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.
originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: RussianTroll
OR...Trump could just dump all the evidence on the world stage for all to see, and let the fates of the perpetrators fall where they may.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll
last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon
Because it’s the most “proliferation-resistant” nuclear reactor on the market. There are two ways to make nuclear weapons. You can either take fresh reactor fuel and enrich it—as many fear the Iranians plan to do with all their centrifuges—or you can reprocess used-up reactor fuel into weapons-grade plutonium. The latter option becomes much more difficult and expensive when you’re using a light-water reactor. Light-water reactors are designed for commercial use and can run for years at a time on a single batch of fuel. (“Light water” refers to ordinary H2O; “heavy water” has a higher percentage of deuterium atoms, i.e. hydrogen atoms with an extra neutron.) That long burn fills out the plutonium by-product with other isotopes that make it less useful for nuclear weapons. If you shut down a light-water reactor early—after a few months, for example—you’d waste a huge amount of money.
originally posted by: jacobe001
In order to add to this, there are major players in this country that would like to build Saudi Arabia's first nuclear reactor that even have a worse human rights record than North Korea.
What could possibly go wrong?
Dam the long term consequences.
www.defenseone.com...
The US Must Build Saudi Arabia’s First Nuclear Reactors
Saudi Arabia intends to award the contracts to build its first two nuclear reactors next year, en route to building 16 of them by 2040. It is a matter of national security that the United States re-establish its leading position in the global nuclear trade by successfully pursuing this and similar projects.
originally posted by: BigDave-AR
originally posted by: jacobe001
In order to add to this, there are major players in this country that would like to build Saudi Arabia's first nuclear reactor that even have a worse human rights record than North Korea.
What could possibly go wrong?
Dam the long term consequences.
www.defenseone.com...
The US Must Build Saudi Arabia’s First Nuclear Reactors
Saudi Arabia intends to award the contracts to build its first two nuclear reactors next year, en route to building 16 of them by 2040. It is a matter of national security that the United States re-establish its leading position in the global nuclear trade by successfully pursuing this and similar projects.
And they would fall under the same control regimes as all other commercial LWR reactors we help provide to other countries.
www.state.gov...
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll
last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll
last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon
originally posted by: watchitburn
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll
last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon
Yes they do.
They just don't have the means to deliver it in a way the could threaten the US.
They could hit South Korea.
Maybe they could hit Japan before it could be intercepted, but they have no hope of hitting the US.
originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: RussianTroll
last I checked NK doesn't have a nuclear weapon
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll
Uhm, history says otherwise.
It was the Soviet Union who built the nuclear reactor N. Korea uses for its nuclear weapons program. Trying to solely blame the west doesnt work.
originally posted by: RussianTroll
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll
Uhm, history says otherwise.
It was the Soviet Union who built the nuclear reactor N. Korea uses for its nuclear weapons program. Trying to solely blame the west doesnt work.
What you call a "nuclear reactor" is the Soviet reactor IRT-2000 built in 1965 with a capacity of 2 MW. The IRT-2000 reactor is a research light-water pool-type reactor with a water-beryllium neutron reflector. Also in the 70s, a laboratory for the production of isotopes was built on the basis of IRT-2000. The only time in 1975, under the supervision of the IAEA, about 300 mg of plutonium from irradiated fuel elements of the research reactor IRT-2000 was obtained from spent fuel at the Laboratory. Isotope Production Laboratory used
for the production of isotopes for medical and industrial use, as well as for training and training personnel.
An IRT-2000 pool-type research reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union for the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in 1963, and began operation in 1965. After upgrades to the research reactor, the fuels now used are IRT-2M-type assemblies of 36% and 80% highly enriched uranium
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: RussianTroll
An IRT-2000 pool-type research reactor was supplied by the Soviet Union for the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in 1963, and began operation in 1965. After upgrades to the research reactor, the fuels now used are IRT-2M-type assemblies of 36% and 80% highly enriched uranium
originally posted by: 1947boomer
Your narrative is leaving out a lot of relevant background information.
By 1974, the IRT-2000 reactors that the USSR had supplied North Korea were running at the 4 MW level, thereby producing a lot of Plutonium.
By 1984, North Korea had built a spent fuel reprocessing plant to separate the weapons grade Plutonium out of the spent fuel fuel from the IRT-2000 and were constructing 2 graphite moderated breeder reactors, which is the preferred technology for mass production of Plutonium.
In 1985, North Korea signed the nuclear non proliferation (NPT) treaty but refused to allow international inspectors in the country for many years. In 1992, they finally allowed inspectors in and they found evidence that North Korea had been producing Plutonium for some time and were lying about it. By 1993, when North Korea was confronted with their lying, they threatened to withdraw from the NPT.
In 1994, Clinton was trying to keep North Korea in the NPT, so the US and North Korea signed an agreement in which the US would give North Korea financial aid which included building the two light water reactors referred to in the article in exchange for dismantling the existing graphite moderated reactors and removing the spent fuel from the country. The two reactors that were supposed to be built would have been operated under standard IAEA rules that include on-site inspections to insure that no spent fuel is diverted into weapons programs.
That would have been a good deal, if it had ever gone through to completion, but it didn’t. The Clinton administration started raising funding for the project (with contributions from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia) and eventually let the first contracts to start building. One of those contracts went to the ABB corporation, and Rumsfield was one of directors on the board of that corporation.
However, by 2002 the George Bush administration had labeled North Korea as part of the axis of evil and effectively killed the Clinton agreement. By 2003, North Korea finalized its withdrawal from the NPT. Two years later, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons.
You wrote:
“Then the American taxpayers actually financed the construction of these nuclear reactors in the amount of $ 95 million which are now used to threaten their lives. ….”
The reactors don’t exist.
So, once again your OP turns out to be donkey dung.
a reply to: RussianTroll