Skip to comments.
Fox News reporting marines find "weapons grade plutonium"
Fox News ^
Posted on 04/10/2003 10:24:53 AM PDT by JustRight
On TV right now.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: atomic; blix; cia; elbaradei; fedayeen; frenchfingerprints; frenchnuclear; hamza; iaea; illegalweapons; iraq; iraqinuclear; marines; nuclear; plutonium; radiation; seegar; truncheon; tuwaitha; un; underground; war; warlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440, 441-456 last
To: mvpel
It's my understanding that free-mercury (like the blobs we all played with out of thermo - meters and such isn't that hazardous, either, believe it or not. If I recall correctly, the salts or vaporised form is really nasty stuff though, maybe a chemist or geologist can opine.
To: george wythe
"I'm ashamed of liking the Dixie Chicks before they openend their big goofy mouth."
. . .who knew until they did?
442
posted on
04/10/2003 7:51:05 PM PDT
by
cricket
To: conservababeJen
My mom on Klinton: "sex isn't a crime" Maybe not, but extramarital sex is a sin. My mom on my conservatism: "How did my only child turn into such a fanatical-rightwing-fascist?" You grew up, moved out, completed your education and had your eyes opened to the real world. My mom on the war: "I don't trust GW, he's an oil monger" If he wanted Iraqi oil, all he had to do was ignore the UN sanctions and buy it anyway. My mom on Ann Coulter: "I hate that bitch" A bitch is a female dog. My mom on 2000 pres election: "Al Gore was robbed" Not according to the Constitution and Electoral College. According to the "Al Gore was robbed" coalition, the office of the President was also stolen by: Rutherford B Hayes, 1876, 4,036,298 to 4,300,590 for his opponent Samuel Tilden; and Benjamin Harrison, 1888, 5,439,853 to 5,540,309 for his opponent Grover Cleveland. My mom on Foxnews: "liars" Sorry, I'm stuck for a comeback for this one. I'm sure someone else here can help you out!
To: HardStarboard
Remember the med school students who played a "joke" on the Southern woman last year by making threats she could overhear in a restaurant? In an interview Linda blew the guys away when it was revealed she could speak Farsi :).
To: All
445
posted on
04/10/2003 9:26:22 PM PDT
by
proust
(Hello, Cthulhu!)
To: Pharmer
Never mind the radiation, plutonium is toxic just for being a heavy metal. Contact with skin is deadly. Saddam's role model held a plutonium pit in his hands:
By late 1947, Igor Kurchatov, who directed scientific work on the bomb, was so sure that the Russian scientists finally had the technical skills to build the weapon that he took the nuclear charge of the first proposed Soviet atomic bomb - a nickel-plated plutonium ball about ten centimetres in diameter - to Stalin in his study at the Kremlin. 'And how do we know that this is plutonium, not a sparkling piece of iron?' Stalin asked. 'And why this glitter? Why this window dressing?'
'The charge has been nickel-plated so that it would be safe to touch,' Kurchatov replied. 'Plutonium is very toxic, but nickel-plated it's safe.'
Stalin handled it. He noticed its heat.
'Is it always warm?' he asked. 'It always is,' Kurchatov replied. 'The continuous nuclear reaction of alpha-disintegration is underway inside. It warms up. But we shall excite a powerful fission reaction in it. This will be an explosion of great power.' Stalin was not completely convinced but he later authorized the testing of the first bomb. It was to take until September 1949.
Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky also reported this story in his book
KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev.
To: Mitchell; keri
Iraq did not have facilities for making Plutonium.
Where did it come from?
Iran impossible.
Pakistan, unlikely.
North Korea, ?
I heard multiple reports tonight
that they have found Cobalt 60 as well
for making the ultimate dirty bomb.
One such bomb would eliminate Israel
or the Saudi oil fields.
447
posted on
04/10/2003 11:55:35 PM PDT
by
Allan
To: ladtx
"Uh-oh. If true. It's worse than we thought."said Tommie D'ashole.
448
posted on
04/11/2003 6:54:20 AM PDT
by
Redbob
To: proust
Gads.
And the left wonders why we're hitting 'suposed' bunkers under 'innocuos buildings'.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were bunkers under every school in Iraq.
Let alone the nuke program..
449
posted on
04/11/2003 9:31:49 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Nox aeternus en pax.)
To: Darksheare
OK, so what happened here. Another FOX dead-end story? You'd think they would learn from their mistakes. How many times now, 4? 5? where they've "broken" a story, only to have to backtrack in disgrace.
FOX is still my station of choice, but MSNBC is doing a much better job of covering the war.
As for CNN, I can't stand them, ESPECIALLY Christiane Amanpour!
To: NYC Republican
Honestly, I haven't a clue what happened ot the story.
But it was reported that they did find some really radiologically 'hot' buildings in some weird places.
Someone other than FOX had that, and I didn't think to save the link.
But this may be a dead story at the moment.
451
posted on
04/11/2003 11:18:36 AM PDT
by
Darksheare
(Nox aeternus en pax.)
To: RetiredArmy
Same thing with my 83 year old Grandfather...I can't understand them. They have to know what the Demorats have become! They just can't seem to want to understand that this generation of rats is not like the FDRs that they knew.
452
posted on
04/11/2003 5:47:48 PM PDT
by
Braak
(The US Military, the real arms inspectors!)
To: Allan
Iraq did not have facilities for making Plutonium. Where did it come from? Iran impossible. Pakistan, unlikely. North Korea, ? It's my understanding that plutonium is relatively easy to make (with a nuclear reactor), but the engineering design of a plutonium-based atomic bomb is quite difficult. In contrast, enriched uranium is hard (or at least time-consuming) to make, but it's said to be relatively simple to design a uranium-based atomic bomb.
The bomb that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima used enriched uranium. The design was considered so straightforward, and the enriched uranium was so time-consuming to produce, that no test bomb was exploded first. The bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, on the other hand, was plutonium-based; this design was tested (at Alamogordo) before being used.
I don't know, but I would guess on general principles that the uranium approach would be the one that a country like Iraq would pick, if it had to do the design from scratch. After all, they can probably acquire enriched uranium through some means, and the bomb design is simple. With plutonium, the design is complex, and they would probably worry that, once they conducted a test, they wouldn't have the opportunity to build any production bombs, because of U.S. reaction to the test.
On the other hand, North Korea is apparently using plutonium in its design. Maybe they figure that the world geopolitical situation will protect them even if they conduct a test. Or maybe they have obtained a working plutonium bomb design that they trust (from China?).
If Iraq could obtain a tested design, plutonium might be the way they would choose to go.
I heard multiple reports tonight that they have found Cobalt 60 as well for making the ultimate dirty bomb.
One such bomb would eliminate Israel or the Saudi oil fields.
One such bomb would not eliminate Israel; it would contaminate part of one Israeli city. The attacker, on the other hand, would be eliminated by the Israeli response.
To: Mitchell
One such bomb would not eliminate Israel; it would contaminate part of one Israeli city. I believe this is not the case if the Cobalt was used to encase a 'normal' nuclear weapon.
454
posted on
04/11/2003 8:36:23 PM PDT
by
Allan
To: Admin Moderator
Would you please capitalize the 'M' in "Marines" in the thread title?
Thank you.
To: Allan
[One such bomb would not eliminate Israel; it would contaminate part of one Israeli city.]
I believe this is not the case if the Cobalt was used to encase a 'normal' nuclear weapon.
I was thinking of what people typically call a dirty bomb -- not a nuclear weapon as such, but an ordinary explosive that scatters radioactive material around. Cobalt-60 is a carcinogen (I think it emits gamma rays), with a half-life of about 5 years. A dirty bomb of this sort could render part of a city effectively uninhabitable for a few generations. The panic and the economic consequences would be severe also.
As for an atomic bomb encased with cobalt-60, this would likely destroy an entire city (depending on the size of the atomic bomb -- think of Hiroshima) and make it uninhabitable for several generations.
I don't see terrorists or rogue states using a bomb like that, though, at this time. The task of designing, building, and deploying an atomic bomb is hard enough, without the unnecessary extra complications of the cobalt-60. (It's like the horrible bombs that the Palestinian terrorists are now using, with nails and rat poison; they didn't start with those bombs, and I don't think terrorists would start with an extra-complicated atomic bomb either.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440, 441-456 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