Zimbabwe, the next nuclear power

[Mycroft]

If that doesn't stain your shorts, what will?

Zimbabwe to Process Newly Found Uranium

HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) - President Robert Mugabe has said Zimbabwe will process recently discovered uranium deposits in order to resolve its chronic electrical power shortage, state radio said Sunday.

Mugabe, who has close ties with two countries with controversial nuclear programs, Iran and North Korea, made the announcement Saturday, the radio station reported.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5427703,00.html

 

[Gurdur]

Rather immaterial. Zimbabwe would be in no position to develop or obtain any far-reaching missles; whether or not they sell enriched yellowcake to China is neither here nor there. Can't see at all why this should worry you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rather immaterial. Zimbabwe would be in no position to develop or obtain any far-reaching missles; whether or not they sell enriched yellowcake to China is neither here nor there. Can't see at all why this should worry you.

If they manage to do any enrichment, then Zimbabwe becomes a possible source for dirty bomb materials. Mugabe has a tenuous grasp on both reality and his nation right now. No good can come of any actual moves towards developing nuclear technology in a nation as screwed up as Zimbabwe, but hopefully he's just talking big to sound big. Maybe he just wants some attention ( http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27665 ) or maybe he likes nuclear talks ( http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42604 ).

 

[TragicMonkey]

What's with the countries that can't feed themselves pursuing nuclear technology?

 

[Gurdur]

If they manage to do any enrichment, then Zimbabwe becomes a possible source for dirty bomb materials. Mugabe has a tenuous grasp on both reality and his nation right now.

Again, I addressed this in my post already.
The answer is, so what?
For a start, it's very unlikely Mugabe would ever get around to having a program that would really produce anything much in the way of plutonium or even radioactive cobalt; as for enriched uranium, *shrug*

International shipping is very closely monitored; any exports from Zimbabwe of illegal materials would be very closely monitored indeed, and almost guaranteeably intercepted on the high seas, let alone in transit ports.

As for "a possible source for dirty bomb materials", sheeesh, Zimbabwe is waaaaaaaaaay down the list of practicable sources; if Mylock or you want to worry about these things, worry far more instead about the missing heavily radioactive cores of old Soviet agricultural seed-radiation units forgotten and rotting all over the Russian landscape.

 

[WildCat]

As Zimbabwe doesn't even have a single nuclear reactor, is it even possible for them to enrich uranium? I don't think Mugabe is thinking his "imitate North Korea" strategy through.

 

[geni]

As Zimbabwe doesn't even have a single nuclear reactor, is it even possible for them to enrich uranium?

Yes. Uranium enrichment is msotly a chemical process. You basical react the uranium with fluorine to make unihexafluoride and then spin it in a centrafuge to seperate the isotopes. I'll leave the problem of how to handle two insanely reactive gasses to the reader.

 

[Kerberos]

If they manage to do any enrichment, then Zimbabwe becomes a possible source for dirty bomb materials. Mugabe has a tenuous grasp on both reality and his nation right now. No good can come of any actual moves towards developing nuclear technology in a nation as screwed up as Zimbabwe, but hopefully he's just talking big to sound big. Maybe he just wants some attention ( http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27665 ) or maybe he likes nuclear talks ( http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42604 ).

So what if he becomes a souce for "dirty bomb materials". There's this ridicilous meme going around that dirty bombs are somehow like nuclear bombs, but they're totally unlike each other in every way that matters. Is there any evidence at all that dirty bombs are significantly more destructive than clean ones? If so I'd like to see it because I haven't so far.

 

[geni]

So what if he becomes a souce fo "dirty bomb materials". There's this ridicilous meme going around that dirty bombs are somehow like nuclear bombs, but they're totally unlike each other in every way that matters. Is there any evidence at all that dirty bombs are significantly more destructive than clean ones? If so I'd like to see it because I haven't so far.

They cause a lot of economic damage since people don't want to go into areas with higher radition levels. The result is that you can effectively wipe out major consumer districts.

 

[Kerberos]

They cause a lot of economic damage since people don't want to go into areas with higher radition levels. The result is that you can effectively wipe out major consumer districts.

Couldn't that be cleaned up? Sure it might be more expensive than just washing the blood of the walls, but I don't see any cause for panic.

 

[geni]

Couldn't that be cleaned up? Sure it might be more expensive than just washing the blood of the walls, but I don't see any cause for panic.

Sure but you've had to shut down quite a large area for a long time and whatever you do you are not going to get rid of all the contamination.

 

[Ziggurat]

Couldn't that be cleaned up? Sure it might be more expensive than just washing the blood of the walls, but I don't see any cause for panic.

You're missing part of the point: a dirty bomb would scare the bejeezes out of people, and they WILL panic, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Yes, the effects would not be nearly as bad as a genuine nuclear bomb, and the wider impact would be more psychological than physical, but those effects would be real and economically devastating nonetheless.

 

[Mycroft]

And a lot of people are likely to get sick and die.

 

[Hutch]

You're missing part of the point: a dirty bomb would scare the bejeezes out of people, and they WILL panic, regardless of whether it's warranted or not. Yes, the effects would not be nearly as bad as a genuine nuclear bomb, and the wider impact would be more psychological than physical, but those effects would be real and economically devastating nonetheless.

It's a rarity, I assure you, but I agree 100% with Zig on this one. The damage would be as much to the psyche of the nation as it would economically and physically. We (at least Amercians) have a built-in--or trained-in--fear of radioactivity/nuclear-type things, even if we don't understand them well. If someone set off a 'dirty' bomb in, say, Times Square they might kill a couple of thousand--but they would terrorize the entire nation perhaps worse than 9-11.

I have no doubt that if Osama or his ilk had the slightest chance of pulling something like this off, they would do so. The upheaval in the US in response to that would be totally unpredictable, IMHO.

 

[Gurdur]

......and the wider impact would be more psychological than physical, but those effects .....

This is the absolutely most fascinating part, and here's a question for Randfan to consider too, if he sees this.

Ignoring stockmarket fluctuations, politics and emotional storms, which caused the USA more real damage? Hurricane Katrina or 9/11? It just has to be Hurricane Katrina, despite the lower actual death toll, since it effectively wiped out one of the major ports and port cities of the USA, while 9/11 only did several buildings (putting aside death toll, for the moment, which wasn't all that far apart between the two events in any case). Yet Lousiana seems to be sliding down to the USA's memory hole, while 9/11 is still often touted as a (fully erroneous) reason to invade Iraq and maybe Iran later, and so to explore new ways of getting bogged down in quagmires.

The psychological difference is noteworthy in its differential effects and reactions.

 

[Mycroft]

Yet Lousiana seems to be sliding down to the USA's memory hole, while 9/11 is still often touted as a (fully erroneous) reason to invade Iraq and maybe Iran later...

So who, exactly, do you think we should invade as a response to Katrina?

 

[Gurdur]

 

[hammegk]

So who, exactly, do you think we should invade as a response to Katrina?

North Korea, Iran, and Syria.

 

[Grammatron]

This is the absolutely most fascinating part, and here's a question for Randfan to consider too, if he sees this.

Ignoring stockmarket fluctuations, politics and emotional storms, which caused the USA more real damage? Hurricane Katrina or 9/11? It just has to be Hurricane Katrina, despite the lower actual death toll, since it effectively wiped out one of the major ports and port cities of the USA, while 9/11 only did several buildings (putting aside death toll, for the moment, which wasn't all that far apart between the two events in any case). Yet Lousiana seems to be sliding down to the USA's memory hole, while 9/11 is still often touted as a (fully erroneous) reason to invade Iraq and maybe Iran later, and so to explore new ways of getting bogged down in quagmires.

The psychological difference is noteworthy in its differential effects and reactions.

Well for starters I am fairly the certain the port is still there and is quite operational (cue ROTJ music).

Also, what happened in New Orleans, can't happen in most places in USA. Yes, there are plenty of natural disasters to go around in every states, but everyone doesn't live below sea level in a hurricane zone.

9/11, on the other hand, can happen in every city at any time, so I would say that is more damaging, pshycologically at least.

 

[Mycroft]

You're equating an man-made disaster with a natural one, and they're not comparable. If you want to claim that 9/11 was not a justification for invading Iraq, fine, but that has zero to do with Katrina.