Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There was recently a discussion here about the agreement with Iran
regarding their nuclear program. I expressed an opinion that unless Iran demonstrated the ability to produce nuclear weapons, we should try to make it work. Someone ... I think it was John H ... questioned the agreement and my opinion on it. He suggested that waiting to find out that they *had* nuclear weapons would be a mistake and also that the weapons could end up in the hands of others less responsible. Here's the thing: Enriching uranium to weapons grade is not a "one step" process. A nuclear power plant uses uranium enriched to about 2-3 percent. Medical use uranium is enriched a bit more. However weapons grade uranium must be processed and enriched to 90 percent or more. The agreement with Iran limits their enrichment of uranium to 20 percent which makes it unusable for making weapons. Furthermore, trying to go from 20 percent to 90 percent is a time consuming and laborious process. It wouldn't happen overnight and with proper monitoring, it wouldn't go unnoticed. The success of the agreement is the "trust but verify" part. Iran has agreed to international monitoring of their enrichment facilities. If enrichment levels exceed 20 percent, flags will be raised well before they obtained the necessary 90 percent level required to make a bomb. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:41:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
There was recently a discussion here about the agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program. I expressed an opinion that unless Iran demonstrated the ability to produce nuclear weapons, we should try to make it work. Someone ... I think it was John H ... questioned the agreement and my opinion on it. He suggested that waiting to find out that they *had* nuclear weapons would be a mistake and also that the weapons could end up in the hands of others less responsible. Here's the thing: Enriching uranium to weapons grade is not a "one step" process. A nuclear power plant uses uranium enriched to about 2-3 percent. Medical use uranium is enriched a bit more. However weapons grade uranium must be processed and enriched to 90 percent or more. The agreement with Iran limits their enrichment of uranium to 20 percent which makes it unusable for making weapons. Furthermore, trying to go from 20 percent to 90 percent is a time consuming and laborious process. It wouldn't happen overnight and with proper monitoring, it wouldn't go unnoticed. The success of the agreement is the "trust but verify" part. Iran has agreed to international monitoring of their enrichment facilities. If enrichment levels exceed 20 percent, flags will be raised well before they obtained the necessary 90 percent level required to make a bomb. I truly would not be upset if you responded directly to my posts. We had a 'trust but verify' with N. Korea, no? As for making a nuclear weapon that is a perfect specimen, perhaps the 90% is necessary. But, what percent is needed for a low-yield, very dirty weapon? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11/28/2013 2:32 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:41:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: There was recently a discussion here about the agreement with Iran regarding their nuclear program. I expressed an opinion that unless Iran demonstrated the ability to produce nuclear weapons, we should try to make it work. Someone ... I think it was John H ... questioned the agreement and my opinion on it. He suggested that waiting to find out that they *had* nuclear weapons would be a mistake and also that the weapons could end up in the hands of others less responsible. Here's the thing: Enriching uranium to weapons grade is not a "one step" process. A nuclear power plant uses uranium enriched to about 2-3 percent. Medical use uranium is enriched a bit more. However weapons grade uranium must be processed and enriched to 90 percent or more. The agreement with Iran limits their enrichment of uranium to 20 percent which makes it unusable for making weapons. Furthermore, trying to go from 20 percent to 90 percent is a time consuming and laborious process. It wouldn't happen overnight and with proper monitoring, it wouldn't go unnoticed. The success of the agreement is the "trust but verify" part. Iran has agreed to international monitoring of their enrichment facilities. If enrichment levels exceed 20 percent, flags will be raised well before they obtained the necessary 90 percent level required to make a bomb. I truly would not be upset if you responded directly to my posts. We had a 'trust but verify' with N. Korea, no? As for making a nuclear weapon that is a perfect specimen, perhaps the 90% is necessary. But, what percent is needed for a low-yield, very dirty weapon? John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! I didn't respond directly to your post because I had deleted it along with all the others posted that day and didn't feel like going back to search for it. As far as "dirty" weapons ... they are already readily available. You also can't make a "low yield" bomb unless you enrich far beyond 20 percent. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:55:07 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:20:42 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:26:50 -0800 (PST), wrote: That was from me, John H. I've no idea how that other name got there. I made the post through Google Groups. Wait, could be someone else who used the computer. Will have to check on that. Yup. That was it! Spoofer ;-) No, it was a grandson. Had the whole crowd over for the big dinner yesterday. He was on Gmail and didn't log off. So when I fired up Gmail this AM, I was using his account. Let it be known that I did not read any of his emails! John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:47:58 -0500, John H wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:24:06 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 11:55:07 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:20:42 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:26:50 -0800 (PST), wrote: That was from me, John H. I've no idea how that other name got there. I made the post through Google Groups. Wait, could be someone else who used the computer. Will have to check on that. Yup. That was it! Spoofer ;-) No, it was a grandson. Had the whole crowd over for the big dinner yesterday. He was on Gmail and didn't log off. So when I fired up Gmail this AM, I was using his account. Let it be known that I did not read any of his emails! John, we'd all LOVE to know how "you can be logged into Gmail" "using his account", while posting to USENET through Supernews with AGENT, which magically changed you user name and password in ToolsServers and Accounts; twice! Tell us all about it, spoofer. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! Mr. Spoofer. If I were Harry, I'd tell you I operate four computers and three servers with over 17 yottabytes of storage. But, I'm not. And, it's none of your f'ing business. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The assault weapons ban | General | |||
Obama and Nuclear Weapons | General | |||
Choose Your Weapons Carfully | General | |||
Iran Nuclear Program Revealed!!! | ASA |