Who is the next member of the atomic club?

mamikon

I really don't want dissapoint you, but it's not serious to talk about "armenian nuclear weapon"

Economicly Armenia is the weakest country in the region and it's spend almoust 30% of their legal budget on military needs ( $125 mln), and it's a huge problem for Armenia and it's economy.

Russia will never help Armenia to buid nuclear weapon or to provide them with russian neclear weapon. It will never happened unless Russia and US became enemies and cold war will start again.

Sorry mate..., but if Turkey oneday will produce nuclear bomb, armenia can only accept this and live with this..sorry cavetanem

you need to enrich uranium to have uranium 233. that is why they need to enrich it.

Originally posted by mamikon At any rate, right not Armenia is ahead of Turkey in nuclear power (even though its broke (financially))

True, Turkey, does not have a nuclear power plant, but they are now planning to build one. With the recent interruptions in Russian gas flow, the need for nuclear energy becomes more pressing.

The problem is that the country is on an earthquake zone (as is Armenia by the way) so it is quite dangerous. Imagine the consequence if one of those nuclear power plants was to blow off

Ay Omar, I got to agree

Not sure what AQ Khan actually sold, but the alleged selling was done in the early nineties, from wat it seems those countries havent produced any nukes as yet - I'm pretty sure Libya gave up on it. Most nuclear-capable countries have distributed some form of nuclear technology anyway, or at least suspected of selling something they shouldnt have.

The 240V power is the firing set?

finally, some one who knows what he is talking about.

in the west, they make it seem like if a country has oil, they have energy. the fact is that it costs more money to build refineries, and to convert that oil into usable energy than to build nuclear reactors.

iran is a net importer of energy.  these oil producing countries dont make their own energy with it because they dont have the technology. they ship the oil to europe or USA, where they have the refineries and the technology to make that oil into gasoline and other products, and then these same oil producing countries have to buy gasoline.

governments like the bush administration arent telling you this. they want you to believe that oil=energy when it doesnt.

Hmm, what do you mean? Nuclear reactors usually deliver in the magnitude of 10-20kV. If you mean the end user output it doesn't have anything to do with nuclear technology, and that others doesn't use 240V is just a choice of standard (eg 230 was chosen in Europe). Iirc Australia and New Zealand and some countries in the Perisan Gulf use 240V.

It does, though not naturally on this planet. It occurs as a rest product in some reaction chains though. This is just nitpicking though

---

Anyhow, just to make some things clear: U-235 is what you need to get a useful reaction going; U-238 isn't suitable. Uranium occuring naturally consists of 0.3-0.7% (roughly) U-235 and the rest U-238. Ie not separated, like if 1% of all rocks of uranium in the ground was U-235 and 99% U-238, but ALL rocks have a certain percentage of either isotope. To use it as fuel in a plant you need to get the level of U-235 to reach some 5% (enrichment), while to use it as a bomb, that level need to be AT LEAST 20%, but preferably much higher.

(That goes for the common reactors, there are technology to use the waste, ie uranium rich in U-238 and natural uranium as well as thorium as fuel, though it isn't in use yet. )