Syrian Nukes

[SD67]

Well, My great grandfather once saw someone who shook hands with a Jew, Can I come in now?

[FrodeMk3]

Well we can find out if they have used such weapons can't we? I think a terrorist attack on Israel using chemical or biological weapons would feature quite prominently in western media ... so I guess that there have been no such attacks. And since it is the general consensus here that Syria supported Hezbollah are fanatics that wouldn't hesitate to use such weapons I must conclude that Syria indeed have not supplied them with such weapons. Further more since it is then a matter of fact that Syria already has refrained from supplying WMD to terrorists I must conclude that there is no reason to think they would do so if they had nukes.

Yes ... it does help to think.

It's possible, Lumpy. Being as that most fingers' will point to Syria if some Islamic-oriented NGO get's ahold of an atomic weapon, and uses it somewhere. However, what hasn't been said in this thread, is what happens' now, even after the Syrian reactor was bombed, if a nuke turns' up, and is used? Who gets' the blame then? North Korea? Pakistan? China? Russia? All of them have A-bombs, and they are not so closely aligned with the U.S. that it would make them cry to see one used either on us, or one of our allies. The North Koreans' and the russians' might sell one simply for the money, Pakistan could "lose" one simply because someone in their gov't. or armed forces' is strongly sympathetic to the Islamic cause, and China might sell one hoping it will cause us trouble (They cause enough of it economically.)

Now, the Isreali bombing of the Syrian site, if it set's the syrian weapons' program back, could at least help keep the number of possible sources' of such a weapon down. However, if it actually was a peaceful program, such actions' do give the Syrians' cause to actually develop Atomic weapons. And they will, given what would actually be provacative actions.

Freez, did your gov't. first take the evidence of the reactor being built to the Syrians, and ask them what it's purpose was for? Did they ask if they could verify that it was actually a power generating facility? Or did they think it definetely was a weapons' plant, and rather than give away the advantage of suprise, bombed it ASAP?

[AKIron]

Of course, but then you would have to act alone or with a small coalition of like-minded. Your track record for such operations isn't exactly stellar, and is getting worse every day.

Some will lead, some follow, and some oppose. It's always been this way and always will be.

[IronDog]

Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did? Considering the turbulent relationship between Israel and Syria over the years, aren't Syria justified in developing nukes since Israel already has them? They have a right to defend themselves.

If the UN,the USA,or Isreal don't stop the Syrians,Iran,etc, Israel will be hit with a nuke!It's just that simple.
IronDog

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Agreed irondog.

125% it realy is that simple.

[FrodeMk3]

If the UN,the USA,or Isreal don't stop the Syrians,Iran,etc, Israel will be hit with a nuke!It's just that simple.
IronDog

Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.

     That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.

[Hornet33]

However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.)


It's real EASY if someone in the government has the stones to put it all out on the table. Our policy should be this. Any country that is involved with nuclear programs not under UN inspections WILL have their capital cities destroyed by thermo nuclear devices in the event of a nuclear attack, i.e. North Korea, Syria, Iran right off the bat. If it is detiremined that the marterial used was obtained from anouther country, they're next.

By the way even after a thermo nuclear blast, with a few dust sized particals of radioactive material, you CAN determine exactly where the nuclear marterial came from. The ratio of nuclear isotopes vary from reactor to reactor where it was created. Nuclear scientists can even narrow it down to what part of the reactor it came from. I've had this conversation with my best friends brother who is a nuclear engineer with a Phd in nuclear pyhsics. He is a nuclear power plant manager in Ohio and he knows what he's talking about.

With terrorists you might not be able to find out who dunnit, but you can damn sure find out who provided it, and with stakes that big, that makes them just as guilty.

[AKIron]

Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.

     That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.

Read up on the 12th Imam if you haven't. War and chaos is exactly what some of these muslims want and it's not just a few zealots.

[SD67]

Perhaps. But just one won't destroy Isreal's retaliatory capability, Even if it hit's something major like Tel Aviv. Unless some Arab state has managed to SECRETLY amass enough of an arsenal to hit all of the major targets' in Isreal, Just popping one will get the offender obliterated. Now, a terrorist group, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc. might get ahold of one or two, but I don't see them getting enough to destroy all of Isreal. However, how can you justify a retaliatory strike against, say, Damascus, when you still aren't sure who set one off, even if it's a major city? A ballistic missile can be back-tracked on radar, you can see where it came from. Most terrorism scenario's have the weapon smuggled in, hidden in the target, and then set off.(BTW, a Thermonuclear explosion makes' it hard to collect evidence as to whodunnit.) Now, if a Syrian gov't. official was to claim it, then yeah, hammer them into radioactive glass. However, I doubt they would, if they couldn't follow up with more weapons. Methink's that for that reason, they would steer well clear of even GIVING a terrorist org. any sort of WMD. The consequences for their nation, and possibly the arab world as a whole, would be too severe.

     That said, even one life lost in a terrorist act, is one too many. My point with the above, is that overreaction simply increases the body count, and thus the terrorist wins' again.

The problem the terrorists will have with this is the same problem most criminals have. They just can't shut up about it.
Besides it's not much of a statement to the rest of the Islamic whackjobs and the World at large if they don't pop up and say "Look at what we did for the glory of Allah!" now is it?

[ghi]

Damascus, (Syria) is one of the longest continually-inhabited cities on the planet but the Bible is talking  about the total destruction like never  before , in the near future,

Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.

Jeremiah 49:23 Concerning Damascus. Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; [there is] sorrow on the sea; it cannot be quiet.
 Jeremiah 49:24 Damascus is waxed feeble, [and] turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on [her]: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
Jeremiah 49:27  And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.

Amos 1:5  I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden: and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir, saith the LORD.

[FrodeMk3]

Read up on the 12th Imam if you haven't. War and chaos is exactly what some of these muslims want and it's not just a few zealots.

The problem the terrorists will have with this is the same problem most criminals have. They just can't shut up about it.
Besides it's not much of a statement to the rest of the Islamic whackjobs and the World at large if they don't pop up and say "Look at what we did for the glory of Allah!" now is it?

True, and true. However, unlike a subway bomb, Airline Hijacking, or most of your other mainstream terrorist acts, popping a nuke would have such a different reaction, that you could figure on most terrorist orgs., even the really hardcore ones, thinking twice about claiming responsibility. For an example, look at the aftermath of 9/11; that act brought about (dire) consequences for the Islamic cause. Whereas they had two countries' with aligned gov'ts. (At least in Afghanistan; Saddam was kinda hard to figure out, on the religous side) After Sept. 11th, They witnessed that giving the U.S. and other Western Nations' the pretext, would cost them some soil. I can't say for sure what a U.S. reaction to a bomb going off in Tel Aviv would be...I don't think it would be the same as say, detonating a fission device in some major American Metropolitan city. In the case of Tel Aviv, our reaction might be something like aid to Isreal, maybe some direct military help. That one kinda depends' on factors' as yet unseen. In the case of a direct attack on U.S. soil, Our current administration might treat that as the same as a first strike protocol, as soon as the source was pinpointed. As Hornet earlier said, that nation, even if they only gave support, materials, whatever...Might see the largest application of Nuclear arms' on this planet to date. I think that this kind of scenario is what makes even nations like Syria police themselves; They were building a reactor, possibly to make weapons' for their own military, But they would be insane to give them to an extremist group, and I highly suspect they know this. The Soviets' could have given Nuclear weapons to several countries' during the cold war, but they didn't, and I believe for the same reasons' I stated above.

I don't for a moment believe that such nations' won't continue to sponsor terrorists. I just don't think that they will let slip with a(n) atomic device so easily...even a muslim one. Not without a big enough arsenal to ensure a MAD doctrine, which would deter any kind of large scale attack.

[bongaroo]

First, do a little research on history. Harold Wilson was prime minister. The sale of plutonium was made despite a warning from British intelligence that it might  what they called a "material contribution to the Israeli weapons program" back then.

Under Wilson, Britain also sold Israel tons of chemicals used to make boosted atom bombs 20 times more powerful than Hiroshima or even Hydrogen Bombs.

In Harold Macmillan's time the UK supplied uranium 235 and the heavy water which allowed Israel to start up its nuclear weapons production plant at Dimona - heavy water which British intelligence estimated would allow Israel to make "six nuclear weapons a year".

The US did NOT agree to this.  Just as we do not agree with any brown skin religious nutjob....er, middle eastern country today having such a weapon.

your prejudice is showing threw just a bit!

[Lumpy]

Oooh ... now we have people quoting scripture! 

[C(Sea)Bass]

Oooh ... now we have people quoting scripture! 

Thou shalt not be a tool

CBass 1:1

[Lumpy]

Good luck with your science experiment. It might cost you an Israel city, a U.S. city, or perhaps the flow of oil which will essentially cut off your supply of food, but good luck with that experiement either way.

Hey, Rip ... I'm still waiting for an explanation on how and why my supply of food will be cut off?