it looks like a big suppository, hey... i know what we can do with it after we get saddam!!!!!

Faster, please.

Checking some of the message boards, those on the left are saying it's a CIA plot. One wonders what'll take...

More has gotten through than we know. It is high time the left acknowledge the fact and stop handcuffing the gov't and the private sector from doing their job.

Reports like this have surfaced in the past and it's turned out that what they found was indeed uranium but not "weapons grade" uranium (99% U-235). Sometimes it turns out to be DUP (100% U-238) and sometimes natural uranium (0.6% U-235).

The thing about this report that makes me skeptical is that 33 pounds is more than critical mass, and if it was really packed together in a capsule like that, there's a chance it would detonate.

It wouldn't detonate on its own, though. It would need a conventional explosive to get the chain reaction going.

My physics might be wrong (please correct me if so) but a big pile of weapons grade uranium won't just go off on its own.

#3: Checking some of the message boards, those on the left are saying it's a CIA plot.

As soon as I read this, I knew the Rivero/Ruppert freak brigade would say this was a set-up, arising at the same time the US government is trying to make the case for invading Iraq. But if that's the case, how does one explain this passage in the Reuters story?

Police in Turkey seized more than two pounds of weapons-grade uranium last November that had been smuggled into Turkey from an east European nation.

The other interesting thing: the uranium was being smuggled into Syria, not Iraq. It might have been on the way to Bagdhad, but how do we know the Syrians weren't importing it? I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

It's not really to clear to see but do I see Made in W. Germany printed on it? Could this be a stock photo?

#8: I just noticed that myself. The Reuters report says police believe this was smuggled in from "an Eastern European country".

(Of course, if this is some kind of CIA plot, are we supposed to believe that the CIA/Mossad/Freemasons are so dumb that they'd let the world's media see "made in W. Germany" on the "smuggled" uranium?)

Kathainne (3) & Damian (7):

I'm not surprised at the 'plot' allegation. I was just going to comment that 'If this doesn't convince them, nothing will'

Why bother trying, then? The debate on whether to invade or not is now officially over.

Let's fuckin' roll.

All the more reason for the German to oppose US action against Iraq. They've already admitted to selling duel use material to Iraq. This will put them on the terrorist sponsoring list.

Checking some of the message boards, those on the left are saying it's a CIA plot. One wonders what'll take...

Absolutely nothing will convince some people. For a split second I thought maybe a nuke going off would be convincing, but then I remembered there are people who believe 9-11 was faked/staged/"allowed".

Looks like another Abu Dildoh.

33 pounds, eh?

Should be an easy fit for Yasser.

Should warm him up real nice, too.

Question - If it was made in West Germany, why isn't it labeled "Gemacht / Fabrik in West Deutschland", or am I jumping the gun here? Why label it in English?

After a bit of consideration I conclude it's a stock photo (a file photo of a item like the one seized) Those wonderful Turks would not be likely to permit a photo so soon.
This makes no difference whatever to the story.
A lot of this materal is being sold. We know one dangerous buyer.
Bush wants 7 days. I want 7 hours.

It wouldn't detonate on its own, though. It would need a conventional explosive to get the chain reaction going.

My physics might be wrong (please correct me if so) but a big pile of weapons grade uranium won't just go off on its own.

A critical mass, without some force violently shoving pieces together, would get very hot and melt. This is the problem in a muclear reactor fuel melt-down. With two pieces of uranium of sufficient purity, but less than critical mass, in close proximity, the neutrons crossing between the two would make enough fission to generate heat. This heat can make steam to turn turbines.

An explosion requires a sudden influx of neutrons. That is why a conventional explosive is used to force two pieces together quickly. The more neutrons, the more and quicker fission, the bigger the explosion. There are numerous ways that this can be enhanced, but this starts to get sensitive. You can find more on it on the internet than the Navy will allow me to say (this quickly crosses the line from public knowledge to Top Secret). Tom Clancy's description in "The Sum of All Fears" is pretty good.

Here is a little;
Nuclear Weapon Design

And more than you want to know here;
Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions

Hope this helps.

Critical mass for unreflected spherical Uranium 235 is 56 kilograms, reflected spherical U235 is 15 kilograms. A really good implosion bomb can work with about .25-.3 critical masses, fair implosion bomb will need about one whole CM. A one CM gun job would be very inefficient.

So that 33 pounds is one to four Nagasaki bombs in the hands of a good bomb maker, or one gun job from a poor bomb maker. Yield from each bomb would run 1 (gun job) to twenty kilotons, highly dependent on engineering/design skills.

Multiply yields by maybe ten if they know how to make an "alarm clock/sloika" design. Yield from a Teller-Ulam design with 33 pounds U235 for the trigger is something I am not competent to estimate.

Critical masses, see here.

Mark Morris wrote:

After a bit of consideration I conclude it's a stock photo (a file photo of a item like the one seized).

Of course it's hard to know for sure with a news item from Turkey, but the caption for the photo says:

Captured weapons-grade uranium weighing more than 33 pounds is on display at the paramilitary police headquarters of southeast province of Sanliurfa, Turkey, September 28, 2002.

Marl Morris:
Good eyes. It says Made in W. Germany.
Now, I think even in West Germany, they used the Made in Germany line, without the W. Of course, for export or industrial goods, they may be required to use the W.
This may also only refer to the container and not the contents. Why would it say Germany, if it was coming from an Eastern European country? Could this be a KGB or Mafiya style disguise in order to smuggle? Lots of questions...

As several folks have pointed out, the 33 lbs is sufficient for a bomb. Given that there are such packages out there floating around, the immediate question tha tposp to mind, as stated, is 'how many have gotten through'. And rather than anser those that would demand proof of delivery - given the gravity of the possibility of success - I think the better question is -

Can you absolutley prove that none has gotten through? With the follow up - How many lives are you willing to stake on your answer? and Do you include your own in that total?

Time for a candygram.

I doubt the photo is of the actual uranium, which in a high purity state is white, similar in color to aluminum.

This is either the container or a piece of junk fobbed off to the unsuspecting.

The case is stamped "Made in W. Germany" anyway. To know where the U235 is from will take a spectrograph.

My guess would be the Ukraine.

jrae:
Good point, yeah, that's the ticket, it's medical. It's for medical purposes, ahhhh, errrr, colon cancer, yeah, yeah, it's for colon cancer. You've gotta radiate that stuff you know.

No, no, no...you guys have it all wrong. This is just another "isolated" incident. Nothing more...right.

According to DEBKa files, the tip came from a joint US-Russian team who've been looking for Iraqi operatives for weeks.

#16, all that Saddam needs, according to even the traitorous Scott Ritter is 'fissable material' that's what this is. Get a grip on reality.

The container could very well have been made in W. Germany, back when it was W. Germany. There is an entire industry devoted to stuff like this. Doesn't mean anything as to where the uranium itself came from, any more than the bottle holding a quart of scotch necessarily was made in Scotland.

#12 exactly. Even if a major US city were to disappear under a mushroom cloud, I can see some people saying, "Oh, isn't that conviiieeenient"

Let's imagine, just for a second here, that the tranzie and jihadi freakazoids are right. It's all a CIA operation... or better, Israel's Mossad. They initiated the operation, and staged the tip-off.

We still need to roll, like NOW. Here's why.

What this operation proves is that it's possible to smuggle that much weapons-grade uranium out of the East Bloc, and into an area where smuggling of drugs and other materials crosses a number of borders. All close to some of the least stable states in the Middle East. Who did it is relevant only up to a point.

Even if one grants the paranoid fantasy that the Mossad pulled it off, what it means is that another intelligence agency with good contacts in the East Bloc (Syria, Iraq and Iran all qualify) could run the same operation. Without the tip-off.

That is not an acceptable outcome to an America even minimally concerned for its security, its citizens, and its future.

If the sources of such materials are uncontrollable, and intentions in paranoid dictatorships are both variable and unforseeable, then there is only one place left to break the chain - and that is to break the regimes that may pose a threat.

Let's roll.

I'm curious regarding the critical mass question. Is it possible that the container is subdivided with to carry critical mass, but keeping it apart to avoid a reaction?

I know nothing about how Uranium is transported, so I'm curious.

#26:

Are you talking to Photius, the guy who posted the Nuclear Weapons FAQ? I didn't see him question the credibility...not sure why you're advising him to "get a grip"...

Besides Al Bore(Boar), Chappaquiddick, Lou Grant, Bab's, Richard Dreyfuss, and Sen. Dashole, who still doesn't think that we need to attack now? How hard is it to put together that Iraq, and the mullahs/governments from a host of other arab ****ries(sp?) with all of their blind fanatic faithful, have created, supported and protected Al Qaeda? They may have long standing disputes with each other, but one thing they all agree on is their bloodlust against Jews, who only still exist because of AMERICA. They have made the religious choice to destroy the friend of their enemy, despite how much they wish we would just hate the jews too, so that we could all be friends.

For those who still believe that there is not enough evidence of Arab Nukes, to risk any American soldiers (don't mind that by definition that is what a soldier does), at least have the decency to ask the very soldiers you claim to consider, what they would prefer. Would they rather risk their lives now, or after we have irrefutable proof that they have nukes, the bar for which keeps moving? And since we are living in one of the battle fields, we are all potential soldiers. To argue against attacking now, is to argue that we never should, or that we should risk our soldiers’ lives only when we are assured that the likelihood of a nuclear exchange is at it's highest. How is that moral?

Jabba #19...
You pointed out that the photo's caption said:

Captured weapons-grade uranium weighing more than 33 pounds is on display at the paramilitary police headquarters of southeast province of Sanliurfa, Turkey, September 28, 2002.

You'll note that what the caption DOESN'T say is that this is a photograph of the uranium captured. It just says that the uranium is on display at the yadda yadda yadda.
My (completely uneducated) guess? It's a stock photograph.

Has anyone else heard anything about members of congress being in IRAQ?

Something else popped to mind and hopefully someone can answer. Is English a universal atomic or scientific language? If it were really made in Germany, I would expect it to be more likely labeled "In Deutschland gemacht"

Answered my own question, from Stratfor -

Three U.S. congressional Democrats traveled to Iraq Sept. 27 in an effort to assess the potential effects of war on civilians in the country, the Associated Press reported. Rep. Jim McDermott, D.-Wa., said every diplomatic effort should be made to resolve the situation without war. 1730 GMT

Who else besides McDermott?

Enemy sympathizers?

Bloody hell!

I'm curious regarding the critical mass question. Is it possible that the container is subdivided with to carry critical mass, but keeping it apart to avoid a reaction?

Based on what Stephen said in #17, I think you're right. If it really is weapons-grade.

It may be another reporter's idea of a good story.

U 235 lying around better be in some sort of container. I never thought this was the entire haul. The thought of 33lbs of U 235 just sitting in a bag makes my stomach hurt.

It couldn't produce an atomic bomb, but it could produce an atomic mess. There'd be a pre-detonation, which would blow the mass apart before it could make a real nuclear explosion, but not before blowing the hell out of its surroundings and squirting uranium everywhere. Ugh.

I figured this was just one slug out of several. That orange stuff might be lead oxide.

The far Left will NEVER give up it's anti-American, anti-capitalism, anti-modernism, position. If San Francisco was turned to glass they would STILL say it was a subterfuge, a plot, etc., etc., for the U.S. war of conquest.

Anyone know a good bumper sticker maker? Here's mine:

Appeasement = Death

The critical mass numbers are quoted for a spherical object.
A cylinder of critical mass would weigh more. Depending on the height to diameter ratio.

One thing to keep in mind is that the bomb probably has to be designed and built with the purity of the material obtained affecting the design considrably.

I would also suspect that Saddam might have obtained a lot of "almost" weapons grade material. Stuff that could be passed off in your typical smuggling situation but that would be useless for a bomb without considerable reprocessing.

Some corrections are needed to some posters speculations on nuclear bombs and nuclear physics, but 1st - a cautionary statement. The wily Eastern block smugglers have been scamming the radheads for years with everything from "red mercury" to dummy uranium. I don't know how they got "weapons grade" as the contents of the package so fast. You need isotopic analysis performed. Wait and see.

But is does show that some [bigoted word]s, post 9-11, are still trying hard. Reason enough in my book to go into Iraq, maybe Syria for good measure.

Now on nukes. First of all, a chain reaction - when a mass of Uranium or plutonium produces the same number of neutrons in each life cycle from fission is the same as the previous one, is known as criticality. Commercial reactors run critical at constant power, subcritical when you scram (or "trip") the reactor, supercritical when increasing power. The reaction is controllable because you use delayed neutrons as the controlling element. They are a small fraction of neutrons produced, most neutrons are prompt (10 E-14 second generation time). Reactors are configured so that you can't go supercritical on prompt neutrons. Bombs are designed to go prompt critical. You need 5-11 Kgs of PU to achieve prompt criticality, depending on configuration, in modern bomb designs. About 15 Kgs for 90% U-235. BTW- the Hiroshima was a gun-type U-235 bomb and it's yield was 12 kilotons, not 1. Also, reactor melt down is a phenomena of decay heat not fission. Also, freshly scratched uranium or plutonium is shiny silver like any common metal, then has a light grey oxide layer form. The writer I assume was looking at the container the alledged U-235 was in.

35 lbs of weapons grade U-235 COULD be safely transported in such a container as long as you had a neutron absorber in the container or you maintained the Uranium in discrete chunks below critical mass.

A good implosion bomb - if there is such a thing as a "good" nuke bomb....CANNOT work with .25 or .3 critical masses. You need a "K" of 1 by definition of what it takes to achieve criticality. In a fission bomb, the power is derived from what we call Kexcess (amount >1) - that amount of fissionable material in excess of the critical mass.

Rod su #25 - thanks mucho for the early word on who might have been the source of the tip. Words cannot begin to express my gratitude for a small band of men working out of the State Department that have been wrapping up loose nuclear material for the last ten years. No Americans, man for man, are doing more for their country than these guys.

Now - off the technical stuff. The Arabs and their leftist dupes need to understand that deterrance still applies. It needs to be recommunicated. Meaning, get into nuclear mass death with the West, and there will be no 9-year long court cases to determine guilt, no UN debate - just Trident missile subs blowing tubes until the "capability" of a nation or nations threatening us is removed, forevermore.

That makes Bush's case for going in now as the least risky path for both the West and the "Innocent Iraqi Babies of Peaceful Islam".

Since we have been assured by such luminaries as Scott Ritter and Al Gore, and Ted Kennedy that Iraq is far from getting a nuclear weapon, we can safely assume that the so-called "weapons-grade uranium" is most likley a plant.

Who has the capacity to pull off such a ham handed operation? According to my intelligence advisor (we'll call her "Babs" to protect her identity) this was caried out by Big Logging who, as we all know, is trying to start a war between the United States and Iraq so they can gain controll of the vast acres of Iraqi rain forest. What you see is neither weapons-grade uranium or unenriched uranium. Instead it's a piece of wood.

To believe otherwise would mean that our politicians would put politics ahead of our nations security and I would be OUTRAGED to hear that sort of accusation.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Either SDB is incorrect or the historical information I have is incorrect. Thirty three pounds is not a critical mass of weapons-grade uranium-235. Little Boy (the first and last uranium-based weapon ever used by the US) relied on two masses of U235, one of which was 85 lbs in weight. If 33 lbs of U235 is a critical mass, Little Boy would have exploded in the factory.

Now, for more info... A critical mass is simply the amount of a radioactive substance that, allowed to interact with itself, will result in a cascading fission reaction (the split of one atom causes more than one other atom, on the average, to also split). Naturally, it's a somewhat fuzzy value, but given the billions of atoms in any visible amount of any substance, it works out to a fairly standard average.

Once begun, the cascading reaction builds exponentially over time, ever releasing increasing amounts of heat and radiation. If the critical mass remains together long enough, it will eventually release enough heat and radiation that it might as well have exploded, as far as anyone in the immediate area is concerned. (Reactors, and the dangers inherent in them, are based on this. The idea behind them is to put together enough radioactive material to create a fission reaction, while at the same time keeping said reaction from getting out of control by strictly regulating the amount of material that is allowed to fission at any given moment. If something goes wrong, and the radioactive material remains in a critical mass long enough that the fission reaction can't be stopped by the safety measures in place, very very bad things happen.)

Now, as to nuclear weapons... the principle of a nuclear weapon is to fuse significantly more than a single critical mass into one piece, AND to start the chain reaction just a little bit faster than nature would allow, so more of the stuff actually fissions before the whole mass melts, evaporates, or otherwise blows itself apart. The more material fissions, the more catastrophic the resulting burst of heat and radiation will be. Little Boy, the first atomic bomb we used, smashed together 140 lbs of U235, of which less than 2% actually fissioned before the heat literally atomized the entire mass and spread it all over the Hiroshima countryside. Fat Man, the plutonium-based bomb, used 14 lbs of Pu239 to achieve an even greater effect.

Bigger weapons, like fusion bombs, are still largely classified, but generally rely on a Pu239 fission bomb to fuse a container of deuterium into helium, resulting in explosions that make the A-bomb look like a firecracker in comparison.

#36 soylentgreenman:

I saw Jim McDermott (D, WA) and David Bonior (D, MI) in Baghdad on TV this morning. Mike Thompson (D, CA) is also currently acting as a human shield.

See McDermott's press release.

They don't need a "fact finding mission," they need a clue-finding mission...

If the pro-war guys are called "chickenhawks" by opponents, can we start calling anti-war guys "Meatheads" after Gore's speech and this information?

#43 - Your historical information is correct but somewhat irrelevant. Both Japan A-bomb varients are 60 year old designs and the first (U-235) and second (Pu) ever set off.

Sort of like saying that there would be no way to get a 2 million instructions per second computer on a desktop, you would need a warehouse and enough power and A/C to provide a small city.

Lots and lots of work in nuke bombs happened since WWII, not that that would be a huge surprise......but the efforts have reduced critical mass and boosted yield considerably.

From a nuclear engineering 2nd year class -

"The Hiroshima bomb which used U-235 had a yield of 7-8 kT giving an efficiency of .1 %. Efficiencies of 20-30 % can be achieved now. A similar analysis for Pu-239 gives approximately 1025 Pu-239 atoms in 6 kg of Pu. For 100% efficiency and with 200 MeV per fission we get 75 kT. The Nagasaki Pu bomb had a yield between 7-8 kT, giving a 10% efficiency. Efficiencies of almost 80% can be achieved now."

Some might argue that the Arabs of course must have WWII level science at best - that they are too stupid to purchase a modern design from the Paks in religious sympathy, a renegade Soviet scientist, or a Chinese (possibly using the H-bomb fissile trigger design from the W-88 warhead data they stole
from the US). My guess is that the Arabs or Al Qaeda might wish to buy 60 years of science and have one excellent bomb.

No, these days 15 Kgs of U-235 makes a quite credible bomb stuffing. A Big Bomb yield - 70 to 100 KT - is possible for a tritium boosted fission device. With the designwork acquired from a Nuclear Power, or the hypothetical renegade scientist (god-fearing Muslim or just greedy) lithium deuterium is easy to obtain....and you may even see them trying to jump right over a fission device to an H-bomb.

Of course that assumes that the Iraqis or Al Qaeda have a few very intelligent people wishing to commit their lives to obtaining the means for the deaths of many infidels.

What are the odds of that?

Some things change over time. However, I somehow doubt the laws of physics have.

I'm not convinced that the U-235 used in Little Boy was so impure that 85 lbs of it would not detonate, but 140 pounds of it would, and 15 pounds of modern material would go off today. I think increased efficiency, in this case, refers to the amount of material that can be made to fission before the mass is destroyed (again, Little Boy had only 2% efficiency; new designs, that initiate the chain reaction even more quickly and in multiple parts of the critical mass simultaneously, could easily increase this efficiency).

Efficiency can be interpreted two ways... less material for the same boom, or a bigger boom for the same material. The quote from your book leads me to think that it was talking about the latter, given the comparisons it draws.

First, IANAP (I am not a physicist). I have no access to classified information. A grain of salt is suggested whenever reading commentary on this subject. For some odd reason, various nation-states don't like for this sort of info to get out. All this said;

If I understand correctly, critical mass is dependant on several things. These include (but are not limited to):

The isotope in question.
The purity of the fuel.
The shape of the mass (volume/surface ratio).
The density of the material.

A well designed implosion device will compress the fissionable fuel to greater density than is "normal". This is because the distance between atoms decreases temporally. This will allow a mass that is less than critical under normal conditions become supercritical.

That is why one of the earlier posters stated that a bomb could be made with less than a critical mass of material. It is what was once called a fractional critical (frac-crit) bomb.

That's my $ 0.02 worth.

1) "We'll meet again, don't know where , don't know when. . ."
2) Concurring with Ranbutan , supra, deterrance works when it is credible. A madman who cannot be deterred will be restrained, ignored or deposed by his less insane subordinates. For example, it has been claimed that Hitler ordered American and British POW's killed to forestall Western front surrenders, and his order was disobeyed. It most be known that the price of a strike on the U.S. is massive retaliation, with follow-on strikes at N+6hrs and N+30.

Additionally, let me point out that the US was able to make a horrifyingly effective (if primitive, by today's standards) weapon out of a material that was still subcritical when 85 lbs of it was gathered in a mass.

The fact that 33 lbs of this material did not go critical does not mean that Saddam could not build an atomic weapon with it (which I assumed the phrase "weapons-grade" was supposed to indicate).

Yes, we have more efficient bombs than Little Boy, these days. It still won't matter if Saddam detonates a Little Boy in downtown Manhattan. We might be able to annihalate Iraq in return with a single warhead, but that would be cold comfort to those who died.

The race is on. Time to win it. Monday would be soon enough.

My head hurts just reading this stuff!

Would someone please just "de-stabilize" this region!

Ranbutan:

"The Arabs and their leftist dupes need to understand that deterrance still applies. It needs to be recommunicated. Meaning, get into nuclear mass death with the West, and there will be no 9-year long court cases to determine guilt, no UN debate - just Trident missile subs blowing tubes until the "capability" of a nation or nations threatening us is removed, forevermore."

Deterence is a two edged sword. It is not necessary for Saddam to actually cause nuclear mass death in the US or anywhere else to attain his aims. An underground test to demonstrate the capability followed by an announcement that two to five similar weapons are already in place in that number of US cities will suffice.

Saddam can then proceed to invade neighboring countries telling the US to stay out of the way or else. How many cities will any US president trade to stop him?

Until, no, make that even after a mushroom cloud over a major city in the US, or an Iraqi desert test site - there will be those in American who dislike for the country, for what it stands for, and their own lust for power that will proclaim that there is still no proof of a threat against the US from a Saddam Hussein led Iraq, or his allies in the Islamo-fascist war against Western Civilization.

The appeasors and denial artists are already out in full force.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter where this weapons grade uranium was going - the fact that it was being smuggled into the Middle East should be a wake up call for all about the threat that those countries represent to our existence.

They know that America, since 1979, has never really stood and fought for ANYTHING - it has always taken the easy way out - and apparently will still take the easy way out.

Dashcle, Gephardt, Gore, and now like his Pro-Nazi father who lost his post as US Ambassador to the Court of St. James because of his open support for Hitler and the IRA against his British hosts, Teddy Kennedy are leading the effort to enlist the surrender of America and Freedom. Quislings one and all.

On a related note, the Israeli army is taking preemptive action. According to the J Post, IDF special forces are inside Iraq.

15kg (33lb) in one lead pig would be heavy as hell, so it is likely that the amount was distributed and contained in a few pigs. This would be the way to transport critical-mass quantities of U235 without the mass going hot.

My first impression of this was that 33 pounds of highly enriched uranium would at least get very hot if stuffed under a car seat.

Ranbutan has some very interesting commentary but, am I the only one uncomfortable reading it? If you are as knowledgable as you appear, I would prefer you did not share such info over an open forum. You might say more than you intend. This is why the government follows a policy of neither confirming nor denying sensitive information.

Loose lips sink ships (or blow up cities), ya' know?

#47 - that's 15 Kgs, not 15 lbs. That's what the books say, though theoretically, it is conceivable to supercompress a 1 -lb sphere of U-235 and get a critical mass (no explosive or focusing lens comes remotely close to achieving this). The guidance right now? 15Kgs of U-235, 6 Kgs of PU-239, though some say we can get a PU "pit" down to 4Kgs if we wished - no urgency, though. We and the Russians have TONS of the stuff.

#56 - Jason, you don't need lead shielding with U-235. (assuming it isn't actively fissioning with you standing w/in 1/2 a mile of it unshielded). You can stand right up next to a 83 2-ton fuel assemblies of 3% enriched U-235 and the fuel is only coated with a 1.5 mm thick zirc ally clad - that's it between you and the fuel. Exposure is

#57. Not to worry, or maybe worry a whole bunch more.

What I wrote is all open source, basic nuclear engineering undergraduate stuff. All of it is available to Paks, Arabs who took advanced degrees in the USA, France in nuclear engineering, nuclear materials science. We also trained a bunch of them in virology and micribiological recombinant DNA techniques. I knew a bunch of very intellectually gifted Muslims.....the good knews being a good deal of them stayed in the West after graduating. But enough of them are back in their native lands for us to have good reason to worry.

Outside technology - As for our nuclear counterforce strategies, the options are published and available for public reading - not that the government cares much about John Q Public, but they want the adversary to know. The potential enemy may not know what option we would take, but their knowing the options and our ability to deliver on them is part and parcel of effective deterrance.

So, we kind of spread that word around in Camel Land. Not just directly to the Saddams, but also to the generals and policymakers. "So General Abullah, where are you from?" "Ah, Basra...beautiful city General, such a shame - that would be one of the first places we nuked if we find Saddam is scheming to use WMD on us. Tsk tsk! "

The US, Russia, Germany & France can all blow me.

They're the ones responsible for all WMDs in the world. Period.

Small Pox!!! A pox on everyone who resisted destroying the last remnants of this disease.

From diseased minds comes a diseased world.

Keep yappin. Some A-hole muslim fucker will have the last laugh.

Ranbutan - I guess so. Maybe it is I who would prefer not to know. I sleep better that way.

It is amazing to me how loosely people in these nations, who are much more vulnerable to WMD than even we are, talk about using WMD. After all, how vulnerable is a crowded city like Cairo to an outbreak of untreatable disease? How soft a target are Mekkah and Mahdeena?

#60 what country are u from? Bet I can find some nasty stuff you have done, too. I think I can guess one of maybe three based on the rather glaring omissions from your list but, I hope you surprise me.

Kathianne (#26)
I did not say that a bomb could not be made. Please read what I write. My grip on reality is better than most since, for most of my working life, I sleep with this stuff within arm's reach. Having been, over that past 17+ years part of three different submarine launched nuclear weapons systems, I have given it a great deal of thought.

godlesscaptialist (#31)
Thanks.
--------------------------------------

While it may be emotionally satisfying to think of "nuking" Baghdad or Basra, it would be a misuse of the weapon. If we should go ahead with an attack on Iraq, the precision munitions that we have are more than adequate for the task. In fact, it is their precision that makes nuclear weapons unnecessary. In days gone by, to destroy a bridge, for instance, we would have to fly bombing runs for days, and possibly months, at a time. The bombs would not be guided and we would just have to keep dropping them until a few hit in the right places. Destroying a railyard was even more difficult. Nuclear weapons removed the need for precision. Now that we have precision, the need for nuclear weapons has been reduced.

Deterrence is still critical, and certain hardened targets will only be destroyed with a nuclear warhead. I doubt that Iraq even has such targets. Still, the use of a nuclear weapon has a political dimension that could be useful.

That political dimension is a two edged sword. It is the awful political ramifications of the use of a nuclear weapon that makes it unlikely and generally undesirable to use them. I write this as a nuclear weapons guy.

BTW: The increase in targetting accuracy of nuclear weapons in the newest systems means that we do not have to deploy 20 megaton warheads anymore. Warheads currently deployed are very much smaller (by orders of magnitude).

I have not forgotten, and contrary to the teaching of the Church (that is one of my sins), I have not forgiven our enemy. The desire that we have to destroy our enemy should not prevent us from thinking clearly about what we must do and how we must do it.

So, for you who believe that I do not have a grip on reality, I have asked my detailer to get me into this war. Since I am "owned" by the strategic weapons people, that may not be possible, but we shall see. I would have to be released to another community (fast attack submarines). If Saddam is stupid enough to explode a nuclear weapon on a US target, then I may be in the war anyway.

Photios--What do you think our response would be if Saddam did succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil? Assume, for argument's sake, that he destroyed one major American city. Do you think we would respond with a nuclear strike on Baghdad alone, or would it be broader in scope? And given what you had to say about precision nuclear weapons, what do you think the scale of the weapons used in our response would be?

Just curious about your opinion.

Ranbutan (#58)
it would be a royally stupid thing to try and preposition nukes in the enemies cities, because the chances of detection gaining critical intelligence on the matter made that strategy highly likely to fail - AND - all three countries concluded that such discovery would put the two countries on "full launch" on detonation status, and trigger full thermonuclear war if ultimatums for removal failed.

and

But if such a style of war is envisioned , the Muslims do need to understand something the Soviets and Chinese knew. The response would be horrific for them. And, would involve us dropping bombs on more than one country. So if we got nuked by Iraq, it would be a good time to take out the Syrians, Paks, and Iranians as well. . That's all they need to know.

Yes, you are right (like you need my affirmation :-) ). Prepositioned weapons are a bad idea. With knowledge we can find them. If one is exploded - then all is lost for the enemy. And, if they don't already know that, then their thinking is primitive at best.

NC (#63)
What do you think our response would be if Saddam did succeed in detonating a nuclear weapon on U.S. soil? Assume, for argument's sake, that he destroyed one major American city. Do you think we would respond with a nuclear strike on Baghdad alone, or would it be broader in scope?

I am certainly not an expert, but only have a sailor's opinion (although slightly better thought out than some, I hope).

I think that the political and deterrent aspects come into play. The weapon is not a deterrent if it is believed that we will never use it. The possibility of its use is required. Should Saddam explode a prepositioned device, a nuclear response is needed to maintain the credibility of the deterrent (others still need to be deterred). From the standpoint of winning a war against Iraq, nuclear weapons are not required, but the political statement is required in this case.

How broad the scope of the nuclear aspect of our response? I have no idea. It need not be big, but it would depend on the national goal. If we limit our goal to Iraq, one or two would be plenty. As for targets, it could be anything. We really intend them for difficult to destroy strategic targets like shipyards, railyards, etc. You actually get very little value using one in the downtown of a city. The lefties have trouble believing this, but we really do not want to kill a lot of people (I hear Noam yelling already!).

If we wish to control or change central Asia (which may not be a bad idea), then broadening the scope to Syria and Iran, etc is required. This still does not necessarily require nuclear weapons.

This presents other huge political problems that may not be surmountable. We want friendship with Russia, for instance.

Remember, I write this only as a sailor whose thoughts have been focused by sleeping next to these missiles. I am not a trained strategic thinker. Of course there are those who would say that that is obvious, and I would not object.

Just a biographical note; I have sailed on USS Tecumseh (SSBN 628), USS Benjamin Franklin (SSBN 640) and a TRIDENT which I will not name (I have no wish to be identified). This winter I will be reporting to my second TRIDENT boat.

Tas (message 52),

[Link: www.sundayherald.com...]

My vote for the post-Saddam leadership in Iraq goes to the "right ingredients" general who kicked the child to death and who oversaw the use of chemical weapons.

Because Saddam is a bad man who tortures children and who uses chemical weapons.

The United States wants a regime change to end all that and to destabilize the Arab world in favorable ways.

That's why one of the favorite choices of the social workers is a general who kicked a child to death and who oversaw the use of chemical weapons.

Democracy in the Arab world won't be achieved by the imposition of another despotism.

All that you'll have is just another despotism, except in this case it will be called democracy.

And the social workers will be happy. And the elites will congratulate themselves on their intelligence and benevolence.

And the screams of the Iraqi people under another despot will be ignored.

Photios (message 64),

As long as we're discussing an Iraq with nuclear weapons, Saddam doesn't need to pre-position nukes in the United States.

His modest proposal would be to place a nuclear weapon in Basra and wait for U.S. troops to occupy the city. Then order it set off.

Bingo. A U.S. casualty count higher than the first Gulf War.

I have always thought that terrorist' use of civilian airplanes against the WTC - within which 50,000 persons worked or visited each week day - should have been interpreted as a use of WMD. Then, instead of coalition building with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. could have used nuclear blackmail against the Taleban. Just as the Taleban lost their "shaheed" edge when faced with the lightly armed Northern Alliance, they would certainly have crapped themselves over a WMD threat.

What have we got now? The Muslim world hates us. A neo-Taleban movement is forming in the "tribal" provinces of our Pakistan "ally." The West Bank human-bombs could explode at any time. Our internal Muslims are fighting to be able to contribute to "charities" that the Homeland Dept says are "terrorist fronts." Someone is smuggling weapons grade uranium to Syria or Iraq. Bush can't get a coalition going. Saudi financed mosques are going up everywhere. Even our NATO allies oppose the Iraq war. Bush wants a 'palestinian state.' The price of oil is going up. Energy-pigs still get hard-ons when they climb into their SUVs. India, China and Russia trust the U.S. as far as they can spit against a hurricane. Bush is still guilty about his early bouts with alcoholism. Gore may have Alzheimers. Scott Ritter is more popular than Mick Jagger. Canada's leader thinks U.S. arrogance caused 911. Murder Khutbah is the norm is Saudi mosques. France is becoming an Algerian province. State Department lice still lecture the Russians on Chechnya.

Somebody has fucked up major. And it wasn't me.

This thread has to be one of the most disturbing I've read in a while. It really is our worst nightmare. I used to have nightmares about nuclear war when I was a kid; then times changed and the thought was pushed to some remote part of my brain. Now, all of it comes rushing back. The unthinkable suddenly seems not only possible but plausible.

and this

[Link: drudgereport.com...]

Photios--Thanks for the reply. I'm intrigued that both you and Ranbutan can envision a scenario where we would retaliate against mutiple states after being attacked by only one state. I can't. I think the public outcry, here and abroad, would be tremendous if we did that. (Indeed, it's not hard to imagine the far left in this country opposing our use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, including retaliation.)

Of course, what we're really getting at here is trying to determine what a "proportional" response would entail. You can approach that question in terms of casualties (i.e., retaliation should be geared at killing roughly the same number of enemy civilians as their attack killed of ours); in terms of strategy (i.e., retaliation should be directed at the enemy's military centers in order to devastate her capacity for self-defense); or, most dramatically, in terms of economics (i.e., retaliation should inflict the same amount of property damage and loss of wealth as the enemy's attack inflicted on us). I think this last one is the best justification for a multistate attack, as a nuclear detonation in New York, for instance, would destroy so much wealth (and not just in New York) that our destroying the entire nation of Iraq probably wouldn't fully "compensate."

I'm assuming that proportionality is, in fact, the name of the game here. If it isn't--if instead the U.S. policy is to use our right of retaliation as a means by which to neutralize other states which will eventually present a nuclear threat but don't do so at the time--then the whole calculus changes.

kathyn--I hear you. I've been in full nuclear paranoia mode for several weeks. Our office cafeteria is located on the 41st floor in a building in downtown Manhattan, and it has an amazing panoramic view of the city on the north side. I don't look out that window anymore, though, because lately I have an irrational fear that if I do, the bomb is going to go off right at that moment. I may just stop eating there once we finally go into Iraq.

NC (#71)
I do not think that proportionality applies. And, I take it as given that a large public outcry would occur, particularly if the public is not better educated in matters of warfare.

When involved in a war, one must win. Warfare is the most important thing that nations do. To lose in war is to lose everything. We would like to win with the fewest possible casualties and the least possible damage. I understand that the use of nuclear weapons in the scenario that we have been discussing implies proportionality since it is an answer to the explosion of prepositioned weapons and an exercise of deterrence, but my personal opinion is the we can do better. My previous posts had to do with what could or would be considered.

My personal opinion is, we should exercise deterrence as minimally as possible. Use the weapon for what it is. We should find a large industrial target. Then, when deterrence is credible, prosecute the war as we lately have with precision munitions.

As to widening the war to Syria and Iran, they are harboring the enemy. If they repent of their error, fine. If not, then that must be dealt with. Each nation presents a different problem. Perhaps deterrence, perhaps something else, perhaps war (last choice). I do not know enought about them to offer an opinion, although I suspect that neither case will require war.

As for proportionality, it is not appropriate. We can win by taking ownership, or as in the case of Afghanistan, ensure the establishment of a government that will improve the country. This would be the truely humane way. Despite the leftist propaganda, the Afghani people are generally very happy with their new arrangement. We have the opportunity to do a great thing for millions for good people in central Asia if we play our cards right. The people of Syria, Iraq, and Iran hate their governments, but under such totalitarian regimes that they can do nothing about it. The Islamist enemy will object, but they are the enemy and are to be destroyed anyway. Lifting these governments and building these economies (as well as education systems, etc.) will not only be good for them, but good for us.

As you said, all of Iraq would not compensate for New York City, so we should not try. Let's just win. It will be good for them, and good for us. And Noam will hate it.

I realize that this is a little incoherent. Please forgive me.

Hey Blow Me (#60), great nick. Get it at your local public toilet?

"West Germany"? These guys must have done it.

[Link: redandwhitestore.de...]

"You actually get very little value using one in the downtown of a city. The lefties have trouble believing this, but we really do not want to kill a lot of people (I hear Noam yelling already!)."

I believe you! :-) ...although I am less and less a leftie every day.

BTW, thanks to everyone here for a very interesting read. This is one of the best blogs on the net and the depth and amount of technical information presented by the posters here is staggering.

#47,

There is a rate term in the criticality equation. The faster you bring the pieces together the smaller the pieces required.

I was involved with reactors where the rate term was used to design the maximum extraction rate (for safety) and the minimum insertion rate (scram) of the control rods. When the reactor neared critical on startup it was necessary to "inch" the rods out so that the rate term damped out and true criticality could be observed. This is another little feature of the reactor equations that help controlability if you understand what is going on.

Static criticality is what is quoted for the stories we have seen - probably.

Okay, sigh, again, the turd in the punchbowl which is never discussed is this:

There is a rogue state in the Middle East, in the case of which there is absolutely no doubt about that state's possessing WMD. It has between twenty and forty weaponized, deliverable fission warheads, based on a design which has actually been tested at low yield. This state has threatened a neighbor with the use of these devices just within the last several months.

This state's intelligence service essentially created the Taliban, has longstanding and mutually gracious ties to al-Quaeda, and has unambiguously smuggled men and arms into a province of a neighboring state to support an Islamofascist insurgency there. This nation is significantly internally unstable and could well see the assassination of its leader in an Islamofascist putsch at any time.

Although there is also an omnipresent risk that even without such a coup, one or more of the warheads might well be removed beyond the control of that state's shaky and corrupt central government, and into hands liable to surreptitiously deploy them against an American target.

That state is NOT Iraq.

It is Pakistan.

And if the intent of deploying main force in the Mideast is to secure the West against the threat of Islamic nutjobs with nuclear capability, the sensible thing to have done would have been to concentrate first and foremost on Pakistan.

An excellent case can be made that it is the sheerest madness to concentrate on any short-term objective other than either destroying or sequestering the Paki nuclear systems. They are without any question the largest single risk.

It's become perfectly clear already that Condi Rice is in *far* over her head in the job she's got. I do hope that this becomes clearer in high quarters before the lower half of Manhattan becomes a literal, as opposed to figurative, Ground Zero.

Although it also appears that the gentleman to whom she reports is himself in pretty far over his own head. He chose this unstable but heavily armed wreck of a nation, Pakistan, as a key ally against Islamic terror -- a movement which Pakistan itself has been instrumental in fomenting. Un-effing-believable.

I'm damned glad that I have big rock in between me and the nearest large urban center. I have far more confidence in its solidity than I have in the inept and flabby leadership of the U.S. today.

BTW I am a former Naval Nuc.

Best training in the world.

Go Navy!!!!!!

#78,

A little reported event in the Taliban Skirmish was the deployment of American troops to safeguard the Paki nukes. My guess would be that they would be in a position to repel thieves but not be able to interfere in a nuke war with India.

Dear Blowme, "Small Pox!!! A pox on everyone who resisted destroying the last remnants of this disease" perhaps you could do with a little background on biotechnology. The cost of synthesising a sequence of DNA is now about a dollar a base (but cheaper in bulk buys J). The sequence of smallpox is in the public domain, and you can download it your self from any number of data bases. Storing iit, saves the US and Russia the two-three months program to generate the live virus from scratch.
Biological weapons, essentially aren't. They are capable of killing enormous number of people, but the people they kill will be in the impoverished world. The richer you are, the better (on the whole) your immune system is and the more access t o medical care you have. Stocks of the Ames smallpox vaccine are large enough to protect Israel, North America, Russia and Western Europe (and I suspect Japan). A release of smallpox, and the vaccination program that followed, would kill 10 to 100 of thousands out of a population of approximately a billion. In the rest of the world, the immuno-challenged, unvaccinated populations could suffer 40% death rates. The leaders of Syria/Iraq and Iran know this. If you wish too use it as a weapon, vaccinate your population first. I note with interest that Iraq has devoted enormous amounts of effort in the study of Camalpox (related to smallpox). Conspiracy theorists would note that Israel has begun to vaccinate its medical, military and police personal.
The use of Agri-bioweapons show a similar first world bias. Should a wheat-rust destroy the Canadian/USA production of wheat, they would soon buy up stocks from the rest of the world, world wide food prices would soar, and the poor would starve.

Just a suggestion that somebody here might want to look at the distribution of uranium oxide ores in the Middle East. The eastern Syrian desert has it, as does the western Iraqi desert. This is low-grade yellow cake, but it's present and available.

Re: the comments on proportional response.

The Middle East Maniacs have been spitting in Uncle Sam's face for 30 years, going back to the oil embargo of the early 70's. The USA and the west have done basically nothing to respond to each provocation.

The Muslims see this correctly as weakness and have been steadily increasing their war efforts against us. They view "positive engagement", "compromise", "negotiation", "diplomacy" and "dialogue" as weakness. And so they should, it IS weakness.

Muslims understand one thing best: The Iron Fist in the Iron Glove. Why do you think no Arab nation has taken direct Military action against Israel? (Except Saddam)

They know the Israeli response would be too terrible to contemplate.

The American response to a nuke attack should be too terrible to contemplate also, except they KNOW the civilized world would not respond with an all out multiple counterstrike against most of the muslim world.

We, (you Americans) should make it very clear to our enemies that any further acts of war WILL be responded to with miltiple nuke strikes that will wipe out their sad excuse of a civilization.

Never mind the backlash from the loony left, do it and the left can wring their hands in dispair. It will have been done. The Noams and Naomis can then get jobs as aid workers.

This is war people, we should understand that. World war 3 is happening right now.

WAKE UP

So the shipment is discovered, and quicker than you can say "Tonkin Gulf", pro-war types leap to the conclusion that the report must be taken at face value, and antis conclude that it can't be.

Classic. It's almost as though critical thinking is an unpleasant chore to be finished as quickly as possible, and once the original decision is made, further data are reflexively interpreted in whichever light suits it.

Does the fact that it's (in)convenient neccesarily make it (un)true?

I have no doubt that if the Islamacists or a megalomaniacal Arab dictator (Saddam or clone) attacks the US with a nuke, the goal would be to kill as many civilians as possible. Existing US strategic doctrine is that "our cities are targeted, so our yours" so I would be highly doubtful the response would be to target an empty patch of desert as an "example" - or that we would seek at all costs to avoid the people in the Arab street cheering a US city being fried. Nor have we ever bought into the concept of a "proportional response" except in a strategic sense to maintain proportionality in a limited nuclear war to AVOID having nukes detonate in cities.

If Muslims do obtain and choose to use their limited nuclear abilities on a Western city or cluster of cities, the response would be ferocious, unimaginable.....for the war goal would be first and foremost to prevent them EVER being used on us again - not "protecting the enemy's civilian population". That would entail neutralizing all threats in a hostile civilization busy killing our people.

That has to be clearly communicated to the Muslim world. Deterrance works if it is credible. That means that if the Saudis were complicit in financing purchase of nuclear material that ends up being used on us by Al Qaeda sometime, they DON'T escape the consequences. If Syria opposes US weapons inspections and Damascus cheers as a US city gets incinerated, best break out the SPF 100,000 sunscreen. They might need it.

Yes, university professors in Belgium might be outraged that we didn't turn the other cheek. Leftists might march. Noam Chomsky might thunder his protests. (If old Noam is still alive, and not pitchforked by the mob as soon as he opens his mouth. Methinks that a few real "Ground Zeros" vs. WTC "Ground Pinprick" might silence the Leftist dialectic)

If a US or Western European city got nuked, you would see Ted Kennedy and Barb Boxer joining the "fry um" side, Russia and China would sit it out, and the protests of the last remnants of the doctrinaire Left simply wouldn't matter. In fact, I think they would be thrilled because they would have decades to follow where they could weep for the "innocent Iraqi babies" from a West totally, and lastingly - free of the Muslim threat to civilization.

Nightmarish thoughts, but no different really than the Cold War scenarios, and the Soviet Union was a thousand times the threat that the Peaceful World of Islam is.

BTW - Photios and M. Simon. I am also a trained Navy nuc. Thankfully ex now, 6 years was enough because there was an insufferable amount of chickenshit that came with the real pleasure of serving the country and discovering that I could learn and then operate systems of high complexity. Photios - I might be a tad more bloody-minded than you if we were hit by WMD - but I am proud to say that your thoughtful posts reflect well on the quality of the people we now have in the US Submarine Fleet (Silent Service for us insiders)....and readers should understand that there are thousands of Photios safeguarding our nation.

#84 - Laertes, I have no doubt that if you find that Iraq or Syria was behind the purchase of the uranium, you would say "so what". If the Arabs got scammed again, and it turns out the cylinder only contains natural uranium or a heavy metal like tungsten, you would say "no threat - why are people getting their panties bunched up?" If it is enriched weapons grade stuff, you would say that "That doesn't prove that they wished to build a bomb out of it, and if they did, that doesn't prove INTENT to use the bomb on us."

Here's the stark facts. Radical Muslims and certain despotic regiemes in the ME have been trying for years to get their hands on special nuclear material and critical electronic components for nuke weapons. They have been caught numerous times. If you play pure defense or think resolution of the WMD threat will be resolved by interminable courtroom dramas or UN debates - eventually the Islamicists or an insane dictator over there will suceed. So we have to pre-empt them. I don't much care for the concept of pre-emption applied universally to foreign policy, but in the case of deranged dictators or insane religious fanatics getting nukes - I'll make a big exception.

The critical thinking exercise you need to perform is that Iraq and the radical Muslims are trying like crazy to get the Bomb. What do you propose as an alternative?

Please, please don't say we go to the UN, hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and rely on the mighty moral force of Kofi Annan to bring world peace (predicated first on the US curing AIDs, and solving world hunger, satisfying all the globalization critics, signing on to Kyoto, and making the Arab street content by doing what the Palestinians demand and ending unemployment in Muslim countries, 'natch)

Ranbutan:

"#53 - Dean. You make the assumption that Russia, China over the last decades could have easily done the same as Saddam - declare they could blow up several cities - and then invade, slaughter, do as they please, with the US HELPLESS, HELPLESS to stop them. They had the capability, as we all know - missiles we couldn't stop targeting hundreds of US cities (Soviets), a few dozen (China now) only 15 minutes away."

Actually, I'm making the opposite assumption. I agree with you that Russia and China show the behavior to be expected of a rational player (in the von Neuman sense). In particular, all participants in cold war military power balancing forswore nuclear blackmail since it was recognized by all to be fatally destabilizing, leading almost ineveitably to all-out exchange.

My point is that Saddam's behavior so far looks dangerously unlike that of a von Neuman rational player. Thus MAD cannot be relied upon. As to pre-positioning nuclear weapons in US cities, my only point is that Saddam lacks intercontinental delivery means, at least, so far.

Ranbutan (#85)
Thanks (blush). I still like playing 'cello better.

Dean (#87)
My point is that Saddam's behavior so far looks dangerously unlike that of a von Neuman rational player. Thus MAD cannot be relied upon. As to pre-positioning nuclear weapons in US cities, my only point is that Saddam lacks intercontinental delivery means, at least, so far.

I agree. MAD is not possible with Saddam. I write about deterrence WRT other national leaders who would be observing events.

The issue is solved if we do the right thing and enter Iraq. This should have already been done.

Immediate conquest and the installation of a government of our own liking. This will be to the benefit of the global millions. (I hear the last movement of the Beethoven 9th Sym. in my mind :-) )

I know putting this here is bizarre but what the heck, my thoughts are unfocussed. Notes on Ode to Joy

We should disregard the Europeans, UN and everyone else. Success will bring allies. And who knows, perhaps one or two of them will grow a brain (especially after we find the Iraqi WMD facilities).

Photios:

I have long thought that Shiller's poem is actually subversive and that "joy, Freude" is a code word for "freedom, Freiheit". I believe Shiller is too good a poet to write this:

"Alle menchen werden brueder
Wo dein sanfter Fliegel weilt."

Where "dein" refers back to "Freude". It seems to me that joy is a quintessentially individual emotion, far from a unifying concept. Freedom, OTOH fits very well. In German, "Freiheit" and "Freude" have the same metrical value so the cadence is not disturbed.

What do you think?

Yikes, that should be Schiller, of course.

UPDATE: It's about 5 ounces, not 33lbs....Full story:
[Link: dailynews.attbi.com...]

This is by no means the last or first time that Turkish intelligence has intercepted Nuclear material in the Eastern provinces.

-Ratz

Dean (#89)
I am not a great student of poetry, but certainly the meter works well with "Freiheit" in place of "Freude". In fact, that is how Lenny Bernstein performed it on the occaision of the fall of the Berlin Wall and it sounded well.

I agree that joy is an individual emotion, but events in a community cause individual reaction. For instance, last night I saw this again and sat in the dark with tears rolling down my face.

I agree that both concepts are subversive of authoritarian or totalitarian governments.

I am certainly not a good enough student of poetry to evaluate the lines you quote, I'll go ahead and trust your judgement.

What a thread! We start by discussing what it takes to make a nuclear weapon work, then prepositioned warheads, and end with Friedrich von Schiller's poem "Ode to Joy".

Wow, only at LGF.

Charles, I love your blog.

The "font" is correct for a mimic of the writing on US containers, but the placement is strange being all the way to the left.

And, judging from the dings and dents in this particular canister I'd say it was driven alot and on bad roads (more so than in just a taxi ride) and that would mean
...EASTERN EUROPEAN roads which aren't at all what we would consider paved. Hard to tell tho' since this isn't the original container.

The One thing this container is NOT however, is german in it's packaging, and not because of the writing but because all of germany's illegal "chemical or otherwise" shipments are happening by boat now.

Laertes, I have no doubt that if you find that Iraq or Syria was behind the purchase of the uranium, you would say "so what"

[Many other foolish and incorrect assumptions deleted.]

You may have no doubt that the earth is flat, but I don't much care. You prove my point, actually.

Since I'm reluctant to take the report at face value, you assume that I'm against invading. The idea, I suppose, is that skepticism is inappropriate when evaluating a claim that suits the skeptic.

For the record, I think it's obvious that Saddam is pursuing nukes, and I'm surprised that he doesn't have them already. I'm sure he's made many attempts to acquire weapons-grade uranium and I'd be shocked if he hasn't been successful at least a few times. I imagine Saddam has no intention of using a nuke against the US in the sense of causing one to be detonated on our turf, but he almost certainly does intend to use them as a deterrent that'll allow him to conquer neighbors without fear of a repeat of GWI. (Because, really, if he can threaten to nuke Manhattan, we won't risk it to liberate Kuwait.) I'd very much like to be persuaded that this war is a bad idea, but there doesn't seem to be anybody on the left who's up to the job, so I'm a reluctant supporter of the coming invasion.

Does it therefore follow, then, that I have to uncritically accept every story that supports this view and summarily discard any that don't?

Since you can't conceive of a person operating otherwise, it seems likely that that's how you work. This explains, I suppose, how one can reach the conclusion that an obviously rational and survival-obsessed Hussein is a suicidal nutjob.

First it was 33 pounds of "bomb-grade" material, then this decayed to 5 ounces in one day (too much of it too close together made it more nearly "critical", so it decayed faster), now it's just some zinc and zirconium. Nice! If we could just get spent fuel rods to do this.... Obviously a new radioactive decay process has been discovered in Turkey. Can a Nobel prize be far behind?