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.

 

Report : NATO used Enriched Uranium in Iraq

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Note: Enriched Uranium NOT Depleted Uranium.

That's why this is surprising.

Here is the RT video report on the issue.


Professor Christopher Busby explains the findings of Enriched Uranium in Iraq and describes various reasons why this discovery is bizarre and what it may possibly entail.

There are suggestions that new types of weapons were used in the infamous 'Battle of Fallujah' back during 2005.

Prof Busby said
"So we do think there is a new uranium weapon out there, it's a secret weapon, and it does cause these indiscriminate effects on populations, which is really quite horrifying."

They even suggested some form of Neutron bomb could have been used, although that's highly controversial and if it were used, it had to be a very small one.

Here is the Neutron Bomb wiki.

Basically it's a nuclear bomb that doesn't give off much of an explosion and so it doesn't really damage the physical structures much. What it does is release immense amounts of neutron radiation which is invisible and it goes through walls and everything, poisoning the people. These things can release 100x or more times the radiation of a regular nuke. They have been in existence for decades.

Is that what was used in Fallujah? I certainly hope not.
It would be interesting to know if we actually used WMD against the very nation we invaded to prevent from having them in the first place.

Hopefully more information will come forward that will give us an idea about what exactly is going on here.
Please read the wiki for basic research info.

If anyone finds anything related or of interest, please share, thanks.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
What a bunch of bulldooky.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankcasal
What a bunch of bulldooky.


Which part?

I understand this is quite controversial at this point in time, but it would be helpful if you were more precise in your articulation of what you think about this.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
From the wiki link:

Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects.


I think people would notice an explosion in the kiloton range. Heck, we detected N. Korea's nuke tests and they were estimated at 2-6KT yields.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
From the wiki link:

Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the kiloton range, the detonation of which would cause considerable destruction through blast and heat effects.


I think people would notice an explosion in the kiloton range. Heck, we detected N. Korea's nuke tests and they were estimated at 2-6KT yields.


That's a reasonable point.

However, this is probably why the professor said "secret weapon" because anything that falls along these exact specifics remains unknown at this point in time.

Any ideas what could have left this residue?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Wow, if this is true then how can anybody argue that the troops were there to help the people?

Poisoning the civilians and their children would be really messed up.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
I'm still watching the video but for comparison, the GBU/43-B has a yield of approximately 11 tons and the Russian "Father Of All Bombs" has a yield of approximately 44 tons.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Fallujah wasn't nuked. Thermonuclear weapons make very, very big explosions. Even neutron bombs. Even small neutron bombs. And the neutron flux kills many, many people, and leaves lingering induced radiation. The idea of nuking a large, occupied city, and no one knowing about it, is a non-starter. I've seen most of Fallujah, and while parts of it are almost as bad as Detroit, I didn't see any evidence that it got nuked.

P.S.
NATO didn't use any weapons in Iraq, uranic or otherwise.
edit on 25-10-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: nato



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
U-235 is naturally occuring and is about 0.71% of all uranium. The report does not give any numbers as to the percent of U-235 found. So I wonder what they actually found. I'll keep checking back in and see if anyone comes up with the % U-235 that was discovered.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by subcsailor
U-235 is naturally occuring and is about 0.71% of all uranium. The report does not give any numbers as to the percent of U-235 found. So I wonder what they actually found. I'll keep checking back in and see if anyone comes up with the % U-235 that was discovered.


Still looking for more info.

Will post if I can find the actual report documentation.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Fallujah wasn't nuked.


I didn't say it was.
In fact no one did, people were perplexed about the type of residue found and are struggling to identify it's source, as the sources possible are rather limited and unlikely.

The speculation relating to the neutron bomb was merely placed as a thought-provoking suggestion, so that others would think outside of the box in order to aid in helping determine exactly what could have created this predicament.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Wow, if this is true then how can anybody argue that the troops were there to help the people?

Poisoning the civilians and their children would be really messed up.


If this is true than the soldiers were exposed to it along with local citizens.
Although I would expect their exposure would be far less than that of those who actually live there.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
As mentioned above, the interview didn't reveal the ratio of U235 to U238 found in the tests so it is difficult to make a meaningful inference about potential sources. However, less than 2% U235 is not considered "enriched" by many standards.


edit on 10/25/2011 by abecedarian because: change 6% to 2%- I read the wrong page.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Fallujah wasn't nuked.


I didn't say it was.

You didn't say it was. You asked if it was. And I answered.

("Here is the Neutron Bomb wiki. ... Is that what was used in Fallujah?" "No, and here is why.")



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Fallujah wasn't nuked.


I didn't say it was.

You didn't say it was. You asked if it was. And I answered.

("Here is the Neutron Bomb wiki. ... Is that what was used in Fallujah?" "No, and here is why.")


What about a new advanced version that is still classified secret?

There's no way you could know for sure, especially considering we don't have any data to work with.

The question was rhetorical considering the fact there is no way for anyone to know at this point.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by The_Phantom
Wow, if this is true then how can anybody argue that the troops were there to help the people?

Poisoning the civilians and their children would be really messed up.


If this is true than the soldiers were exposed to it along with local citizens.
Although I would expect their exposure would be far less than that of those who actually live there.


Right, I would feel bad for the soldiers that were ignorant to it being used if they were affected as well. I am a firm believer that many of them are victims to the lies of war anyway.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
As mentioned above, the interview didn't reveal the ratio of U235 to U238 found in the tests so it is difficult to make a meaningful inference about potential sources. However, less than 6% U235 is not considered "enriched" by many standards.


I understand what you are saying here but have to disagree on the industrial side of this. While 6% is pretty low when talking about weapons stuff (the big bangs), it is very much useful for the reactor plants. So any level of U-235 that is found above naturally occuring would be considered enriched.

Side note.....the 0.71% is an average. I have read reports that Iraq has uranium deposits. If their deposits are naturally 0.78% then anything found would look like it was enriched. AND if they did find higher natural occuring U-235 someone needs to buy some mineral rights. Just sayin....it would be worth the headache and the money.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
This weapon had a yield of 10-20 tons, thus comparable to the GBU/43-B. Given it was developed in the '50's, I wonder if any are still viable. However, it could be a reasonable candidate for potential consideration.

This page on suitcase nukes describes some other types of "portable" nuclear weapons.


edit on 10/25/2011 by abecedarian because: link formatting



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Just had a thought - (rare i know) is there any chance that this enriched uranium was a product of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad? Fallout from that maybe ?
edit on 25-10-2011 by Hopeforeveryone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by subcsailor
 


I edited my post to say 2%. Sorry for not being quicker.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join