Another example of critical thinking by U.S Intelligence

[IXP]

The U.S. government has concluded "with near certainty", that uranium hexafloride (unenrched) found in Librya comes from North Korea, becuase it's isotope profile does not match that from Pakistan or other supected suppliers.


Full New York Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/politics/02nukes.html)

Tests Said to Tie Deal on Uranium to North Korea
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

Published: February 2, 2005


WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 - Scientific tests have led American intelligence agencies and government scientists to conclude with near certainty that North Korea sold processed uranium to Libya, bolstering earlier indications that the reclusive state exported sensitive fuel for atomic weapons, according to officials with access to the intelligence.
...
Now, intelligence officials say, extensive testing conducted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee over the last several months has concluded that the material did not originate in Pakistan or other suspect countries, and one official said that "with a certainty of 90 percent or better, this stuff's from North Korea."
...
Officials cautioned that the analysis of the uranium had been hampered by the fact that the United States has no sample of known North Korean uranium for comparison with the Libya material.


This is right up there with "I can't identifiy the object I saw in the sky, therefore it must be an extraterrestrial spacecraft".

I am scared. Real scared. Are we about to engage in a nuclear conflict based on the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance?

[jmercer]

Frighteningly, that would be a logical step-up from where we are now in Iraq. Don't blame me, though. I didn't vote for the current Idiot-In-Chief either time.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by IXP
The U.S. government has concluded "with near certainty", that uranium hexafloride (unenrched) found in Librya comes from North Korea, becuase it's isotope profile does not match that from Pakistan or other supected suppliers.

I am scared. Real scared. Are we about to engage in a nuclear conflict based on the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance?

Let's be fair here. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

If the US government has samples from all other suppliers of uranium hexafloride (and remember that that's not exactly the sort of stuff you can cook up in your kitchen; they probably know about all the labs capable of delivering that stuff in quantity), and it doesn't match any of their sampples, then the stuff must be from the one group from whom they don't have a sample.

In this case, it's not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument by process of elimination.

[AWPrime]

I am quite sceptic of thinking that they have samples of all the possible sources.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let's be fair here. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

If the US government has samples from all other suppliers of uranium hexafloride (and remember that that's not exactly the sort of stuff you can cook up in your kitchen; they probably know about all the labs capable of delivering that stuff in quantity), and it doesn't match any of their sampples, then the stuff must be from the one group from whom they don't have a sample.

In this case, it's not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument by process of elimination.

Pre-weapons of mass destruction, I think I would have agreed with you, dr kitten. But they claimed to have evidence in that situation, and now they're claiming that a lack of evidence is proof of something equally alarming. (And although I can't remember the details, I believe they recently claimed that nuclear material had been smuggled before - but that turned out to be false.)

What you're saying is fair and I completely understand your point. And in fact, my view on the matter may very well be a simple knee-jerk cynical reaction - but for now, any pronouncements of this type by the US Government concerning WMD is going to seriously raise my skeptical eyebrows. They've lost all credibility.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer
Pre-weapons of mass destruction, I think I would have agreed with you, dr kitten. But they claimed to have evidence in that situation, and now they're claiming that a lack of evidence is proof of something equally alarming. (And although I can't remember the details, I believe they recently claimed that nuclear material had been smuggled before - but that turned out to be false.)

What you're saying is fair and I completely understand your point. And in fact, my view on the matter may very well be a simple knee-jerk cynical reaction - but for now, any pronouncements of this type by the US Government concerning WMD is going to seriously raise my skeptical eyebrows. They've lost all credibility.

That's a problem of calling "wolf" too often, I agree. But by the same token, skeptics should be careful of citing non-existence fallacies, especially in support of "knee-jerk" cynicism. That's our primary "wolf" cry.

I think it's a very good question (that I hope someone asks) as to how many other labs there are in the world from which the government doesn't have samples.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by AWPrime
I am quite sceptic of thinking that they have samples of all the possible sources.

I am also sceptical that they have such samples, but I wouldn't be struck dumbfounded if true, either (evidence I will likely never see, though). Of course, the only truly damning evidence would come if they could actually match it to NK labs.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I think it's a very good question (that I hope someone asks) as to how many other labs there are in the world from which the government doesn't have samples.

Or doesn't know about. I imagine that some countries would go to great lengths to conceal such a lab and protect samples from it.

[IXP]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let's be fair here. As Sherlock Holmes put it, "when the impossible has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

If the US government has samples from all other suppliers of uranium hexafloride (and remember that that's not exactly the sort of stuff you can cook up in your kitchen; they probably know about all the labs capable of delivering that stuff in quantity), and it doesn't match any of their sampples, then the stuff must be from the one group from whom they don't have a sample.

In this case, it's not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument by process of elimination.

If it were a characteristic of the lab, I might tend to agree with you. But, if you read the full article, the "profile" is only based on the concentration of 1 rare isotope, and it depends not on the lab, but on the mine from which the uranium originated. So even if they had samples from all known labs this would do no good. What are the chances that we know of all mines and have samples from them? I would say that the material coming from Pakistan and being made from a different uranium supply than the ones we know about would be at least as likely as it coming from North Korea. To state that they know with 90% accuracy is simply ludicrous. This is not science, it is politics.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by IXP
.. This is not science, it is politics.
What isn't?

Who do you prefer to trust with your well-being, the USA (Bush-CIA etal), some mad Mullahs, NK's maniac, islamofascists, or ???

[drkitten]

Originally posted by IXP
If it were a characteristic of the lab, I might tend to agree with you. But, if you read the full article, the "profile" is only based on the concentration of 1 rare isotope, and it depends not on the lab, but on the mine from which the uranium originated. So even if they had samples from all known labs this would do no good. What are the chances that we know of all mines and have samples from them? I would say that the material coming from Pakistan and being made from a different uranium supply than the ones we know about would be at least as likely as it coming from North Korea.

How many uranium supplies do you think there are in the world? We're not talking about silicon, you know, and we're talking about a material that has been very thoroughly prospected for.

The chance of a substantial new uranium deposit being discovered in secret, while not zero, is pretty low.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by hammegk
What isn't?

Who do you prefer to trust with your well-being, the USA (Bush-CIA etal), some mad Mullahs, NK's maniac, islamofascists, or ???

I don't think he's quarreling with the science involved, just the certainty with which the conclusion was stated.

Personally, I don't have the faintest idea why disclosing this information publicly benefits the process of dealing with North Korea. Kim's a meglomaniac, and I think he's possibly certifiable - possibly as deranged as Hitler or Hussein. This whole incredibly stupid round of North Korean sabre-rattling started right after Bush identified North Korea as a part of the "Axis of Evil", and it became apparent that he intended to attack Iraq.

Publicizing a possible reason for invading North Korea is as insane as Kim.

[IXP]

Originally posted by new drkitten
How many uranium supplies do you think there are in the world? We're not talking about silicon, you know, and we're talking about a material that has been very thoroughly prospected for.

The chance of a substantial new uranium deposit being discovered in secret, while not zero, is pretty low.
Narural occurrence of uranium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence)


Uranium is everywhere. How many gold and silver deposits do you suppose there are in the world? There is a difference between a commercially viable deposit (which prospectors would be looking for) and one rich enough to produce 2 tons and utilized to disguise it's origin by someone selling it illicitly. This uranium could have come from any country in the world.

Also, I am very doubtful that the ratio of a single isotope is enough to uniquely identify a source. It is not quite like DNA testing where many locations are compared.

[IXP]

Originally posted by hammegk
What isn't?

Who do you prefer to trust with your well-being, the USA (Bush-CIA etal), some mad Mullahs, NK's maniac, islamofascists, or ???

Considering that Bush has done nothing more than infuriate the above, and the stellar accuracy of the CIA, I would feel safter without them conspiring to invent with new reasons to go to war. I would feel safer if all nations were ruled by rational elected officials, but we can't even get that here in the U.S.A.

North Korea was moving, albeit slowly, toward normalization and possibly even eventual reunification with the south when Bush moved in and first ignored then later inflamed the situation.

[Just thinking]

It's really sad that there seems to be too much political emotion tied to what is a very serious issue. Yes, yes, I know about the WMD's, or lack thereof, but everyone said it -- even before G.W. Bush was president. This should be a scientific issue delt with facts -- facts that unfortunately NK is holding back. In my opinion Kim can't be trusted, and I doubt that US Intelligence wants to make another 'blunder' about weapons, so I suspect that they are being very careful -- they may actually feel it's 99.99% but only say 90% as a result.

[jmercer]

I hope you're right, Just Thinking. I know the WMD rumors were around prior to GWB, but it was under his administration that the rumors were given an entirely new emphasis - and posited by the current administration to the world at large as fact.

I believe that the analysis was indeed scientific - like IXP, I question the conclusion drawn. Moreover, I also question the wisdom of announcing something like this without proof positive.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Just thinking
In my opinion Kim can't be trusted, and I doubt that US Intelligence wants to make another 'blunder' about weapons, so I suspect that they are being very careful -- they may actually feel it's 99.99% but only say 90% as a result.

Just to be picky, that's a terrible argument. "They lied to us before, so there's no way they'd lie to us again". I have two bridges to sell, by the way, if you are looking to invest some money.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Just to be picky, that's a terrible argument. "They lied to us before, so there's no way they'd lie to us again". I have two bridges to sell, by the way, if you are looking to invest some money.

Come come, there, Kev -- give these guys some credit. Don't you think they would do their best not to make the same mistake twice ... and so soon? I'm not saying they're 100% right, but then again, they're not saying that also. Besides, Kim was part of my argument too. It's really not fair to just pick one part of it.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Just thinking
Come come, there, Kev -- give these guys some credit. Don't you think they would do their best not to make the same mistake twice ... and so soon? I'm not saying they're 100% right, but then again, they're not saying that also. Besides, Kim was part of my argument too. It's really not fair to just pick one part of it.
Who says they made a mistake? That would imply they were seeking the truth rather than the answers that would further their agenda, which they did. My fear is that they are doing the same thing again, not by mistake, but by design.

[Just thinking]

Originally posted by IXP
My fear is that they are doing the same thing again, not by mistake, but by design.

So what's the alternative? Scrap the CIA entirely? What do we do for intelligence?

[jmercer]

Damfino, but they thought Iraq had WMD's and they totally missed North Korea's nukes, as just now announced by that maniac Kim.