BOSTON GLOBE: Nuclear summit yields results

<p><i>This editorial is from the Boston Globe</i>:</p><p>The nuclear security summit that drew 46 foreign leaders to Washington this week is grounded in two sound axioms: that the gravest threat in this century comes from nuclear terrorism and that collective action is needed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists.<WC> <WC1>Anyone skeptical about the value of the summit need only ponder the furious reaction of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called the assembled leaders <WC>“<WC1>stupid” and <WC>“<WC1>retarded.”</p><p>President <WC>Barack <WC1>Obama's meetings with leaders at the summit produced two encouraging moves in the direction of nuclear security. China's President Hu Jintao agreed to cooperate in crafting new, targeted U<WC>.<WC1>N<WC>.<WC1> sanctions on Iran. This was bad news for Ahmadinejad but good news for everyone who wants to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.</p><p>And Ukraine's new president, Viktor Yanukovych, let it be known that his country will relinquish its 90-kilogram stock of highly enriched uranium in the next two years. This is precisely the sort of action the summit is meant to elicit. Without highly enriched uranium or plutonium, there can be no nuclear device for a terrorist to detonate in Manhattan or the nation's capital.</p><p>Ukraine also agreed to convert its research reactors from highly enriched to low-enriched uranium. Ultimately, Obama ought to seek a worldwide prohibition on all commercial use of highly enriched uranium. It is not necessary for peaceful purposes, and its elimination would provide more security than trying to prevent its theft from hundreds of bunkers around the world.</p><p>Of course, the summit will not be a success unless its prescriptions for securing dangerous materials are implemented. Governments will have to make the lockdown of nuclear sites a priority and allow cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies. They need realistic tests of their ability to prevent nuclear robbery. And they must reduce the number of sites that need to be protected.</p><p>Above all, the securing of loose nukes has to be adequately funded. Where necessary, that funding should be available from the United States.</p><p>For a tiny fraction of what this country spends on defense, Americans can have the protection they most need against the threat that can do them the greatest harm.</p>