Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Enriched Uranium?
BBC News ^ | June 7 2004 | Unknown

Posted on 07/07/2004 2:39:03 AM PDT by bone52

US reveals Iraq nuclear operation The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month. "This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.

The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.

'Dirty bomb'?

The explosion of a so-called "dirty bomb" in a city by a terrorist group is a major concern of Western intelligence agencies.

Rather than causing a nuclear explosion, a "dirty bomb" would see radioactive material combined with a conventional explosive - probably causing widespread panic and requiring a large clean-up operation.

Uranium would not be suitable for fashioning such a device, though appropriate material may have been among the other unidentified "sources".

Mr Abraham added that the operation had also prevented the material falling into the hands "of countries that may seek to develop their own nuclear weapons".

The 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Bryan Wilkes said much of the material was "in powdered form, which is easily dispersed".

The IAEA has been among organisations which have warned that many countries have lost track of radioactive material.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

Published: 2004/07/07 04:39:32 GMT


TOPICS: War on Terror
KEYWORDS: enricheduranium
1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium doesn't exactally sound like "dirty bomb" material. US papers have mentioned the uranium, but have not mentioned that it was enriched. I guess they don't want people to know Saddam was actively pursuing a full atomic bomb.
1 posted on 07/07/2004 2:39:03 AM PDT by bone52
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bone52
Why would they want them to know????....might distract them from the real global threat of us forcing Iraqi prisoners to wear underwear over their head.

Get with the program man.

2 posted on 07/07/2004 2:45:12 AM PDT by Archie Bunker on steroids (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

I bet the government didn't want anybody to know until this stuff was safely under wraps.


3 posted on 07/07/2004 2:49:01 AM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

Come on, Saddam only wanted that uranium to bake cookies and Kurds, and Israelis, and Kuwaitis, and Saudi's. And the US and anyone else he didn't like the look of when the shredders didn't work.


4 posted on 07/07/2004 2:49:21 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Archie Bunker on steroids

Kinda sad this had to come out before the DNC convention.
1.7 Metric TONS is a sizable quantity. AND it was taken from a NUCLEAR reseach facility.

Kinda deflates the whole missing WMD mantra. I guess Bush DID NOT lie, after all.

If we take away their WMD line...with what will the Rats campaign on?


5 posted on 07/07/2004 2:55:08 AM PDT by Cyclops08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bone52

BTTT


6 posted on 07/07/2004 3:05:55 AM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

It's a lie to say Iraq didn't have WMD. The media and the Rats are lying about Iraq, in spite of claiming Saddam has them during the Clinton presidency and the months before OP Iraqi Freedom.


7 posted on 07/07/2004 3:12:19 AM PDT by Reader of news
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

I dont think the terrorists will have trouble finding materials for a dirty bomb as long as Iran is in the Nuclear business.


8 posted on 07/07/2004 3:33:12 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

Welcome to FReerepublic.


9 posted on 07/07/2004 3:37:41 AM PDT by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

I think the UN should pay for Blix to get an eye test.


10 posted on 07/07/2004 3:55:52 AM PDT by I-spy-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52
1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium doesn't exactally sound like "dirty bomb" material.

The enriched Uranium, as the article points out, is not dirty bomb material. Depending on how highly enriched it was, it may very well be nuclear bomb material. But it also may not be.

Uranium's half life is much too long to be effective in the dirty bomb role....it isn't nearly radioactive enough to be useful for a dirty bomb. Uranium, despite widespread fear-mongering by the peaceniks about 'depleted uranium rounds' is very stable. However, the article points out that there were lots of 'other' radioactive sources. It is those 'others', like cesium, which are dangerous in a dirty bomb.

11 posted on 07/07/2004 4:36:21 AM PDT by blanknoone (The WOT can only be won abroad, and can only be lost at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

More evidence that the Bush Administration is working around the clock for our protection and without fanfare.


12 posted on 07/07/2004 4:45:03 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye ((Kerry is a flake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bone52

bump


13 posted on 07/07/2004 4:48:56 AM PDT by RippleFire ("It was just a scratch")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bone52

Oh, the Democrats just want to eat their yellowcake and have it too.


14 posted on 07/07/2004 4:51:51 AM PDT by The G Man (John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; LindaSOG; Radix; Kathy in Alaska; MoJo2001; LaDivaLoca; Fawnn; ...
1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium doesn't exactally sound like "dirty bomb" material. US papers have mentioned the uranium, but have not mentioned that it was enriched. I guess they don't want people to know Saddam was actively pursuing a full atomic bomb.

Possible October surprise ping!

15 posted on 07/07/2004 4:53:35 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (It is not Bush's fault... it is the media's fault!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone
1.77 metric tons of enriched Uranium doesn't exactally sound like "dirty bomb" material.

The enriched Uranium, as the article points out, is not dirty bomb material. Depending on how highly enriched it was, it may very well be nuclear bomb material. But it also may not be.

By my (admittedly rough) calculations, even if this is raw uranium ore it should be enough for one or two Hiroshima bombs.
16 posted on 07/07/2004 5:13:14 AM PDT by MTOrlando
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MTOrlando

True, but raw uranium is almost worthless. It is the enriching that is really hard. And it is highly enriched that is really really hard to do. Weapons grade enriching is much harder even that enriching for the nuke power industry.

By the logic of having the Uranium, Niger is one of the biggest nuclear powers in the world. They just can't make any of it go boom.

The real story in all this is how much of it was enriched, and how highly enriched was that stuff. If 'they' get their hands on relatively highly enriched Uranium, making a nuclear device out of it is easy.


17 posted on 07/07/2004 5:35:41 AM PDT by blanknoone (The WOT can only be won abroad, and can only be lost at home.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: bone52
Again, media fails to note the Libyan-Egyptian-Iraqi nuclear weapons research program..

Kaddaffi just handed over the research materials, equipment, and IIRC, about 1.5 metric tons of enriched uranium...about, what? 4 months ago?

120 days, and the entire world seems to forget, that Iraq Libya & Egypt collaberated on a secret atomic weapons project.

You never hear a word about it..

DAMMIT PEOPLE !! HOW MUCH WMD DO YOU NEED TO SEE A THREAT??

18 posted on 07/07/2004 6:15:23 AM PDT by Drammach (Ripley... Last survivor of the Nostromo.... signing off....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blanknoone

"The real story in all this is how much of it was enriched, and how highly enriched was that stuff."

Don't try informing us with fact...;-)

The other article(s) state the uranium was "low-enriched", which, instead of being "yellow cake", wouldn't you say it was more like ground wheat.

Oh, I think the other article(s) also state the removed material had been under UN supervision since GW1.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1166775/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1166563/posts


19 posted on 07/07/2004 6:40:23 AM PDT by azhenfud ("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bone52

Does anyone here have a compiled list of WMD already confirmed found in Iraq since our freeing the Iraqi slaves from that sadistic bastard? I've read many different sources recently (re: Poland finding sarin..etc) but was wondering if one list already compiled by someone here or a reputable news source. I'm currently at work and need some info for co-workers who unfortunately are libs. :-) Thanks!


20 posted on 07/07/2004 6:48:32 AM PDT by Gypssy (Smart, Womanly & Conversative! :-)~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson