Syrian Nukes

[AKIron]

Does anyone else believe that if Israel and the US had turned over their surveillance to the UN rather than acting Syria would still be in the nuke business?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352553,00.html

[SD67]

Yes.
The UN no longer has viable teeth. They would have talked circles around the issue for years until Syria had completed their program and possibly even begun to crank out nukes.

[evenhaim]

get bitten by the snake, or bite its head off before it strikes?

[Lumpy]

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.

[C(Sea)Bass]

Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment: Doesn't Syria have the right to develop nuclear technology like Israel did?

no they do not. I beleive there are various treaties that prohibit this.

[Hornet33]

Yeah but Israel has never stated that Syria and all muslims around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth. Syria, Iran, and most of the other nut job countries over there have declared that about Israel and the Jewish people. Also Syria has attacked Israel with full scale military operations several times, and got their butts handed to them every time.

Syria has no need for nukes and if they had them do you think they wouldn't use them, or sell them to terrorists to use in Israel, the US, or any number of countries in Europe?

[Lumpy]

Yeah but Israel has never stated that Syria and all muslims around the world should be wiped from the face of the earth.

Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?

[Mark Luper]

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.

Putting nukes or nuclear technology in the hands of the Syrians will only further agravate a ticklish situation. The more likely scenario would be Israel needing to defend itself against a nuclear attack rather than vice-versa.

Mark

[Lumpy]

no they do not. I beleive there are various treaties that prohibit this.

Those are UN treaties, NPT in particular. I thought the UN was irrelevant these days? And in any case Syria can just leave the treaty like North Korea did in 2003.

[Ripsnort]

Would you kindly quote a Syrian official stating that?

How about puppets of the Syrian government, like Iran or Hammas. WOuld that suffice your request?

[Lumpy]

Putting nukes or nuclear technology in the hands of the Syrians will only further agravate a ticklish situation. The more likely scenario would be Israel needing to defend itself against a nuclear attack rather than vice-versa.

Mark

I think the Syrians see things differently, and they are probably not much interested in what you think is "likely".

[Lumpy]

How about puppets of the Syrian government, like Iran or Hammas. WOuld that suffice your request?

Iran a puppet of the Syrian government? 


And the answer to your question is: No.

[Ripsnort]

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.

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.

[Ripsnort]

Iran a puppet of the Syrian government? 


And the answer to your question is: No.

How about Syria doing the dirty work of Iran? Acceptable or unreasonable?

[Ripsnort]

Let's get down to it Lumpy.

A middle eastern country already has nukes. Happens to be Israel. Israel just happens to cooperate with most Western countries.

Should any additional countries in the middle east have nukes "just because" someone else has them? Or should that door that was opened briefly (and unfortunately) be closed?

Seriously, do you think these other countries would use the nukes strictly as a political tool as the US, China, Russia, France, and UK have?  Or do you think they might just get a bit hasty and use one if pushed.  Lets call it "Nuke Rage based on Religious grounds"....I believe the latter myself.