• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How To Build an A-Bomb

Mephisto

Philosopher
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
6,064
Granted this is from a biased source, but I'm pretty certain you won't find a conservative source printing this information.

You're Kidding Me, Right?
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 03 November 2006

We have become all too accustomed over these last years to absorbing insane and astonishing and absurd and awful revelations regarding this White House and this GOP-dominated congress. Some have come to call it "scandal fatigue," though I personally prefer to call it the "Gotta-put-this-in-a-mental-box-for-a-while-or-else-I-will-eat-my-own-face" self-preservation instinct.

I mean, come on now. No weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and Bush stars in a comedic video skit, aired during a banquet, in which he pretends to look for the stuff in the Oval Office. 2,826 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 44,799 more have been wounded, not one of them having the luxury of looking for those weapons in the secure comforts of the White House.

Har de har har.

Less than a month after 9/11, Bush got in front of cameras to say, "We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." You have to wonder what kind of music this guy is hearing in his head. Hm ... here's a thought. Let's use the worst day of carnage on American soil since the Civil War to pimp for tax cuts that will pretty much only help the richest of the rich.

This list is seemingly endless. They used September 11 against us to push for an unnecessary war that has laid waste to Iraq and our international reputation. They outed a deep-cover CIA agent whose husband dared to criticize the cherry-picked "intelligence" used to justify the invasion. They have gotten into bed with some of the most reprehensible scumbags ever to disgrace the corridors of Congress - Mr. Abramoff, your table is ready - and then summoned the gall to declare a "National Character Counts Week."

You have to put this stuff into a mental box until you can wrap yourself around it, because otherwise you'll be battering down walls with your head and gnawing down trees like a beaver.

But this, now, is something else again.

The New York Times headline for Friday reads, "US Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer." Bad enough all by itself, true, but this headline does not entirely convey the insane and astonishing and absurd and awful realities behind this story.

"Last March," begins the article, "the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to 'leverage the Internet' to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein."

Translation: On the three-year anniversary of the catastrophic decision to invade and occupy Iraq, Congressional Republicans, terrified that their comprehensive failures would come back to haunt them in the November midterms, cajoled the White House into publishing incredibly sensitive information in a rhetorically empty attempt to cover their backsides.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110306R.shtml
 
So even truthout and Mephisto now admit that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Baby steps...
 
So even truthout and Mephisto now admit that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

Baby steps...

Having schematics and assembly instructions for a Ferrari doesn't make you a race car driver.
 
Last edited:
Having schematics and assembly instructions for a Ferrari don't make you a race car driver.
So your argument is that a country, having the full resources of the government and all its institutions behind it, is no threat at all w/ this information. But a terrorist organization whose resources are infintesimal by comparison is a major threat w/ such info?

Okey-dokey...
 
So your argument is that a country, having the full resources of the government and all its institutions behind it, is no threat at all w/ this information. But a terrorist organization whose resources are infintesimal by comparison is a major threat w/ such info?

Okey-dokey...

Yeah, the country in question was under sanctions for 12 years and was a fairly unpopular country with its neighbors. A terrorist faction might garner quite a bit more support from MULTIPLE countries, some of which might appear friendly to us while secretly supporting the type of terrorists who could use this information against us.

Okie, dokey?
 
Yeah, the country in question was under sanctions for 12 years and was a fairly unpopular country with its neighbors. A terrorist faction might garner quite a bit more support from MULTIPLE countries, some of which might appear friendly to us while secretly supporting the type of terrorists who could use this information against us.

Okie, dokey?
If the terrorist org. is already working w/ support of a gov't they really don't need the info provided on the site.
 
If the terrorist org. is already working w/ support of a gov't they really don't need the info provided on the site.

So, you're assuming that they've already got this information and there is nothing wrong with providing the instructions IN ARABIC?

Okie dokey.

Would this still be your position had the Clinton administration done the same thing?
 
So, you're assuming that they've already got this information and there is nothing wrong with providing the instructions IN ARABIC?
No, I'm saying that this info isn't going to lead to terrorists developing an atomic bomb. If they do get one, it will be courtesy of a gov't that made it for them.
 
To respond to the thread tittle:

Smelt uranium ore. Enhance amount of u235 in the resulting metal. (Gas centrifuges have been mentioned.) Bang two sub-critical masses of the enhanced uranium together very swiftly.

The rest is all engineering.:shocked: :duck:



:
 
To respond to the thread tittle:

Smelt uranium ore. Enhance amount of u235 in the resulting metal. (Gas centrifuges have been mentioned.) Bang two sub-critical masses of the enhanced uranium together very swiftly.

The rest is all engineering.:shocked: :duck:



:


Since this involves iraq we are likely talking about plutonium based weapons which are slightly more complex.
 
So your argument is that a country, having the full resources of the government and all its institutions behind it, is no threat at all w/ this information. But a terrorist organization whose resources are infintesimal by comparison is a major threat w/ such info?

Okey-dokey...

Sadam had no way of aquire fissile material and appears to have abandoned the program.
 
Sadam had no way of aquire fissile material and appears to have abandoned the program.

In the short term, yes. In the long term, no, that was not something we could possibly have ensured, except by removing him from power.
 
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no, that was not something we could possibly have ensured, except by removing him from power.

O...k. So by that logic we should depose every whacko leader who has ever expressed interest in nuclear armaments, even if they have no means to acquire them or making them.
 
Last edited:
In the short term, yes. In the long term, no, that was not something we could possibly have ensured, except by removing him from power.

Assume the US was not silly enough to tie down it's army in unessacery conflicts stoping countries from aquireing weapons grade fissile material should not have been a problem.
 
O...k. So by that logic we should depose every whacko leader who has ever expressed interest in nuclear armaments, even if they have no means to acquiring them or making them.

Oh, Saddam had done a lot more than express interest. He had previously come VERY close to actually doing so - and the weapons scientists who got him to the brink were still in his employment.
 
Assume the US was not silly enough to tie down it's army in unessacery conflicts stoping countries from aquireing weapons grade fissile material should not have been a problem.

How, exactly, do you figure that?

The fact of the matter is, we have no way of determining if a country is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons. The IAEA has never, in its entire history, uncovered a calndestine nuclear weapons program. Our own intelligence agencies have been completely unreliable - you may want to point to Iraq as being an example of them overestimating capability, but they've UNDERestimated capabilities more often than the reverse (both Pakistan and India took us by surprise, and it was only serendipity which led us to stopping Libya's nuclear program). This was a problem that wasn't going away.
 
Which of those countries (India, Pakistan, Libya) was subject to persistent UN weapons inspections, to the level where "uncooperation" consisted of not letting the UN take suspected scientists and their families completely out of the country for interrogation?

We aren't talking about trying to interpret satellite photos here, or guessing on escorted visits. The UN and the IAEA had complete access to go whereever they wanted whenever they wanted. If they were held up, they were allowed to complain, at which point, they would get pulled from the country and we would bomb it (like Clinton did).

The situation in Iraq was nothing like India or Pakistan. The international community was more than paying attention to what was going on there.
 
Oh, Saddam had done a lot more than express interest. He had previously come VERY close to actually doing so - and the weapons scientists who got him to the brink were still in his employment.

In case you've been in a comma for the past 15 years, he had no fissionable martial, and not even the tools to make the components of a bomb, thanks to agressive, and effective, sanctions.
 

Back
Top Bottom