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

#1
Plan B: Syria’s forgotten — but dangerous — nuclear program
Examiner dot com
Link
WASHINGTON - The Iraq Survey Group is calling for open negotiations with Syria, but new reports show that Damascus is up to no good. Indeed, while world attention is rightly focused on the nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea, Syria has been quietly — but quickly — advancing its own secret nuclear program.

The first signs appeared in 2003 when the Russian Foreign Ministry inadvertently revealed that a Russian-Syrian agreement for the delivery of a nuclear power plant in an undisclosed Syrian location had been signed.

In 2004, Syrian President Bashar Assad made a point to say that Syria would not dispose of its WMD program until Israel did the same. “Since some of my country is occupied,” Assad added, “Syria can legitimately use all the necessary means to liberate its territories.”

German magazine Der Spiegel revealed in March 2004 that Swedish authorities and the CIA were investigating a very likely Syrian nuclear program secretly developed in Homs in the northern part of the country. That July, investigators looking into the Pakistani nuclear network of A.Q. Khan pointed out that Syria may have procured centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to produce a bomb.
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
It is a very hard task to deny rights of Syria to develop nuclear weapons.
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
Voyager said:
It is a very hard task to deny rights of Syria to develop nuclear weapons.
Sergey I fear you have become delusional. Noone has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Noone.
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
KGB_resident said:
Voyager said:
It is a very hard task to deny rights of Syria to develop nuclear weapons.
Sergey I fear you have become delusional. Noone has the right to develop nuclear weapons. Noone.
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.
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
press_it said:
...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?
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
Englishspringer said:
"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.
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
The first signs appeared in 2003 when the Russian Foreign Ministry inadvertently revealed that a Russian-Syrian agreement for the delivery of a nuclear power plant in an undisclosed Syrian location had been signed
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
The Iraq Survey Group is calling for open negotiations with Syria, but new reports show that Damascus is up to no good.
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
British government is thinking now about modernisation of British nuclear arsenal.
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 ?
 
#13
KGB_resident said:
press_it said:
...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?
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.
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
Voyager said:
.......................obviously moving some of our sharp pointy things to Katowice and other places in Poland should not be any great concern then ?
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:

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Nuclear/index.html

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.
 
#16
[/quote]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."
Sounds like you want Japan to deploy nuclear weapons Sergey, or will Japan get the Chishima [Kurile] Islands and South Salkhalin returned without the need to become a nuclear power ?
 
#17
Voyager said:
British government is thinking now about modernisation of British nuclear arsenal.
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 ?
Voyadger, suppose that Saddam really had nuclear weapons then likely he would be still a president of Iraq. Our American friends gave a very usefull lesson for many countries - with nuclear weapons you would be safe, without them you could be invaded and occupied. North Koreans learned the lesson pretty well, moreover they have been 'graduated'. Be sure you will see more 'graduates' later or sooner.

In this situation Russia is unable to stop the process.

Voyager said:
Sounds like you want Japan to deploy nuclear weapons Sergey, or will Japan get the Chishima [Kurile] Islands and South Salkhalin returned without the need to become a nuclear power ?
Our Japanese friends developed their nuclear programme and they are able to create nuclear weapons very quickly. But unlikely it would help them to return Southern Kurile Islands.

History of Russo-Japanes relation is very complicated. There was a war between 100 years ago. russia was defeated and Japan got South Sakhalin and Nothers Kurile islands belonged to Russia before the war.

In 1945 in turn Japan was defeated, Soviet union returned land that were lost and also established control over Southern Kurile islands that was agreed by the allies during Yalta conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan within 90 days after the defeat of Germany. The Soviet Union would receive the southern part of Sakhalin and the Kurile islands after the defeat of Japan.
 
#18
press_it said:
ok, so they get a truck, nick a nuke or two in syria, then drive through turkey...
(I continue your fairy tale)

.. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, trough the Chunnel to England, to Nothern Wales where it would be used as a table to drink beer. And anybody who dares to speak English would be warned - 'We nuke you!'
 
#19
Taz_786 said:
Utter tosh.

The Israelis would halt any Syrian nuclear programme before it ever got off the ground.
I fear you overestimate abilities of our Israeli friends. Even almigty USA is apparently unable to stop Iranian nuclear programme. Moreover Israel cann't do it.

I agree that now (just now) Israel is able to stop any Syrian nuclear programme but it cann't last forever. If a nuclear station in Syria would be built by the Russians then (and I hope you agree with me) it would be highly unwise (for Israelis) to bomb the object.
 
#20
KGB_resident said:
I fear you overestimate abilities of our Israeli friends.
I agree. The days of nuclear exclusivity are long gone. The technology is becoming cheaper and expertise much more widely available. The USA can not make the first strike without incalculable consequences for it and its allies - although conceivably a 'new' nuclear state might launch a first strike.

However, it's time to understand that economic power has overtaken nuclear capability as a threat. And real economic warfare is being waged right now.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top