Syrian Nukes

[C(Sea)Bass]

Oh I understand your reasons for not wanting your neighbours to have these weapons ... but not being Israeli I also understand that the Syrians want them. After all their neighbour has them and is behaving very aggressively towards them, even invading their airspace from time to time.

I would want nukes if I was a neighbour of Israel.

If you consider Isreal to be the agressor you need to get your head checked.
First off Isreal has been invaded by Arab countries multiple times and that includes Syria.
Why should Isreal not be hostile towards a nation that supllies a NGO with weapons that are then used against Isreal?

Heh. Interrestingly we have completely opposite views on that. Since it is impossible to stop the "train" and to remove all nukes already in the world ... especially if nobody trusts anybody and particularly not the UN. I think every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way.

However I do understand that some people do not want to give up their monopoly on "super-power" weapons.

You are making the assumption that these nations fear annihilation. These nations are full of the same people who make suicide attacks against others, and beleive they go to heaven for doing so. What makes you think they will change this view if they had nukes?

[Ripsnort]

Heh. Interrestingly we have completely opposite views on that. Since it is impossible to stop the "train" and to remove all nukes already in the world ... especially if nobody trusts anybody and particularly not the UN. I think every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way.

However I do understand that some people do not want to give up their monopoly on "super-power" weapons.

Testifying before a House International Relations Subcommittee Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton described Syria as posing a dual threat to the United States in the form of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. In regard to terrorism, Syria is alleged to be a sponsor of organizations the United States considers terrorist, including Hizbollah of Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad of Palestine. Although Bolton admits that there are no specific ties linking Syria to any of these organizations, he insists that there are strong indicators—particularly Syria’s assistance to anti-coalition forces in Iraq. As for the threat of WMD Bolton testified that Syria had the most advanced chemical weapons capabilities in the Arab world and is “without question, among the states, those most aggressively seeking to acquire or develop WMD and the means of delivery.”[28]

In the area of nuclear energy, according to Bolton, Syria has an effective research and development program and has attempted to get dual usage technology from the International Atomic Energy Agency and is working with China and Russia on developing a civilian nuclear energy program. Additionally, even though Syria is a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it has yet sign to sign the Additional Protocol NPT. Similarly Syria has declined to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and still has not ratified the Biological Weapons Convention it signed in 1972. Finally, Bolton testified that Syria has an advanced conventional weapons program and hundreds of short and long range missiles equipped with chemical warheads.

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.

[Ripsnort]

Except we weren't the ones who invaded the other 3 times and attack with other means multiple times, i think that has no comparison to a defensive strike on a single target.... Your inability to analyze the situation is beyond me.

This is your sterotype typical liberal opinion in the U.S.  It's also a reason why they won't be a political factor once the baby boomer gen and their offspring die off (primarily due to the fact that baby boomer's offspring that are liberals are predominently DINKS, duel income, no kids.....thankfully....)

[Lumpy]

Except we weren't the ones who invaded the other 3 times and attack with other means multiple times, i think that has no comparison to a defensive strike on a single target.... Your inability to analyze the situation is beyond me.

Remember I'm an advocate for the Devil here, and you're assuming that I agree that Israel had any right to be created in the first place, let alone to continue to exist. Well ... I do, but I have to play the role to the fullest.

[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.

Your paranoia aside, why would it cut off my supply of food? I have eaten Israeli grown potatoes, but other than that?

[Toad]

I have no idea. If I had to venture a guess ... not much if anything. They might dare to speak up more often.

What do you think will happen?

I think they will surreptitiously provide nukes to Hamas or a similar Islamic extremist group. I think that group will then use a nuke on either the US or Israel.

Because it will all be done in the deep shadows, your premise

that every country should have nukes and a common understanding that the first country to use them would be totally eradicated by the others. MAD ... it's the only way

completely falls apart. There will be no retaliation because there will be no incontrovertible evidence that the <cough> civilized countries will accept as proof of who supplied the weapon.

There will just be a dead city with a lot of dead people, with more to follow.

[Toad]

Oh, BTW, the intel should have been immediately handed over to the UN IAEA investigators who could then have demanded prompt action from the Security Council to keep Syria from proceeding with their planned development of nukes.

After all, it's a tried and true method. Look how well it has worked with Iran.

[Lumpy]

I think they will surreptitiously provide nukes to Hamas or a similar Islamic extremist group. I think that group will then use a nuke on either the US or Israel.

Because it will all be done in the deep shadows, your premise

completely falls apart. There will be no retaliation because there will be no incontrovertible evidence that the <cough> civilized countries will accept as proof of who supplied the weapon.

There will just be a dead city with a lot of dead people, with more to follow.

I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?

[evenhaim]

I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?

Because they have before and are up until now unharmed, and Syria's government is a long way from secular.

[Toad]

I think you argument is flawed ... It's not like the most powerful nation on Earth needed "incontrovertible evidence" to invade Iraq. And why would the secular government of Syria take such a risk?

Invading Iraq is an inconsequential minor operation in comparison to incinerating Syria with the resultant radioactive cloud drifting across more than half of the Mideast.

I seriously doubt any nation, with the exception of NK, that currently has nukes would use one without incontrovertible evidence that garnered the support of most of the other nuclear powers. One could expect China and Russia to oppose the use of nukes even if 5 major US cities were smokin' holes.

Syria, not a secular government as you posit, might take such a risk if they convinced themselves they could hide their fingerprints well enough to avoid any sort of proof.

I'm sure Evenhaim will oblige you if you wish to argue that Syria's government is truly secular.

[Lumpy]

Because they have before and are up until now unharmed, and Syria's government is a long way from secular.

Syria has given nukes to terrorists before? I must have missed that. 

[evenhaim]

Syria has given nukes to terrorists before? I must have missed that. 

I was answering why the would try to harass a powerful nation in reference to the usa....

[Lumpy]

I seriously doubt any nation, with the exception of NK, that currently has nukes would use one without incontrovertible evidence that garnered the support of most of the other nuclear powers. One could expect China and Russia to oppose the use of nukes even if 5 major US cities were smokin' holes.

Well if the opinions of the US patrons of this forum is any indication I have no doubt that the US would be nuking nations quite liberally if US cities were attacked. Even if the identity of the attacker was not certain.

I'm sure Evenhaim will oblige you if you wish to argue that Syria's government is truly secular.

If I want to ask someone about Syria I think I'll ask anyone but an Israeli. Doing otherwise would be like asking an American about Canada or Mexico.

[Lumpy]

I was answering why the would try to harass a powerful nation in reference to the usa....

Harassing with nukes? I think nuking the USA is somewhat beyond the scope of harassment.

However if you believe Syria would give nukes to terrorists, why in your opinion haven't they already given terrorists chemical or biological weapons? Or do you believe that they have done that?

[lasersailor184]

Harassing with nukes? I think nuking the USA is somewhat beyond the scope of harassment.

However if you believe Syria would give nukes to terrorists, why in your opinion haven't they already given terrorists chemical or biological weapons? Or do you believe that they have done that?

You simply have to ask yourself what Syria has provided to the killers of Women and Children.


How much has syria paid to the suicide bomber's families who bombed Public Transportation Busses?