Syrian Reactor

[1969912 0]

First a question. Is it likely that Senior Intelligence Officials 1 and 2 are the best people DNI has for briefing senior US officials? I truly hope not....

The CISC report was interesting, and very good news. Hecker's position regarding leaving the PUREX facility in a condition that will allow for processing of their remaining irradiated fuel makes sense, assuming continued monitoring will be allowed.
-----

Quote

Total speculation (one w/which VP Cheney would not oppose, but that’s not reason alone to dismiss it)..

And you call me a smart-ass....
---

Your speculation makes sense, and it's shared by others. Tony Cordesman said:

"...The nature of proliferation has changed strikingly in recent decades. Much of the design data and some key components are now available in the open literature or in international markets. The fact that intelligence does not detect some formal weapons organization or effort does not mean that there is not a highly dispersed and compartmented effort in Syria, Iran, or other countries. Barring some HUMINT [human intelligence] breakthrough, it may well be impossible for intelligence sources to ever confirm or deny the existence of such an effort. It is the equivalent of disproving a negative...."


Regarding the blockbuster evidence, complete with snappy video that was released, this comment hits the nail on the head, IMHO:

"The end result has been far more speculation about the meaning and credibility of US reporting than should have been the case. Once again, the US intelligence community has created an unnecessary mess by rushing out a half-complete product, and failing to put the information it releases in proper context."

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Anyone else find irony that one of the last remaining communist nations is motivated by cold hard cash?

It's not any more (or less) ironic than the extensive use of reinsurance and similar structures in private industry to collectively share risks and profits. Mixed economies work better than either extreme.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[auburnguy 0]

I'm glad the israelis took action, many started to think that they were getting soft.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[shropshire 0]

So you'd be happy to have your country bombed because someone thought that you might at some stage, maybe build a bomb that could possibly be used against you?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you'd be happy to have your country bombed because someone thought that you might at some stage, maybe build a bomb that could possibly be used against you?

Do you think it's more important to have a fair fight, or to ensure your survival?

[shropshire 0]

Yes Chivalry is all

Not exactly but I don't support naked aggression either... oh but that appears to be a basic tenant for your countries foriegn policy in recent years (Iraq, Gitmo for examples).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[ElJosh 0]

When they say Israel they really mean Team America, right?





America! Fuck Yeah!
~El Josh AKA Ruby
Coming again to save the mother fucking day, yeah!

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Has any communist country with something to sell not done so? The USSR sold arms wherever possible, a mix of political and capitalism in the cold war. They needed hard currency. N Korea really needs money to stay afloat.

Interesting question.

While I'm sure both you & I could find individual counter-examples if we looked hard enough, Soviet sale of conventional munitions were driven overwhelmingly by ideology and politics not profit (or substistence). As I'm confident you know, Moscow supplied massive quantities of conventional arms to "rogue" regimes throughout the developing world during the decades of the Cold War. Political suitability, not economic rationality, was the driving force in Soviet arms sales policy.

There may be examples from South American or East Asian former communist/communist-leaning states of arms sales motivated by profit.

Sales on unconventional weapons – nuclear, CW, & BW – was different. The Soviet Union never transferred truly advanced chemical or biological weapons or weapons technology. It widely assumed that much of Syria's basic CW program was based on knowledge from the Soviet program that was outrightely given or transfered with a wink of an eye and turned back. Albania eventually developed a small CW stockpile while under the Soviet sphere of influence. The USSR violated the BWC incredibly, they just did it all w/in the Soviet States. After the 1974 "smiling Buddha" test, India turned to its Cold War patron for nuclear-related technology. That was about balance of power with China. Subsequently, under President Reagan restrictions on export of sensitive and nuclear technology to China and Pakistan were weakened (even more so than post-Nixon). For the US, it wasn't about 'cash,' it was realpolitik & maintaining balance of power.

It's been the capitalist business men, largely of northern Europe, who have been willing to sell nuclear technology (civilian power) for profit, e.g., AQ Khan's acquisition of technology.

The DPRK & Syria don't have the same kind of sphere of influence/balance of power relationship.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Yes Chivalry is all

Not exactly but I don't support naked aggression either... oh but that appears to be a basic tenant for your countries foriegn policy in recent years (Iraq, Gitmo for examples).

Right ... England would never do such a thing!

And let's face it, the rest of the world sees the UK acting in lockstep with the USA lately.

But just to review:
Imad Moustapha, Syria's Ambassador to the US, told Newsweek Magazine on Saturday, 15 September 2007, “The Israelis didn't bomb anything. When they were detected by our defense systems and we started firing at them, they dumped fuel and turned around.” Denying Syria has any military ties to North Korea, he added “I leave these kinds of things to the military experts. I am not one.”

Why isn't Syria hopping mad? Because they are a signee of the NPT and thus aren't supposed to be playing around with secret nuclear programs.

I support Israel's move 100%. You would seem to think it fair that they wait until Syria does a bomb test before acting.

[shropshire 0]

As I said I don't support naked aggression; I can't speak for the government and they don't speak for me.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As I said I don't support naked aggression;

But blatant aggression- violating treaty agreements to build nukes to threaten an enemy nation you don't believe has a right to exist is A O K with you. Just so long as its not naked.