*Puts head through monitor* - The Stupidity BUUUUUUUURNS

[MKSheppard]

Obtaining reactor-grade uranium doesn't help a nuclear weapons program.

I'd like to apologize earlier. I've been a stupid fuckwit, with my emphasis
on Uranium, and having it enriched to 90% grade HEU. No one in the world
would want an Uranium gun device as it would be hideously heavy, and
use massive amounts of fissile material.

However. One of the byproducts of running a nuclear reactor is that the
neutron bombardment of Uranium in the reactor produces nuclear waste
in the form of.......Plutonium.

Right now, I'm reading Raid On The Sun a book on the Israeli Strike
on Iraq's reactor in '81, and it has a good section on the Israeli Bomb
program.

During normal operation the Dimona reactor produced 1.2 kilograms of
plutonium each week from Uranium, which meant it took Israel
about eleven weeks to obtain the plutonium needed for a device.

Kerry wants to give the Iranians the nuclear fuel for their reactors,
on the promise that the Iranians will give the spent byproducts back
to us. Now why is it that I don't trust the Iranians? Because they can
always say six months into the agreement. "Oh, the Supreme Council
of Grand Ayatollahs commands that we keep the Uranium in our country
so it can be disposed of in accordance with Allah's wishes" or some bullshit.

And then Iran will have the bomb very shortly, and there will be nothing
Kerry will do about it, except have to accomodate them, or invade to
fix his fuckup.

[MKSheppard]

Well look at this. You're on like a broken record in yet another thread, completely ignoring the other side's points. You must be on the lower extreme of your contribution cycle, which resembles a sine wave with its peak just barely above the x-axis.

Admit it, you like these threads, mostly because they usually derail and
go off in a horrid trainwreck, which damn it is fun to watch and snipe
at. Unlike certain threads involving certain other posters who go on
ad infinitum and post 2,3231 page replies

[aerius]

It's not so much that I'm worried about this passing (and I don't think Kerry is insane enough to unilaterally disarm) than I am concerned about what kind of military policy John Kerry plans to have if he's making campaign promises like thiso ne.

Given Kerry's peacenik leanings, I would not be surprised if he tried unilateral disarmament, whether or not he could get it through congress I don't know since I'm not that familiar with US politics.

But you're right, this does not look good for US military policy, it'll probably make Clinton's seem brilliant. Now I don't have a crystal ball here, but I think he'll basically try to appease their serious enemies (DPRK, Iran, etc) and defer them to the UN while getting the US tangled up in 101 pointless conflicts in Africa or wherever for humanitarian reasons. The US armed forces will basically be used as UN peacekeepers, and be just about as effective.

[Durandal]

However. One of the byproducts of running a nuclear reactor is that the neutron bombardment of Uranium in the reactor produces nuclear waste in the form of.......Plutonium.

Right now, I'm reading Raid On The Sun a book on the Israeli Strike on Iraq's reactor in '81, and it has a good section on the Israeli Bomb program.

During normal operation the Dimona reactor produced 1.2 kilograms of plutonium each week from Uranium, which meant it took Israel about eleven weeks to obtain the plutonium needed for a device.

Kerry wants to give the Iranians the nuclear fuel for their reactors, on the promise that the Iranians will give the spent byproducts back to us. Now why is it that I don't trust the Iranians? Because they can always say six months into the agreement. "Oh, the Supreme Council of Grand Ayatollahs commands that we keep the Uranium in our country so it can be disposed of in accordance with Allah's wishes" or some bullshit.

And then Iran will have the bomb very shortly, and there will be nothing Kerry will do about it, except have to accomodate them, or invade to fix his fuckup.

Hypothetically, if we gave Iran fuel-grade uranium and they destroyed their enrichment facilities, I'd consider it justifiable to invade them if they try keeping the resultant plutonium. However, thanks to Bush, this is not an option. All we could really do is just start bombing them into submission; invasion + nation building is not an option.

[Darth Wong]

They still need to process the spent fuel to get the weapons-grade plutonium out of it, Shep. It's not like you get a usable chunk of weapons-grade material right out of the reactor. The equation has not changed, except that under this scheme we would have a better handle on how much fuel they're using and where it goes after it leaves the reactor.

[Axis Kast]

If the object is to prove Iran's duplicity and then deliver the coup de grace of sanctions or limited military action, why the hell wait? We already know that Iran funds terrorists actively attempting to harm the United States in the form of its Jerusalem Force. Not to mention that they've been doing everything they can to foul up IAEA procedure. Do we really need one more lithmus test to prove their guilt before we cry havoc and let loose the economic hound dogs? Frankly, this sounds a lot like the noise countries like France and Germany were making before Hans Blix came to Iraq - when it was clear they believed that Saddam had something, but didn't care enough to do more than pay lip service to American warnings and push the timetable for true action further and further back as time went on.