It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saddams WMD - 142 Nukes Worth

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
www.newsmax.com...

Excerpt -

Newsmax.com
August 10, 2004

Physicist: Saddam's Uranium Stockpile Enough to Yield 142 Nukes

Five hundred tons of yellowcake uranium ore stored at Saddam Hussein's al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons research laboratory near Baghdad could have been enriched to produce 142 nuclear weapons, a prominent British physicist has determined.

Addressing the claim by British intelligence last year that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, argued, "Iraq already had far more uranium than it needed for any conceivable nuclear weapons programme."

After doing the calculations, Professor Dombey explained, "You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium; you need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build?

"The answer is 142."

Though most reporters continue to insist that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer told Congress earlier this year that the Iraqi scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."



[edit on 8/10/2004 by FlyersFan]




posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Finally, some evidence to help the WMD argument.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:37 AM
link   
They could have theoretically made 142 nukes if they had enriched the uranium that they had.
The uranium that was there was natural yellowcake that had not been enriched.

Professor Dombey explained that standard yellowcake ore consists of 99 percent Uranium 238 [U238], "which is radioactive but is not used in normal nuclear weapons as it cannot sustain a chain reaction."

To cause a nuclear chain reaction, he noted, "you need U235, which only makes up less than 1 percent [0.7] of natural uranium."



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Come on! Just because Sadam had 500 tons of Uranium doean't mean he was gonna build nukes with them. There's tons of uses for that kind of stockpile. Maybe he was working on a fleet of time traveling Deloreons, or had a bunch of lava lamps that he wanted keep powered up for forever. I'm just saying, let's not jump to any conclusions here!



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Flyersfan, if I were you, I'd stretch a little and find more credible sources. If you tried using NewsMax to back up claims in any reputable news organization/newsroom in America, they'd laugh you out of the building. No offense, just giving you the straight dope.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The title of the thread is somewhat misleading. Uranium is not a WMD. It's a component of such. Components of WMD's aren't going to convince anyone of the "immediate" danger saddam supposedly posed.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
The title of the thread is somewhat misleading. Uranium is not a WMD. It's a component of such. Components of WMD's aren't going to convince anyone of the "immediate" danger saddam supposedly posed.

-koji K.


Supposedly, being the key word. And don't forget, in Roveworld the word uranium is deployed to scare the beejeezus out of folks who can't make that distinction.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bzap
Finally, some evidence to help the WMD argument.


Oh yes...FINALLY!

FlyersFan, I've come to realize you think ATS members are stupid. Otherwise why in the name of creation would you keep posting NEWSMAX drivel and spin?

Did you know the good Professor Dombey being spun here is actually a HARSH CRITIC of the War in Iraq and claims of WMD? Did you know the ORIGIN of this NEWSLAX manipulation of statements is this article in the London Review of Books where the good professor TRASHES the WMD conspiracy theory left and right concluding:

All five hundred tons were harmless


He only says that 500 "enriched" tons of uranium could theoretically produce 140 weapons to further DEBUNK the claims of "Saddam's Bombmaker" that claimed Saddam could make as many as THREE.


I do wonder where NewsMax came up with the recalculation of 142 though from Dombey's calculation of 140. Perhaps 142 just sounded more ominous to all the Douglas Adams fans.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Saddam had the equivilent of a disassembled gun laying on the table and everyone is nitpicking over the fact it could not fire at the time we found it?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
Components of WMD's aren't going to convince anyone of the "immediate" danger saddam supposedly posed.


Exactely. This could have potentialy been made into WMD's.......but it wasn't. Call that a threat?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
FlyersFan, I've come to realize you think ATS members are stupid. Otherwise why in the name of creation would you keep posting NEWSMAX drivel and spin?


Yes, actually I DO think SOME are stupid, and SOME are misinformed,
and SOME are beyond hope, while others are actually brilliant or open
to truth. Hate to burst your liberal bubble, but NEWSMAX and WORLDNETDAILY are credible news sources. It's just that they report
truthful things that you don't want to hear. Things that invade the
nice little socialist world you have created in your mind ...
your 'happy place'. I'm sure that some folks here would rather not
read the truth, and that they'd rather be spoon feed socialist
spin from CNN (Communist News Network). But hey ... life's a B****
isn't it?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
if I were you, I'd stretch a little and find more credible sources. If you tried using NewsMax to back up claims in any reputable news organization/newsroom in America, they'd laugh you out of the building. No offense, just giving you the straight dope.


No offense taken. That statement just tells me where you are in this
discussion. 'Credible' news sources? 'Reputable' news sources?
Like what? CNN (Communist News Network)?

I don't believe they laugh at NEWSMAX or WORLDNETDAILY. Even if
they did, it would be a nervous laugh. It wouldn't change the truth
of the report. It's truth. Don't like the source? That's not my
problem.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by koji_K
Components of WMD's aren't going to convince anyone of the "immediate" danger saddam supposedly posed.


Exactely. This could have potentialy been made into WMD's.......but it wasn't. Call that a threat?


For conversations sake, let's say that there really was 500 tons of Unranium there, and say it wasn't even enriched. What would that be used for if not for WMD's?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Five hundred tons of yellowcake uranium ore stored at Saddam Hussein's al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons research laboratory near Baghdad could have been enriched to produce 142 nuclear weapons, a prominent British physicist has determined.


COULD HAVE?! This justifies the war? What?! It would be YEARS before these could EVER be weaponized and they need a DELIVERY system.

Wow, WHAT a stretch.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake

For conversations sake, let's say that there really was 500 tons of Unranium there, and say it wasn't even enriched. What would that be used for if not for WMD's?


There are other uses, and as has been said , it would have taken years for that Uranium do have been developed into a usable weapon. Our great leaders Tony and George repeatedly highlighted a threat, a threat to us. That is why you invade a country, because that country is endangering the lives of your countries citizens. Why can't you just accept that this was clearly not the case and that other motives are the only real explanation for what was done.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Second: The Flyers always have & always will SUCK!
( what can I say, I don't follow hockey but will support my NY Rangers & NJ Devils! )

THIRD: no, Newsmax & WND are not news sources, just spin cycle agitators for the great unwashed hordes.

FOURTH: Learn the science , even topigraphically, behind the claim. Iraq did not have the infrastructure to process the raw materials into anything remotely approaching weapons grade. Hell, they didn't have it for baseline energy production. Unless they had some modern day Merlin who could convert iron to gold & uranium to weapons grade stock piles, they were no more of a threat than any other 3rd world country that we've shipped U-ore to for research.....and we've done that for practically the whole planet.

As for intent without capability: Please make the case for us on how that is a sound basis for invasion, rampant civilian death toll & on going occupation that has cost us $166 Billion and counting, not to mention casualities?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by RANT
FlyersFan, I've come to realize you think ATS members are stupid. Otherwise why in the name of creation would you keep posting NEWSMAX drivel and spin?


Yes, actually I DO think SOME are stupid, and SOME are misinformed,
and SOME are beyond hope, while others are actually brilliant or open
to truth. Hate to burst your liberal bubble, but NEWSMAX and WORLDNETDAILY are credible news sources. It's just that they report
truthful things that you don't want to hear. Things that invade the
nice little socialist world you have created in your mind ...
your 'happy place'. I'm sure that some folks here would rather not
read the truth, and that they'd rather be spoon feed socialist
spin from CNN (Communist News Network). But hey ... life's a B****
isn't it?


So you think the best way to inform the "stupid" people of ATS is by continuously spamming the board's Politics & Scandals and WoT forum with reposts from Newsmax. Never mind the fact you and they keep getting debunked within seconds. You just keep coming.


I'd suggest you start posting in Political Debate, or better yet start ONE THREAD where you can easily edit in your reposting of every little thing NEWSMAX spews since you're so intent on letting us know every time they update over there, but it's just SO FUNNY to watch you keep doing this I'm inclined to just watch.

Love the "Castro Endorses Kerry" article by the way. Top drawer.


There'd be no issue if we didn't immediately move everything CapitolHillBlue says about "Anhauser Bush" to either the pit or the trash. But it's up to you (for now). Should you begin to embarrass even members of good conscious of a right leaning mind set with your continued abuse of P&S and WoT, then we'll just have to see how much of b**** life can really be.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by mpeake

For conversations sake, let's say that there really was 500 tons of Unranium there, and say it wasn't even enriched. What would that be used for if not for WMD's?


There are other uses, and as has been said , it would have taken years for that Uranium do have been developed into a usable weapon. Our great leaders Tony and George repeatedly highlighted a threat, a threat to us. That is why you invade a country, because that country is endangering the lives of your countries citizens. Why can't you just accept that this was clearly not the case and that other motives are the only real explanation for what was done.


Beleive me, I can accept that there were other motives for this war. I just want to know what potential uses 500 tons of Uranium could provide.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
So you think the best way to inform the "stupid" people of ATS is by continuously spamming the board's Politics & Scandals and WoT forum with reposts from Newsmax. Never mind the fact you and they keep getting debunked within seconds. ... then we'll just have to see how much of b**** life can really be.


YOU are a moderator?
Your thought process reflects the how
the news runs today. All spin and slant. No room for just reporting
facts and truth. Hate to burst your bubble ... the news is the news.
The truth is the truth. You don't like what it says, or where it comes
from ... that's not me spamming, that's just you not being able to
handle facts that don't point where you want them to go.

Case in point - all you picked up on was 'stupid people'. You didn't
bother with that I said SOME in caps, or that I also said some were
brilliant. You see what you want.

And no .. I don't get debunked within seconds. Take another look.
Even if I did, it would just be amusing and you wouldn't be
so worked up about it.

"We'll see how much of a b**** life can be?" Is that a threat?
Oh, now I'm scared. (NOT!) More censorship from the radical
left. Can't take the truth, so threaten to shut it off. Much as
Kerry is threatening law suits against TV stations that air
Swift Boat ads where people are telling TRUTH.

The Truth is out there. You don't want to see it. I don't care.
Yell at me. Take my points (still haven't read up on what they
are for anyways, but some folks seem to think they mean
something). Ban me. I don't care. It just proves my point.
(and this isn't the only place on the planet to post, it's no
big deal :lol


And BTW RANT - Your RANT at me was off topic.

[edit on 8/10/2004 by FlyersFan]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Second: The Flyers always have & always will SUCK!
( what can I say, I don't follow hockey but will support my NY Rangers & NJ Devils! )


I agree with you. But unfortunately there is no sports
forum to discuss just why they do stink so badly.
(management)

Rangers - I MISS RICHTER! Excellent player.
Major tragedy!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join