Why are we giving enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia?

[chomerics]

I admittedly don't understand the process of nuclear weapons development, how exactly does this work then? It just seems to me if they already have the enriched uranium that they would be able to use that to possibly produce more. But again, I'm unfamiliar with the process. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

It depends on the amount of U-235 (i think the number is correct) isotope. I believe at 20% it is low weapons grade uranium, under that it can only be used for fuel because it is not fissionable. We use up to 95% U-235 and at 85% the critical mass is reached to where the amount of uranium needed for weapons is much less for a chain reaction.

This is off the top of my head, I remember reading up on it when I was looking into the yellowcake BS.

There are also about 20 refinement techniques which could be used to "purify" the uranium. They are all very costly and energy intensive operations, and they take large facilities. The most common heard of is a centerfuge which rotates the matter at a high rate of speed to separate it.

[chomerics]

But it is possible for them to enrich it further? How long does the process take?

Yes they can, you need infrastructure for it though.

[#98QBKiller]

Yes they can, you need infrastructure for it though.

So in other words it would take them a good chunk of time to even set up the means for enriching it futher?

[chomerics]

You guys do realize that this website is probably being monitored now by the NSA...

LMAO, hell I've been posting here for years, they started monitoring it right after the Patriot Act was past, I bet they have an entire 50 page dossier on my sorry ass

[#98QBKiller]

You guys do realize that this website is probably being monitored now by the NSA...

:laugh: That's alright I always throw in an out-of-place "uranium" in my cell phone conversations to set off their red flags (and piss-off the person on the other end)

[chomerics]

So in other words it would take them a good chunk of time to even set up the means for enriching it futher?

It depends on what we give them, which is why I stated that before. if we give them high enriched (20% i believe) which is the common uranium used in most power generation, they can make a bomb out of it. The bomb is more complex, and it is larger, but it is still doable, and can destroy a city.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yes they can, you need infrastructure for it though.

Unfortunately that's not the case. Starting with enriched uranium you can process it more to get weapons grade components. That's certainly possible. That's one reason why Bush pulled out of the deal with North Korea which Clinton had negotiated.

Here is the argument though. If we give them the fuel we also sign them up to a monitoring program and we know how much fuel they have so we can verify where it is.

If they go out on their own and produce a fuel production capacity; they we are essensially blind, and they can use the same production mechanisms to refine low grade civilian refined uranium to produce high grade weapons enriched uranium.

I guess we are going to be throwing a lot of eggs in the basket with our people who are monitoring then?

Do I understand that we do this already in some other countries?

[JMS]

But it is possible for them to enrich it further? How long does the process take?

The way you enrich Uranium is with centrifuges. you put it into solution and spin it up. This process separates the lighter U-235 which you want from the more stable heavier U-238 which you don't.

Enriched Uranium for civilian use can be as impure as 4%. Enriched Uranium for military use is as pure as 97%. How long it takes to refine that much is all about your production capacity. In WWII it took us years to refine the uranium and even then it's rumored we used Uranium captured from Nazi Germany to get enough fisionable material for our bomb. If Japan had not surrendered after our second bomb fell, I've read we wouldn't have been able to deploy another bomb for as long as six months.

Today Iran for example has 9000 centrifuges on line and working..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336089.stm

Iran is working for 54000 centrifuges which will give them the capacity of creating enough fusionable material for a bomb every few months.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140059/

The deal is with Saudi howerver if we give them the fuel for civilian use they won't have to build up the centrafuges and develope the technology for their own fuel processing, which would be used for refining civilian fuel, and further refining military grade components.

[rdsknbill]

Apparantly another person who has no problem with giving enrighed uranium to the country that gave us the 9-11 hijackers. . .why am I not surprised you would agree to this :doh:

It is simply amazing to me that anything Bush does = good and AOK, even when it is giving nuclear fuel to people who fund terrorists, and gave us the 9-11 hijackers.

But don't let your rose colored glasses cloud your judgment at all :doh: what a freaking poor excuse you are for am American, nothing more than a partisan hack who probably agrees with Iraq to this day.

Hmm partisan Hack? "POT CALLING KETTLE Can you hear me?"

OK Chom, without sending you over the deepend here. The Saudis can go nuclear whenever they want, as was previously stated in this thread. It is one of the fastest developing regions on the planet.

I am not a blind Bush supporter. Agreed with Afghanistan, DID NOT agree with Iraq at ALL.

As for judging me a "Poor excuse for an American" GFY (Good for You)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The deal is with Saudi howerver if we give them the fuel for civilian use they won't have to build up the centrafuges and develope the technology for their own fuel processing, which would be used for refining civilian fuel, and further refining military grade components.

Can I just re-ask, why does Saudi Arabia, which is sitting on so much oil, need or even want nuclear power? Even for legitimate means?

[chomerics]

Can I just re-ask, why does Saudi Arabia, which is sitting on so much oil, need or even want nuclear power? Even for legitimate means?

To give to terrorists, why else?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To give to terrorists, why else?

well, I'm not an expert on energy, so I think there could be some legitimate reasons that I just can't think of. I can obviously think of that one, but there could be legitimate reasons....

[#98QBKiller]

The way you enrich Uranium is with centrifuges. you put it into solution and spin it up. This process separates the lighter U-235 which you want from the more stable heavier U-238 which you don't.

Enriched Uranium for civilian use can be as impure as 4%. Enriched Uranium for military use is as pure as 97%. How long it takes to refine that much is all about your production capacity. In WWII it took us years to refine the uranium and even then it's rumored we used Uranium captured from Nazi Germany to get enough fisionable material for our bomb. If Japan had not surrendered after our second bomb fell, I've read we wouldn't have been able to deploy another bomb for as long as six months.

Today Iran for example has 9000 centrifuges on line and working..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7336089.stm

Iran is working for 54000 centrifuges which will give them the capacity of creating enough fusionable material for a bomb every few months.

http://www.slate.com/id/2140059/

The deal is with Saudi howerver if we give them the fuel for civilian use they won't have to build up the centrafuges and develope the technology for their own fuel processing, which would be used for refining civilian fuel, and further refining military grade components.

Good info, I appreciate it.

[chomerics]

OK Chom, without sending you over the deepend here. The Saudis can go nuclear whenever they want, as was previously stated in this thread. It is one of the fastest developing regions on the planet.

Why help them along? Why even bother to give them stuff that could be used for bombs?

I am not a blind Bush supporter. Agreed with Afghanistan, DID NOT agree with Iraq at ALL.

At least someone admits it. . .

As for judging me a "Poor excuse for an American" GFY (Good for You)

Well, seeing as how in other threads you have called me a racist, and then an elitist, that quote was a direct response to past ignorance you have shown on this board. . .maybe i should have left it in those threads, and should not have brought it here, but again your first post added nothing to the conversation except tried to call me out, so you got what you deserved IMO.

And the GFY comment, yea you can do that, but I am not talking about your quote, the other meaning if you catch my drift

[NavyDave]

To nuke anyone who tries to import San Francisco Values and California Supreme Court rulings into their Nation.

[rdsknbill]

Why help them along? Why even bother to give them stuff that could be used for bombs?

At least someone admits it. . .

Well, seeing as how in other threads you have called me a racist, and then an elitist, that quote was a direct response to past ignorance you have shown on this board. . .maybe i should have left it in those threads, and should not have brought it here, but again your first post added nothing to the conversation except tried to call me out, so you got what you deserved IMO.

And the GFY comment, yea you can do that, but I am not talking about your quote, the other meaning if you catch my drift

Yea you should have left those there. They shouldn't have been posted at all, I was not in a good frame of mind that day.

I don't think you have the right to judged someone a "Bad American" however

BTW. You know Fitzy from his "Wicked Pissa" youtube videos? (He IS from the Boston area after all) :laugh:

[chomerics]

well, I'm not an expert on energy, so I think there could be some legitimate reasons that I just can't think of. I can obviously think of that one, but there could be legitimate reasons....

It was more of a tongue in cheek comment than anything else.

I wanted to bring up the hypocrisy of us, as a nation, telling people they can't work on their own nuclear programs, while we give other nations fuel for their nuclear programs. It is why we are in the mess to begin with in the Middle East, and it is a fundamental foreign policy blunder that falls over the past 25 years or so.

We treat one country as the enemy, place embargoes on them, try to sabotage their government, and do what ever we can to prevent them from running their own countries as they see fit, while we give their neighbors the keys to the candy store. We need to stop doing things such as this as a country, because it is how we got into the mess in Iraq to begin with.

We are hypocrites to the rest of the world because of our foreign policy decisions, and if we stayed out of other people's business' we would be better off. . . unfortunately, our economy (in some eyes) is tied to much to war and it is why we will continue to extol our military presence in areas where it really isn't needed.

[chomerics]

Yea you should have left those there. They shouldn't have been posted at all, I was not in a good frame of mind that day.

I don't think you have the right to judged someone a "Bad American" however

Fair enough, and I will admit when I am wrong, I will edit it out.

BTW. You know Fitzy from his "Wicked Pissa" youtube videos? (He IS from the Boston area after all) :laugh:

Of course I do man, he is on my myspace page! That is the first thing I thought of when I saw the GFY comment, he is a freakin riot :laugh:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To nuke anyone who tries to import San Francisco Values and California Supreme Court rulings into their Nation.

It really sounds like you want to move there. :laugh:

[Corcaigh]

Why help them along? Why even bother to give them stuff that could be used for bombs?

This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Uranium at low levels of enrichment can NOT be used for bombs.

To make weapons grade material requires many tens of thousands of precision cyclotrons working together to enrich uranium. This is an extremely complex problem to solve and much, much harder than getting your hands on uranium in the first place.

If any supply of material is tied to inspection then doing this is much, much better than having them go it alone and develop the nuclear enrichment technology themselves.

[Larry]

ok, so there is no way for them to convert it into something dangerous? then, it does make sense.

OK, based on my Popular Science knowledge of Uranium enrichment:

The process of separating Uranium isotopes is a complicated one. (The theories are very simple, but I understand that the actual application of those theories is really tricky.)

To start with, isotopes of an element are chemically identical. Therefore, there is no chemical process for separating Uranium isotopes. U-235 and U-238 are chemically identical. Their only difference is that they weigh slightly different.

One method of separating them is a centrifuge, but that's tough. (And it wasn't the first method used.) For one thing, centrifuges separate liquids, so you need a centrifuge that's able to hold molten Uranium, and keeping it molten while it's in there.

The method that the US originally used was gas diffusion. Take your compound, flash heat it to a vapor, and allow the vapor to travel down a long pipe filled with obstructions (like sand). Different elements, and different isotopes of elements, will take different times to travel down the pipe. But the difference is very small, so the pipe has to be very long. And, of course, the entire thing has to be kept hot enough so that your gaseous Uranium doesn't cool.

The process is so complicated, and the equipment so large and specialized, that the US only has one facility capable of doing it. Russia also has only one place.

It's really complicated, really expensive, really big, and therefore pretty much can't be concealed.

OTOH, once you've got the factory, then you can make whatever grade of enrichment you want. If you want more enrichment, you just run the material through the filter more than once.

-----

Result:

Any facility that's capable of making reactor fuel, is capable of making bomb fuel. (The process is the same. To make bomb fuel you just run it through the filter more times.)

If the Saudis (or anybody else) sets up a facility for making reactor fuel, then they've also got the ability to make bomb fuel. Only way to prevent it is constant international inspections and really intrusive accounting.

OTOH, if we make reactor fuel in our plant, and give them the fuel, then they can't make bombs with it, unless they set up a Uranium processing facility.

And the reason we're giving them the fuel is so that they don't have an excuse to set up a refining facility.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Result:

Any facility that's capable of making reactor fuel, is capable of making bomb fuel. (The process is the same. To make bomb fuel you just run it through the filter more times.)

If the Saudis (or anybody else) sets up a facility for making reactor fuel, then they've also got the ability to make bomb fuel. Only way to prevent it is constant international inspections and really intrusive accounting.

OTOH, if we make reactor fuel in our plant, and give them the fuel, then they can't make bombs with it, unless they set up a Uranium processing facility.

And the reason we're giving them the fuel is so that they don't have an excuse to set up a refining facility.

Well, that way, it does sound well-thought out and safe.

I do wonder why Saudi Arabia wants any uranium for any purpose though. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't skeptical of giving any material that CAN be made into a nuclear bomb, regardless of whether or not they have the capability now.

[JMS]

Do I understand that we do this already in some other countries?

Harry Truman recognized in the 1950's that the only way to avert global nuclear stock piling of weapons by all countries on earth was to form a political agreement. To that end in the 1950's he essentially gave nuclear technology to any country which would agree to monitoring and would sign a treaty not to use it to create bombs. Most countries signed that treaty, although some did not and have gone on to create their own nuclear capabilities without United States help. Russia, India for example.

That is basically how the United Nations Nuclear Regulatory Commission was formed. and is the basis of US nuclearn non poliferation policy ever since.

At times both Truman and Eisenhower called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. "Atoms for Peace", They called for uranium mining and the existing fuel cycle capacity in the world to be placed under the United Nations. However when Russia got the bomb eventually both countries sought security by way of increasing their nuclear stock piles.

These two strategies have created the dicotomy of how we deal with states today. If you have weapons, we rely on MAD, mutually assured destruction to ensure you don't use them against us. If you don't have weapons we will help you with your civiilan program as long as you will agree to monitoring and don't use our aid for a military program. Our deals are enforced by United Nation's monitoring.

We created the first bomb 60 years ago. At the time we didn't have an airplane capable of carrying it, it was so heavy. Today we have nukes which will fit inside a napsack and the plans for building a nuclear weapon have been published in term papers by American University students. The intellectual hurdle for a bomb program today is less important than political agreements in limiting nuclear weapons proliferation. Today if you have the resources, you can get a bomb in a few years.

North Korea did it, and they don't even have 1/1000th the resources of the Saudi's.

[Corcaigh]

And the reason we're giving them the fuel is so that they don't have an excuse to set up a refining facility.

This is the whole point, and Chomerics needs to explain, other than partisan politics, why he doesn't get this.

The International Atomic Energy Agency argues in favor of having ready access to nuclear fuel at guaranteed market prices for those countries who want to develop their own nuclear energy program. By making this available, anyone who insists on acquiring technology to develop their own nuclear fuel cycle can reasonably be accused of having a weapon goal. If non-proliferation is a goal of the international community, then providing ready access to nuclear fuel makes it clear what the intentions are of nations that go their own path.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is the whole point, and Chomerics needs to explain, other than partisan politics, why he doesn't get this.

The International Atomic Energy Agency argues in favor of having ready access to nuclear fuel at guaranteed market prices for those countries who want to develop their own nuclear energy program. By making this available, anyone who insists on acquiring technology to develop their own nuclear fuel cycle can reasonably be accused of having a weapon goal. If non-proliferation is a goal of the international community, then providing ready access to nuclear fuel makes it clear what the intentions are of nations that go their own path.

I think it makes sense.

I just think it would make MORE sense if Saudi Arabia was a country that NEEDED energy.