Wikileaks: There was indeed yellowcake uranium in Iraq in 2003.
124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702824]That was in 1989 (90?).
I said that it had been lying dormant since the Gulf War (1991).
By your logic, we should have invaded Israel to take their nuclear material since they've shown themselves to be irresponsible.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident[/URL]
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Yes absolutely. And in a perfect world Pakistan should get their WMDs removed as well.
In even later down the road I hope for more nuclear disarmament with Russia and US.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;26703131]Yes absolutely. And in a perfect world Pakistan should get their WMDs removed as well.[/QUOTE]
If Pakistan lost their nukes, should India as well?
Who else should lose their nukes? China?
Britain? They've been irresponsible with them.
The US? We've been so irresponsible otherwise, we shouldn't be trusted with nukes.
What I'm trying to say is that the US [b]alone[/b] can't go around deciding who can and who can't have nuclear weapons.
Oh yeah, because yellow cake merits an invasion.
It's not like they had gas centrifuges, theres no way they could get weapon grade uranium.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26703179]If Pakistan lost their nukes, should India as well?
Who else should lose their nukes? China?
Britain? They've been irresponsible with them.
The US? We've been so irresponsible otherwise, we shouldn't be trusted with nukes.
What I'm trying to say is that the US [b]alone[/b] can't go around deciding who can and who can't have nuclear weapons.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's pretty bad that Iraq had this uranium and is a valid reason to try to get it away from them.
On North Korea, I don't know what is a good idea for dealing with that. I was half speaking with Iraq's details in mind and half with North Korea's.
And so the US government awkwardly shifts around and mutters a small "thank you"
[QUOTE=chewgo;26703303]I'd say it's pretty bad that Iraq had this uranium and is a valid reason to try to get it away from them.
On North Korea, I don't know what is a good idea for dealing with that. I was half speaking with Iraq's details in mind and half with North Korea's.[/QUOTE]
If you'd RTFA, you'd see that this uranium isn't even suitable for a dirty bomb. It was no danger to anyone, being locked away underground and all.
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chilean;26703332]And so the US government awkwardly shifts around and mutters a small "thank you"[/QUOTE]
Not really, since this doesn't vindicate Bush in the slightest.
OH hey, bleeding heart liberals, how's it going?
lol
[QUOTE=cagafuego88;26703396]OH hey, bleeding heart liberals, how's it going?[/QUOTE]
We've been reading the fucking thread.
How about I just quote what I said on the first fucking page.
[quote=Prismatex;26688435][quote]Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb, officials decided that in Iraq's unstable environment, it was important to make sure that it did not fall into the wrong hands.
The yellowcake removed from Iraq - [b]which was not the same yellowcake that President George W. Bush claimed, in a now discredited section of his 2003 State of the Union address, that Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa[/b] - could be used in an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Only after intensive processing would it become low-enriched uranium, which could fuel reactors producing power. Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear bombs.[/quote]
This is the same yellowcake that Saddam had sitting around in storage since before 1991. This isn't new.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26688494]Bush and other leaders said that the programs to actually use these weapons had restarted, which this doesn't say anything about.[/QUOTE]
It kind of does.
[QUOTE=Kendra;26688228]Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and intended to restart his program once the heat was off.[/QUOTE]
They don't go into like any detail of why they think that at all though.
[QUOTE=Chilean;26703505]It kind of does.[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't.
It just confirms the existence of a bunch of barrels of yellowcake sitting in a bunker.
Nothing about a restarted enrichment program at all.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;26702329]There's a big fucking difference between chlorine and uranium. Chlorine has plenty of legitimate, peaceful uses. Yellowcake uranium has exactly two uses - fuel for nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. And Iraq wasn't trying to build a reactor - if they were, they would be public about it.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point.
The yellowcake uranium hauled out in 2008 was so degraded that it was worthless for weapons building. It was simply too old. 17 year old, poorly stored yellowcake =/= WMDs. This doesn't justify shit.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;26703603]You're missing the point.
The yellowcake uranium hauled out in 2008 was so degraded that it was worthless for weapons building. It was simply too old. 17 year old, poorly stored yellowcake =/= WMDs. This doesn't justify shit.[/QUOTE]
Degraded in what way?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26703629]Degraded in what way?[/QUOTE]
Uranium decays over time. Improperly stored, it decays even faster. Eventually, it becomes useless for weapons purposes, and further down the line, it becomes useless even for reactors. At that point, there isn't much you can do with the uranium.
The yellowcake in Iraq had been sitting in those bunkers since [i]at least[/i] 1991, and likely before that. In addition to being decayed and largely useless, there is no evidence that enrichment was ever attempted at all, for any reason.
Basically, Bush is still a useless dick.
You're all basing this on the assumption that the US Government could know, with complete certainty, exactly what Iraq had and did not have. It's been proven that there was uranium there. Regardless of what condition /that exact stock/ of uranium is in, who's to say there wasn't more, or that Saddam wasn't continuing to develop WMDs regardless? Is this likely - given their previous behaviour, yes, it was very likely.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;26704055]Uranium decays over time. Improperly stored, it decays even faster. Eventually, it becomes useless for weapons purposes, and further down the line, it becomes useless even for reactors. At that point, there isn't much you can do with the uranium.
The yellowcake in Iraq had been sitting in those bunkers since [i]at least[/i] 1991, and likely before that. In addition to being decayed and largely useless, there is no evidence that enrichment was ever attempted at all, for any reason.
Basically, Bush is still a useless dick.[/QUOTE]
The half life for U 235 is 703,800,000 years.
I don't think 17 years is going to turn potent yellow cake into useless mush.
Especially considering the yellow cake is made from uranium-containing ore found in rivers and shit.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26704967]You're all basing this on the assumption that the US Government could know, with complete certainty, exactly what Iraq had and did not have. It's been proven that there was uranium there. Regardless of what condition /that exact stock/ of uranium is in, who's to say there wasn't more, or that Saddam wasn't continuing to develop WMDs regardless? Is this likely - given their previous behaviour, yes, it was very likely.[/QUOTE]
There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who reported no signs of uranium enrichment.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26705070]There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who reported no signs of uranium enrichment.[/QUOTE]
That was actually related to part of the issue - Iraq kicked out the inspectors for several months before threats could get them back in. If a country that is under some of the heaviest sanctions the UN can place can just kick out the people necessary to keep the country in check, the system is obviously not working. The way things were going, it was obvious that a war with Iraq was going to happen eventually. Doing it in 2003 was a bit abrupt, but "if it's going to happen sometime, now's as good a time as any".
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26705070]There were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq who reported no signs of uranium enrichment.[/QUOTE]
In the inspection right before the Iraq invasion? No, they didn't. However, it's hardly impossible that the Iraqi regime could have hidden evidence from the UN inspectors.
"Nonsense, you're being paranoid."
No so. After the invasion, a report by the Iraq Survey Group, tasked with searching for WMDs in Iraq, found some interesting results. It concluded that actual weapon stockpiles were indeed non-existent, presumably destroyed in 1991 when the economic sanctions took hold. HOWEVER, it soon became clear that Iraq maintained infrastructure and expertise needed to resume weapons development. This included biological samples (one being hidden in a scientist's personal home), plans, hidden labs, and undeclared fuel. Iraqi personnel involved with the work indicated they had been ordered to hide this from UN inspectors. Thus, it appears that while there weren't WMDs themselves in Iraq at the time of the invasion, Saddam was planning to restart development once UN sanctions had been lifted, which is just as dangerous. Thus, there's good reason for US suspicion.
Taken from:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#U.N._inspections_before_the_invasion[/url]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26704995]The half life for U 235 is 703,800,000 years.
I don't think 17 years is going to turn potent yellow cake into useless mush.
Especially considering the yellow cake is made from uranium-containing ore found in rivers and shit.[/QUOTE]
Is yellocake pure uranium? I'm no bomb expert, but in my basic chemistry class, ions of substances can have a VERY different half-life from their pure counterparts.
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26704995]The half life for U 235 is 703,800,000 years.
I don't think 17 years is going to turn potent yellow cake into useless mush.
Especially considering the yellow cake is made from uranium-containing ore found in rivers and shit.[/QUOTE]
Is yellocake pure uranium? I'm no bomb expert, but in my basic chemistry class, ions of substances can have a VERY different half-life from their pure counterparts.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26704967]You're all basing this on the assumption that the US Government could know, with complete certainty, exactly what Iraq had and did not have. It's been proven that there was uranium there. Regardless of what condition /that exact stock/ of uranium is in, who's to say there wasn't more, or that Saddam wasn't continuing to develop WMDs regardless? Is this likely - given their previous behaviour, yes, it was very likely.[/QUOTE]
Oh, and the documents that Bush used to back up his claim that Iraq was buying yellowcake from Africa have been proven to be forgeries.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery[/url]
[QUOTE=chewgo;26705338]Is yellocake pure uranium? I'm no bomb expert, but in my basic chemistry class, ions of substances can have a VERY different half-life from their pure counterparts.
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
Is yellocake pure uranium? I'm no bomb expert, but in my basic chemistry class, ions of substances can have a VERY different half-life from their pure counterparts.[/QUOTE]
Uh, what? You cannot change the rate of decay of an isotope. U235 will decay at the same rate, regardless of charge, compounds, temperature, anything. It was actually considered major news when scientists reported that neutrinos seemed to affect the rate of decay - and yet even that was later found to not actually affect the decay rate.
More on the yellowcake that was removed in 2008
[quote]Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, [b]U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake,[/b] which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
[/quote]
So yeah, we were going to trust Saddam with this yellowcake since the UN had made sure it was secure.
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334[/url]
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
To revisit the wacky racist analogy: This is like if the cops kept the crazy racist's ammo stashes under guard.
More like, if the cops keep the crazy racist's known ammo stash under guard.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26702824]That was in 1989 (90?).
I said that it had been lying dormant since the Gulf War (1991).
By your logic, we should have invaded Israel to take their nuclear material since they've shown themselves to be irresponsible.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident[/url]
[img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
The Liberty was a controversial issue, but is an absolutely apeshit crazy analogy to Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Kurds.
[QUOTE=chewgo;26705338]Is yellocake pure uranium? I'm no bomb expert, but in my basic chemistry class, ions of substances can have a VERY different half-life from their pure counterparts.
[/QUOTE]
Yellowcake is mostly uranium oxide, the fact that it's bounded with oxygen doesn't change how long it's half life is.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26688472]I love how people defend wikileaks blindly when it hurts their government, but as soon as they release something that helps the republicans everyone is like "this can't be true" "i don't believe this"[/QUOTE]
This is why it's great to be moderate. I can choose to be a jackass when I'd like, while half of Facepunch is screwed.
Yellowcake uranium always sounds so delicious.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26688472]I love how people defend wikileaks blindly when it hurts their government, but as soon as they release something that helps the republicans everyone is like "this can't be true" "i don't believe this"[/QUOTE]
This. Took. The. Words. Right. Out. Of. My. Mouth.
So the cake wasn't a lie.
Oh god that joke is so overused that I feel ashamed.
[QUOTE=SoaringScout;26727026]So the cake wasn't a lie.
Oh god that joke is so overused that I feel ashamed.[/QUOTE]
The cake that Bush talked about was a lie.
Bush said Saddam had been, in the early 2000s, buying yellowcake from Africa.
The yellowcake mentioned in this report had been in Iraq since the Iran-Iraq war, and the UN had secured it after the Persian Gulf War.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.