The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

World given N-bomb warning

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:54 am

December 14, 2009 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA may be forced to re-acquire nuclear weapons to tackle deteriorating Asian security, a government-funded defence think tank has warned.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute analyst Rod Lyons said a loss of confidence in US nuclear deterrence or the appearance of a new nuclear state in Asia could force Australia to take the nuclear arms option.

The comments will embarrass Kevin Rudd ahead of the launch of the report from the international commission on nuclear disarmament during his visit to Japan this week.

Former prime minister John Gorton gave tacit approval for a nuclear weapons program in 1969 when he endorsed plans for a nuclear power industry and backed proposals by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission for a reactor capable of generating weapons-grade plutonium.

His successor, Billy McMahon, scrapped the nuclear power program in June 1971, and the nuclear weapons option has appeared to be closed since Australia ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1973.


Dr Lyons said Australian policies aimed to achieve regional nuclear stability by establishing a benign strategic environment and stressing non-proliferation, arms control and the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

But he warned that Australia might need a different approach in the face of increased regional nuclear technology.

He cited suggestions in the 2006 Switkowski report on nuclear power that it would take Australia up to 15 years to develop a civilian reactor.

"Australia might be able to conduct an emergency nuclear weapon construction effort in rather less time, especially if it were to focus on uranium enrichment to provide a uranium-235 bomb," he said.

"In that case, we wouldn't need to build a reactor. But enrichment is still a highly challenging exercise."

Dr Lyons suggested policymakers might prefer "nuclear hedging" -- maintaining, or appearing to maintain, the capability to acquire nuclear weapons in a relatively short time.

"Nuclear hedging is a strategy with remarkably long legs -- it can be pursued at a modest tempo over decades," he said.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:57 am

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=962

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1342

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=960




separation of isotopes by laser excitation.

May 27, 2006

NUCLEAR power could become significantly cheaper thanks to world-leading laser technology being developed in Sydney, Australia.

A team of about 25 scientists, engineers and technicians at Lucas Heights, home of Australia's only atomic reactor, has succeeded where other nations, with budgets stretching into billions of dollars, have failed.

After a decade of work they have tested a new way to process, or enrich, the uranium needed to drive power plants.

The technology, said Michael Goldsworthy, a nuclear scientist and leader of the project, may halve enrichment costs, which he estimated accounted for 30 per cent of the price of nuclear fuel.

Power stations are fuelled by a specific blend of two types of uranium. About 5 per cent must be uranium 235, with the rest made from uranium 238. But natural uranium is 0.7 per cent U-235 and 99.3 per cent U-238.

There are at present only two methods for sifting uranium atoms, or isotopes, to create the right mix. One, called diffusion, involves forcing uranium through filters. Being lighter, U-235 passes through more easily and is thus separated from its heavier counterpart. The second method, widely adopted in the 1970s, uses centrifuges to spin the heavier and lighter atoms apart.

Both, said Dr Goldsworthy, are "very crude. You have to repeat the process over and over," consuming enormous amounts of electricity. The spinning method requires "thousands and thousands of centrifuges".

The Lucas Heights team, working for Dr Goldsworthy's research company Silex (Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation), is the only one in the world developing a third technique that involves streaming uranium through lasers tuned to a frequency that only "sees" the U-235 atoms.

The lasers electrically charge the atoms, which become trapped in an electromagnetic field and drawn to a metal plate for collection. "It's absolutely cutting-edge technology, incredibly difficult to develop," Dr Goldsworthy said.

During the 1980s and '90s the US, France, Britain, Germany, South Africa and Japan attempted to develop laser-enrichment technology, but all failed. One US effort involving 500 scientists gave up after spending $2 billion.

"By world standards, we have worked on a shoestring budget," Dr Goldsworthy said, estimating the "more elegant and sophisticated" Australian concept at about $65 million.

This week Silex, which has no government funding, signed a deal giving General Electric the rights to commercialise the technology. The first laser-enrichment plant will be built in the US, but others could follow in Australia.

Dr Goldsworthy hopes that in 20 years the laser technology could be enriching a third of the world's power station uranium, returning "handsome royalty streams" to Australia.

Asked if the Federal Government, which this week speculated Australia could "value-add" mined uranium through enrichment, was aware of his team's progress, Dr Goldsworthy said that, due to regulation, "we report to the Government regularly".
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:39 am

Claims of another Australian nuke test.

http://www.rense.com/general61/earthqua ... misand.htm


Recent earthquakes

http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/listQuakes

Date Time (UTC)
hh:mm:ss Latitude Longitude Depth (km) Magnitude Location (click for map and further information)
14/12/2009 15:38:12 -7.4853 128.5355 100 5.1 Banda Sea
14/12/2009 08:54:07 -6.0715 154.5513 92 5.9 Solomon Islands
14/12/2009 03:05:18 -10.109 123.726 0 5.4 Timor Region, Sunda ARC
12/12/2009 12:16:01 -27.127 113.7516 10 2.4 NW of Kalbarri WA
11/12/2009 12:33:39 -20.916 -174.436 13 5.4 Tonga Islands
11/12/2009 03:37:00 -12.422 166.4262 90 5.1 Santa Cruz Islands
11/12/2009 00:10:33 -17.774 -178.457 590 5.1 Fiji Islands Region. Nearest sation NIU
10/12/2009 15:06:43 6.6035 126.4484 50 5.5 Mindanao, Philippines
10/12/2009 02:30:52 53.44 152.7 650 6.1 Sea of Okhotsk
09/12/2009 21:29:00 2.499 95.951 5 6.0 Northern Sumatra, Indonesia
09/12/2009 09:46:08 -22.229 171.0334 84 6.4 Southeast of Loyalty Islands. Nearset station COE
08/12/2009 11:37:58 5.601 125.876 108 5.0 Mindanao, Philippines
08/12/2009 00:11:35 -4.8716 102.9452 73 5.1 Southern Sumatra
07/12/2009 22:06:12 .1069 97.0933 6 5.2 Northern Sumatra
07/12/2009 13:30:02 -42.07 147.6703 10 3.4 Near Swansea, Tasmania
06/12/2009 06:44:23 -8.1968 119.2271 0 5.0 Flores sea, Indonesia
05/12/2009 22:56:12 -17.891 -178.35 581 5.5 Fiji Islands Region
05/12/2009 16:43:12 .295 126.029 64 5.1 Northern Molucca Sea
05/12/2009 15:40:36 -22.036 114.0132 21 2.9 SW of Exmouth WA
04/12/2009 17:52:00 1.237 127.439 163 5.1 Halmahera, Indonesia
04/12/2009 12:03:00 -19.62 169.5031 195 5.0 Vanuatu Islands
03/12/2009 06:12:43 -56.218 -122.357 100 5.8 Southern East Pacific Rise
02/12/2009 21:01:50 -18.007 -178.754 641 5.8 Fiji Islands Region
01/12/2009 19:43:00 -16.97 167.709 55 5.5 Vanuatu
01/12/2009 16:11:11 5.0557 127.4831 115 5.5 Philippine Islands Region
01/12/2009 11:40:48 13.2171 92.3582 80 5.5 Andaman Islands
01/12/2009 03:33:06 -30.401 117.036 0 2.1 SW of Kalannie WA
30/11/2009 01:13:16 -21.708 -176.054 188 5.1 Fiji Islands Region
29/11/2009 20:09:10 5.212 126.187 41 5.4 Mindanao, Philippines
29/11/2009 08:10:09 5.264 126.7118 0 4.8 Mindanao, Philippines
29/11/2009 05:12:28 -7.0306 130.4673 13 5.0 Tanimbar Islands Region, Indonesia
29/11/2009 02:28:05 5.3613 126.5886 58 5.3 Mindanao, Philippines
28/11/2009 18:10:14 5.272 126.43 50 6.0 Mindanao, Philippines
28/11/2009 11:53:35 -10.91 119.06 0 4.8 Sumba Region, Indonesia, Sunda Arc
28/11/2009 09:21:22 -28.83 -177.033 52 6.2 Kerdamec Islands Region
28/11/2009 06:04:26 -11.292 119.2446 0 5.7 South of Sumba, Indonesia, Sunda ARC
28/11/2009 04:24:59 -10.645 118.9432 0 4.8 South of Sumbawa, Indonesia, Sunda Arc
28/11/2009 00:04:31 -10.474 118.9458 0 5.1 South of Sumbawa, Indonesia, Sunda Arc
27/11/2009 23:36:07 -10.684 118.882 12 5.1 South of Sumbawa, Indonesia, Sunda Arc
26/11/2009 15:42:19 -30.291 -177.043 67 5.3 Kerdamec Islands, New Zealand
26/11/2009 13:35:23 -33.623 138.342 0 1.9 E of Brinkworth SA
26/11/2009 12:38:54 -33.55 138.3616 8 2.8 Near Brinkworth, SA
26/11/2009 11:33:00 -3.4077 136.1156 29 5.3 Irian Java Region, Indonesia
26/11/2009 06:13:05 13.69 93.133 71 5.1 Andaman Islands
26/11/2009 04:18:03 -18.088 -175.648 240 4.8 Tonga Islands Region
25/11/2009 10:05:53 -15.912 -172.053 61 5.1 Samoa Islands Region
25/11/2009 01:14:28 -5.7947 146.2739 110 5.2 Eastern Papua New Guinea
24/11/2009 12:47:18 -20.591 -174.087 33 6.9 Tonga Islands Region
23/11/2009 18:36:37 -12.538 166.1328 40 5.4 Santa Cruz Islands
23/11/2009 08:15:48 -19.732 134.0347 0 2.8 Tennant Creek NT
22/11/2009 22:47:28 -31.458 179.587 433 5.9 Kermadec Islands Region
22/11/2009 12:05:44 -27.216 116.185 10 2.0 SE of Meeberrie WA
22/11/2009 07:48:23 -17.737 -178.641 534 6.2 Fiji Region
21/11/2009 19:30:22 -15.354 -173.077 0 5.2 Samoa Islands Region
20/11/2009 20:00:37 -30.396 117.021 0 1.3 SW of Kalannie WA
19/11/2009 23:07:28 -.729 134.589 9 5.2 Irian Jaya Region, Indonesia
19/11/2009 01:14:41 2.8839 128.2798 57 5.4 Halmahera, Indonesia
18/11/2009 18:03:58 -40.402 175.732 43 5.0 North Island, New Zealand
18/11/2009 02:17:06 -9.396 107.352 19 5.2 South of Java, Indonesia
17/11/2009 15:30:47 52.151 -131.378 11 6.6 Queen Charlotte Islands Region
17/11/2009 12:27:16 -28.1 136.157 10 2.5 SE of Oodnadatta SA
17/11/2009 00:39:09 5.7914 127.1026 114 5.3 Philippine Islands Region
16/11/2009 19:58:57 6.641 126.471 63 5.4 Mindanao, Philippines
16/11/2009 05:56:18 -14.578 167.294 234 5.2 Vanuatu Islands Region
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:01 am

Uranium mining is the process of extraction of uranium ore from the ground. As uranium ore is mostly present at relatively low concentrations, most uranium mining is very volume-intensive, and thus tends to be undertaken as open-pit mining. It is also undertaken in only a small number of countries of the world, as the resource is rare.

The worldwide production of uranium in 2008 amounted to 43,853 tonnes, of which 20% was mined in Canada. Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia are the top three producers and together account for 59% of world uranium production. Other important uranium producing countries in excess of 1000 tonnes per year are Namibia, Russia, Niger, Uzbekistan, and the United States.

A prominent use of uranium from mining is as fuel for nuclear power plants. As of 2008, known uranium ore resources which can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about a century, based on current consumption rates.

After mining uranium ores, they are normally processed by grinding the ore materials to a uniform particle size and then treating the ore to extract the uranium by chemical leaching. The milling process commonly yields dry powder-form material consisting of natural uranium, "yellowcake," which is sold on the uranium market as U3O8.


Production in Australia rose significantly to 10,115 tU3O8 (22.3 million pounds) in 2007 from 19.7 million pounds in 2006, securing its position as the second largest uranium producing country, most of the production gain coming from increased operational performance and an increase in the grade of the ore mined.

Australia has the world's largest uranium reserves - 40 percent of the planet's known reserves. The majority of these reserves are located in South Australia with other important deposits in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Almost all the uranium is exported under strict International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to satisfy the Australian people and government that none of the uranium is used in nuclear weapons. Australian uranium is used strictly for electricity production.[citation needed]

The Olympic Dam operation run by BHP Billiton in South Australia is combined with mining of copper, gold, and silver, and has reserves of global significance. There are currently three operating uranium mines in Australia, and several more have been proposed. The expansion of Australia's uranium mines is supported by the Federal Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government headed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The ALP abandoned its long-standing and controversial "no new uranium mines" policy in April 2007. One of the more controversial proposals was Jabiluka, to be built surrounded by the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park. The existing Ranger Uranium Mine is also surrounded by the National Park as the mine area was not included in the original listing of the Park.

Uranium mining and export and related nuclear issues have often been the subject of public debate, and the anti-nuclear movement in Australia has a long history


Secret nuclear testing at Woomera

Woomera is an Australian Defence Force facility supporting the RAAF, Woomera Test Range, the western world's largest defence systems test and evaluation range, and an Australian strategic national asset. Woomera village is a critical part of the ADF's 'Woomera Capability.' The town itself is located in the 'outback' desert area of South Australia, approximately 488 km/305 mls north of Adelaide along the Stuart Highway. It is 177 km north of Port Augusta, and 80 km south of the mining centre of Roxby Downs. The Transcontinental Railway passes Woomera at the nearby Pimba rail siding.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:27 am

Secrets Lies & Uranium Enrichment.

On November 26th, 2004 Greenpeace Australian released a report
"Secret's Lies and Uranium Enrichment" revealing a 30 year secret nuclear research project at Lucas Heights, Australia's only nuclear reactor, in Sydney.

The Silex laser uranium enrichment project had varying levels of US monetary support over the protected by US-Australia bilateral agreement that hid the project as 'protected data'. Successive Australian governments have supported the nuclear enrichment research. Despite being privatised in recent years the Silex project continues to occupy taxpayer-funded public space and use the resources at Lucas Heights. It has violated the rights of local citizens to know of the danger they are living in the vicinity of.

The laser uranium enrichment project has been described by UK physicist Dr Frank Barnaby as a "considerable risk" to nuclear proliferation, being a cheaper process using smaller facilities to create weapons grade uranium

Silex Systems Ltd (formerly Australian Nuclear Enterprises Pty Ltd)

Image
The Silex laser

Australia has the largest uranium deposits in the world.

& 30% of the world thorium reserves.


Australia bans India uranium sale.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188835.stm

Image
Olympic Dam
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:00 am

SECRETS, LIES AND URANIUM ENRICHMENT

The classified Silex project at Lucas Heights

http://www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/ ... report.pdf
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:12 am

Nuclear weapons are obsolete. The better WMD is dropping guided large rocket accelerated weights from space, just as much devastation but no radioactive fallout so occupying troops can move in right away.

Dropping a 2321.98 Metric Ton Weight from Orbit at 25880 km/h will yield approximately 60 Terajoules the equivelent of the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Increasing the masses velocity will increase the energy released. Admittedly it would take 24 trips with an Energia rocket to put this much mass into orbit (unless you grabbed a NEO). But the benefit of nearly unstoppable kinetic energy attack with radioactive falloutand immediate occupation options makes nuclear weapons obsolete because orbital bombing is both strategic and tactical while nuclear is only strategic and can lead to worse consequences including MAD.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby rath » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:44 am

sure, if we are talking, expansive weapons that may never work in the future, why not just set of a, dark matter bomb.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Aquatank » Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:19 pm

IMO grabbing a NEO is pretty easy.
Aquatank
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: Midwest USA

Postby rath » Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:55 am

Aquatank wrote:IMO grabbing a NEO is pretty easy.


Aquatank wrote:Nuclear weapons are obsolete. The better WMD is dropping guided large rocket accelerated weights from space, just as much devastation but no radioactive fallout so occupying troops can move in right away.

Dropping a 2321.98 Metric Ton Weight from Orbit at 25880 km/h will yield approximately 60 Terajoules the equivelent of the Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Increasing the masses velocity will increase the energy released. Admittedly it would take 24 trips with an Energia rocket to put this much mass into orbit (unless you grabbed a NEO). But the benefit of nearly unstoppable kinetic energy attack with radioactive falloutand immediate occupation options makes nuclear weapons obsolete because orbital bombing is both strategic and tactical while nuclear is only strategic and can lead to worse consequences including MAD.


Nuclear weapons are obsolete. The better WMD is dropping guided large rocket accelerated weights from space, just as much devastation but no radioactive fallout so occupying troops can move in right away.


1) Nuclear weapons, are far an away the easy & cheep option for Australia .... given we already own half the world uranium/yellow cake & thorium.

2) What makes you think Australia would seek to occupy any nation if Australia used a nuclear weapon.

China has what 2 billion people, Europe nations have 50-to 400 million people in each country.
& the population of the middle east is what .... ???

Now compare that to Australia who's entire population is 21 million & what some 21000 people serve in the modern Australian military.

Australian could not occupy any nation, regardless of the weapon used.

& that is what makes a nuclear Australia a dangers one.

Australia has no fear of fallout so it can take a scorch & burn policy with out fear.

Think about it, Australia is so very far away from every other nation.

China next to Japan, North Korea ect ect ........ France, Germany, England & the entire European continent of some 35 nation, all so close to each other.

The USA, Canada & South America all so close to each other.

A Nuclear bomb explosion in Germany ....France .... England, or anywhere in the Eurpean Union will mean radioactive fallout in all Neighboring countries.

Same goes if a bomb goes of in the American Asia ..... whatever.

However ........ Australia is so far away & has no borders with any other nation Making border expansion imposable to start with' anyway.


& since Australia hasn't got the population to have a large human foot solder force,
Which would allow, occupying troops to move in right away (not an option for Australia)

So given the reality of Australia's population size & geographical location.

What would Australia care if the northern hemisphere is radio active & unlivable.


Australia has plenty of land ..... minerals ....gas oil..... water & food.

& there aint any other nation with as much that would require Australia to occupy & raid another nation, like Japan or any European / Asian nation.

As none of them have anything Australia would need.

((( Unlike Japan in WW2. )))

Japan has little or no natural resources of its own. So was forced to invade other nations.
(Australia has an abundance )

& as you point out, .......

A nuclear attack would prevent occupying forces from moving in to secure any assets.

& as i pointed out, if Australia did one day use nuclear weapons on another nation, all of whom are in the northern hemisphere, It would not have any down sides for Australia.

Any nuclear fallout would occur in the northern hemisphere over Asia / Europe or the middle east.

& the Nuclear winters & ongoing deaths & deformity's in future generations would also be isolated in Asia / Europe or the middle east. ( northern hemisphere )



So to sum up, Australia could take a scorched earth policy & not be effected by ANY nuclear fallout, as we are in the southern hemisphere & far away from any side effects.

A nuclear winter will not effect Australia's food supply or water supply or environment.

The people in Australia wont die from the Explosion.

So really As far as setting a nuclear bomb of in the Northern Hemisphere, there is no down side for Australia, that i can see.


Meaning the only consequence to Australia, would be from a Nuclear attack from another nation

( Mutually assured destruction )


& for Mutually assured destruction to be an effective deterrent BOTH party's must have Nuclear weapons.

Ergo this topic.

Australia has stated the Nuclear nations need to cut their nuclear stockpile's ...........

Or it's nukes for everybody.

Australia ....... Then our mates ......... Then who knows from there.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Next

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests