Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on August 02, 2004, 02:17:57 PM
-
Sounds alittle Clintonisque, if anyone here is old enough to remember North Korea in roughly 1994...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5570503/site/newsweek/
First, Kerry will defer to the judgment of the United Nations.
Second, he will somehow magically secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.
And third ... Kerry’s going to give Iran nuclear fuel.
Quote:
(Kerry) has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.”
-
You just don't understand the nuances.
-
A) does "fuel" there mean necessarily nuclear fuel?
B) securing nuclear materials in the former soviet union isn't difficult; it just costs a little money.
C) It's not that costly to track nuclear materials if you control the importation. So if the US gave nuclear fuel to Iran, they could very simply track where it goes, as well as other matters, such as what's lining the reactors.
D) It is calling a bluff. The point is that Iran is not interested in nuclear energy and therefore wouldn't agree to receive it with controls in place to ensure its use for energy generation.
E) As gun nuts and anti-drug law folks know, criminalization means surrendering control over the market. So too here. Any determined state can acquire sufficient fissile material to make a bomb, but you really can't bust them for it unless you have undeniable proof (not some cheap forgery). One way to get there is to eliminate "legitimate" excuses.
Come on, if politicians can create clever excuses for the Republican looting of the public coffers, they'd develop a better screen for the alleged arming of Hostile Theocracies with nuclear weapons.
-
lol this guys is a moron.Obama or whatever would do 10x a betterjob than he ever would.
-
I hear Iran just loves Jews with adopted Irish names! Kerry will be a hit Tehran!
-
Originally posted by Dinger
A) does "fuel" there mean necessarily nuclear fuel?
B) securing nuclear materials in the former soviet union isn't difficult; it just costs a little money.
C) It's not that costly to track nuclear materials if you control the importation. So if the US gave nuclear fuel to Iran, they could very simply track where it goes, as well as other matters, such as what's lining the reactors.
D) It is calling a bluff. The point is that Iran is not interested in nuclear energy and therefore wouldn't agree to receive it with controls in place to ensure its use for energy generation.
E) As gun nuts and anti-drug law folks know, criminalization means surrendering control over the market. So too here. Any determined state can acquire sufficient fissile material to make a bomb, but you really can't bust them for it unless you have undeniable proof (not some cheap forgery). One way to get there is to eliminate "legitimate" excuses.
Come on, if politicians can create clever excuses for the Republican looting of the public coffers, they'd develop a better screen for the alleged arming of Hostile Theocracies with nuclear weapons.
Dinger:
Re: A)
The conversation is in the context of Nuclear Fuel.
Kerry speaks of Fuel in context.
Iran certainly doesn't need oil. ;)
-
Let's cut to the chase and just give them a couple dozen nukes. Either ours or Russian ones.
In fact, nukes for all!
What could possibly go wrong?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's cut to the chase and just give them a couple dozen nukes. Either ours or Russian ones.
In fact, nukes for all!
What could possibly go wrong?
Lets ask Bill ! We gave North Korea nuclear plants with a promise that they wouldn't process any nuclear weapons fuel! :p
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0206-01.htm
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
lol this guys is a moron.Obama or whatever would do 10x a betterjob than he ever would.
Why? Because he gave a good speech? I was impressed with how eloquently Barack Obama spoke and with what he said, but we havent seen his track record yet in comparsion to speech..
-
anyone else see skerry so fired up today he was spitting all over his microphone??
LOL - too funny
Landslide Bush!!!
(http://www.aikengop.com/graphics/bush_cheney_2004_227x340.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
First, Kerry will defer to the judgment of the United Nations.
Second, he will somehow magically secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.
And third ... Kerry’s going to give Iran nuclear fuel.
Quote:
"John Kerry regards an Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weapons as unacceptable. He has a multiple-part strategy that is much more realistic than the Bush administration's. One is to rejoin and work through the international legal framework on arms control. That will give greater force to the major powers if they have to deal with violators. Secondly, he has laid out, I think in the most comprehensive way in modern memory, a program to secure nuclear materials around the world—particularly in the former Soviet Union but also in the places where research reactors have existed that could be susceptible to proliferation. The point is to try to prevent Iran from ever getting this material surreptitiously. Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government, which claims that its only need is energy. And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed. "
Nice--take a quote out of context much?
Is the "international legal framework on arms control" the UN? Was there a single word about deferring judgement?
Are you so uninformed that you do not know that nuclear material can be identified by manufactured location, batch, even to the specific reactor? Have you heard of the IAEA? The NPT of 1968? Wait, of course you are.
Fuel for creating electricity is different than that for weapons.
http://www.fact-index.com/n/nu/nuclear_proliferation.html
Vote the issues indeed.
h
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's cut to the chase and just give them a couple dozen nukes. Either ours or Russian ones.
In fact, nukes for all!
What could possibly go wrong?
and m-16's for all the citizens of america while were at it...
-
hum lets see. Kerry can't count to 5
Obama can do better i bet.
-
No, no, no. You don't understand. The world will come to an end if Bush is not elected. We must twist every bit of information into misinformation and scare people like our glorious leader so they will only vote republican.
:rolleyes:
-
Don't mind Rip, he's just a liar. But hey at least he's consistant about it. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Don't mind Rip, he's just a liar. But hey at least he's consistant about it. :rolleyes:
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Don't mind Rip, he's just a liar. But hey at least he's consistant about it. :rolleyes:
Serious accusation. Twists the facts? yes.
liar????
-
Originally posted by rpm371
No, no, no. You don't understand. The world will come to an end if Kerry is not elected. We must twist every bit of information into misinformation and scare people like our glorious leader so they will only vote Democtraic, Viet Cong Wing of.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Don't mind Rip, he's just a liar. But hey at least he's consistant about it. :rolleyes:
What did Rip lie about?
-
I don't know if it was a lie, but that wasn't a very good interpretation of the quote. Of course, Kerry wasn't very clear as usual, but I think it's premature to say he meant nuclear fuel.
-
Lie? No.
Out of context? Yes.
Ethical? No.
NeoCon? Yes.
And a thank you to Groin for beautifully illustrating my point.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Fuel for creating electricity is different than that for weapons.
Vote the issues indeed.
h
Horn,
Are you aware that nuclear fuel, even that which you quoted is EXTREMELY radioactive. Even more so after it is "spent". So... if according to your illustrious presidential hopefull's plan, "we" give the Iranians "safe nuclear fuel" that does not allow for fissile material of weapons grade to be manufactured they will be satisfied?
I disagree, of all the Islamic states to give this too, Iran represents the greatest threat.... I know, you are saying they can not make weapons out of it.... WRONG....
Imagine this:
Iran receives fissile grade material for their "non-breeder" reactor and they use this fuel while honestly producing energy... time to refuel comes... in three or so years, and they refuel... Iran now posesses "spent" fissile material that is HIGHLY radioactive... this same "waste" is prepared for long term storage... "Waste" disappears... reappears three months later in a Seagoing container on a ship in New York Harbor... as the container is lifted to max height on the gantry, the 8000 pounds of Centax laced with the "Waste" exlodes... the prevailing winds carry the "Waste" for miles down wind... the explosion site is a waste land... 100's die outright, 10's of 1000's more live lingering deaths owing to exposure to high levels of cadmium radiation... most of the south east NYC shipyards become unihabitable for scores of years to come...
Hmm... nuclear anything for Iran? Ahh... NO!
-
no snappy comeback?
-
Are you aware that nuclear fuel, even that which you quoted is EXTREMELY radioactive. Even more so after it is "spent". So... if according to your illustrious presidential hopefull's plan, "we" give the Iranians "safe nuclear fuel" that does not allow for fissile material of weapons grade to be manufactured they will be satisfied?
Fact check: nuclear fuel is about as radioactive as your average rock before burned in nuclear reactor (and "burning" in this context is not same as everyday use of the word).
Iran receives fissile grade material for their "non-breeder" reactor and they use this fuel while honestly producing energy... time to refuel comes... in three or so years, and they refuel... Iran now posesses "spent" fissile material that is HIGHLY radioactive... this same "waste" is prepared for long term storage...
Why go all this way when there are other easier ways to to get material for dirty bombs. Namely radiological source in use in hospitals and many industrial facilities. They also have several additional advantages when used in dirty bombs compared to spent nuclear fuel:
-No residual heat. Spent nuclear fuel emits heat for about hundred years after taken out of reactor - it is one of the reasons why it is stored in water pools. For twenty years it is impossible to hide spent fuel in containers. There would have to be either cooling system that is impossible not to notice or the whole container would melt down in transit.
-Easier handling and processing.
-Better spreading characteris. Equal amount of radiological source in dirty bomb would spread much better than spent fuel.
the prevailing winds carry the "Waste" for miles down wind... the explosion site is a waste land... 100's die outright, 10's of 1000's more live lingering deaths owing to exposure to high levels of cadmium radiation... most of the south east NYC shipyards become unihabitable for scores of years to come...
I recommend looking at some real infromation on the effects of dirty bombs. You have to remember that all of the radioactivity spread by dirty bomb is concentrated in single point before the explosion. Also usable amount of shielding material is very limited both because need to avoid detection and because the shielding material prevents efficent dispersal by the bomb. Thus the activity of the material used is bomb is severely limited due to need to keep the handlers alive and well at least long enough to deliver the bomb and avoid detection. When this limited amount of material is spread over large area it effects are diluted in direct propotion to the area it is spread over. In fact the source is much more dangerous to general public before the explosion than after it.
Almost all of scenarios for dirty bomb result in no additional immediate deaths compared to conventional bomb of the same size and number of long term cancer deads that is about 1/1000-1/10000 of natural rate (less than variation in natural cancer rate in fact).
Hmm... nuclear anything for Iran? Ahh... NO!
Well, Iran has the needed mineral uranium and techonology to construct refining facilities so it can manufacture the nuclear fuel it needs if it decides to go forward with refining. However if all of its nuclear fuel is supplied from outside it does not need the refining facilities that can be used to manufacture bomb material. Making bomb material from reactor fuel also requires the same refining facilities.
Edit: Fixed quotes
-
Pyton,
I have read extensively on that exact scenario... and they metioned all of what you are saying, especially the fact that the spent fuel from the reactor was very difficult to handle, but of far more value to a dirty bomb owing to it's higher levels of radiaction and the lack of loss of potency when spread over a wide area. The biggest issues were the delivery and the deception involved in the delivery... I personally think it would be possible for just such a thing to work. A 40' foot Seatainer provides ALOT of room to do ALOT of things with it...
but hey, have fun saying it is "impossible" because it is harder...
-
To get any advantage over radiological sources the amount of material would need to be at least several kilograms. If the rest of the container is filled with steel, lead or concrete it might be possible to get the container unnoticed somewhere. Of course that kind of container is way overweight and it is quite impossible to blow up in any sensible way.
Then there is the heat generation. To cool down that much spent fuel without any other heat sink than air you would need heat exchanger of the size of a whole container.
Of course doing and using a dirty bomb from spent fuel is not impossible but it is so hard that it is not worth it. The troubles making it all work are on par with making a full-fledged nuclear bomb. And with nuclear bomb there is no trouble with radiation before explosion nor with extra heat. Thus nuclear bomb - unlike dirty bomb - is relatively easy to smuggle to target.
-
Has Bush come out with any plan yet for Iran other then to bomb it?
By the way love the way the recent terror alert came just at the right time with the Democrats launch. LOL
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
By the way love the way the recent terror alert came just at the right time with the Democrats launch. LOL
...-Gixer
http://www.blackhelicopters.com
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.blackhelicopters.com
That link didn't work. Not sure if I'm all that fussed on black helicopters anyway. Most of my PnC time is in a very dark blue H500 which looks alot better imho then the black BK117 that we have. Or pretty much any other H500 in the country, must be the high skids and racing stripes that do it.
Though the BK117 got a bit bent by some lawyer learning to fly so not sure when we'll see that one again.
I also use to fly another H500 which was a kind of worn dark red and white. Which wasn't a great colour but who cares about colour when your doing deer recovery in the bush, right?
Blackhelicopters, your point is?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Eagler
anyone else see skerry so fired up today he was spitting all over his microphone??
LOL - too funny
Landslide Bush!!!
(http://www.aikengop.com/graphics/bush_cheney_2004_227x340.jpg)
Actually what I found hilarious was your choice of quote. Which I assume is an attempt at a strong stance defending Bush's reasoning and aggressive attack on Iraq.
Though I'm sure you'd agree not one that his admin would use for the simple reason it's from a Nazi and one of Hitler's favourite generals. Maybe there's something in that or am I reading into it to much? LOL
Here, maybe you could use this one atleast it's from one of the good guys.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
...-Gixer