Re: Iran's nuclear program

[Thelasian]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message >...
> "...Proof:
> UN clears Iran nuclear facility...."
>
> Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while
> closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s?


Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the
fault of the USA??

LOL!!! Talk about scapegoating!

FYI, remember what Madame Albright had to say about it:

Lesley Stahl: We have heard that a half million children have died. I
mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is
the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)




> Is that the same UN that has it's blue beret troops watch while black
> Africans slaughter other black Africans?
>
> It couldn't be that UN could it?
>
> WDA
>
> end
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop
> from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com
>
> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
> > facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned:
> >
> > 1- The Bushehr reactor-which was started under the Shah with US
> > support-is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a ligh****er
> > reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
> > that much.
> >
> > Proof:
> > UN clears Iran nuclear facility
> > The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency has said
> > Russia's nuclear co-operation with Iran is no longer a matter of
> > concern.
> > (SOURCE: BBC Online Tuesday, 29 June, 2004)
> >
> >
> > 2- According to Article 4 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has an
> > "INALIENABLE RIGHT" to possess nuclear technology. Several other
> > nations use the same technology too, such as Brazil and Holland and
> > Japan. Note how the articles conflate a nuclear "weapons" program with
> > a "nuclear program"
> >
> > 3- Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas
> > because of rising domestic consumption and the reliance on the sale
> > oil and gas for earning hard currency. In fact the Stanford Research
> > Institute advised the Shah's government that Iran could not rely on
> > oil and gas for energy way back in the mid 1970's. Other nations which
> > have extensive oil and gas resources also have nuclear energy - such
> > as Russia and the USA. Iran has also been experimenting with
> > geothermal energy and wind-turbines, as well as building its largest
> > hydroengery dam.
> >
> > 4- There is in fact no evidence of an actual nuclear WEAPONS program
> > in Iran, as admitted by the IAEA itself - there is only the INFERENCE
> > that Iran COULD ONE DAY POSSIBLY use the legitimate technology to
> > build a weapon of it desires to do so. Needless to say, ANY TECHNOLOGY
> > "could" be used to make nukes, and so could any country.
> >
> > Proof:
> > "IAEA: No evidence of Iran nukes
> > VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has found "no
> > evidence" Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons...
> > SOURCE: AP Monday, November 10, 2003
> >
> > " 'The United States has no concrete evidence of a nuclear-weapons
> > program,' Albright told me. 'It's just an inference. There's no
> > smoking gun.' "
> > SOURCE: New Yorker by SEYMOUR M. HERSH Issue of 2004-06-28
> >
> >
> > 5- The bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor did not signficantly affect
> > Iraq's nuclear program, since the centrifuge sites were not bombed. If
> > anything it encouraged them to speed up the process. But in any case,
> > Iran has signed the Additional Protocol which permits IAEA inspections
> > anywhere-anytime, and Iraq had not.
> >
> > 6- Attacking Iran's nuclear installations will prove once and for all
> > to the people of Iran the necessity of obtaining nuclear weapons as a
> > deterrence.
> >
> > 7- Currently, Iran has signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and its
> > nuclear installations are all under IAEA safeguards - unlike North
> > Korea.
> >
> > 8- If Iran is attacked, Iran will withdraw from the Non-Proliferation
> > Treaty (as it is legally do pursuant to Article X) and will start
> > working on a nuclear weapons program in earnest. Centrifuge sites will
> > pop up like mushrooms all over the country - too many to be bombed -
> > and the IAEA inspectors will not be around to check them. Within 6
> > mos, the first nuclear test will occur, and within a year Iran's
> > missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads
> >
> > 9- The people of Iran will rally to support their government if Iran
> > is attacked, as their nationalism is stirred by such an act. Iran's
> > decision to develop nuclear deterrence will occur with the full
> > support of the people of the government too, so changing governments
> > will not change the decision to build nukes.
> >
> > 10- There are already many Iranians who believe that Iran should
> > withdraw from the NonProliferation Treaty since the US has failed to
> > abide by ITS obligations under the same treaty, and Iran is surrounded
> > by nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable states that threaten Iran's
> > security.
> >
> > So yes, by all means, go ahead and bomb Iran and see what happens.

[zalzon]

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:30:46 -0700, W. D. Allen Sr. wrote:

> Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while
> closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the 1990s?


Truth be known, the US facilitated/manipulated the UN into that with
sanctions on evertying. When it became clear that the Saddam regime was
not going to collapse as a result of sanctions, the bogus WMD issue came
along. The rest as they say is history.


> Iran needs nuclear energy despite possessing extensive oil and gas

I doubt the above statement is true. While countries do diversify their
energy sources, it makes little economic sense for an oil & gas abundant
nation to invest in expensive nuclear energy production. Nuclear energy
production makes the best economic sense for countries with few fossil
fuel reserves and little hydroelectric potential. e.g. US, France, Germany,
Japan, India, China. They make no sense for countries like Iraq, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Venesuela... even Russia to a great extent if climatic
factors are excluded.

The implications become more obvious when seen against the backdrop of
Iran's plans to master the nuclear fuel cycle from mining the ore to its
reprocessing.

[Stop SPAM]

Thelasian wrote:
>> Stop SPAM > wrote in message >...
>>> Thelasian wrote:
>>> Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
>>> facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned
>> ...snipped...
>> How about these new facts - sounds awfully suspiciously like Iran is
>> working on becoming a nuclear power, and doesn't care who - including
>> "Old Europe" - knows, or what UN sanctions it receives. Where have we
>> heard this before?
> Actually, these are not "new facts" at all. And Iran is indeed working
> on becoming a "nuclear power" - a civilian nuclear power. That's what
> the NPT says is an "inalienable right" of countries to do.
>> Oh, and these facts are coming from "Old Europe", not the US. Are you
>> now accusing 'Old Europe' of "smoke-and mirror and fear-mongering"? Gee,
>> it's beginning to sound like there's multilateral support against Iran.
> Again/ I am not sure what new facts you're referring to. According to
> the article, Iran has demanded that Europeans provide Iran with
> nuclear technology and stop impediments to Iran's acquisition of same.
> That's exactly what the NPT requires of the signatory nations.

Thelasian -

I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:

>>The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
>>the three European powers:
>> - Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
>>technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
>>know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
>> - "Remove impediments" — sales restrictions imposed by nuclear supplier
>>nations — preventing Iran access to such technology.

If the peace-loving people of Iran are only interested in civilian
nuclear power, they would not be asking for dual use technologies, nor
would the rest of the world (starting with France and Germany) be concerned:

>> But diplomats said Iran's demands undermine the effort by France,
>> Germany and Britain to avoid a confrontation. They had hoped to
>> persuade Tehran to give up technology that can produce nuclear arms,
>> but now are closer to the Bush administration's view that Iran should
>> be referred to the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear
>> Nonproliferation Treaty, the diplomats said.

[Denyav]

>Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible government
>with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain
>them. Given their large natural

Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers using
nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians might
consider using them aganist other nuclear powers.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Thelasian) wrote:
>
> > Steve Hix > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > In article >,
> > > (Thelasian) wrote:
> > >
> > > > "W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
> > > > >...
> > > > > "...Proof:
> > > > > UN clears Iran nuclear facility...."
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein
> > > > > while
> > > > > closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during
the
> > > > > 1990s?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the
> > > > fault of the USA??
> > >
> > > False dilemma.
> > >
> > > Blame the responsible party; Saddam Hussein and his cronies.
> >
> > Anything but to blame the USA right?
> >
> > Who backed and supported Saddam?
>
> Do your homework. (It's really easy; after all, you have a computer at
> hand.)
>
> - Russia, first and foremost, gauged by their sales of tanks, aircraft,
> artillery, smallarms, and ammunition for all of the above. (Unless you
> can show that MiG, Sukhoi, Mil, and Kamov are American companies...)
>
> - To a lesser degree, France, with some Dassault fighterbombers and
> some army kit. France worked on their telecomm systems, too.

Don't forget that Iraq's nuclear facilities (promptly destroyed by Israel),
were built by France. In fact, Jaques Chirac personally hosted Saddam in
France, brokered the deal himself, then toured the facilites with Saddam
when they were completed.

If you ask me, Israel picked the wrong day to bomb.

>
> Down in the noise level: Germany, U.S., Britain, and a few other
> countries sold them gear up through the mid-80s. Take a look at the
> composition of the Iraqi military forces up until Desert Storm.
>
> No, Saddam & Cie. are fully to blame for diverting billions of dollars
> in funds specifically meant for food and medical material for Iraqi
> people to building more and more palaces for himself and his pals.
>
> Some people, including U.N. personnel benefitted from his largesse at
> the same time.

[Stop SPAM]

Thelasian wrote:
> Stop SPAM > wrote in message >...
>>Thelasian -
>>
>>I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:
>>
>>>>The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
>>>>the three European powers:
>>>>- Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
>>>>technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
>>>>know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
>>
> YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that
> means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology
> and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give
> away.

Thelasian -

I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you
embarrass yourself further.

All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many
nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use; reactors
that run on low grade fuel come to mind. Both the USSR and the US export
such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses
of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do
utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use,
and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no
need for any in-country dual use technology.

So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if
all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology?

Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then
come back and post.

Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as
"all nuclear technology is inherently dual use".

[Jarg]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Willing to bet your life on it? Iran has a highly irresponsible
government
> >with great potential for misusing nuclear weapons if they were to obtain
> >them. Given their large natural
>
> Right,Unlike US,which has a highly responsible government that considers
using
> nuclear weapons only aganist non-nuclear powers,iresponsible Iranians
might
> consider using them aganist other nuclear powers.

I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the
governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe
that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion
impossible.

Jarg

[William Wright]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the
> >governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe
> >that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion
>
> Thats the real politics,the countries without nuclear weapons get
occupied and
> colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even if they have only a
couple of
> of them,treated with soft gloves.

Right up until they use one.

[Thelasian]

Stop SPAM > wrote in message >...
> Thelasian wrote:
> > Stop SPAM > wrote in message >...
> >>Thelasian -
> >>
> >>I suggest you read the article I posted, which said, amungst other things:
> >>
> >>>>The Iranian list, presented during talks in Paris, includes demands that
> >>>>the three European powers:
> >>>>- Support Iran's insistence its nuclear program have access to "advanced
> >>>>technology, including those with dual use," which is equipment and
> >>>>know-how that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
> >>
> > YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use, all that
> > means is that Iran insist on its RIGHT to receive all the technology
> > and not just the ones that the EU3 thinks is safe enough to give
> > away.
>
> Thelasian -
>
> I suggest you learn a bit more about nuclear technology before you
> embarrass yourself further.


Don't presume so much.

>
> All nuclear technology is not "inherently" dual use. There are many
> nuclear reactor designs that cannot be used for weapons use;


This is true. However, if someone is hellbent on characterizing
something as "could be used to make nukes" then ANY technology is
'dual use'
Someone could say with a straight face that my pocket calcular "could
be used to make nuclear weapons" - and they'd be right.
So even proliferation-proof reactors can be maligned this way - they
could argue that the fuel for the reactors "could be used to make a
dirty nuke".

That's the problem with the US accusations against Iran - we are told
that Iran's civilian ligh****er reactor "Could be used to make nukes"
and so could the uranium enrichment facilities. Sure, it "could" but
so could my pocket calculator.

Anyway do you see anyone sharing the proliferation proof technology
with Iran? Nope. So what's Iran supposed to do?


> that run on low grade fuel come to mind.

Actually, Iran's ligh****er reactor does indeed run on low-grade fuel.
However, according to several sources, even that lowgrade fuel "could
be" used to make nuclear weapons . . .

Both the USSR and the US export
> such designs and equipment to countries truly looking for peaceful uses
> of nuclear power. Without reprocessing or extraction plants (which do
> utilize dual use technology) such a low grade reactor is not dual use,


So you're saying that even the proliferation proof technology CAN BE
dual use, right? After all, the fuel has to be reprocessed. It can't
just disappear.


> and with an outside country swapping fuel loads as needed there is no
> need for any in-country dual use technology.


Unless that country doesn't want to have be reliant on the foreign
country for its energy needs.



> So why is Iran insisting it needs dual use nuclear technology when, if
> all it wants is peaceful nukes, it could go with non-dual use technology?


That's sort of like asking why doesn't the USA just buy all of its oil
from OPEC instead of pumping its own oil.

Because Iran doesn't want to be reliant on a foreign cartel to provide
its nuclear energy. And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have
access to the technology.

Look, the best way to control the technology is through
joint-ventures. Iran would be happy to allow that. But the USA is
saying "No way - no nuclear technology AT ALL" - and that's just not
going to fly. You can't stick the toothpaste it back into the tube.

>
> Go back, read something reasonable about nuclear technology, and then
> come back and post.
>
> Until then, quit posting factually wildly incorrect statements such as
> "all nuclear technology is inherently dual use".

All nuclear technology is inherently dual use, especially because it
can be CHARACTERIZED as such.

Heck the US even objects to Iran gaining access to the lowest-level,
safest nuclear technology because it COULD provide Iranians with the
knowledge to one day POSSIBLY build nukes. And so could my pocket
calculator.

[Stop SPAM]

Thelasian wrote:
> Sure, it "could" but so could my pocket calculator.

If you're going to make specious arguments that LWRs (and your pocket
calculator) can be considered as dual-use technology, then, once again,
you don't know the internationally accepted definitions of "dual use"
(go read the IAEA's site, for example) and there's no use arguing with
ignorance.

> And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have access to the technology.

If you believe in this statement, then I believe in the statement that
it is the right and responsibility of the rest of the world - through
the UN and the IAEA, in this case - to deny that 'right' to countries
believed to be too unstable (which, yes, I'd like to see NK added - but
the example of NK just goes to prove the point it's far easier to stop a
country before it has any than after). And note from my original post
that France, Germany & Britian are unhappy, not just the USA, so no US
bashing in this case.

And might I inquire from what source or document this "fundamental
right" derives? I'm not aware of anything in the UN documents that
provides this "fundamental right" to all countries.

A country's "fundamental rights" end where it's actions or planned
actions concerns its neighboring countries (more broadly speaking in
this day and age than past) enough for them to act to counter it.

See, for example: "It has been argued here that Article 51 of the
Charter of the UN includes the customary international law right of
anticipatory self-defense... Israel acted within those limits... This
particular use of force constituted an appropriate application of the
right of anticipatory self-defense in international law." from
"Self-Defense in International Law: The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi
Nuclear Reactor", Timothy L. H. McCormack, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p.
302.

[Thelasian]

"William Wright" > wrote in message news:<sybSc.263451$JR4.22190@attbi_s54>...
> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> m...
> > zalzon > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:22:47 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anything but to blame the USA right?
> > > >
> > > > Who backed and supported Saddam?
> > >
> > >
> > > Its all part of geopolitics.
> > >
> > > In the end, everyone has their hands dirty.
> >
> > Gee, is that excuse applicable only to the US or can al-Qaeda use it too?
>
> Who cares what al-Qaeda uses as an excuse! This game is called "Last Man
> Standing".


Great. Al-Qaeda will appreciate that.

[Thelasian]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 10 Aug 2004 09:22:47 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
>
> >Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> >> In article >,
> >> (Thelasian) wrote:
> >>
> >> > "W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
> >> > >...
> >> > > "...Proof:
> >> > > UN clears Iran nuclear facility...."
> >> > >
> >> > > Is that the same UN that got rich on kickbacks from Saddam Hussein while
> >> > > closing their eyes to his starving to death Iraqi children during the
> >> > > 1990s?
> >> >
> >> > Oh, so the starving of IRaqi children was the UNs' fault and not the
> >> > fault of the USA??
> >>
> >> False dilemma.
> >>
> >> Blame the responsible party; Saddam Hussein and his cronies.
> >
> >Anything but to blame the USA right?
>
> Don't forget the rest of the Security Council who voted fo rthe
> sanctions regime.


Not quite. The "no fly zones" for example were never approved by the
UNSC, and were only enforced by the UK and US. The rest of the UNSC
didn't say or do anything about it though.



> >Who backed and supported Saddam?
>
> Just about all teh major Western Powers - US political support,
> Russian and French weapons, no doubt us Evil Brits (tm) had some hand
> in it as well.


Oh they most certainly did - check out the Scott Inquiry.


>
> Peter Kemp

[Thelasian]

"William Wright" > wrote in message news:<qasSc.240459$%_6.226489@attbi_s01>...
> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between the
> > >governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really believe
> > >that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful discussion
> >
> > Thats the real politics,the countries without nuclear weapons get
> occupied and
> > colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even if they have only a
> couple of
> > of them,treated with soft gloves.
>
> Right up until they use one.


Which no US president has been foolish enough to test.
The potential for 100,000 dead bodies has a way of making saner minds
prevail, instead of a bunch of lunatic neocons running around seeking
to start WWIII

[Thelasian]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Among the smoke-and-mirror and fear-mongering innuendo, these are some
> > > facts about Iran's nuclear program that aren't being mentioned:
> > >
> > > 1- The Bushehr reactor-which was started under the Shah with US
> > > support-is not a weapons proliferation threat since it is a ligh****er
> > > reactor which is under IAEA safeguard. Even the IAEA itself admits
> > > that much.
> > >
> >
> > There is a push by the same neocons that gave us the invasion of Iraq on
> > false pretexts to invade Iran. Their henchmen eg Charles Krauthammer, is
> > already pushing for it.
> >
>
> Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the planet!


Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....


>
> > There will be a concerted propaganda-hype campaigne to do this over the
> next
> > few years and there is not doubt that it will have a very high chance of
> > succeding.
> >
>
> Gotta hope so.
>
>
> > Oil, the powerfull US zionist lobby and general blow back from middle
> > eastern resentment against the US will all aligne.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Wow, this post has it all - neocons, henchmen, zionists. Makes me wonder
> if they have propoganda-bots!
>
> Jarg

[T3]

"Thelasian" > wrote in message
m...

Thelasian or whoever.
I'm not chasing you across newsgroups, however you seem to enjoy X-posting
in groups that are important to me. Having said that, you sir are a fool or
a troll or BOTH...There are way too many people who think the current
Govt./Theocracy/whatever, in Iran should NOT be trusted with much more than
a F'ing firecracker, much less a nuke..... Quit trying to convince anyone
otherwise. Jeez, where do these guy's come from??? This is one lame ass
argument, anyone with a "lick" of sense knows you're a Turkey!!!(as in, full
of sh*t as a X-mas one)

Regards,

T3

BTW-Dual use is like a calculator? It's more than obvious that you're way
over your head... Puhleese go away and try to spread your B/S
elsewhere..........!

[William Wright]

"Thelasian" > wrote in message
m...
> "William Wright" > wrote in message
news:<qasSc.240459$%_6.226489@attbi_s01>...
> > "Denyav" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >I pity anyone who tries to pretend there is some equivalence between
the
> > > >governments of Iran and the United States. If you start really
believe
> > > >that, you are so far behind the curve as to make meaningful
discussion
> > >
> > > Thats the real politics,the countries without nuclear weapons get
> > occupied and
> > > colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even if they have only a
> > couple of
> > > of them,treated with soft gloves.
> >
> > Right up until they use one.
>
>
> Which no US president has been foolish enough to test.
> The potential for 100,000 dead bodies has a way of making saner minds
> prevail, instead of a bunch of lunatic neocons running around seeking
> to start WWIII

I think you misunderstand. First it is WW IV and it was started by al-Qaeda.
After several sucker punches and numerous declarations, they were finally
able to communicate that fact. Second I expect before it is over that the US
will suffer more than 100,000 dead. I think when that happens the US will
uncase its sword and God help the world when that happens. You do understand
that the US spent the last 60 years planning the end of the world don't you.

So yes the US would try to avoid a situation where some idiot initiates
nuclear suicide for the planet. The country that uses one on the US goes
extinct.

As far as no POTUS testing it, well I suggest you review the Missiles of
October.

[Denyav]

>The al-Qaeda condition for victory is the obliteration of western society.
>Personally I take them at their

Behind each and every successful terrorist organization there is a gov.
agency,Al-Qaeda is no exception.
Al-Qaede itself is proxy of US,kind of a much improved and bigger version of
"Operation Northwoods".

If the interests of a group that make less than 20% of US population but
dominate US for centuries require a spectacular PSYOP with deaths of 100000 US
citizens ,then that will happen.

It did happen in 1861,1898,1941 and almost happened in 1961,so why not in 2001
or later?

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,it may find it more
difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,except in
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat"

Zbigniew Brezezinki,1997,Grand Chessboard

[Matt Wiser]

"William Wright" > wrote:
>
>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >I pity anyone who tries to pretend there
>is some equivalence between the
>> >governments of Iran and the United States.
> If you start really believe
>> >that, you are so far behind the curve as
>to make meaningful discussion
>>
>> Thats the real politics,the countries without
> nuclear weapons get
>occupied and
>> colonized,but the ones with nuclear weapons,even
>if they have only a
>couple of
>> of them,treated with soft gloves.
>
>Right up until they use one.
>
>

And then they get blown off the map by another nuclear power. Even a failed
attack by missile or aircraft would result in retaliation. Severe retaliation.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Jarg]

"Thelasian" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
planet!
>
>
> Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
> US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....
>

First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel, though
not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of Iran, as
demonstrated by the relative freedom and prosperity its citizens enjoy. As
for Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, well you had to really dig into the muck to
find comparable nations didn't you!? And I wasn't aware these other
countries you mention are sponsoring and harboring terrorists.

Jarg

[B2431]

>From: "William Wright"
>Date: 8/12/2004 12:10 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BwNSc.136515$eM2.70490@attbi_s51>
>
>
>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >The al-Qaeda condition for victory is the obliteration of western
>society.
>> >Personally I take them at their
>>
>> Behind each and every successful terrorist organization there is a gov.
>> agency,Al-Qaeda is no exception.
>> Al-Qaede itself is proxy of US,kind of a much improved and bigger version
>of
>> "Operation Northwoods".
>>
>> If the interests of a group that make less than 20% of US population but
>> dominate US for centuries require a spectacular PSYOP with deaths of
>100000 US
>> citizens ,then that will happen.
>>
>> It did happen in 1861,1898,1941 and almost happened in 1961,so why not in
>2001
>> or later?
>>
>> "As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,it may find it
>more
>> difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,except in
>> circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external
>threat"
>>
>> Zbigniew Brezezinki,1997,Grand Chessboard
>>
>
>This is so stupid it is difficult to even know where to start so I won't.

A while back denyev claimed the Nazis detonated 2 atomic devices in 1945 one of
which was in a highly populated area.

He is a manure salesman with a mouth full off samples.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Kemp]

On 11 Aug 2004 20:47:10 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:

>Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
>> On 10 Aug 2004 09:22:47 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget the rest of the Security Council who voted fo rthe
>> sanctions regime.
>
>Not quite. The "no fly zones" for example were never approved by the
>UNSC, and were only enforced by the UK and US. The rest of the UNSC
>didn't say or do anything about it though.

Err, the No Fly Zones had bugger all to do with the sanctions, which
*were* approved by the UNSC.

The NFZs were to prevent (or at least hinder) Saddam massacring the
Kurds and Shiites, unfortunately with little success.

>> Just about all teh major Western Powers - US political support,
>> Russian and French weapons, no doubt us Evil Brits (tm) had some hand
>> in it as well.
>
>
>Oh they most certainly did - check out the Scott Inquiry.

Good point, I'd forgotten about "Supergun"

Peter Kemp

[Thelasian]

"Jarg" > wrote in message >...
> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> m...
> > >
> > > Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
> planet!
> >
> >
> > Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
> > US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....
> >
>
> First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel, though
> not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of Iran,


Yes, and I am sure the 6 million Palestinians who were driven out of
their homes and refused their rights under the Geneva Convention would
totally agree.


> demonstrated by the relative freedom and prosperity its citizens enjoy.

You mean JEWISH citizens. Even Arab citizens of Israel are widely
discriminated against in the JEWISH homeland.

> for Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, well you had to really dig into the muck to
> find comparable nations didn't you!?


Not really. In fact I could point out the fact that up to a few years
ago that the US of A was conducting human nuclear radition experiments
on unsuspecting psychiatric patients without their knowledge or
approval, and that our military was training torturers and assassins
at the School of Americas.

Talk about "supporting terrorism"!!!

[Thelasian]

Stop SPAM > wrote in message >...
> Thelasian wrote:
> > Sure, it "could" but so could my pocket calculator.
>
> If you're going to make specious arguments that LWRs (and your pocket
> calculator) can be considered as dual-use technology, then, once again

You seem to be missing the point. Iran's LWR at Bushehr HAS ALREADY
BEEN characterized as 'dual use' technlogy. That's why the US opposes
it. The US has SPECIFICALLY said that Bushehr can be used to make
nuclear weapons because supposedly the technologists who run the
reactor COULD use their knowledge to build bombs, and the fuel rods
COULD be reprocessed to extract plutonium. That's my whole point - ANY
technology can be (mis)characterized as "could be used to make nukes"
- don't blame me for the mischaracterization, I am just pointing it
out.


> > And because it is Iran's fundamental right to have access to the technology.
>
> If you believe in this statement, then I believe in the statement that
> it is the right and responsibility of the rest of the world - through
> the UN and the IAEA, in this case - to deny that 'right' to countries
> believed to be too unstable


Actually, Iran is pretty stable, and anyway the NPT says "inalienable
right...without discrimination" and doesn't say anything about
"stable" and furthermore, its not the "rest of the world" that's
hassling Iran, its the US, Israel, and EU3. Several other countries
support Iran, like the entire Non0Aligned Nations, which is why the US
hasn't been able to get its way on the IAEA Board.


> And might I inquire from what source or document this "fundamental
> right" derives? I'm not aware of anything in the UN documents that
> provides this "fundamental right" to all countries.


The fundamental right to have nuclear technology is recognized in the
NPT itself (note I said recognized, not derived from) - for example
the Preamble:

"Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of
nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may
be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear
explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all
Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon
States"


Iran's right to have nuclear technology is derived from the same
source as the US's right to have it, or chinas, or Japans or Russia -
there is no law of nature that says some can and some can't.

>
> A country's "fundamental rights" end where it's actions or planned
> actions concerns its neighboring countries (more broadly speaking in
> this day and age than past) enough for them to act to counter it.

I see - so might is right. All the more reason for nations to seek
nuclear weapons then.


> See, for example: "It has been argued here that Article 51 of the
> Charter of the UN includes the customary international law right of
> anticipatory self-defense... Israel acted within those limits... This
> particular use of force constituted an appropriate application of the
> right of anticipatory self-defense in international law." from
> "Self-Defense in International Law: The Israeli Raid on the Iraqi
> Nuclear Reactor", Timothy L. H. McCormack, Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p.
> 302.

Well, not quite. Anticipatory self-defense requires an "imminent
threat" and anyway, if Israel has this right, then any Iraqi attack on
Israel can also be cast in the same light, right? That's the problem
with twisting the law - it can twist both ways.

[Denyav]

>A while back denyev claimed the Nazis detonated 2 atomic devices in 1945 one
>of
>which was in a highly populated area.

Do you call a place that even Wehrmact personal were not allowed to enter a
"highly populated " area ?

[zalzon]

> You seem to be missing the point. Iran's LWR at Bushehr HAS ALREADY
> BEEN characterized as 'dual use' technlogy. That's why the US opposes
> it.

Hi,
lets be honest here. Its not an issue of dual use equipment so much
as its pretty obvious Eyeran wants to build nuclear weapons with the
knowledge/equipment/material aquired from foreign (or local for that
matter) sources. Eyeran is signatory to the NPT which bars countries from
pursuing a nuclear weapons program in exchange for dual use nuclear
technology.

Eyeran has every right to develop its civil nuclear industry under the NPT
but as you I'm sure know, that isn't its only objective.

Its of course true that the world order, by human nature, is inherently
unfair. That nations seek to aquire n-weapons but seek to deny it to
others..etc.

[Denyav]

>This is so stupid it is difficult to even know where to start so I won't.
>

Let me help you,
1861 Ft.Sumter incident (evil Confederates attacked Ft.sumter.Starting of Civil
WAr)
1898 Maine incident (Evil Spaniards destroyed USS Maine.US-Spanish war)
1941 Pearl Harbor.(Evil Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed relics from
WWI.US enters WWII on Anglo side)
1961 Operation Northwoods.(Evil Cubans supposed to hijack planes and use them
as cruise misilles aganist US civilian targets.Public outcry for revenge
expected to justify the invasion of Cuba.JFK killed Operation Northwoods but he
got killed soon after too)
2001 9/11 (Evil Arabs used commercial planes to attack US targets.The rest is
the history)

If you cannot use Republican Guards to silence the majority like SH,then you
must use PSYOPs .

[Thelasian]

Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> On 11 Aug 2004 20:47:10 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
>
> >Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
> >> On 10 Aug 2004 09:22:47 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't forget the rest of the Security Council who voted fo rthe
> >> sanctions regime.
> >
> >Not quite. The "no fly zones" for example were never approved by the
> >UNSC, and were only enforced by the UK and US. The rest of the UNSC
> >didn't say or do anything about it though.
>
> Err, the No Fly Zones had bugger all to do with the sanctions, which
> *were* approved by the UNSC.



Err, no they were not. The no-fly zones were not approved by the UNSC.
And whatever the UNSC may or may not have done is no excuse for the
fact that the US quite intentionally armed Saddam and helped him
masscre people, then engaged in the policy of sanctions which resulted
in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children according to
UNICEF, and Madame Albright said it was all worth it.




>
> The NFZs were to prevent (or at least hinder) Saddam massacring the
> Kurds and Shiites, unfortunately with little success.
>
> >> Just about all teh major Western Powers - US political support,
> >> Russian and French weapons, no doubt us Evil Brits (tm) had some hand
> >> in it as well.
> >
> >
> >Oh they most certainly did - check out the Scott Inquiry.
>
> Good point, I'd forgotten about "Supergun"
>
> Peter Kemp

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >This is so stupid it is difficult to even know where to start so I won't.
> >
>
> Let me help you,
> 1861 Ft.Sumter incident (evil Confederates attacked Ft.sumter.Starting of
Civil
> WAr)
> 1898 Maine incident (Evil Spaniards destroyed USS Maine.US-Spanish war)
> 1941 Pearl Harbor.(Evil Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed relics
from
> WWI.US enters WWII on Anglo side)
> 1961 Operation Northwoods.(Evil Cubans supposed to hijack planes and use
them
> as cruise misilles aganist US civilian targets.Public outcry for revenge
> expected to justify the invasion of Cuba.JFK killed Operation Northwoods
but he
> got killed soon after too)
> 2001 9/11 (Evil Arabs used commercial planes to attack US targets.The
rest is
> the history)
>
> If you cannot use Republican Guards to silence the majority like SH,then
you
> must use PSYOPs .
>

So you think the CIA attacked Fort Sumter

That figures

Keith

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 8/13/2004 3:40 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >This is so stupid it is difficult to even know where to start so I won't.
>> >
>>
>> Let me help you,
>> 1861 Ft.Sumter incident (evil Confederates attacked Ft.sumter.Starting of
>Civil
>> WAr)
>> 1898 Maine incident (Evil Spaniards destroyed USS Maine.US-Spanish war)
>> 1941 Pearl Harbor.(Evil Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed relics
>from
>> WWI.US enters WWII on Anglo side)
>> 1961 Operation Northwoods.(Evil Cubans supposed to hijack planes and use
>them
>> as cruise misilles aganist US civilian targets.Public outcry for revenge
>> expected to justify the invasion of Cuba.JFK killed Operation Northwoods
>but he
>> got killed soon after too)
>> 2001 9/11 (Evil Arabs used commercial planes to attack US targets.The
>rest is
>> the history)
>>
>> If you cannot use Republican Guards to silence the majority like SH,then
>you
>> must use PSYOPs .
>>
>
>So you think the CIA attacked Fort Sumter
>
>That figures
>
>Keith

Denyev has pulled this gag before. If you ask him to prove it he can't so he
just repeats the same lies.

Want a real laugh ask him about the two atomic bombs the Nazis tested and how
the U.S. couldn't have built atomic bombs without using Nazi parts and weapons
grade uranium. Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable designs
and no weapons grade uranium. To prove Nazi parts were used he will present you
with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never mind
the Nazis produced no plutonium.

This, of all his fantasies, is my favourite. It's in the same genre as maron's
"the USAF was responsible for 9/11," teuton's UFOs and Nazi secrets only he
knows, tarver's optical nukes, art's "if you didn't serve in combat your
service was meaningless and you are not a veteran"...etc.

Some energetic individual should publish a book of some of the delusions like
these.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"

>
> Denyev has pulled this gag before. If you ask him to prove it he can't so
he
> just repeats the same lies.
>
> Want a real laugh ask him about the two atomic bombs the Nazis tested and
how
> the U.S. couldn't have built atomic bombs without using Nazi parts and
weapons
> grade uranium. Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable
designs
> and no weapons grade uranium. To prove Nazi parts were used he will
present you
> with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never
mind
> the Nazis produced no plutonium.
>

I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
His usual response is that the proof is in documents
so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.

Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal
fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines
armed with nuclear weapons. They must have been real duffers
to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's, Spitfires,
B-17's and Lancasters :)

Keith


Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jim Yanik]

(Thelasian) wrote in
m:

> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> > >
>> > > Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
>> planet!
>> >
>> >
>> > Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
>> > US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....
>> >
>>
>> First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel,
>> though not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of
>> Iran,
>
>
> Yes, and I am sure the 6 million Palestinians who were driven out of
> their homes and refused their rights under the Geneva Convention would
> totally agree.

Uh,most of them left voluntarily,under advice from their Grand Mufti.

ISTR that there were not even 6 million original 'refugees' resulting from
the 1948 war.I believe you are counting those born in other countries
afterwards.Rather dishonest,IMO.

>
>
>> demonstrated by the relative freedom and prosperity its citizens
>> enjoy.
>
> You mean JEWISH citizens. Even Arab citizens of Israel are widely
> discriminated against in the JEWISH homeland.

Yeah,what ARAB country allows Jews to be in their legislature?
Israel has two "Palestinian" members in the Knesset.
Arabs in Israel are FAR freer and more prosperous than in any of the
neighboring Arab countries,supposedly their friends and supporters.
They expect Jews to allow them to live in Israel(which Israel does),but
will not let Jews live in Arab countries.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Keith Willshaw]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> (Thelasian) wrote in
> m:
>
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> > >
> >> > > Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
> >> planet!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
> >> > US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....
> >> >
> >>
> >> First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel,
> >> though not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of
> >> Iran,
> >
> >
> > Yes, and I am sure the 6 million Palestinians who were driven out of
> > their homes and refused their rights under the Geneva Convention would
> > totally agree.
>
> Uh,most of them left voluntarily,under advice from their Grand Mufti.
>
> ISTR that there were not even 6 million original 'refugees' resulting from
> the 1948 war.I believe you are counting those born in other countries
> afterwards.Rather dishonest,IMO.
>

That number presumably also includes the ones driven out of Jordan
when King Hussein decided he couldnt accept the terrorist attacks
being made by them.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Kemp]

On 12 Aug 2004 21:55:25 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:

>Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
>> On 11 Aug 2004 20:47:10 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Kemp > wrote in message >...
>> >> On 10 Aug 2004 09:22:47 -0700, (Thelasian) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Don't forget the rest of the Security Council who voted fo rthe
>> >> sanctions regime.
>> >
>> >Not quite. The "no fly zones" for example were never approved by the
>> >UNSC, and were only enforced by the UK and US. The rest of the UNSC
>> >didn't say or do anything about it though.
>>
>> Err, the No Fly Zones had bugger all to do with the sanctions, which
>> *were* approved by the UNSC.
>
>
>
>Err, no they were not. The no-fly zones were not approved by the UNSC.

And? I never claimed they were. If you read what I wrote, I said that
the *sanctions* were approved by the UNSC, not unilaterally imposed by
the US as you state.

>And whatever the UNSC may or may not have done is no excuse for the
>fact that the US quite intentionally armed Saddam and helped him
>masscre people, then engaged in the policy of sanctions which resulted
>in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children according to
>UNICEF, and Madame Albright said it was all worth it.

Peter Kemp

[Denyav]

> Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable designs
>and no weapons grade uranium.

Manhatan Project was a colossal blunder,in March 1945 even the termination of
Project was in discussion.A miracle happened in April they produced everything
they needed within the days,the name of miracle was the occupation of Thuringen
Forest.

>with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never mind
>the Nazis produced no plutonium.

Everbody could see that.
Nazis produced no Plutonium?Surely you must be joking.
What they were doing in Klein-Machow?
Actually von Ardenne/Houtermanns team was much ahead of Deibner team.
Houtermanns completed his ground breaking work in August 1941,six months before
Diebner finished his work.
Houtermanns August 1941 report also explains why and how Manhattan Project was
able to produce everything that they failed to produce before April 1944
within weeks in April/May 1945.

>"the USAF was responsible for 9/11," teuton's UFOs and Nazi

UFOs?This a term created after WWII by US to hide their origins.
Their creators called them SFOs (SonderFlugObjecten) not UFOs.period.

[Denyav]

>I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
>His usual response is that the proof is in documents
>so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.

You forgat to mention a small detail,the documents are under lock for 75 years
and that is no secret.

>Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal
>fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines
>armed with nuclear weapons. T

Where is Kammler?

>must have been real duffers
>to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's, Spitfires,
>B-17's and Lancasters :)

Sometimes mere mortals do not even need P-51s,Spitfires and Lancasters to beat
Superpowers,box cutters might be more than enough to do job.

[Denyav]

>So you think the CIA attacked Fort Sumter

CIA,NSA etc are only accesories to the crimes committed aganist 80+% of US
population.

[Jarg]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> > Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable designs
> >and no weapons grade uranium.
>
> Manhatan Project was a colossal blunder,in March 1945 even the termination
of
> Project was in discussion.A miracle happened in April they produced
everything
> they needed within the days,the name of miracle was the occupation of
Thuringen
> Forest.
>
> >with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never
mind
> >the Nazis produced no plutonium.
>
> Everbody could see that.
> Nazis produced no Plutonium?Surely you must be joking.
> What they were doing in Klein-Machow?
> Actually von Ardenne/Houtermanns team was much ahead of Deibner team.
> Houtermanns completed his ground breaking work in August 1941,six months
before
> Diebner finished his work.
> Houtermanns August 1941 report also explains why and how Manhattan Project
was
> able to produce everything that they failed to produce before April 1944
> within weeks in April/May 1945.
>
> >"the USAF was responsible for 9/11," teuton's UFOs and Nazi
>
> UFOs?This a term created after WWII by US to hide their origins.
> Their creators called them SFOs (SonderFlugObjecten) not UFOs.period.
>
>

I must admit the world you live in is much more interesting than the real
on!

Jarg

[Denyav]

>I must admit the world you live in is much more interesting than the real
>on!

Real World? Do you mean "the official world" or "Victors World" ?

I think 75 years is enough.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> > Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable designs
> >and no weapons grade uranium.
>
> Manhatan Project was a colossal blunder,in March 1945 even the termination
of
> Project was in discussion.A miracle happened in April they produced
everything
> they needed within the days,the name of miracle was the occupation of
Thuringen
> Forest.
>
> >with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never
mind
> >the Nazis produced no plutonium.
>
> Everbody could see that.
> Nazis produced no Plutonium?Surely you must be joking.
> What they were doing in Klein-Machow?
> Actually von Ardenne/Houtermanns team was much ahead of Deibner team.
> Houtermanns completed his ground breaking work in August 1941,six months
before
> Diebner finished his work.

Houtermans was working for the German post office and his work
consisted of writing a report stating a reactor could produce plutonium

This was 2 years AFTER the same conclusion had been reached
in Cambridge. The difference is that the Anglo-American team
were able to build a working reactor and produce plutonium
rather than just talking about it.


Keith

[T3]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
> >His usual response is that the proof is in documents
> >so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.
>
> You forgat to mention a small detail,the documents are under lock for 75
years
> and that is no secret.
>
> >Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal
> >fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines
> >armed with nuclear weapons. T
>
> Where is Kammler?
>
> >must have been real duffers
> >to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's,
Spitfires,
> >B-17's and Lancasters :)
>
> Sometimes mere mortals do not even need P-51s,Spitfires and Lancasters to
beat
> Superpowers,box cutters might be more than enough to do job.

Dude, box cutters in no way shape or form defeated the USA. It really ****ed
them off and united them, the last two things anyone in their right mind
would want to do. Kick back and take your medicine, it's time....
Regards,
T3

[Denyav]

>Dude, box cutters in no way shape or form defeated the USA. It really ****ed
>them off and united them.

Excellent,you are proving my point.

9/11 was designed and executed by some US gov.agencies to achieve domestic and
foreign policy goals.
(Similar to Operation Northwoods,Pearl Harbor or Maine)


"..the Process of transformation ..is likely to be a long one,ABSENT some
catastrophic and catalysing event -like a NEW Pearl Harbor".

Rebuilding Americas Defenses,Sept.2000

[Denyav]

>Houtermans was working for the German post office and his work
>consisted of writing a report stating a reactor could produce plutonium

Houtermanns was the associate of von Ardenne.(BTW von Ardenne was the person
who saved from Gestapo)


>in Cambridge. The difference is that the Anglo-American team
>were able to build a working reactor and produce plutonium
>rather than just talking about it.
>
>

Houtermanns was pionier in producing Plutonium using Chemical process.
In 1942 they were already producing Plutonium in Klein-Machow whereas
Anglo-American Manhattan Project in March 45 neither produced enough Uran nor
Plutonium and that was the reason why some powerful Congressmen called for its
termination.

Thats one of the the differences between German and Manhattan projects,one by
taking advantage of famous German innovative abilities produced results even
with very limited resources,while the latter stalled in early 1945 inspite of
colossal resources committed to the project.

[Pete]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Dude, box cutters in no way shape or form defeated the USA. It really
****ed
> >them off and united them.
>
> Excellent,you are proving my point.
>
> 9/11 was designed and executed by some US gov.agencies to achieve domestic
and
> foreign policy goals.
> (Similar to Operation Northwoods,Pearl Harbor or Maine)

Get back to us when you have some documentation on this.

Now..I know you will produce many, many links and quotes of nebulous and
shadowy info and falsehoods, none of which actually answer the question.

Please don't. Factual, verifiable info, please.

Pete

[Peter Kemp]

On 13 Aug 2004 21:41:05 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

>>I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
>>His usual response is that the proof is in documents
>>so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.
>
>You forgat to mention a small detail,the documents are under lock for 75 years
>and that is no secret.

So how do you know what's in them if they're locked away and secret?

Can anyone else see the small logical problem here?

Peter Kemp

[Denyav]

>So how do you know what's in them if they're locked away and secret?

Do what investigative Journalists working for German ZDF TV channel did and and
do a research Jonastal/Kammler, U-235 documents as well as the Journal pages of
89.Infantary division between 4/8/45 1,35PM and 4/11/45 7,35 PM under freedom
of information act.They are all still classified.

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>Date: 8/13/2004 6:54 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>So how do you know what's in them if they're locked away and secret?
>
>Do what investigative Journalists working for German ZDF TV channel did and
>and
>do a research Jonastal/Kammler, U-235 documents as well as the Journal pages
>of
>89.Infantary division between 4/8/45 1,35PM and 4/11/45 7,35 PM under freedom
>of information act.They are all still classified.

If they are still classified then neither FOA nor ZDF would have produced
access to them.

As usual, denyav, your claim is illogical.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>Date: 8/13/2004 6:07 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

<snip a bunch of garbage>
>>
>>
>
>Houtermanns was pionier in producing Plutonium using Chemical process

Ok, plutonium is almost non existant in nature. There is no way to chemically
separate it in sufficient quantities to do much more than measure its
existence. The only way to produce it in quantity is in a fission reactor. Just
where did the Nazis have such a reactor?

<snip more garbage>

Do you actually believe this stuff you spew?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denyav]

>Just
>where did the Nazis have such a reactor?

In Klein-Machow

[Denyav]

>If they are still classified then neither FOA nor ZDF would have produced
>access to them.

Of course,investigative journalists proved some thing very important,namely
documents about Jonastal,U-235,Kammler and infabtry divisions journal entries
do exist but they are all still classified.

Gimme a Break ,you are putting everything under lock for almost one century and
trying to behave as if they do not exist.

Thanks to the works of investigative journalists we all know now that these
documents exists.

You must now find a logical answer why all those documents regarding events
happened within only a couple of days in a sleepy rural region (no cities,no
industry,no universities) of Germany ,or an U-Boot surrendered to US Navy
required to be kept secret for almost one century.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >This is so stupid it is difficult to even know where to start so I
> > >won't.
> > >
> >
> > Let me help you,
> > 1861 Ft.Sumter incident (evil Confederates attacked Ft.sumter.Starting
> > of
> Civil
> > WAr)
> > 1898 Maine incident (Evil Spaniards destroyed USS Maine.US-Spanish war)
> > 1941 Pearl Harbor.(Evil Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed relics
> from
> > WWI.US enters WWII on Anglo side)
> > 1961 Operation Northwoods.(Evil Cubans supposed to hijack planes and
> > use
> them
> > as cruise misilles aganist US civilian targets.Public outcry for
> > revenge
> > expected to justify the invasion of Cuba.JFK killed Operation
> > Northwoods
> but he
> > got killed soon after too)
> > 2001 9/11 (Evil Arabs used commercial planes to attack US targets.The
> rest is
> > the history)
> >
> > If you cannot use Republican Guards to silence the majority like
> > SH,then
> you
> > must use PSYOPs .
> >
>
> So you think the CIA attacked Fort Sumter
>
> That figures
>
> Keith
>
>

Was that the early secret collaboration between governments, the
Carolinas Intelligence Agency?

[Thelasian]

Steve Hix > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Thelasian) wrote:
>
> > YEs, and since all nuclear technology is inherently dual use,
>
> Stop right there.
>
> Go back and get a refund from your physics instructors.
>
> Don't wait around, get going.

See, if you had actually kept up with the FACTS of what's going on,
then you'd agree too: ANY nuclear technology is "dual use" because ANY
nuclear technology can be SPIN-DOCTORED and MISCHARACTERIZED as "dual
use" because any technology "could be used to make nukes". That's why
the Iranians specifically insist on their RIGHT according to the NPT
to have access to all civilian nuclear technology, whether the US
claims that the technology in question as "dual use" or not, because
they know the old "could be used to make nukes" claim is just a
pretext to deprive Iran of its legal "inalienable" rights.

The US has said, for example, that a light-water reactor that is under
IAEA safeguards and has received the IAEA's OK should not exist in
Iran because it "could be used to make nuclear weapons" - why? Not
because the reactor is a heavy water reactor that produces plutonium -
nope. Not because it produces the right isotope - nope. But because,
(According to the USA) the light-water reactor which has received the
OK of the IAEA COULD BE used to train technologists who COULD use
their knowledge to POSSIBLY build nuclear weapons - and so no Iranian
should ever have any nuclear technology.

See, how technology that the IAEA ITSELF says is safe can be
characterized as "dual use"? That's my point. If you buy into that
line of argument, then ANYTHING "could be used to make nukes." My
pocket calculator "Could be used to make nukes" Learning calculas
"could be used to make nukes"

Get it?

Oh, do try to keep up.

[Thelasian]

Jim Yanik > wrote in message >...
> (Thelasian) wrote in
> m:
>
> > "Jarg" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> "Thelasian" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> > >
> >> > > Not a bad idea, they are one of the worst governments left on the
> planet!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Except for say Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Israel, and lots of other
> >> > US-allied repressive racist tyrannies....
> >> >
> >>
> >> First, I said one of the worst.. Second, the government of Israel,
> >> though not without flaws, is orders of magnitude better than that of
> >> Iran,
> >
> >
> > Yes, and I am sure the 6 million Palestinians who were driven out of
> > their homes and refused their rights under the Geneva Convention would
> > totally agree.
>
> Uh,most of them left voluntarily,under advice from their Grand Mufti.

Brainwashed little parrot, do try to keep up: even Israeli historians
themselves don't shovel that **** any more about how the Palestinians
"voluntarily" left and so Israel is not responsible under
international law to allow them back. Have you read Benny Morris's
Righteous Victims or the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (if
not go to Amazon.com and do so)

In the meantime, read what Benny Morris had to say about it in his
interview with Ari Shavit, which appeared in Haaretz, where he admits
that ethnic cleansing occurred by Israel, and then being a good
Zionist, he tries to justify it as "breaking a few eggs":

Q According to your findings, how many acts of Israeli massacre were
perpetrated in 1948?

"Twenty-four. In some cases four or five people were executed, in
others the numbers were 70, 80, 100. There was also a great deal of
arbitrary killing. Two old men are spotted walking in a field - they
are shot. A woman is found in an abandoned village - she is shot.
There are cases such as the village of Dawayima , in which a column entered the village with all guns blazing
and killed anything that moved.

The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod
(250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no
unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes
were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which
nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the
north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram
: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun,
Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram
there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people
against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion.

That can't be chance. It's a pattern. Apparently, various officers who
took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they
received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the
population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished
for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered
up for the officers who did the massacres."

Q What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in
Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion
order. Is that right?

"Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948,
the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in
writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population.
Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the
Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this
order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the
city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately
after Ben-Gurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani [July
1948]."

Q Are you saying that Ben-Gurion was personally responsible for a
deliberate and systematic policy of mass expulsion?

"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."

Q Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

Q I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here.

Q Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of
Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do
you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of
1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification
for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions,
expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of
1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
You have to dirty your hands."

http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html



>
> ISTR that there were not even 6 million original 'refugees' resulting from
> the 1948 war.I believe you are counting those born in other countries
> afterwards.Rather dishonest,IMO.
>[i]
> >
> >[i]
> >> demonstrated by the relative freedom and prosperity its citizens
> >> enjoy.
> >
> > You mean JEWISH citizens. Even Arab citizens of Israel are widely
> > discriminated against in the JEWISH homeland.
>
> Yeah,what ARAB country allows Jews to be in their legislature?
> Israel has two "Palestinian" members in the Knesset.
> Arabs in Israel are FAR freer and more prosperous than in any of the
> neighboring Arab countries,supposedly their friends and supporters.
> They expect Jews to allow them to live in Israel(which Israel does),but
> will not let Jews live in Arab countries.

[Thelasian]

zalzon > wrote in message >...
> > You seem to be missing the point. Iran's LWR at Bushehr HAS ALREADY
> > BEEN characterized as 'dual use' technlogy. That's why the US opposes
> > it.
>
> Hi,
> lets be honest here. Its not an issue of dual use equipment so much
> as its pretty obvious Eyeran wants to build nuclear weapons with the
> knowledge/equipment/material aquired from foreign

It was "pretty obvious" that Iraq had vatloads of anthrax too - did
you find any? Use your brain and don't be a sheep. The IAEA itself has
said that there'e no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

The US even doesn't say that Iran is working on a nuclear weapons
program. Rather the US says that Iran's nuclear program gives it the
CAPACITY to build nukes. But ANY nuclear program can be characterized
as that. Brazil has the CAPACITY to build nukes too.


(or local for that
> matter) sources. Eyeran is signatory to the NPT which bars countries from
> pursuing a nuclear weapons program in exchange for dual use nuclear
> technology.
>
> Eyeran has every right to develop its civil nuclear industry under the NPT
> but as you I'm sure know, that isn't its only objective.
>
> Its of course true that the world order, by human nature, is inherently
> unfair. That nations seek to aquire n-weapons but seek to deny it to
> others..etc.

[Alistair Gunn]

Denyav twisted the electrons to say:
> Manhatan Project was a colossal blunder,in March 1945 even the
> termination of Project was in discussion.A miracle happened in April
> they produced everything they needed within the days,the name of
> miracle was the occupation of Thuringen Forest.

Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
non-US implosion device ...

This despite having access to people who worked on the Manhattan
Project and access to the raw data from Manhattan Project[1].

[1] Not all of which necessarily came with the approval of the US
government!
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Denyav]

>Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
>succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
>Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
>non-US implosion device ...

Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS Ark
Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and knowledgeable?

Maybe they should have imported the complete management team from Japan.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Strange that the Manhattan Project went from a "colossal blunder" to a
> >succcess in a small number of days, however it took the "Basic High
> >Explosive Research" group from June 1947 to October 1952 to create a
> >non-US implosion device ...
>
> Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS
Ark
> Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and
knowledgeable?
>

Which one ?

> Maybe they should have imported the complete management team from Japan.

They have not built a single carrier in the last
50 years.

Keith

[Alistair Gunn]

Keith Willshaw twisted the electrons to say:
>> Do you know how long did it take to complete non-US aircraft carrier HMS
>> Ark Royal even though her builders were extremely experienced and
>> knowledgeable?
> Which one ?

Presumably he means Ark Royal IV. Contract placed March '42, keel laid
May '43, launched in 1950 and commissioning for the first time in 1955.

The time through to 1945 is, of course, easily explainable - repairing
existing ships (and building smaller ships more likely to see service
during the war) was probably far more important ...

1945 through to 1950 is also pretty easy to explain, no particular need
for a brand new fleet carrier. Also carrier design was still evolving,
who wants to complete a carrier to a design that might be out-dated by
the time you've finished it?

So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
won't.)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Keith Willshaw twisted the electrons to say:

>
> Presumably he means Ark Royal IV. Contract placed March '42, keel laid
> May '43, launched in 1950 and commissioning for the first time in 1955.
>
> The time through to 1945 is, of course, easily explainable - repairing
> existing ships (and building smaller ships more likely to see service
> during the war) was probably far more important ...
>
> 1945 through to 1950 is also pretty easy to explain, no particular need
> for a brand new fleet carrier. Also carrier design was still evolving,
> who wants to complete a carrier to a design that might be out-dated by
> the time you've finished it?
>

Work was suspended for that reason and for the simpler
one that there was no money to pay for it.

> So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
> the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
> creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
> won't.)

Keith

[zalzon]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:05:50 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

> Rather the US says that Iran's nuclear program gives it the
> CAPACITY to build nukes. But ANY nuclear program can be characterized
> as that. Brazil has the CAPACITY to build nukes too.

Hi,
Such countries do not have a great amount of fossil fuels. For them
it makes economic sense to build nuclear reactors rather than to import
fossil fuels to build coal, oil or gas fired plants on a large scale. Of
course a nuclear weapons program could be coupled to their civilian
program but at the very least it raises no suspicion at first glance.

What justification is there for eyeran to persue electricity from nuclear
power which comes with a FAR higher economic (and political) opportunity
cost?

> It was "pretty obvious" that Iraq had vatloads of anthrax too

That's a straw man argument, lets compare apples to apples.

It was pretty obvious that Saddam intended to build nuclear weapons with
his Osirak reactor. He himself admitted to it. When you see Eyeran,
Saudi Arabia, Venesuela, UAE ..etc building nuclear power plants, it is
for one reason only. And that is the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The only country that is a major net oil exporter and operates a large
number of nuclear power plants is Russia. Their reasons for
developing their extensive nuclear infrastructure despite the high
economic opportunity cost was for nuclear weapons (that despite their huge
gas and oil reserves). Electricity was treated as a byproduct by the USSR
until the country went bust.

Now here's a question for you :

Can you honestly say that Eyeran has no military intent whatsoever
attached to its nuclear program? Can you honestly say the sole purpose of
its nuclear program which is being pursued at great economic & political
cost is only for generating electricity and nothing more?

I'm not asking you to produce mounds of documents, denials or claims. A
simple yes or no answer will do.

[Denyav]

>Which one ?

4th one.


>They have not built a single carrier in the last
>50 years.

If they decided to built one they would probably need less than 16 years to
built on

[Denyav]

>So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
>the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
>creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
>won't.)

I am pretty sure if somebody had offered to any non-US country an almost
completely assembled plutonium bomb including a designed and Made in Germany
triggering syetem,any non US country would become a nuclear power overnight and
moreover the Charlatan who who took triggering system from Germans would be
hailed as a national hero who solved the seemingly insolvable triggering
problem at the last minute.

BTW when UK started producing plutonium? I guess 7 years behind Third Reich?

[B2431]

>From: (Denyav)
>Date: 8/14/2004 11:55 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>BTW when UK started producing plutonium? I guess 7 years behind Third Reich?

The Nazi regime never produced any. If they had I am sure you can provide proof
or is that part of the stuff that is classified that only you and teuton know
about?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denyav]

>The Nazi regime never produced any. If they had I am sure you can provide
>proof
>or is that part of the stuff that is classified that only you and teuton know
>about?

Apparently you never heard anything about a location called Klein-Machnow and
German breeder there.
U-234 stuff (U boot not Uran) is still cladsified.
You must try to find out how an US scientists solved seemingly ubsolvable
triggering problem of plutonium bomb "at the last minute".

Heck,if the trade and and patent laws of today were used in 1945,von Ardenne
would be an even richer man.

Without stolen German nuclear technology US too would probably produce its
first plutonium bomb in 50s.

[Eunometic]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he thinks
> >the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
> >creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
> >won't.)
>
> I am pretty sure if somebody had offered to any non-US country an almost
> completely assembled plutonium bomb including a designed and Made in Germany
> triggering syetem,any non US country would become a nuclear power overnight and
> moreover the Charlatan who who took triggering system from Germans would be
> hailed as a national hero who solved the seemingly insolvable triggering
> problem at the last minute.
>
> BTW when UK started producing plutonium? I guess 7 years behind Third Reich?

Most of the German atomics researchers ended up under Soviet control.
They published a great deal of work under Russian sounding pseudonyms
because Stalin found that the prominance of German names in the
Russian leterature was politically embarasing. They has a reputation
for thorough and hard work, through somewhat unimaginative, that
contributed greatly to the Soviet nuclear effort.

The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
was 'pre-critical': They lowered an array 1 inch cubes of uranium
suspended from chains into a shielded tank of heavy water. The
neutron population increased by a factor of 7 within the 'pile' due to
fissioning induced by a small neutron source placed near the pile.
From this they correctly deduced that they would need to increase the
linear dimensions of their 'pile' by 50% for the reaction to become
self sustaining. This puts the Germans in late 1944-1945 at about the
level the Allies were at 1942. There were no control rods on this
test device: control was to be by raising or lowering the uranium
array of draining the heavywater.

In some areas they were ahead. They worked in the direction of using
ultra high speed electronically switched centrifuges to stratify
uranium hexaflouride gas to enrich unranium and managed to make a few
milligrans of uranium at 5% or so. This was on only a single
centrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.
Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
in the Soviet Union and then when they were realeased in the West.

The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
an atomic bomb.

One of the great 'frauds' that was used to justify WMD claims against
the Regime of Saddam Hussein related to the use of lightweight high
strength aluminium tubeing which was supposedly for the fabrication of
these centrifuges but turns out to have been for "Katuysha (little
Kate) unguided bombardment weapons.

The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.

[Denyav]

>The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
>was 'pre-critical': They lowered an array 1 inch cubes of uranium
>suspended from chains into a shielded tank of heavy water. The
>neutron population increased by a factor of 7 within the 'pile' due to
>fissioning induced by a small neutron source placed near the

That was the part of the "tarnforshung",actually Germans dropped using Heavy
Water as moderator in the Summer of 1944.(Thats the reason why British
occupation troops found more than 10t heavy water in a warehouse in Hamburg).

German Nuclear program had three main locations,in Klein-Machow,Licherfelde
and Skoda.
When Hitler visited Klein-Machow in Oct.44 he was allowed to enter to plant
without his adjutant and personal body guard,so far for the secrecy and
importance of this location/
Interestingly enough, the names Klein-Machow and Skoda did not appear in any of
documents before the break up of the Soviet Union and DDR.

Germans were not only producing weapon grade uran using their perfect GUZs but
also producing plutonium using Klein machow breeder.



>entrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.
>Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
>the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
>in the Soviet Union and then wh

Centrifuge cascades were already in use in 1944.
The person you are mentioning is probably Dr.Zippe ,the father of GUZ.,he is
also developer of modern USSR and US centrifuges in historical order.(Basically
the same German designs)

>The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
>diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
>an atomic bomb.

Yup,German GUZ development made Oak Ridge obsolete even before producing
anything.
Another plus point of German method was,GUZ cascades needed only a small
fraction of energy required by gigantic plants like Oak Ridge,so Germans did
not need a german version of TVA.

Most of the German atomics researchers ended up under Soviet control.
>They published a great deal of work under Russian sounding pseudonyms

Not only scientists ended up in USSR but also almost complete plants,inc.the
most of Klein-Machow breeder.
If Soviets had weapon grade Uran,they could built a nuclear weapon very early.
Obtaining weapon Grade uran was their biggest problem.

>The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
>was 'pre-critical': They lowered an

Standard knowledge is what victors make us to believe.

In his book Crusade in Europa Eisenhower states that if occupation of Germany
delayed only a couple of months,humankind would face greatest tragedy of
history.

Germany was practically defeated in 1942,in 1945 Wehrmacht could only find kids
and senior citizens to bear the arms.
So how already defeated Germany could possibly make devastating attacks in
Summer of 1945?

Answer is the S-weapon program,offical story is one thing official behaviour is
another.
Every post WWII organization (NATO,Echelon etc.)has been created to keep
Germans down and in check,even if they dont state it openly,because our Anglo
friends know better than anybody else,how close they were to the destruction
in 1945.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
m...
> (Denyav) wrote in message
>...
> > >So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he
thinks
> > >the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
> > >creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
> > >won't.)
> >
> > I am pretty sure if somebody had offered to any non-US country an almost
> > completely assembled plutonium bomb including a designed and Made in
Germany
> > triggering syetem,any non US country would become a nuclear power
overnight and
> > moreover the Charlatan who who took triggering system from Germans would
be
> > hailed as a national hero who solved the seemingly insolvable triggering
> > problem at the last minute.
> >
> > BTW when UK started producing plutonium? I guess 7 years behind Third
Reich?
>
> Most of the German atomics researchers ended up under Soviet control.
> They published a great deal of work under Russian sounding pseudonyms
> because Stalin found that the prominance of German names in the
> Russian leterature was politically embarasing. They has a reputation
> for thorough and hard work, through somewhat unimaginative, that
> contributed greatly to the Soviet nuclear effort.
>
> The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
> was 'pre-critical': They lowered an array 1 inch cubes of uranium
> suspended from chains into a shielded tank of heavy water. The
> neutron population increased by a factor of 7 within the 'pile' due to
> fissioning induced by a small neutron source placed near the pile.
> From this they correctly deduced that they would need to increase the
> linear dimensions of their 'pile' by 50% for the reaction to become
> self sustaining. This puts the Germans in late 1944-1945 at about the
> level the Allies were at 1942. There were no control rods on this
> test device: control was to be by raising or lowering the uranium
> array of draining the heavywater.
>

There was no radiation shielding either. Achieving criticallity
would have killed the researchers and likely caused a nasty
nuclear accident as the reaction vessel boiled dry

> In some areas they were ahead. They worked in the direction of using
> ultra high speed electronically switched centrifuges to stratify
> uranium hexaflouride gas to enrich unranium and managed to make a few
> milligrans of uranium at 5% or so. This was on only a single
> centrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.

One thet held together for more than a few minutes
would have helped too. Fact is the Germans didnt have
the materials required to resist Uranium Hexafluoride.

> Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
> the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
> in the Soviet Union and then when they were realeased in the West.
>

Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
amounts of enriched material until 1964. Prior to that the USSR
used gaseous diffusion enrichment.

At the same time parallel developments were going
on in Germany, the Netherlands and Britain. The
first centrifuge in the UK was assembled in the 60's
These companies joined together to form Urenco

> The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
> diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
> an atomic bomb.
>

Plutonium is however the most likely unless you have
large stocks of Uranium

> One of the great 'frauds' that was used to justify WMD claims against
> the Regime of Saddam Hussein related to the use of lightweight high
> strength aluminium tubeing which was supposedly for the fabrication of
> these centrifuges but turns out to have been for "Katuysha (little
> Kate) unguided bombardment weapons.
>

Indeed. we found out after the 1991 war that Iraq was using
gaseous enrichment.

> The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.

The Heinkel Grief was a rather unsuccesful aircraft that was only
set aside in the sense that it was produced in rather small
quantities. It would not have been capable of carrying a
first generation nuclear device and escaping the blast

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
> >was 'pre-critical': They lowered an array 1 inch cubes of uranium
> >suspended from chains into a shielded tank of heavy water. The
> >neutron population increased by a factor of 7 within the 'pile' due to
> >fissioning induced by a small neutron source placed near the
>

Note the last of these reactors was built in 1945 !

> That was the part of the "tarnforshung",actually Germans dropped using
Heavy
> Water as moderator in the Summer of 1944.(Thats the reason why British
> occupation troops found more than 10t heavy water in a warehouse in
Hamburg).
>

Cite please.

> German Nuclear program had three main locations,in
Klein-Machow,Licherfelde
> and Skoda.
> When Hitler visited Klein-Machow in Oct.44 he was allowed to enter to
plant
> without his adjutant and personal body guard,so far for the secrecy and
> importance of this location/
> Interestingly enough, the names Klein-Machow and Skoda did not appear in
any of
> documents before the break up of the Soviet Union and DDR.
>

You have to be kidding. Skoda was a WELL known company before and after
WW2. They happen to be one of our customers , I'll forward this
to them , they like a good laught

> Germans were not only producing weapon grade uran using their perfect GUZs
but
> also producing plutonium using Klein machow breeder.
>

That's KleinMachnow and you clearly dont know what a breeder
is or how one is built.

>
>
> >entrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.
> >Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
> >the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
> >in the Soviet Union and then wh
>
> Centrifuge cascades were already in use in 1944.
> The person you are mentioning is probably Dr.Zippe ,the father of GUZ.,he
is
> also developer of modern USSR and US centrifuges in historical
order.(Basically
> the same German designs)
>
> >The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
> >diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
> >an atomic bomb.
>
> Yup,German GUZ development made Oak Ridge obsolete even before producing
> anything.
> Another plus point of German method was,GUZ cascades needed only a small
> fraction of energy required by gigantic plants like Oak Ridge,so Germans
did
> not need a german version of TVA.
>
> Most of the German atomics researchers ended up under Soviet control.
> >They published a great deal of work under Russian sounding pseudonyms
>
> Not only scientists ended up in USSR but also almost complete
plants,inc.the
> most of Klein-Machow breeder.
> If Soviets had weapon grade Uran,they could built a nuclear weapon very
early.
> Obtaining weapon Grade uran was their biggest problem.
>

Yet you claim they had the german researchers AND their equipment.

> >The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
> >was 'pre-critical': They lowered an
>
> Standard knowledge is what victors make us to believe.
>
> In his book Crusade in Europa Eisenhower states that if occupation of
Germany
> delayed only a couple of months,humankind would face greatest tragedy of
> history.
>
> Germany was practically defeated in 1942,in 1945 Wehrmacht could only find
kids
> and senior citizens to bear the arms.
> So how already defeated Germany could possibly make devastating attacks
in
> Summer of 1945?
>

Poison gas, they had large stocks of nerve gas

> Answer is the S-weapon program,offical story is one thing official
behaviour is
> another.
> Every post WWII organization (NATO,Echelon etc.)has been created to keep
> Germans down and in check,even if they dont state it openly,because our
Anglo
> friends know better than anybody else,how close they were to the
destruction
> in 1945.

Fantasy

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew Chaplin]

Eunometic wrote:
>
> <snip>
> The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.

LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon".
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Thelasian]

zalzon > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:05:50 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
>
> > Rather the US says that Iran's nuclear program gives it the
> > CAPACITY to build nukes. But ANY nuclear program can be characterized
> > as that. Brazil has the CAPACITY to build nukes too.
>
> Hi,
> Such countries do not have a great amount of fossil fuels.


Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Russia alone is a
MAJOR exporter.


> What justification is there for eyeran to persue electricity from nuclear
> power which comes with a FAR higher economic (and political) opportunity
> cost?


Well, for the answer to that I suggest you go to the Stanford Research
Institute which told the Shah of Iran in the 1970's that Iran can't
afford to rely solely on petroleum.


> > It was "pretty obvious" that Iraq had vatloads of anthrax too
>
> That's a straw man argument, lets compare apples to apples.


No its not. It goes to show how "conventional wisdom" can be
manufactured.


> It was pretty obvious that Saddam intended to build nuclear weapons with
> his Osirak reactor. He himself admitted to it. When you see Eyeran,
> Saudi Arabia, Venesuela, UAE ..etc building nuclear power plants, it is
> for one reason only. And that is the pursuit of nuclear weapons.


Conclusory statement.


> The only country that is a major net oil exporter and operates a large
> number of nuclear power plants is Russia. Their reasons for
> developing their extensive nuclear infrastructure despite the high
> economic opportunity cost was for nuclear weapons (that despite their huge
> gas and oil reserves). Electricity was treated as a byproduct by the USSR
> until the country went bust.
>
> Now here's a question for you :
>
> Can you honestly say that Eyeran has no military intent whatsoever
> attached to its nuclear program?


I can't read minds. But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT. In
fact Article X of the NPT itself says that countries have aright to
withdraw from the treaty if their national security requires them to
do so - it is not a blanket prohibition. Obviously, countries will
want to keep their options open - Iran is concerned about its security
just as much as the USA and I don't see the USA getting rid of its
nuclear weapons (despite a pledge to do so in the NPT) so naturally
the other signatories of the NPT will keep open the option of
withdrawing from the NPT too if potentially required to do so. That
was the basis of the NPT agreement, and if you don't like the
agreement, that's too bad.

However, like I said, keeping open the option of building nukes a
violation of NPT. The solution to that is for the parties to stop
threatening each other, so that none will feel the need to develop a
nuclear deterrent. The answer is NOT to say "OH well you can't have
any nuclear technology and meanwhile we're going to build mininukes
that we plan to use" which is what's been happening.

[Denyav]

>You have to be kidding. Skoda was a WELL known company before and after
>WW2. They happen to be one of our customers , I'll forward this
>to them , they like a good laught

Of course Skoda company was and is a very well known company but the skoda is
not only the name of a company.

Even though the name of skoda was famous for high tech equipment,aircraft
military equipment vehicles etc,its name never been mentioned in connection
with German nuclear program even though the parts of vast Skoda empire were
under direct control of SS and used to produce whatever developed in SS
advanced technology development center in Pilsen.
Needless to say famous Kammler was also responsible for SS controlled parts of
Skoda!.

Skoda was and probably still is a company driven by quality,its well known fact
that Dr.Zippe preferred Skoda built GUZs over Anschuetz built ones,even though
both of them were exactly same designs.

>That's KleinMachnow and you clearly dont know what a breeder
>is or how one is built.
>

Klein-Machow,and I guess I know.

>Yet you claim they had the german researchers AND their equipment.
>
Yes but no Uran and no GUZs and an infrastucture far behind Germany,to make
matters even worse NKVD blundered badly
and was not able to pinpoint who designed German GUZs,so while they needed a
capable GUZ designer Dr.Zippe was working in a forced labor camp with other
regular German POWs as a POW.
Soviet GUZ development really started only after somebody spotted him in POW
camp.

>Poison gas, they had large stocks of nerve gas
>
Poison Gas and the "Greatest tragedy that humankind ever faced"?
They do not add up.
Only something that might completely destroy New York,Washington,London and
probably Berlin fits into this apocalyptic description.

Fantasy

As you probably know very well,
Reality

[Denyav]

>One thet held together for more than a few minutes
>would have helped too. Fact is the Germans didnt have
>the materials required to resist Uranium Hexafluoride.

You make me laugh.Germans were ahead of US technology for a century.

>Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
>run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant

Again you make me laugh,the deadline set by soviet leadership to produce
enriched Uran using centrifuges was April 1 1948.Zippe GUZ produced enriched
Uran on March 21 and saved Soviet centrifuge development project.
BTW the very first Zippe GUZ was operational Feb.47.

>Plutonium is however the most likely unless you have
>large stocks of Uranium

In a country that have capacity to send over 500kgs enriched Uran (not Yellow
Cake like official version tells us) to Japan,this argument is irrelevant.

>It would not have been capable of carrying a
>first generation nuclear device and escaping the blast

I would not be worried about that,as if Germans had six to eight moths more
time ,their nuclear weapons would not be sitting inside any bomber but on tip
of a Balistic missille.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >One thet held together for more than a few minutes
> >would have helped too. Fact is the Germans didnt have
> >the materials required to resist Uranium Hexafluoride.
>
> You make me laugh.Germans were ahead of US technology for a century.
>

Which explains how they won WW1 and WW2 I suppose

> >Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
> >run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
>
> Again you make me laugh,the deadline set by soviet leadership to produce
> enriched Uran using centrifuges was April 1 1948.Zippe GUZ produced
enriched
> Uran on March 21 and saved Soviet centrifuge development project.
> BTW the very first Zippe GUZ was operational Feb.47.
>

Thats NOT what Dr Zippe says, he states he was released
in 1956 after the first prototype centrifuge ran successfully.
Of course the Germans hadnt the sense to let Dr Zippe work
on enrichment during the war, he was working on aircraft
propellor design for the Luftwaffe

I suggest you read his story its more interesting
than your fantasies. Better still listen to the interview he gave
to the BBC. He makes it clear that the design they built
for the Russians had NO resemblance to anything built by the
Nazis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/zippetype.shtml

The city of Novouralsk (Sverdlovsk-44) was established in 1941. Four years
later, the construction of the Urals Electrochemical Combine (UEKhK) began
there. UEKhK began producing highly enriched uranium (HEU) in 1949

The Ural Electrochemical Combine, site of the Soviet Union's first gaseous
diffusion enrichment plant, began operating in 1949. In 1950, certain
technical difficulties were resolved and UEKhK began producing tens of
kilograms of 90 percent enriched uranium. The original plant, called D-1,
was extended to include plant D-3 in 1951, and plants D-4 and D-5 in 1953.

source
Thomas Cochran, Robert S. Norris, Oleg Bukharin, Making the Russian Bomb:
From Stalin to Yeltsin, Westview, Boulder: 1995, pp. 183-184.


from http://www.uic.com.au/nip50.htm

<Quote>
As for uranium enrichment technology, it was decided in late 1945 to begin
construction of the first gaseous diffusion plant at Verkh-Neyvinsk (later
the closed city of Sverdlovsk-44), some 50 kilometres from Yekaterinburg
(formerly Sverdlovsk) in the Urals. Special design bureaux were set up at
the Leningrad Kirov Metallurgical and Machine-Building Plant and at the
Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod) Machine Building Plant. Support was provided by a
group of German scientists working at the Sukhumi Physical Technical
Institute.
</Quote>

> >Plutonium is however the most likely unless you have
> >large stocks of Uranium
>
> In a country that have capacity to send over 500kgs enriched Uran (not
Yellow
> Cake like official version tells us) to Japan,this argument is irrelevant.
>
> >It would not have been capable of carrying a
> >first generation nuclear device and escaping the blast
>
> I would not be worried about that,as if Germans had six to eight moths
more
> time ,their nuclear weapons would not be sitting inside any bomber but on
tip
> of a Balistic missille.

The only ballistic missile the Germans had was the A-4. Design
of a missile capable of reaching the USA had reached the
'sketch on the back of a knapkin' stage. Given how long
it took to make the A-4 operational they'd be lucky to
have one operational in 6 to 8 YEARS

Keith

[zalzon]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:22:08 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
> Russia alone is a MAJOR exporter.

Soviet reactors were built primarily for nuclear weaponization and less
for reasons of economics. I devoted a whole paragraph to it in my last
email which apparently was ignored. Its one of the reasons the USSR went
bankrupt. The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.


> Well, for the answer to that I suggest you go to the Stanford Research
> Institute which told the Shah of Iran in the 1970's

Might as well be quoting research from the 1930s which predicted the world
would run out of oil by 1980. Obviously knowledge and world events did
not come to halt in the 1970s.


> No its not. It goes to show how "conventional wisdom" can be
> manufactured.

Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.

> But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.

Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.

My point from the start has not been a moral one but a statement of fact.
I contend that nuclear weaponization is eyeran's primary motivating
factor. I don't know why you are beating around the bush about the
issue. I never said it was immoral or there is some divine law which
entitles some countries to maintain nuke and not others. I was merely
making a statement of current events.

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> m...
> > (Denyav) wrote in message
> >...
> > > >So now I've answered that question, maybe Denyav can answer why he
> thinks
> > > >the Manhattan Project went from "failure" to success in days, whilst
> > > >creating a non-US implosion device took years? (Somehow I expect he
> > > >won't.)
> > >
> > > I am pretty sure if somebody had offered to any non-US country an almost
> > > completely assembled plutonium bomb including a designed and Made in
> Germany
> > > triggering syetem,any non US country would become a nuclear power
> overnight and
> > > moreover the Charlatan who who took triggering system from Germans would
> be
> > > hailed as a national hero who solved the seemingly insolvable triggering
> > > problem at the last minute.
> > >
> > > BTW when UK started producing plutonium? I guess 7 years behind Third
> Reich?
> >
> > Most of the German atomics researchers ended up under Soviet control.
> > They published a great deal of work under Russian sounding pseudonyms
> > because Stalin found that the prominance of German names in the
> > Russian leterature was politically embarasing. They has a reputation
> > for thorough and hard work, through somewhat unimaginative, that
> > contributed greatly to the Soviet nuclear effort.
> >
> > The standard knowledge is that the Germans made a test reactor that
> > was 'pre-critical': They lowered an array 1 inch cubes of uranium
> > suspended from chains into a shielded tank of heavy water. The
> > neutron population increased by a factor of 7 within the 'pile' due to
> > fissioning induced by a small neutron source placed near the pile.
> > From this they correctly deduced that they would need to increase the
> > linear dimensions of their 'pile' by 50% for the reaction to become
> > self sustaining. This puts the Germans in late 1944-1945 at about the
> > level the Allies were at 1942. There were no control rods on this
> > test device: control was to be by raising or lowering the uranium
> > array of draining the heavywater.
> >
>
> There was no radiation shielding either. Achieving criticallity
> would have killed the researchers and likely caused a nasty
> nuclear accident as the reaction vessel boiled dry

The 'reactor' was sunk in a pit in the ground, lined with thick
concret and graphite and submerged in heavy water. The Uranium cubes
were lowered slowly via a hoist and observed via remote
instrumentation from a great distance. The reactors was not designed
to opperate for any length of period: merely to establish criticallity
parameters. An increase in neutron population indicating criticality
would have immediatly led to termination of the procedure by withdrawl
of the fuel assembly or draining of the moderating heavy water.



>
> > In some areas they were ahead. They worked in the direction of using
> > ultra high speed electronically switched centrifuges to stratify
> > uranium hexaflouride gas to enrich unranium and managed to make a few
> > milligrans of uranium at 5% or so. This was on only a single
> > centrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.
>
> One thet held together for more than a few minutes
> would have helped too. Fact is the Germans didnt have
> the materials required to resist Uranium Hexafluoride.


Which are the same refractory and corrosion resistent metals required
to make jet engines.


>
> > Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
> > the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
> > in the Soviet Union and then when they were realeased in the West.
> >
>
> Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
> run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
> amounts of enriched material until 1964. Prior to that the USSR
> used gaseous diffusion enrichment.
>
> At the same time parallel developments were going
> on in Germany, the Netherlands and Britain. The
> first centrifuge in the UK was assembled in the 60's
> These companies joined together to form Urenco
>
> > The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
> > diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
> > an atomic bomb.
> >
>
> Plutonium is however the most likely unless you have
> large stocks of Uranium

AFAIK see you need 12kg of U235. With a proportion of 0.7% that means
each weapon requires about 100%/0.7% x 12 = about 1680kg or raw
uranium. Say 2.5 tons. Assuming the Germans needed more we are
left with a need for maybe 5 tons per bomb. Say 3 test devices and 1
attack unit and 2 backups. A total requirement of about 15 tons.
(less than a 1 meter square cube of uneriched uranium).

>
> > One of the great 'frauds' that was used to justify WMD claims against
> > the Regime of Saddam Hussein related to the use of lightweight high
> > strength aluminium tubeing which was supposedly for the fabrication of
> > these centrifuges but turns out to have been for "Katuysha (little
> > Kate) unguided bombardment weapons.
> >
>
> Indeed. we found out after the 1991 war that Iraq was using
> gaseous enrichment.

Because centrifuges require excellence in engineering.

Iraq wasn't 'using gaseous diffusion' as much as toying around with
experiments.

It is a measure of Germany's technical capacities that Iraq was barely
able to reproduce Germany's technolgy in rocketry and uranium 50 years
later.

>
> > The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> > they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.
>
> The Heinkel Grief was a rather unsuccesful aircraft that was only
> set aside in the sense that it was produced in rather small
> quantities.

It's performance was more than adaquet and significantly better than
any British 4 engined bomber though not up to the standards of the
turbo supercharged and pressurised B29. (A Heinkel He 274 did fly)
Being Germanies first heavy bomber it would be expected to have
teething problems especialy as it was produced in quantities of only
1200 of which the final A5 model made up 860.

It was produced 4 major series from He 177 A1 through to He 177 A5.
(no pressurised A4) The final versions achieved a considerable
improvement in reliabillity and performance. The first version earned
the nickname "Reich Fuerzeuge" (Empire Cigarett Lighter) because the
coupled engines cooling issues gave them a propensity to burn. Goering
said that it was retired because of its prodigious use of fuel. When
you have trouble putting up Me 109s and Fw 190s on 90 minute missions
you don't put resources into a machine with 6 flight crew and 4 really
big engines, a 15 ton fuel load. Designes for a 4 engined versions
known as the He 177B were ready (and flown as the He 274) powered by
conventionaly distributed engines. (BMW 801 or Junkers Jumo 211).

It should be known that the Lancaster was developed from the
Manchester by a similar process when the RR Vulture was stressed
beyond its capacity to keep the overweight Machester flyable.


> It would not have been capable of carrying a
> first generation nuclear device and escaping the blast

Release from 20,000 ft would seem more than adaquete especialy if it
was a 10 kiloton instead of 20 kilotosn blast. However the usual
answer is to retard the bomb with some kind of parachute.



>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Denyav]

>Thats NOT what Dr Zippe says, he states he was released
>in 1956 after the first prototype centrifuge ran successfully.
>Of course the Germans hadnt the sense to let Dr Zippe work
>on enrichment during the war, he was working on aircraft
>propellor design for the Luftwaff


Excellent,you are slowly understanding the magnitute and success of German
deception during WWII.
Dr.Zippe was the foremost GUZ designer of third Reich but even NKVD did not
notice that NKVD was only too lucky that an another German POW recognized him
and informed NKVD.
Zippes association with Luftwaffe was only a cover in reality he was associated
with Degussa company.
You see seemingly unharmful and friendly German Post Office actually develops
nuclear weapons,a luftwaffe employee actually works for centrifuge builder.
Germans were masters in deception and this one of the reasons why we still do
not much about German scientific achievements during 1933-1945

>suggest you read his story its more interesting
>than your fantasies. Better still listen to the interview he gave
>to the BBC. He makes it clear that the design they built
>for the Russians had NO resemblance to anything built by the

He says what politically correct is,like von Ardenne.
In reality both designs are almost identical because both were designed by the
same prtson Dr.Zippe.

Dateline set by soviet leadership for the start GUZ based Uran production was
April 1 1948,and Zippe team was able to start producing Uran on March 21.
If they failed you could not see any soviet centrifuge in 50 or 60s,because
Soviet Union was decided not to consider GUZ based Uran production in case of
dateline failure.

>stage. Given how long
>it took to make the A-4 operational they'd be lucky to
>have one operational in 6 to 8 YEARS

I am pretty sure if they had 6-8 months more time, Eisenhowers apocalyptic
predictions would become a reality ,Newyorkers and Washigtonians would the
first ones who learned the truth.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...

> > There was no radiation shielding either. Achieving criticallity
> > would have killed the researchers and likely caused a nasty
> > nuclear accident as the reaction vessel boiled dry
>
> The 'reactor' was sunk in a pit in the ground, lined with thick
> concret and graphite and submerged in heavy water. The Uranium cubes
> were lowered slowly via a hoist and observed via remote
> instrumentation from a great distance. The reactors was not designed
> to opperate for any length of period: merely to establish criticallity
> parameters. An increase in neutron population indicating criticality
> would have immediatly led to termination of the procedure by withdrawl
> of the fuel assembly or draining of the moderating heavy water.
>

The problem is that before this could happen the operating
chamber would have been flooded with fast neutrons.
Those physicists who examined the reactor were horrified
that anyone would build a reactor without control rods
or adequate shielding

>
>
> >
> > > In some areas they were ahead. They worked in the direction of using
> > > ultra high speed electronically switched centrifuges to stratify
> > > uranium hexaflouride gas to enrich unranium and managed to make a few
> > > milligrans of uranium at 5% or so. This was on only a single
> > > centrifuge and a multilevel array would have been required.
> >
> > One thet held together for more than a few minutes
> > would have helped too. Fact is the Germans didnt have
> > the materials required to resist Uranium Hexafluoride.
>
>
> Which are the same refractory and corrosion resistent metals required
> to make jet engines.
>

Correct

>
> >
> > > Centrifuges are a better way to enrich unranium and this has become
> > > the modern method. It was in fact perfected by ex German researchers
> > > in the Soviet Union and then when they were realeased in the West.
> > >
> >
> > Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
> > run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
> > amounts of enriched material until 1964. Prior to that the USSR
> > used gaseous diffusion enrichment.
> >
> > At the same time parallel developments were going
> > on in Germany, the Netherlands and Britain. The
> > first centrifuge in the UK was assembled in the 60's
> > These companies joined together to form Urenco
> >
> > > The allied approach of breeding plutonium or building massive gaseous
> > > diffusion plants to enrich natural unranium are not required to make
> > > an atomic bomb.
> > >
> >
> > Plutonium is however the most likely unless you have
> > large stocks of Uranium
>
> AFAIK see you need 12kg of U235. With a proportion of 0.7% that means
> each weapon requires about 100%/0.7% x 12 = about 1680kg or raw
> uranium. Say 2.5 tons. Assuming the Germans needed more we are
> left with a need for maybe 5 tons per bomb. Say 3 test devices and 1
> attack unit and 2 backups. A total requirement of about 15 tons.
> (less than a 1 meter square cube of uneriched uranium).
>

You are assuming 100% efficiency, this is not attainable even now.
In fact refining the tailings of the old 50's enrichment plants is
a major source of enriched uranium

> >
> > > One of the great 'frauds' that was used to justify WMD claims against
> > > the Regime of Saddam Hussein related to the use of lightweight high
> > > strength aluminium tubeing which was supposedly for the fabrication of
> > > these centrifuges but turns out to have been for "Katuysha (little
> > > Kate) unguided bombardment weapons.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed. we found out after the 1991 war that Iraq was using
> > gaseous enrichment.
>
> Because centrifuges require excellence in engineering.
>

Quite so

> Iraq wasn't 'using gaseous diffusion' as much as toying around with
> experiments.
>

No they had enriched considerable quantities of Uranium

> It is a measure of Germany's technical capacities that Iraq was barely
> able to reproduce Germany's technolgy in rocketry and uranium 50 years
> later.
>

Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
of Uranium

> >
> > > The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> > > they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.
> >
> > The Heinkel Grief was a rather unsuccesful aircraft that was only
> > set aside in the sense that it was produced in rather small
> > quantities.
>
> It's performance was more than adaquet and significantly better than
> any British 4 engined bomber though not up to the standards of the
> turbo supercharged and pressurised B29.

It was a little faster than the Lancaster but had a much smaller
internal bombload. Once you start hanging external stores
that speed advantage is gone.

Lancaster
Weight: Empty 36,900 lbs, Maximum Takeoff 68,000 lbs.
Wingspan: 102 ft 0 in.
Length 69 ft 6 in.
Height: 20 ft 0 in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 12,000 ft: 287 mph
Service Ceiling: 24,500 ft
Range with 14,000 pound load: 1,660 miles

He-177
Empty: 37,038lb. (16,800 kg)
Loaded: 68,343lb (31,000kg)

Performance:
Maximum (at 41,000lb.): 295mph (472km/h)
Service Ceiling: 26,500 ft (7080m)
Range with Fritz or Hs 293 missle: 3,107 miles

> (A Heinkel He 274 did fly)
> Being Germanies first heavy bomber it would be expected to have
> teething problems especialy as it was produced in quantities of only
> 1200 of which the final A5 model made up 860.
>

Indeed , compare and contrast with the 7000 Lancasters and
6,000 Halifax's built



> It was produced 4 major series from He 177 A1 through to He 177 A5.
> (no pressurised A4) The final versions achieved a considerable
> improvement in reliabillity and performance. The first version earned
> the nickname "Reich Fuerzeuge" (Empire Cigarett Lighter) because the
> coupled engines cooling issues gave them a propensity to burn. Goering
> said that it was retired because of its prodigious use of fuel. When
> you have trouble putting up Me 109s and Fw 190s on 90 minute missions
> you don't put resources into a machine with 6 flight crew and 4 really
> big engines, a 15 ton fuel load. Designes for a 4 engined versions
> known as the He 177B were ready (and flown as the He 274) powered by
> conventionaly distributed engines. (BMW 801 or Junkers Jumo 211).
>
> It should be known that the Lancaster was developed from the
> Manchester by a similar process when the RR Vulture was stressed
> beyond its capacity to keep the overweight Machester flyable.
>

The Vulture was a failure pure and simple, the difference was
that the British air ministry didnt insist it be used anyway


>
> > It would not have been capable of carrying a
> > first generation nuclear device and escaping the blast
>
> Release from 20,000 ft would seem more than adaquete especialy if it
> was a 10 kiloton instead of 20 kilotosn blast. However the usual
> answer is to retard the bomb with some kind of parachute.
>

A 4.5 ton device needs a rather large parachute

Keith

[Denyav]

>Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
>of Uranium
>

Over 500 kgs enriched Uran found in U-234 produced by outer space aliens
masquerading as Germans ?

>> > Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
>> > run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
>> > amounts of enriched material

Actually Mr.Willshaw,Deadline set by soviet leadership for Uran pilot
production was as I said before April 1,1948,and in case of failure to meet the
deadline whole centrifuge development project would be scrapped for good.
There were actually two competing centrifuge designs one Dr.Zippes design other
Dr.Steudels design.
Both designs succesfuly started producing Uran on March 21 and so Soviet
centrifuge development project was saved.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
> >of Uranium
> >
>
> Over 500 kgs enriched Uran found in U-234 produced by outer space aliens
> masquerading as Germans ?
>

500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade
uranium packed as described would produce a prompt
criticallity event.

> >> > Not quite. The first soviet centrifuge pilot enrichment plant was
> >> > run at Sverlovsk-44 in 1957 but it didnt produce significant
> >> > amounts of enriched material
>
> Actually Mr.Willshaw,Deadline set by soviet leadership for Uran pilot
> production was as I said before April 1,1948,and in case of failure to
meet the
> deadline whole centrifuge development project would be scrapped for good.
> There were actually two competing centrifuge designs one Dr.Zippes design
other
> Dr.Steudels design.
> Both designs succesfuly started producing Uran on March 21 and so Soviet
> centrifuge development project was saved.
>
>

The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Denyav]

>500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade
>uranium packed as described would produce a prompt
>criticallity event.
>

Not if they loaded the way they they loaded U-234.
Alone the way how they were packed and transported proves that the cargo of
U-234 was not yellow cake.

The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours.

I know this gentleman (in person).period.

[Thelasian]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>
> >
> > Denyev has pulled this gag before. If you ask him to prove it he can't so
> he
> > just repeats the same lies.
> >
> > Want a real laugh ask him about the two atomic bombs the Nazis tested and
> how
> > the U.S. couldn't have built atomic bombs without using Nazi parts and
> weapons
> > grade uranium. Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable
> designs
> > and no weapons grade uranium. To prove Nazi parts were used he will
> present you
> > with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see never
> mind
> > the Nazis produced no plutonium.
> >
>
> I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
> His usual response is that the proof is in documents
> so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.
>
> Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal
> fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines
> armed with nuclear weapons. They must have been real duffers
> to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's, Spitfires,
> B-17's and Lancasters :)
>
> Keith
>
>
> Keith


Ummm...the use of pretexts as justifications for war is hardly a
conspiracy theory - it is standard practice. The accidental sinking of
the USS Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, the provocation of the
Mexicans by Taylor...all of these are well documented historical
facts.

WHy, the National Security Archives just last week released recently
declassifed documents which prove (again) that the Gulf of Tonkin
incident (attack on the Maddox) was a manufactured pretext.

This sort of thing is standard practice the world over.




>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade
> >uranium packed as described would produce a prompt
> >criticallity event.
> >
>
> Not if they loaded the way they they loaded U-234.

The manifest states it was packed in 10 cases.

Each case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above
the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only
a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way
and not for very long.

> Alone the way how they were packed and transported proves that the cargo
of
> U-234 was not yellow cake.
>
> The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours.
>
> I know this gentleman (in person).period.
>

Sure you do.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Thelasian" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: "Keith Willshaw"
> >
> > >
> > > Denyev has pulled this gag before. If you ask him to prove it he can't
so
> > he
> > > just repeats the same lies.
> > >
> > > Want a real laugh ask him about the two atomic bombs the Nazis tested
and
> > how
> > > the U.S. couldn't have built atomic bombs without using Nazi parts and
> > weapons
> > > grade uranium. Apparently the Manhatten Project produced no workable
> > designs
> > > and no weapons grade uranium. To prove Nazi parts were used he will
> > present you
> > > with a photograph of Fat Man with German markings only he can see
never
> > mind
> > > the Nazis produced no plutonium.
> > >
> >
> > I've been through all this with him in excruciating detail.
> > His usual response is that the proof is in documents
> > so sekrit nobody has ever actually seen them.
> >
> > Then he retreats into his Hans Kammler did it in Joanastal
> > fantasy. This involves Nazi UFO's with antigravity engines
> > armed with nuclear weapons. They must have been real duffers
> > to let us mere mortals beat them with nothing more than P-51's,
Spitfires,
> > B-17's and Lancasters :)
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> > Keith
>
>
> Ummm...the use of pretexts as justifications for war is hardly a
> conspiracy theory - it is standard practice. The accidental sinking of
> the USS Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, the provocation of the
> Mexicans by Taylor...all of these are well documented historical
> facts.
>

However Denyav's fantasies were not pretexts for war
so this is totally irrelevant

> WHy, the National Security Archives just last week released recently
> declassifed documents which prove (again) that the Gulf of Tonkin
> incident (attack on the Maddox) was a manufactured pretext.
>
> This sort of thing is standard practice the world over.

And has nothing to do with the subject in question.

Keith

[Eunometic]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Eunometic wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> > they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.
>
> LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon".

Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen
of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first
production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to
suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He
177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved.

Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester?

The Germans had coupled a pair of DB605 or DB603 V12 engines into a
pair via a central gearbox. The single cowling engine would thus have
lower drag than 4 seperate installations and be the equivalant of a
large 24 cylinder engine. In the meantime Junkers worked on the 6 x 4
star Jumo 222 (sort of an inline water cooled radial) and DB on the
X24 DB614 (I think) and Argus as well all on a 3000-4000hp range.
(Only 80 of the impressive Ju 288 entered service with this jumo 222
engine)

The problem was that the seals (presumably of the unprecedentedly
massive and stressed gearbox and its join to the engine on the coupled
engines) is that they leaked oil. In the confines of a tightly
cowled installation where the air is hot, slowed down and increased in
pressure by the cowling and the exhaust manifold can glow red hot oil
leaks lead to nasty fires. Eventualy a series of modifications to
seals and presumably exhaust and cooling solved these problems by
1943 for the major production model the He 177 A-5.

I have seen a photograph of island garbage dump piled sky high with
maybe a thousand of B29 R-3350 engines. The Americans could afford
to burn out and throw away engines after only 1-2 missions. The
Germans could not.

[Eunometic]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Eunometic wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> > they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.
>
> LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon".

Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen
of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first
production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to
suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He
177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved.

Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester?

The Germans had coupled a pair of DB605 or DB603 V12 engines into a
pair via a central gearbox. The single cowling engine would thus have
lower drag than 4 seperate installations and be the equivalant of a
large 24 cylinder engine. In the meantime Junkers worked on the 6 x 4
star Jumo 222 (sort of an inline water cooled radial) and DB on the
X24 DB614 (I think) and Argus as well all on a 3000-4000hp range.
(Only 80 of the impressive Ju 288 entered service with this jumo 222
engine)

The problem was that the seals (presumably of the unprecedentedly
massive and stressed gearbox and its join to the engine on the coupled
engines) is that they leaked oil. In the confines of a tightly
cowled installation where the air is hot, slowed down and increased in
pressure by the cowling and the exhaust manifold can glow red hot oil
leaks lead to nasty fires. Eventualy a series of modifications to
seals and presumably exhaust and cooling solved these problems by
1943 for the major production model the He 177 A-5.

I have seen a photograph of island garbage dump piled sky high with
maybe a thousand of B29 R-3350 engines. The Americans could afford
to burn out and throw away engines after only 1-2 missions. The
Germans could not.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...
> Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message
>...
> > Eunometic wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > The Germans must have been reasonably sure of success eventualy as
> > > they set aside a Heinkel He 177 Grief to deliver such a bomb.
> >
> > LOL -- apt typo. That's actually "Greif", meaning "griffon".
>
> Nearly half of the early 'pre-production' test He 177 A-0 were writen
> of due to engine fires and engine fire related crashes. The first
> production model the He 177 introudced to service in 1942 continued to
> suffer from fires. By the time the major preproduction model the He
> 177 A-5 entered service these problems had been solved.
>
> Was this any worse than the B29 or the Manchester?
>

Yes, only 200 Manchester's were produced and a 4
engined version which became the Lancaster was
its replacement.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >500kgs of unenriched yellowcake, 500kgs of wepons grade
>> >uranium packed as described would produce a prompt
>> >criticallity event.
>> >
>>
>> Not if they loaded the way they they loaded U-234.
>
> The manifest states it was packed in 10 cases.
>
> Each case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above
> the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only
> a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way
> and not for very long.
>
>> Alone the way how they were packed and transported proves that the cargo
> of
>> U-234 was not yellow cake.
>>
>> The gentlemen concerned disagree , I prefer their version to yours.
>>
>> I know this gentleman (in person).period.
>>
>
> Sure you do.

Well, that's interesting - since I know/knew (most have passed on),
several of the people who participated in unloading U-234, both as
supervisors and workmen. It certainly wasn't Enriched Uraniam -
definitely Yellowcake, and quite a haul of Platinum, as well. Oh, and
a Jumo 004, and a lot of paper & microfilmed documents.

If Denyav wants to have any credibility, he's going to have to name names.
I don't expect it, though - he's already established that he's either
from a parallel universe, or Neptune (The other Blue Planet)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Thelasian]

zalzon > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:22:08 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
> > Russia alone is a MAJOR exporter.
>
> Soviet reactors were built primarily for nuclear weaponization and less
> for reasons of economics. I devoted a whole paragraph to it in my last
> email which apparently was ignored. Its one of the reasons the USSR went
> bankrupt. The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
> built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.


Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are
also used - quite successfully - in Finland for example. India's
reactor designs are Russian origin too, I believe. Anyway, the Bushehr
reactor in Iran was started by Siemens with US approval and financing
too.


> > Well, for the answer to that I suggest you go to the Stanford Research
> > Institute which told the Shah of Iran in the 1970's
>
> Might as well be quoting research from the 1930s which predicted the world
> would run out of oil by 1980. Obviously knowledge and world events did
> not come to halt in the 1970s


No, but since the 1970's, Iran's population has doubled and its
recoverable oil reservervs have substantially fallen, thus making it
even more important for Iran to have alternate energy. Or do you think
that the laws of physics have changed since the 1970s?


> > No its not. It goes to show how "conventional wisdom" can be
> > manufactured.
>
> Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.

Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear
proliferation at all, and in fact probably made it more important for
the Iraqis to obtain nukes.
What would the US had done in Iraq's place?


>
> > But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.
>
> Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.


Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of
nuclear weapons. That's all. It doesn't prohibit the acquisition of
technology which "could be used" or "may be intended" to make nuclear
weapons. In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear
technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions. The
nuclear technology used to build a bomb is essentially the same as the
technology which is legally permitted under the NPT. If the NPT did
prohibit the "intent" or the "possibility" of building nukes, then it
would have to prohibit access to nuclear technology - which it does
not. Quite the opposite. Further more Article X of the treaty
specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a
recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at
some time.


> My point from the start has not been a moral one but a statement of fact.
> I contend that nuclear weaponization is eyeran's primary motivating
> factor.

A conclusory statement lacking foundation.

[David Nicholls]

"zalzon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:22:08 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
> > Russia alone is a MAJOR exporter.
>
> Soviet reactors were built primarily for nuclear weaponization and less
> for reasons of economics. I devoted a whole paragraph to it in my last
> email which apparently was ignored. Its one of the reasons the USSR went
> bankrupt. The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
> built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.
>
The USSR had two nuclear power plant design families. The first was the
RBMK (Chernobyl type) which was derived from their plutonium production
reactor designs, and the other one is the VVER which was purely a power
production system (and is technically similar to the PWRs of the West).
They never offered RBMKs for export - even to the Warsaw Pack countries. The
VVER was sold to a number of client states (Hungary, Bulgaria etc) as well
as Finland, and more recently to Iran, China and India. (I happened to be at
the Moscow offices of Minatom when the Indians were in negotiation for their
two VVER-1000s in 1998 or 1999). The VVER design was one of the two or
three designs in the running for the recent Finnish order for a new reactor
(the French won the order with their EPR design). The current Russian
energy plan has a number of new nuclear plants in it (17 IIRC) and they are
currently completing a number of the plants whose construction was suspended
post the collapse of the USSR. The suspension of these plants construction
was not due to a distaste for nuclear but because the economic collapse
following 1991 reduced the electricity consumption in Russia and only now is
demand getting to a point where new capacity is needed. What is interesting
in the energy field in Russia is that natural gas makes up some 70% of their
electricity production. The Russian gas company gets several times the
price it is paid in Russia for its exports. It has not invested enough in
production fields to keep up with demand. Over the last few years it has
reduced supply inside Russia to feed its more profitable export markets -
hence increasing the load on the nuclear plants in Russia.

[zalzon]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:51:28 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

> zalzon > wrote in message news:
>> The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
>> built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.
>
> Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are
> also used - quite successfully - in Finland

What relation does the statement you wrote have with the above?
Is Finland in Russia?


>> Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.
>
> Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear
> proliferation at all

Sure it did. Eyerack is not a nuclear state.



>> > But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.
>>
>> Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.
>
>
> Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of
> nuclear weapons. That's all.

The NPT is a document which allows for the transfer of nuclear technology
to non-nuclear countries with the agreement of those countries not to
pursue a n-weapons program.

I belive you are just beating around the bush. You don't yourself believe
that Eyeran's pursuit of nuclear generated electricity is genuine so you
seek to put a smoke screen around the issue. A point blank yes/no
question draws a paragraph of misdirection.

> In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear
> technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions.

Could you cite me the clause for that? Sounds like BS to me.

> Further more Article X of the treaty
> specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a
> recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at
> some time.

You mean sign the treaty, get nuclear technology, put up a smoke screen,
then withdraw and build the bomb? May I ask why is it OK for Eyeran to
enter the treaty with the intention of withdrawing while other countries
should adhere to the spirit of the treaty?

Its like handing money over to a crook who swears up and down that he
won't cheat you, only to find his "intent" is just that.

[zalzon]

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:51:28 -0700, Thelasian wrote:

> zalzon > wrote in message news:
>> The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
>> built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.
>
> Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are
> also used - quite successfully - in Finland

What relation does the statement you wrote have with the above?
Is Finland in Russia?


>> Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.
>
> Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear
> proliferation at all

Sure it did. Eyerack is not a nuclear state.



>> > But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.
>>
>> Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.
>
>
> Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of
> nuclear weapons. That's all.

The NPT is a document which allows for the transfer of nuclear technology
to non-nuclear countries with the agreement of those countries not to
pursue a n-weapons program.

I belive you are just beating around the bush. You don't yourself believe
that Eyeran's pursuit of nuclear generated electricity is genuine so you
seek to put a smoke screen around the issue. A point blank yes/no
question draws a paragraph of misdirection.

> In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear
> technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions.

Could you cite me the clause for that? Sounds like BS to me.

> Further more Article X of the treaty
> specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a
> recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at
> some time.

You mean sign the treaty, get nuclear technology, put up a smoke screen,
then withdraw and build the bomb? May I ask why is it OK for Eyeran to
enter the treaty with the intention of withdrawing while other countries
should adhere to the spirit of the treaty?

Its like handing money over to a crook who swears up and down that he
won't cheat you, only to find his "intent" is just that.

[Denyav]

>ach case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above
>the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only
>a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way
>and not for very long.
>

Maybe the same lunatic would label boxes as U-235 (You know what does it mean
surely).They were clearly marked as U-235

But even a lunatic would not use Gold lined boxes to ship "Yellowcake".But
cases unloaded from U-234 were Gold lined.

BTW Who told you that there were only 10 cases? Navy prepared and disclosed
more than one doctored cargo manifests.
The first one mentions ten boxes,in subsequent ones even those ten boxes
disappeared.
So to find the truth you must check other sources too,for example the Army
Corps of Engineers which were closely associated with Manhattan Project.
According to Army Corps of Engineers correspondences there were 80 such
boxes,not 10.
Maybe those Germans were not lunatics at all.

BTW Mr.Willshaw U-234 cargo did not only contain U-235 or Blueprints of German
advanced weapons .it also contain Heavy Water.(Do you remember Germans could
not built a nuclear weapon because British Agents sent the ferry to bottom of
rhe lake)

Do you know why Manhattan Project was unable to develop a reliable Plutonium
bomb triggering device in 18 months?

Do you know why incompetent scientists of Manhattan Project who were unable to
develop rven one working triggering device in one and half years, suddenly
became soo competent and designed an excellent triggering device at the "very
last moment".

Bacause Manhattan Project Charlatan who "developed" triggering device at the
last moment and hailed as the Father of US plutonium bomb was a member US team
responsible for debriefing U-234 personel and evalutating U-234 cargo.
He simply took von Ardennes trigger and he was declared with Groves approval
as inventor.

But he was not sole Charlatan,whole Manhattan Project was a scam.
If you wonder why then try to find out why enriched uran shipments which were
pretty
steady inprevious months,suddenly jumped up after june14.


Small note :U-234 cargo also included components of a breeder reactor,seemingly
historically export oriented Germans were not able to build a breeder reactor
for themselves ,but pretty capable of exporting of them.

Big lies do not last for forever,75 years is a pretty good compromise,I guess.

[Denyav]

>However Denyav's fantasies were not pretexts for war
>so this is totally irrelevant
>

Really then Check out "Operation Northwoods" documents.

Heck,I always wondered why US Military uses "British English" instead of
"American English" in such explosive documents.

>And has nothing to do with the subject in question.

You seem to forget that whole Pearl Harbor story was an Anglo conspiracy.

Boston Brahmins and their masters have no Republican Guard divisions to
suppress the majority,they depend on PSYOPs.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >ach case would weigh 56kgs , this is way above
> >the critical mass of highly enriched uranium. Only
> >a suicidal lunatic would pack enriched uranium this way
> >and not for very long.
> >
>
> Maybe the same lunatic would label boxes as U-235 (You know what does it
mean
> surely).They were clearly marked as U-235
>

Says you and the conspiracy websites, the cargo
manifest produced by the USN

> But even a lunatic would not use Gold lined boxes to ship "Yellowcake".But
> cases unloaded from U-234 were Gold lined.
>

Gold lining is useful to reduce corrosion, belgian yellowcake
was milled by crushing the ore and leaching out the U3O8
using sulphuric acid. A corrosion resistant can was rather useful

Contrary to popular belief U-235 does not require storage
in gold line containers

> BTW Who told you that there were only 10 cases?

The USN and the U-Boat crew in their depositions
and the German cargo manifest which listed

"10 cases, 560 kilograms, uranium oxide for the Japanese Army "


> Navy prepared and disclosed
> more than one doctored cargo manifests.
> The first one mentions ten boxes,in subsequent ones even those ten boxes
> disappeared.

Nope, I've seen the manifests

> So to find the truth you must check other sources too,for example the Army
> Corps of Engineers which were closely associated with Manhattan Project.
> According to Army Corps of Engineers correspondences there were 80 such
> boxes,not 10.

Each case contained 8 cyliners

> Maybe those Germans were not lunatics at all.
>

They werent , they just didnt have any enriched uranoium

> BTW Mr.Willshaw U-234 cargo did not only contain U-235 or Blueprints of
German
> advanced weapons .it also contain Heavy Water.(Do you remember Germans
could
> not built a nuclear weapon because British Agents sent the ferry to bottom
of
> rhe lake)
>

The Germans couldnt build a nuclear weapon because

1) They never enriched uranium in more than minute conditions
2) They never produced plutonium
3) Most importantly - they didnt know how


> Do you know why Manhattan Project was unable to develop a reliable
Plutonium
> bomb triggering device in 18 months?
>

Sure , it took around 4 years

> Do you know why incompetent scientists of Manhattan Project who were
unable to
> develop rven one working triggering device in one and half years, suddenly
> became soo competent and designed an excellent triggering device at the
"very
> last moment".
>

Because thats what research gets you

> Bacause Manhattan Project Charlatan who "developed" triggering device at
the
> last moment and hailed as the Father of US plutonium bomb was a member US
team
> responsible for debriefing U-234 personel and evalutating U-234 cargo.
> He simply took von Ardennes trigger and he was declared with Groves
approval
> as inventor.
>

Von Ardennes couldnt design a trigger for a crossbow

> But he was not sole Charlatan,whole Manhattan Project was a scam.
> If you wonder why then try to find out why enriched uran shipments which
were
> pretty
> steady inprevious months,suddenly jumped up after june14.
>

They didnt

>
> Small note :U-234 cargo also included components of a breeder
reactor,seemingly
> historically export oriented Germans were not able to build a breeder
reactor
> for themselves ,but pretty capable of exporting of them.
>

Thats about the silliest thing you've ever said

> Big lies do not last for forever,75 years is a pretty good compromise,I
guess.

Lies are your area of expertise not mine,

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Denyav]

>Says you and the conspiracy websites, the cargo
>manifest produced by the USN

Not even once ,in one ten boxes mentioned in others no boxes at all.
USN manifests are designed to convince outside world that the Cargo of U-234
was not so important whereas internal correspondences,for example Army Corps of
Engineers,tells a totally different story.
>Gold lining is useful to reduce corrosion, belgian yellowcake
>was milled by crushing the ore and leaching out the U3O8
>using sulphuric acid. A corrosion

You forgat to mention Manhattan Project too used gold lined containers to
transport u-235

Contrary to popular belief U-235 does not require storage
>in gold line containers

But Germans ,even though any material was a premium in Third Reich,stored them
in Gold lined boxes.

>The USN and the U-Boat crew in their depositions
>and the German cargo manifest which listed
>
>"10 cases, 560 kilograms, uranium oxide for the Japanese Army "

This the first cargo manifest prepared by the Navy,in subsequent ones there is
not even ten boxes.

As I said before the recently revealed correspondence between Manhattan Project
and Army Corps of Engineers officials tell a totally different story.
This corresponce reveal many things that nobody knew,at least officially, up to
now,according to Engineers Uran was transported in 80 boxes not 10 or like
later USN cargo manifest said 0 boxes.

>Nope, I've seen the manifests
Only the first manifest mentions 10 boxes.

>Each case contained 8 cyliners

Which means 80 containers,made of steel,lead and gold.


>They werent , they just didnt have any enriched uranoium

Its hard to be conspiracy custodian nowadays,they had plenty of them enough to
export other countries.


>The Germans couldnt build a nuclear weapon because
>
>1) They never enriched uranium in more than minute conditions
The country that was unable to produce sufficent U-235 in spite of 2 Billion
dollar spent ,was US not Germany,the Jump in US U-235 shipments in June is
solely because of seized German U-235 stocks.
>2) They never produced plutonium
Klein-Machow?
Heck,They never produced but they were even exporting the components of Breeder
reactor to Japan.
Sofar for 60 YO big lies.

>3) Most importantly - they didnt know how
>

>3) Most importantly - they didnt know how

Only guy who really did not know how ,was the head of Tarnforshung and your
post WWII decoy namely Heisenberg.
>Sure , it took around 4 years
Right they could do it in long time.

>Because thats what research gets you
>

Interesting,can you explain how MP scientist that could not design a reliable
ignitor for years ,suddenly literaly overnight ,designed a perfect ignitor at
the last moment?

Truth is Mr.Willshaw this scientist was a member of US team that examined U-534
cargo and he simply found Von Ardennes ignitor among cargo.

For some Manhattan Projecters research meant waiting for the arrival of U-234.

>Von Ardennes couldnt design a trigger for a crossbow
>
Von Ardenne,unlike Einstein or Heisenberg,was an universal Genius,he could
design anything or solve any problem if he would believe that he could make
money by doing this,a 30s version of Stephen Wolfram.

>They didnt
>
Check the Uran shipment data.

>Thats about the silliest thing you've ever said
If the occupation of Germany delayed only by a couple of months not only New
Yorkers ,Washingtonians and Londoners had to deal with the effects of nuclear
weapons,but also US Fleet in Pasific.
Its really a big twist of the fate that German nuclear weapons that supposed to
be used by Japanase aganist advancing US,were used by US aganist Japanese.

>Lies are your area of expertise not mine,

Sure there is no lies in Anglo history,just bad intelligence or classified
documents.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Says you and the conspiracy websites, the cargo
> >manifest produced by the USN
>
> Not even once ,in one ten boxes mentioned in others no boxes at all.
> USN manifests are designed to convince outside world that the Cargo of
U-234
> was not so important whereas internal correspondences,for example Army
Corps of
> Engineers,tells a totally different story.
> >Gold lining is useful to reduce corrosion, belgian yellowcake
> >was milled by crushing the ore and leaching out the U3O8
> >using sulphuric acid. A corrosion
>
> You forgat to mention Manhattan Project too used gold lined containers to
> transport u-235
>

No I didnt because it aint true

> Contrary to popular belief U-235 does not require storage
> >in gold line containers
>
> But Germans ,even though any material was a premium in Third Reich,stored
them
> in Gold lined boxes.
>

Germans had no U-235 to store

> >The USN and the U-Boat crew in their depositions
> >and the German cargo manifest which listed
> >
> >"10 cases, 560 kilograms, uranium oxide for the Japanese Army "
>
> This the first cargo manifest prepared by the Navy,in subsequent ones
there is
> not even ten boxes.
>

Its the one on the boat.

> As I said before the recently revealed correspondence between Manhattan
Project
> and Army Corps of Engineers officials tell a totally different story.
> This corresponce reveal many things that nobody knew,at least officially,
up to
> now,according to Engineers Uran was transported in 80 boxes not 10 or like
> later USN cargo manifest said 0 boxes.
>

Cargo manifests are drawn up by the shipper, this was the
Kriegsmarine not the USN

> >Nope, I've seen the manifests
> Only the first manifest mentions 10 boxes.
>
> >Each case contained 8 cyliners
>
> Which means 80 containers,made of steel,lead and gold.
>

Steel with a lining of gold leaf

>
> >They werent , they just didnt have any enriched uranoium
>
> Its hard to be conspiracy custodian nowadays,they had plenty of them
enough to
> export other countries.
>
>
> >The Germans couldnt build a nuclear weapon because
> >
> >1) They never enriched uranium in more than minute conditions
> The country that was unable to produce sufficent U-235 in spite of 2
Billion
> dollar spent ,was US not Germany,the Jump in US U-235 shipments in June is
> solely because of seized German U-235 stocks.

There was no such jump, By January 1945 the K-12 plant at Oak Ridge
was producing 204 grams of weapons grade uranium per day

> >2) They never produced plutonium
> Klein-Machow?

Was neither a reactor nor a reprocessing plant

> Heck,They never produced but they were even exporting the components of
Breeder
> reactor to Japan.
> Sofar for 60 YO big lies.
>

Yet no Japanese or German record of this exists nor is
there any evidence for this fairy tale.

> >3) Most importantly - they didnt know how
> >
>
> >3) Most importantly - they didnt know how
>
> Only guy who really did not know how ,was the head of Tarnforshung and
your
> post WWII decoy namely Heisenberg.
> >Sure , it took around 4 years
> Right they could do it in long time.
>
> >Because thats what research gets you
> >
>
> Interesting,can you explain how MP scientist that could not design a
reliable
> ignitor for years ,suddenly literaly overnight ,designed a perfect ignitor
at
> the last moment?
>
> Truth is Mr.Willshaw this scientist was a member of US team that examined
U-534
> cargo and he simply found Von Ardennes ignitor among cargo.
>

An anonymous scientist is alleged to have found a non-existent
device, my what an imagination you have.


> For some Manhattan Projecters research meant waiting for the arrival of
U-234.
>
> >Von Ardennes couldnt design a trigger for a crossbow
> >
> Von Ardenne,unlike Einstein or Heisenberg,was an universal Genius,he could
> design anything or solve any problem if he would believe that he could
make
> money by doing this,a 30s version of Stephen Wolfram.
>

He was a specialist in electronics and a convinced communist
who worked on nuclear weapons for the USSR after the
war. He was not part of the Nazi group as he was considered
a security risk.

The germans were good at excluding people who were able.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Denyav]

>No I didnt because it aint true
>

Yeah right then Clarence Larsen must be lying.

>Germans had no U-235 to store

Yeah right,they used 80 gold lined ,lead-steel containers to ship only 500kgs
"yellowcake".
I guess the Third Reich in 1945 had more gold,steel and lead than they needed
so they used every excuse to get rid of excess materials.

>Its the one on the boat.

Interesting,could you please tell me what the Labels of containers stated?

>Cargo manifests are drawn up by the shipper, this was the
>Kriegsmarine not the USN
>

Sure,the Shipper had also labelled the shipment containers.right?

>Its the one on the boat.
>

In 2.Cargo Manifest prepared by USN on June,16 there is no Uran,enriched or
not.
>Steel with a lining of gold leaf
Again you forgat lead

>There was no such jump, By January 1945 the K-12 plant at Oak Ridge
>was producing 204 grams of weapons grade uranium per day

Dare to compare production figures before and after June14.
After June 14 German U-235 supplies added to Oak Ridge production.

>Was neither a reactor nor a reprocessing plant

Yeah right ,also no heavy water found aboard U-234 and and British troops
found no Heavy Water in Hamburg.

>Yet no Japanese or German record of this exists nor is
>there any evidence for this fairy tale.

As far as I remember both countries,were under Anglo occupation for long time
and a shameless brainwashing process carried out by Anglos in both countries.
I wonder if anybody heard the names like Klein-Machow,Skoda or Pilsen in
W.Germany in connection with German Nuclear program before 90s.
But surely everbody heard the name of Heisenberg and his failures.

>An anonymous scientist is alleged to have found a non-existent
>device, my what an imagination you have.

Not so anonymous,everbody knows who developed the triggering device for US
plutonium bomb at the literally last minute.But only a few know that this
scientist were among team members who investigated U-234 cargo.
This Gentleman devoleped triggering device right after he checked cargo.
(Before the arrival of U234 he and other MH scientists tried to develop a
triggering device for 18 months,but without any success, apparently the arrival
of U-234 helped to increase the IQ number of MH scientists)

>He was a specialist in electronics and a convinced communist
>who worked on nuclear weapons for the USSR after the
>war. He was not part of the Nazi group as he was considered
>a security risk.

Von Ardenne a communist? I wonder when you are going to call Bill Gates or
Stephen Wolfram a communist.

No,he was a successfull entrepreneur,a businessman not a communist.

After WWII Soviets treated him like royals and declared many German research
facilities as his own personal property(Needless to say all these facilities
were funded by German taxpayers and owned by 3.Reich).


For example,if US occupied by a foreign power and if this foreign power
declares Lawrence-Livermore and Oak Ridge Nat.Labs as the personal property of
a scientist working there,this scientist would be very fond of this foreign
power.

>The germans were good at excluding people who were able.
>

But Manhattan Project still would only need a receiving department to take care
of bomb components and fissile materials "imported" from Germany and a final
assembly line and saved 2 Billion dollars.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >No I didnt because it aint true
> >
>
> Yeah right then Clarence Larsen must be lying.
>
> >Germans had no U-235 to store
>
> Yeah right,they used 80 gold lined ,lead-steel containers to ship only
500kgs
> "yellowcake".
> I guess the Third Reich in 1945 had more gold,steel and lead than they
needed
> so they used every excuse to get rid of excess materials.
>

Note the containers are not noted as being lead lined and the
evidence for their being gold plated is debatable

Uranium 235 is not significantly more radioactive than yellowcake,
and its less corrosive than crudely milled yellowcake. It does
not require lead shielding

There is LESS reason to ship enriched uranium such
containers than yellowcake, its a relatively stable
material whereas Belgian milled yellowcake was
quite acidic

Shipping enriched uranium in the manner described would
cause a criticallity accident

> >Its the one on the boat.
>
> Interesting,could you please tell me what the Labels of containers stated?
>
> >Cargo manifests are drawn up by the shipper, this was the
> >Kriegsmarine not the USN
> >
>
> Sure,the Shipper had also labelled the shipment containers.right?
>

Correct

> >Its the one on the boat.
> >
>
> In 2.Cargo Manifest prepared by USN on June,16 there is no Uran,enriched
or
> not.
> >Steel with a lining of gold leaf
> Again you forgat lead
>
> >There was no such jump, By January 1945 the K-12 plant at Oak Ridge
> >was producing 204 grams of weapons grade uranium per day
>
> Dare to compare production figures before and after June14.

I have , they are essentially the same with fluctuations of
a few %

> After June 14 German U-235 supplies added to Oak Ridge production.
>

With no noticeable effect

> >Was neither a reactor nor a reprocessing plant
>
> Yeah right ,also no heavy water found aboard U-234 and and British troops
> found no Heavy Water in Hamburg.
>
> >Yet no Japanese or German record of this exists nor is
> >there any evidence for this fairy tale.
>
> As far as I remember both countries,were under Anglo occupation for long
time
> and a shameless brainwashing process carried out by Anglos in both
countries.
> I wonder if anybody heard the names like Klein-Machow,Skoda or Pilsen in
> W.Germany in connection with German Nuclear program before 90s.
> But surely everbody heard the name of Heisenberg and his failures.
>

Yawn

> >An anonymous scientist is alleged to have found a non-existent
> >device, my what an imagination you have.
>
> Not so anonymous,everbody knows who developed the triggering device for US
> plutonium bomb at the literally last minute.

Klaus Fuchs was acknowledged to have played a leading
part in the development of implosion physics. Something
the Germans had done zero work on

> But only a few know that this
> scientist were among team members who investigated U-234 cargo.

Now if germany had 56 kg uranium why didnt
they build a bomb ?

Its s simple enough device which any competent arms factory
could produce in a couple of days. The design for the
Uranium bomb was frozen in feb 45 and all the parts
assembled awaiting the uranium components

56 kg would have given the Germans at least 2 nuclear
weapons so why did they decide to ship it to Japan
rather than use them on the Red Army which was
approaching Berlin ?

> This Gentleman devoleped triggering device right after he checked cargo.
> (Before the arrival of U234 he and other MH scientists tried to develop a
> triggering device for 18 months,but without any success, apparently the
arrival
> of U-234 helped to increase the IQ number of MH scientists)
>

The design of the implosion device was finished in March 45
and tested BEFORE U-234 was captured

> >He was a specialist in electronics and a convinced communist
> >who worked on nuclear weapons for the USSR after the
> >war. He was not part of the Nazi group as he was considered
> >a security risk.
>
> Von Ardenne a communist? I wonder when you are going to call Bill Gates or
> Stephen Wolfram a communist.
>
> No,he was a successfull entrepreneur,a businessman not a communist.
>

Businessman my ass

A report found in the archives of the DDR described him
As an egotistical opportunist who could be kept in East Germany.
He was described as being very greedy and horribly and a
perfect collaborator. . He was llowed to set up a private research
institute in Dresden (with generous state grants) and gained the nickname
"the Red Baron."

The institute's financial security was guaranteed through an agreement
by Walter Ulbricht to allocate to it, every year, a number of state research
tasks.

Von Ardenne himself became an aristocrat in Ulbricht's nomenklatura state,
the winner of a National Prize 1st Class (in 1958) and other awards
and a member of the Volkskammer [the GDR Parliament].

Ulbricht went to great lengths to keep him sweet. He visited von Ardenne
the day after he arrived at his new institute. The visit had the desired
effect on the vain Baron who, thirty years later, wrote in his
autobiography:
"He seemed to be extraordinarily interested in our plans and stayed past
lunch into the afternoon."

A week later, the mayor of Dresden turned up at von Ardenne's front
door and presented him with a gift from Ulbricht-a Soviet SIS
limousine. Von Ardenne never had to drive the car himself; a
chauffeur came with it.

> After WWII Soviets treated him like royals and declared many German
research
> facilities as his own personal property(Needless to say all these
facilities
> were funded by German taxpayers and owned by 3.Reich).
>

The third reich was long gone by 1958 old boy.

>
> For example,if US occupied by a foreign power and if this foreign power
> declares Lawrence-Livermore and Oak Ridge Nat.Labs as the personal
property of
> a scientist working there,this scientist would be very fond of this
foreign
> power.
>

Which means they thought he was a good communist.

> >The germans were good at excluding people who were able.
> >
>
> But Manhattan Project still would only need a receiving department to take
care
> of bomb components and fissile materials "imported" from Germany and a
final
> assembly line and saved 2 Billion dollars.
>

Nope they spent it, Germany had no fissile materials
and Von Ardenne spent the war working for the post
office. He did report that a calutron could
be used to enrich uranium this approach was decided
to be impractical.

Keith

[Denyav]

>Note the containers are not noted as being lead lined and the
>evidence for their being gold plated is debatable

According to all accounts containers were small but tremendously heavy much
heavier than a steel container containing only 6 kgs "Yellowcake or U-235.

>There is LESS reason to ship enriched uranium such
>containers than yellowcake, its a relatively stable
>material whereas Belgian milled yellowcake was
>quite acidic
>

U-235 is exteremely corrosive so it can become contaminated very easily if you
store or ship it in any material other than the stable ones,and gold is one of
the most stable materials.
The last thing you want to do is to contaminate the very limited amounts of
U-235 that you spent billions of dollars to produce during shipment or storage.
>Shipping enriched uranium in the manner described would
>cause a criticallity accident

5 or 6 kgs in a container?You must be kidding.

>Correct

And labelling cleary stated "U-235">



I have , they are essentially the same with fluctuations of
>a few %

Till May,1.Manhattan Project was able produce only 15 kgs of U-235 in spite of
long production perion and colossal plants,that was clearly predicted by many
Manhattan Project scientists in late 1944.
So there was no surprise here.Moreover this was the reason why Uran bomb was
put on backburner and plutonium bomb got priority.
Because everbody,including Groves and Oppenheimer,realized that they were not
able to produce enough U-235 for even one uran bomb at the deadline set for
Bomb.
So they decided to give plutonium bomb that requires less Uran to produce.
So,all Uran produced in 45 were sent to Hancock breeders instead of to Uran
bomb production.

Biggest single mistake of Manhattan Project and its scientists were their
inability to recognize enourmous triggering problems involved with pluto bomb
at an early stage..
On other hand Von Ardenne/Houtermanns group recognized this very early.(late
1941) and started developing a fusing device.

When Groves frozen pluto bomb design in Feb 45 bomb had no reliable ignitors.
So the test was assumed to be a failure and big attention was given to recover
plutonium after failed test.

So in May 1945,Manhattan Project was almost collapsed.
They could built an Uran bomb but they had no Uran for that.(Uran shipments
sent to Hancock breeders for Plutonium production)
They had enough Plutonium for a Plutonium bomb but no triggering device for
plutonium bomb!.
This was an absolute nightmare,the worst situation imaginable.
But everything changed with Jonastal occupation and with the arrival of U-235

>With no noticeable effect

1)Manhattan Project that was able to produce only 15 kgs of Uran in almost one
year suddenly "produced" more Uran than they needed .
I would call this a very noticable effect

2)Manhattan Project that was unable to produce a trigger for plutonium bomb for
18 months suddenly produced a trigger masterpiece and performance of this
trigger and bomb was 3 or 4 times better than Manhattan projects most
optimistic scientists' expectations.

This trigger was the fourth revision of trigger design after design was frozen
in Feb.45.
Trigger arrived to the test site on JULY 13,literaly at the last moment.

Who was the Genius who designed this trigger at the very last moment and saved
US plutonium bomb?
He was Luis Alvares.
The same Luis Alvares debriefed U-235 scientific passenger Dr.Schielke and
acted as the the liasion person for Dr.Schielke.
The Duty of Dr.Schielke was to train Japanase how to assemble the bomb.
After the war Alvares always dodged questions about his "genial" solution that
saved Manhattan Project.
Whenever he asked how he solved seemingly unsolvable problem He answered "I
cleaned up some wires".

Very scientific antwort for a nobel laurate.
In reality in test site superior German technology was at the work and that was
the reason why the successs of plutonium bomb exceeded even the most optimistic
expectations of Manhattan Projecters.

Many Manhattan Projecters apparently forgat how good were the Germans in
science and technology.



>Klaus Fuchs was acknowledged to have played a leading
>part in the development of implosion physics. Something
>the Germans had done zero work on

>Klaus Fuchs was acknowledged to have played a leading
>part in the development of implosion physics. Something
>the Germans had done zero work on

Worlds first plutonium bomb used a German triggering device developed by Von
Ardenne/Houtermanns group and stolen by Luis Alvares from U-234

>Now if germany had 56 kg uranium why didnt
>they build a bomb ?
>
They were waiting for America-Rocket,unlike general assumptions German Nuclear
program was on schedule but America rocket was delayed.

ts s simple enough device which any competent arms factory
>could produce in a couple of days. The design for the
>Uranium bomb was frozen in feb 45 and all the parts
>assembled awaiting the uranium components

If its so simple why Manhattan Project were unable to produce even one reliable
design in 18 months is spite of use of computers in devepment.
Why ignitor design changed 4 times after design was "officially" frozen in
Feb.45?
Why the last design arrived to test site on July 13.?
Why Luis Alvares dodged every question in four decades by saying "Oh,well,I
cleaned up some wires"?

Since when stealing superior German technology is called "cleaning wires"?

>56 kg would have given the Germans at least 2 nuclear
>weapons so why did they decide to ship it to Japan
>rather than use them on the Red Army which was
>approaching Berlin ?
>
>
It would mean the destruction of German capital.
I heard rumors about the last minute Hitler order,but at that time Jonastal was
already in American Hands.

>The design of the implosion device was finished in March 45
>and tested BEFORE U-234 was captured

Yeah right,this design revised 4 times after that,and design arrived to test
site on July 13 .period.

>Businessman my ass

Well,I agree with your words used to describe Von Ardenne,but you could use the
same words to describe Rotschilds,Thyssen,Stinnes,Trump,Gates etc.

> >war. He was not part of the Nazi group as he was considered
>> >a security risk.
>>
Wrong,Hitler was a frequent house guest of Von Ardenne.
Security risk was Houtermanns not von Ardenne.

>A week later, the mayor of Dresden turned up at von Ardenne's front
>door and presented him with a gift from Ulbricht-a Soviet SIS
>limousine. Von Ardenne never had to drive the car himself; a
>chauffeur came with it.

After WW II von Ardenne was treated by both Soviets and East Germans like a
Royal ,no question about that.

>The third reich was long gone by 1958 old boy.

Apparently you dont know that undergrond facilities in Lichterfelde and
Klein-Machow which were disassembled and taken to the USSR were treated as von
Ardennes personal property and Soviet sickle and Hammer state accepted to pay a
fair market price to von Ardenne for their usage in Soviet Union.
That was part of the agreement between Stalin and von Ardenne.
You see von Ardenne had every reason to express his gratitude towards Soviet
and German sickle&hammer states.

>Which means they thought he was a good communist.
It proves only one thing besides being an universal genius he was also a greedy
and clever businessman.

>Nope they spent it, Germany had no fissile materials
>and Von Ardenne spent the war working for the post
>office. He did report that a calutron could
>be used to enrich uranium this approach was decided
>to be impractical.

Yeah right,and Manhattan Project solved gigantic problems by simply cleaning up
wires.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Note the containers are not noted as being lead lined and the
> >evidence for their being gold plated is debatable
>
> According to all accounts containers were small but tremendously heavy
much
> heavier than a steel container containing only 6 kgs "Yellowcake or U-235.
>

Here's a clue

Uranium is demser than lead

> >There is LESS reason to ship enriched uranium such
> >containers than yellowcake, its a relatively stable
> >material whereas Belgian milled yellowcake was
> >quite acidic
> >
>
> U-235 is exteremely corrosive so it can become contaminated very easily if
you
> store or ship it in any material other than the stable ones,and gold is
one of
> the most stable materials.

No it isnt

I have handled Uranium , its used to to make ammunition
for tanks, shielding for radioactive sources and trim weights
for aircraft control surfaces. U-235 and U-238 are chemically
identical

> The last thing you want to do is to contaminate the very limited amounts
of
> U-235 that you spent billions of dollars to produce during shipment or
storage.
> >Shipping enriched uranium in the manner described would
> >cause a criticallity accident
>
> 5 or 6 kgs in a container?You must be kidding.
>

No way jose. The regulations for shipping U-235 limit you
to 500 grams per container

> >Correct
>
> And labelling cleary stated "U-235">
>
>
>
> I have , they are essentially the same with fluctuations of
> >a few %
>
> Till May,1.Manhattan Project was able produce only 15 kgs of U-235 in
spite of
> long production perion and colossal plants,that was clearly predicted by
many
> Manhattan Project scientists in late 1944.

Incorrect

> So there was no surprise here.Moreover this was the reason why Uran bomb
was
> put on backburner and plutonium bomb got priority.

Both got priority, thats why they built Oak Ridge AND Hanford

> Because everbody,including Groves and Oppenheimer,realized that they were
not
> able to produce enough U-235 for even one uran bomb at the deadline set
for
> Bomb.

The minutes of every meeting in the period AND the information
passed to the Soviets by Fuchs etc state otherwise,

> So they decided to give plutonium bomb that requires less Uran to produce.
> So,all Uran produced in 45 were sent to Hancock breeders instead of to
Uran
> bomb production.
>

Lets count the errors

1) The Plutonium bomb requires no U-235
2) The reactors were at Hanford
3) They went critical in September 1944

> Biggest single mistake of Manhattan Project and its scientists were their
> inability to recognize enourmous triggering problems involved with pluto
bomb
> at an early stage..
> On other hand Von Ardenne/Houtermanns group recognized this very
early.(late
> 1941) and started developing a fusing device.
>

Describe this device

> When Groves frozen pluto bomb design in Feb 45 bomb had no reliable
ignitors.
> So the test was assumed to be a failure and big attention was given to
recover
> plutonium after failed test.
>

There was no failed test

> So in May 1945,Manhattan Project was almost collapsed.
> They could built an Uran bomb but they had no Uran for that.(Uran
shipments
> sent to Hancock breeders for Plutonium production)

Nonsense

> They had enough Plutonium for a Plutonium bomb but no triggering device
for
> plutonium bomb!.

Describe this triggering device

> This was an absolute nightmare,the worst situation imaginable.
> But everything changed with Jonastal occupation and with the arrival of
U-235
>
> >With no noticeable effect
>
> 1)Manhattan Project that was able to produce only 15 kgs of Uran in almost
one
> year suddenly "produced" more Uran than they needed .
> I would call this a very noticable effect
>

Thats what building enrichment plants does.
Without plant (like Germany) no U-235
With Plant (like USA) 200 grams per day

> 2)Manhattan Project that was unable to produce a trigger for plutonium
bomb for
> 18 months suddenly produced a trigger masterpiece and performance of this
> trigger and bomb was 3 or 4 times better than Manhattan projects most
> optimistic scientists' expectations.
>

Describe this device

> This trigger was the fourth revision of trigger design after design was
frozen
> in Feb.45.
> Trigger arrived to the test site on JULY 13,literaly at the last moment.
>

Describe this device

> Who was the Genius who designed this trigger at the very last moment and
saved
> US plutonium bomb?
> He was Luis Alvares.
> The same Luis Alvares debriefed U-235 scientific passenger Dr.Schielke and
> acted as the the liasion person for Dr.Schielke.
> The Duty of Dr.Schielke was to train Japanase how to assemble the bomb.
> After the war Alvares always dodged questions about his "genial" solution
that
> saved Manhattan Project.
> Whenever he asked how he solved seemingly unsolvable problem He answered
"I
> cleaned up some wires".
>
> Very scientific antwort for a nobel laurate.
> In reality in test site superior German technology was at the work and
that was
> the reason why the successs of plutonium bomb exceeded even the most
optimistic
> expectations of Manhattan Projecters.
>
> Many Manhattan Projecters apparently forgat how good were the Germans in
> science and technology.
>
>
>
> >Klaus Fuchs was acknowledged to have played a leading
> >part in the development of implosion physics. Something
> >the Germans had done zero work on
>
> >Klaus Fuchs was acknowledged to have played a leading
> >part in the development of implosion physics. Something
> >the Germans had done zero work on
>
> Worlds first plutonium bomb used a German triggering device developed by
Von
> Ardenne/Houtermanns group and stolen by Luis Alvares from U-234
>
> >Now if germany had 56 kg uranium why didnt
> >they build a bomb ?
> >
> They were waiting for America-Rocket,unlike general assumptions German
Nuclear
> program was on schedule but America rocket was delayed.
>
> ts s simple enough device which any competent arms factory
> >could produce in a couple of days. The design for the
> >Uranium bomb was frozen in feb 45 and all the parts
> >assembled awaiting the uranium components
>
> If its so simple why Manhattan Project were unable to produce even one
reliable
> design in 18 months is spite of use of computers in devepment.
> Why ignitor design changed 4 times after design was "officially" frozen in
> Feb.45?
> Why the last design arrived to test site on July 13.?
> Why Luis Alvares dodged every question in four decades by saying
"Oh,well,I
> cleaned up some wires"?
>
> Since when stealing superior German technology is called "cleaning wires"?
>
> >56 kg would have given the Germans at least 2 nuclear
> >weapons so why did they decide to ship it to Japan
> >rather than use them on the Red Army which was
> >approaching Berlin ?
> >
> >
> It would mean the destruction of German capital.
> I heard rumors about the last minute Hitler order,but at that time
Jonastal was
> already in American Hands.
>

Bull****, the Soviets were still on the Oder when the cargo was loaded


> >The design of the implosion device was finished in March 45
> >and tested BEFORE U-234 was captured
>
> Yeah right,this design revised 4 times after that,and design arrived to
test
> site on July 13 .period.
>
> >Businessman my ass
>
> Well,I agree with your words used to describe Von Ardenne,but you could
use the
> same words to describe Rotschilds,Thyssen,Stinnes,Trump,Gates etc.
>

We arent discussing them , nice try at changing the subject though

> > >war. He was not part of the Nazi group as he was considered
> >> >a security risk.
> >>
> Wrong,Hitler was a frequent house guest of Von Ardenne.
> Security risk was Houtermanns not von Ardenne.
>
> >A week later, the mayor of Dresden turned up at von Ardenne's front
> >door and presented him with a gift from Ulbricht-a Soviet SIS
> >limousine. Von Ardenne never had to drive the car himself; a
> >chauffeur came with it.
>
> After WW II von Ardenne was treated by both Soviets and East Germans like
a
> Royal ,no question about that.
>

Not the way they treated true Nazi believers.

> >The third reich was long gone by 1958 old boy.
>
> Apparently you dont know that undergrond facilities in Lichterfelde and
> Klein-Machow which were disassembled and taken to the USSR were treated as
von
> Ardennes personal property and Soviet sickle and Hammer state accepted to
pay a
> fair market price to von Ardenne for their usage in Soviet Union.
> That was part of the agreement between Stalin and von Ardenne.
> You see von Ardenne had every reason to express his gratitude towards
Soviet
> and German sickle&hammer states.
>

Yawn

> >Which means they thought he was a good communist.
> It proves only one thing besides being an universal genius he was also a
greedy
> and clever businessman.
>
> >Nope they spent it, Germany had no fissile materials
> >and Von Ardenne spent the war working for the post
> >office. He did report that a calutron could
> >be used to enrich uranium this approach was decided
> >to be impractical.
>
> Yeah right,and Manhattan Project solved gigantic problems by simply
cleaning up
> wires.
>

Only the ones on your tin foil hat

Keith

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
>
>
> Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
> of Uranium
>

I thought that U-235 captured from German was used in the Hiroshima
bomb.

--

FF

[B2431]

>From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Date: 8/23/2004 5:36 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>
>> Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
>> of Uranium
>>
>
>I thought that U-235 captured from German was used in the Hiroshima
>bomb.
>
>--
>
>FF

Why? The U.S. already had enough. What do you think that big building at Oak
Ridge was for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Fred the Red Shirt)
> >Date: 8/23/2004 5:36 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> >>
> >>
> >> Germany never managed to enrich more than a few grams
> >> of Uranium
> >>
> >
> >I thought that U-235 captured from German was used in the Hiroshima
> >bomb.
> >

>
> Why?

Because I read that it did, that's why?

> The U.S. already had enough.

Ok, how much weapons grade U-235 did the US have early in 1945,
befor the German material was captured?

> What do you think that big building at Oak
> Ridge was for?

I'm well aware that the US had a diffusion facility. What makes you
think that precludes using material refined elsewhere?

--

FF

[Per Andersson]

Denyav wrote:
>
>
>>1) The Plutonium bomb requires no U-235
>
>
> Plutonium bomb requires U-235 if you decide to fuel reactors,like Groves and
> Oppenheimer did, with U-235 instead U-238 to boost plutonium production.
>
>
>

The reactors in Hanford used natural uranium with 0.7% U235, not
enriched uranium. A reactor is built to use uranium with a
certain level of U235 and you can not just add some more to
"boost" it. If you are going to produce Pu you want as little
U235 as possible for the isotope of interest, Pu239, comes
from U238. But why am I arguing with a troll?

/Per

[Denyav]

>Here's a clue
>
>Uranium is demser than lead
>

Do you want to play dumb?
We are talking about "weights" not "masses"
Each container container contained 5 or 6 kgs Uran.period.

>I have handled Uranium , its used to to make ammunition
>for tanks, shielding for radioactive sources and trim weights
>for aircraft control surfaces. U-235 and U-238 are chemically
>identical

Really Mr.Wilshaw?
U-238 poses little problem for your health unless you try to eat it.
But you dont want to be close to u-235 without protective gear.

>No way jose. The regulations for shipping U-235 limit you
>to 500 grams per container
>

Were the regulations in effect in 1945?>pite of
>> long production perion and colossal plants,that was clearly predicted by
>many
>> Manhattan Project scientists in late 1944.
>
>Incorrect

I hate to disappont you but very correct Sir.
Manhattan Project Chief Metallurgist Eric Jette stated in his December 28 Memo
the following:
"At present rate we will have 10 kilos (of weapon grade Uran) about February 7
and 15 kilos by May 1"

He was right on target Manhattan Project had only 15 kilos on May first.


>Both got priority, thats why they built Oak Ridge AND Hanford
>

Apparently Groves and Oppenheimers fateful decision to fuel Hanford reactors
with U-235 to increase Plutonium output is not known to you.
This u-235 supposed to be used in uran bomb not in Hanford.

>The minutes of every meeting in the period AND the information
>passed to the Soviets by Fuchs etc state otherwise,

Who needs Fuchs or backwards Manhattan Project information,top Anglo management
and Groves knew from Griffin reports that Germans have were always two years
ahead of Manhattan project.Groves and Anglo management also knew that Ardennes
isotope seperators were far advanced than US cauldrons.
There was only one way to stop Germany from becoming a sole nuclear power.
Occupation of Germany using owerwhelming numbers before it becomes nuclear
power.




>Lets count the errors
>

Now lets count yours:

>1) The Plutonium bomb requires no U-235

Plutonium bomb requires U-235 if you decide to fuel reactors,like Groves and
Oppenheimer did, with U-235 instead U-238 to boost plutonium production.

>2) The reactors were at Hanford
Yes they were there and they were fuelled with U-235 to increase production.

>) They went critical in September 1944

And Otto Frisch reported to Oppenheimer in April that 15 kgs U-235 was not
enough for the uran bomb (they supposed to have 15 kgs by May 1)

>Describe this device

You will find description of this device in U-235 cargo documents

>There was no failed test

Yeah Right,if you were able to use superior German technology,oops I meant if
Prof.Alvarez were able to cleans up wires,failure is not an option.

>> They could built an Uran bomb but they had no Uran for that.(Uran
>shipments
>> sent to Hancock breeders for Plutonium production)
>
>Nonsense

True,it seemed like a logical choice till Otto Frischs' April Memo.
After Frisch memo it looked like that Manhattan Project failed totaly;
They could build an Uran bomb but they had no enough Uran for that,They had
enough Plutonium but no triggering device for Pluto bomb.

>Thats what building enrichment plants does.
>Without plant (like Germany) no U-235
>With Plant (like USA) 200 grams per day
>

As Anglo management team knew very Germany was doing much better than that.
Unlike Anglo managed efforts that failed produce for their own needs Germans
were able to export part of their production.

>Bull****, the Soviets were still on the Oder when the cargo was loaded

Rumor says that Hitler gave this order in his last days.

>Not the way they treated true Nazi believers.
Do you think Kammler was being treated worse than Ardenne?
At least Ardenne was not a Nazi or Communist (only a greedy capitalist and an
universal genius) and did not commit crimes aganist humanity like Kammler.

>Only the ones on your tin foil hat

Isn't 75 years not enough?

[Denyav]

>Why? The U.S. already had enough. What do you think that big building at Oak
>Ridge was for?

A monument of blunder.

[Denyav]

>The reactors in Hanford used natural uranium with 0.7% U235, not
>enriched uranium. A reactor is built to use uranium with a
>certain level of U235 and you can not just add some more to

Sure a reactor is built to certain specifications and if you change
specifications you must also change the reactor and that was exactly ehat they
done in Hanford.
Hanford piles were modified from Helium cooling to water cooling piles.This
modification were carried out to make piles uranium enriched.
Similar changes were carried out previously in Oak Ridge pilot reactor to prove
the feasibility of changes.
Only other way to increase output would require a size increase of pile but the
size of piles remained same.
So its very clear after succesful testing in Oak Ridge Hanford used U-235
enriched piles and that u-235 came at the expense of uran bomb.
Why? Because till April 45 MP assumed that 15 kgs of U-235 would be sufficent
for uran bomb.
Thats a reality and stupidty of Manhattan Projecters.
Thanks to their colossal stupidty,in May 1945 they had capacity to build a Uran
bomb but they had no Uran for that.
They had enough Plutonium for bomb but no triggering device for that.
But suddenly US uran production spiked after June 14 and Prof.Alvares at the
last minute learned how to "clean up wires" and saved US plutonium bomb.

What a coincidence?

[Thelasian]

zalzon > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:51:28 -0700, Thelasian wrote:
>
> > zalzon > wrote in message news:
> >> The reactors which Russia are eager to export are not being
> >> built at any frantic pace within Russia itself.
> >
> > Nonsense. The VVER reactors that the Russians are building in Iran are
> > also used - quite successfully - in Finland
>
> What relation does the statement you wrote have with the above?
> Is Finland in Russia?


Point being that Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr is a "standard"
reactor unlike what you implied.


>
>
> >> Osirak was for n-weapons - that much we do know.
> >
> > Probably, but bombing it didn't solve the problem of nuclear
> > proliferation at all
>
> Sure it did. Eyerack is not a nuclear state.

Logical fallacy> A precedent event is not necessary the cause of a
subsequent event. The reason why Iraq is not a nuclear states is not
because of Israel's attack. Its because of a whole host of other
factors such as UN sanctions.


>
>
> >> > But Having "intent" is not contrary to the NPT.
> >>
> >> Of course it is. That's the whole reason for the NPT.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, that's not correct. The NPT prohibits the acquisition of
> > nuclear weapons. That's all.
>
> The NPT is a document which allows for the transfer of nuclear technology
> to non-nuclear countries with the agreement of those countries not to
> pursue a n-weapons program.

That's right. The NPT prohibits the production or acquisition (what
you loosely call the "pursuit") of nuclear weapons. However there's
nothing in the NPT which prohibits the "intent" to potentially acquire
nuclear weapons in the future. In fact the NPT explicitly allows for
this contingency through Article X, which permits signatory nations to
withdraw from the Treaty.

>
> I belive you are just beating around the bush. You don't yourself believe
> that Eyeran's pursuit of nuclear generated electricity is genuine so you
> seek to put a smoke screen around the issue. A point blank yes/no
> question draws a paragraph of misdirection.


I believe (without any basis or empirical evidence) that Iran does
indeed seek to acquire civilian nuclear technology, knowing that if it
ever had to, it could exercise its rights under Art. X of the NPT to
withdraw from the treaty and defend itself.

>
> > In fact the NPT OBLIGATES nations to share ALL nuclear
> > technology EVEN data obtained from nuclear test explosions.
>
> Could you cite me the clause for that? Sounds like BS to me.

Article V
Each party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to
ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate
international observation and through appropriate international
procedures,
***potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear
explosions**** will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States
Party to the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that the charge
to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as
possible and exclude any charge for research and development....


>
> > Further more Article X of the treaty
> > specifically permits nations to withdraw from the NPT - that's a
> > recognition that a nation may need to build nukes to protect itself at
> > some time.
>
> You mean sign the treaty, get nuclear technology, put up a smoke screen,
> then withdraw and build the bomb? May I ask why is it OK for Eyeran to
> enter the treaty with the intention of withdrawing while other countries
> should adhere to the spirit of the treaty?

The suggestion that Iran entered the treaty "with the intention" of
withdrawing is your conclusion. Iran is a charter member of the NPT,
and it has the same rights and responsibilities as any other
signatory. All of the other nations have the same options as does
Iran. Article X applies to all of them.

Look, I am sorry that the NPT doesn't say "The US shall have the right
to possess nuclear technology and weapons to threaten everyone else,
but not Iran." But don't blame me.

>
> Its like handing money over to a crook who swears up and down that he
> won't cheat you, only to find his "intent" is just that.

I have to wonder why all this cynicism about iran's intentions aren't
similiarly applied to the US's intentions. Don't forget, the US is a
signatory too, and the NPT places certain obligations on the USA too,
which the US has blatantly ignored - not just "intented" to ignore.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 17 Aug 2004 16:33:46 GMT,
Denyav attempted to say .....

> Over 500 kgs enriched Uran found in U-234 produced by outer space aliens
> masquerading as Germans

That about sums up your argument....


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.