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

Skip to comments.

Experts: Saddam's Uranium Enough for One Nuke
NewsMax.com ^ | Nov. 12, 2005 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 11/12/2005 7:48:27 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax

Though President Bush didn't mention it in his speech yesterday rebutting critics of his administration's use of intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, experts say that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled enough partially enriched uranium to produce at least one full-fledged nuclear bomb.

Commenting on Saddam's enriched uranium stash after the U.S. Energy Department removed it to Oak Ridge, Tenn., in June 2004, top physicist Ivan Oelrich told the Associated Press:

"[Saddam's] 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb."

Oelrich, a leading member of the Federation of American Scientists, is not alone in that assessment.

Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, told the New York Times that Saddam's partially enriched uranium "could have been further enriched to make it useful in a weapon."

After the U.S. removed Saddam's nuke fuel stockpile, interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi confirmed that it posed a great danger to the region's security interests.

"These materials, which are potential weapons of mass murder, are not welcome in our country and their production is unacceptable," Allawi told Agence France Press.

Even Saddam's 500-ton un-enriched uranium stockpile, which he stored at the same nuclear weapons research facility where inspectors found his partially enriched stash, posed a potential threat.

In a March 2003 op-ed piece for London's Evening Standard, Norman Dombey, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Sussex, calculated that Saddam's yellowcake could have yielded a staggering nuclear arsenal.

"You have a warehouse containing 500 tons of natural uranium," Dombey wrote. "You need 25 kilograms of U235 to build one weapon. How many nuclear weapons can you build?

"The answer is 142 [nuclear bombs]," he said.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: enriched; iraq; iraqinukes; nukes; uranium; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last
To: justa-hairyape
No one ever claimed he had a functional nuclear weapon at the time of the US led invasion. Only that he was trying to pursue one and was close.

Which invasion? GW I or GW II?

41 posted on 11/12/2005 9:48:56 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

My God people are dense. Nothing mentioned in the NewsCrapx article remotely establishes an ongoing uranium enrichment program. It's a simple rehash of ancient info...the following article is from 2002:


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/tuwaitha.htm

"Following the 1991 Gulf War, the International Atomic Energy Agency removed all known Iraqi stocks of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, in accordance with the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 687. As of 2002 the only positively confirmed nuclear material left in Iraq is 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium. The material is in a locked storage site at the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility near Baghdad. Under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, this stock of material is checked once a year by an IAEA team. The most recent check was in January 2002, and none of the material had been tampered with at that time."


42 posted on 11/12/2005 9:51:27 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

We need to investigate the investigation and then investigate those who did the investigating. Maybe then the sheeple will say, "There's too much investigatin' going on."


43 posted on 11/12/2005 9:55:04 AM PST by demkicker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Both. Provide a quote where someone, obviously besides newsmax and 'former CIA experts', stated that Saddam had a functional nuclear weapon.


44 posted on 11/12/2005 10:24:02 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Canard

Why would he want nuclear weapons before he invaded Iran and Kuwait, but not want them after his invasions failed ? We all agree that at one point in his past he actively pursued nuclear weapons. Why is it so hard for some people to admit that the 'Butcher of Baghdad', the man who thought he was the next 'Babylonian King', the man who used chemical weapons on the Iranians and Kurds, would not always pursue the ultimate weapon ? The weapon that would guarantee his crowning as the new great Babylonian King ?


45 posted on 11/12/2005 10:30:24 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
Iraqi Tour
46 posted on 11/12/2005 10:32:48 AM PST by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

Not really sure where you're going with this, whether it's just some strawman you're setting up to knock down?

You can speculate on Saddam's desires if you wish. I would tend to agree with your speculation although, in the abscence of any actual evidence documenting his intentions, that's really all it remains.

However as neither I, nor anyone else in this thread as far as I can see, is advancing the argument that this had occured (or considers it one way or the other actually relevant to the discussion) it's something of a moot point.


47 posted on 11/12/2005 10:40:21 AM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Canard
Here is my point. Everyone admits Saddam desired a nuclear weapon at one time in his past. The Israeli's bombed the French-built reactor to prevent him from having a source of enriched uranium. After Gulf War 1, we found highly enriched uranium within Iraq. Documented by the UN and quoted in the thread above. It was removed. Then we were relying on the enforcement of United Nations resolutions to make sure Saddam never started up his nuclear program again. We have no hard evidence that he had restarted it, but how in the world can we now justify just sitting back and relying on the United Nations to enforce its resolutions. Especially considering that we now know Saddam had compromised and bribed the UN with oil for food. We had to remove Saddam because of the failure of the UN. Who in their right mind is going to state the UN was doing a good and adequate job ?
48 posted on 11/12/2005 10:51:49 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet; sageb1

I second that thought. One won't be good enough to convince the libs, unless it's San Francisco.


49 posted on 11/12/2005 11:19:44 AM PST by thoughtomator (Bring Back HCUA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bob from De
Mr. Wilson's excellent adventure was in February 2002!

THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM

Mr. Wilson was going to Niger on personal business during the Clinton Administration, and his wife 'asked' her boss to let Joe do some investigation into the 'yellowcake to Saddam' issue. He returned with word that there was no such deal.

He was not required to document his investigation. He was not required to take an oath to protect the information and the agency he was 'doing a favor'. He did not have to fill out or sign any legal documents whatsoever.

Mr. Wilson was going to Niger on personal business during the Bush Administration and his wife 'asked' her boss to let Joe do some investigation into the 'yellowcake to Saddam' issue. He returned with word that there was no such deal.

He was not required to document his investigation. He was not required to take an oath to protect the information and the agency he was 'doing a favor'. He did not have to fill out or sign any legal documents whatsoever.

His expenses were covered by your taxes both times, and his company did not have to incur that expense.

His company.

In Niger.

What does his company do?

They are a broker.

What have they, do they broker?

THIS IS THE WHITE ELEPHANT.

50 posted on 11/12/2005 11:39:13 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
Where did it come from?

The 500 tons was still there.

Or was it?

There was 500 tons, but not the same 500 tons that the UN teams found.

There was a shell game.

Just like in police evidence lockers.

Take 100 tons out to process, put 100 tons raw ore back in.

When inspectors weigh it, still 500 tons.

My earlier post explains where he was getting the ore. Or at least one of the sources. That source is what the Dems are trying to hide by this attack on Bush, Cheney, and Libby.

Guess what the company the Joe Wilson owns, and which is why he went to Niger both times, does as a business.

51 posted on 11/12/2005 11:44:26 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape

The rest of his uranium was in Libia being enriched to bomb grade.

Blair made the son of the good colonel an offer he couldn't refuse and he prevailed on his old man to come clean and join the world.

It is all now in Oak Ridge where it has been analyzed and determined to bee from the same or very similar origin.

My belief and I'm sticking to it.


52 posted on 11/12/2005 11:44:57 AM PST by bert (K.E. ; N.P . (FR = a lotta talk, but little action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Canard

Actually it neither supports nor disproves an ongoing program.

500 Tons. There before, there after. 1.7 refined. Same deal.

But. Take 100 tons out to refine, and replace it with 100 tons raw. Take the 1.7 out and refine it further. Place it in launch weapons. Put 1.7 refined back in it's place.

500 tons then, 500 tons now. 1.7 refined then, 1.7 refined now. (and weapons in Syria in nuclear resistant underground factories with the fissionable material in them.)


53 posted on 11/12/2005 11:51:33 AM PST by UCANSEE2 (I jez calls it az I see it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Darth Reagan

ping


54 posted on 11/12/2005 11:57:43 AM PST by marblehead17 (I love it when a plan comes together.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"Guess what the company the Joe Wilson owns, and which is why he went to Niger both times, does as a business."

I believe his broker firm works directly with two French owned companies in Niger that are uranium mining companies. A few days back I thought we had an article that gave the two names of the two companies but did not devulge the name of Wilson's company.

55 posted on 11/12/2005 12:03:15 PM PST by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
>"How much proof is needed by the liberals? An American city annihilated?"

According to The last Failed Presidential Dim Candidate, that would only constitute an annoyance, not worthy of military force.

Kill A Commie For Mommie

Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

56 posted on 11/12/2005 12:16:53 PM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Always use fresh macaroni.... If the box rattles,.... throw it away."--- Kent Brockman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

The site was sealed, not sure how all that would have been accomplished. Or indeed, why they would bother (why take out 100 tons and replace it with a 100 tons of exactly the same thing? You already apparantly had what you needed in your scenario, so you wouldn't need to 'steal' it from the sealed site). But, again, this is pretty much beside the point, which was to debunk the argument that these materials were proof that we had 'discovered' WMD in Iraq which the media/our various governments were neglecting to tell us.


57 posted on 11/12/2005 12:26:14 PM PST by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax
This misleading title would lead the casual headline-only reader to conclude that the sum total of all Saddam's uranium was enough for one nuke. That is not true.

While he had enough partially enriched uranium for one nuke, he had enough unprocessed uranium for 143 nukes.

58 posted on 11/12/2005 12:29:24 PM PST by ez ("Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is." - Milton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

> We NOW knew he [Hitler] didn't have one [A-bomb].

Until recently, we also knew the Japanese didn't have one.

That is now in dispute:
Japan's Atomic Bomb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464754/posts

GW is discovering why Roosevelt did little significant
about the Axis threat until Pearl Harbor.


59 posted on 11/12/2005 12:34:39 PM PST by Boundless
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Did we even have an accurate weight measurement of the yellow cake put in lock down in 1991? If not, they would not even need to pay attention to how much they kept on hand. Like you suggested, this makes for an easy shell game; something Saddam took pride in playing.


60 posted on 11/12/2005 1:50:32 PM PST by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

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