Hey Trey, I left my Nuclear Scientist hat at home. But according to the World Nuclear Association, the U.S. has about 207K metric tons of Uranium. Now I'm not sure what of that is usable to do bad things with, nor do I fully understand the amount of processing U-235 (or is it 234?) needs to get to the stuff you can do bad (or good) things with . . . but is it really a good idea that theoretically, a Russian company controls roughly 40K tons of U.S. Uranium? Is it a good idea that a Russian company controls 20% of our supply, when we only have 4% of the worlds supply??
What impact might this have on what they call the "American Assured Fuel Supply"?
Thanks, and I'll listen on the air.
well dax, first lets get enrichment for nuclear weapons off the table because it's a moot point. both america and russia have enough nukes to destroy the world multiple times over
and the second half of your inquiry is a moot point as well because the company in question doesn't have an export license. their only source of income is american nuclear plants. I suppose they could refuse to sell, but that's not how companies make money.
you see where this is going? its a non-factor. if we were so worried about russia choking off our nuclear fuel supply (which we aren't), we could always switch over to thorium reactor technology, of which we have massive deposits.
Nah, I'm not really "worried" about any of those things, but the Clinton's are historically extremely partial to selling off what most would consider to be vital geo-strategic national (and natural) resources to foreign entities. Now, if you're cool with that, that's fine, you're an extreme dumbass for thinking like that, but again, that's fine, and dumbasses make the world a more interesting place.
belief in the overwhelming face of reason. but you do you, dax.
Wait a second here. Expressing concern about foreign control of potentially fissionable natural resources (the idea that technically they can't export the material is, well, immaterial) lacks . . . reason. That, I must say, is, fascinating.
Only the staunchest Hillbot would attempt that take.
For another, Russia doesn’t have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States, Oilprice.org pointed out, "so it’s somewhat disingenuous to say this uranium is now Russia’s, to do with what it pleases." The Kremlin was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer.
You need to help me out and do the basic minimum for reading comprehension, here.
First off it is interesting that you brought up reading comprehension considering you started off by saying that I said, or even implied that Clinton's bribed a multitude of government agencies. Son, bribed?? Pure comedy.
Again, you can try and redirect, and paint a picture that it's really not that bad and toss one straw man on the fire after another. But the simple baseline is foreign entities controlling fissionable US natural resources. Is that really a good idea? Probably not.
But as I said, the Clintons are known for selling off control of strategic natural resources to foreign entities in return for what? Only the FSM knows.
If transferring this company to russian owners was against the interests of the united states government and against the interests of national security, there is no way in hell that she could orchestrate its approval from 11 independent agencies without any kind of quid pro quo.
The only strawmen I'm tossing on the fire are yours.
Once again, Hillary Clinton did not sell off american uranium deposits. The former ownership of the company did. And the gov't approved it. Why? Because it's a routine business transaction involved in restructuring a multinational company that poses no threat to our national security. But because you don't understand our nuclear policy, you've bought into this "nefarious deeds" angle, hook, line and sinker, without doing any research on the topic. You didn't even read the politifact article.