U.S. ending Saddam's nuke legacy
Last stash of uranium removed from Iraq reaches Canadian port.
U.S. ending Saddam's nuke legacy

By The Associated Press
Published: July 6, 2008

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
Advertisement

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.

What about yellowcake?
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to Canadian uranium producer Cameco Corp.

The deal culminated more than a year of intense initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 8,500-mile trip to Montreal.

The mission also linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.

Toolbar sponsored by: David Stanley Ford
Bookmark and Share





Comments

Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).

   
Phil, I agree. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Oceania is at war with Eastasia; Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Or was it Eurasia? Hmm ...
Donna, Oklahoma City - Jul 7, 2008 1:25 PM
Report: Offensive language
Donna, what you say is true but don't make the mistake of assuming that anything will change with a new president (regardless which party is in power).
Alongside Saddam, people need to ask about other tyrants and dictators such as why the US tried to assassinate Castro from the 1950's onward (he would not take orders from the US political machine) or what happened to Qaddafi, who was among the most hated at one time to being almost invisible today.
Castro was hated by almost every president from Ike to Bush II and most tried many methods of having him murdered. There were over 600 verified plots hatched to get rid of Castro. Why? Then again, why did the US impose sanctions if not to try to punish the Cuban people enough to spur them into action to remove him, which if course, failed?
Stalin, Ferdinand Marcos (Phillipines), Pinochet (Chile), Shah Pahlevi (Iran), Mobutu (Zaire), Diem (S. Viet Nam), Park Yung Hee (S. Korea), Hussein II (Morocco), "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier (Haiti) and many more were considered "friends" of the US despite many instances of murder (political purges and mass murder, often with the assistance or at the urging of the CIA), embezzlement and other atrocities aimed at their own people.
The only thing that matters to whichever party is in power is that these tyrants and dictators are "friendly" with the US. They are no better than those the US opposes and which are sometimes switched from "friend" to "enemy" or vise versa.


Phil, Yukon - Jul 7, 2008 8:38 AM
Report: Offensive language
Y'know, I just don't think that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam from the mid-80s is a product of the "liberal media" ... and isn't it funny how the worm turns? One day we need Saddam to help us beat the nasty Iranians ... the next, he's evil and horrible and we have to take him out because he's got WMD (oops, no he doesn't, he used to - courtesy of the good ol' U.S. of by-God A. - but then he used them on his own people after Bush The First made a promise he didn't keep) and/or because they're in bed with al Qaeda and have 9/11 ties. What-EVER! Just 196 more days of this malarkey, and it can't be over soon enough.
Donna, Oklahoma City - Jul 6, 2008 11:51 PM
Report: Offensive language
Phil, he hasn't been a friend to us since the mid 80's or before. I suppose time is relative, but that seems like a long time to me.
Lawerence, Oklahoma City - Jul 6, 2008 10:51 PM
Report: Offensive language
Deb, 'assumption' is the mother of mistake.
Y'all need to remember that Saddam was a 'friend' of the US not too long ago.
I don't hate Bush any more or less than any other lying politician but I know manure when someone tries to feed it to me.
From what we know about Iraq, are they capable of enriching it to the point of use in nuclear weapons? I doubt it if what I hear is true, that they don't even have reliable phone or electric service.

Phil, Yukon - Jul 6, 2008 7:36 PM
Report: Offensive language
A few questions for "doubting" Phil: Q1: What are the possible uses of yellowcake? A: refine it into a higher grade of unranium to enrich into weapons grade or for a nuclear reactor to create power. Was Iraq building peaceful nuclear power facilities? Q2: If the yellowcake was so harmless, why the concern over its falling into the hands of our enemies? A: It isn't harmless. Q3: Do you think Sadaam was stonewalling the U.S. and the U.N. inspectors purely to impress his audience? A: Nope. Looks like he had something to hide.
Phil - you sound a little like a member of the the Bushhater crowd.
Deb, Edmond - Jul 6, 2008 3:30 PM
Report: Offensive language
They weren't stockpiling rocks or cannon balls, it was uranium! With the amount of oil that they have, I doubt seriously if they were planning on using it to establish an alternative fuel source. You obviously don't agree with Bush, and that is understandable, but don't let that blind you to Saddam's uranium cache. Unless of course this is all propaganda, and the uranium came from somewhere else. If that's the case, then feel free to continue hate Bush.
Robert, Taft - Jul 6, 2008 8:55 AM
Report: Offensive language
Warheads designed to carry gas, now consentrated uranium. The network media propogates lie after lie. Not only did Saddam intend to kill in masses, he already DID IT to his own people! History will judge this war and this president. 60 Minutes and Nightline prove what Adolf Hitler said, repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth.
M, Oklahoma City - Jul 6, 2008 9:09 AM
Report: Offensive language
It's a long distance from yellowcake to nuclear fission. Yellowcake is not WMD or even evidence of it any more than a rock is evidence of a cannonball.
Phil, Yukon - Jul 6, 2008 8:03 AM
Report: Offensive language
WOW, thought they never found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction? A "huge stockpile [550 metric tons] of concentrated natural uranium"..."can be enriched for use in ... nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment."
Larry, Oklahoma City - Jul 6, 2008 4:00 AM
Report: Offensive language