http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_iraq_070704,00.html
2006-11-28 04:59:18 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
ok stephanie
http://www.castlecops.com/zx/wawadave/AAA%20nukes.jpg
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/images/uranium.jpg
2006-11-28 05:04:23 · update #1
and here come the descriptive words... strenously massive explosions doubled with the effect of radiation fallout forcing elements in themselves, to deform and cause radioactive decay to the human race
2006-11-28 05:05:46 · update #2
It was low-enriched uranium, not weapons grade. So the answer is NONE. No nukes with THAT uranium. It would have to be enriched , and would amount to a miniscule amount after that.
"could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb.
2006-11-28 05:02:26 · answer #1 · answered by vanman8u 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
6.
2006-11-28 16:00:07 · answer #2 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot less then you might think and far more then he or anyone
should!
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!!!!
2006-11-28 13:10:12 · answer #3 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if those TWO TONNES of URANIUM can be processed to weapons grade plutonium ............ THEY WOULD HAVE SHOWN IT TO THE WORLD ALREADY!
2006-11-28 13:08:08 · answer #4 · answered by AlfRed E nEuMaN 4 preSIDent 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only that - it was enriched.
One would have been too many.
2006-11-28 13:00:30 · answer #5 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Hmm, this question is not as witty as your previous questions, please provide more pictures and descriptive words so I know what you mean.
Nice thanks...ok my answer is......wait for it.......ah........Alot.
2006-11-28 13:00:54 · answer #6 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
too many...
2006-11-28 13:01:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋