Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CHAPPY on November 22, 2009, 11:34:30 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_war_games;_ylt=At1Wcmnw4F8aEg4RqfkUNnB0fNdF
If your nuclear program was for peacefull purposes would you need to do this?
:headscratch:
Or maybe its to keep the terrorists from getting at the nuke site, with their Air Force.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_war_games;_ylt=At1Wcmnw4F8aEg4RqfkUNnB0fNdF
If your nuclear program was for peacefull purposes would you need to do this?
:headscratch:
Or maybe its to keep the terrorists from getting at the nuke site, with their Air Force.
They seem to be acting like N Korea where they are showing an insane move to be unpredictable like the article says. All this does is keep their enemies reactionary.
-
Any nuclear facility is a prime target to cause massive population loss/displacement.
A bomb or aircraft into one of the containment pools would spread tons of radioactive debris. Some of the reactor containment units are of questionable strength as well. A breach of the reactor core could spread tons of highly radioactive material approaching something like Chernobyl. If they think the U.S. will bomb a operational uranium plant they are really pushing the realm of reality. A single bomb could make the area uninhabitable for miles in every direction, especially downwind.
Strip
-
If they think the U.S. will bomb a operational uranium plant they are really pushing the realm of reality.
Then again Israelis doing that isn't so far fetched now is it?
-
Nope....Israelis aren't really shy about that kind of stuff.
:D
-
it's a preparation for the final battle, not a game.
-
Iran wargames look FUN! What other army in the world has wargames with sport motorcycles, jet-skis, and sport speed boats?
If they had the state reserves practice like that where I live--reserves recruiting offices would be full and overflowing.
ROX
-
Any nuclear facility is a prime target to cause massive population loss/displacement.
A bomb or aircraft into one of the containment pools would spread tons of radioactive debris. Some of the reactor containment units are of questionable strength as well. A breach of the reactor core could spread tons of highly radioactive material approaching something like Chernobyl. If they think the U.S. will bomb a operational uranium plant they are really pushing the realm of reality. A single bomb could make the area uninhabitable for miles in every direction, especially downwind.
Strip
Then I'm sure you know Chernobyl had no containment building, and when the non-nuclear explosion happened, that is when the radioactive debris spread. If your goal was to put as many bombs as one could manage into the containment building, and inside of the reactor vessel itself, you may get a rather catastrophic spreading of radioactive debris. However, any conventional bombing of a nuclear facility these days, would simply be a very messy cleanup. I would doubt though, that any area or component in the bombed facility would be usable again, at least by current standards for safety in the western world (and modern Russia).
As you very well may know, the fuel used inside of a nuclear power plant is barely a fraction refined as the fuel used for a nuclear weapon. Thus, no secondary nuclear explosion. Just a very costly, potentially dangerous cleanup would be needed. While there would certainly be issues of wider spread radiation releases for the civilian populations, it would be absolutely nowhere near in the order of Chernobyl.
-
War games or not Israel will still kick their teeth in whenever they want to.
And yes, Israel will be the ones to do it.
-
IN
-
it's a preparation for the final battle, not a game.
That's true of all war games.
-
As you very well may know, the fuel used inside of a nuclear power plant is barely a fraction refined as the fuel used for a nuclear weapon.
Then why bomb it?
-
Becuase we just cant trust anybody anymore.
Iran Is a KNOWN hater of america and Isreal.
Isreal will not stand and watch Iran produce a nuclear ANYTHING for use as either a dirty bomb or atomic bomb.
Dirty bombs still have the ability to kill millions and Israel is surrounded by people who are trying to kill them and who are allies to Iran.
So yeah.
-
Bomb everyone we don't trust?
Iran has no allies in the ME.
-
No.
Bomb everybody that is a credible threat to homeland security.
A country that openly hates america and threatens it.
Bomb those that are willing to use a weapon to kill innocent civilians with no tactical worth at all.
At one point you must draw a line.
Isreal is our best ally in the middle east. I think it's worth our time to help their intrests.
My question to you diehard is... Are you from the United States?
-
Becuase we just cant trust anybody anymore.
Iran Is a KNOWN hater of america and Isreal.
Isreal will not stand and watch Iran produce a nuclear ANYTHING for use as either a dirty bomb or atomic bomb.
Dirty bombs still have the ability to kill millions and Israel is surrounded by people who are trying to kill them and who are allies to Iran.
So yeah.
So killing innocent Iranian civilians who, if we didn't know before this summer we know now, are largely NOT supporters of the current regime, is justifiable by the suspicion that the Iranian government may try to kill innocent Israelis or Americans?
Also, by your logic the United States would be a completely legitimate target for Iran (which I'm not saying it is)
Bomb everybody that is a credible threat to homeland security. the US is quite obviously a threat to Iranian security
A country that openly hates america and threatens it. A pretty significant number of Americans and certainly the last administration come/came pretty close to hating Iran (or do openly)
Bomb those that are willing to use a weapon to kill innocent civilians with no tactical worth at all. What do you think the American nuclear arsenal would be used for?
At one point you must draw a line. You certainly must.
-
Bomb everybody that is a credible threat to homeland security.
I remember something similar being said about another ME country a few years ago.
A country that openly hates america and threatens it.
When did they threaten America, except to defend themselves against a US/Israeli attack?
Bomb those that are willing to use a weapon to kill innocent civilians with no tactical worth at all.
How many American civilians have they killed. How many civilians of any nationality (other than their own) have they killed?
My question to you diehard is... Are you from the United States?
What if I am, is that relevant?
-
We're not bombing the cities. Just the Nuclear facilites. Unlike what Iran would do which is bomb cities with no strategic or tactical value whatsoever.
All it takes is 1 bomb to take them out. Extremely minimal loss of life considering the circumstances.
And as I've already stated WE wouldnt be the ones to do it in the first place. Israel would. Iran's threat to Israel is far too great for them to sit on their tulips and wait to be attacked. Far too great.
We do openly dislike Iran but you dont see us have parades burning Iranian flags and shouting "Death to IRAN!, DEATH TO IRAN!" Do you?
We're not a threat to security in Iran.
The vast nuclear arsenal was built up in the screaming match that was the cold war. The invention and mass production of nuclear weapons is the biggest mistake mankind has ever made. Cant find the words right now to explain why we have so many nukes so I'm just gonna put "No we shouldnt have them."
And yes we should always have to draw a line somewhere. Not us, but the world. The league of nations aint doing crap right now so We're just gonna have to deal with this ourselves.
That goes for you too germany. They have the balls to send supporters of the Kahled Sheik Mohammed to help him not get the death penalty.
It seems they have forgotten theyre roots.
Ps. PLEASE DONT SKUZZIFY ME!!
-
Then why bomb it?
While leaving political discussions out of this, you bomb it to, get this, shut it down...
-
We're not bombing the cities. Just the Nuclear facilites. Unlike what Iran would do which is bomb cities with no strategic or tactical value whatsoever. You don't even know that Iran is developing nuclear capabilities for weapons purposes, and now you're claiming that you know how the possibly-being-developed weapons would be used?
All it takes is 1 bomb to take them out. Extremely minimal loss of life considering the circumstances. That someone may be developing something to kill people?
And as I've already stated WE wouldnt be the ones to do it in the first place. Israel would. Iran's threat to Israel is far too great for them to sit on their tulips and wait to be attacked. Far too great.
We do openly dislike Iran but you dont see us have parades burning Iranian flags and shouting "Death to IRAN!, DEATH TO IRAN!" Do you? No, only the right wing media
We're not a threat to security in Iran. How can you say that while you're sitting there saying that Iran should be attacked?
The vast nuclear arsenal was built up in the screaming match that was the cold war. The invention and mass production of nuclear weapons is the biggest mistake mankind has ever made. Cant find the words right now to explain why we have so many nukes so I'm just gonna put "No we shouldnt have them." So you support nuclear disarmament?
And yes we should always have to draw a line somewhere. Not us, but the world. The league of nations aint doing crap right now so We're just gonna have to deal with this ourselves. That's a good observation, the League of Nations hasn't done anything since it was dissolved.
That goes for you too germany. They have the balls to send supporters of the Kahled Sheik Mohammed to help him not get the death penalty. God forbid that the beacon of free speech and liberty in this world should allow free speech and liberty
It seems they have forgotten theyre roots. What does this even mean?
-
While leaving political discussions out of this, you bomb it to, get this, shut it down...
If it's not anywhere near weapons grade uranium, why bother?
-
1) The entire thing is a series of guidelines. If it fits the criteria then yes they should be attacked. Key word is CREDIBLE.
2) You cant be serious, can you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4)
3) By supporting Islamic terrorism, About 2,976 people. Most of them civilians.
4) I'm just curious.
to diehard
-
3) By supporting Islamic terrorism, About 2,976 people. Most of them civilians.
There's a HUGE difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites in the Muslim world; Al Queada happens to be Sunni and the country of Iran Shi'ite by a large majority.
You remember a couple years back when Iraq plunged into civil war? That was between these two religious groups. Even the United States has used the split between these factions to its advantage. Iran itself funded Shi'ite groups in this period to fight the Sunnis (ex Al Queada)
Also, the vast majority of terrorism, particularly against Americans, is commited by Sunnis (Al Queada)
Think of it like Catholics vs Protestants. You only need to go back to- oh, yesterday- to find examples of Catholic vs. Protestant terrorism ;)
-
I've never seen a rally against Iran before. Even fox news doent blatently say death to Iran. Youre being very obtuse.
I support nuclear disarnament. If I had my perfect world each country would be allowed only 10 nuclear warheads. Only for those that already developed them. Annual weapons inspections.
Once more, THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN SOMEWHERE.
Its a nickname because the UN is pissing me off. The UN seemes to have been castrated. They sit and wait. Hence, League Of Nations.
Our country was attacked. We're trying them in our country. Leave us to do what should have been done years ago.
You do know what that means. Youre just acting clueless.
-
There's a HUGE difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites in the Muslim world; Al Queada happens to be Sunni and the country of Iran Shi'ite by a large majority.
You remember a couple years back when Iraq plunged into civil war? That was between these two religious groups. Even the United States has used the split between these factions to its advantage. Iran itself funded Shi'ite groups in this period to fight the Sunnis (ex Al Queada)
Also, the vast majority of terrorism, particularly against Americans, is commited by Sunnis (Al Queada)
Think of it like Catholics vs Protestants. You only need to go back to- oh, a few days ago- to find examples of Catholic vs. Protestant terrorism ;)
So they say "Death to america" But they mean "We love america"? Am I missing something?
-
If it's not anywhere near weapons grade uranium, why bother?
Again avoiding political discussions, a civilian nuclear power program requires fuel, in the form of radioactive elements. Fuel is less refined, weapons more refined. If you have the facilities to make fuel, you have the facilities to make weapons.
-
1) The entire thing is a series of guidelines. If it fits the criteria then yes they should be attacked. Key word is CREDIBLE.
After Iraq how can any WMD claims be considered credible?
2) You cant be serious, can you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4)
Death to America! Death to America! Death to America! ... Ok, I'll give you that one. ;)
3) By supporting Islamic terrorism, About 2,976 people. Most of them civilians.
That few? I would have thought it was a lot more. Now... How many civilians have we killed in the same time frame? Tens of thousands in Iraq alone.
4) I'm just curious.
Killed the cat you know... ;) I don't like to have my opinions labeled by gender, creed, race or nationality.
-
So they say "Death to america" But they mean "We love america"? Am I missing something?
Do you honestly think that all Iranians think like that? Even the majority? After the country almost summer with the mass protests following Ahmedinejad's re-election, knowing full well what the consequences could be? Now that some 80 Iranians sit in jail, 5 have been executed for what happened this summer?
How many Americans gave their lives after the disputed 2000 election? Or in 2008?
You do know what that means. Youre just acting clueless.
Honestly that sentence makes no sense to me. What are Germany's 'roots'? What do they have to do with anything?
-
Some of the reactor containment units are of questionable strength as well.
Just curious, you are referring to the Iranian designs aren't you? Speaking just with my knowledge of American nuclear plant designs, our containment buildings are designed specifically to at least be able to take the force of a 747 crashing into it, without being compromised. And there's still the giant iron reactor vessel itself...
-
After Iraq how can any WMD claims be considered credible?
Any threat should be taken seriously. In fact We KNOW that thyey have uranium producing facilities.
Death to America! Death to America! Death to America! ... Ok, I'll give you that one. ;)
That few? I would have thought it was a lot more. Now... How many civilians have we killed in the same time frame? Tens of thousands in Iraq alone.That's the 9/11 death tally. Thats 1 thing. And no, we have not killed that many, especially not blatently.
Killed the cat you know... ;) I don't like to have my opinions labeled by gender, creed, race or nationality.
I'm a human, so therefore curiosity enriches the mind. Just answer this... Are you not from america? I dont need specififcs.
-
Again avoiding political discussions, a civilian nuclear power program requires fuel, in the form of radioactive elements. Fuel is less refined, weapons more refined. If you have the facilities to make fuel, you have the facilities to make weapons.
So if you have the gas centrifuges to produce reactor grade uranium (3-4% U-235) you also have the capability to produce weapons grade uranium (>85% U-235)?
Sorry doesn't work that way.
-
Yes.....
Western designs are built to an extremely high level of safety with regards to external forces. While some reactors were supplied to the Iranians by the U.S. many were not. Their integrity under a severe event has been questioned.....
Strip
-
So if you have the gas centrifuges to produce reactor grade uranium (3-4% U-235) you also have the capability to produce weapons grade uranium (>85% U-235)?
Sorry doesn't work that way.
Sorry but that is correct, if only in theory...
Gas centrifuges operates less effectively than other methods once you reach a certain purity. However, it is possible to produce weapons grade Uranium-235 solely from centrifuges....
Strip
-
So if you have the gas centrifuges to produce reactor grade uranium (3-4% U-235) you also have the capability to produce weapons grade uranium (>85% U-235)?
Sorry doesn't work that way.
I'm staying out of the political part of this thread, so I won't go much farther. But if you think a country would start a civilian nuclear power program, and not get into weapons, you're clinically insane. If that was the case however, a country would simply buy its fuel for a much lower price, as many countries have offered to do, rather than enriching their own. Even the U.S. purchases old nuclear weapons from Russia to fuel our own reactors...
-
Any threat should be taken seriously. In fact We KNOW that thyey have uranium producing facilities.
Capable of producing weapons grade uranium? Nope.
Iran's most enriched uranium is 20% U-235 and is used in their Zero Power research reactor in Tehran. It produces most of the radioisotopes used by Iran's hospitals. They have to import the fuel for that reactor from Russia and Argentina.
-
I'm staying out of the political part of this thread, so I won't go much farther. But if you think a country would start a civilian nuclear power program, and not get into weapons, you're clinically insane. If that was the case however, a country would simply buy its fuel for a much lower price, as many countries have offered to do, rather than enriching their own. Even the U.S. purchases old nuclear weapons from Russia to fuel our own reactors...
"The following countries are known to operate enrichment facilities: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Belgium, Iran, Italy and Spain hold an investment interest in the French Eurodif enrichment plant, with Iran's holding entitling it to 10% of the enriched uranium output. Countries that had enrichment programs in the past include Libya and South Africa, although Libya's facility was never operational. Australia has announced its intention to pursue commercial enrichment, and is actively researching laser enrichment."
I must be clinically insane.
-
Capable of producing weapons grade uranium? Nope.
Iran's most enriched uranium is 20% U-235 and is used in their Zero Power research reactor in Tehran. It produces most of the radioisotopes used by Iran's hospitals. They have to import the fuel for that reactor from Russia and Argentina.
Do they have the capability currently? No.....is the general consensus.
They do have the knowledge and components to do such task tho. Its a matter of configuration and time involved as the centrifuge process relies on massive amounts of them. Each centrifuge enriching only a small amount of U-235....
Strip
-
Yes.....
Western designs are built to an extremely high level of safety with regards to external forces. While some reactors were supplied to the Iranians by the U.S. many were not. Their integrity under a severe event has been questioned.....
Strip
Was just trying to clarify. On that subject however, you should take a look at some of the newer Japanese designs that have been proposed for Japan. It doesn't get much safer these days. I saw the designs for one version, that had it's emergency cooling water built into a lake on top of a mountain. So even if every possible bad thing happened, gravity would supply all the water they needed to keep the fuel from melting.
-
Capable of producing weapons grade uranium? Nope.
Iran's most enriched uranium is 20% U-235 and is used in their Zero Power research reactor in Tehran. It produces most of the radioisotopes used by Iran's hospitals. They have to import the fuel for that reactor from Russia and Argentina.
Two words, DIRTY BOMBS
Thanks for playing.
-
Two words, DIRTY BOMBS
Thanks for playing.
And why would you go through the entire process of having a nuclear program and enriching uranium just to make dirty bombs? Instead of buying the uranium, or using chemical/biological weapons?
-
Do they have the capability currently? No.....is the general consensus.
They do have the knowledge and components to do such task tho. Its a matter of configuration and time involved as the centrifuge process relies on massive amounts of them. Each centrifuge enriching only a small amount of U-235....
Strip
Well.. we are talking 1940s tech here. Can we really bomb every country we don't like that gets to that level of technology?
-
Two words, DIRTY BOMBS
Thanks for playing.
You do realize that an X-Ray machine from any hospital would supply enough radioactive material to make a really messy dirty bomb right?
-
Well.. we are talking 1940s tech here. Can we really bomb every country we don't like that gets to that level of technology?
Only the nuclear programs that try to operate in secrecy and against international regulations...
-
Two words, DIRTY BOMBS
Thanks for playing.
Chemical/biological weapons are far easier, cheaper and much, much more deadly than a dirty uranium bomb. To say nothing of being less conspicuous to produce.
-
Only the nuclear programs that try to operate in secrecy and against international regulations...
Are American nuclear programs open to public and international scrutiny?
-
And why would you go through the entire process of having a nuclear program and enriching uranium just to make dirty bombs? Instead of buying the uranium, or using chemical/biological weapons?
It's not gonna be weapons qualtiy U-235.
It doesnt have to be. Dirty bombs arent just dangerous. Theyre also sneaky. Every single Uranium isotope produces an alpha particle when it decays. Uranium particles thrown up in the air from a car bombing can spread in a cloud. This invisible cloud inhaled will then kill people from the inside. Slowly and painfully. Just ask the rescue workers at Chernobyl.
-
Gas centrifuges are hardly 1940's technology....
Strip
-
nvm
-
It's not gonna be weapons qualtiy U-235.
It doesnt have to be. Dirty bombs arent just dangerous. Theyre also sneaky. Every single Uranium isotope produces an alpha particle when it decays. Uranium particles thrown up in the air from a car bombing can spread in a cloud. This invisible cloud inhaled will then kill people from the inside. Slowly and painfully. Just ask the rescue workers at Chernobyl.
The rescue workers at Chernobyl had to deal with literal piles of melted nuclear fuel. A dirty bomb by common definition is nothing close to what Chernobyl experienced.
-
You do realize that an X-Ray machine from any hospital would supply enough radioactive material to make a really messy dirty bomb right?
The thing is, Uranium produces an alpha particle. Basically a helium nucleus. If it gets inhaled it will begin to kill of body cells. Unlike beta particles and gamma particles, alpha particles cannot pass through the skin. Immediate radiation poisoning. Ask the chernobyl rescue workers.
There has to be at least one that didnt die.
-
You do realize that an X-Ray machine from any hospital would supply enough radioactive material to make a really messy dirty bomb right?
Wrong.....most, if not all, Xray machines use no radioactive material.
Strip
-
:rofl :rofl
You lack basic knowledge on this subject.
Did you find the right answer?
I assume that I was correct.
-
The thing is, Uranium produces an alpha particle. Basically a helium nucleus. If it gets inhaled it will begin to kill of body cells. Unlike beta particles and gamma particles, alpha particles cannot pass through the skin. Immediate radiation poisoning. Ask the chernobyl rescue workers.
There has to be at least one that didnt die.
I work in the nuclear industry. I will happily inform you, I try my best to limit my exposure to all kinds of radiation we produce. Not to even mention, when you're dealing with radioactive contamination, its not hard to get particles INSIDE of you. Through the eyes, or wounds, or even into the GI system.
-
Gas centrifuges are hardly 1940's technology....
Strip
No you're right. It's 1930's technology. Jesse W. Beams and co-workers at the University of Virginia developed the process in 1934.
-
Also, I have had the honor of having many communications with people who worked on the cleanup at Chernobyl, what do you wanna know?
-
Wrong.....most, if not all, Xray machines use no radioactive material.
Strip
There is a radioactive element in x-ray machines.
-
I work in the nuclear industry. I will happily inform you, I try my best to limit my exposure to all kinds of radiation we produce. Not to even mention, when you're dealing with radioactive contamination, its not hard to get particles INSIDE of you. Through the eyes, or wounds, or even into the GI system.
Then you must know theres a vast difference between radioactive particles?
I'm just stating theres a big difference between gamma, beta and alpha particles.
-
Then again you're the one that's having a weapons argument with a 15 year old child.
You dont have basic knowledge on the subject either. Youre just ignorant.
If you're a 15 year old child then shut the hell up and listen instead of arguing with your elders. Maybe you'll learn something! ;)
-
No you're right. It's 1930's technology. Jesse W. Beams and co-workers at the University of Virginia developed the process in 1934.
If you want to quote Wiki I can do that too....yawn.
The gas centrifuge process was not applied to uranium enrichment for quite a few years after the end of WW2. Still its like stating TV is a 1930's technology, sure it is from that time period but how much do they have in common with todays devices?
Strip
-
If you want to quote Wiki I can do that too....yawn.
The gas centrifuge process was not applied to uranium enrichment for quite a few years after the end of WW2. Still its like stating TV is a 1930's technology, sure it is from that time period but how much do they have in common with todays devices?
Strip
I don't know the exact level of technology of the Iranian centrifuges... Do you?
-
If you're a 15 year old child then shut the hell up and listen instead of arguing with your elders. Maybe you'll learn something! ;)
No, I researched it again and proved that I am right.
If my "Elders" are wrong, then I cannot learn something.
Its very simple to understand. ;)
-
There's a HUGE difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites in the Muslim world; Al Queada happens to be Sunni and the country of Iran Shi'ite by a large majority.
Yup but there is a HUGE difference between westerners (Infidels) and Muslims, period.
-
Yup but there is a HUGE difference between westerners (Infidels) and Muslims, period.
And a HUGE difference between ...actually f*** it, this is gonna get skuzzified whatever happens, I'm not going down with you :bolt:
-
No, I researched it again and proved that I am right.
In what? That building an industrial complex costing billions of Dollars to produce uranium for a dirty bomb that is far, FAR less dangerous than say... Sarin (which can be made in a garage) is a worthwhile thing to do?
-
I don't know the exact level of technology of the Iranian centrifuges... Do you?
Most of their centrifuges were built in the late 80's and early 90's, some later. Although they have produced more since they are based off of a 1970's German design. Coincidentally they are the same design that the Pakistanis used in their program.
Strip
-
And a HUGE difference between ...actually f*** it, this is gonna get skuzzified whatever happens, I'm not going down with you :bolt:
down with me? sheesh
-
Then you must know theres a vast difference between radioactive particles?
I'm just stating theres a big difference between gamma, beta and alpha particles.
Vast? No. Differences? Yes. I once had an almost microscopic piece of Cobalt-60 that had jumped through my clothing and onto my skin. My luck, it was on the last day of work of a refueling cycle at a plant. I had the choice of either staying at the plant until we could find a way to get it off, which usually involves cold shower after cold shower. I had already taken about 10 showers at that point, and wasn't looking forward to more of that. Or I could sign a release and leave, agreeing not to hold the plant responsible for that decision. I chose to leave. I can tell you, even with how comfortable I am working around radiation of all types, it still left an uneasy feeling in my stomach to do that.
I can deeply assure you, all forms of radiation are potentially deadly depending on the amount and length of your exposure. Not to mention, you do not have skin covering your eye balls, mouth, or nose, and wounds are open to the body. A dirty bomb has the ability to fall onto food, drinks, and any other thing you may injest, thus, making your argument of "not being able to go through skin" quite moot.
-
Most of their centrifuges were built in the late 80's and early 90's, some later. Although they have produced more since they are based off of a 1970's German design. Coincidentally they are the same design that the Pakistanis used in their program.
Strip
Coincidentally... Yeah right. ;)
-
In what? That building an industrial complex costing billions of Dollars to produce uranium for a dirty bomb that is far, FAR less dangerous than say... Sarin (which can be made in a garage) is a worthwhile thing to do?
In radiation from Uranium kills you.
You can disguise Uranium for use as a nuclear fuel.
Sarin is a poison and nothing more.
-
In radiation from Uranium kills you.
You can disguise Uranium for use as a nuclear fuel.
Sarin is a poison and nothing more.
Just to let you know my opinion, I am far more scared of chemical and biological weapons than dirty bombs.
-
Last time I checked the average citizen cannot account for having either in there possession.
The difference being Sarin (among many others) can be readily produced from legally available materials.
Strip
-
Just to let you know my opinion, I am far more scared of chemical and biological weapons than dirty bombs.
Anything In airborne things that can kill you scares me. Made worse by the location of my house.
I live on Long Island about 40 miles east of New York City.
If any airborne weapon is released In NYC our only ground route for getting off the island is blocked.
This is made worse by the fact that winds Naturally move from west to east. So i would be pretty much screwed.
-
In radiation from Uranium kills you.
You can disguise Uranium for use as a nuclear fuel.
Sarin is a poison and nothing more.
It takes just 1 mg of Sarin to kill an average human. It is a nerve agent that is absorbed trough the skin. A single bomb if properly aerosolized and detonated over a big city could kill millions.
-
It takes just 1 mg of Sarin to kill an average human. It is a nerve agent that is absorbed trough the skin. A single bomb if properly aerosolized and detonated over a big city could kill millions.
Indeed. Probably be the city to the left of me. Scary to think about.
-
Watching a little too much of "The Rock" are we?
Strip
-
Maybe.
Great movie though. :aok
-
Nope. Sarin is a heavier-than-air persistent agent. A one ton bomb (with sub munitions for optimal dispersion) would cover an area of tens of square miles with a blanket of death. The blanket cloud would hug the ground and drift with the wind. It would linger in basements, ditches and sewers for weeks and kill anyone that comes in contact with it. Lethal exposure would be measured in seconds. It's really nasty stuff.
-
Wow!!
I wish people would read abit before posting,Warhed obviously knows what he's talking about,he works in the industry!
A dirty bomb is my worst fear,easy to make and aquire and long term.
Oh well 2012 is not far off,maybe a big rock will make this discussion moot..... :devil
:salute
-
A dirty bomb is my worst fear,easy to make and aquire and long term.
I'm a bit more rational; I fear cancer and heart disease.
-
I'm a bit more rational; I fear cancer and heart disease.
Ok so maybe I over stated my case.... One could assume from your response you think I'm irrational!
Thats the farthest thing from the truth,oh and cancer and heart disease is pretty much the norm these days dont you want to be normal too??
-
There is a radioactive element in x-ray machines.
No there is not. You think portable battery powered X-ray machine has plutonium or something in it?
-
Ok so maybe I over stated my case.... One could assume from your response you think I'm irrational!
Thats the farthest thing from the truth,oh and cancer and heart disease is pretty much the norm these days dont you want to be normal too??
Stating that I'm a bit more rational does only imply that you are a bit less rational, not that you are irrational. No, I don't want to be normal. Normal is boring. ;)
-
:lol
-
No there is not. You think portable battery powered X-ray machine has plutonium or something in it?
Well, I know there is some machine that has an element in it.
Interesting point, if I were to get an X-ray at the doctors, and count that towards my dose limits, I would be close to the limit of dose the industry allows me in a year. My original point was, it is not difficult to accumulate radioactive material in the civilian world to use for a dirty bomb. A single hospital would provide enough of it to make a pretty nasty dirty bomb.
On the reasons a dirty bomb is not as scary to me, is the media portrays it as a cheap nuclear bomb. It is anything but. With no nuclear explosion, you have no massive amounts of radiation being put out, no fall out, etc. You just have a very contaminated area where the explosion happened, but that can be cleaned. As long as the response was quick, there would be hardly any long term radiation doses to the public.
During my time in the nuclear industry, I have had contamination on me, and in me. If I have it on me, we wash it off, if it was serious enough that a good washing could not remove it, you could remove particles by simply cutting them out. When I ingested or breathed in contamination, you flush it out naturally.
Not saying by any means it would not be a devastating and deadly situation, but compared to the horrors of nerve gas and other agents, damage from a dirty bomb would be rather minimal compared to a chemical\biological attack. Mostly due to the fact radiation is generally only deadly in very large acute doses, or over an extended time. A typical dirty bomb the media portrays, would not have enough radiation to kill from acute doses. As long as officials could clean people and areas within a reasonable time, the effect would be negligible.
# February 1, 2000 – The radiation source of a teletherapy unit was stolen from a parking lot in Samut Prakarn, Thailand and dismantled in a junkyard for scrap metal. Workers completely removed the 60Co source from the lead shielding, and became ill shortly thereafter. The radioactive nature of the metal and the resulting contamination was not discovered until 18 days later. Seven injuries and three deaths were a result of this incident.[25]
-
Apparently they use Cobalt in some machines.
My apologies.
-
Apparently they use Cobalt in some machines.
My apologies.
No apology needed, I don't have much of a clue other than a few stories I've heard.
One such story being, a small medical clinic was demolished, and a boy on the way home from school looked through the materials, and picked up what he thought to be a cool looking rock. Being a boy, he took a fancy to it and brought it home, his mother washed it off and put it in the kitchen drawer. The father was away for the weekend so he hadn't heard of his son's discovery. When he returned, he found his wife and son close to death in the home suffering from radiation poisoning.
-
(http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp193/dmbear/untitled-17-1.jpg)
-
(http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/strangelove/images/sellers-strangelove.jpg)
Well let's see now ah... cobalt thorium G... Radioactive halflife of uh, ... hmm.. I would think that uh... possibly uh... one hundred years?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_war_games;_ylt=At1Wcmnw4F8aEg4RqfkUNnB0fNdF
If your nuclear program was for peacefull purposes would you need to do this?
:headscratch:
Or maybe its to keep the terrorists from getting at the nuke site, with their Air Force.
i wouldn't sweat it.
when isreal gets fed up with them, they;ll send in a strike again.
-
In before the lock
-
Well let's see now ah... cobalt thorium G... Radioactive halflife of uh, ... hmm.. I would think that uh... possibly uh... one hundred years?
Cobalt 60 has a half-life of around 5 years I believe. But when talking half-lives, you have to remember, Co60 would then no longer be radioactive at that 5 year mark. However, considering your common topsoil is radioactive, how long before that same Co60 would be as radioactive as soil, or a banana, or a TV set, or computer screen, or a granite counter top, etc.?
-
Last year I did a study of google earth pics on military bases throughout the world. What could you possibly see using these maps you may ask?
Well if you were ever in the service, most of all an Air Force, you can tell an awful lot about a military machine by looking at Sat maps. Which is probably why we have spent gazillions of $$ developing and deploying them.
The first thing you see, and I use the term "NATO standard", is that with NT military bases, for instance like Singapore or Australia, the bases are well ordered, trimmed, roads are new, equipment is kept well, buildings are cared for...ect. Nato standard is usually reserved for countries with western influence in their Military. Western equipment, western doctrine, western training.
With Russia one see's their bases that are supporting their nuclear deterrent are kept up far better then their other bases. Wait, here is the pic of one of Iran's most important naval bases "Bandar Shaheed Bahonar" on the Persian Gulf. Its so important its home to their Kilo class SSKs, probably their most important naval asset.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/shahid-iran.jpg)
The place looks like a crap hole with oil leaks. And its looks far better in this pic then in the one I did before. The Iranians are not up to our standards and never will be. I'm not downplaying the threat. All I'm saying is its manageable. The only reason they survived their war against Saddam is cause they still had a western air force with western equipment and pilots trained by us.
Of course all that changes if they get nukes. And its not just nukes they are shooting for. Its the entire production chain of nukes/delivery systems they are striving to produce. Thats means from A to Z they want to be able to build in-house everything needed to produce and deliver nuclear weapons. From mining uranium to bombs to missiles to targeting systems. Everything!
-
Last year I did a study of google earth pics on military bases throughout the world. What could you possibly see using these maps you may ask?
Well if you were ever in the service, most of all an Air Force, you can tell an awful lot about a military machine by looking at Sat maps. Which is probably why we have spent gazillions of $$ developing and deploying them.
The first thing you see, and I use the term "NATO standard", is that with NT military bases, for instance like Singapore or Australia, the bases are well ordered, trimmed, roads are new, equipment is kept well, buildings are cared for...ect. Nato standard is usually reserved for countries with western influence in their Military. Western equipment, western doctrine, western training.
With Russia one see's their bases that are supporting their nuclear deterrent are kept up far better then their other bases. Wait, here is the pic of one of Iran's most important naval bases "Bandar Shaheed Bahonar" on the Persian Gulf. Its so important its home to their Kilo class SSKs, probably their most important naval asset.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/shahid-iran.jpg)
The place looks like a crap hole with oil leaks. And its looks far better in this pic then in the one I did before. The Iranians are not up to our standards and never will be. I'm not downplaying the threat. All I'm saying is its manageable. The only reason they survived their war against Saddam is cause they still had a western air force with western equipment and pilots trained by us.
Of course all that changes if they get nukes. And its not just nukes they are shooting for. Its the entire production chain of nukes/delivery systems they are striving to produce. Thats means from A to Z they want to be able to build in-house everything needed to produce and deliver nuclear weapons. From mining uranium to bombs to missiles to targeting systems. Everything!
I'm not quite sure what you are going for, but cherry picking one single base from the branch of the military that is the least important to Iran is seriously flawed logic.
Iranian military doctrine puts absolutely no importance on power projection at sea, except defensively. The most capable surface unit they currently have is a single Destroyer the Jamaran, which is on par (but less capable than) the Oliver Hazard Perry class of U.S Frigates.
There are currently less active duty Iranian sailors in their entire Navy than the complement of 3 US carriers.
Honestly, all this bravado about bombing Iran is stupendously illogical. Just like their bravado. They are no threat whatsoever to our way of life, and have never started a war in their entire history, to boot. Both Irans' and the United States' religious fringe should be eviscerated for both country's collective good.
-
Honestly, all this bravado about bombing Iran is stupendously illogical. Just like their bravado. They are no threat whatsoever to our way of life, and have never started a war in their entire history, to boot. Both Irans' and the United States' religious fringe should be eviscerated for both country's collective good.
:aok
-
Cobalt 60 has a half-life of around 5 years I believe. But when talking half-lives, you have to remember, Co60 would then no longer be radioactive at that 5 year mark. However, considering your common topsoil is radioactive, how long before that same Co60 would be as radioactive as soil, or a banana, or a TV set, or computer screen, or a granite counter top, etc.?
The Cobalt-60 would be radioactive for far longer than roughly 5 years, in that time only half of the of the cobalt would be gone.
In fact after 20 years some 6% would still remain, and still radioactive.....
-
The only reason they survived their war against Saddam is cause they still had a western air force with western equipment and pilots trained by us.
You'll find the only real reason they lost the first gulf war against Saddam was because of intervention by Reagan backing Saddam
Honestly, all this bravado about bombing Iran is stupendously illogical. Just like their bravado. They are no threat whatsoever to our way of life, and have never started a war in their entire history, to boot. Both Irans' and the United States' religious fringe should be eviscerated for both country's collective good.
What he said, and considering the history between the US and Iran its not exactly rocket surgery that they wouldn't be in the slightest interested being open about anything
Tronsky
-
You'll find the only real reason they lost the first gulf war against Saddam was because of intervention by Reagan backing Saddam
Haha. This is a good one. One of my favorites.
Its true we supplied Saddam with Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. Its also true we sold him some non-militarized helicopters and trucks. The US, however, did not sell him any weapons. Want to pin that one on somebody? Then blame the French of Russians who sold him as much as he could pay for. Saddam survived That war due to Arab money and Russian/French weapons. But nobody blames the French for all the Mirages and Exocets do they? :rofl Or the Russians for all the Migs, combat helicopters, artillery, tanks, rifles, Scuds. Oh precious, oh my precious.
What he said, and considering the history between the US and Iran its not exactly rocket surgery that they wouldn't be in the slightest interested being open about anything
Well the concern is since they have dribbled countless times how much they want to strike down the "Great Satan", as in "us", and the Israelis, "whom they usually refer to as "dogs", is that once they get all these nukes, long range missiles, advanced targeting systems, is that they will then use them.
This is a country ran by a bunch of Lunatics and fanatics mind you. A religious Dictatorship that didn't think twice to send their own little Kids dancing thru minefields to clear the fields for their infantry. :huh
Most maniacs will tell you beforehand what they will eventually do. BinLadin did. Hitler did. Stalin did. All of them usually do. And yet we keep thinking the next one in line is just talking smack.
-
Maybe you should re-read my post then. Oh BTW, I'll say it again, this base is home to their Kilo class SSKs. Their most important naval assets in the Gulf.
But the point I made was, and you see this looking at all their bases, is this is no NATO standard military machine we are facing with Iran. While they have some decent systems they have very little experience in using them in cooridinated operations. This picture describe, at best, an upper 3rd world military machine. Not even on the level of Turkey who has the advantage of Yank/NATO influence, weapons, training,dotrine, support.
I'm not quite sure what you are going for, but cherry picking one single base from the branch of the military that is the least important to Iran is seriously flawed logic.
Iranian military doctrine puts absolutely no importance on power projection at sea, except defensively. The most capable surface unit they currently have is a single Destroyer the Jamaran, which is on par (but less capable than) the Oliver Hazard Perry class of U.S Frigates.
There are currently less active duty Iranian sailors in their entire Navy than the complement of 3 US carriers.
Honestly, all this bravado about bombing Iran is stupendously illogical. Just like their bravado. They are no threat whatsoever to our way of life, and have never started a war in their entire history, to boot. Both Irans' and the United States' religious fringe should be eviscerated for both country's collective good.
-
Well the concern is since they have dribbled countless times how much they want to strike down the "Great Satan", as in "us", and the Israelis, "whom they usually refer to as "dogs", is that once they get all these nukes, long range missiles, advanced targeting systems, is that they will then use them.
how is this any different from Bush (fully convinced that God is on his side) labelling their entire nation "Evil", and the numerous thinly veiled threats of devastating military action against Iran?
indeed, how is nutjobs in Iran chanting "death to america" any different from nutjobs in the US advocating "turn the whole middle east to glass" and similar?
-
how is this any different from Bush (fully convinced that God is on his side) labelling their entire nation "Evil", and the numerous thinly veiled threats of devastating military action against Iran?
indeed, how is nutjobs in Iran chanting "death to america" any different from nutjobs in the US advocating "turn the whole middle east to glass" and similar?
Exactly, all this hype about attacking Iran?? So what they hate us or Israel, so did the russians yet we are all still here. Iran may have some crazy guy as the face but when it comes down to it the Clerics controlling him still want control so they will not allow him to do something stupid like nuke the US or Israel.
Can anyone explain why we care so much about Israel, is it the lobbist, money, ect? They have nothing we want, can offer us nothing but pain and headaches, catch their spies on a monthly basis. I just don't get why we would allow ourselves to get into another war just because someone is threatening Israel...
-
how is this any different from Bush (fully convinced that God is on his side) labelling their entire nation "Evil", and the numerous thinly veiled threats of devastating military action against Iran?
indeed, how is nutjobs in Iran chanting "death to america" any different from nutjobs in the US advocating "turn the whole middle east to glass" and similar?
oh jebus, you have to laugh at thoughts like this. :lol :lol :lol
-
if you cant follow the simple analogy then, yes, laughing is another option ...
-
You are really going to put Bush and Ahmadinejad on the same page? Pres. Bush never said that Iran should be turned to glass but Ahmadinejad has publically threatened Israel with genocide several times, he has denied the Holocaust happened and continued to build nuclear facilities.
-
although there are interesting similarities I guess the biggest difference is that while ahmedinejad appears to be all talk, bush actually went ahead and invaded 2 foreign nations at a cost of (very conservative estimate here) 200,000 lives. so, no I wouldnt put them on the same page.
-
Appears to be talk..... It's only talk to you since you don't live down the street from him right?
-
Russia's enrichment plan proposal is the only compromise that is going to be pursued with Obama in office, Bush was in favor of this also. But any military option being used while Obama is in office just isn't going to happen.
-
Cobalt 60 has a half-life of around 5 years I believe. But when talking half-lives, you have to remember, Co60 would then no longer be radioactive at that 5 year mark. However, considering your common topsoil is radioactive, how long before that same Co60 would be as radioactive as soil, or a banana, or a TV set, or computer screen, or a granite counter top, etc.?
It was a movie quote... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0
-
The Cobalt-60 would be radioactive for far longer than roughly 5 years, in that time only half of the of the cobalt would be gone.
In fact after 20 years some 6% would still remain, and still radioactive.....
Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.27 years. Which means, at less than the date of 5.27 years later, the Co60 would be at the same radioactive levels as many common substances we come into contact with everyday. The original point being, while it does take an incredibly long time for a radioactive substance to lose that radioactivity all together, it does not take nearly as long to reach the same radioactive levels as topsoil, or granite, etc.
-
Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.27 years. Which means, at less than the date of 5.27 years later, the Co60 would be at the same radioactive levels as many common substances we come into contact with everyday.
That is overly simplified IMO. That all depends on the quantity of CO-60.
If you had 1 gram, then after 5.27 yrs, 1/2 of that gram would be CO-60, the other 1/2 it's decay product.
then in another 5.27 years, 1/2 of that 1/2 gram of remaining CO-60 would be it's decay product, leaving you with 1/4 of the original amount. and so on and so on.
If the quantity was small, the total radiation dose after 1 half-life could indeed be at or below the background radiation level, however, if you had a large quantity, it would still be deadly radioactive, especially in the case of CO60 due to it's gamma ray emissions.
No, I do not work in the nuclear industry, but I was trained a few years ago, as a member of a volunteer urban SAR team, on radiological detection and monitoring....
Sol
-
That is overly simplified IMO. That all depends on the quantity of CO-60.
If you had 1 gram, then after 5.27 yrs, 1/2 of that gram would be CO-60, the other 1/2 it's decay product.
then in another 5.27 years, 1/2 of that 1/2 gram of remaining CO-60 would be it's decay product, leaving you with 1/4 of the original amount. and so on and so on.
If the quantity was small, the total radiation dose after 1 half-life could indeed be at or below the background radiation level, however, if you had a large quantity, it would still be deadly radioactive, especially in the case of CO60 due to it's gamma ray emissions.
No, I do not work in the nuclear industry, but I was trained a few years ago, as a member of a volunteer urban SAR team, on radiological detection and monitoring....
Sol
With the amount that could be attained for use in a simple dirty bomb, and the spread of the Co60, I was trying to get across how low of an impact that would have on public safety.
-
Actually, frighteningly high amounts of Co60 could be acquired relatively easily (as compared to other radioactive/nuclear material). Co60 is used in large quantites for such applications as industrial radiography, food irradiation for sterilization purposes, and radiation teletherapy machines in hospitals. In the case of industrial radiography, the activity of the source in many cases is high enough to cause fatal radiation sickness (500REM or so) in a matter of minutes. I will look for the specific NRC and or IAEA document referring to several fatal incidents with industrial radiography equipment if you like. And unfortunately, most of the sources are in factories which are NOT well guarded. Most consist of a gate guard or 2, being paid 10 bucks an hour or less.... usually unarmed. Not hard to get past those folks. The hardest thing would be to shield the source during removal and transport, and even this could be accomplished by someone with the know how, or someone who simpy does not care if they live or not.
Sol
-
Oops double post
-
Actually, frighteningly high amounts of Co60 could be acquired relatively easily (as compared to other radioactive/nuclear material). Co60 is used in large quantites for such applications as industrial radiography, food irradiation for sterilization purposes, and radiation teletherapy machines in hospitals. In the case of industrial radiography, the activity of the source in many cases is high enough to cause fatal radiation sickness (500REM or so) in a matter of minutes. I will look for the specific NRC and or IAEA document referring to several fatal incidents with industrial radiography equipment if you like. And unfortunately, most of the sources are in factories which are NOT well guarded. Most consist of a gate guard or 2, being paid 10 bucks an hour or less.... usually unarmed. Not hard to get past those folks. The hardest thing would be to shield the source during removal and transport, and even this could be accomplished by someone with the know how, or someone who simpy does not care if they live or not.
Sol
I posted one such incident earlier in this thread. It is quite a common one as well. I wouldn't like to get into specifics, but as far as shielding goes, for a safety in transportation aspect, it would not be difficult at all for someone, requiring almost no special materials or tools.
-
A few documents on irradiator incidents with Co-60 sources.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html) This one gave 2200Rem in under 25 minutes, with a 65kCi source (not an uncommon activity)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html)
These are jsut a few of many. IMO a dirty bomb would be much more than jsut the "annoyance" that could be cleaned up. Granted, the dispersal of lethal levels would not be that great, but you WOULD have a high number of casualties near the blast site, due to the possible activities involved, and the time it would take to evacuate persons from the area, while keeping the dose to the first responders to a reasonable level.
Sol
Heck, back in 1995 a teenager managed to nearly build a working breeder reactor in his back yard, to earn a boy scout merit badge! :O
While he did not create a functioning reactor, he did acquire and amass a LARGE quantity of radioactive material, and built several devices leading up to the breeder, such as a neutron gun for transmutation of radioactive elements
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html)
Kinda scary a teenager could do that, imagine what a determined, well funded, terrorist could come up with.
-
A few documents on irradiator incidents with Co-60 sources.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html) This one gave 2200Rem in under 25 minutes, with a 65kCi source (not an uncommon activity)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html)
These are jsut a few of many. IMO a dirty bomb would be much more than jsut the "annoyance" that could be cleaned up. Granted, the dispersal of lethal levels would not be that great, but you WOULD have a high number of casualties near the blast site, due to the possible activities involved, and the time it would take to evacuate persons from the area, while keeping the dose to the first responders to a reasonable level.
Sol
From some of the projections I have seen, one of the biggest impacts would be the cost of cleanup, especially considering the level of regulations one would have to deal with. Death would always be a possibility in such an attack, but mostly only for those who remained in "hot" areas. I know subway attacks have been the most feared location to have a dirty bomb attack. Supposedly there have many steps taken to respond to that in the U.S.
I never said it would be "just" an annoyance. I was arguing the point that a chemical or biological attack would be a much more dangerous attack. A dirty bomb would be absolutely nothing compared to Chernobyl.
Off topic, I had a conversation with an American who got to work on a cleanup effort at Chernobyl, he talked to one man involved in the inspection of the core of the plant. Inside, the nuclear fuel had melted, and taken on the appearance of lava, which is what they started calling it, the lava flow. There was a hole in a wall, and on the other side of that wall, was the lava flow. He was there to inspect it, so he put his head in front of the hole to take a quick look. He said he could feel the radiation hitting his eyes and skin, that it felt like "tingling."
With a dirty bomb as by most common definition, we'd not even be dealing with 1% of those radiation levels. A bomb is never a safe thing, and throw in some radiological contamination, it just makes it nastier. But not nearly the threat posed by chemical or biological weapons.
-
From some of the projections I have seen, one of the biggest impacts would be the cost of cleanup, especially considering the level of regulations one would have to deal with. Death would always be a possibility in such an attack, but mostly only for those who remained in "hot" areas. I know subway attacks have been the most feared location to have a dirty bomb attack. Supposedly there have many steps taken to respond to that in the U.S.
I never said it would be "just" an annoyance. I was arguing the point that a chemical or biological attack would be a much more dangerous attack. A dirty bomb would be absolutely nothing compared to Chernobyl.
Off topic, I had a conversation with an American who got to work on a cleanup effort at Chernobyl, he talked to one man involved in the inspection of the core of the plant. Inside, the nuclear fuel had melted, and taken on the appearance of lava, which is what they started calling it, the lava flow. There was a hole in a wall, and on the other side of that wall, was the lava flow. He was there to inspect it, so he put his head in front of the hole to take a quick look. He said he could feel the radiation hitting his eyes and skin, that it felt like "tingling."
With a dirty bomb as by most common definition, we'd not even be dealing with 1% of those radiation levels. A bomb is never a safe thing, and throw in some radiological contamination, it just makes it nastier. But not nearly the threat posed by chemical or biological weapons.
Agreed, Chemical attacks certainly have a higher liklihood of a higher number of immediate casualties. And no, a "dirty bomb" would not have the activity of the "lava" in the lower levels of Chernobyl, (unless they managed to get ahold of high level nuc waste), however, a dirty bomb is a real threat, and along with the immediate casualties, you also must consider long-term casualties, illness, economic impact, and psychological injuries. Most of the public fears radiation much more than a chem weapon. Not sure WHY this is, but it is. A terrorists goal is included in the title, to terrorize. As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.
Sol
-
Agreed, Chemical attacks certainly have a higher liklihood of a higher number of immediate casualties. And no, a "dirty bomb" would not have the activity of the "lava" in the lower levels of Chernobyl, (unless they managed to get ahold of high level nuc waste), however, a dirty bomb is a real threat, and along with the immediate casualties, you also must consider long-term casualties, illness, economic impact, and psychological injuries. Most of the public fears radiation much more than a chem weapon. Not sure WHY this is, but it is. A terrorists goal is included in the title, to terrorize. As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.
Sol
Even Chernobyl had a very low initial death toll. Most of the initial deaths were caused by the non-nuclear explosion. The next deaths were volunteer first responders who would literally walk up to a pile of fuel that had been ejected from the explosion, and throw lead on top of it. Those volunteers usually would not make it back to safety before the radiation killed them. And the death toll 10 and 20 years after the accident is also much lower than people think.
-
Well things could always be worse..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8375560.stm
:D
-
As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.
Sol
And, honestly, by you worrying your pretty little head about it, they've already completed their mission.
-
Who says i am worried?
Aware and concerned is another matter. Does it make me think of what to do if it happens? Absolutely. Preserving the life of my family is my no 1 purpose in life. Does it make me afraid? Or change how i live my day to day life? Absolutely not!
-
Sol,
Would you agree any senior machinist could build a gun type device given enough material?
What about a implosion type, I have looked over the some of the technology behind that. I think after a few calculus classes I could under stand the math behind it. Apart from that I know I could build one given the material and tools needed. Its not hard to build a working device, perhaps an efficient one would be different.
It is scary tho, your link for the kid is the same as one of the others you quoted, kinda curious to read that one.
Strip
-
It's just absolutely amazing we have gone all this time without one single nuclear attack in any form since Japan. Says something to the general good of human kind I believe.
-
Either type of device could be built. However the precisiin required for an implosion type would be fairly diffucult to achieve. A gun type however is basically 2 subcrutical chunks hurled together by rapidly by a gunpowder charge diwn what amounts to a gun barrel. The main problem to overcome there would be to have a fast enough insertion time to get enough multiplications before dussasembly. Gun type akso will only work with uranium core, due to the problem of plutoniums spotaneous fission rate causing predetonation before full assembly could be achieved, thus resulting in a fizzle (extremely low to no yeild)
Btw forgive the typos. I am posting from my ipod touch
-
The timers/initiators would be the hardest part to acquire given the fact that relays of that grade are heavily restricted.
In terms of mechanical precision the new machines out these days could tackle that no sweat.
Strip
-
I was referring to the electronic precision timing and such
I still think a gun type would be more feasable for an "amateur"
-
Haha. This is a good one. One of my favorites.
Its true we supplied Saddam with Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. Its also true we sold him some non-militarized helicopters and trucks. The US, however, did not sell him any weapons. Want to pin that one on somebody? Then blame the French of Russians who sold him as much as he could pay for. Saddam survived That war due to Arab money and Russian/French weapons. But nobody blames the French for all the Mirages and Exocets do they? :rofl Or the Russians for all the Migs, combat helicopters, artillery, tanks, rifles, Scuds. Oh precious, oh my precious.
Well the concern is since they have dribbled countless times how much they want to strike down the "Great Satan", as in "us", and the Israelis, "whom they usually refer to as "dogs", is that once they get all these nukes, long range missiles, advanced targeting systems, is that they will then use them.
This is a country ran by a bunch of Lunatics and fanatics mind you. A religious Dictatorship that didn't think twice to send their own little Kids dancing thru minefields to clear the fields for their infantry. :huh
Most maniacs will tell you beforehand what they will eventually do. BinLadin did. Hitler did. Stalin did. All of them usually do. And yet we keep thinking the next one in line is just talking smack.
Actually the direct support of the Iraqis during "Tanker War" phase was far more instrumental in denying the ability for Iran to continue the war. They were virtually bankrupted, whilst the Iraqi's were guaranteed movement of their oil through the gulf and eventually the US navy took direct action against Iranian oil facilities and platforms. The tanker war having been initiated by Iraq when a desperate Saddam had been almost cut off from the gulf by the Iranians & having lost all the the territory gained during the Iraqi invasion, and with the Iranians on the offensive refusing to talk peace.
The Russians and French supplied conventional weapons to the Iraqi's, the Israeli's supplied weapons to the Iranians, the Americans Germans French and British all supplied Iraq chemical weapons and technology, Reagan supplied Intel, military advisers, munitions, and financial support.
There are numerous reasons the Iranians are resentful against the United States that go a little deeper than the usual Fox News level of reasoning.
Tronsky
-
Actually the direct support of the Iraqis during "Tanker War" phase was far more instrumental in denying the ability for Iran to continue the war. They were virtually bankrupted, whilst the Iraqi's were guaranteed movement of their oil through the gulf and eventually the US navy took direct action against Iranian oil facilities and platforms. The tanker war having been initiated by Iraq when a desperate Saddam had been almost cut off from the gulf by the Iranians & having lost all the the territory gained during the Iraqi invasion, and with the Iranians on the offensive refusing to talk peace.
The Russians and French supplied conventional weapons to the Iraqi's, the Israeli's supplied weapons to the Iranians, the Americans Germans French and British all supplied Iraq chemical weapons and technology, Reagan supplied Intel, military advisers, munitions, and financial support.
There are numerous reasons the Iranians are resentful against the United States that go a little deeper than the usual Fox News level of reasoning.
Tronsky
Munitions? What kind of munitions? Name them!
Most of Saddam's dual use technology came from west Europe, Russia, and Switzerland. You cant just pin it on the US. Had Saddam lost that war, and Iran's revolution taken over the Gulf, what then for our oil supply? Our economies?
You need to go back to History class. The US decision to escort oil tankers during the tanker war had everything to do with protecting the west's oil supply and nothing to do with helping anybody.
At the time, as bad as Saddam was, he never engineered the hostile takeover of an American embassy. An internationally accepted "Act of War". I was in the MidEast under arms at the time.
Where were you?
-
Most of Saddam's dual use technology came from west Europe, Russia, and Switzerland. You cant just pin it on the US. Had Saddam lost that war, and Iran's revolution taken over the Gulf, what then for our oil supply? Our economies?
Well... Saddam invaded Iran not the other way around.
You need to go back to History class.
*Cough.
-
Well... Saddam invaded Iran not the other way around.
*Cough.
Go back to your nap. You dont even know what it is were talking about.
You'll find the only real reason they lost the first gulf war against Saddam was because of intervention by Reagan backing Saddam
Most of the world would hear this idiotic statement and probably agree. They cant say 'why" they would agree, or give you any facts. But they have been conditioned to repeat anti-US sentiment so thoroughly, like a bunch of Dodos en route to extinction, that they agree unconditionally. Even mind screwed Americans will look at their shoes in guilt.
While we did sell him some dual use tech. And while our Allies did transfer some low tech US military equipment to him, and while we did supply him with some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. It was all minuscule compared to the billions of dollars the French and Russians made selling him, "actually the French sold to both Iraq and Iran". :lol, to win stalemate in his war with Iran. Funded by his Arab brothers, using the guns the Frnech and Russians sold him, and the blood of his soldiers. That was the primary reason Saddam survived.
Russia supplied 50% of Saddam's arms. The French over 20 b of Mirages, attack aircraft, missiles, nuclear reactors :huh. While the US had some complicity the Soviets and French made a fortune selling Saddam arms for his war. They sold him entire mechanized armies, entire Air Forces, entire Rocket forces, an entire nuclear industry. They sold him the entire delivery systems for his huge chemical/Bio capacity he then had.
The Iraqi army is also well-equipped with what is considered to be the best artillery weapon in the world, the French-made 155 mm howitzer. The Iraqi army used its 155 mm guns during its war with Iran to fire chemical weapons as well as a large array of conventional munitions.
The biggest weapons supplier to Iraq is Russia. Iraq reportedly still owes Russia over $4 billion for arms purchases in the past 20 years. Obviously, if Saddam Hussein is removed from power, Russia is not likely to be paid for the past weapons sales.
The vast majority of Iraq's air force consists of Russian-made jet fighters. Iraq has nearly 200 Russian-made jet fighters including MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, Sukhoi SU-22 and Sukhoi SU-25 interceptors.
The Iraqi army is equipped with hundreds of Russian artillery pieces, rocket launchers, BMP armored vehicles, T-55 and T-72 tanks and Scud missiles. Most of Iraq's chemical arsenal, estimated at around 200 tons of nerve gas and mustard gas, is fired from Russian-made weapons.
In addition, U.N. inspectors recently discovered empty rocket warheads designed to deploy nerve gas. The rocket warheads in question are part of a Russian missile system sold to Iraq.
The telltale sign that Al-Musayyib is a chemical weapons facility was the presence of Russian-made chemical decontamination vehicles that arrived to assist technicians dressed in Hazmat suits. It is only logical to conclude that the Iraqis were concerned for their safety, because one does not put on a Hazmat suit in the desert for the fun of it.
Saddam turned to Europe and China in order to construct his chemical weapons production facilities. German and Chinese chemical manufacturing equipment has been purchased over the years and embedded into the Iraqi commercial infrastructure. The intent was to make these facilities as civilian-looking as possible.
Israeli citizens discovered during the Gulf War that German-made electronics systems were found inside Scud missiles fired at Tel Aviv.
The German electronics allowed Iraq to modify the Scud missiles, making them more accurate, cheaper to produce and much more deadly.
Saddam also turned to China in order to purchase the very finest in weapon systems. Iraq purchased a number of Chengdu F-7 fighter jets from Beijing and has managed to trans-ship spare parts made in China for its force of F-7 and MiG-21 fighters through illegal front companies in Jordan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
China also supplied Iraq with a large number of T-55 and T-58 tanks equipped with modern night-vision gun sights and laser range-finding systems.
This is the same China BTW that is currently Irans largest arms supplier. :huh http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/134858.shtml
-
Ohh man I got a picture of me postin next to teh Iranian border somewhere ! pic inc soon!
-
Go back to your nap. You dont even know what it is were talking about.
Most of the world would hear this idiotic statement and probably agree. They cant say 'why" they would agree, or give you any facts. But they have been conditioned to repeat anti-US sentiment so thoroughly, like a bunch of Dodos en route to extinction, that they agree unconditionally. Even mind screwed Americans will look at their shoes in guilt.
Actually, Die Hard is quite correct. The initial invasion of Iran by Iraq (the whole mess that started their war) was initially successful and Iraq had captured large amounts of Iranian territory. The Iraqi offensive stalled and by 1982, the Iranians were able to recapture virtually of its lost territory and invade Iraq.
Chronology of U.S. Involvement
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
If it wasn't for the US normalizing relations with Iraq, lobbying on its behalf for monetary loans, getting the Gulf States to give billions, having our allies sell Iraq US military equipment, turning a blind eye when US companies would sell 'dual use' equipment and military assistance, Iraq would not have been able to survive. Our excuse of using the Tanker War to enforce 'freedom of navigation' in the Gulf was just a cover for the real reason and that was ensure the flow of Iraqi oil. Iraq was pretty much unable to ship their oil through the Gulf or through the only other way, which was an oil pipeline that went through Syria. The Syrians, an ally of Iran, shut down the pipeline and denied Iraq a way of getting its oil out.
At the time, as bad as Saddam was, he never engineered the hostile takeover of an American embassy. An internationally accepted "Act of War". I was in the MidEast under arms at the time.
Where were you?
What's the got to do with anything? Being an enlisted man in the region at the time doesn't give you an extra insight as to what happened, it's not like you were in a command staff position that was privy to better information. Didn't you claim to be in the USAF Air Police? So, what's your military service have to do with anything related to this discussion?
ack-ack
-
Actually, Die Hard is quite correct. The initial invasion of Iran by Iraq (the whole mess that started their war) was initially successful and Iraq had captured large amounts of Iranian territory. The Iraqi offensive stalled and by 1982, the Iranians were able to recapture virtually of its lost territory and invade Iraq.
Chronology of U.S. Involvement
September, 1980. Iraq invades Iran. The beginning of the Iraq-Iran war.
February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.
December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.
1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments.
November, 1983. A National Security Directive states that the U.S would do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran.
November, 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians.
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support.
July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.
January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.
March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons.
May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.
May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.
March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.
Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.
February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
August, 1988. Iraq and Iran declare a cease fire.
August, 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds.
September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.
September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: "The US-Iraqi relationship is... important to our long-term political and economic objectives."
December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.
If it wasn't for the US normalizing relations with Iraq, lobbying on its behalf for monetary loans, getting the Gulf States to give billions, having our allies sell Iraq US military equipment, turning a blind eye when US companies would sell 'dual use' equipment and military assistance, Iraq would not have been able to survive. Our excuse of using the Tanker War to enforce 'freedom of navigation' in the Gulf was just a cover for the real reason and that was ensure the flow of Iraqi oil. Iraq was pretty much unable to ship their oil through the Gulf or through the only other way, which was an oil pipeline that went through Syria. The Syrians, an ally of Iran, shut down the pipeline and denied Iraq a way of getting its oil out.
What's the got to do with anything? Being an enlisted man in the region at the time doesn't give you an extra insight as to what happened, it's not like you were in a command staff position that was privy to better information. Didn't you claim to be in the USAF Air Police? So, what's your military service have to do with anything related to this discussion?
ack-ack
Argue with that, A.K.A "The Truth", Rich46. Ack hit it right on the head. Your position is flawed beyond saving.
-
April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.
August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925.
One would probably think these two would be enough for the U.S. to nuke anyone, had, say China supplied anything like ingredients for poison gas, to another country that consequently used them to kill 65,000 of our soldiers in one month. Tell me, Why would they hate us again? :rolleyes:
-
aha, plus no one has mentioned the three letters which would be reason alone for an iranian to dislike the US - C, I and A ...
-
Argue with that, A.K.A "The Truth", Rich46. Ack hit it right on the head. Your position is flawed beyond saving.
He won't reply now that he's been proven yet again to be wrong.
ack-ack
-
Munitions? What kind of munitions? Name them!
Most of Saddam's dual use technology came from west Europe, Russia, and Switzerland. You cant just pin it on the US. Had Saddam lost that war, and Iran's revolution taken over the Gulf, what then for our oil supply? Our economies?
You need to go back to History class. The US decision to escort oil tankers during the tanker war had everything to do with protecting the west's oil supply and nothing to do with helping anybody.
At the time, as bad as Saddam was, he never engineered the hostile takeover of an American embassy. An internationally accepted "Act of War". I was in the MidEast under arms at the time.
Where were you?
There was Fred the bomb, Marge the Artillery piece, I do apologise to the Germans French and British for also having mentioned them as suppliers of chem weapons....as for History class thats just going to fall into name calling about a lack of history class all around...
I appreciate that you were in Iran when I was 9 in 1979 when the Iranians more than just a little pissed that Carter allowed the Shah into the US, I seem to remember that quite recently even - nations get really pissed off when you shelter a man like the Shah.
aha, plus no one has mentioned the three letters which would be reason alone for an iranian to dislike the US - C, I and A ...
I prefer the great Satan stuff...its far more...palatable?
Tronsky
-
I cant argue with people I have on ignore now can I?
But what weapons were on those helicopters? Those vehicles? Answer me that one? Heres the mighty defender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_500_Defender Now take all weapons off it and thats what we sold Saddam. :lol
Everything else I covered. My only point was our military involvment with Saddam was negligable compared to Frances, or Russias. Which sold him vast amounts of military hardware. Vast amounts of nuclear technology. If you'd like, and if it would sound more impressive, I could post a bunch of dates too to make myself look smarter then i am.
You would think there would be more material about all these arms transfers, like there is about 60 unarmed scout helicopters, but the world needs its USA phobia fix far more then its French one. Or its Russian one. "America made Saddam" was a catchy phrase even if supported by very little fact.
The Russians saved Saddam. And the French. Then they kept him in so he could pay the bills. Heres the rough breakdown. http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26%
France 5595 12.74%
China 5192 11.82%
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56%
Poland 1681 3.83%
Brazil 724 1.65%
Egypt 568 1.29%
Romania 524 1.19%
Denmark 226 0.51%
Libya 200 0.46%
USA 200 0.46%
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
We sold him even less the Denmark did. So get a freaking life.
-
Add the $5 billion that America transfered trough Italian banks in "unreported loans" and we're right up there with France.
-
I cant argue with people I have on ignore now can I?
But what weapons were on those helicopters? Those vehicles? Answer me that one? Heres the mighty defender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_500_Defender Now take all weapons off it and thats what we sold Saddam. :lol
Everything else I covered. My only point was our military involvment with Saddam was negligable compared to Frances, or Russias. Which sold him vast amounts of military hardware. Vast amounts of nuclear technology. If you'd like, and if it would sound more impressive, I could post a bunch of dates too to make myself look smarter then i am.
You would think there would be more material about all these arms transfers, like there is about 60 unarmed scout helicopters, but the world needs its USA phobia fix far more then its French one. Or its Russian one. "America made Saddam" was a catchy phrase even if supported by very little fact.
The Russians saved Saddam. And the French. Then they kept him in so he could pay the bills. Heres the rough breakdown. http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html
You always have to love sources that start with The purpose of this post is to address one of the many mythical claims about the United States popularized by some Leftists who would have us believe that the United States is the cause of most of what is wrong with the world.
You could try this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/): Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
Of course my original point had nothing to do with weapon purchases...but with the economic effects of the tanker war...but you cant argue with people you have on ignore now can you?
Tronsky
-
See Rule #4
-
I cant argue with people I have on ignore now can I?
But what weapons were on those helicopters? Those vehicles? Answer me that one? Heres the mighty defender http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_500_Defender Now take all weapons off it and thats what we sold Saddam. :lol
Everything else I covered. My only point was our military involvment with Saddam was negligable compared to Frances, or Russias. Which sold him vast amounts of military hardware. Vast amounts of nuclear technology. If you'd like, and if it would sound more impressive, I could post a bunch of dates too to make myself look smarter then i am.
You would think there would be more material about all these arms transfers, like there is about 60 unarmed scout helicopters, but the world needs its USA phobia fix far more then its French one. Or its Russian one. "America made Saddam" was a catchy phrase even if supported by very little fact.
The Russians saved Saddam. And the French. Then they kept him in so he could pay the bills. Heres the rough breakdown. http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001853.html
Country $MM USD 1990 % Total
USSR 25145 57.26%
France 5595 12.74%
China 5192 11.82%
Czechoslovakia 2880 6.56%
Poland 1681 3.83%
Brazil 724 1.65%
Egypt 568 1.29%
Romania 524 1.19%
Denmark 226 0.51%
Libya 200 0.46%
USA 200 0.46%
South Africa 192 0.44
Austria 190 0.43
Switzerland 151 0.34
Yugoslavia 107 0.24
Germany (FRG) 84 0.19
Italy 84 0.19
UK 79 0.18
Hungary 30 0.07
Spain 29 0.07
East Germany (GDR) 25 0.06
Canada 7 0.02
Jordan 2 0.005
Total 43915 100.0
We sold him even less the Denmark did. So get a freaking life.
sometimes I really wonder if you're really this dense.
The Hughes helicopters sold to Iraq were considered duel use equipment. We'd sell them as 'civilian' equipment and once the Iraqis received them, they'd get converted to military use. It's a very common trick we use to skirt around certain legalities to sell weapons to other countries. The same way we sold them equipment and technology for their chemical weapons. If you had bothered to read more about the Hughes helicopter transfers, you would have read how they were converted to military use after they were purchased and how South Korea was contracted to do the work.
If you also read anything else about our involvement, you would see how we were instrumental in getting Iraq loans from various world organizations and countries to help fund their war and how we protected their oil shipping during the 'tanker war'. You would have also read how we gave direct military advise on both the strategic and tactical level with military advisors serving on the front lines and planning the day to day strategic bombing campaign.
Without US support, Iraq would not have been able to purchase the weapons they needed, gotten the military assistance and backing they needed nor the world support at first (prior to their rampant use of chemical weapons). You can stick your head in the sand and ignore reality but it still doesn't make you correct when documented facts refute every single one of your points.
ack-ack
-
Rich, it's unreal the sources you pick. Perhaps, I should say idiotic, in reality. I guess you are saying that all the documents contained within the United States are frauds, both governmental and from the private sector.
It seems your local Dept. of Transportation knows you. I found this driving past your house.
(http://blog.trustoncorp.com/ostrich_20head_20in_20sand_20sign.gif)
I'd say your pretty idiotic yourself. Like Tronsky you make accusations you cant back up. And dont back up.
I picked that source because it is the correct rough estimate of who supplied Saddam's military hardware during his rule. Tronsky cant name the munitions cause we didn't sell him any. You doing the typical Moray by calling everyone else in the world stupid even tho you saw for yourself, probably in your own living room, countless video clips of what kind of equipment Saddam's army was using.
Heres the equipment Saddam armed his ground forces with. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment.htm
Heres a link you can figure out where Saddam got all his dedicated hardware for his nuclear programs. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/nuke.htm Think of it as your homework assignment since you cant play nice or back up your ridiculous statements.
Much of Saddam's chem/Bio programs were fueled by western/Russian sales of dual use technology. Apparently much of the same equipment for medical use can be used to produce these weapons as well. I dont see how you can say "no" to a developing country that wants to produce their own vaccines. Be that is it may many countries supplied Saddam with this stuff. There are over 40 countries in the world with either nuclear/chem/bio weapon programs, and/or current capability, and/or all three.
Here, since I have to spell it out for you. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm See any Yank warplanes?
Here http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment-intro.htm The equipment of the air force and the army's air corps, like that of the other services, was primarily of Soviet manufacture. After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq's overall airpower was considerable.
Saddams air defense http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence-equipment.htm By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities. These weapons -- 57-mm and 37-mm AAA pieces, ZSU-23/4 and ZSU-57/2 self-propelled AAA systems, and hundreds of 14.5-mm and 23-mm light antiaircraft weapons -- formed the backbone of the integrated air defense network. In major high value target areas (such as Baghdad, airfields, chemical agent production complexes, and nuclear facilities) the combined arms air defense could prove lethal to aircraft operating below 10,000 feet.
This entire argument is getting old. You can bombard people with the truth and yet they will stick to their conspiracy theories. Most of all when America is involved. Stalin had a name he reserved for foreign peoples who believed the Soviet line regarding their own country. He considered it very useful propaganda cause it was spread by his enemies and aimed at their own Govt.s . That term was "usefull fools".
Here, everyone likes pictures right? America sold Saddam these. :)
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/defender.jpg)
The Germans sold Saddam these. :neener:
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/german.jpg)
The French sold Saddam these. :headscratch:
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/french.jpg)
And these.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/french-2.jpg)
And The Russians sold Saddam these. :rofl
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/hind.jpg)
More snippets for the snippers. By the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq approached companies in the UK, West Germany, the Netherlands, and France for the necessary components for gas-centrifuge enrichment. These efforts had been only partially successful. It seems that the Iraqis had success in obtaining certain centrifuge types and made attempts to recruit experts on the development and construction of gas centrifuges in Iraq from Germany.
http://www.gloria-center.org/meria/2004/09/al-marashi.html
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq501/index.html BTW The Anfal campaign used French and Soviet aircraft and Helicopters to deliver its chemical weapons onto the Kuridsh civilian population.
-
I'd say your pretty idiotic yourself. Like Tronsky you make accusations you cant back up. And dont back up.
I picked that source because it is the correct rough estimate of who supplied Saddam's military hardware during his rule. Tronsky cant name the munitions cause we didn't sell him any. You doing the typical Moray by calling everyone else in the world stupid even tho you saw for yourself, probably in your own living room, countless video clips of what kind of equipment Saddam's army was using.
You could try this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/): Document 61: United States District Court (Florida: Southern District) Affidavit. "United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Carlos Cardoen [et al.]" [Charge that Teledyne Wah Chang Albany Illegally Provided a Proscribed Substance, Zirconium, to Cardoen Industries and to Iraq], January 31, 1995.
Former Reagan administration National Security Council staff member Howard Teicher says that after Ronald Reagan signed a national security decision directive calling for the U.S. to do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq's defeat in the Iran-Iraq war, Director of Central Intelligence William Casey personally led efforts to ensure that Iraq had sufficient weapons, including cluster bombs, and that the U.S. provided Iraq with financial credits, intelligence, and strategic military advice. The CIA also provided Iraq, through third parties that included Israel and Egypt, with military hardware compatible with its Soviet-origin weaponry.
Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992 http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/111402.htm (http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/111402.htm)
But there were other ways of arming Iraq. One such way - transferring arms through third countries - was outlined in a classified memo written by William L. Eagleton, the chief of the United States-interests section in Baghdad, in October, 1983. "We can selectively lift restrictions on third party transfers of U.S.- licensed military equipment to Iraq," he wrote. Even though the stated United States policy toward the Iran-Iraq War remained one of neutrality, and Congress would never have approved such arms transfers, that year the Reagan Administration began secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs, to Iraq. These shipments may very well have violated the Arms Export Control Act.
Of course my original point had nothing to do with weapon purchases...but with the economic effects of the tanker war.
Donations can be made to the American Foundation for the Blind at http://www.afb.org/ (http://www.afb.org/)
Tronsky
-
Whoops, didnt mean to post.
-
Go back to your nap. You dont even know what it is were talking about.
..
Most of the world would hear this idiotic statement and probably agree...
..
I'd say your pretty idiotic yourself
The happy old days of flaming and politics is back ?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Fonz_Pic.PNG)
-
Add the $5 billion that America transfered trough Italian banks in "unreported loans" and we're right up there with France.
Please provide proof of that.
-
Just google "BNL scandal".
-
Wow... a bunch of conspiracy sites. FAS is a conspiracy site that ranks right up there with the those pushing alarmist global warming theories.
-
So you actually failed at googling...
Try http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1992_cr/h920428g.htm unless you consider that a "conspiracy site" as well.
-
So you actually failed at googling...
Try http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1992_cr/h920428g.htm unless you consider that a "conspiracy site" as well.
You really are an ass.
The google results I pulled up did not have that result on the first page. Either way, if it is true, you said 5 billion. The site you listed says the total was $4 billion of which half went to industrial and agricultural concerns and the other 2 went to procurement. Very little on what was actually purchased though. Nice attempt at a 150% exaggeration though.
So, if it is true, the US gave the Iraqi's a questionable amount of money towards their military build up during and after their war with Iran. It says it ended in early 1990. We attacked and destroyed a large percentage of their military hardware in 91.... so basically we removed what we gave them.
-
Either way, if it is true, you said 5 billion. The site you listed says the total was $4 billion...
It says more than 4 billion. Other sources like the one Ack-Ack posted says 5.
...of which half went to industrial and agricultural concerns and the other 2 went to procurement.
Yes, agricultural products like pesticides and other dual-use chemicals...
So, if it is true, the US gave the Iraqi's a questionable amount of money towards their military build up during and after their war with Iran. It says it ended in early 1990. We attacked and destroyed a large percentage of their military hardware in 91.... so basically we removed what we gave them.
So did the French. QED.
-
So did the French. QED.
The French continually supplied military hardware and liquid cash through the embargo against Iraq, right up to the weeks before the beginning of Iraq War II.
-
Your turn: Please provide proof of that.
-
Well......they probably are engaged in weapon development using nuclear technology, however they ARE in a very turbulent area of the world, so i can understand why they would need to keep their military in good working order.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
That's the begginng of the reporting on the food for oil scandal. Start doing some searches of destroyed roland III AA launchers in Iraq. They weren't there in 91.
-
Getting to Political, deleted post.
But do check out the oil for food program. :lol And the Koffi-UN/French/Russian triumvirate.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html
That's the begginng of the reporting on the food for oil scandal. Start doing some searches of destroyed roland III AA launchers in Iraq. They weren't there in 91.
Faux-News = proof? Please.
The French exported 60 Roland systems to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. The Roland missile system has been exported to nine other countries including America.
"In October 2003, controversy erupted between Poland and France when Polish forces from the Multinational force in Iraq found French Roland surface-to-air missiles. Polish and international press reported that Polish officers claimed these missiles had been manufactured in 2003. France pointed out that the latest Roland missiles were manufactured in the early 1990s and thus the manufacturing date was necessarily an error (it turned out it was probably the expiry date that was indicated), and affirmed that it had never sold weapons to Iraq in violation of the embargo. Investigations by the Polish authorities came to the conclusion that the persons responsible for the scandal were low level commanders, Wojskowe Służby Informacyjne the Polish Army's intelligence had not verified their claims before they were leaked to the press. Poland apologized to France for the scandal, but these allegations against France worsened the already somewhat strained relationships between the two countries. The entire incident was called sarcastically "Rolandgate" by the Polish media, using the unofficial naming conventions of US political scandals after Watergate."
-
Look at the year of manufacture for the ROLAND III's that were found. Oh, and what about that nifty thing about the Food for oil scam, don't care to mention that?
-
Look at the year of manufacture for the ROLAND III's that were found.
If I show you a picture of a terrorist holding an M-16 is that proof that America is arming terrorists? Of course not. The Roland III missile started production in 1988. Please provide proof that the missiles found were Roland III's and that they were sold after 1991, and if so, that they were sold by the French and not one of the 10 other countries operating the missile system.
Oh, and what about that nifty thing about the Food for oil scam, don't care to mention that?
What has that got to do with selling weapons to Iraq? American companies were also involved in the scandal, so we can't claim innocence or the moral high ground.
-
What has that got to do with selling weapons to Iraq? American companies were also involved in the scandal, so we can't claim innocence or the moral high ground.
Really? And what part of the scandal were American companies part of?
In a nutshell http://www.meforum.org/716/iraq-and-the-importance-of-the-uns-oil-for-food The scam worked through a process of kickbacks. Hussein would sell oil at the low market price, which naturally attracted many investors who wanted to re-sell the oil at higher price. Hussein chose those with whom he would do business and those people in turn would give Hussein a slice of the profits. Accordingly, the money earmarked for the humanitarian needs of Iraqis went instead to whatever Hussein wanted. Hussein used some of this money to buy political influence in the Security Council and secretariat. Some of Hussein's biggest business partners were from China, France and Russia.
The "things" Saddam "wanted" was "weapons". He continued to purchase Russian made weapons despite the ambargo against him. The French were knee deep in the scam, not only for money, but to allow Saddam to pay back some of the money he still owed the French for the huge weapons purchases he still owed them.
The French And Russians basicallt kept Saddam in power so he could pay back the monies owed for the "Huge" purchases of weaponry he had bought. Including the huge nuclear reactor at Osirak, which the Israelis heavily damaged in an air strike. This reactor was of a design tailor made for the production of weapons grade material.
Interesting article of whom France is surrently trolling reactors to. http://wmdinsights.com/I24/I24_ME1_NewFrenchNuclear.htm
-
Really? And what part of the scandal were American companies part of?
Russia was by far the largest culprit with more than 270 companies/parties involved in the scandal. Companies from other nations were involved too, but to a much lesser degree:
Austria:
* The Arab-Austrian Society - 1 million barrels.
Belarus:
* Liberal Party - 1 million barrels
* The Communist Party of Belarus - 1 million barrels
Brazil:
* The 8th of October Movement, a Brazilian Communist group - 4.5 million barrels
Canada:
* Arthur Millholland, president and CEO of the Oilexco company
Yugoslav:
* The Yugoslav Left party - 9.5 million barrels
* The Socialist Party - 1 million barrels
* The Italian Party - 1 million barrels
* "kokstuntsha" - possibly Kostunica's party - 1 million barrels
Other parties:
* The Romanian Labor Party - 5.5 million barrels
* The Party of the Hungarian Interest - 4.7 million barrels
* The Bulgarian Socialist Party - 12 million barrels
* The Communist Party of Slovakia - 1 million barrels
France:
* The French-Arab Friendship Association - 15.1 million barrels
* Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua - 12 million barrels
* Patrick Maugein, the Trafigura company - 25 million barrels
* Michel Grimard, "founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club" - 17.1 million barrels.
Egypt:
* Khaled Gamal Abd Al-Nasser, "son of the late Egyptian president" - 16.6 million barrels
* Imad Al-Galda, "a businessman and a member of the Egyptian parliament from President Mubarak's National Democratic Party" - 14 million barrels
* Abd Al-Azim Mannaf, "editor of the Sout Al-Arab newspaper" - 6 million barrels
* Muhammad Hilmi, "editor of the Egyptian paper Sahwat Misr" - an undisclosed number of barrels.
* The United Arab Company - 6 million barrels
* The Nile and Euphrates Company - 3 million barrels
* The Al-Multaqa Foundation for Press and Publication - 1 million barrels.
Libya:
* Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem - 1 million barrels
India:
* The Indian Congress Party - 1 million barrels
Indonesia:
* Indonesian President Megawati - 1 million barrels
Italy:
* The Italian Petrol Union - 1 million barrels
* West Petrol, an Italian company that trades crude oil and oil products - 1 million barrels
* Roberto Formigoni, possibly the president of Lombardia - 1 million barrels
* Salvatore Nicotra, an oil merchant - 1 million barrels
Myanmar:
* Myanmar's Forestry Minister - 1 million barrels
Palestine:
* The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) - 4 million barrels
* The PLO Political Bureau - 5 million barrels
* Abu Al-Abbas - 11.5 million barrels
* Abdallah Al-Horani - 8 million barrels
* The PFLP - 5 million barrels
* Wafa Tawfiq Al-Sayegh - 4 million barrels
Qatar:
* Qatari Horseracing Association Chairman Hamad bin Ali Aal Thani - 14 million barrels
* Gulf Petroleum - 2 million barrels
Spain:
* Basem Qaqish, "a member of the Spanish Committee for the Defense of the Arab Cause" - 1 million barrels
* Ali Ballout, "a pro-Saddam Lebanese journalist" - 1 million barrels
* Javier Robert - 1 million barrels
Syria:
* Farras Mustafa Tlass, "the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass" - 6 million barrels
* Audh Amourah - 18 million barrels
* Ghassan Zakariya - 6 million barrels
* Anwar Al-Aqqad - 2 million barrels
* Hamida Na'Na', the owner of the Al-Wafaq Al-Arabi periodical - 1 million barrels.
Switzerland:
* Glencore, the largest commodity trader in Switzerland - 12 million barrels
* Taurus Petroleum - 1 million barrels
* Petrogas, which is "listed under three sub-companies – Petrogas Services, Petrogas Distribution, and Petrogas Resources - and is associated with the Russian company Rosneftegazetroy" - 1 million barrels
* Alcon, "listed in Lichtenstein and associated with larger oil companies" - 1 million barrels
* Finar Holdings, which is "listed in Lugano, Switzerland, and is under liquidation" - received 1 million barrels
Ukraine:
* The Social Democratic Party - 1 million barrels.
* The Communist Party - 6 million barrels.
* The Socialist Party - 1 million barrels.
* The FTD oil company - 1 million barrels, as did other Ukrainian companies.
United Kingdom:
* George Galloway - 1 million barrels
* Fawwaz Zreiqat - 1 million barrels. Zreiqat also appears in the Jordanian section as having received 6 million barrels
* The Mujahideen Khalq - 1 million barrels
United States:
* Samir Vincent, "organized a delegation of Iraqi religious leaders to visit the U.S. and meet with former president Jimmy Carter" - 10.5 million barrels
* Shaker Al-Khafaji, "the pro-Saddam chairman of the 17th conference of Iraqi expatriates" - 1 million barrels.
Other beneficiaries were companies and individuals from the Sudan, Yemen, Cyprus, Turkey, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, the UAE, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Panama, Thailand, Chad, China, Nigeria, Kenya, Ireland, Bahrain, and the Philippines as well as two Saudi Arabian companies.
Plenty of blame to go around.
-
If I show you a picture of a terrorist holding an M-16 is that proof that America is arming terrorists? Of course not. The Roland III missile started production in 1988. Please provide proof that the missiles found were Roland III's and that they were sold after 1991, and if so, that they were sold by the French and not one of the 10 other countries operating the missile system.
What has that got to do with selling weapons to Iraq? American companies were also involved in the scandal, so we can't claim innocence or the moral high ground.
Nice try, but the French were the first to use the Roland III launcher system in late 1988. They did not commence exports of the III system until after the embargo against Iraq.
As for oil for food scandal not having anything to do with weapons, I'd suggest you look at the cash funneled through the scandal by the French which provided capital for the Iraqi's to spend on Russian Weapons Systems. It is also likely how the French weapons arrived in Iraq.
-
Great thread, good info.
-
and now this. :headscratch:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_nuclear;_ylt=AolrvwEXk.kKmq9CACZhKmd0fNdF
Do they just want to start a war?
-
Do they just want to start a war?
"nuclear deterrent"
-
Nice try, but the French were the first to use the Roland III launcher system in late 1988. They did not commence exports of the III system until after the embargo against Iraq.
Please provide proof of that.
And I repeat: Please provide proof that the missiles found were Roland III's and that they were sold after 1991, and if so, that they were sold by the French and not one of the 10 other countries operating the missile system.