Skip to comments.
Russia admits to nuclear theft
AFP ^
| 11/15/02
Posted on 11/14/2002 12:30:57 PM PST by Heartlander2
Several kilograms (pounds) of low-enriched uranium and a few grams (ounces) of weapons-grade material have been stolen from various Russian nuclear sites over the past decade.
The head of the federal nuclear and radioactive security oversight agency said massive new investments were needed to strengthen safeguards at Russia's nuclear sites and keep the dangerous material out of the wrong hands.
"There have been cases of leakage" over the past decade, said Yury Vishnyevsky, using a slang term for material being stolen by thieves.
"We are talking about grams (ounces) of weapons-grade materials, and kilograms of low-grade uranium used as fuel by nuclear power plants," the official said, according to Russian news agencies.
He said the losses were most frequently recorded at secretive industrial plants like Electroplate, near Moscow, and the Novosibirsk chemical plant.
Both of these sites are believed to be used for both civilian and military purposes.
Vishnyevsky said Russia needs to invest some six billion rubles (190 million dollars) to make these and other sites safe from thieves.
The investment is needed "to modernize technical defense equipment, as well as for preparing and arming the security services at nuclear sites."
Russian officials have in the past denied a series of Western press reports alleging that radioactive material has been stolen from Russian nuclear sites.
Several of these thefts have been pinned by the Western media to people linked to rebels in separatist Chechnya.
Vishnyevsky said the Russian government began to focus its attention on nuclear safety issues following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, and that it recently conducted a full inspection of all nuclear facilities.
"After last September 11, the situation turned for the better quite significantly, but it is still not perfect," the nuclear official said.
"Two months ago, we inspected 100 percent of our nuclear facilities, and the findings have been handed over to the Russian security council" for study, he said.
Vishnyevsky said he assessed the chances of terrorist attack against one of Russia's nuclear facilities as virtually nonexistent.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: Heartlander2
Problems
To: Heartlander2
So the info Jack Van Impe has on his website is correct?
To: RedBloodedAmerican
LOL...Just by coincidence, I'm sure.
4
posted on
11/14/2002 12:38:29 PM PST
by
My2Cents
To: Heartlander2
So, for you physics geeks out there, how big a bomb, or how many bombs, can a few pounds make?
5
posted on
11/14/2002 12:39:29 PM PST
by
My2Cents
To: RedBloodedAmerican
I wonder why they are stating this now.
Hey Guys if you get "Blowed up good" with our stuff, We Warned Ya !! ,Love Ya, Vlad....
6
posted on
11/14/2002 12:40:00 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: My2Cents
I would think plenty.....
7
posted on
11/14/2002 12:40:43 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: Heartlander2
kilograms (pounds) 1 kilogram = 2.2 pounds, actually.
To: cmsgop
I don't like the timing of this leak either......
To: cmsgop
Oh, I mean "admission" not "leak"....
To: My2Cents
Barely one, and they'd need to give it a good "squeeze"
To: b4its2late
I'm with you on that.
I also don't like the timing of Daschle, Grahm, H. Clinton, saying they don't think the Bush team has made any progress on protecting us from another attack. Its so obvious this is the dems talking point for the day/days. Do they know something is up and are positioning themselves to say "we told you so"?
Not that they have done anything but stall Bush's plan to protect us.
To: Heartlander2
Seven kilograms is not seven pounds.
To: A.J.Armitage
I misread several. But pounds and kilograms are still not the same.
To: My2Cents
So, for you physics geeks out there, how big a bomb, or how many bombs, can a few pounds make? They can't make any nukes until it is further enriched. Radiological weapons on the other hand ..... plenty.
To: My2Cents
I read a bunch of stuff on nukes after 9/11. Here's my observations on the nuke/Al Qaeda story:
Low enriched uranium (LEU) won't explode so it can only be used for a dirty bomb. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is explosive but it takes a large amount. According to fas.org, Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, used 64kg of 80% enriched uranium. South Africa's nukes used 50kg of 80-93% enriched uranium. These were gun-type bombs, the easiest to make. Implosion-type bombs need less but are difficult to make.
There is no chance that Al Qaeda could have made an atomic bomb. They would have to buy or steal one. Regular warheads, like those on ICBMs, are impossible to set off. The real threat is from those suitcase nukes (Atomic Demolition Munitions, ADMs) since they don't have the safeguards that the larger warheads do. The good news is that ADMs used advanced techniques and require servicing to stay potent. It's doubtful that Al Qaeda has the capability to service them.
So, IMHO, the main threat is from dirty bombs. Since people freak out when anyone mentions radiation contamination, their main threat is terror and panic.
I think that a more scary threat is that Al Qaeda will send several "Smallpox Samirs" to fly around the USA on commercial airliners infecting people. The infection would spread fast and be widespread.
16
posted on
11/14/2002 1:23:00 PM PST
by
mikegi
To: Heartlander2
If I understand the data correctly the suitcase type of bombs pretty much go inert, if not routinely serviced, at about eight years. Hopefully all of them that are rumored to have disappeared are older than that. Al Aqaeda would in no way be able to service these.
To: Heartlander2
First of all grams are not ounces, they are much smaller. About one twenty-eighth of an ounce.
Theoretically, grams of weapons grade uranium could be made to explode, but neither AQ nor Irag can actually do it. This should not be a worry to anyone.
To: TexanToTheCore
I thought they had to be reserviced every few months...3-6 or so...
19
posted on
11/14/2002 1:51:08 PM PST
by
xrp
To: mikegi
Thanks for the explanation. Considering what we saw of Al Queda "labs" in Afghanistan (chemical components mixed up in Windex bottles, in buildings made of mud), it's clear that a group of thugs on the run cannot make a bomb. Probably the only way Al Queda could get a real nuke is if a state handed them one on the condition Al Queda did their bidding; but it's probably doubtful a state that possessed nukes (which might number only a few warheads, since these would probably have to have been stolen from the former USSR, and not developed in their own labs) would turn them over to Bin Laden and his band of loose cannons.
20
posted on
11/14/2002 1:56:42 PM PST
by
My2Cents
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson