Military Review

Why did the Russians give their uranium to the USA? And did they give ...

107
On the Internet, some gentlemen have already told the tale many times that Russia allegedly sold the “last uranium shirt” to evil Americans, and for nothing, and now we don’t have weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to make atomic bombs. In general, "pounded all polymers" ™


Why did the Russians give their uranium to the USA? And did they give ...

Talking about how things really are, I will start with a picture that shows the total number of nuclear warheads in Russia and the United States. The picture, as it is easy to see, shows the situation on the 2009 year. As you can see, we are far ahead of the United States in the number of warheads (including more than four times in tactical warheads). It is also easy to see in the picture that out of the 13 thousands of 8.160 warheads, we simply have nowhere to install - there are no missiles for them. And the situation in the USA is similar too.

At the same time, by the end of the 1985, the USSR, at the peak of its glory, had about 44.000 nuclear charges. And even then some of them had nowhere to put. The United States reached a peak in 32.000 nuclear charges in the 1965 year, then began to gradually reduce the number of charges, but nevertheless, by the 1995 year, we were in a situation similar to that of a shortage of missiles for charges.

It should be understood that the nuclear charge itself is not eternal - it gradually deteriorates during storage, its fissile materials due to self-decay are gradually poisoned by the resulting isotopes, etc. It became clear that with such an abundance of old warheads they must be disposed of, and those removed from them weapons uranium and plutonium are either cleaned again for use in weapons purposes, or - which is cheaper - diluted with low enriched uranium and used as fuel in nuclear power plants.

As of 1991, the situation was as follows: The United States possessed about 600 tons of weapons-grade uranium and about 85 tons of plutonium. The USSR managed to accumulate about 1100-1400 tons of weapons-grade uranium and 155 tons of plutonium.

Separately, it should be noted that until 1995, the only enrichment plant in the United States, which was responsible for both the production of weapons-grade uranium and the supply of uranium to nuclear power plants in the US — the current USEC company — was a structural division of the United States Department of Energy (DOE). At the same time, the number of own EPP (fissile materials enrichment capacity), which was at the disposal of the United States until 1991 of the year (and this is the only gas diffusion plant in Paducah) was only 8,5 million EPP. And the need of all nuclear reactors built by the US 1979 (after the US 1979, the reactors were not built - and more on that below) was estimated from 11 to 12 million SWU per year.

And this only plant in Paduk, as a single basin in a bath, the United States covered both the production of weapons and the production of reactor uranium. You are no longer surprised that the maximum warheads at the disposal of the United States was for some reason not at the end of the Cold War, but also in the 1965 year? Yes, the US nuclear power plants began to devour more uranium from 1965 than the US had time to enrich. And the United States began to cover the difference by loosening weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, followed by its use in fuel for nuclear power plants.

Already in the 1979 year, the United States realized that if things went on like that, they risk being left completely without nuclear weapons. And they were forced to stop the construction of nuclear power plants. A convenient reason was used for this - the accident at the Triple Island NPP. Conspirologists say the accident was rigged, more critical people say it was accidental, but it was greatly inflated in the media.

However, the already built nuclear power plants gradually ate up the US nuclear stockpile, and American businessmen did not intend to close them, as the stupid Japanese or Germans do. I had to look for a source of supply of additional quantities of nuclear fuel.

Since 1987, the United States and the USSR have adopted a whole series of joint agreements, which are sometimes combined into a kind of coordinated program “Joint Threat Reduction”. In these agreements, there was a lot of political chatter, but their main meaning for the United States was economic. It consisted in freeing up the reserves of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to cover the shortage of fuel for American nuclear power plants. In February, 1993 Russia and the United States signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium extracted from old nuclear warheads (the so-called HEU-LEU agreement, or "megatons in exchange for megawatts"). Implementation of the agreement is designed for a long period (more than 10 years), and the total amount of the contract is estimated at 12 billion dollars. This is the very agreement about which our pro-grapolymers love to vote - they say, we gave the United States our weapons-grade uranium, 500 tons, "usy, lost, chef!" and so on.

Well, first of all, nobody sent weapons-grade uranium to the United States. Weapon uranium has a degree of enrichment of more than 90%, but is supplied by the United States in diluted form (depleted or natural uranium), so that the concentration of U-235 in the resulting mixture was about 4%. Moreover, it is believed that Russia simply deceived the United States, supplying mostly ordinary low-enriched fuel uranium.

To understand the situation, I will inform you of the little-known fact that, as part of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the United States stopped the last plutonium-producing reactor back in 1992. In Russia, the last such reactor (in Zheleznogorsk) was stopped only in April 2010. And only because Russia has a powerful commercial reactor breeder on the way, which receives a large amount of plutonium almost free then, along with energy production. Doesn’t it, it doesn’t fit well with the sale of "extra" weapons material?

Secondly, the Russians also threw the USA on raw materials. In the 90s, Russia, after the separation of Ukraine and Kazakhstan, simply did not have enough natural uranium to fully utilize its enrichment capacity. Own production of natural uranium in Russia focused on a single facility, the Priargunskoye deposit, where only about 2.500 tons of ore were mined, and at least 7.000 tons per year were needed. And why allow ultracentrifuges to stand idle?

Therefore, the Americans were told that Russia allegedly lacked natural uranium to dilute the weapons component. In order to ensure at least some implementation of the program (and for the first 6 years of the contract, only 50 tons of HEU diluted with any kind of shred were shipped), in the 1999 year, the US Government convinces the largest western producers of natural uranium - Cameco (Canada), Cogema ( now Areva, France), and Nukem (Germany) to sell Russia at a special price 118.000 tons of natural uranium! You think about this figure - this is the raw material on 17 years of full loading of our centrifuges. And the USA provided it to us.

Why? Because the situation with the fuel in the USA was absolutely catastrophic.

In the 1998 year (that is, a year before the United States was forced to organize supplies of uranium ore to Russia), the US Government conducted its HEU-LEU program (HEU-LEU), transferring tons of weapons-grade uranium to the civilian sector of 174 (one third of Russian twenty-year program!).

In 2005, the US Department of Energy again announced the transfer of another 40 tonnes of "substandard" highly enriched uranium to natural uranium. For some reason, this amount of uranium turned out to be quite “tainted” by the 236U isotope, which is why a separate “mixing” program - BLEU (Blended Low-Enriched Uranium) was declared.

The HEU-LEU program on normal weapons-grade uranium was continued by the US Department of Energy in 2008, when the same American contractor, TVA, which digested the previous batch of substandard uranium, was offered another 21 ton of weapons-grade uranium. And 29,5 tons of normal weapons-grade uranium were diluted by other US Department of Energy contractors.

In total, over the 1993-2013 period, the United States used for its nuclear power plants, in addition to Russian 500 tons of virtual HEU, 201,2 also used tons of its real highly enriched uranium.

It should be emphasized that all this uranium eventually went away in the form of fuel for "western-type" reactors. That is, about 700 tons of weapons-grade uranium were the oxygen cushion that held the American (and, more broadly, all Western!) Atomic energy generation over the past 20 years.

However, all good things come to an end. The HEU-LEU program is over. Yes, yes - although it still formally works until the 2014 year, but the actual volumes of Russian fuel supplies under this program are already close to zero. But after all, Russian HEU-LEU supplies provided about 12% of the global demand for reactor uranium and 38% of the need for reactor uranium in the USA itself.

So what will the US charge its reactors with?

I think that I’m not mistaken if I say that the United States now has no more 300 tons of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium, including what can still be “picked up” from old but not yet dismantled warheads, without touching the strategic 1500 warheads and some more tactical. If we replace the Russian program with these 300 tons, this number of isotopes will be enough for 6 years. And then we need to build centrifuges, start up breeder reactors, buy uranium at market prices on the international market - in general, work, work and work again.

And tolstopindos do not want to work. Therefore, if Fukushima did not happen - the Americans would have to organize it. After all, they have organized the “Green Party” in Germany with their idiotic program “to shut down all nuclear power plants” and start funny experiments with power generation with the help of wind and sun? After all, the statements of the Indians are being paid against the discovery of an already completed nuclear power plant? After all, paid for the closure of an excellent nuclear power plant in Lithuania?

Russian stocks of weapons-grade uranium make up the figure in the 780 area, about which, for example, such a knowledgeable person calmly speaks of Jerry Grandi, the president of the Canadian company Cameco. This Canadian peasant knows this business well - he has delivered natural uranium to Russia at “special prices” exactly from 1999 onwards. He felt these Russian "prorasny polymers" in his own skin.

In fact, the situation for the United States and the West as a whole is even worse. The fact is that sensible centrifugal concentrating industry in Western countries (mainly by the efforts of European companies Areva and Urenco) is still being created, and gas diffusion plants USEC (USA) and Areva itself are already scheduled to close during the 2015-2017 period of due to the extreme degree of wear and tear of equipment, which threatens accidents, against which Chernobyl will seem like pretty jokes.

Is it possible to say how much uranium will cost tomorrow and who will be worth something in the world when the nuclear morning comes? Yes you can. Moreover, even the illogical and insane actions of Germany and Japan, who are committing "economic hara-kiri" before our very eyes, have long been calculated, taken into account and, moreover, are most likely recognized in some places as correct and fully compliant with the "requirement of the revolutionary moment."



The picture shows the nuclear world in 2010. Before Fukushima and before the “German Consensus” 2011 of the Year, which left Germany a pitiful “stump” of its once powerful nuclear generation, at once reducing the number of operating units from 17 to 9. Moreover, the Greens demanded that all nuclear power plants be closed altogether.

The coming winter, of course, will add to the world statistics on how stable generating and distribution networks are in the presence of such pleasant dispatching and control sources as wind and solar energy, and in the absence of "non-ecological" nuclear power plants. Germany will show us all an example, ha ha.

In the meantime, the German industry is already actively buying (surprise! Surprise!) Gas-fired stand-by gas piston installations (Gazprom rubs its hands and considers future profits), and generating companies talk about the usefulness of a permanent gas power plant (Gazprom starts rubbing its handles three times faster), which can at least quickly pick up "falling pants" from such hot and unstable guys like the wind and the sun. And yes, who would have thought - coal-fired TPPs cannot gain power as quickly as is necessary from the point of view of the stability of the networks;

It’s clear, of course, that Putin and his agent of influence, the hidden crypto-communist Angela Merkel, are personally in this mess. And not the agents of US influence, which (the United States) desperately need to cut out nuclear fuel for their nuclear power plants. Just because most of the reactors are located in the United States - 104 units are working there. For comparison, in France (which at 3 / 4 covers its energy needs at the expense of nuclear power plants) reactors 59, and in Russia there are only 31.

Yes, by the way - the accident of 1986 in Chernobyl was very convenient for the USA. It is so convenient and happened in time that there are big doubts about its randomness.

The situation with the abandonment of atomic energy in Japan in general looks like going beyond the boundaries of good and evil. The country, which had almost a third of electricity generation due to nuclear reactors, according to the results of the equally convenient and timely for the USA Fukushima accident, has the entire 2 reactor from 54 on the move. Alternative energy, from which new ones can then be planted, as if from a needle, kilowattics, must first be brought to the Japanese islands, and now it’s necessary to take all the coal to the Asia-Pacific region of China and Indonesia, taking all the coal out of the country. And - the most expensive, liquefied. Do you think it would be good for the Japanese economy, which is already uncompetitive against the background of South Korea and China, if its costs still increase due to the consumption of expensive liquefied gas?

Meanwhile, with the enrichment capacity in the United States, the situation is quite a guard. "Immediately after the privatization of USEC, various accusations began to be made against it, from incompetence to dishonest collusion and bribery ... The financial situation of the corporation is very difficult, and the future of the uranium enrichment program in the US is questionable ... High overhead and outdated 50 technology USEC turned the business into a non-profitable and fully dependent on Russian subsidies, "wrote Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in May of 2002.

Since then, little has changed. “The operating organizations (in the USA) hate the USEC. The Russians hate the USEC. The US Department of Energy hates the USEC,” the British newspaper Financial Times notes. And in these conditions of general hatred, the enrichment corporation regularly postpones the start-up of the plant in Picton, constantly recalculates the construction budget upward, and also permanently requires additional inflows from the federal budget.

The United States has lost many positions in the fuel cycle and is dependent on imports. The weapon-grade uranium conversion is almost the only NFC area where a company from the United States can still compete with foreign suppliers. And this is not my opinion - this is the opinion of the atomic company "ConverDyn" from the USA itself.

So, the hard work with weapons-grade uranium in Russia has benefited, and in the United States, thanks to it, the degradation of the nuclear industry has accelerated. The flagship of American enrichment is USEC, after the work of the HEU-LEU program is in deep crisis, and Russia still for some reason still has nearly 800 tons of free weapons-grade uranium.

Based on crustgroup.livejournal.com and Wikipedia
Author:
Originator:
http://takie.org/news/zachem_russkie_otdali_ssha_svoj_uran/2012-11-29-1739
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. uzer 13
    uzer 13 20 June 2013 05: 38 New
    +21
    Thank you for the interesting and useful information.
    1. Airman
      Airman 20 June 2013 10: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: uzer 13
      Thank you for the interesting and useful information.


      The article is clearly custom-made, all the schemes and diagrams are in English, the author didn’t even sign up. EBN did everything to squander Russia, and he wasn’t on the state ...... And he really needed the green ones, so he traded in he was advised by "advisers" from the CIA. And now they want to make excuses.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 June 2013 10: 18 New
        +13
        We didn’t quite understand. EBN was a traitor, an outspoken NOBODY this does not deny and is not going to deny. Only evil turned in our favor. Now we have the most modern nuclear complex in the world, is that really bad?
        And the fact that the inscriptions in bourgeois is so right and they themselves confirm the conclusions of AY
        1. Airman
          Airman 20 June 2013 10: 29 New
          -2
          Quote: leon-iv
          We didn’t quite understand. EBN was a traitor, an outspoken NOBODY this does not deny and is not going to deny. Only evil turned in our favor. Now we have the most modern nuclear complex in the world, is that really bad?
          And the fact that the inscriptions in bourgeois is so right and they themselves confirm the conclusions of AY


          "THE MOST MODERN NUCLEAR COMPLEX" - fresh tradition, but hard to believe. After so many years of lack of money and blockage, these mattresses impose such an idea on you.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 20 June 2013 11: 17 New
            +12
            fresh tradition, but hard to believe. After so many years of lack of money and blockage, these mattresses impose such an idea on you.

            Rosatom and lack of money? Is it like bees versus honey? wassat
            Where is the droushka?
          2. grandfather
            grandfather 20 June 2013 18: 02 New
            +3
            But what about floating speakers? is that not new?
            I don’t know whether they need them or not, whoever they are, but China is interested in acquiring them.
            And how to develop the Arctic without heat?
            1. Pilat2009
              Pilat2009 20 June 2013 18: 48 New
              0
              Quote: bearded
              But what about floating speakers? is that not new?

              It seems like there was an article a few years ago that this first power station is being made as a Zenith stadium - slowly and expensively
          3. Nick
            Nick 20 June 2013 20: 26 New
            +5
            Quote: Povshnik
            "THE MOST MODERN NUCLEAR COMPLEX" - fresh tradition, but hard to believe. After so many years of lack of money and blockage, these mattresses impose such an idea on you.

            Again prosralipolymers ...
            There was no crisis in Rosatom. Russia holds nuclear technology at the height ...
      2. Swag
        Swag 20 June 2013 15: 24 New
        +6
        Although your “arguments” are in Russian, the article inspires more confidence.
      3. SPACE
        SPACE 20 June 2013 19: 17 New
        +5
        Quote: Povshnik
        The article is clearly custom

        And apparently ordered her Esaul ... laughing In the east they say: "If it seems to you that you have made a profitable deal with the Russians, it means that you did not take into account something." laughing
    2. Tatb
      Tatb 20 June 2013 15: 53 New
      +7
      NOT just interesting! But the balm for darling straight drinks
      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 20 June 2013 19: 50 New
        -3
        Rather than balm and sweet alcohol, to think less.
        In fact, we sold the good that we got from the USSR, and let the money go to Olympstroy.
        Instead of building a nuclear power plant (the benefit of fuel, at least eat it) and making the cheapest electricity in the world for the population and industry inside the country, we sold fuel to the Americans and we are encouraged to be proud of it. And for the population, social norms of electricity consumption are being introduced, and industry cannot pay the energy sector for expensive electricity.
        Needless to say, "effective" managers steer the country!
        Here's a catch-up ..
        http://www.baltinfo.ru/2013/01/04/Finlyandiya-v-nachale-2014-goda-mozhet-nachat-
        eksportirovat-v-Rossiyu-elektrichestvo-328064
        1. Skiff-2
          Skiff-2 20 June 2013 21: 35 New
          +9
          Quote: S_mirnov
          Instead of building a nuclear power plant

          And Kalinin NPP (how many reactors?), And Bushehr, India, Vietnam, and how many are in line ... Rosenergoatom builds so that all the capacities of subcontractors are loaded. Thanks to the author for the article and disclosure of the topic of those “ill-fated” 500 tons. Behind this whole story is visible the hand of the Master and, of course, the Finger of God.
          1. S_mirnov
            S_mirnov 20 June 2013 22: 46 New
            -4
            "Finger of God." sticks out from anywhere from us, both from Roskosmos and from the army, or rather not God but the Gundya.
            "But Bushehr, India, Vietnam" - you can be glad for India and Vietnam, but I live in Russia, but how much electricity has grown in your last 2 years?
            1. Shaitan
              Shaitan 21 June 2013 00: 37 New
              +3
              "Finger of God." sticks out from anywhere from us, both from Roskosmos and from the army, or rather not God but the Gundya.
              "But Bushehr, India, Vietnam" - you can be glad for India and Vietnam, but I live in Russia, but how much electricity has grown in your last 2 years?

              In your sir logic, if we buy Chinese, Indian or Vietnamese goods, then you can only rejoice for us, but they are anyway in the way, so what?
              I still believe that the one who sells primarily benefits from the deal!
              And energy prices depend on market and world conditions, and if not, it’s a bad economy with manual control.
            2. kush62
              kush62 21 June 2013 04: 36 New
              -1
              Quote: how much has your electricity gone up over the past 2 years?

              Well, why juggle. Everyone knows that electricity costs a penny, but it is very expensive until it reaches the consumer. Remove all intermediaries and will be almost a gift.
        2. SSR
          SSR 20 June 2013 23: 08 New
          +3
          Quote: S_mirnov
          Rather than balm and sweet alcohol, to think less

          Swamp aki
          Quote: S_mirnov
          sweet alcohol to think less

          It's time to get out ....
          In pursuit ... to you personally .. what do you know about centrifuges and enrichment?
        3. megajob
          megajob 12 May 2017 03: 26 New
          0
          You can replace warm with soft! am
          The first in Russia have surplus electricity. Some (I won’t say which ones, but I know) NPPs in Russia operate at reduced power according to the REQUIREMENT of RosAtom !! belay The fact that enterprises cannot pay for electricity is not that the electricity is expensive, or maybe someone else did not buy their products from these enterprises and they don’t have any money?
    3. nycsson
      nycsson 20 June 2013 19: 55 New
      -1
      Quote: uzer 13
      Thank you for the interesting and useful information.

      Article sucks! Trying to justify these freaks who signed this HEU-KNOW contract! am
      I was interested in this problem! Dame links, read:

      Revealing the true essence of a uranium deal with the USA
      http://www.csef.ru/index.php/ru/politica-i-geopolitica/project/-/-/3782-k-raskry
      tiyu-podlinnoj-suti-uranovoj-sdelki-s-ssha? am = 1

      http://www.na-front.narod.ru/operations/nuclear/sdelka.htm
      Revealing the true essence of a uranium deal with the USA June, 1997 year

      Timeline of the sale of Russian weapons-grade uranium in the USA for 1995-2012
      pravoslav-voin.info/publikacii/2659-xronologiya-prodazhi-rossijskogo-oruzhejnogo
      .html
      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 20 June 2013 21: 07 New
        -1
        It seems that all the forces of the modern regime are going to create a blissful information field, such as everything is stable ...
        But thinking people perfectly understand the essence of the ongoing processes, there are more and more of them and it pleases.
        1. Tverichanka
          Tverichanka 20 June 2013 22: 47 New
          +6
          Quote: S_mirnov
          such more

          Judging by the comments, there are still more sensible people, no matter how much you personally hate it. Enough to play funeral marches for every reason. The country lives and little by little leaves stagnation. Rejoice at least once, at least for some success ... .Not the same, all the time the same thing. Do you have something like that?
        2. nycsson
          nycsson 21 June 2013 09: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: S_mirnov
          But thinking people perfectly understand the essence of the ongoing processes, there are more and more of them and it pleases.

          Understand, but not all! Those who managed to take off their pink glasses are pretty few! As for me, I’ve been on the site for a long time and my opinion has not changed: thieves, traitors and crooks rule our country! am am am
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 21 June 2013 10: 56 New
            +1
            Do you have something to say about the current state of affairs? And with tsiferki and not slogans at least 1 thesis of the article to refute.
          2. S_mirnov
            S_mirnov 21 June 2013 20: 27 New
            -1
            "As for me, I’ve been on the site for a long time and my opinion has not changed:" -I am in the know, my friend! Nice to read your comments!
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 20 June 2013 23: 15 New
        -1
        Quote: nycsson
        Article sucks! Trying to justify these freaks who signed this HEU-KNOW contract!
        I was interested in this problem! Dame links, read:

        Revealing the true essence of a uranium deal with the USA
        As a former colleague recently who told me a good understanding of this issue, if bribes tried to derail the US nuclear enrichment industry using bribes, it would have come out MUCH more expensive. It is clear that the then rulers stuffed their pockets and did not plan long-term harm projects for the USA at all, but the result of this transaction turned out to be so peculiar. So there is reason for joy ...
      3. megajob
        megajob 12 May 2017 03: 28 New
        0
        http://antiliber.blogspot.ru/2016/05/1-4.html Зачтите и просветитесь am
    4. Atrix
      Atrix 20 June 2013 22: 09 New
      +2
      As always, there was nothing
      And you can continue to believe everything that is written there.
      This garbage was especially pleased
      Moreover, there is an opinion that Russia simply deceived the United States, supplying mainly ordinary low-enriched fuel uranium.

      and this is in 1993 when Russia was ruled by Yessltsen and his KO. When the plants were sold for 100 rubles, etc.
      The author how much money was given for the article?

      1. S_mirnov
        S_mirnov 20 June 2013 22: 39 New
        0
        Thanks, Atrix. Video to the very point. The trouble is that any topic that looks outwardly successful on closer examination turns into a disaster! In addition to the construction of oil and gas pipelines, shopping centers and religious centers, there we are ahead of the rest, and this is sad.
    5. SSR
      SSR 20 June 2013 23: 05 New
      +3
      Quote: uzer 13
      Thank you for the interesting and useful information.

      I think that I’m not much mistaken if I say that the United States has no more than 300 tons of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium left, including what can still be “picked” from old but not yet dismantled warheads without touching 1500 strategic warheads and some more tactical.

      I’m not much mistaken in saying ... our centrifuges are already available for the 10th generation .. Americans are still not available 4th ...
      Quote: Povshnik
      The article is clearly custom

      Here you are very mistaken ... just take this into account .. (sorry to waste time because here it has already been discussed)
      1. megajob
        megajob 12 May 2017 03: 32 New
        0
        With mattresses in general it’s crested - they did NOT master the BUGAG technology at all. And their last gas diffusion factory - closed !! They have only European since 2010 enriching something there, but even the top European centrifuges are more expensive (cost price) of the Russian 7th generation !! And recently there was news that Rosatom has already launched the 10th generation which is FOUR TIMES better than the 9th generation. good
    6. megajob
      megajob 12 May 2017 03: 22 New
      0
      Everyone and you personally recommend google "the world around the needle" !! There it is explained in Russian, intelligibly and “by concepts” - HOW, WHY and “who is to blame” that the USA is no longer able to enrich uranium !! )))
  2. Fox
    Fox 20 June 2013 06: 14 New
    +5
    interesting, of course ... but Wikipedia ... no, the source would be more reliable.
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 20 June 2013 06: 45 New
      +3
      why don’t you like the wiki? do you often find lies there? think you can go in and edit the articles on the wiki without a link to the source? there is the same moderation. and if you look down the page, there are a lot of links to sources and literature. and inaccuracies, surface data, friability .. but this at first glance and not so often. If you go further from the wiki, then in the end you will come to a logical conclusion.
      for example, you can cite material on any topic from Wikipedia and prove to everyone that it says a lie
  3. vadson
    vadson 20 June 2013 06: 35 New
    0
    20 years later, unless of course our entire uranium is sold, at such a pace the United States will remain either without nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, or simply without a nucleus. Energy and, as a consequence, the inevitable collapse of the economy. We will see
    1. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 June 2013 08: 47 New
      +2
      There is an idea that ALREADY. That the United States has no serious stockpile of nuclear weapons. As for warheads, there and for carriers.
      1. 11 black
        11 black 20 June 2013 09: 07 New
        +6
        Quote: Avenger711
        There is an idea that ALREADY. That the United States has no serious stockpile of nuclear weapons. As for warheads, there and for carriers.

        Well, this is indirectly confirmed by Obama’s desire to reduce the Russian nuclear arsenals as soon as possible ...
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 23 New
          +7
          and they naturally send him
          1. aksakal
            aksakal 20 June 2013 17: 51 New
            0
            Quote: leon-iv
            and they naturally send him

            - True, while polite.
        2. Avenger711
          Avenger711 20 June 2013 14: 15 New
          +1
          http://topwar.ru/10191-strategicheskie-yadernye-sily-ssha-traektoriya-padeniya.h
          tml
  4. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 20 June 2013 06: 40 New
    +4
    Well, the author has pretty well laid out everything on the shelves, the laws of economics have not been canceled yet, and war is war, but you always want to eat.
    1. Airman
      Airman 20 June 2013 10: 45 New
      +4
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      Well, the author has pretty well laid out everything on the shelves, the laws of economics have not been canceled yet, and war is war, but you always want to eat.


      Nobody canceled the laws of the economy, and the market too - they are sneakers and diapers for us, and we give them RD-180 and enriched uranium. That's right, you want to eat sneakers and bush legs instead of a good piece of beef or pork.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 June 2013 11: 18 New
        +9
        I say market such a market
        1Snickers and Mars have long been doing in Russia our workers on our raw materials
        2 Bush legs, it will soon be a story see how many poultry meat is produced per year in Russia
        1. volkodav
          volkodav 20 June 2013 11: 32 New
          +7
          poultry meat is already overproduction hi feed yourself whom you want (thanks to Comrade Anishchenko) smile
          1. Tverichanka
            Tverichanka 20 June 2013 22: 51 New
            0
            Quote: volkodav
            poultry meat

            Poultry meat is already exported.
      2. Tverichanka
        Tverichanka 20 June 2013 22: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Povshnik
        oh, you want to eat snickers and bush legs in

        But is there really no choice? Have you tried the potatoes and the herring?
  5. Humpty
    Humpty 20 June 2013 06: 46 New
    +3
    Demand for uranium is and will likely grow. We have nearby a factory where they bring gold to 999 and enrich uranium with less salaries than Tajik wipers in Moscow.
    Customers pay mere pennies for uranium enrichment (I don’t know to what extent).
    1. mogus
      mogus 20 June 2013 07: 19 New
      +5
      we go around the entire periodic table - we are a subsidized region drinks this is possible only in Russia recourse
      1. karbofos
        karbofos 20 June 2013 13: 33 New
        +3
        back in Africa
  6. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 20 June 2013 07: 07 New
    +5
    yeah! forward attacks are not an article but manna from heaven! Well, even if at least a half-hole in it really impresses you anyway!
  7. regsSSSR
    regsSSSR 20 June 2013 07: 30 New
    +1
    Yes, by the way - the 1986 accident in Chernobyl was very convenient for the United States. So convenient and in time happened that there are great doubts about its accident. (Quote)

    and all the same, Americans !!! I was almost sure that this was a human factor! but the accident really fits perfectly into the written article! Yes, we really don’t know much!
  8. serg. 555
    serg. 555 20 June 2013 07: 40 New
    -1
    Is it really true? Concentrators have been preserved in Russia.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 24 New
      +6
      Russia is the only country in which, for the foreseeable future, a NFC is possible.
  9. fisherman
    fisherman 20 June 2013 07: 46 New
    0
    "Woe to the Hegemon"

    nobody got off this needle yet :)
  10. Renat
    Renat 20 June 2013 07: 53 New
    +1
    Why do they compare the number of nuclear weapons between the US and Russia? Let's compare NATO and the Russian Federation. Then a completely different alignment will turn out.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 25 New
      +1
      And how will he be so different? And if our TNW add there?
    2. Avenger711
      Avenger711 20 June 2013 09: 36 New
      +1
      And who has it in NATO? France and the United Kingdom? And how much they have in the storeroom when the brits without submarines with ICBMs can remain soon?
      1. saruman
        saruman 20 June 2013 13: 19 New
        +3
        Quote: Avenger711
        And who has it in NATO? France and the United Kingdom? And how much they have in the storeroom when the brits without submarines with ICBMs can remain soon?


        A very small amount. In addition, the combat effectiveness of French SLBMs is under a very big question ... France and England have a complete lack of strategic ground-based carriers, and an almost conventional air-nuclear component (in practice, this is a tactical nuclear weapon).
    3. alicante11
      alicante11 21 June 2013 08: 10 New
      0
      What for? Anyway, that's enough for everyone. Both Russia and NATO. Unless the microbes survive.
    4. megajob
      megajob 12 May 2017 03: 36 New
      0
      Nuka nuka surprise us - what is the superiority of nuclear weapons of the USA over what nuclear weapons of the USA? laughing And here we laugh.
  11. mogus
    mogus 20 June 2013 08: 20 New
    +2
    Why do they compare the number of nuclear weapons between the US and Russia? Let's compare NATO and the Russian Federation. Then a completely different alignment will turn out.

    And who will suffer for the interests of the United States? Turkey, at the request of the United States, did not climb into Syria ...
  12. fenix57
    fenix57 20 June 2013 08: 24 New
    +2
    Amers believe-do not respect yourself.
    Quote: Renat
    Let's compare NATO and the Russian Federation. Then a completely different alignment will turn out.



    World's nuclear stockpiles

    Number of warheads (active and in reserve)
    1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1989 1992 2002 2010
    США 32 1005 6444 ≈26000 >31255[8] ≈27000 ≈25000 ≈23000 ≈23500 22217[8] ≈12000 ≈10600 ≈8500
    СССР/Россия — 50 660 ≈4000 8339 ≈15000 ≈25000 ≈34000 ≈38000 ≈25000 ≈16000 ≈11000
    Великобритания — — 20 270 512 ≈225[9]
    France - - - 36 384 ≈350
    China - - - - 25 ≈400 ≈400
    Israel - - - - - ≈200 ≈150
    India - - - - - - ≈100 ≈100
    Pakistan - - - - - - - - - - - - ≈100 ≈110
    DPRK - - - - - - - - - - - - ≈5-10
    South Africa - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
    Итого 32 1055 7124 ≈30000 >39925 ≈42000 ≈50000 ≈57000 63484 <40000 <28300 <20850
    Note: Data for Russia since 1992 and the United States since 2002 include only strategic warheads; both states also have significant tactical nuclear weapons, which are difficult to assess
  13. Nitarius
    Nitarius 20 June 2013 08: 31 New
    +2
    The people when you consider what Igor says aboutStretsov.
    And the fact that the latest accident in Japan was the result of an explosion in the Ocean. So everything falls into place.
    And the fact that the BOGOMOLOV Accelerator was created, and he is able to blow up any boat with nuclear weapons, then there is a fear
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOsgiIr5niM
  14. STALGRAD76
    STALGRAD76 20 June 2013 08: 47 New
    +1
    I noticed that the phrase all polymers has some kind of deep meaning, explain who is talking about what?
    1. Averias
      Averias 20 June 2013 09: 23 New
      0
      Polymers are mainly used for the purification of liquid radioactive liquids from uranium. And also (with regards to polymers), this production - uranium tetrafluoride (“HaloPolymer Kirovo-Chepetsk”) makes it. Something like this.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 26 New
      +1
      This is from the game Starcraft 1 part
      1. TRAFFIC
        TRAFFIC 20 June 2013 10: 14 New
        +3
        Ty, and I thought that this phrase came from one leader, on the record it was at 2:20 laughing
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 20 June 2013 10: 49 New
          +5
          Quote: TRAFIC
          , and I thought that phrase went
          Yes, it went from there, but then acquired an independent significance. This concept was called all those members of the forum who did not want to praise Putin and his activities in top posts lol
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 20 June 2013 10: 47 New
      0
      Quote: STALGRAD76
      the phrase "all polymers blew" ™ has some kind of deep meaning

      If the author is exactly the Observer that I know (and the style of presentation is very similar), then the deep meaning there really is. It was at that time that “watershed” at which the Bogdanklub forum split. We both were active participants there. request
    4. SPACE
      SPACE 20 June 2013 19: 39 New
      0
      Quote: STALGRAD76
      I noticed that the phrase "blew all polymers" ™ has some kind of deep meaning

      Do you seriously think that only lokhi are sitting at the top? And they will give their hard-earned money without payment? laughing Ha, no matter how, we still have a lot to learn and rethink. We watched the movie "Game" with Douglas, so this is something like that.
  15. valokordin
    valokordin 20 June 2013 09: 05 New
    +5
    I carefully read the article, it seemed that what poor amers and what mighty Russians, how they are ahead of poor Americans. What conclusion should we pity them and not remember how the EBN gave 600 tons of weapons-grade uranium. It turns out we even from Canada supplied uranium for the Americans, and we could not buy it in Kazakhstan-nonsense.
    1. Averias
      Averias 20 June 2013 09: 26 New
      0
      If you carefully study the question of, quote:
      Quote: valokordin
      how EBN gave 600 tons of weapons-grade uranium
      . You will find out that the figure itself is delusional, and this uranium is not even weapons-grade, and its specificity is that it is extremely difficult to use it for military purposes.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 27 New
      +2
      and we could not buy it in Kazakhstan-nonsense.

      And why do we need to buy it there when the probable opponent himself delivers?
    3. TRAFFIC
      TRAFFIC 20 June 2013 10: 19 New
      +1
      You can read another article about the same, only more balanced, everything is described there, why and why, http://www.proatom.ru/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=909
    4. shinobi
      shinobi 20 June 2013 18: 27 New
      0
      and we could not buy it in Kazakhstan-nonsense.

      But why buy if you can take it for free, enrich it and get enough on the difference in price? All the "progressive" Western humanity does this, but why should we do it differently? fool
  16. Averias
    Averias 20 June 2013 09: 18 New
    0
    Thanks to the author for a clear explanation of hu from hu. Yeah, the noodles that the media and the Internet are trying to hang up “masterfully” - no plugs are enough to take them off.
  17. Asketxnumx
    Asketxnumx 20 June 2013 09: 18 New
    0
    I thank the site for the sensible article. Gradually, the behavior of GDP in communication with "friends" becomes clear. Here is one of the foundations for strengthening our position in the world.
  18. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 20 June 2013 09: 19 New
    +2
    Interesting article, easy to read. And if the analysis in it corresponds to reality, then it becomes easy to understand why the Americans are so persistently proposing to reduce nuclear arsenals by a third. Alone, it seems to be dumb, to persuade us, and here the most interesting begins. Whoever needs more, he is more inferior.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 20 June 2013 12: 17 New
      +1
      our curator, Major Gryazev, once taught ---- "Learn to compose not a term" ........
  19. deman73
    deman73 20 June 2013 09: 41 New
    +1
    Very interesting article, informative, God forbid that all this is so.
  20. leon-iv
    leon-iv 20 June 2013 09: 45 New
    0
    Article plus but better read the source of the journal crustgroup.livejournal.com. It is possible on the Aftershock author http://aftershock.su/?q=blog/1899/ I myself thought to write an article based on its materials, but it was terribly lazy. And so read the NUC article prefix on nuclear power.
  21. Tartary
    Tartary 20 June 2013 10: 20 New
    +2
    It is useful to know this for everyone who shouts - "everything is gone! Putin sold Russia!"

    Esaul, by the way, recently posted similar materials here ...
    1. Tverichanka
      Tverichanka 20 June 2013 23: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: Tartary
      who shouts - "everything is gone!

      Oh, how they shouted and shouted. And you won’t get anything. Oh, how many different data were laid out, how many arguments they brought, everything was pea-walled .... I personally have only questions for these comrades now, WHY? Why Do they do this? I have no answer. And you?
  22. varov14
    varov14 20 June 2013 10: 37 New
    +2
    Uranium in the USA ends, it's time to disarm - will we support the American economy, are we patriots or not?
  23. The comment was deleted.
  24. Smersh
    Smersh 20 June 2013 11: 57 New
    +1
    That's why Obama proposes further reductions in nuclear arsenals.
  25. Russ69
    Russ69 20 June 2013 12: 09 New
    +1
    A normal article, and whoever does not believe, let them be disproved by figures and facts, not chants; "pissed all polymers."
    1. karbofos
      karbofos 20 June 2013 15: 49 New
      0
      And about the Bogomolov accelerator is interesting
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOsgiIr5niM
  26. slaventi
    slaventi 20 June 2013 13: 48 New
    +7
    (1) The Russian-American agreement on the use of highly enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons (HEU-LEU Agreement), prepared by the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, was finally signed on September 1 by 2000 by US Vice President A. Gore and from Russia M. Kasyanov. 500 tons of Russian highly enriched uranium were sold at a price of 24 dollars per gram, with its cost in the United States about 1000 dollars per gram. The damage to the country can be estimated at least five hundred billion dollars, which is equal to all the current gold and currency reserves of Russia.
    And also Russia had to dismantle all reactors producing weapons-grade uranium!
    1. slaventi
      slaventi 20 June 2013 14: 19 New
      +2
      The deal on the sale of weapons-grade uranium prepared by the Gore-Chernomyrdin commission is yet another betrayal of Russia's interests.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 June 2013 14: 40 New
        +1
        Either remove the cross, or put on your pants (s)
        There is something to refute the article?
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 20 June 2013 15: 20 New
      +3
      Quote: slaventi
      And also Russia had to dismantle all reactors producing weapons-grade uranium!
      Poke your finger on the map, where exactly on the planet is SUCH a reactor? Plutonium 239, that produce. ALL RBMK-type reactors produce 2 kg of plutonium per 1 kg of burnt uranium-235. Are they all closed? And uranium is MINED, and then ENRICHED.

      But Americans are not stupid and not smart, they are DIFFERENT. There are also brilliant ones, such as Admiral Rickover. But he is no longer in business for a long time. The current bigwigs are more concerned about inflating short-term financial bubbles, where did they get really visionary will politics take?
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 20 June 2013 15: 33 New
        +1
        RBMKs will change to VVER and plutonium will be produced in BN breeders
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 20 June 2013 22: 08 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          RBMK will change to VVER
          What year? Also by 2020 or immediately by the time of 2050?
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 21 June 2013 10: 58 New
            0
            no, as they are developed and replaced with new BN-800 power units, they are already launching
    3. megajob
      megajob 12 May 2017 03: 43 New
      0
      Yes, you old man tenacious d ... b laughing
      Uranus - do not work !! DIGGED, then ENRICHED in many ways. And they make - Plutonium !! Actually recently there was news that under an agreement between the US and Russia they were supposed to "irrevocably recycle" 30 tons of plutonium. So Putin mocked that "we have already built a factory here and started processing, but the US is somehow late." Although the "rumors" say that the mattresses have not technologically pulled plutonium reprocessing.
  27. dmb
    dmb 20 June 2013 13: 53 New
    +4
    Interestingly, "stupid Americans" buy our uranium, "stupid Europeans" buy our oil and gas. So do the "stupid Chinese." And we, the smart ones, loudly declare that our Gazprom is the most gas-producing Gazprom in the world. What do we get in return? Paper made from our own forest, with green stains. Yes, you can still get some benefits on this paper, but how long will it last, and with what will our grandchildren remain? The same Americans are storing their oil, and they are pumping someone else's oil into storage facilities. And we even keep the received papers from them. And for the rest we buy mainly expensive cars for Gazprom bosses.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 14: 08 New
      0
      a reference to the injected oil is it possible? There is such a concept as a reserve, it exists in any country.
      1. dmb
        dmb 20 June 2013 15: 34 New
        -1
        No problem; type in any search engine and get a large number of them. But why do you need them? You with the fact that the United States pumps oil in them, judging by your comment, agree. I do not see your objections to the rest of my comment.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 20 June 2013 15: 57 New
          -1
          No problem; type in any search engine and get a large number of them. But why do you need them? You with the fact that the United States pumps oil in them, judging by your comment, agree. I do not see your objections to the rest of my comment.

          I will repeat once again the link does not spoil from the sane where they pour oil into their old fields where it mixes with the chemistry that they pump there.
    2. megajob
      megajob 12 May 2017 03: 45 New
      0
      ALL US strategic oil reserves are two weeks of their current consumption. laughing
  28. Rezun
    Rezun 20 June 2013 14: 06 New
    +3
    ... but once a clever man said: "Do not mess with the Russians ..."
    About a year ago, I drew attention to this topic, which is quite interesting material:http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/76247/
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 20 June 2013 14: 38 New
    +1
    in 1999, the US government convinces the largest Western producers of natural uranium - Cameco (Canada), Cogema (now Areva, France), and Nukem (Germany) to sell Russia at a special price of 118.000 tons of natural uranium! You think about this figure - this is the raw material for 17 years of full loading of our centrifuges. And the United States provided it to us.

    Why? Because the situation with the fuel in the USA was absolutely catastrophic.

    Nifiga did not understand! Explain, huh?
    USA convinces Canada to sell uranium to Russia since US lacks uranium .... so what ???
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 14: 41 New
      -1
      Yeah, there is HEU and stations need LEU Canada has something to distribute.
      1. Grishka100watt
        Grishka100watt 20 June 2013 14: 46 New
        +1
        hi I still do not understand the process. What is HEU and what is LEU?
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 20 June 2013 14: 57 New
          +3
          News Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), it is necessary for the initialization of plutonium in the Trutnev Babayev scheme for a thermonuclear charge.
          Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel assembly feedstocks
          1. Grishka100watt
            Grishka100watt 20 June 2013 15: 04 New
            0
            Highly enriched for warheads, low enriched for nuclear reactors. hi
      2. megajob
        megajob 12 May 2017 03: 47 New
        0
        Google "The World Around the Needle" - everything with numbers and understand is explained there.
  31. Nitup
    Nitup 20 June 2013 14: 39 New
    +5
    It is written that the article is based on materials, including Wikipedia. But, in my opinion, Wikipedia is nothing but the US Internet speaker. It is obvious to me that the HEU-LEU program was carried out with the goal of leaving us without the ability to produce nuclear weapons, and some economic interests for the USA are secondary here. Indeed, in 1993, when an agreement was concluded on the HEU-LEU program for 20 years, they did not know that Putin would come to power in Russia and would not extend this program in 2013. And so, probably, all the uranium would be gone, like all the missiles would be cut.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 20 June 2013 14: 43 New
      -1
      pound it who does not have nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation?
      You before pedagogy would have looked into LJ from whom infa was taken. There a man spent a lot of work collecting information. By the way, he is a resident of Ukraine
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 20 June 2013 15: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: leon-iv
        pound it who does not have nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation?
        You before pedagogy would have looked into LJ from whom infa was taken. There a man spent a lot of work collecting information. By the way, he is a resident of Ukraine

        I do not understand, but what am I saying that the Russian Federation does not have nuclear weapons?
  32. Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 20 June 2013 14: 41 New
    +2
    Very interesting. Thanks for the information.
  33. The comment was deleted.
  34. Rus2012
    20 June 2013 16: 00 New
    +7
    Dear colleagues, what is the point of the article?
    1. Russian centrifuges are the best and most productive in the whole world - http://www.atomic-energy.ru/interviews/2011/06/11/23342 Only amers have been trying to build similar ones (before that they enriched the gas-diffusion method, expensive and expensive ) Germany has one of the recognized leaders in the production of these centrifuges - compared to ours - of previous generations. The Russian Federation has an optimal enrichment technology (thanks, Lavrenty Palych!). This made it possible to plan so much including weapons material.
    2. Russian reactors after Chornobyl are the most advanced and safest (with all sorts of Meltdown traps and autonomous security systems).

    This suggests that the Russian Federation, as if some were not crying, is at the forefront in nuclear energy.
    Amers most of all built in the world of nuclear power plants of their designs. And you see - there is no fuel! Who to go with outstretched hand? Of course, to sworn friends - for uranium, gas and so on. If only to skillfully dispose of everything ...
  35. razved
    razved 20 June 2013 17: 47 New
    -2
    Yes, the information is interestingly presented and the facts are compiled ... In general, you can probably take it on faith ...
  36. shinobi
    shinobi 20 June 2013 18: 40 New
    +2
    Against the background of this article, Amer’s attacks on the Iranian nuclear program begin to look different. Khomenei demands a bomb for politics, and it takes out 2/3 of enriched uranium which is already insufficient for their civilian reactors. at bargain prices. And I still could not understand why there was so much noise around the reactors and the bomb, about the enrichment cycle, either in passing or in silence.
  37. Kurtshaar
    Kurtshaar 23 June 2013 09: 02 New
    0
    Interesting article! Liked it! Thanks to the posted!
  38. Kurtshaar
    Kurtshaar 23 June 2013 09: 03 New
    0
    I’ll add that the headline “Why did the Russians give the USA their uranium? And did they give ...” reminded me of Lebedinsky’s song “Why did Gerasim drown his MUMU”))
  39. geraivanov2012
    geraivanov2012 26 June 2013 13: 25 New
    0
    The article is stupid. For lovers of pink glasses and hat-takers. Therefore, the sale of strategic resources by traitors to the winner ascribes merit to the "destruction of the US nuclear industry."
    But if you read this review http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-TZ/USA--Nuclear-Fuel-C
    ycle / #. Ucqtcdj4XTp
    it is clear that there is no destruction of the US nuclear industry. True, they exchanged strategic raw materials for candy wrappers, but they saved their reserves, and preserved production and enrichment.
    HEU-LEU supplies provided only half of the needs of nuclear energy. The rest of the uranium came from Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia. As I understand it (maybe wrong), not enriched and enriched in the United States. American uranium covered 5% of the needs. Now they are going to increase production.

    Maybe there are some problems, but the "destruction of the US nuclear industry" is only in the silly fantasies of the haters. And these problems were generated by the "effective" capitalists, but certainly not the insidious plans of Yeltsin.

    Moreover, Rosatom is ready to bring its own technologies to the USA and build an enrichment plant there. Apparently transferring more economical Soviet enrichment technologies, Russia will inflict a “terrible” blow on the United States.
  40. voliador
    voliador 21 November 2013 19: 56 New
    0
    Does the author know the real value of this uranium?
    1. atalef
      atalef 21 November 2013 20: 07 New
      0
      Quote: voliador
      Does the author know the real value of this uranium?

      How and what would Russia really do with these 500 tons, because they can’t be stored in one place. So, no one wondered why Russia would need it?
  41. atalef
    atalef 21 November 2013 20: 04 New
    0
    Quote: voliador
    Does the author know the real value of this uranium?

    How and what would Russia really do with these 500 tons, because they can’t be stored in one place. So, no one wondered why Russia would need it?
  42. Tra-ta-ta
    Tra-ta-ta 24 November 2013 15: 02 New
    0
    Thank you, reassured .. Ato last night I almost lost the war am ..!
  43. Nikolai Bolotnikov
    Nikolai Bolotnikov 1 March 2017 20: 05 New
    0
    In short, the United States will sell films, and we will eventually sell them all the uranium. The US is selling virtual, but we are real, the question is who is dumber.
    1. megajob
      megajob 12 May 2017 03: 52 New
      0
      Americans sell “virtual” candy wrappers to China, China sells to the USA - real goods that they produce at home. The question is who is the economic giant, or is it a sucker on clay feet? laughing