Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 06:48:00 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:42:51 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 28, 2011, 05:34:18 PM

Quote from: Hawker on September 28, 2011, 05:28:54 PM

Correct. The present system works. Thanks for the reminder of why we have the system.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature. Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

The present system is the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the various treaties that prevent unauthorised access to uranium. You are proposing removing these regulations.

If the consequence of removing the regulation of nuclear materials is that the likes of Osama bin Ladin can make their own nukes, are you still in favour of that policy?

I'm proposing no such thing. Treaties are simply agreements between actors within an anarchy, they have no direct force upon Osama or his fellow travelers. They could have mined and refined their own U235, but they didn't. Why? Because it was beyond their expertise and resources. I did not propose that those who can refine U235 (mostly major corporations in Western nations, and a few Western governments) sell Osama weapons grade materials. But if they did, they would be accountable to their treaty peers (anarchist rules, remember?). Any government agency or corporate entity would be liable for the results of selling finished products to customers that they do not know. This is the very reason that fuel grade U235 isn't refined to greater than 20% by mass, as a rule (but not an absolute); because there are few reactor designs that require greater than that level of refinement while there are zero nuclear weapons designs that could even theoretically work at less than 50%, most require 95% or greater. Thus, as I mentioned, weapons grade u235 has no established legitimate civil use; and persuit of it is thus a rational reason for society to be suspect without your explaination. If a legitmate civil use of 50%+ U235 fuel assemblies were to be established, then you might have a point. But that isn't the case now, so you don't.

In point of fact, they tried and failed to get uranium. But the issue here is not what is possible - its what is fair and just in society.

You accept that a legal system that prevents the materials for a nuke falling into the hands of a Jared Laughner or an Osama bin Ladin is needed. I assume you agree that we need a legal system to monitor all purchasers of uranium and centrifuges so we know what they are up to. And if we are not happy that the use if legitimate, you'd agree that we have to intervene before the bomb is made.

OK - then we are in agreement. It sounds like you'd like to reproduce all the present systems regulation but use some new libertarian framework. But as long as the regulation prevents things like nukes, smallpox virus, the huge amounts of fertiliser needed for bombs and the like falling into the hands or the mad and the bad, all is good.