Iran's nuclear program

"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

"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

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.

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" 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 =---

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

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.

"zalzon" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

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.