France Vows To Block UN Resolution on Iraq War

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


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

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

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

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


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

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

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

[Ned]

Bump

GePap, still waiting.

[Kontiki]

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

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


I mean, is Uranium Nitro Hydride possible

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

(maybe with some numbers beneath each of those)?

We need a "tsk tsk" scolding smilie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joseph]

Originally posted by GePap
To all my fans:

Drake:

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

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

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Joseph

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

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

[Az]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TCO]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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

[TCO]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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

[TCO]

Found it:

uranyl nitrate hexahydrate

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

[KrazyHorse]

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

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

[TCO]

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

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

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