Should it be weaponized and used, Russian would be opening itself to the US First Strike Policy.

So, this arrangement seems like not much is wrong. Economically, it will likely provide jobs (miners, new local management, etc). Politically, Putin isn't a dictator for life, despite what people say. He will be gone relatively soon and Russia will neutralize back out. This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia. Ecologically, nuclear power is extremely clean compared to fossil fuels.

Basically, this is being blown out of proportion and frankly, we'll have to see how this plays out before we can even see what to expect.

But can you say why this 2.5 million dollar donation was not publicy disclosed? Why was it kept secret?
I find it hard to belive that all of this is just a big coincidence.

"This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia" - are you even serious?
How can this deal give more leverage to US. It could only give more leverage to US if US owned 20% of Russias uranium but it doesn't. I seriously don't understand how can you see this deal this way.

Putin won't be gone relatively soon. He will be president at least until 2024 and probably beyond.

[Teemant]

Uranium is strategic resource and should remain one:

1) It is used for nuclear weapons
2) It is used for ammunition (not nuclear bomb)
3) It is used for military vehicles (armor plates)
4) It is used by nuclear plants

It has huge importance militarily (especially) as you can see.

1.) Illegal for either nation to produce
2.) Depleted Uranium ammunition is banned or in a legal limbo depending on what source you use
3.) The trend is going to reactive armor
4.) Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas area also used in energy production, yet Russia and US both export those as well

Yes, Uranium has a huge importance, but its not a game changer.

1) Nuclear weapons are not illegal to produce
2) US uses depleted uranium ammunition
3) Reactive armor? It is just an extra defense measure against RPGs but not part of tank's armor itself. So uranium will be needed.
4) Why are there nuclear plants then?

[AiliailiA]

Uranium is classed as a strategic resource, which is the only reason the Administration was involved at all.

Considering that access to raw uranium is in no way the limiting factor on how many nuclear weapons the US can build, considering that there aren't enough nuclear reactors in the US or anywhere to make the availability or price of uranium a serious concern for decades to come, and considering that the Uranium One deal only affects 20% of the US's uranium mining industry, I don't see it as a big deal.

Uranium shouldn't even be classed as a strategic resource. That might have made sense before arms limitation treaties, and it might have still made sense in the 70's when civilian nuclear was expected to grow at an accelerating pace, but it's just silly now.

There should still be Federal oversight of who owns uranium mines and where the uranium goes, but purely to prevent uranium being sold to non-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Not for some cold war legacy policy of uranium being a strategic resource. You may as well hoard helium for fear that enemies will build zeppelins.

Uranium is strategic resource and should remain one:

1) It is used for nuclear weapons
2) It is used for ammunition (not nuclear bomb)
3) It is used for military vehicles (armor plates)
4) It is used by nuclear plants

It has huge importance militarily (especially) as you can see.

The US has stockpiles of already enriched uranium, and actual plutonium, if for some bizarre reason it ever needed to build more nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium (2 & 3) is quite abundant after enrichment. You'll always have plenty of it.

Yes it is used by nuclear plants. An increase in the price of raw uranium would have very little effect on the profitability of generating plants however. A doubling of the price would increase the lifetime cost of a plant by about 1%, and the addition of Canadian and US resources to the huge industry of Kazakhstan isn't going to double the raw uranium cost.

Maybe it would be good if it did. Currently US miners can't compete and the US nuclear industry imports almost all of its uranium. If it's a "strategic resource" you should have working mines shouldn't you?

[The Remnants of Kobol]

Notice I will not defend the political figures involved, only attack the theories and assertions made by the author.

First, the conspiracy about paying off the Clinton's is hilarious. A total of $2.5 million in donations to generic political organizations? That's a drop in the bucket. $2.5 million is an extremely small contribution relative to other donations to political organizations. And $500,000 for a speaking arrangement? Sounds about the going rate for a previous President who is now night-lighting as a public speaker. So he got paid to talk to an organization. Would you turn down half a million just because you didn't like the person who wanted you to talk to them?

Second, I can tell you that all this means is that the company owns the rights to mine the ore. The ore is still US property until it is approved to leave the country (hazardous material laws and various regulation of nuclear material). As signatories of Non-Proliferation Treaty, neither the US or Russia would be legally able to use the ore for weapons production. If Russia did, this entire deal becomes void and goes back to the US. If anyone wants to say it will end up in the hands of "undesirables" (ie, terrorists, Iran, Syria, DPRK), that would be the dumbest thing Russia could do. All nuclear material as a unique "fingerprint." Should this fingerprint show up anywhere but a Russian stockpile or power plant, they would be held accountable by the ICC, UN, and most certainly NATO. Should it be weaponized and used, Russian would be opening itself to the US First Strike Policy.

So, this arrangement seems like not much is wrong. Economically, it will likely provide jobs (miners, new local management, etc). Politically, Putin isn't a dictator for life, despite what people say. He will be gone relatively soon and Russia will neutralize back out. This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia. Ecologically, nuclear power is extremely clean compared to fossil fuels.

Basically, this is being blown out of proportion and frankly, we'll have to see how this plays out before we can even see what to expect.

But can you say why this 2.5 million dollar donation was not publicy disclosed? Why was it kept secret?
I find it hard to belive that all of this is just a big coincidence.

"This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia" - are you even serious?
How can this deal give more leverage to US. It could only give more leverage to US if US owned 20% of Russias uranium but it doesn't. I seriously don't understand how can you see this deal this way.

Putin won't be gone relatively soon. He will be president at least until 2024 and probably beyond.

I honestly have no idea why it was never disclosed. Probably the same reason/way the Koch's were able to donate roughly $86 million anonymously during 2012 and that was never disclosed.

I am entirely serious. In a business arrangement, (s)he who holds the product or performs the service controls the deal. That's how life works. As I stated, they own the right to mine it and sell the ore, not the ore itself. The leverage comes in creating a dependence on US Uranium. Once Russia is dependent, the US can milk Russia of money the same way OPEC did/is doing with the US. Being a strategic resource, it also allows the US to hold cutting off the right to export the ore at any time. That is power.

You are assuming that the Russian people will simply blindly follow. The people will soon get tired of a warmonger. Putin is neither the charismatic Lenin, nor the strong armed Stalin. He does not hold the influence he needs to remain in power as long as you say. He will force Russia into too many downfalls the people will soon tire of him. Despite popular opinion, Russia is still a democratic state. The people will vote. And the people still hold the power.

[AiliailiA]

"This arrangement will make the US and Russia more connected which actually gives the US more leverage over Russia" - are you even serious?
How can this deal give more leverage to US. It could only give more leverage to US if US owned 20% of Russias uranium but it doesn't. I seriously don't understand how can you see this deal this way.

If the US tightens sanctions on Russia (let alone goes to war) anything owned by Uranium One can be deemed owned by Rosatom and impounded.

Rosatom pays for the mines. US government takes the mines without compensation. That's not a good deal for Russia, see?

[The Remnants of Kobol]

1.) Illegal for either nation to produce
2.) Depleted Uranium ammunition is banned or in a legal limbo depending on what source you use
3.) The trend is going to reactive armor
4.) Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas area also used in energy production, yet Russia and US both export those as well

Yes, Uranium has a huge importance, but its not a game changer.

1) Nuclear weapons are not illegal to produce
2) US uses depleted uranium ammunition
3) Reactive armor? It is just an extra defense measure against RPGs but not part of tank's armor itself. So uranium will be needed.
4) Why are there nuclear plants then?

1.) http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml I suggest you read this. If you need more, check the Geneva Convention
2.) And people still speed though there are speed limits. I said banned, not "not used".
3.) The company was Canadian before. Meaning the ore was going to Canada anyway. Obviously, the ore will have no effect on US ability to produce.
4.) Because nuclear energy exists? Fossil fuels aren't unlimited.

[Teemant]

Uranium is strategic resource and should remain one:

1) It is used for nuclear weapons
2) It is used for ammunition (not nuclear bomb)
3) It is used for military vehicles (armor plates)
4) It is used by nuclear plants

It has huge importance militarily (especially) as you can see.

The US has stockpiles of already enriched uranium, and actual plutonium, if for some bizarre reason it ever needed to build more nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium (2 & 3) is quite abundant after enrichment. You'll always have plenty of it.

Yes it is used by nuclear plants. An increase in the price of raw uranium would have very little effect on the profitability of generating plants however. A doubling of the price would increase the lifetime cost of a plant by about 1%, and the addition of Canadian and US resources to the huge industry of Kazakhstan isn't going to double the raw uranium cost.

Maybe it would be good if it did. Currently US miners can't compete and the US nuclear industry imports almost all of its uranium. If it's a "strategic resource" you should have working mines shouldn't you?

USA has used well over half of the uranium that it used to have and now 20% of the remaining is in the hands of Russians. In my opinion it doesn't look good. Russia has currently over 2x more uranium left than USA.
It is possible that uranium will be resource that has huge need in the future so it is better to have some. China will probably become influential on uranium market as well or India. So I think in the future price may even more than double.

[Teemant]

1) Nuclear weapons are not illegal to produce
2) US uses depleted uranium ammunition
3) Reactive armor? It is just an extra defense measure against RPGs but not part of tank's armor itself. So uranium will be needed.
4) Why are there nuclear plants then?

1.) http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml I suggest you read this. If you need more, check the Geneva Convention
2.) And people still speed though there are speed limits. I said banned, not "not used".
3.) The company was Canadian before. Meaning the ore was going to Canada anyway. Obviously, the ore will have no effect on US ability to produce.
4.) Because nuclear energy exists? Fossil fuels aren't unlimited.

Where it does it say that it is illegal to produce nuclear weapons? I did read the link you posted here and it says the only goal of this treaty is to stop spread of nuclear weapons.
So countries that already have nuclear weapons can build new ones.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Where it does it say that it is illegal to produce nuclear weapons? I did read the link you posted here and it says the only goal of this treaty is to stop spread of nuclear weapons.
So countries that already have nuclear weapons can build new ones.

Did you read my post where I pointed out that both sides already have more than enough nukes?