Iran's nuclear program

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

(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

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

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?

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

A monument of blunder.

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?

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.

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.