A few years back I saw a report saying 1.8 tons of enriched uranium was confiscated from Iraq. I think the report was mistaken in calling it enriched, I think it was highly refined (uranium oxide) (I suspect there is either a translation or misinterpretation between enriched and highly refined). Let’s assume it is only a short ton of uranium oxide, that would make it equal to 3 600 lbs of uranium oxide. I think if it was enriched it could make about *five nuclear bombs if I am interpreting things correctly.
I think it was actually 1.77 tons of uranium by later reports, I think the news rounded up.
My point is that Iraq was working on making nuclear bombs.
Iraq claimed it didn’t have any uranium, the weapons inspectors caught them with it. Iraq claimed it didn’t have any enrichment program or machinery. Yet we got wind of where the enrichment machinery was, so our inspectors did a surprise inspection, the Iraqis refused to admit the inspectors for inspection, a leak that the inspectors were coming was leaked to Iraq before the inspectors arrived, as the inspectors were trying to gain admission to the site Iraq were trying to sneak 2 enrichment machines out the back gate. It was captured on satellite with photography, and the weapons inspectors even caught it on video. The Iraqis never surrendered the equipment, after the invasion the enrichment equipment was found abandoned in the desert.
Don’t be so naïve to think that Iraq was just going to make nuclear reactors. If they were just going to make nuclear reactors, why did they lie? I suspect they may have had plans to build a reactor, but it was not peaceful.
Take for instance the chump deal that was made with North Korea many years ago. North Korea agreed not to build nuclear bombs if we help them build reactors. I think they had no intention of abiding by the terms. Superficially it looked like they stopped developing working nuclear bombs. I think they used the science that we sent them to accelerate their program. Part of the way we help them was with knowledge. It takes a lot of energy to enrich uranium. I think North Korea planned to use the nuclear reactors for electrical power to enrich more uranium. I think it was all con to get us to inadvertently help them manufacturer nuclear bombs.
I suspect Iran was trying to play a similar game but got caught.
Another point I would like to make is that some people whine about the US bombing Japan at the end of WWII. It seems we only beat Japan and Germany to the punch, so it would be hypocrisy to blame the US and allies. Another excuse people used to try to say the bombing of Japan was unnecessary is that they claim Japan was going to surrender which is obviously not true, even after the second atomic bomb was dropped the government refused to surrender, the Emperor of Japan intervened to surrender, but the night before the surrender was made public, there was a military coup attempt to block the surrender. If the coup would have succeeded there wouldn’t have even been a surrender after the second bomb. Japan surrendered because the US bombed AND the coup attempt failed.
There are claims that Japan detonated a nuclear bomb, I’m highly skeptical, but very interested.
I am not claiming to be a nuclear expert.
These are a few of my contentions. These are my theories, speculation, based on my interpretations of what seem to be facts.
I know that Iraq was probably years, maybe decades away from a nuclear bomb. At one time it look like he might’ve been a few months away from a bomb if weapons inspectors, embargo, ect, was not in place, and also defectors created a brain drain, much like happened to Germany in WWII.
Arguments, agreements, comments, corrections?
*Note: Some say the estimate of two nuclear bombs is a little high, it might been enough just for one. In that case Iraq’s uranium might been able to only produce two or three bombs. I don’t know I am just guesstimating.
Keep in my mind what I posted is largely speculation and opinion and for intellectual argument/discussion. Please note I do not necessarily vouch the credibility of the sites I have linked.
By: SOC - 20th January 2007 at 05:57
Good question. You may be thinking along the same lines as I. I would think if an island disappeared someone would take note of it. If there were such a vanishing island, I would think scuba divers would investigate and find some evidence of a nuclear explosion to substantiate the claims. Since I see no evidence of a disappearing island, or the footprint of an explosion, I find a story hard to believe.
So far as I know, only one island has actually been totally vaporized by a nuclear blast. That was Elugelab, it was obliterated by the IVY MIKE staged-fusion test in 1952. The 10.4 megaton blast obliterated the island, and the water at the blast site actually boiled for 24 hours afterwards. If Japan tested a much smaller fission bomb in the scope of FAT MAN or LITTLE BOY, it wouldn’t erase an island. As for the footprint, it could have been covered over, it could have been altered by erosion, or it could even have taken place underwater in an attempt to hide it from the Soviets.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th January 2007 at 10:03
The Shah seemed to have honored this agreement (to the best of my recollection) at least in the beginning.
The Shah was a western puppet that could have killed every Iranian in Iran for all the west would care as long as Shell and Mobil owned the oil and kept it pumping.
Who would be crazy enough to want to let a country whose political organizations, religion, people often chant death to America, death to Israel, ect… Saying there intentions is to wipe Israel off the map (or the destruction of Israel) is not what you want to hear from a country with intentions for nuclear power.
How about a country with global military reach who actively interferes in democratic elections, engineers coups, topples governments it doesn’t like, will even invade a country and wipe out its government and then impose its idea of a good society on that country?
Why shouldn’t they hate America for what America has done to them? Israel wasn’t on the map a century ago… the US enjoys moving borders on maps and changing names…
A country that has a history of cheating on its agreement not to pursue nuclear arms, is not a country that should have nuclear arms, or a nuclear reactor.
So the US should give up reactors and weapons? How about Israel? They are not members of the Non Proliferation Treaty… They claimed they needed nuclear weapons in case her enemies got nuclear weapons… so they are ready then, perhaps their enemies should be given nuclear weapons to create a balance, or perhaps Israel should offer to give up its nuclear weapons for a guarantee Iran etc don’t create some. (if they violate this agreement the US could provide Israel with nuclear weapons overnight… even direct from a US ICBM silo).
I realize some day probably all nations including Iran will have nuclear power, but hopefully it will be of a more peaceful nature.
On whose terms?
Eventually I would like to see nuclear power generation in all countries. However I would prefer to keep the nuclear weapon club small and exclusive.
Then the better solution would be for Israel to give up their nukes and the Arabs and Persians can all make agreements not to pursue nuclear weapons technology.
BTW here in NZ nuclear power is not needed. We have plenty of rivers to dam and of course geothermal as well as wind and wave potential.
The talks and aid stopped because North Korea was cheating. Why should we keep on talking to them and giving them aid if they’re not going to honor their agreement?
Perhaps the US’s foreign policy of Regime change got them nervous. Saddam was a much better ally than NK has ever been to the US yet they still turned on him… what would they do to an enemy!
I’d feel much safer with nuclear weapons when dealing with the US.
By: wilhelm - 18th January 2007 at 07:21
Here, fishy fishy…….:diablo:
By: wilhelm - 17th January 2007 at 13:05
I think any country with half a brain would want nuclear weapons. It tends to keep countries like America away and prevents Iraqi style freedom from being imposed on them by someone sitting thousands of miles away.
Who would be crazy enough to want to let a country whose political organizations, religion, people often chant death to America, death to Israel, ect…
Why do they chant these slogans?
A country that has a history of cheating on its agreement not to pursue nuclear arms, is not a country that should have nuclear arms, or a nuclear reactor.
Done playing God yet? And those pesky Arabs hate you for your freedom…:rolleyes: Also, I think cheating and lying is not the sole preserve of others…look in the mirror. FACT: Nuclear weopons have only been used on other human beings by one single country on this planet…..guess who?
I realize some day probably all nations including Iran will have nuclear power, but hopefully it will be of a more peaceful nature.
Yes, but let me guess…you’re allowed to keep your WMD’s. How naive.
Eventually I would like to see nuclear power generation in all countries. However I would prefer to keep the nuclear weapon club small and exclusive.
Thank you for letting the rest of us breathe…
By: ATFS_Crash - 17th January 2007 at 11:08
“I wonder if any of those sources were able to pinpoint the island used in the alleged test?”
Good question. You may be thinking along the same lines as I. I would think if an island disappeared someone would take note of it. If there were such a vanishing island, I would think scuba divers would investigate and find some evidence of a nuclear explosion to substantiate the claims. Since I see no evidence of a disappearing island, or the footprint of an explosion, I find a story hard to believe.
“No, I didn’t say this!”
I didn’t say you did. I was asking if that’s what you meant or if you knew anything about it. That is why I used a question mark. Sorry if I gave you or anyone else the wrong to impression.
“I too saw a documentary about a sub salvage and this was in the South Atlantic, I can’t remember the cargo!”
I have seen several, and really think it’s wonderful that they can shed some new light on history.
I am somewhat aggravated with the documentary that I saw, they were so busy treasure hunting, that I think they were somewhat careless with safety and with respect to history. I thought they were careless of their handling of the canisters. I was particularly aggravated that they did not have the canisters analyzed scientifically to identify what was in the canisters. Was it just mud or sand? Was it mercury or uranium or a combination?
“Do you think they would have wanted to use the V2’s to deliver an atomic weapon?”
Of course. I suspect in theory they certainly would have, however I doubt their first fission bomb would be small enough or light enough to fit and a V2. I really don’t know what their specific intention was for the V2. I heard that they were considering using rockets with dirty bombs to try to fend off an invasion, which makes me speculate that maybe they were considering the V2 in that manner.
“The U-195 carried V2’s and mercury. It is also possible that the U-195 and the U-219 had cargoes of mercury.”
I heard about the V2’s before, but before your post I was unaware of any other U-boats with a cargo of mercury.
Since I heard the story about U-234 I had been suspicious that there might have been more shipments. Some of the documents recovered from Japan suggests there were other shipments of uranium.
I think on some of the cargo manifests and other paperwork the mercury was listed however often the uranium was omitted. Like many, I suspect part of the reason it was not listed as uranium on some of the manifests was for secrecy. This would reduce the risk of dockworkers, file clerks, accounting, ect… being leaks.
So like many people I am suspicious of any German or Japanese mercury cargo, considering that uranium seem to be shipped under the apparent guise of mercury. I don’t doubt that they carried mercury, I just suspicious there was uranium oxide mixed in with the mercury.
It could be all the other shipments of mercury are regular mercury, however I would think you would understand my suspicion and curiosity.
I have seen other claims that other U-boats carried uranium to Japan. However the only one that I would consider reasonably confirmed is U-234. The rest of the claims I’ve seen are either on unsubstantiated or have weak evidence, in my opinion.
“If it was OK for them to build a nuclear power industry when the Shah was in power then why can’t they have one now?”
The Shah seemed to have honored this agreement (to the best of my recollection) at least in the beginning. The hostage crisis, damaged Iran’s credibility and honor seriously. Who would be crazy enough to want to let a country whose political organizations, religion, people often chant death to America, death to Israel, ect… Saying there intentions is to wipe Israel off the map (or the destruction of Israel) is not what you want to hear from a country with intentions for nuclear power. A country that has a history of cheating on its agreement not to pursue nuclear arms, is not a country that should have nuclear arms, or a nuclear reactor.
I realize some day probably all nations including Iran will have nuclear power, but hopefully it will be of a more peaceful nature.
Eventually I would like to see nuclear power generation in all countries. However I would prefer to keep the nuclear weapon club small and exclusive.
”Talks and aide stopped.”
The talks and aid stopped because North Korea was cheating. Why should we keep on talking to them and giving them aid if they’re not going to honor their agreement?
By: Newforest - 16th January 2007 at 15:37
U-859 Was carrying uranium oxide also? This is news to me. Thanks.No, I didn’t say this!
I’m sorry I don’t know the answer to your questions Newforest. Newforest your post is very intriguing to me.I saw a documentary where a commercial outfit was trying to do a submarine salvage with a minisub. They were hunting for German gold. There were containers that they said were filled with mud or sand that they were handling very carelessly. I think there was rubber and tin (in raw form). They were unclear what the substance was in the containers so they just called it mud or sand. I was wondering at the time that I saw this documentary if it was uranium oxide or if the substance was tin. I don’t know if it was the documentary I have posted below or not.I too saw a documentary about a sub salvage and this was in the South Atlantic, I can’t remember the cargo!
U-864: Hitler’s Last Secret
*TV-G
January 18 at 10:00 PM ET/PT
Deep in the icy waters off of Norway lies one of the last great secrets of the Second World War—the German submarine U-864. Sixty years after it was lost, the remotely controlled underwater vehicles of a Norwegian salvage team inspected the submarine’s wreck, discovering 80 tons of deadly mercury. Now that the wreck has been disturbed, the team races to lift the toxic cargo off the seabed and ensure that Hitler’s deadly last secret is made safe once and for all.It sounds like U-864 was carrying uranium oxide also.?? Was it? I didn’t say so and can’t see any evidence.
So would that make three or more submarines loaded with uranium bound or sunk on the way to Japan? Very interesting.
I was under the impression that despite enrichment a delivery system was also an issue to the Japanese for a fission bomb. From what I understand their alternative method was to use balloon bombs, rockets, and a submarine launched bomber that was originally intended to bomb the Panamá Canal to deliver uranium to the mainland. I think they also had planned on trying to use some of the uranium as a scorched earth policy as on some other outlying Islands to try to ball down the potential invasion.
Do you think they would have wanted to use the V2’s to deliver an atomic weapon? The U-195 carried V2’s and mercury. It is also possible that the U-195 and the U-219 had cargoes of mercury.
A very useful index below:
By: SOC - 16th January 2007 at 14:46
The part about Japan detonating its own bomb is interesting. I wonder if any of those sources were able to pinpoint the island used in the alleged test? It’d seem to be a relatively easy proposition to go out there with some gear and figure out if there had been a nuclear detonation. Sounded to me from one of the sites like the island was believed to be in the part of the Sea of Japan under Russian control. The Russians probably wouldn’t mind visitors so much anymore, so long as they aren’t Japanese 😀
By: ATFS_Crash - 16th January 2007 at 09:14
U-859 Was carrying uranium oxide also? This is news to me. Thanks.
I’m sorry I don’t know the answer to your questions Newforest. Newforest your post is very intriguing to me.
I saw a documentary where a commercial outfit was trying to do a submarine salvage with a minisub. They were hunting for German gold. There were containers that they said were filled with mud or sand that they were handling very carelessly. I think there was rubber and tin (in raw form). They were unclear what the substance was in the containers so they just called it mud or sand. I was wondering at the time that I saw this documentary if it was uranium oxide or if the substance was tin. I don’t know if it was the documentary I have posted below or not.
U-864: Hitler’s Last Secret
*TV-G
January 18 at 10:00 PM ET/PT
Deep in the icy waters off of Norway lies one of the last great secrets of the Second World War—the German submarine U-864. Sixty years after it was lost, the remotely controlled underwater vehicles of a Norwegian salvage team inspected the submarine’s wreck, discovering 80 tons of deadly mercury. Now that the wreck has been disturbed, the team races to lift the toxic cargo off the seabed and ensure that Hitler’s deadly last secret is made safe once and for all.
It sounds like U-864 was carrying uranium oxide also.
So would that make three or more submarines loaded with uranium bound or sunk on the way to Japan? Very interesting.
I was under the impression that despite enrichment a delivery system was also an issue to the Japanese for a fission bomb. From what I understand their alternative method was to use balloon bombs, rockets, and a submarine launched bomber that was originally intended to bomb the Panamá Canal to deliver uranium to the mainland. I think they also had planned on trying to use some of the uranium as a scorched earth policy as on some other outlying Islands to try to ball down the potential invasion.
By: Arabella-Cox - 16th January 2007 at 01:18
I think it was highly refined (uranium oxide) (I suspect there is either a translation or misinterpretation between enriched and highly refined). Let’s assume it is only a short ton of uranium oxide, that would make it equal to 3 600 lbs of uranium oxide. I think if it was enriched it could make about *five nuclear bombs if I am interpreting things correctly.
I think it was actually 1.77 tons of uranium by later reports, I think the news rounded up.
My point is that Iraq was working on making nuclear bombs.
Your point that a couple of tons of cake Uranium could be made into a bomb is about as interesting as my point that sea water contains deteurium and could be used in a fusion reaction and that a swimming pool sized amount of deturium could wipe out all life on Earth if efficiently distributed, or the fact that there are microbes in your back garden right now that generate miniscule amounts of toxins that are very deadly and that if you were to harvest these toxins and store them properly that only a few hundred tons would be enough if given in the right dose to every human alive today to kill everyone.
Iran is enriching Uranium to make electrical power. If they were making bombs it would be much easier to not sign the non proliferation treaty and to hide all their nuclear facilities and not say anything in public till a bomb was ready and it was a fait acompli.
If it was OK for them to build a nuclear power industry when the Shah was in power then why can’t they have one now?
Take for instance the chump deal that was made with North Korea many years ago. North Korea agreed not to build nuclear bombs if we help them build reactors. I think they had no intention of abiding by the terms. Superficially it looked like they stopped developing working nuclear bombs.
They agreed to not make bombs while the talks were going and the west was supplying aid. Talks and aide stopped. Why shouldn’t they start making bombs?
Don’t be so naïve to think that Iraq was just going to make nuclear reactors. If they were just going to make nuclear reactors, why did they lie? I suspect they may have had plans to build a reactor, but it was not peaceful.
New Zealand and Australia can make cake Uranium. Your mother could probably make cake Uranium. It is the thousands and thousands of precision made instruments called centrifuges that need to operate for months or years to process that cake Uranium into enriched Uranium to make fuel rods, or further enrich them to make material to make bombs that is the trick.
By: Newforest - 15th January 2007 at 11:29
No replies, no rocket scientists or nuclear scientists here! Also, understandably, no marine historians here as no answers to my question concerning U-859.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66542
This U-boat contained thirty one tons of mercury and the cargo was salvaged in 1973. More interesting is the fate of the cargo of the U-234. This U-boat was loaded with ten containers of radioactive uranium oxide (U235), an essential ingredient of an atomic bomb. The voyage commenced two months before Germany’s surrender and the destination was Japan. However the sub. surrendered to the U.S. and the cargo was unloaded at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Interestingly when Washington produced a manifest of the cargo unloaded, it was 78 tonnes short of the amount that had been loaded two months earlier in Germany. There has never been an explanation of where the uranium went.
Whilst on the subject of technology transfer, V-2 weapons and the Me.163 were also transported to Japan.
By: scotavia - 15th January 2007 at 10:55
No one replied with a reasoned response because the subject is tricky to discuss on an open forum. The historical record can reveal facts which at the time were hidden.Recent events in Iraq and Korea lack these public facts. Instead we have to try and unravel speculation plus the report of the inspection team from Iraq.
Further facts will be hidden for many years due to security concerns.And those who really know what is going on will never discuss such matters outside those cleared for hearing secret matters.The internet is the worst place to seek facts which concern security issues.
By: IRAQI_PILOT - 15th January 2007 at 10:34
wooow,,thats why when the american military went through iraqi with a tooth comb,, found evidence that iraq had them but actually transfered them to a near by planet…evidence suspect MARS:D
By: wilhelm - 15th January 2007 at 10:31
Hmmm….wonder why no one replied..:rolleyes:
Sign In
January 13, 2007 at 10:03 am