 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
Ned, I think GePap said he was done for the day and would try to get back to the debate tomorrow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
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... quote:
(maybe with some numbers beneath each of those)? |
We need a "tsk tsk" scolding smilie.
quote:
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
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
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?
quote:
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".
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:25
|
|
From the article :
"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].”
Wonder who those people are. Interns?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-01-2003 04:40
|