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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Thgis thread has digressed, but if I may I want to insert a very impt fact about nuclear weapons and their production:

The enrichment process is not simple nor cheap nor easy to hide. The facilities required are enormous, as are the power requirements. There are two basic ways to enrich (natural) uranium:
1) convert the natural uranium to a gas and send it through several thousand steps of filters. Because the U-235 is lighter, it rises faster, and so after several thousand steps you have mostly pure U-235.
2) convert the nat uranium to a gas again and use a centrifuge to separate the U-235 from the U-238, using the same principle of the differences of weight.

Please note: I do not know how to convert the nat uranium to a gas for either method, which is the critical step.

So in conclusion I would like to point out that even if this article is true, Saddam most likely did not know how to refine his stockpile of nat uranium, therefore there WAS NO THREAT.




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

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
Thgis thread has digressed, but if I may I want to insert a very impt fact about nuclear weapons and their production:

The enrichment process is not simple nor cheap nor easy to hide. The facilities required are enormous, as are the power requirements. There are two basic ways to enrich (natural) uranium:
1) convert the natural uranium to a gas and send it through several thousand steps of filters. Because the U-235 is lighter, it rises faster, and so after several thousand steps you have mostly pure U-235.
2) convert the nat uranium to a gas again and use a centrifuge to separate the U-235 from the U-238, using the same principle of the differences of weight.

Please note: I do not know how to convert the nat uranium to a gas for either method, which is the critical step.

So in conclusion I would like to point out that even if this article is true, Saddam most likely did not know how to refine his stockpile of nat uranium, therefore there WAS NO THREAT.


That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
mpeake:

That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?


What the heck ELSE is he going to do with it? Dump it in the river? Sell it to any of the countries around him that want him dead?

The half-life is, what, 50,000 years?

Unenriched uranium is pretty tough to get rid of.

Go look at Yucca Mountain in Arizona for an idea.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
"what the heck did you think they were made of ? "



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
EXCELLENT! THIS is the kind of discussion I was hoping for
with the article.
What was he doing with all that
nuke material. What else could it be used for? What
could become of it? This is good stuff.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
mpeake:

That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?


What the heck ELSE is he going to do with it? Dump it in the river? Sell it to any of the countries around him that want him dead?

The half-life is, what, 50,000 years?

Unenriched uranium is pretty tough to get rid of.

Go look at Yucca Mountain in Arizona for an idea.



Look, I get that! I'm not asking why does hs still have it now. My question is what was he doing with it at all....if he can't use that much uranium for WMD's what would he have needed it for? UGH!



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake

Originally posted by Jakomo
mpeake:

That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?


What the heck ELSE is he going to do with it? Dump it in the river? Sell it to any of the countries around him that want him dead?

The half-life is, what, 50,000 years?

Unenriched uranium is pretty tough to get rid of.

Go look at Yucca Mountain in Arizona for an idea.



Look, I get that! I'm not asking why does hs still have it now. My question is what was he doing with it at all....if he can't use that much uranium for WMD's what would he have needed it for? UGH!


i don't think anyone doubts that saddam was planning on using the uranium as part of a WMD program (even if he couldn't, because it was yellowcake). as i've mentioned before though, intent to create WMD's does not pose an "immediate threat" nor the justification for war.

-koji K.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by mpeake

Originally posted by Jakomo
mpeake:

That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?


What the heck ELSE is he going to do with it? Dump it in the river? Sell it to any of the countries around him that want him dead?

The half-life is, what, 50,000 years?

Unenriched uranium is pretty tough to get rid of.

Go look at Yucca Mountain in Arizona for an idea.



Look, I get that! I'm not asking why does hs still have it now. My question is what was he doing with it at all....if he can't use that much uranium for WMD's what would he have needed it for? UGH!


i don't think anyone doubts that saddam was planning on using the uranium as part of a WMD program (even if he couldn't, because it was yellowcake). as i've mentioned before though, intent to create WMD's does not pose an "immediate threat" nor the justification for war.

-koji K.


I can agree on that! But lets say that we didn't invade Iraq and destroy his recources, and capture Sadam. Then, 10 yrs from now, he accumulates the necessary supplies and technology to use the uranium for WMD's. If the world found out that we knew about the 500 tons now and did nothing about it before he could have done something with it, well, it would look like American failed the world.

IMO opinion, if he really did own 500 tons of uranium, then he had a purpose for it. We took away his ability to use it at the time being, but if we hadn't, do you think he would have discarded all on his own?



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   
This was just a quick search on google.

www.webelements.com...

The following uses for uranium are gathered from a number of sources as well as from anecdotal comments. I'd be delighted to receive corrections as well as additional referenced uses (please use the feedback mechanism to add uses).

* a nuclear fuel
* conversion into plutonium in "breeder" reactors
* used in nuclear fuels to generate electrical power
* synthesis of isotopes
* nuclear explosive
* X-ray targets for production of high-energy X-rays
* the nitrate has been used as photographic toner
* acetate is used in analytical chemistry

Uranium gives interesting yellow and green colours and fluorescence effects when included to glass in conjunction with other additives. The image below is a Czech late 19th Century "Moser" Karlsbad vase showing a characteristic yellow-green colour. The image is reproduced with the permission of Ken Tomabechi at the Uranium Glass Gallery in Japan, where you can find further information about uranium glass. This type of glass is sometimes referred to as "vaseline glass" in the UK and USA and as "Annagelb" (yellow) or "Annagruen" (green) in Germany.

Maybe he likes coloured glass or had lots of photocopiers? lol , just kidding.

I will add more uses as I find them.


Edited due to wrong link.

[edit on 10-8-2004 by Kriz_4]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Okay, if this were true than why hasn't this been released on any other news networks, media or newspapers? I'm not just talking about CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, I'm talking about in the local papers and news on the internet. Just like it says from the news article:


Though most reporters continue to insist that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War




[edit on 10-8-2004 by mrmulder]



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The finding of uranium only makes me suspect that he is maybe selling it to someone else.

I believe that if he did build nukes, they are already gone, out of the country. Honestly, even though they are "spiritual", they are greedy. If they built them, they sold them. If they have uranium, it's for the benefit of selling it to someone else. There is the other scenario I have of moving them out of the mid east and sharing the glory of nuking Israel or the US with someone else - China, Korea?

Won't know till it happens, if it happens I guess.

The WMD thing - OIL, GREED, MONEY



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
mpeake:

That still doesn't answer my question. If Sadam DID have unenriched Uranium, and it wasn't possible to be used for WMD's, what would he be doing with 500 tons of it?


What the heck ELSE is he going to do with it? Dump it in the river? Sell it to any of the countries around him that want him dead?

The half-life is, what, 50,000 years?

Unenriched uranium is pretty tough to get rid of.


Exactly. Bush 41 and Clinton containment made sure of that. Hard to get rid of, impossible to do anything with. It was a paperweight. We knew this. We know it today. We'll still know it tomorrow. No matter what Newsmax comes up with.

Since as correctly expressed by the expert NewsMax misquotes as the basis for this never ending rehash from the right but, but, but, but....it's like having WMD's.


No. No it's not. It's like NewsMax's "source" REALLY said in in the London Review of Books:


All five hundred tons were harmless


But does that stop Newsmax from lifting lines from articles they hide from citation (so as not to reveal their deception) in order to contort, turn, spin and spew that which sells Bush T-Shirts on Google, and forces continued bickering from those of us on ATS confronted with the daily regurgitation of said "news" in unoriginal reposts failing even the slightest originality, input, thought, secondary research or proper quotation and presentation?

Heck no.
Lest our commie anti-free speech agenda be exposed for all to see. If the First Amendment guarantees the right to be a crappy poster on a private board, I missed it. But sincere advice in that area has already been given and thrown back in my face. Fine. Enjoy yourself.



posted on Aug, 10 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Its pathetic how desperately people are trying to justify the WMD threat. Everyone knows Saddam used to have a nuclear research program, until the Israelis blew it up that is. Obviously that five hundred tons was left over from one of their nuclear facilities. Its already been pointed out that the stuff doesnt have an expiration date after which its going to evaporate. Its like saying that surplus steel from a destroyed tank factory is in imment danger of being turned into a tank.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
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.





This statement from a person who quotes sources like moveon.org or give credibility to authors like Thierry Meyssan. Interesting !!!



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
The professor may be correct in his assertion, who knows? Except Newsmax is playing it's usual tricks, in that the uranium stored at al Tuwaitha, was the very uranium that was sealed by and regularly inspected by the IAEA.

Perhaps NewsMax would be interested in taking this same story and explaining to its readers why it was this yellowcake that was not secured on taking Iraq, the very same yellowcake that had its bin seals broken and stolen.

There must be a recent poll that shows Bush declining yet again, or some such thing if NewsMax is on full propaganda publication.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
To answer a question that a lot folks have regarding the use of 500 tons of Unenriched Uranium (99.999% U238 , 0.001% U235). I would like to add that I suspect he would sell it to other countries that don't have the resources to know whether or not it is usable for either fuel or weapons.

kinda like how some people used to get sold bags of oregano as they were told it was weed only to get arrested or fined for it since it was a sting.



posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   
So who cares if it could "possibly" be weaponized? It's a hugely long process, involving vast labs and complex storage, none of which Saddam could use. Is this worth risking thousands of lives over?

Saddam's WMDs would not come to fruition for many years, if ever. The threat was vague and "possible".

A fullscale military invasion of a country GUARANTEES death and destruction on a wide scale. So which is more assured?

If you're walking down the street and you see someone who appears to maybe have a gun in their jacket and it's your impression that they want to attack you so you pull out a gun and blow them away, what happens once the cops find no actual weapon on the guy?

You go to jail for murder. It's only self-defense if your perceived assailant is AN ASSAILANT!

And saying that uranium is enough to justify the war is like saying that the guy in that situation had a pocketful of bullets but no gun so it's justified.


And Dombey, who Newsmax quotes in the story, has been involved in this for a long time, look what he's said in the past.

www.onlineopinion.com.au...


What about the story that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa? Dombey answers this succinctly: "So what? The IAEA has told me that Iraq already has hundreds of tons of uranium at its disposal. Without enrichment facilities this material is useless for nuclear weapons, though it could conceivably be used in conventional weapons in the same way that depleted uranium is used by the UK and the US."

Dombey points out that more than 50 countries would be able to build an atom bomb given sufficient fissile material. All it would require would be a research institution with a good physics department and an army familiar with explosives. "Every major Arab country and every EU country, except perhaps Luxembourg, can call on these assets." But how do you deliver it? A gun-type bomb is too big to fit into a missile and a compact bomb for a missile has to be tested to see if it will work. The Iraqis may have been working on these problems for years but there is not the slightest indication that they have solved them.


here's a report from the man himself, October 17, 2002

lrb.veriovps.co.uk...


Thinking critically is fun.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

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.


as opposed to all the libs that quote rags like the Washington Post, NY Times or the equally biased LA Times right?



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHalo

as opposed to all the libs that quote rags like the Washington Post, NY Times or the equally biased LA Times right?


just out of curiousity, are you being sarcastic?


-koji K.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join