New Information On Saddam's Wmd Program
EEK
Join Date: 2004-02-25 Member: 26898Banned
Join Date: 2004-02-25 Member: 26898Banned
There's several sources saying that they've found shocking new information on Saddam's nuclear weapon program.
They mention that they found:
1) A document written from one of Saddam's top aides, who speaks that a middleman was able to supply them with uncut diamonds and uranium from the Congo (as well as other contraband mineral goods). The middleman said that the uranium was superpure and able to be easilly converted to nuclear-grade.
2) The second document was from another aide, speaking of a contact from (Pakistan, I believe) who was not only able to get Saddam nuclear fuels, but set up a complete, full-fledged nuclear operation, including purification and manufacture.
Both times the sources were declined because there was too much international scrutiny on Iraq's nuclear program, and Saddam wanted nothing to do with it.
They mention that they found:
1) A document written from one of Saddam's top aides, who speaks that a middleman was able to supply them with uncut diamonds and uranium from the Congo (as well as other contraband mineral goods). The middleman said that the uranium was superpure and able to be easilly converted to nuclear-grade.
2) The second document was from another aide, speaking of a contact from (Pakistan, I believe) who was not only able to get Saddam nuclear fuels, but set up a complete, full-fledged nuclear operation, including purification and manufacture.
Both times the sources were declined because there was too much international scrutiny on Iraq's nuclear program, and Saddam wanted nothing to do with it.
Comments
<a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934329' target='_blank'>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4934329</a>
Here's something related.
Just asking, can anyone confirm this or is this yet another 'uranium from Niger' deal?
edit:
This is old news, but relevant, I believe: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2283251.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2283251.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...South Africa as the only country on the continent with the capacity to enrich uranium.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, if somebody would have tried to buy uranium ore from Congo (which is not altogether impossible, since there is illegal uranium mining there), where would they have enriched it? It has been proven already that Iraq did not have that capability, and South Africa was cleared of the implied accusations a long time ago.
The worst thing that Sadaam could have done with that uranium is have someone strap it to a rather large bomb and try to enter one of the U.S. Harbors and detonate it and hope it causes enough panic to do some damage besides the initial blast. The only dangerous thing about dirty bombs, is the nuclear material it will leave around where it exploded, along with the initial blast. Hardly worth the effort...
Just asking, can anyone confirm this or is this yet another 'uranium from Niger' deal?
edit:
This is old news, but relevant, I believe: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2283251.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2283251.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...South Africa as the only country on the continent with the capacity to enrich uranium.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, if somebody would have tried to buy uranium ore from Congo (which is not altogether impossible, since there is illegal uranium mining there), where would they have enriched it? It has been proven already that Iraq did not have that capability, and South Africa was cleared of the implied accusations a long time ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 'capability' of enriching uranium is hardly the most difficult procedure. It's the fact that it requires specialized and easilly identifiable equipment to do that makes it a hassle. You can only get so many aluminum tubes to use in an isotope centrifuge before the UN takes notice (namely, more then zero)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The worst thing that Sadaam could have done with that uranium is have someone strap it to a rather large bomb and try to enter one of the U.S. Harbors and detonate it and hope it causes enough panic to do some damage besides the initial blast. The only dangerous thing about dirty bombs, is the nuclear material it will leave around where it exploded, along with the initial blast. Hardly worth the effort...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironically, many studies about so-called 'Suitcase Nukes' (Such a fancy panic-inducing word...) have shown that they would not be as devastating as the media might have you believe. If you were thinking that a hundred pounds of uranium in a box blown up would have a Chernobyl-like effect on New York City, you're fairly wrong. Even the site of the largest US nuclear blast (Castle Bravo - Bikini Atoll) is safe to walk around on. I imagine at worse, a dirty bomb would cause several hundred casualties, cause millions in property damage, but the idea that it'd kill everyone in Seattle and destroy everything within 50 miles is a joke.
And on one more related note, I have a website I know of that sells forms of uranium, some of which is acquired from the Congo (obviously, they don't sell actual uranium, but mainly the subtypes of it: Tobernite, Tritium, etc.)
Ironically, many studies about so-called 'Suitcase Nukes' (Such a fancy panic-inducing word...) have shown that they would not be as devastating as the media might have you believe. If you were thinking that a hundred pounds of uranium in a box blown up would have a Chernobyl-like effect on New York City, you're fairly wrong. Even the site of the largest US nuclear blast (Castle Bravo - Bikini Atoll) is safe to walk around on. I imagine at worse, a dirty bomb would cause several hundred casualties, cause millions in property damage, but the idea that it'd kill everyone in Seattle and destroy everything within 50 miles is a joke.
And on one more related note, I have a website I know of that sells forms of uranium, some of which is acquired from the Congo (obviously, they don't sell actual uranium, but mainly the subtypes of it: Tobernite, Tritium, etc.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what I was talking about. It would be the panic it would cause and the intial explosion from the bomb, nothing else. All the uranium does is make giger countres throw fits and cause people to panic. The worse thing would be someone near enough to the area of nuclear debry might suffer cancer of the lymphnoids I believe. The point of the dirty nuke is to scare the uneducated and for the explosion to kill people. In essence, it's a great terrorist's weapon because of the panic it creates after words when someone mentions that it was a dirty bomb.
Un-possible <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> everyone knows saddam had NO means of hurting the US directly and was NO threat whatsoever <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
admittedly, <a href='http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/d/de/depleted_uranium.html' target='_blank'>Depleated Uranium</a> is not as radioactive as natural uranium, but in an ideal world, neither would be used in explosions which leave particles so small that they fall at (iirc) less then one foot per hour in a windless condition.
I suspect the lesser radioactive qualities of DU dont seem to matter when you have a sizable amount inside your lungs.
admittedly, Depleated Uranium is not as radioactive as natural uranium, but in an ideal world, neither would be used in explosions which leave particles so small that they fall at (iirc) less then one foot per hour in a windless condition.
I suspect the lesser radioactive qualities of DU dont seem to matter when you have a sizable amount inside your lungs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect those who got hit by the depleted uranium at 4,000 fps have other concerns <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
We could use tungsten, but that's a heavy metal like DU and will also "contaminate" the environment.
ACTUALLY DROPPED them and that is reintroducing them to modern warfare.
Check the <a href='http://www.bushflash.com/nuke.html' target='_blank'>flash</a> <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:white'>Gargamel, cut the drama short.</span>
History is a drama
You have the government saying the stuff is safe (very "low risk", as in strike by lightening) and the media saying it's the end of the world.
The truth, I think, lies somewhere in the middle.
My point is this; if DU is ingested it's obviously dangerous, one way or another. But it simply can't be compared to takeing several hundred pounds of enriched uranium and blowing it up in a populated place.
Sure, the damage will lie above what the government and below what some part of the press will state, but the fact of the matter is that the damage on absolutely innocent people who commited no crime bigger than eating the wrong loaf of bread will be entirely too high.
The only way to prevent soil contamination is to use non heavy elements in the penetrators, in which case they won't penetrate.
The best way to avoid the possibility of it is avoiding war altogether
I thought for sure you were going to mention <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016' target='_blank'>this</a>, which garnered virtually no media coverage relative to its importance.
I thought for sure you were going to mention <a href='http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016' target='_blank'>this</a>, which garnered virtually no media coverage relative to its importance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont see any evidence of a link between this 'al qaeda operative' and Iraq.
the only 'evidence' is that the administration has cited him as connected.
Call me paranoid, but this administration will have to do more to prove its point then simply tell me 'this man connects Iraq to Al Qaeda'. Especially given its somewhat selective track record with truth and facts.