MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina contributed to Israel nuclear bomb supplying ‘yellowcake” says Foreign Policy
Argentina may have sold Israel material necessary for making a nuclear bomb in the 1960s, Foreign Policy reported on Monday, citing newly declassified US archive documents. Israel has never clearly admitted to having a nuclear weapons program in the country, although it is has been estimated that the Jewish State has dozens of nuclear warheads. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesGo figure and all this time the Arab states have been saying it was the “Great Satan” that helped them develop the bomb!
Jul 05th, 2013 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how Argentina's newest bestest friend, Tehran, is taking this revelation?
Jul 05th, 2013 - 05:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or are they hoping that Argentina will supply them the material to make their own bomb?
If Argentina does, then it will really be finished. They're teetering on the edge, and the implementation of embargoes would destroy the country completely. No exports or imports allowed.
They'd have plenty to eat, mainly soy, and I suppose they'd have to burn the soy for fuel too.
Argentine citizens everywhere must be praying that CFK isn't that mad or deluded...oh wait...they're screwed.
Does Argentina, today, have the expertise, the plant and the wherewithal to produce in bulk yellow-cake, let alone weapons-grade material?
Jul 05th, 2013 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0How does this square with TinMan's “Nuclear threat to the South Atlantic ”(see http://en.mercopress.com/2013/07/02/timerman-warns-about-south-atlantic-nuclear-threat ) FFS?
Jul 05th, 2013 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 04 Steveu (#)
Jul 05th, 2013 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've hit the nail on the head.
So an open invitation to all the unthinking Trolls.
Argentina supplies materials for nuclear weapons.
So will Tinhead be apologizing for his rant?
As it appears that Argentina is the country responsible for nuclear-threat.
Oh and the cries of militarization of the South Atlantic.
Would that be the 20 THOUSAND land mines Argentina illegally laid on the Falklands in 1982 and has yet to remove.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8564061.stm
Argentina signed the Ottawa Treaty banning land mines in 1997. But has yet to remove a single mine from the Falklands.
Quietly the British have been doing this at our cost. Presumably you have not contributed to the de-mining because it is not your territory. Otherwise you would be in breach of the treaty and we know Argentina never breaches treaties.
“According to the report, the US was concerned that Israeli possession of nuclear weapons would destabilize the Middle East and hurt worldwide efforts to limit proliferation.”
Jul 05th, 2013 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lol the Americans were right, what a shame the US government didn't do something about it!.
@3
Jul 05th, 2013 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Does Argentina, today, have the expertise, the plant and the wherewithal to produce in bulk yellow-cake, let alone weapons-grade material?”
Yes to,both.
Production of yellowcake is a process whereby ore is milled and refined by chemical process (acid leaching).
Further refinement to 20% for use in power production and beyond for weapons grade - is achieved by gas centrifuge purification.
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-64461288128980/
@2
Iran has uranium mines capable of producing yellowcake pre-curser, although it is suspected limited supply and poor grade. They have recently claimed discovery of new sources of ore.
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-64461288128980/
@3 Doesn't seem like a very difficult process. Yellowcake is said to be produced in all countries where uranium ore is mined.
Jul 05th, 2013 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@5 Don't go on about it. We all know argieland doesn't comply with treaties. It doesn't even comply with the UN Charter!
@6 However, it IS nice to know that Israel has the capability of splattering Iran and the mad mullahs across the landscape. You know, I think I hate mouthy arab looney muslims about as much as I hate mouthy argie looney imperialists.
They may just be pulling a fast one on the Mullahs and selling them turmeric. That would be TWO things I approve of w.r.t. CFK.
Jul 05th, 2013 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trunce! #7
Jul 05th, 2013 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the link but:
I think this does not constitute PROOF that Argentina is able to produce fission bombs:
upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/10/26/
“Argentina-to-start-uranium-enrichment-next-year.”
'Fernandez said the planned start of uranium enrichment in 2011 signaled the relaunch of Argentina's nuclear program.'
Poor Argentina, they condemn the world, yet have nasty secrets of their own,
Jul 05th, 2013 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hypercrit, liars, two faced, back stabbers, deceitful, untrustworthy,
Deluded, brainwashed, indoctrinated, crafty,
Disloyal , thieves , bullies , abusers ,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Still
Punishment will be served,
They will get a go at the world cup , and the youth games. ??
What a funny old world we live in..lol.
.
@10 Geoff
Jul 05th, 2013 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Agreed, but the path to producing weapons is complex, and I am a casual but interested observer.
Obtaining a weapon can be achieved in a variety of method - reactor production, or gas centrifuge.
I make no claim that the present regime has an interest in producing weapons - although the era of Junta did show interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The complexities of acquiring weapons are nicely explained in this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Much rather the Israelis have nuclear bombs to counterbalance the Mad Mullas of Iran.
Jul 05th, 2013 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 I think you should have read the whole of the article you quoted. From the third paragraph onward, it questions what argieland is up to. See how it suggests that “strategic nuclear resources” is an unusual term for a civilian-use nuclear programme. It notes that the military programmme was “put on the back burner” but never abandoned. Now take a look at the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Notice how long it took argieland to ratify that treaty. More than 26 years! Why would that be, do you think? Let me postulate a scenario. Argieland now starts supplying yellowcake or enriched uranium to Iran. CFK either ignores or repudiates the treaty. This is no problem, argieland has a history of doing such things. Now argieland has a some options. It can smuggle a small “home-built” nuclear device on to the Falklands and then threaten to detonate it. It can smuggle that same sort of device to the UK. Or it could import missile systems/warheads from Iran and threaten to bombard the Falklands. This is, of course, speculation. But it fits with her modus operandi. Stealing the Falklands is one of her main planks. Just how far would she go? There are so many individuals in the argie “government” that are, to put it mildly, untrustworthy. CFK, Tinboy, PutridJelli, Randazzo. Now look back 30-odd years. Argieland “calculated” that the reported withdrawal of HMS Endurance meant that the UK wouldn't respond to the invasion of the Falklands with force. It would get the UK to the negotiating table. It's all part of the “game”. Today, maybe CFK has been reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Can you see the potential similarities? Except that the USA took action against a threat only 104 miles away. Britain would have to respond to a threat nearly 8,000 miles away. This also goes with Tinboy's attempts to get Britain to disclose the location of British submarines. Those cruise missiles are a worry!
Jul 06th, 2013 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your CommentIt would be the biggest mistake Argentina would ever make.
Jul 06th, 2013 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thinking the other side will not retaliate,
She should read our history,
Rather than her own vanity…
.
@15 - Briton
Jul 07th, 2013 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0But CFK is stark raving mad with power. She believes that because she can do anything in Argentina (just ignore the constitution or change it and apply it retrospectively), that she can do the same in the rest of the world.
She has surrounded herself with people who are just as barking mad, I doubt there is a reasonable voice among them, who all tell her what she wants to hear.
Look at how Moreno responded to a question from a reporter - at a public event no less! He screamed, foamed at the mouth, and started calling the reporters traitors!
These are not sane people, and we can't trust that they'll understand that the UK would retaliate to any threat, conventional or nuclear.
We'll just have to hope that the Argentine people will end the wicked witch and her flying monkeys for good. If not, it'll be the Argentine people that'll suffer.
I agree with you,
Jul 07th, 2013 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0and again the innocent will suffer because their leader has deluded dreams ..
Re the possibility of smuggling a small 'suitcase' bomb into the UK or the Falklands.
Jul 08th, 2013 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe the latter would be the most 'productive'. A very small device smuggled ashore at some very remote spot in the Islands and then detonated, notice I did say 'very small' so as to produce minimal damage and preferably no casualties would, in my opinion, be a great incentive to the UK to 'negotiate'. That being said I doubt that the 'think tanks' in the UK have not reviewed the possibility and the response already tentatively agreed, but what that response would be I have no idea.
I THINK THAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF FISSIONABLE URANIUM DELIVERED BY A POSEIDON MISSILE MAY WELL BE THE NEGOTIATING REPLY.
Jul 08th, 2013 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 19 Clyde15
Jul 08th, 2013 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do have to agree that something like that is a possibility.
The treaty that the UK have ratified with respect to not using nuclear weapons on States that do not have nuclear arms would not be applicable because the RG's would have proved that 'they' did indeed have said weapons.
Interesting scenario.
18 Biguggy
Jul 08th, 2013 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That would be such a disaster for The Dark Country on so many fronts:
1) the junta and 1982 was bad enough but a nuclear device exploded without warning on the Falklands would mean the UK MUST retaliate in kind (sort of but on steroids so to say) and the effect would be catastrophic for BsAs: it would be rased to the ground and left as a smoking cinder;
2) public feeling throughout the region would be polarised to 'good for the argies' and we can predict the likely culprits and 'WTF' from others who would be scared shitless of being dragged into a nuclear shooting war with the UK, backed up as it would be by the UN;
3) Chile may well take the initiative with the argies being on their knees to take back their lost country plus most of what they wanted;
4) BsAs would be a radiation wasteland and this is what matters to me as I live in Uruguay. The UK would takeover whatever was left that Chile did not want until an international force could be put into place sans any LatAm types of course;
5) any ‘government’ still left in The Dark Country would of course be rounded up and any resistance by them dealt with in the most severe manner, especially if ANY Falklanders had been incinerated or died of radiation poisoning;
6) the International Community would insist on removing any more threats of a like type on the southern cone so Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, et al would be militarised for the sake of the rest of the world. This may well be to their own good by removing twats like the Cowpat, Correa and the bus driver.
These people do not understand the VENGEANCE that would be necessary to placate the British people by such another cowardly attack, this time nuclear. ANY UK government that resisted complete retribution would be chucked out of office overnight by a vote of no confidence, end of problem.
There are other implications but I am sure you can work those out for yourself.
I think, Chris, that the international community would take away the remaining nuclear toys from the UK pretty sharpish if it responded in such a fashion.
Jul 08th, 2013 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, I believe that - across the world at large - the days of nation states fronting a nuclear response are pretty much over. Its much more likely that 'covert renegade irregulars' in 'cells' would be used for offence and retaliation ... plausible deniability.
I have not seen nation slogging it out against nation in all-out war - a bit like the 2013 Wimbledon men's Final - in my whole lifetime.
No, these are the days of asymmetry in warfare, of 'sneakiness', and bit-player proxys used in the stead of the 'great states'.
Paradoxically, I hope and pray that this remains so.
#22
Jul 08th, 2013 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I think, Chris, that the international community would take away the remaining nuclear toys from the UK pretty sharpish if it responded in such a fashion.”
And how would they do that ?
I did not say hit a populated area with multiple warheads.
Argentina has plenty of space where a small nuclear device could be used with virtually no casualties.
This would possibly be the case if a device was used somewhere remote in the Falklands with no deaths or injuries..
If it was on mainland UK, with a small land mass, then there would be many civilian deaths and a huge disruption to life for the bulk of the population. The gloves would be off !
We would not give a damn as to what the UN or any other country had to say. It is not a rational response but humans are not rational animals when threatened or attacked.
Of course, this is all hypothetical and based on a scenario that only a madman/woman would contemplate.
I am reasonably confident that the UK would not use its nuclear arsenal as a first strike weapon but only if it was attacked by the same. But, if we are not prepared to use it, we may as well scrap the lot and save ourselves the expense. We can always roll over and plead that we are defenceless so please do not attack us. To quote the Scottish vernacular “Aye, that'll be right !”
22 GeoffWard2
Jul 08th, 2013 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It would still be a first strike by the enemy on British soil with a nuclear weapon and you DON'T think there will be retaliation in kind?
WTF have we spent all this tax money that you and I paid over the decades we worked if not to have a REAL strike back capability?
And how are the international community going to claw back the nuclear arsenal?
And just HOW are we going to have cells set up when the strike was unannounced before hand?
And do you really believe anybody with half-a-brain would be taken in by such an action? The government of The Dark country is killed and the UK had nothing to do with it?
And ‘call me Dave / hug a hoodie Camoron’ is on about disbanding the SAS.
I have been a Conservative voter all my life but I realised that they were on their way out when this upper class idiot was voted as Leader of the party.
We have had some loopy bastards to cope with such as Heath and Major but Cameron is in a workshy league of his own. This is what happens when you have a wealthy father and he shelters his son from the real world: he does the son no favours at all.
Frankly the argies would be really, really stupid to attempt a nuclear strike even if they could ever get a nuclear device and deliver it without blowing themselves up first. Now can you see the problem: they ARE really stupid.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!