controlling the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is no major payoff. Privatizing Iraq's business structure is no major payoff. I guess billions of $ in contracts are minor payoffs.
No, I'm not joking.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Wasn't one the first two bombs U-238 based? [potentially dumb question] can't you harvest U-238 from seawater?
No, and No. U-238 requires very high energy neutrons to fission. U-238 is bread to Pu-239 wich like U-235, will fission using low energy neutrons (less than 1MeV if I recall from a past life as a physics major).
Can you get U-238 from SW? yes you can get all naturally occuring elements from SW. The question is how much SW is required? You'de need an entire ocean to get significant amounts of any trace element from SW.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.
Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
You give the impression of a kid with fingers covering his ears and yelling "no, no, it can't be true. It can't be true!!"
Faust9: you seem to know a lot about that subject. Could you please tell me if light water nuclear reactors can be used to make weapons?
Most reactors are light water reactors. Heavy water reactors use Deuterium oxide or tritium oxide. Both Deuterium and tritium are water molecules with heavy isotopes of Hydrogen (H-2 and H-3 respectivly). Heavy water rfeactors are used mostly for research or for 238 reactors. 238 reactors are not used in comercial applications because the cost of producing heavy water exceeds the cost of uranium enrichment in most cases. The really crazy reactors are the ones that use liquid sodium as a moderator.
Its been awile since I've had chemistry so I might have the chemical names wrong for heavy water but the isotope names should be correct.
Halliburton's connection to Cheney was a constant theme. Democrats have seized on the issue of whether Cheney ? who receives deferred compensation from the company ? was linked to a decision to award to Halliburton no-bid Iraq contracts, which have a potential payout of $18 billion.
No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.
Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.
But they are a member [yes?]
on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?
on the nuke thing, check out this quote:
Quote:
The first nuclear weapon used in anger was Little Boy. Untested, it was detonated over Hiroshima with a yield equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT, or 15 kilotons. Little Boy used 132.8 pounds of HEU enriched to a little over 80 percent in the fissile isotope U-235. It was 10 feet long, 28 inches wide, and weighed 9000 pounds.
on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?
on the nuke thing, check out this quote:
is this correct?
Yes, this is correct, but U-235 is not U-238. U-238 is normally a beneign isotope is will ony fission if exposed to neutrons of a specific energy. U-235 has a larger cross section for absorption for low energy neutrons (which are easire to come by) thus it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Remember though 15kg's of 235 are needed for well designed bombs. Only 0.72% of natural uraninum is U-235, the other 99% is U-238. You need about One metric ton of yellow cake to produce those 15kg's. One metric ton is about 5000lbs BTW. Also the purification process relies on Flourine gas in a 1-1 ratio with the uranium. So that's another key to the puzzle which is hard to hide.
Yes, Iraq is an official member, but I dare say BushCo will ensure that changes. Iraq could drive the price of oil as easily as Saudi Arabi if and when it gets to full production capability.
Yes, Iraq is an official member, but I dare say BushCo will ensure that changes. Iraq could drive the price of oil as easily as Saudi Arabi if and when it gets to full production capability.
That would make things complicated for SA.
Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site
In fact, U-238 is so beneign that it is used to make depleated uranium shells for vulcan cannons and the like. Think of it like this, a normal bullit hits like a fist. A depleted U bullit hits like a baseball bat due to the extra mass thus the extra momentum. U-238 shells don't explode on contact they just hit hard enought to penetrate. I'm not trying to say U-238 shells wont get you sick if you carry it in your pocket for a few weeks. It probably will. I am saying though that 238 is the undesired isotope for weapons grade materials so it has been relegated to conventional shells and for breeding to Pu-239.
Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site
What makes Russian oil a thorn in the side of OPEC? Russian oil sets its own price and is on a reserve large enough to force OPEC to sell at lower prices in so as to not lose market share. Iraq sits on the 2nd largest reserve in the world as we know it and thus could dominate oil prices and drive market share if it stayed independent of OPEC.
I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.
however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.
The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .
So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.
Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.
my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww\
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
controlling the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world is no major payoff. Privatizing Iraq's business structure is no major payoff. I guess billions of $ in contracts are minor payoffs.
No, I'm not joking.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
Originally posted by dmz
Wasn't one the first two bombs U-238 based? [potentially dumb question] can't you harvest U-238 from seawater?
No, and No. U-238 requires very high energy neutrons to fission. U-238 is bread to Pu-239 wich like U-235, will fission using low energy neutrons (less than 1MeV if I recall from a past life as a physics major).
Can you get U-238 from SW? yes you can get all naturally occuring elements from SW. The question is how much SW is required? You'de need an entire ocean to get significant amounts of any trace element from SW.
Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not joking.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.
Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.
Originally posted by dmz
No, I'm not joking.
Is the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil supply? How? If it is, for how long? Is Iraq a member of OPEC? Will the oil be sold at market value. Lay it on me. Speak!
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
You give the impression of a kid with fingers covering his ears and yelling "no, no, it can't be true. It can't be true!!"
Originally posted by dmz
Billions of $ in contracts? That sounds extreme.
You could at least look it up.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Faust9: you seem to know a lot about that subject. Could you please tell me if light water nuclear reactors can be used to make weapons?
Most reactors are light water reactors. Heavy water reactors use Deuterium oxide or tritium oxide. Both Deuterium and tritium are water molecules with heavy isotopes of Hydrogen (H-2 and H-3 respectivly). Heavy water rfeactors are used mostly for research or for 238 reactors. 238 reactors are not used in comercial applications because the cost of producing heavy water exceeds the cost of uranium enrichment in most cases. The really crazy reactors are the ones that use liquid sodium as a moderator.
Its been awile since I've had chemistry so I might have the chemical names wrong for heavy water but the isotope names should be correct.
Halliburton's connection to Cheney was a constant theme. Democrats have seized on the issue of whether Cheney ? who receives deferred compensation from the company ? was linked to a decision to award to Halliburton no-bid Iraq contracts, which have a potential payout of $18 billion.
Link
There are hundreds of sources where you can find the info.
Faust9: os is that a yes then? They can be used to make weapons?
Edit. Just re-read your post Faust. I think I know the answer now.
Originally posted by faust9
No, Iraq is not a voting member of OPEC so in theory they could set their own market price as the Russinans do.
Yes, we are controlling the oil supply via contracts the Halliburton and Bechtel.
But they are a member [yes?]
on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?
on the nuke thing, check out this quote:
The first nuclear weapon used in anger was Little Boy. Untested, it was detonated over Hiroshima with a yield equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT, or 15 kilotons. Little Boy used 132.8 pounds of HEU enriched to a little over 80 percent in the fissile isotope U-235. It was 10 feet long, 28 inches wide, and weighed 9000 pounds.
is this correct?
Originally posted by giant
You could at least look it up.
Yes, but when it is so blatantly obvious why GWB took out SH to fill his personal bank account to some here it should be straightforward to say why.
Originally posted by dmz
But they are a member [yes?]
on Halliburton and Bechtel...then they are handling distribution and giving American interests favorable treatment?
on the nuke thing, check out this quote:
is this correct?
Yes, this is correct, but U-235 is not U-238. U-238 is normally a beneign isotope is will ony fission if exposed to neutrons of a specific energy. U-235 has a larger cross section for absorption for low energy neutrons (which are easire to come by) thus it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Remember though 15kg's of 235 are needed for well designed bombs. Only 0.72% of natural uraninum is U-235, the other 99% is U-238. You need about One metric ton of yellow cake to produce those 15kg's. One metric ton is about 5000lbs BTW. Also the purification process relies on Flourine gas in a 1-1 ratio with the uranium. So that's another key to the puzzle which is hard to hide.
Originally posted by Gilsch
You give the impression of a kid with fingers covering his ears and yelling "no, no, it can't be true. It can't be true!!"
Actually, I'm asking for you to engage in an old technique known as "explaining yourself."
Originally posted by faust9
Yes, Iraq is an official member, but I dare say BushCo will ensure that changes. Iraq could drive the price of oil as easily as Saudi Arabi if and when it gets to full production capability.
That would make things complicated for SA.
Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site
argh I said 235 when it should have been 238
Originally posted by dmz
That would make things complicated for SA.
Pretty interesting stuff guys. Some good points. I'm off to Frontline's Web site
What makes Russian oil a thorn in the side of OPEC? Russian oil sets its own price and is on a reserve large enough to force OPEC to sell at lower prices in so as to not lose market share. Iraq sits on the 2nd largest reserve in the world as we know it and thus could dominate oil prices and drive market share if it stayed independent of OPEC.
Originally posted by dmz
Yes, but when it is so blatantly obvious why GWB took out SH to fill his personal bank account to some here it should be straightforward to say why.
No one said that. But I doubt his wallet, and dad's(Carlyle Group)is gonna take a hit over this.
Actually, I'm asking for you to engage in an old technique known as "explaining yourself."
We were, you still didn't want to get it. Thanks for "contributing".
There is none so blind as he who does not want to see
Originally posted by dmz
is this correct?
My understanding is that both Fat Man and Trinity were Plutonium. Little Boy was not.
Originally posted by dmz
I'm off to Frontline's Web site
Why not go to the best sources? www.nuclearweaponarchive.org www.fas.org
As for saddam, there wasn't a chance in hell he was getting a nuke for a variety of reasons, most of them explained way back in the early 90s.
Originally posted by Gilsch
Link
There are hundreds of sources where you can find the info.
Faust9: os is that a yes then? They can be used to make weapons?
Edit. Just re-read your post Faust. I think I know the answer now.
I'm sorry for not giving a simple yes/no response. Can lightwater reactors be used to produce fissle material? Yes.
Also, giant you are correct about FatMan, LittleBoy, and Trinity. I should learn to answer questions in a more direct manner.
I think that it only sounds like denigrating the reasons for the war by saying that they are economic . . . the reasons were Ideologic first and the economics (which appear, from outside to be: well connected American Companies getting their coffers stuffed etc) are part of the ideology.
however, that ideology demands that the US remain in a position of ascendency in economic terms: meaning, that the ideologues felt that the US would need more say in the markets in the future, especially as the whole 'peak oil' stuff hits the fan . .
but
they also want to have the markets opened up to other controling forces such as the "democracy' that they imagined would flower in the region because of the war. This would release that region from a retrograde economic monopoly: OPEC . .
at least that is how I imagine that they view it.
The problem is that the ideology sees ideological friends in the well connected companies (Bechtel Hali oil etc and etc) so they don't see it as the rest of the world sees it . . . they imagine that it is all for the best in the long run to have people they can count on ideologically behind them . .
The thing is is that this sense of 'trust' due to shared values in a cause is lost amid the shuffle, if it ever existed, and what takes over is a network of economic and power interests which assumes a shared goal is being met through what otherwise would be pure power/profit motivations . . . the ideology is only a myth that accompanies the power connections . . .
So the problem then is that the ideology is part and parcel a Capitalist ideology that fancies itself as being for 'Democracy' and rights but is really about economic power supplanting any other form of exchange and value . . . nobody in the game would themselves see this about what they are doing . . . because they only see what allows them to continue doing what they are doing . . . which is conquer and expand their markets . . . they tell themselves that it is self evident that it is for democracy and rights for their markets to win because that is what they share with all of their inter-connected power supporting 'friends'.
Ideology is a thin vaneer of self-deception . . . I wouldn't say that the truth is economic but it is partly so . . at least much more so than the ideologues would admit to themselves.
my darker side simply sees the whole situation is Medieval, except it is masked by the 21st century illusions of "democracy" and 'nation states' . . .
meaning that what we have is really just a small set of Economic Royalists playing games of power and territory with serfs and economic slaves . .. .naawwww