Slashdot Mirror
550 Metric Tons of Uranium Removed From Iraq
Orion Blastar tips us to an AP report that 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium has successfully been removed from Iraq. The operation lasted three months, and it required 37 separate flights and an 8,500-mile trip by boat to reach a port in Montreal. Quoting:
"While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called 'dirty bomb' -- a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material -- it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment. The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth 'tens of millions of dollars.' A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors."
... for at least keeping this ONE story under wraps until a prudent moment!
So the primary hazard is mass panic.. exactly the same as a (uranium based) radiological dispersion device (dirty bomb) then. Also not too dissimilar to what the US have been doing for the last 5 years - shooting uranium all over the place.
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
Is there any radioactive material that is potent enough for a dirty bomb? Wouldn't blowing the material up just spread it out so that it's doesn't emit enough rem to do damage?
Even if you could find a material potent enough how would you store it? How would you move the bomb into a strategic position without killing yourself from radiation poisoning?
I think a dirty bomb is about the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
So all the fuss about Bush lying about Saddam trying to get large quantities of yellowcake was pretty much blustering and arm waving on both sides of the political aisle over nothing, eh?
I mean, if the guy already had 550 tonnes of the stuff, why should the right make it a big deal that he's looking for more? I'm certain you can get enough fissionable material from 550 tonnes of yellowcake to make a good bomb or two.
Also, on the left, if the guy already had 550 tonnes of the stuff, why make this big deal out of the fact that it turned out to be a lie that he was trying to acquire more? If a guy already has a gun with half a clip in it, does it really make him less dangerous if he's not out looking for the rest of the clip?
It's been a long time.
Why do people always feel the need to stress that yellowcake could be made into weapons, no matter how far from being a weapon it presently is? It's like saying:
...though making a high quality steel tool from rust is significantly easier than making a weapon from yellowcake. The ubiquitous anti-nuke meme (it's radioactive, be afraid!)? Or just boilerplate like measuring energy use in average households equivalents or heavy things in adult male elephants?
-- MarkusQ
It is gratifying to hear we've disassembled the last remnants of Iraq's non-existent WMD program.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
Maybe because the lie was used to trick the American people into starting a war that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, wrecked our economy, undermined our position in the world and put us in a far less secure position, killed hundreds of thousands of people, destabilized the middle east, and lined the pockets of the friends and supporters of the people who told the lie with money stolen from the US treasury on the basis of that lie?
The problem was it was a lie, crafted and used to achieve a specific dishonorable result. The fact that other claims that could have been made about superficially similar subjects were true (and were known to be true at the time) has absolutely no bearing on the situation.
--MarkusQ
Even if this yellowcake was a WMD, it wouldn't be harmful on its own. The only WMD we ever had to worry about is the "Death to America" attitude. All the physical WMD's in the world won't kill many people if they're not wielded with the motive to kill.
stuff |
In order to keep up appearances, the American government will be forced to give Iraqis some sort of democracy, and they (as a Shia majority) will absolutely elect someone friendly to their neighbor Iran. This was probably pre-emptive move to get the uranium out the grip of Tehran.
As we all know, countries cannot be left to conduct business on their own terms, because it could possibly be harmful to the only interests that matter: ours.
What is your point?
Bush did not make an argument about Yellowcake that Saddam had. He said he was buying more... which ... was...a... LIE.
Nuclear bombs aren't like gunpowder. You can't build them by mixing uranium with charcoal in your backyard.
And that assumes you have uranium at all. The yellowcake would have to be heavily refined ("enriched") first, by spinning it in a centrifuge an unbelievable number of times to separate the heavier isotopes from the lighter ones. It takes years to produce any appreciable amount of weapons-grade uranium. So Yellowcake is about as easy to turn into nuclear weapons as raw iron ore can be turned into fighter airplanes: You need knowledge, manpower, technology and years of work.
That's why the claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake was not so much a big deal but rather ridiculous - whether or not it was true, he couldn't have done anything useful with that stuff for many years, during which he could not have kept his intentions hidden.
all the while, pumping the iraqi countryside full of depleted uranium... :-P
As much as I *hate* to stick up for Bush, the truth of the matter is that Saddam bluffed and we called him on it. He did everything he could to make everyone believe he had WMDs.
That still doesn't justify the invasion, and it doesn't justify the continuing occupation.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
What are you talking about? He said he didn't have any, and (after dicking around a bit) he let in UN weapons inspectors, and they said he didn't have any. The the US ignored this info, fabricated their own with faulty intelligence, and invaded.
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea. I had arguments to this effect with many people at the time, but about 2/3 of the nation was in a rabid war frenzy. I'd say about 1/2 still are.
Our nation fucked up -- please stop trying to rewrite history.
Of "wrong" and "lying", are we?
we invaded and occupied a country, have allowed the pubs that did this to remain in office, and it appears that the dems are going to do nothing about it. All in all, it does not speak well of us Americans. I know that many other countries allow their traitors and criminal politicians to get off scot-free. But we are Americans. This is NOT suppose to happen. Sadly, we allowed reagan off with all that he did. Likewise, Clinton for lying (though it was a lie on a question that should never have been asked of him). And now this. Interestingly, pubs and dems made more of a todo about Clinton, than they have about W.. Supposedly, Obama will pursue this if he gets into office and has said that he will free up ALL previous president records (except those for national security). I just hope that he keeps his word. He has already broken the one about accepting public funding only.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah that's right, the sanctions that where working and containing Saddam.
You're also right that the US did n't invade Kuwait, it invaded Iraq after buts thats okay because Iraq invaded first, but granted the US did n't gas Kurds.
The UK also got to invade Iraq twice (before it was Iraq) and had already bombed Kurds the first tie. Winston Churchill at the time (1920) infact also wanted to gas the Kurds. A chilling quote: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes".
Anyway like you say apples and oranges, but at the end of the day its all fruit when it comes to causing suffering.
You are rooting for China to have no check on its human rights abuses? Oh, wait, the extremely effective UN "world government" will save the Tibetans and the Taiwanese.
Not.
You are very scary sir. You want everyone to be the same? You would have loved the Cultural Revolution.
I don't like Saddam at all, but I knew, as did a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration, that Iraq did not have WMDs and that an invasion was a bad idea.
That's bullshit. Virtually all the US media (even places like the NY Times) was reporting that Saddam likely had WMD. The vast majority of Americans believed he had it. What sources are you referring to when you say: "a large portion of Americans who were listening to more than just the US administration", since virtually all the media was highly uncritical and passed on reports from the administration?
Yeah that's right, the sanctions that where working and containing Saddam.
With all due respect, what planet are you on? Gore Vidalpia?
The sanctions were definitely *not* working, in that most of the Oil-for-Food funds were being siphoned off for Saddam's personal use while his people starved. Containing? If you mean, "wasn't invading any other countries", perhaps.... but he was about as contained as a mob boss in a medium security jail cell, already directing and planning his activities/revenge by phone for when he gets out.
The evidence for this was apparent, but became even more convincing once the invasion had occurred and we saw how much corruption there actually was in the Oil-for-Food program. Thanks France.
In addition, the "containment" was being performed at the hest of the US Military, who'd every so often have to blow up an Anti-aircraft gun that locked onto them in the No-Fly zones (where Saddam was "contained" from gassing his domestic enemies). Each and every one of those incidents was adequate reason to throw out the armistice and resume hostilities against Iraq, since they were all violations of the negotiated agreements.
The WMD program was a red herring. Despite the pre-existing resolutions that allowed the use of force against Saddam, the US (or UK) felt the need to get political cover for finding a reason to go after Saddam *now*, since the general public and random kleptocracies out there didn't understand that our defensive posture had changed after 9/11. They bet that Iraq had WMD, and so used that as the focal point. Bad call... but if they'd used the war crimes against the Kurds, no-fly incidents, or Oil-for-Food corruption as the focal points instead no one would be complaining today (for that).
...its all fruit when it comes to causing suffering.
If you're a bona-fide pacifist, fine. Otherwise, there's a moral difference between good and evil in human actions, and if you can't tell the difference then I pity you. And your students.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
You give your beer too much credit.
Help find a cure for cancer!
The poster unlike yourself makes a relevant point.
There are many people in the world, and not the Islam world, who want the current US administration to face war crimes tribuneral in the Hague, and we hope on eday they will. Ypur claim that pre existing resolutions authorised this is at best laughable, and disingenous.
Your spelling aside, what exactly are you putting your ass on the line for? You said it best yourself:
"Hell, someday, maybe there will be an administration that will stop thinking of military troops as a well equipped police force, I doubt it but one can hope."
Why enlist if you disagree? We should boycott the army and stock up on privately owned weapons to defend ourselves if our representatives won't withdraw the troops. The war is totally wasteful and we're just going to prompt more criminal attacks. We should be investing in defense and alternative fuels and research instead of bullets and gasoline and the paychecks of reluctant troops. It's diplomatically and economically more sound.
The fact that the UN continued to approve new sanctions in reaction to his blocking of inspectors, ongoing manufacturing of long-range missiles (which he had agreed to not only cease importing/making, but to destroy), etc ... that all added to the list of violations in advance his regime's demise.
None of which added up to a need to invade in 2003. (As you may recall, the US invaded over the objections of the inspectors.) Nope, we needed to gin up a bunch of lies about WMD and make up all sorts of BS to pretend that containment wasn't working.
Disengenuous? That's you. Your decision to ignore the actual facts doesn't change them. And to the extent that you spin your disregard for those facts as part of your absurd call for "war crimes" trials just shows you as the politically motivated liar that you are.
Back atcha, chief. Colin Powell did not present facts to the UN General Assembly. The US did not rely on facts to justify the war. In addition to pursuing the Iraq war with criminal incompentence at best, the US has most definitely and determinedly committed war crimes at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. And your ex post facto attempt to spin the causus belli into something legitimate, as with all the others since then, just shows you to be the politically motivated liar that you are.
And you must be from planet Chenselvania.
Sanctions were meant to keep the military threat of Iraq at bay. Your argument has been proven over and over again to be wrong. Although it had natural resources that could have purchased any weapon system the military industrial complex was able to create, Iraq's military had antiquated equipment and was unable to prove even mediocre opposition to an attacking force. Had they been able to subvert the sanctions, they would have been much better equipped to defend against an attacking force. Instead, they were burying twenty year old fighter-jets in the sand in order to conceal them in hopes that they would someday be of use.
And your argument that the oil for food program was somehow responsible for the invasion due to mismanagement would be funny if it weren't just tragically ironic. The corruption in the oil for food program doesn't hold a candle to the outright corruption and mismanagement that is rampant in Iraq after the invasion.
The entire reason for invading Iraq -- and for not letting the weapons inspectors do their job -- was the idea that there were arsenals of chemical and nuclear weapons that were being developed in defiance of international law. Any of your other hypothetical and unsubstantiated reasons for invading Iraq were not used because they wouldn't have mustered a successful security council vote, much less a general assembly acceptance.
You can try to wish away the reason that was given for invading the country, but it still doesn't change the fact that the sanctions were working, the weapons inspections were working and you are just wrong.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us