Why are we giving enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia?

[chomerics]

This shouldn't be hard to understand.

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

At 20% can you make a bomb? What are light water facilities using? Usually up to 20% (I think it is 15%-20%)

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.

It depends on the potency of the uranium as to how the bomb is made. You can make a weapon with 20% enriched uranium which is on the high end of some nuclear reactors for energy. . .

The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s) -usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass required rapidly increases.

(From the wiki page)

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.

I agree, but where have they EVER stated they want to start a nuclear program? Where have they even implied it was in their future? We are making another country nuclear, and it is SA to boot, the country where all our trouble comes from. it is a horrid foreign policy decision, and a blunder to give a terrorist supporting nation, who had more direct ties to 9-11 then Iraq, nuclear energy. It just adds more fuel to the fire and increases the instability even more in that neck of the woods.

[Corcaigh]

I think it makes sense.

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

Well - maybe they don't want to burn fossil fuels forever ... not that they will last forever. With current oil prices and anticipated rises, nuclear is going to be a lot cheaper than buring oil for electricity.

If they haven't started it will be ten years before they get a nuclear plant on line.

[China]

I've seen it stated here that the uranium for energy production is not the same as the enriched uranium for weapons use, and that enriching it would be problematic.

One thing I haven't seen here though is the mention of dirty bombs. You don't need enriched uranium for a dirty bomb. I'm sure terrorists would be quite happy to take energy grade uranium and blow it up in one of our cities to irradiate the area. It's still a threat.

[Larry]

I think it makes sense.

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

Well, hey, have you seen the price of oil, these days?

[Major Harris]

So when do we nuke Mecca guys?

i'm free at noon. you busy?

[Corcaigh]

At 20% can you make a bomb? What are light water facilities using? Usually up to 20% (I think it is 15%-20%)

Chomerics ... thanks for the data, but I worked in the nuclear industry. :laugh:That's why I asked you about which reactor design the Saudi's were going to use.

And what evidence do you have that we will supply them with uranium at that level of enrichment?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well - maybe they don't want to burn fossil fuels forever ... not that they will last forever. With current oil prices and anticipated rises, nuclear is going to be a lot cheaper than buring oil for electricity.

If they haven't started it will be ten years before they get a nuclear plant on line.

Good points as well.

I'll throw one more thing out there that does concern me a little bit:

I don't see Saudia Arabia as a great ally of ours in that region. I know some people do, but I don't, and I think a lot of other people are skeptical of them.

But, while I could be wrong about them, it heightens my skepticism.

[JMS]

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

Because the technological hurdle to creat a bomb for Saudi Arabia is basically non existant given their resources. Handing them nuclear fuel obviates the need for them to creat a fuel cycle production themselves. Also these fuel cycle production facilities which consist of 10,000 or more cascaded centrafuges.. ( Iran is building 50,000 centrifuges )... Create a significant foot print which can be seen by our intelligence agencies.

So basically we aren't giving them anything they couldn't easily get. We are getting monitoring, and treaty concessions, as well as familiarizing ourself with the organization of their program. Lastly we are retaining the ability to detect via satalites whether they do decide to independently obtain their own fuel production capacity.

Bottom line is If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will shortly follow, and they will likely do that with our assistance too, largely for the same reasons as given above.

They can do it without us, If we help them we retain some visibiility and control.

[Corcaigh]

One thing I haven't seen here though is the mention of dirty bombs. You don't need enriched uranium for a dirty bomb. I'm sure terrorists would be quite happy to take energy grade uranium and blow it up in one of our cities to irradiate the area. It's still a threat.

Energy grade uranium isn't very 'dirty' and is a poor choice.

A dirty bomb would much more likely be made from material commonly used in the medical industry, such as cobalt-60 from radiotherapy machines.

[chomerics]

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 did in the other post. . . if we are going to do this for SA, why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why does SA need the energy, yet the other countries in the ME with less oil, and more energy needs do not? Who are we to say "you can have the technology and you can not"

It is our way of doing business over there that got us into trouble in the first place, and this is along those lines, we should not be going hand in hand to what ever the house of Saud wants, and instead should look out for our OWN best interests. Unfortunately the foreign policy decisions of the past 25 years concerning the ME have all been abysmal failures. The first Gulf war was a result of us arming Hussen. The second was a result of megalomaniacs thinking they can transform the world through brute force. It is scary to think that our government thinks only of the next quarter, never the next decade.

There are any number of reasons why we should not be doing this, but the most important is the message it sends to the rest of the world, and it makes everything else we say ring hollow. What is so different about Saudi Arabia and Iran? One outright condems us, the other does it behind closed doors. They both fund terrorists, and the 9-11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. They both preach anti-American sentiment in their streets, and in their mosques. They both have oil. Why are we friends with one and not the other?

Does anyone realize that this is part of the reason why everyone hates us? It is how blowback happens, and why I think it is a bad idea. Your friends now will be your enemies in 20 years, and everything you do to pimp them up, you in turn have to destroy to take them down. It is a never ending saga of perpetual war where you chose one side one day and the other side the next, it is not how we should be doing business as a country.

[chomerics]

Chomerics ... thanks for the data, but I worked in the nuclear industry. :laugh:That's why I asked you about which reactor design the Saudi's were going to use.

And what evidence do you have that we will supply them with uranium at that level of enrichment?

I don't have any evidence, and it was a question I asked 2 pages ago.

[Larry]

I've seen it stated here that the uranium for energy production is not the same as the enriched uranium for weapons use, and that enriching it would be problematic.

One thing I haven't seen here though is the mention of dirty bombs. You don't need enriched uranium for a dirty bomb. I'm sure terrorists would be quite happy to take energy grade uranium and blow it up in one of our cities to irradiate the area. It's still a threat.

Yep. It's a possibility.

OTOH, the terrorists can get energy grade Uranium, or nuclear waste, at any nuclear power plant right now. Do you really think a reactor in Saudi is goung to be that much more vulnerable than the reactors, in say, Pakistan, Iran, or North Korea?

And, frankly, we don't have the ability to forbid the Saudis from building reactors.

But if we can control the fuel acquisition and refinery, then that's something.

[chomerics]

Because the technological hurdle to creat a bomb for Saudi Arabia is basically non existant given their resources. Handing them nuclear fuel obviates the need for them to creat a fuel cycle production themselves. Also these fuel cycle production facilities which consist of 10,000 or more cascaded centrafuges.. ( Iran is building 50,000 centrifuges )... Create a significant foot print which can be seen by our intelligence agencies.

So basically we aren't giving them anything they couldn't easily get. We are getting monitoring, and treaty concessions, as well as familiarizing ourself with the organization of their program. Lastly we are retaining the ability to detect via satalites whether they do decide to independently obtain their own fuel production capacity.

Bottom line is If Iran does develop a nuclear bomb, Saudi Arabia and Egypt will shortly follow, and they will likely do that with our assistance too, largely for the same reasons as given above.

They can do it without us, If we help them we retain some visibiility and control.

What benefit does it have to our country to create another nuclear power in the Middle East?

[JMS]

I don't see Saudia Arabia as a great ally of ours in that region. I know some people do, but I don't, and I think a lot of other people are skeptical of them.

But, while I could be wrong about them, it heightens my skepticism.

It's easy to get the wrong opinion about Saudi Arabia from the United States press. Make no mistake, The United States is the reason the royals in Saudi arabia are in power today. United States consultants created and maintain Saudi's military. All of Saudi's major weapons systems are American. If you walk into the Saudi secret service building in Ryadh as I have done, you will be talking to Americans who populate about half of the building.

Saudi Arabia is not a "great ally of ours". Saudi Arabia is nothing less than our most important strategic ally on the globe. They know it, and we know it.

if Saudi Arabia was taken over by Doctor Evil tommorrow, it would literally bring our economy to it's knees and fudimentally change the global economy. That is not true of any other ally we have; not Britian, Western Europe, or Japan. Which are also invaluable allies we would likely go to war to protect.

[Corcaigh]

I did in the other post. . . if we are going to do this for SA, why not Iran? Why not Syria?

Iran has refused to shut down their nuclear fuel cycle, even if supplied with uranium suitable for power generation. This made their intentions clear.

You need to make up your mind - are you saying our foreign policy and diplomacy is inconsistent, or are you arguing that we are giving Saudi Arabia the capability for a nuclear bomb.

I don't think there are many here that would argue on the first point, but basic physics and engineering proves you wrong on the second.

[Redskins Diehard]

What benefit does it have to our country to create another nuclear power in the Middle East?

Yeah, you are pretty much completely missing the point. This isn't creating another nuclear power...if anything it limits the likelihood of another nuclear power. That is the point.

(for purposes of this post "nuclear power" = a country that can produce weapons grade nuclear material....not a country that uses nuclear power)

[Corcaigh]

What benefit does it have to our country to create another nuclear power in the Middle East?

There is nothing wrong with an increase in use of nuclear power for electricity generation around the world, at least from a security perspective.

Wealthy countries will likely chose to develop their nuclear power industry at some point, unless we decide to prevent them by invading them all. Is that what you would rather? :laugh:

By supplying nuclear fuel we take away their need for a nuclear fuel development cycle and thus their ability to build a bomb.

[JMS]

What benefit does it have to our country to create another nuclear power in the Middle East?

None....

But that's not the question which justifies the solution.

If a nuclear power in the Middle East is unavoidable, is it better to contol them or is it better to have them operating in an inky black void.

If North Korea with their 40 billion GDP could obtain a bomb, what makes anybody think Saudi Arabia and their 572 billion dollar GDP could not? And we aren't going to embargo Saudi to stop them...

Besides that, If Iran does get the bomb; Saudi Arabia has legitamate security reasons for following suit. If Iran doesn't get the bomb, Saudi Arabia isn't interested in it. They've had the capacity to create their own bomb if they so choose for decades, and have not; even when Israel got the bomb; the Saudi's with assurances from the United States declined to follow suit.

Anyway we are (I am) getting ahead of ourselves. What Bush is doing here is actually obfuscating the need for Saudi to travel down the path of developing the capacity of a nuclear fuel production capacity.

[Larry]

I did in the other post. . . if we are going to do this for SA, why not Iran? Why not Syria? Why does SA need the energy, yet the other countries in the ME with less oil, and more energy needs do not? Who are we to say "you can have the technology and you can not"

1) I would love to have this same deal with Iran and NK. In a heartbeat. I'd give them their reactor fuel for free.

Heck, if they'd allow me to build and operate the power plant, I'd give them the power plant, and the power, for free.

2) This isn't about us telling the Saudis that "they can have the technology". This is about preventing them from obtaining the technology.

We have two options, here:

a) We refine the fuel for the Saudis.

We allow them to set up the capability to refine it themselves.

I'll take option a, every single time.

[JMS]

One thing I haven't seen here though is the mention of dirty bombs. You don't need enriched uranium for a dirty bomb. I'm sure terrorists would be quite happy to take energy grade uranium and blow it up in one of our cities to irradiate the area. It's still a threat.

That's true. But when you come right down to it you can create a dirty bomb with medical grade materials. Even Xray machine components. We used radio active isotopes in undergraduate University which would have been effective dirty bombs.

That hurdle is just not high enough to even discuss.

[chomerics]

Iran has refused to shut down their nuclear fuel cycle, even if supplied with uranium suitable for power generation. This made their intentions clear.

We were never in the negotiations because "we don't negotiate with terrorists"

BTW, weren't they one of the Atom's for Peace countries we gave nuclear technology to in the 50-70's with the Shah?

You need to make up your mind - are you saying our foreign policy and diplomacy is inconsistent, or are you arguing that we are giving Saudi Arabia the capability for a nuclear bomb.

I don't think there are many here that would argue on the first point, but basic physics and engineering proves you wrong on the second.

I have stated since day one that our foreign policy decisions in the area are atrocious, and they led to what we face today. I also stated that I do not know what grade the uranium is we are giving them, and I am skeptical to give them anything that could be used to make a bomb.

And how does the physics and engineering prove me wrong if we don't know what the grade of uranium is?

[Corcaigh]

We were never in the negotiations because "we don't negotiate with terrorists"

But Russia and others were offering fuel. Iran has made it clear they want their own fuel development cycle.

And how does the physics and engineering prove me wrong if we don't know what the grade of uranium is?

Because no rational actor would give someone fuel sufficiently enriched that could satisfy both needs. YOU are the one making the assumption that us supplying fuel for power would enable them to build a bomb.

[chomerics]

1) I would love to have this same deal with Iran and NK. In a heartbeat. I'd give them their reactor fuel for free.

Heck, if they'd allow me to build and operate the power plant, I'd give them the power plant, and the power, for free.

2) This isn't about us telling the Saudis that "they can have the technology". This is about preventing them from obtaining the technology.

That is where I disagree, when has saudi arabia ever talked about the need for nuclear plants? When have they ever been in an energy crisis? Why do they need nuclear energy? I don't remember reading about them trying to start their own nuclear program do you?

What I read was us "giving" then the technology when it is really not a need for their country right now. . .

[chomerics]

Because no rational actor would give someone fuel sufficiently enriched that could satisfy both needs. YOU are the one making the assumption that us supplying fuel for power would enable them to build a bomb.

As I stated before, what is the grade of uranium we are giving them? That makes all the difference in the world on that issue does it not? If we are giving them high enriched uranium, it could be used for a bomb, if we are giving them low enriched it could not. I am assuming nothing, and in fact on the first page I asked the question, and until it is answered, the topic remains on the table. If it is say 5% yea, I agree with you, if it is say >20% I disagree with you. I don't know the number, but I am also not ignoring the question either.

[Corcaigh]

That is where I disagree, when has saudi arabia ever talked about the need for nuclear plants? When have they ever been in an energy crisis? Why do they need nuclear energy? I don't remember reading about them trying to start their own nuclear program do you?

What I read was us "giving" then the technology when it is really not a need for their country right now. . .

Saudi's have been talking about this since the 1970s.

Their energy needs are growing rapidly and they have a huge need for water desalination which requires enromous amounts of energy.

If we don't sell the Saudi's nuclear power generation technology, France, Britain, Russia or any number of other countries will be more than happy to earn a few trillion dollars of that business. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has already made a number of 'sales calls' to the Middle East offering their nuclear technology as those countries have huge energy needs and know that fossil fuels won't last forever.

You are starting to sound like your neighbor MassSkinsFan with your isolationist approach.