But the whole problem is that Rice's statement that the tubs "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs" when there were serious disagreements about their use is cherry-picking the intelligence! This is the whole debacle in a nutshell: there was a range of possibilities, and they presented only the extreme possibilities that supported their view, and presented them as proven facts.
No one would have bought it if they'd said, "Iraq's importing some tubes that could either be used for anti-aircraft rockets or for centrifuges, so we need to attack them because if they are using them for centrifuges they might use them to make nuclear weapons with the uranium that they aren't trying to buy from Africa."
Posted by croatoan at November 16, 2005 07:39 AMEriposte,
Your assumptions concerning aluminum tubes appear to be based on the conclusions of David Albright, who may have an impressive resume but knows absolutely nothing about the topic at hand. Although I can’t discern whether his article is written from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead, the one fact that is unmistakable is that he is wrong.
His findings purport to show that it was perfectly logical for Iraq to attempt to acquire tubes made to the post-2000 specification for a ground based MRLS system. There are a number of points to be made, however let us concentrate on one of the main aspects, namely the tolerancing. Albright claims:
“A DOE expert said that in general the tolerances of an object are not a good indicator of the purpose of an object. Its dimensions are a better indicator of an end use.”
In the context of the aluminum tube debate, this statement is ludicrous. Here are the facts, let your common sense be the judge.
Specifications:
81mm +0/-.1mm Outside Diameter (OD)
74mm +.1mm/-0 Inside Diameter (ID)
868mm +/-.3mm Length
.05mm Concentricity
This is an extremely thin walled tube to be machined to these specifications. Yet, Albright would have you believe that the Iraqis were going to purchase these tubes for a base price of $15 plus a “cost increase of a few dollars”. The cost makes perfect sense for a commercial grade tube flow formed to a rough blank for use in manufacturing the above mentioned tube, but certainly not a finished component. Also, Kam Kiu Aluminum Extrusion Company does not possess the equipment to machine tubes to the outlined dimensions.
It would be extremely difficult to relay the problems associated with machining an aluminum tube to dimensions outlined above to the general public, but let me try to give you a flavor of what is involved.
1. In order to machine a tube like this, you must devise a way to hold it. In thin walled tubing, any pressure you place on it sets up stresses in the material and distorts the shape. You can machine it perfectly, then when you release the clamping mechanism the tube will revert back to its relaxed state and be totally out of specification.
2. Aluminum is an excellent conductor of heat. Machining is a heat producing operation. Even with sophisticated coolant temperature regulating and monitoring equipment, variations of just a few degrees will make the tube expand or contract a few thousands of an inch, which is more than can be tolerated in this precise of machining.
3. The ratio of length to inside diameter is so disproportionate that it makes it extremely difficult to have tooling ridged enough to hold the dimensions called for.
4. The cost for accurately measuring each tube would approach the initial $10 figure given for the pre-1980 tube cost.
The list could go on and on with singular and compound problems when discussing the difficulties in producing tubes like this. Hopefully, your common sense has kicked in by now to conclude that, based on the specifications, the CIA conclusion that these tubes were meant for something other than rocket motors was the correct call. These tubes, in my opinion, would cost in excess of $100 each once in production. If there was not an initial tooling charge well into 7 figures, the amortized figure would be added to that number.
Albright fails to mention what the logic was in believing the Iraqis would copy a version of a helicopter launched rocket (were every ounce of weight is a factor for weapons payload) that has a need for accuracy to supply rounds for a land based barrage type MRLS system.
Rocket scientists are a dime a dozen. People who know how to produce tubes like this are rare. I can’t tell you how many times supposedly “expert” engineers have said things like “just drill a curved hole through this”. You wouldn’t let a patent lawyer defend you in a murder case, but in this instance, when you need the advice and skills of a brain surgeon you rely on a proctologist.
Hey, troll, still waiting for Wilson to be indicted? On to the next smear, are you? Sadly, you word doesn't count for much here, does it?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 16, 2005 12:10 PMCoyote,
It's coming. Just be patient.
In the mean time, keep ignoring fact and remain as fucking ignorant as you are now.
Posted by j.west at November 16, 2005 12:13 PMyou're just another asswipe troll j pest..go stink up some other blog...
Posted by headxray at November 16, 2005 12:15 PMJ.west, I see you are a liar. Honor the bet for a few week tipical of a republican. Honorable HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You sir are an A hole.
Posted by Goose1 at November 16, 2005 12:27 PMGoose,
As I remembered the bet, it was Rove/Libby vs Joe/Val. If I am mistaken and the bet was in fact any of the combination, link it back and I will disappear.
Because of the time and effort put into this series, and the knowledge that a caffeine induced stroke is imminent, I thought it best to provide eroposte with some actual facts.
NO, the bet was anyone in the Bush admin. (libby was in the Admin. vs. joe or val wilson. But of course a republican like you would have his facts WRONG AGAIN.
Posted by Goose1 at November 16, 2005 12:49 PMJ. West,
I am glad that finally you managed to post something of substance in the comments, even though you were wrong (again). While I don't have time to go down your claims line by line right now, let me point out that if you believe the CIA was/is right, you may want to let them know.
Robb-Silberman WMD commission report:
"DIA and CIA analysts overestimated the likelihood that the tubes were intended for use in centrifuges, an erroneous judgment that resulted largely from the unwillingness of many analysts to question--or rigorously test--the underlying assumption that Iraq would try to reconstitute its nuclear program.
...CIA analysts now agree with the ISG position that the tubes were most likely intended for use in rockets rather than in centrifuge applications..."
Alternately read the SSCI Report and you'll find similar conclusions.
Posted by eriposte at November 16, 2005 01:31 PMeR,
You give ujest wayyyyyy too much credit. Notice there is absolutely no link to the original source (with page references) to document the supporting evidence it states as fact. That way we can't check to be sure that what it states hasn't been cherrypicked.(something ujest has a history of doing)
Plus the fact it made a bet, lost it, and then refuses to honor it, tells you alot about its character and word (or lack of them both). And... then it comes here doing the typical republican thing of now attempting to change the parameters of the original bet after it lost....sheesh.
It's not worth your time or effort to waste attempting to dialogue or "refute" this lying, untrustworthy thing...don't bother stooping to its level...its not interested in facts or truth. It would be different if ujest made this comment and had built some credibility and trust here based on its previous commenting, posts, and supporting sources/links history, but my cat is probably a more honest, knowledgeable, and worthy debater than ujest at this point.
Posted by emal at November 16, 2005 04:20 PMYour assumptions concerning aluminum tubes appear to be based on the conclusions of David Albright, who may have an impressive resume but knows absolutely nothing about the topic at hand… Rocket scientists are a dime a dozen...Posted by j.west
Here is the Albright report
All experts agree that after modification the tubes could be used as a rotor of a poor quality gas centrifuge. Complicating the realization of this design is that the wall of the tubes is unusually thick, and the tubes' diameter is not optimal for such a centrifuge. Many centrifuge experts believe that this design would not work as the basis of a centrifuge plant.
On the other hand, the tubes' dimensions are consistent with a known Iraqi rocket program. ElBaradei moreover reported to the Security Council that extensive field investigation and document analysis failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these aluminum tubes for any project other than in rockets.
Say, brother, can you spare a dime?
Plus the fact it made a bet, lost it, and then refuses to honor it, tells you alot about its character and word (or lack of them both). And... then it comes here doing the typical republican thing of now attempting to change the parameters of the original bet after it lost....sheesh.
emal, Thanks, your staement above put it much better then I did when he posted earlier.
Posted by goose1 at November 16, 2005 04:57 PMJ. West,
According to the Robb-Silberman report, the tubes the Iraqis ordered had "precisely the same dimensions" as tubes used in Iraq's Nasser-81 rockets. (p. 67) I think you may have confused the centrifuge/rocket arguments. To use the tubes in a gas centrifuge cascade is what would have required extensive machining, which, as you pointed out, would have created a host of "singular and compound problems."
By the way, I'm curious, where did you get your information?
Posted by Pat at November 16, 2005 07:15 PMj. west,
Like Pat, I too wonder where you got your info.
As Pat points out, you conveniently neglect to mention the fact that the specifications of the tubes sought by Iraq in 2000-2 were identical to those of the aluminum tubes it purchased in the 1980s for its reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa rocket.
Despite saying you will concentrate on the issue of tolerances (which is just about the only difference, besides anodisation, between the 1980s purchases and the post-2000 requests), and mocking a DoE judgement that dimensions are generally more important to gauging the purpose of a tube than tolerances, you go on to talk about dimensions (not tolerances) for the rest of your post. Of your four alleged "problems with machining an aluminum tube to dimensions outlined above to the general public", only one can be said to have the remotest bearing on tolerances.
Moreover, unless I'm missing something, the conclusion we're supposed to draw -- that the CIA claim that these tubes were meant for something other than rocket motors -- doesn't seem to in any way follow from the preceding hodge-podge of arguments. Just about the only possible argument I can piece together from your post is that tubes with the dimensions in question would be far more expensive than the price Albright describes. About which, see the next paragraph.
Your focus on the allegedly bizarre and highly costly specifications ("extremely thin walled tube", etc.), and the alleged difficulties of producing such tubes, runs up against the very obvious and devastating problem that aluminum tubes with precisely these specifications were in fact purchased by Iraq in the 1980s. (One wonders why you would feel compelled to refer to the "initial $10 figure given for the pre-1980 tube cost", unless you enjoy subverting your own arguments. Of course, to be nit-picky, the tubes weren't purchased "pre-1980" but rather starting in 1987. At any rate, it is well-established that the cost of the 2000-2 tubes sought by Iraq was, suitably adjusted, roughly in line with that of the tubes bought in the 1980s. One also wonders what expertise you can claim for your off-the-cuff price estimates.) The same goes for your argument about the incongruity of Iraqis copying an air-to-ground rocket in order to build surface-to-surface rockets. The indisputable fact is that, well, they already did it in the late '80s. Why? Dunno, but my guess is that the Iraqis had already bought the Medusas and they went with what they had on hand. Doesn't really matter. That they would seek to do so again in 2000-2, having already made some progress the first time around and having the designs, know-how, etc. to build on (and in the context now of sanctions, etc.), is of course far less surprising.
A couple more minor points of information: you cite the specification of the length of the tubes sought as 868 mm. In fact it was 900 mm. (as were the tubes purchased in the 1980s). In the 1980s the tubes were cut down to 868 mm. in order to match the Medusa rocket tubes; presumably the same was intended in 2000-2.
And Kam Kiu did send an initial shipment of 2-3000 of the specified aluminum tubes to Jordan, where it was seized by the Jordanian government (with CIA officials present). So although they originally didn't make tubes of those specs, they were ultimately able to do so. Not sure that you were necessarily denying this, but your confusing mention of this issue might give the impression that you were.
Anyway, as eRiposte points out, you're fighting a tsunami. You're about the only person, besides perhaps Dick Cheney, who still believes the aluminum tubes were meant for centrifuges. Even the CIA has recanted. You might want to check out the Kay ISG interim report, the Duelfer report, SSCI, Robb-Silberman, Butler, etc. etc.
Posted by KM at November 16, 2005 08:41 PMSave your time and energy. He isn't interested in the truth. He has proven that over and over again on this blog. Save your energies for someone who wants an honest debate, if that is possible with a Republican.
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2005 09:03 PMeR,
Following on croatoan's comment -- perhaps I'm just rephrasing your penultimate sentence in different words, but I think you can state matters more strongly.
Pincus chose just about the worst possible example to make his case. (Indeed, because he does limit himself to stating only that Rice's claim would be justified "under terms of the panel's earlier agreement", one suspects his choice of example is perhaps a passive-aggressive attempt to show up the ridiculousness of those terms of agreement.)
Pincus stated, "If it could be shown that there was at least one intelligence report that substantiated Rice's statement, that might be enough to justify her statement under terms of the panel's earlier agreement." But of course Rice said that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs". Here one could almost say the exact opposite of what Pincus does: if it could be shown that there was at least one intelligence report that contradicted Rice's claim, that would be enough to show she was manipulating the intelligence.
Well, at least to any person capable of making an abductive inference. My inversion of Pincus doesn't quite strictly follow, but the point should be clear. Someone in Rice's position, given the existence of any kind of intelligence dissent, has a very large burden of proof to establish the licence for a statement like that. For such a statement to have any justification, it would have to be demonstrated that Rice and those she relied on had very powerful and warranted reasons for doubting the dissenters. Which, of course, in this particular case she entirely lacked. That is, as we all know, she was shamelessly lying.
Posted by KM at November 16, 2005 09:17 PMKM,
You asked a legit question and deserve an answer.
The point I was making was about the tolerancing, as the dimensions remained basically the same as the rocket motor.
Here is the address for the chart outlining the change in tolerances:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/ch4_tbl04.jpg
As you seem to have some knowledge of what I am talking about, you will see the earlier tolerances were wide open and easily obtained. The specifications after the 2000 committee were such that only a few manufacturing operations in the world could handle the project, especially in quantities of 100,000.
By referencing the length of the tube, I was calling attention to the main difficulty in the machining operations – bringing the ID to specification along such a long length on a tube of this diameter. If the Iraqis had been able to acquire tubes to the post-2000 specification, they could have modified the wall thickness by machining the OD utilizing a large diameter CNC turning center. One of the few manufacturers of this type of equipment was Churchill Matrix, which Iraq owned majority interest in and had been the major customer for a number of years.
Kam Kui initially sampled 70mm tubes, but had to retool to produce the 81mm ones. They never supplied machined tubes, primarily because they have no equipment or expertise in this area.
Iraq could also have made a decision to copy Ford Fiesta cars to the same dimensions as the original. If they applied the tolerances found on these tubes, they would cost about a million dollars each. The question is why would they do that if they could legally obtain the Fiestas from a number of sources for $15,000 each?
you sure keep your word well j pest...disappear back into the the republicunt wood work now ass wipe...
Posted by at November 17, 2005 08:43 AMJ. West,
So, you're asking why the Iraqis tightened the tolerances of the tubes when that would make them excessively expensive?
First of all, the Iraqis were actually getting a bargain on the tubes. Tubes made in the US without such tight tolerances are actually more expensive.
According to the Robb-Silberman report, the Iraqis tightened the tolerances because they were trying to improve the accuracy of their rockets. It's common for engineers to over-specify tolerances when trying to reverse-engineer equipment.
Posted by Pat at November 17, 2005 07:29 PM