Boy I can't wait to here the coming rhetoric about the Dueffler Report. It should be interesting. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Printable View
Boy I can't wait to here the coming rhetoric about the Dueffler Report. It should be interesting. :book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
As I said, the second part is certainly true. As for the first part, for Mrs. Sheehan and perhaps even for her son that actually might be a relevant question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.
This is hardly worse than what the broad public seems to have imagined based on the faulty intelligence.
I suggest you re read it then. It clearly states that the situtation was worse than we had thought. How much enriched uranium again was sent back to the US from there?Quote:
BTW, perhaps my memory is failing me again - but I do not recall the Duelfer report saying that Iraq had WMDs but that there were indications that it still had the intentions of getting them.
Please tell me (ideally not with referneces to secondary sources but with direct references to the Duelfer report) as I did not find any statements on this in the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Some statements from the report:
Quote:
ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.
Quote:
Post-1991, Iraq had neither rebuilt any capability to convert uranium ore into a form suitable for enrichment nor reestablished other chemical processes related to handling fissile material for a weapons program.
Quote:
Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991.
Quote:
It does not appear that Iraq took steps to advance its pre-1991 work in nuclear weapons design and development.
Quote:
ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.
Quotes are from this section of the Duelfer reportQuote:
In May 2003, coalition forces visited the former yellowcake extraction plant at Al-Qaim and discovered 16 drums of yellowcake and radioactive waste—materials we believe were associated with the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
So what I found in the section that deals with the nuclear weapons program is that there was some remaining yellowcake and that there was evidence for Iraq's intention to revive the nuclear weapons program as soon as circumstances would allow for it.
While this is certainly a violation of the UN resolutions, it is certainly not "worse that we imagined" as the US administration obviously fueled the public imagination to believe that there actually were WMDs that were a direct threat to the US and its allies.
I did not find any mentioning of enriched uranium that has been found. But I am sure you will show me the relevant sections of the report, Gawain (I certainly cannot eliminate the possibility that I overlooked such statements in the report)
For those that don't know what's involved in the above argument, allow me to explain.
Uranium comes out of mines in ore form. Nearly all of this uranium is U-238 which is the stable isotope and useless for weapons. It has to be enriched to increase the percentage of the more unstable U-235 isotope (from 3-5% for nuclear power and up to 90% U-235 for nuclear weapons) But uranium oxide can't be enriched in ore form. Initially the product of the mine is fairly low in uranium oxide content, typically less than 10% of the total that is mined is actually uranium oxide. It has to be milled to remove the coarser non-uranium contents of the mine product. The result mostly uranium oxide (but still essentially unusable) powder is then washed in sulphuric acid which leeches out the uranium. The result of that washing process is dried and filtered to produce the yellowish uranium oxide powder, called yellowcake. That's just the first step in the process. The yellowcake is then combined with flourine in a long process to create uranium hexaflouride. This can then be easily heated into a gas. The uranium hexaflouride gas is processed in a gas centrifuge. Because the U-238 is heavier, much of it can be centrifuged out, leaving more of the needed U-235. This is uranium enrichment. It can also be done with gas diffusion, which is much more expensive and time-consuming but slightly more efficient in end product. The process is long and takes many steps. The end result is nuclear weapons grade, or enriched, uranium.
Now, if you'll look at the Dueffler report, then you'll notice it clearly states that "Available evidence leads ISG to judge that Iraq’s development of gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment essentially ended in 1991."
Without the gas centrifuges, or the much more costly and time and resource intensive gas diffusion processors, you can't do much with yellowcake except play patty cake. You can't even use it for nuclear power which still requires some enrichment.
Iraq could have been knee deep in yellowcake and it would have gotten them precisely nowhere in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons, since they had no gas centrifuge capability after 1991. ~D
Bill Nye couldent have done a better job ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
And in addition to that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duelfer report
That arguement however does leave out the use of yellowcake uranium in the "dirty" bomb mode. The mere presence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq could be considered a violation of the United Nations Resolutions and a violation of the ceasefire agreements unless the documentation is shown that it was for a nuclear power plant for energy purposes.
What the Dueffler Report points out is that Iraq attempted to hide data and to provide an illusion. Some of that data - does indeed point a critical finger at the failure of the Weapons Inspection Program - and again in that same report some criticial failures of the United States Intelligence Service and the Adminstration are also seen. The Dueffler Report is a decent source material to look at - it provides some insight to way the Inspectors had such a hard time proving or disproving the complaince of the inspection programs by the Iraq Government.
Read the report - you will draw you own conclusion - but you should be able to see the dangerous game of duplicity that the Saddam Regime played concerning the Requirments of the United Nations Resolutions over the last 12 years.
If you don't think Yellowcake Uranium wont kill you - your sadly mistaken - the openpit miners of Uranium from the 1940's and 1950's suffered a high rate of cancer based upon the radiation and breathing of Uranium laden dust. (I know this one from experience since my Grandfather - for a time was one of this open pit miners.)
As I said in my previous post, the mere presence of yellowcake was a violation of the resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties
The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.
This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.
Yes indeed you did - However I felt it necessary to point out that fact again. That is probably the damning part of the Deuffler Report that Gaiwan was refering to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
Was it the destruction being done sloppily or was it initially an attempt to hid the stocks from the inspectors - and then over the years just left to waste and left unaccounted for.Quote:
However, it should be pointed out that the report also states that
- Iraq had no capability to produce further yellowcake
- that there was no indication that Iraq intended to reconsitute these capabilities
- that Iraq turned down offers to buy yellowcake from third parties
The fact that some old barrels with yellowcake and nuclear waste were found rather indicates that the destruction of the stocks was done sloppily (anyone also remember the non-functional chemical weapon shells?) than that these stocks were part of a revitalized WMD program.
If it was a sloppily accounting system for the destruction of the material - then that is even more damning to the United States reasons for going to War again with Iraq.
However if it was initially hidden (for whatever reason by the Saddam Regime) then its a clear violation with intent to decieve by that Regime - even with the conditions of the materials when found being that the weapons were no longer usable. The Dueffler Report seems to say (at least last time I read it - the conclusion I drew from it) that there was an intentional deception by the Saddam Regime to confuse others on the status of their weapons programs. Again this is a clear violation of the United Nations Resolutions and the initial Ceasefire Agreement which halted Operation Desert Storm.
Agreed this part of the discussion is off topic from the orginial premise of the thread. To state SPC Casey Sheehan died to defend the United States is over the top. SPC Casey Sheehan died going to the rescue of his fellow soldiers - when it comes down to it - soldiers never die for their country - they normally at worst die in the service of their country and at best die in attempting to help others. Which from all accounts SPC Casey Sheehan did not die for his country - he died preforming a mission to help his fellow soldiers out of a bad spot - a mission it seems he volunteered for on top of his volunteering for service.Quote:
This is not meant to say that Iraq's adhering to resolutions was exemplary - however, stating that the situation was even worse than people imagined, or that the war was necessary - even in hindsight - to defend the US, and to come back to the original topic, that Mrs. Sheehan's son died defending the US seems to be way over the top.
And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
BTW, that's what I like about the discussions here - they actually make me take the time and read up the relevant stuff in the primary sources ~:cheers:
On the issue of using yellowcake for dirty bombs:
Yellowcake is unenriched uranium oxide containing roughly .7% U-235 and 99.3% of U-238, the stable isotope (I say roughly because there is a third isotope, U-234, which accounts for a miniscule .005%). Depleted uranium, such as the type used in harmless things like - U.S. military armor piercing ordnance in Iraq - has roughly 1/3 as much U-235 compared to yellowcake, or about .2% of the more radioactive isotope. Both are still radioactive, with yellowcake being relatively slightly more so. The combination of radioactivity and the non-radioactive poisonous nature of uranium as a whole might make it suitable for a dirty bomb. Depleted uranium doesn't mean that it isn't radioactive, it just means that it has less U-235 in it than can be useful in nuclear power generation. It's sources include spent fuel rods, but it also comes from the process of enriching uranium via gas diffusion. The two results of the gas diffusion process are depleted uranium and enriched uranium. ~D
Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.
And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D
Yep the amount of damage done is slow - but still deadly in the long run. It took 15- 20 years for the cancer to be noticable in both my Grandparents. Most of it because the technology had to improve to detect the cancers in both - since it attacked their livers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aenlic
True - but then doing that would not have been a direct violation of the Ceasefire in which the Iraqi Regime fired. And shows the current obligation of the United States to remain in Iraq - to at least clean up our mess if nothing else.Quote:
Compared to using a few barrels of yellowcake to the thousands of metric tons of depleted uranium available all over Iraq from military ordnance expended in the first Gulf War, I think it would have been cheaper to simply go burned-out-tank-hulk shopping for uranium to make dirty bombs than to find a couple of barrels of yellowcake, had Iraq wanted to do so.
Uranium is a possible dirty bomb making material - any radioactive material is a dirty bomb making material - be it yellowcake - or depleted Uranium shells on the battlefield. I know why the United States uses depleted Uranium in certain muntions - doesn't mean I agree completely with it.Quote:
And in that light, if uranium is to be considered a possible dirty bomb-making material, then we've also managed to supply a hefty lot of depleted uranium to any terrorist in Afghanistan who wants it. ~D
Where do you think the logic of waging a nuclear war in Iraq and Afganstan comes from. Its not about nuclear weapons like some on the far right think - its about the use of depleted uranium rounds. The far right making light of that statments shows how polarized the nation has become. Cindy made a statement agaisnt the use of depleted Uranium rounds - but because she did it in an over the top way - the far-right took it to mean something else then what the real intent of the statement was. She demonized - the far right demonizes to reduce and counter the impact of her statements.
Arguing with passion about something is a good thing - but in her statement about waging nuclear war - she showed a lack of knowledge and a polarization of her own politics on a very valid concern - which distracts from her point of we should stop using depleted Uranium in our muntions because of the future hazardous that the muntions present.
I think I may be able to answer this. I am, after all, in the military. And I reenlisted knowing that we were going to war in Iraq and that I would end up going. I even volunteered to go, but was told I had to stay put because too many people wanted to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
A service member's duty is NOT to decide who the enemy is.
A service member's duty is only this:
"I _________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
As a U.S. Marine, I am the enforcement arm of American policy. My leaders, who are elected by the people through the constitutional process, know better than I how best to achieve the strategic aims of national security. Whether that be in Iraq, or elsewhere, but not somewhere else, is not up to me.
If my leaders decide that invading one country while ignoring a different country is what bests serves our national security, than so be it.
I do not pretend to have the facts, knowledge, and resources to make this type of decision. My responsibility, my duty, is to follow orders, and bear faith that my nation has elected the best individuals to decide military policy, whether I voted for the individual or not.
This, office ken, is what the young man died for. He defended his country as best as he was able by following the policy and strategy of those elected to lead.
I will elaborate if you wish.
I agree with you 100% on the above. And since the whole atmosphere surrounding Sheehan has become a circus of polarizing viewpoints and third parties seeking to use her for their own ends, we lose an opportunity for constructive debate in this country on the use of depleted uranium and its effects not just on civilians in targetted areas but also on service members who use it or come into contact with it in excess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If we keep agreeing like this, we're going to give Clegane a stroke.
I cant think of much worse than a mother using her son's death to promote a political agenda he was adomently against. Dont horrible people deserve to be treated horribly?Quote:
And as I have pointed out before in this thread and another - the intentional (sp) demonizing of Mrs. Sheehan is wrong. Its one thing to question her motives and methods in her protesting is not.
PJ, is it at least possible that she is actually upset that her son is dead?
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?
*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing, the flag to be lowered, and smartly releases salute which has been held so hard as to cause his arm to quiver through the whole of the above speech*Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
There, now that the flag-waving is over, let me do some elaborating for you, my friend. You have forgotten one very important thing: While it may be the duty of young men and women in the military to do the lawful bidding of their legitimate political masters, there are two sides to that covenant. The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...
Is that your opinion of what their dying in Iraq for? It seems to me that Div just has more faith in our government than you do. What do you expect a Marine to say?Quote:
The young people laying down their lives also place their trust in their leadership not to spend those willingly given lives uselessly on missions that are senseless, without benefit, or have absolutely nothing to do with defending their country. It is not a blank cheque...
More likely the Marine Corps Hymn ~;)Quote:
*waits for sound of national anthem to stop playing,
Obviously, I must elaborate since your elaboration was not elaborate enough. It is clear that I left out important information, and that is my error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
(1)My duty as a Marine is to follow orders and all the above that I wrote. *flag waving in breeze, because of #2*
(2)My duty as a citizen is to be informed, participate in government, and urge others to do the same. In this way, I try not to allow myself to be thrown away. *flag still waving in breeze, because of #1*
Your only duty, as a citizen and former soldier, is number two. Please continue to do as you are and you will ensure I do not perish for nothing. In turn, I will ruthlessly follow orders, so that you that you may be able to continue as you are. Deal?
Edit:
OR-DERRRR....
ARMS!
Have you heard her talk? Have you heard more than the standard 20 second sound byte? The woman doesnt even mention her son! I saw her on Cspan talking about how Bush was using nukes against the insurgents in Iraq. Shes nothing but a propagandist!Quote:
PJ, is it at least possible that she is actually upset that her son is dead?
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?
Her son did not agree with her crazy political position. Its truly horrible to use his death to push that agenda. The whole family has separated from her because she's made a fool of them and disgraced the honor of their beloved son. Its one of the most disgusting scenes ive ever seen.. straight out of the "spit on the soldiers" days of Vietnam.
She's a martyr protesting an illegal, oppressive regime.
Ha. No. Try this:
She's an idiot, either gone mad from grief or disgracing her son's memory intentionally.
Azi
Have you heard she says we now never should even have gone into Afgahnistan or after the Tailiban?
Oh heres the uranium I was speaking of.
Seems to me you could make a lot of dirty bombs from that.Quote:
a joint Energy and Defense Department operation, 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and approximately 1000 highly radioactive sources were secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility, packaged and then airlifted on June 23, the press statement said.
Well, I didn't know about Sheehan until I read this thread. The fact that some right-leaning members of the board have called her "whore" and "ugly" obviously means that she represents some kind of threat against the establishment they support...
Either that, or they're just acting their age...
Ugly is a statement of fact from a person. I don't know if it is true, I don't bother looking up pictures.
And
Yup! That about covers it! I believe she has disgraced herself and her son's memory in the pursuit of her 15 minutes of fame. (And the attendant money that comes with it.)Quote:
whore: A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Steppe:
She was not automatically a horrible person. When I first heard about her, I thought this was an interesting way to make a point. Now she's taken a flying leap into wallowing in her own self importance to make whatever point she wants. She WAS pissed off. NOW she wants publicity.Quote:
Why is she automatically a horrible person? Isn't at least possible she was pissed off by the death of her son, instead of just wanting publicity?
Azo
I agree Moe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Nice - instead of providing a statement from the Duelfer report, you give me no source at all so that I have to look it up myself (no surprise here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Again you are exxagerating the case. Were did you get the idea from that you could male "a lot of dirty bombed" from the discivered material?
In mmost sources I found the Energy Department on ly refers to "a" dirty bomb:
CNNQuote:
Originally Posted by CNN
BTW, the "diverting would not have been possible for Iraq, as the enrichment facilities were not available.
From another source:
www.military.comQuote:
Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.
So, to answer your previous question:
None at all (unless you decide that "low-enriched uranium" is the same as "enriched uranium")Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Thats like saying a soda thats low in sugar has no sugar at all. I heard that some of it was enriched but I cant find a link.Quote:
None at all (unless you decide that "low-enriched uranium" is the same as "enriched uranium")
Actually it's not like that as low-enriched uranium and enriched uranium are different things (i.e. one is not suitable for amking nukes while the other one is).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I think you need to do a bit more homework on this topic.
LINKQuote:
Enriched Uranium Removed From Iraq
Nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium has been removed from an Iraqi nuclear facility in a secret operation conducted by the U.S. Energy Department.
The quantity of nuclear material, stored at the al-Tuwaitha research complex southeast of Baghdad, was probably enough to give Saddam Hussein the capacity to produce at least one atomic bomb, according to a physicist with the Federation of American Scientists quoted by the Associated Press.
Story Continues Below
The fear that Saddam could produce nuclear weapons was cited by congressional Democrats two years ago when they voted to authorize the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists," the AP said.
Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, hesitated to characterize the threat posed by Saddam's enriched uranium because few details were provided by the Energy Department.
But he said that the low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
The Energy Department said that in addition to 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources . . . [that] could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device [or dirty bomb]" were also transported out of Iraq.
According to Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, much of the radioactive material - which had been used for medical and industrial purposes - "was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed."
Wilkes said that some of the other radioactive material - including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium - could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a radiological bomb.
The Energy Department refused to say to where the material was shipped.
More
Put that in your pipe and smoke it ~DQuote:
The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."
Well, almost none.
The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."
The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."
Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.
And Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that the low-enriched uranium could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.
"A country like Iran could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium," he explained.
Luckily, Iraq didn't have even the small number of centrifuges necessary to get the job done.
Or did it?
The physicist tapped by Saddam to run his centrifuge program says that after the first Gulf War, the program was largely dismantled. But it wasn't destroyed.
In fact, according to what he wrote in his 2004 book, "The Bomb in My Garden," Dr. Mahdi Obeidi told U.S. interrogators: "Saddam kept funding the IAEC [Iraq Atomic Energy Commission] from 1991 ... until the war in 2003."
"I was developing the centrifuge for the weapons" right through 1997, he revealed.
And after that, Dr. Obeidi said, Saddam ordered him under penalty of death to keep the technology available to resume Iraq's nuke program at a moment's notice.
Dr. Obeidi said he buried "the full set of blueprints, designs - everything to restart the centrifuge program - along with some critical components of the centrifuge" under the garden of his Baghdad home.
"I had to maintain the program to the bitter end," he explained. All the while the Iraqi physicist was aware that he held the key to Saddam's continuing nuclear ambitions.
"The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece of nuclear technology," Dr. Obeidi says in his book. "With advances in centrifuge technology, it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program inside a single warehouse."
Consider: 500 tons of yellowcake stored at Saddam's old nuclear weapons plant, where he'd managed to partially enrich 1.8 tons. And the equipment and blueprints that could enrich enough uranium to make a bomb stored away for safekeeping. And all of it at the Iraqi dictator's disposal.
If the average American were aware of these undisputed facts, the debate over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would have been decided long ago - in President Bush's favor.
LINK