Saddam had TONS of uranium!

[techweenie]

Okay, before the Bush fans here trumpet this news, I thought I'd give it to you UNspun...

The press (Drudge at least) is making a deal out of the US finding 2 tons of uranium in Tuwaitha, Iraq.

Now, that sounds like a big deal, and Mul and Rush and others will no doubt get very excited about it because the article in the Washington Post fails to expand on the facts.

The article -- and US sources explain that the uranium found was "low-enriched." The article fails to drop the other shoe: low-enriched uranium cannot be used directly to make nuclear weapons.

Certainly, it's significant that Iraq was experimenting with uranium, but, again, the low-enriched stuff was so far from dangerous that when it *was first found in 1990* it wasn't even removed -- just put under seal. The reason it was removed this time was that the facility was unguarded and unsealed, and left open for plundering by anyone... so, "discovering" the uranium wasn't a big deal, since it's been kept right where it was 13 years ago.

[singpilot]

tech;

What country was it that the centrifuges were discovered in, and then the capture was a media event?

I remember a press room full of crates being displayed, guarded by a guy with a machine gun.

[ronin]

Originally posted by techweenie
low-enriched uranium cannot be used directly to make nuclear weapons.

so can it be used indirectly to make nuclear weapons?

[techweenie]

Iran.

[techweenie]

ronin: "so can it be used indirectly to make nuclear weapons?"

Not exactly. Enrichment is actually removing the lesser of the two isotopes. There are two processes necessary for enrichment -- one involves as singpiolot alluded to, a centrifuge.

Two tons of uranium would ultimately yield about 280 lb of "highly-enriched uranium."

[Porsche-O-Phile]

No matter, without refinement equipment it's useless except as maybe "dirty bomb" type weapons.

[ronin]

and this enriched uranium could then be used to build what type of nuclear weapon?

[techweenie]

ronin: "and this enriched uranium could then be used to build what type of nuclear weapon?"

What enriched uranium? Real or imagined?

[singpilot]

What do you think of the reports that Iran is moving troops towards the Iraq border? These two countries have been at war so long, that it would seem that it might be percieved in Iran that Iraq might be vulnerable after the handover.

Wouldn't that be a mess. Us having to defend Iraq against Iran again? The Iranians waffling on the nuclear programs over and over the last few months also raises suspicions.

[techweenie]

singpilot: "What do you think of the reports that Iran is moving troops towards the Iraq border? These two countries have been at war so long, that it would seem that it might be percieved in Iran that Iraq might be vulnerable after the handover."

According to some reports. they put their toes over the border about a click, just to see what the reaciton was. Like Iraq/Kuwait, Iran claims to own territory over the border.

I've posted before that Iraq is a sitting duck to not only Iranian, bu Turkish incursion once the US leaves -- which could mean we would never leave.

:-(

[techweenie]

Ronin: sorry, I realize my answer could seem abrupt.

The issue is that there are multiple levels of enrichment. "high-enriched" uranium is weapons-grade.

There are a handful of plants around the world that can create high-enriched uranium. Building one of those plants is a massive undertaking.

[singpilot]

Yep. That's EXACTLY the mess I was referring to.

[techweenie]

singpilot: let's hope that in this case, we are both wrong.

[singpilot]

Correct me if I am wrong (as I count on every time I post in here), but didn't we support Saddam with weapons sales when the Iranian Ayatollah (who had thrown the USA backed Shah out of Iran) attacked Iraq many years ago?

I know this situation seems convoluted, but that old saw about forgetting history and repeating it keeps cropping up.

So many examples of this in this theatre. The British (post WWI) experience in Iraq... almost a carbon copy of what we now have.

I used to think that incoming presidents should have a degree in History.

[techweenie]

sinpilot: "I used to think that incoming presidents should have a degree in History"

Attributed to many: 'those who do not understand history are condemend to repeat it.'

I recall being very angry that the then-administration was not helping the Mujahadden against the Russians in Afghanistan. But it turns out we were giving them a ton of aid, from ammunitios to Stingers. Afghanistan was the Russians' Vietnam. They had easily 'conquered' the country in days and were being sapped trying to hold on to it. I believe they lost in excess of 10K troops after their 'mission accomplished.' Helping that struggle played a role in bringing down the old USSR.

The price we paid was elevating and empowering one Mujahadden leader -- OBL. When we stopped aid to the Mujahadeen, we made an enemy.

Later, we gave weapons to Saddam to help him against Iran. Then we screwed him on Kuwait, making another determined enemy.

And this stuff spanned three administrations -- one screw-up after another. Meddling in regional politics as if it would never bite us in the end.

Look up the 'New American Century' documents to see what's behind our current plans, and the repercussions are predictable for generations to come. We are potentially looking ar Orwell's perpetual war.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm

[singpilot]

I had friends that were in Pakistan training the Afghanis to use the stingers. A year later they were training the Pakis to use Patriots.

It seems we are usually in the middle of most of the screwups, reguardless of administration.

I am thinking Switzerland has the answer.

Their only military guards money in Rome.

They have a strict immigration policy. You have to buy your way in.


I think the cow is out of both the barn and the pasture for us though......

[techweenie]

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"

Hosea 8

[cmccuist]

In order to produce a nuclear bomb, the uranium has to be 95% enriched or so. The uranium used in nuclear power plants is 3-7% enriched i believe. That's why a power plant can't explode (the mushroom cloud type explosion). The power plant can still melt down and then release contaminated steam with alpha and beta particles (but no nuetron radiation).

The enrichment process is very involved and expensive, but you don't need very much material to make a big blast (e=mc^2).

As far as who we supported or who we support now - that's an exercise in madness. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan and they're our best buddies now. We bombed Germany into rubble and - well they still hate us. We helped the French in both WWI and II and they hate us too!

The Brits and Aussies are the only ones we can really count on - and maybe Poland.

Craig

[beepbeep]

which U? 235 or 239?

enriching the U is mother of all complicated/expensive processes.

[Zlatko]

Why are american car forums off topic sections always so litered with political threads? :|