From: "Robert Comer" 

> Now if so....then...there are 2 options (A) that the Israelis intended on
> using enriched uranium isotopes in these weapons or (B) that they did not
> but they're not that good at refining out the enriched stuff.

Hard to tell, but I'm still not buying the current story.

> However it does point fairly firmly to them having enriched uranium either
> way.

Do you have any doubt that they do?

--
Bob Comer


"Ad"  wrote in
message news:4544f1c6$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>> Not so. I won't go into details but poorly depleted uranium is one
>>> option & another is the "we don't give a f*ck if it's
depleted or not"
>>> option.
>>
>> Except expense and ROI.
>>
>
> Nah it's the fact that in theory nuclear powers (or those with uranium
> deposits should not send any uranium etc to a state thought to have a nuke
> program & yet outside of the NPT.
>
> & that includes DU. Now the US has in the past merrily proliferated away
> wrt all sorts of things e.g. missile tech wrt Israel but were they found
> to have been sending processed uranium then things might look bad
> so.....chances are they've made the Israelis make their own.
>
> Now if so....then...there are 2 options (A) that the Israelis intended on
> using enriched uranium isotopes in these weapons or (B) that they did not
> but they're not that good at refining out the enriched stuff.
>
> However it does point fairly firmly to them having enriched uranium either
> way.
>
> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5