Plan B: Syria’s forgotten — but dangerous — nuclear program

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Random_Task, Dec 29, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Plan B: Syria’s forgotten — but dangerous — nuclear program
    Examiner dot com
    Of course, it could just be wibble.
  2. "Since some of my country is occupied," Assad added, "Syria can legitimately use all the necessary means to liberate its territories."

    There is some sort of logic there. It is a very hard task to deny rights of Syria to develop nuclear weapons.
  3. Sergey I fear you have become delusional. Noone has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Noone.

    We and the Americans developed them because Heisenberg could not convince us he was not building one for Adolf H. That is all.

    We built it - your country stole the know-how through Fuchs......................the British were cut off by the 1946 McMahon Act and had to get Penney to build the hydrogen bomb in Britain.

    The spread of nuclear weapons is due to Urenco - a British-German-Dutch JV that makes gas-centrifuges and a lunatic Dutchman who provided access to A Q Khan to steal blueprints and materials to prliferate nuclear know-how.

    We do get mad Russian policies such as providing North Korea with rocketry and reactors and Iran too....................but we cannot expect Russian foreign policy to be sensible, it has been disastrous for at least a century and seems intent on going back into its shell at present - poor old Peter The Great constantly pulled away from the Window to the West and towards the view to the snowy East.

    Noone has any right to imperil my security. Germany had no right to buiild a Navy even if Tirpitz wanted one; Hitler had no right to build a Luftwaffe even if it had been built in Russia after 1919 as had Guderian's Panzerarmee. See what i mean about Russia slitting its own throat as in 1939-41 when supplying Hitler with oil and grain. Why Lenin and Frunze wanted to let Germany evade the Versailles treaty by testing poison gas in Russia, building Junkers factories, and having Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht training academies in Russia is unclear - but no doubt their cartographers were making more accurate surveys.

    If you want to fight a nuclear war Sergey think about Syria's "rights"................if you want to live in a Russia without Chernobyl in every Oblast make sure that only the Permanent Members of the Security Council have nuclear weapons
  4. We Russians have legitimate right to develop new types of nuclear weapons, new types of missiles and so on. It is a matter of our national security. And noone can right to decide for us are we allowed to develop nuclear weapons or not.

    Equally any country (Israel for example) has a natural right to develop nuclear weapons according to own national interests.

    It is another question that many countries (for many reasons) give up their natural right. Develpoment of nuclear weapons is very expensive and there are some political considerations.

    Let's return to Syria. A part of this country is occupied, moreover officially annexed. UN, World community do nothing. In this situation any country has right to make any steps to defend own interests.

    India developed nuclear weapons and Pakistan taking into account security considerations developed them too. Who could blame Pakistan?

    British government is thinking now about modernisation of British nuclear arsenal. It is a waste of time and money of course but I agree that it is up to British government to decide. It is a natural right of British people.
  5. and if the chechen speratists were to get hold of the odd nuke by whatever means from iran, syria or NK, would this be a good state of affairs for Russia?
  6. "Let's return to Syria. A part of this country is occupied, moreover officially annexed. UN, World community do nothing. In this situation any country has right to make any steps to defend own interests."

    Need to look very close to home then seeing as its OK to "defend" yourself if officially annexed :oops: Or does that not apply to the USSR (sorry, my mistake) Russia.
  7. Chechens? Nukes? From NK? You joke. Chechens (in theory) could receive nuclear weapons from Pakistan just now. But Pakistani rulers understand pretty well that in this case the whole country would be annihilated.

    Present day nuclear devices are very heavy. Only Russia and USA have technologies to built relatively compact devices.
  8. As a dog to a dog I would like to say that if I have a bone then I would defend it and if any dog 'borrow' my bone then whould try to return it.

    All dogs have the same habits. Let's recall Newfoun... or sorry ... Falklands.
  9. So were is the concrete proof that they are developing a weapons program? Nuclear program for civilian exist do exist and will have to exist since the black stuff won't be around forever.
  10. Oh dear. The Iraq Survey Group searched for WMD in post-invasion Iraq whereas the Iraq Study Group has recently proposed negotiations with Syria.

    This is a very poor article, based on unverified reports (which, by the way, appear to be conflicting) from newspapers. In particular, Con Coughlin's reporting in The Daily Telegraph is notoriously unreliable.

    Washington is unfortunately full of these "security consultants" who make a living from recycling rumours from the world's press and swallowing disinformation spread by intelligence agencies.

    On the other hand, it may be that Damascus is in the early stages of acquiring nuclear technology. But then, the Gulf states, Egypt and Morocco, have all recently indicated their interests in nuclear power, and there is nothing -absolutely nothing- in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent a country from accessing nuclear technology for peaceful means.

    Unfortunately, the Muslim countries of the Middle East and North Africa will not be a nuclear-free zone for much longer - and the West is going to have to get used to this.
  11. Yes France has already decided to do so and Le Terrible is on order and the new ICBMs have been undergoing tests.................Britain has just been a bit slow that's all.

    I do admire you Russians for your relaxed approach to Syria and Iran having such sharp pointy things near your borders.......................obviously moving some of our sharp pointy things to Katowice and other places in Poland should not be any great concern then ?
  12. Utter tosh.

    The Israelis would halt any Syrian nuclear programme before it ever got off the ground.
  13. sigh ........... ok, so they get a truck, nick a nuke or two in syria, then drive through turkey & on into Russia. This assumes they can steal them (first & foremost) - almost impossible to nick a nuke in Britain (& we hope in Russia), but one wonders about the sercurity measures in Syria & Iran for example. Russia should be rather concerned about this too, IMO.
  14. no, no, no, no, no. this is asking for a reverse Cuban missle crisis situation. NATO should be inviting Russia to join, not stocking up nukes on its borders ffs.
  15. Hocus pocus...

    This is a much better article on Syria's nuclear antics which the "counter-terrorism expert" could have found on the internet:

    i.e., a very limited programme of research and development for non-military means regulated by the IAEA, with little or no evidence of an intent to expand to a military programme.

    Bashar al-Asad may have refused to give up his WMD "until Israel give up theirs" but, as you all know, WMD covers the full range of CBRN weaponry and could just have easily referred to a CW and/or BW capability.