France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War - Page 6

TCO · January 21, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

I posted the details myself a few responses down. It wasn't pure nuke material but was instead mixed with other chemicals. Needed to be transformed to metallic state through chemical separation process first, even if the Iraqis had gotten it out from under the eyes of the IAEA (which they didn't).

Reducing it to a metal is trivial. I could do it in a tube furnace in lab overnight. I could do that with hundreds of pounds. The issue would be further concentration of isotopes (if needed) and seperation of any poisons (boron or hafnium or what have you).

Of course handling the stuff is not trivial nor is the casting process. And there is the rest of the bomb.

KrazyHorse · January 21, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

U is the chemical symbol. Not sure what UNH means. Do you have that article? Or did you post a link and I missed it?

I mean, is Uranium Nitro Hydride possible (maybe with some numbers beneath each of those)?

Aricle is on site called Iraqwatch or something. Look up Iraq Nuclear on google. Any of the top hits give pretty good details.

Ned · January 21, 2003, 21:04

Bump

GePap, still waiting.

Kontiki · January 21, 2003, 22:52

Ned, I think GePap said he was done for the day and would try to get back to the debate tomorrow.

TCO · January 21, 2003, 23:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

I mean, is Uranium Nitro Hydride possible

strange combination. I would think it would be in a ceramic form (oxide) for fuel use. I've never heard of a nitro hydride. Doesn't means its impossible but would think that it would form an ammoniate (NH3, NH2-, etc.) from the interaction of the N and H. Just like O and H don't form oxy hydrides (as if the anions were seperate, (O2-, H-) but instead combine to form hydroxides (OH- groups) This is freshman chemistry talking...

Quote:

(maybe with some numbers beneath each of those)?

We need a "tsk tsk" scolding smilie.

Quote:

Aricle is on site called Iraqwatch or something. Look up Iraq Nuclear on google. Any of the top hits give pretty good details.

This is what I got from the site. http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/nuclear.html

Quote:

After its invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Iraq intended to illegally divert to bomb-making a quantity of highly enriched uranium that was being inspected by the IAEA. The HEU was contained in the fuel of Iraq's two research reactors at Tuwaitha. Iraq had at its disposal some 41 kg of U-235 in its supply of research reactor fuel from Russia and France. The effort to divert that fuel, known as Project 601, started shortly after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. By December 1990, a chemical processing plant had been installed in the LAMA building at Tuwaitha which Iraq hoped would make available 26 kg of HEU within 2-3 months.

A different source in that site says that the crash program was to supposed to get sufficient material within 6 months but was several months behind (so my 6-18 months would not be off.)

My main point was that (a) the claims of iraqi plans to develop WOMD were shown to be true (after the war...even though lots of the antiwar people thought that was just BS to support the war...they were wrong...there was a large active program), (b) the effort was closer to development than what we had been alleged by the Bush admin before the war (3-5 years).

Of course, the rest of the weapon design goes on concurrently. I'm not sure what stage they're at on this. But the site you pointed me to says that they defoinitley work in parallel.

Joseph · January 22, 2003, 00:05

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
To all my fans:

Drake:

The saudi's want US troops out of Saudi Arabia. The same can't be said of the Kuwaitis, Baharanis, Qataris who don't seem that anxious to have US troops leave the gulf. All arabs are not the same. The US could leave Saudi arabia and still contain Saddam, with the other gulf states looking to the US as its grabnd protector.

My take on the Saudi's is, some of the Saudi people may want us out, but the Saudi Government want's us in, because if we left, some of the Saudi people just might try to remove the Saudi Government. If funny how some of those little thing crop up.

Comrade Tribune · January 22, 2003, 00:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph

My take on the Saudi's is, some of the Saudi people may want us out, but the Saudi Government want's us in, because if we left, some of the Saudi people just might try to remove the Saudi Government. If funny how some of those little thing crop up.

Exactly. The reason why so many Saudis want you out is that you keep them from exercising their right to remove their government; now what´s the problem?

Az · January 22, 2003, 04:35

Quote:

They are always unlimited, which is why i won't try to specualte on the infinite.

err, if they're infinite, how about an example?

Quote:

The last 50 years have been incredibly peaceful. The percentage of human being living under war and revolutions has been relatively small, given the enterity of the worlds' pop. Law can only work when enforced, and the only ones who can enforce it are "the big boys". Can you frankly think of a time more peaceful than this, whitout the "big Powers" making sure it was so peaceful? When the big powers are relatively content, the world continues its imperfect romp around the sun. When the "big Boys" decide to start throwing their weight around for some reason, that's when all falls to hell.

But what does the peace in the last 50 years have to do with Intl. law? the fear of total war was the stopping force, not Intl "law".

Quote:

You misunderstand the point. Back in 1989, when the soviets left Afghanistan, the theory was :"well, the invaders who started the war are gone, now peace can return", just like today the theory is "Saddam is the sole cause of evil in Iraq, and ocne he leaves, everything is fine". But that is not specifically true. There was a reason why Iraq was th most coup-prone state in the world before Saddam took over: cause Iraq is a devided place, thanks to history. Just as thinkking that once the soviets left, all would return to normal in afgnaistan was a mistake, thinking that all will be fine in Baghdada cause Saddam the man is gone is equally wrong

I understood you perfectly. But I am saying that the comparison is wrong.

Quote:

The same could have been said of the Brits in 1900 when they went to S. Africa. Look how far it got them with the Boers. Or look how effective Israel's great power has been at ending its conflict with the Pal's.

The Brits were weaker in 1900 than the americans are now, relatively.The americans' power projection capabilities are much larger, their troop quality superiority is larger... The Israel example is irrelevant. The palestinians have much more political capital than Saddam, matching the the Israelis', without doubt. The fact that they are managing it even worse than the Israelis is a different matter.

TCO · January 22, 2003, 10:04

I suspect the UNH is some sort off acronym. Like Heavily Enriched Uranium (HEU).

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 10:08

Quite possible. But article seemed to suggest that it was chemical mixture with U content being HEU.

TCO · January 22, 2003, 10:12

Ok...give me the context. link? [/berzerker]

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 10:18

http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/IAEA/iaea-facts-042502.htm

TCO · January 22, 2003, 10:24

Found it:

uranyl nitrate hexahydrate

It's a liquid. (basically a salt of uranium. with lots of water in there.) not a nitride and not a hydride.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 10:26

Whatever. It's got uranium, nitrogen and hydrogen in it.

(i.e. I was right, and the rest is detail)

TCO · January 22, 2003, 10:36

Uranyl is a linear ion: UO2(2+) which coordinates with 4-6 ligands in the equitorial plane. Nitrate is NO3(-). Hydrate is just H2O. The Uranyl ion is coordinated with the waters, I assume and the nitrate is just a counterion in the salt.

So the chemical formula would be UO2(NO3)2("dot")6H2O. The actual bonding would be covalent to the Uranium. Covalent (donor-ligand) with the hydrates and the nitrate groups just floating around for charge balance.

From Cotton, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: "The nitrate is of major importance because the extraction of uranyl nitrate from aqueous nitric acid into nonpolar solvents is a classic method for seperating and purifying the element."

SlowwHand · January 22, 2003, 10:39

I think GP and Frogger are two we need to be watching.
Forget Hussein. It's all he can do to get his shoes on the proper feet.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Uranyl is a linear ion: UO2(2+) which coordinates with 4-6 ligands in the equitorial plane. Nitrate is NO3(-). Hydrate is just H2O. The Uranyl ion is coordinated with the waters, I assume and the nitrate is just a counterion in the salt.

So the chemical formula would be UO2(NO3)2("dot")6H2O. The actual bonding would be covalent to the Uranium. Covalent (donor-ligand) with the hydrates and the nitrate groups just floating around for charge balance.

From Cotton, Advanced Inorganic Chemistry: "The nitrate is of major importance because the extraction of uranyl nitrate from aqueous nitric acid into nonpolar solvents is a classic method for seperating and purifying the element."

Like I said: detail.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 10:44

You're reminding me why it's been 5 years since I took a chemistry class, GP...

Anyhow, the important thing I took from the IAEA documents is that Iraq only ever managed to enrich raw uranium (or chemical compounds of raw uranium) on laboratory scale. Unless they get mass shipment of HEU from somewhere, a bomb is out of their reach for the forseeable future

TCO · January 22, 2003, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Whatever. It's got uranium, nitrogen and hydrogen in it.

(i.e. I was right, and the rest is detail)

No. You were wrong. A hydride has H- anions. A nitride has N3- anions.

Sorry.

TCO · January 22, 2003, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
You're reminding me why it's been 5 years since I took a chemistry class, GP...

Anyhow, the important thing I took from the IAEA documents is that Iraq only ever managed to enrich raw uranium (or chemical compounds of raw uranium) on laboratory scale. Unless they get mass shipment of HEU from somewhere, a bomb is out of their reach for the forseeable future

Well...certainly those links that you gave said that they had a fair amount of HEU before the Gulf War. What the concentration was and wether 45 kg is enough I don't know. But what makes you sanguine.

Of course, I assume they have less stuff now.

I also got the point from the site that, Iraq has a very long history of trying to make nukes with extensive teams, facilities, etc. And Blix himself has said that in the 80's his organization did an inadeqaute job of uncovering the Iraqi effort.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 11:45

Yup...but that was 20 years ago.

BTW, GP: I thought they said that the HEU they had is basically gone now (facility was bombed by US). If stuff was in liquid form, it wouldn't be lying around for them to pick up...

TCO · January 22, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Yup...but that was 20 years ago.

BTW, GP: I thought they said that the HEU they had is basically gone now (facility was bombed by US). If stuff was in liquid form, it wouldn't be lying around for them to pick up...

I never tried to say that that stuff was still around. That wasn't where I was going. Was going with the..."lots of people thought previous allegations in 1990 were conveniently drummed up...but after war they were shown to be if anyhting underestimates." Also, going down the "Blix has been an idiot in the past" road.

There is a part of that site that says the 45 kg was recovered in 1991. Not claiming otherwise. Chill. There's also the claim that Blixd wanted to say that was the extent of the orfogram but American inspectors pushed and were able to show that it was larger. So they helped Blix avoid embarraseing himself.

Ramo · January 22, 2003, 11:52

Good to see the French acting responsibly, instead of standing by while we **** up the region even more.

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 11:59

Not worked up right now, GP...

Maroule · January 22, 2003, 12:59

as a representent of the 'asswipe country of the world', I felt I had to participate

The recent position taken by Chirac/Villepin is mainly based on the domestic agenda + the wish of Chirac, now one of the oldest stateman of Western powers, to increase his international image.

That should not surprise our US friends, most of their international actions are taken on a domestic agenda as well (pleasing voters or lobbies).

On the 'france want's money out of Iraq so tries to get a deal' that has to be the most hypocritical argument from the US : a few days ago we learnt officially that the US was seriously considering selling Iraqi oil, once conquered, to 'repay its war effort'.

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Maroule

On the 'france want's money out of Iraq so tries to get a deal' that has to be the most hypocritical argument from the US : a few days ago we learnt officially that the US was seriously considering selling Iraqi oil, once conquered, to 'repay its war effort'.

I think your 'official' sources are mistaken. Got a link?

KrazyHorse · January 22, 2003, 13:13

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...,3745888.story

Chris 62 · January 22, 2003, 13:16

Kitty, an un-named "source" is hearsay, and thus not believeable.

Richelieu · January 22, 2003, 13:19

From the article :
"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].”

Wonder who those people are. Interns?

SpencerH · January 22, 2003, 13:22

That link (source) is not even close to being legitimate.