Building a Nuke isnt hard it is getting enough Weapons Grade Uranium, so if you had enough U235 then you need to build a nuke.
My friend that is in the navy just got back earlier this month and he brought back a couple momentos. One of them is a hand woven tapistry that an elderly iraqi woman gave him, he told me that is something that he will always hold on to, and something that reminds him of why we are over there.
Went to go close firefox that contained definitions for weapons grade bla bla bla and came across this.
it's a second definition for weapons grade.
# [adjective] extremely strong or concentrated or durable; "industrial-strength detergent"; "weapons-grade salsa"
okay if you read that to the end you will notice "SALSA" Weapons-grade salsa????? WHAT THE FUDGE what if iraq threatened the world with some salsa? If I was president of the US I would respond with "Got some tacos with that". LOLOLOLOL :LOL:
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Building a Nuke isnt hard it is getting enough Weapons Grade Uranium, so if you had enough U235 then you need to build a nuke.
My friend that is in the navy just got back earlier this month and he brought back a couple momentos. One of them is a hand woven tapistry that an elderly iraqi woman gave him, he told me that is something that he will always hold on to, and something that reminds him of why we are over there.
Well since getting that uranium is apart of building a nuke I would say that it is hard to build a nuc. Also it's really hard to get the whole detonation(if that's spelled right?) synchronization thingy a bobber correct. I mean it's like rocket science and if a factor is off by 1 then it's just a dirty bomb.
I wish I still had this picture of a solider carrying an iraqi child away(running) from a bombed building or something, but that picture alone brought out some weird(but good) emotions of why we are there and why the Iraqi people are with us on this one.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
2 tons of low enriched uranium
2000 radioactive sources.
this is ingredients for making a dirty bomb/nuclear weapon.
But i'm not to sure about the second site. It's conservative and has this pic. you judge for yourself.(the first site is reputable so you can trust it if you want)
as for the weapons-grade uranium. if you strap a stick of dynamite to some uranium, could you call that(dynamite+uranium) a weapon? so then why couldn't you then say that the dirty bomb(dynamtie+uranium) contains weapons-grade uranium
here's a definition:
weapons-grade - of a quality adequate for use in weapons (especially in weapons of mass destruction); "weapons-grade plutonium"; "weapons-grade anthrax"
low-enriched uranium is of enough quality adequate for use in weapons.
I'm not sure where you got that definition from, but the accepted definition of weapons grade uranium is uranium that has been refined to contain a high amount of U-235 content. Typically 80%-90% or above. It's a long and difficult process.
It's 'Weapons-Grade Uranium', not the generic 'weapons grade uranium'. What was found was certainly not Weapons-Grade Uranium.
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
-sarin shells.
I doesn't matter how many cough drops you have in your pocket. be it 1 to 1000, If you have "a" cough drop in your pocket you are in pocession of a cough drop. We found a shell containing sarin, that's a wmd.
We didn't find any stockpiles like everyone thought beforehand though. This fact I won't try and dodge, We didn't find any stockpiles. but we did find wmds.
I see your point. But I still don't feel that an invasion based on 1 Sarin shell is justified. They don't even mention how much gas was there. But let's assume that it was less than half a litre.
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
-as for why we went into iraq, because saddam didn't follow UN resolutions.
The quoted purpose was to eradicate the WMDs.
Other secondary objectives included the removal of Saddam, imposing democracy, destruction of weapons arsenal etc.
Originally Posted by JMJSelect
@Howard. What is this "moot"? is it like um...... "irrelivant"?
Errm, yeah I guess so :) A moot point is that point that in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant.
Like when you are playing blackjack, you fold early on but you have an Ace and a King. It's nice to know that you got the Ace and the King but at the end of the day it's moot since you folded. It had no effect on the outcome :)
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
I work next to a gas station. so I get there at 10 oclock this morning and it was 2.49, about 3 oclock heard the rumors so I topped off at 2.79, when I left at 7pm it was 2.99.
We are creating this shortage, georgia doesn't get all of its gas from 1 source(gulf of mexico). People hear this and go out to see people waiting in line for gas, then the ball starts to roll.
I fell for the rumor to. I had 2/3 of a tank of gas and topped it off just in case.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
I'm not sure where you got that definition from, but the accepted definition of weapons grade uranium is uranium that has been refined to contain a high amount of U-235 content. Typically 80%-90% or above. It's a long and difficult process.
It's 'Weapons-Grade Uranium', not the generic 'weapons grade uranium'. What was found was certainly not Weapons-Grade Uranium.
I typed "weapons grade dictionary" in google and it gave out a couple, I clicked the first three and all three had the same definition, plus a concentrated one that you are talking about.
The one I provided is an accepted definition too.
I'm not sure what "-" in weapons grade means? weapons-grade? if it has "-", does it have more u-235?
Quote:
I see your point. But I still don't feel that an invasion based on 1 Sarin shell is justified. They don't even mention how much gas was there. But let's assume that it was less than half a litre.
It's not justified, we went in on false intelligence.
Quote:
The quoted purpose was to eradicate the WMDs.
Other secondary objectives included the removal of Saddam, imposing democracy, destruction of weapons arsenal etc.
I don't know which of these were first in line, what was next,... but If you logically think about it, if we went in would saddam let us look for weapons? we would have to boot saddam and then look for the weapons(*note: I'm not sure which was first in objectives, just my look on it)
Quote:
Errm, yeah I guess so :) A moot point is that point that in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant.
see like you said, I just learned something
:approve: I'm going to say it's safe to pronounce "Moot" like "Aboot" but with the ab switched with m.
I'm not too sure what our "irrelivant" is but i think its "that doesn't matter", for us regular americans anyways.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Addicted Member
