Iraq was a threat, Syria is a threat

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Linkified

SYRIA -- MOST ADVANCED IN ARAB WORLD IN CHEMICAL WEAPONS
(Article by London correspondent, "Ma'ariv", Aug 8, 1996, p. A7)

JANE'S SENTINEL, WHICH WILL BE PUBLISHED THIS WEEKEND, STATES THAT SYRIA HAS THOUSANDS OF NERVE GAS BOMBS AND WARHEADS. DAMASCUS VIEWS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING STRATEGIC BALANCE WITH ISRAEL -- BUT IT IS STILL FAR FROM ACHIEVING SUCH A BALANCE. SYRIAN BOMBERS CAN CARRY OUT SERIOUS ATTACKS AGAINST TARGETS SUCH AS TEL AVIV. BY USING ITS MISSILES, SYRIA CAN ATTACK TARGETS IN MOST OF ISRAEL'S TERRITORY. FROM A QUALITATIVE STANDPOINT, SYRIA'S STRATEGIC WEAPONS ARE GREATLY INFERIOR TO THOSE OF ISRAEL. THE SYRIANS MAY DEVELOP CRUISE MISSILE CAPABLE OF CARRYING NON-CONVENTIONAL WARHEADS AS WELL.

In recent years, Syria has made considerable improvements in its military forces -- both in ground forces and in air defense, and in developing surface-to-surface missiles. At the same time, it is still very far from "strategic parity" with Israel -- both from a quantitative and a qualitative standpoint. This is according to Jane's Sentinel, which will be published this weekend.

Syria invests a great deal in developing and procuring weapons of mass destruction, but from a qualitative standpoint, its strategic weapons are greatly inferior to those of Israel, writes Jane's Sentinel.

The Syrian air force is capable of delivering a deadly blow to Israel, and there is no doubt that the air force's structure shows that its objectives go far beyond defensive goals. Syria's inventory of fighter and attack aircraft can enable it to pin down the Israel air defense, so that Syrian bombers can carry out serious attacks on targets such as Tel Aviv.

Attacks such as these, will have destructive results, especially if the Syrians use non-conventional weapons. But, Jane's Sentinel notes, such an attack against Israel with non-conventional weapons would be executed at a "very high price for Syria."

Experts estimate that Syria has the most advanced program in the Arab world for the production of chemical weapons. Since the Lebanon War, Jane's Sentinel notes, the Syrians have seen the development of chemical weapons as a way to obtain a balance with Israel's military strength.

It seems that production takes place at three sites: one near Damascus, the second near Hama, and the third center is near Safira village in the Aleppo area. In 1985, it seems that the Syrians began to manufacture quantities of chemical warheads, including Sarin nerve gas, for use with Scud-B and Scud-C missiles. Apparently, the Syrians have thousands of bombs with nerve gas which were produced to be carried by Sukhoi-22/20, MiG-23 and Sukhoi-24 planes.

In the 1970's, Syria obtained the Soviet plan for type VX chemical warheads, which could be adapted to Scud missiles. If Syria is successful in production, it is liable to have at its disposal a supply of 884mm. warheads, which contain 975 kg. of chemical material.

Syria has a large quantity of ballistic missiles and there have been reports that they are also manufacturing both a Syrian type of Scud-C missiles and M-9 missiles based on the Chinese model, missiles of longer range than the Scud and with a greater degree of precision.

The production of these missiles takes place in underground factories near Aleppo and Hama, and the Syrians are being assisted by Iran, North Korea and China. Experts claim that missiles of longer range will not improve Syria's strength to attack important targets within Israel because the Syrians already have missiles capable of hitting targets in most of Israeli territory, including Dimona. The advantage of long-range missiles is that they [the Syrians] will be able to set them up in regions which are easier to defend.

There are also reports that the Syrians are developing cruise missiles, which will be able to carry conventional and non-conventional warheads.

Experts believe that some of the Syrian Frog-7 missiles are already fitted with chemical warheads.

International experts believe that the Syrians are working to obtain the infrastructure and necessary know-how to produce nuclear weapons, even though the Syrian government insists that purchases are for civilian needs. Jane's Sentinel noted that there is no evidence that the Syrians have made any significant progress in the development of nuclear weapons.

American and Israeli experts maintain that at the two Syrian centers for the development of biological weapons, they are capable of manufacturing bolotin, risin, and anthrax.

The following is a list of Syrian strategic weapons:



TYPE ======================== ================== QUANTITY
SS-21 Maximum range: 120 km. Warhead weight: 480 kg. 36

SS-1 "Scud-B" Maximum range: 300 km. Warhead weight: 985 kg. 200 (estimate)

"Scud-C" Maximum range: 500 km. Warhead weight: 500 kg. 60 (estimate)

M-11 Maximum range: 290 km. Warhead weight: 800 kg. Unknown

M-9 Maximum range: 600 km. Warhead weight: 950 kg. On order
(according
to reports)


The Frog-7 is among other surface-to-surface missiles at the Syrians' disposal.

Date sent: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 10:48:56 +0200 From: IIS News Analysis <analysis@israel-info.gov.il> Subject: opeds: Syria Most Advanced in Chemical Weapons-"Ma'ariv", Aug 8, 1996 To: Multiple recipients of list ISRAEL-MIDEAST <ISRAEL-MIDEAST@PANKOW.INTER.NET.IL> Send reply to: ASK@ISRAEL-INFO.GOV.IL

=====================================================================


Information Division, Israel Foreign Ministry - Jerusalem Mail all Queries to ask@israel-info.gov.il URL: http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il gopher://israel-info.gov.il

=====================================================================

Note: The translations of articles from the Hebrew press are prepared by the Government Press Office as a service to foreign journalists in Israel. They express the views of the authors.


--------------------------------------------------------
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
76
I think this will be a never ending situation. These Arab countries hate Israel so bad that they'll never stop trying to destroy it. We can keep stopping these countries, but they'll keep on trying.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
We also have formal diplomatic relations with Syria, don't expect an attack right away...


BTW Israel would wipe out syria in less than a week, even without using 1 of her 120 nukes, the other reason nobody even tries.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Syria can be next for all I care.

Nice attitude. Let's just invade everywhere now? Do you do any long term thinking as to the consequences of such actions? Yeah! Let's get 'em all...
rolleye.gif


You know, I heard your house has chemical weapons...maybe we should blow it up just "in case".

:disgust:
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Syria can be next for all I care.

Nice attitude. Let's just invade everywhere now? Do you do any long term thinking as to the consequences of such actions? Yeah! Let's get 'em all...
rolleye.gif


You know, I heard your house has chemical weapons...maybe we should blow it up just "in case".

:disgust:

Unfortunately, I suspect that this is Bush's foreign policy agenda.

 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Syria is not a threat to anyone. Let it be.


Are you aware that Syria is occupying Lebanon? The Arab press doesn't have very much to say about it unlike their claims that Israel is occupying Palestinian land.

freelebanon.org
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Syria can be next for all I care.

Nice attitude. Let's just invade everywhere now? Do you do any long term thinking as to the consequences of such actions? Yeah! Let's get 'em all...
rolleye.gif


You know, I heard your house has chemical weapons...maybe we should blow it up just "in case".

:disgust:

Invade everywhere? Syria supports terrorism and yes you know it just as well as I do.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
I really have a problem with this statement:

"The Syrian air force is capable of delivering a deadly blow to Israel, and there is no doubt that the air force's structure shows that its objectives go far beyond defensive goals. Syria's inventory of fighter and attack aircraft can enable it to pin down the Israel air defense, so that Syrian bombers can carry out serious attacks on targets such as Tel Aviv.

The Israeli Air Force is the class of the Middle East and isn't that far behind our own. To think that Syria could "pin down" the Israeli Air Force is a big stretch.

As for the rest of it.....yeah they are a threat. They have and still are a huge exporter/supporter of terrorism, and if they are in possession of as many chemical weapons as thought then they need to be dealt with.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: shinerburke
I really have a problem with this statement:

"The Syrian air force is capable of delivering a deadly blow to Israel, and there is no doubt that the air force's structure shows that its objectives go far beyond defensive goals. Syria's inventory of fighter and attack aircraft can enable it to pin down the Israel air defense, so that Syrian bombers can carry out serious attacks on targets such as Tel Aviv.

The Israeli Air Force is the class of the Middle East and isn't that far behind our own. To think that Syria could "pin down" the Israeli Air Force is a big stretch.

As for the rest of it.....yeah they are a threat. They have and still are a huge exporter/supporter of terrorism, and if they are in possession of as many chemical weapons as thought then they need to be dealt with.


Well said.
 

snowwie

Member
Aug 8, 2002
137
0
0
First of all, Syria's military is not capable of very much, let alone their air force

yes, they occupy lebanon, but that doesn't mean much
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: snowwie
First of all, Syria's military is not capable of very much, let alone their air force

yes, they occupy lebanon, but that doesn't mean much

Is Syria a member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" team?

 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Originally posted by: snowwie
First of all, Syria's military is not capable of very much, let alone their air force

yes, they occupy lebanon, but that doesn't mean much

Is Syria a member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" team?

Anyone can be added in... anyone.

 

rickn

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
7,064
0
0
the US is setting a very dangerous precedence if they intend on invade every country in the M.E. Who's gonna foot the bills? Our British friends will not be with us. I'm sure Iran and other countries are accelerating their WMD ambitions. The US has sent a clear message, but at what price?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I think Powell and Rumsfeld delivered the message that syria should straighten up its act or it will have to face the consequences of its actions. If they're smart, they'll listen.
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Originally posted by: rickn
the US is setting a very dangerous precedence if they intend on invade every country in the M.E. Who's gonna foot the bills? Our British friends will not be with us. I'm sure Iran and other countries are accelerating their WMD ambitions. The US has sent a clear message, but at what price?


We dont need to invade all of them. I think after a few of the worst ones are harnessed the rest will volunteer to straighten up.

 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: mastertech01
Originally posted by: rickn
the US is setting a very dangerous precedence if they intend on invade every country in the M.E. Who's gonna foot the bills? Our British friends will not be with us. I'm sure Iran and other countries are accelerating their WMD ambitions. The US has sent a clear message, but at what price?


We dont need to invade all of them. I think after a few of the worst ones are harnessed the rest will volunteer to straighten up.

Yep. Syria better check themselves.

It needs to be done, and Bush is willing to do it...
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Syria can be next for all I care.

Nice attitude. Let's just invade everywhere now? Do you do any long term thinking as to the consequences of such actions? Yeah! Let's get 'em all...
rolleye.gif


You know, I heard your house has chemical weapons...maybe we should blow it up just "in case".

:disgust:
Lets also consider the possible consequences of not acting as well. For example it is well known that Syria was and is an active sponsor of several terrorist organizations. I believe 14 was the number reported on a cable news program in the past couple of weeks. So what have some prominent terrorist organizations done to us recently? Well i seem to recall a few passenger jets being crashed into some large buildings in N.Y. and Washington D.C. resulting in the deaths of over 2500 innocent civilians. Now imagine the consequences of a country like Syria providing some of those weapons to similar terrorist organizations. Consider the possibility of 9/11 never even happening if we had actively gone after Al Queda and Bin Laden several years ago or flexed our military muscle in countries where terrorists are harbored and trained. Not arguing here just trying to point out another viewpoint.

 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
This is why Iraq is so important. They know now that we mean business and if the UN isn't going to disarm them, we sure as hell will. Its all a part of the war on terror. If Syria is a threat to innocent people through terrorism support than that threat has to be removed. I'd suspect that after the Iraq situation, some of the dictators in the ME will be a little more cooperative.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: NesuD
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Syria can be next for all I care.

Nice attitude. Let's just invade everywhere now? Do you do any long term thinking as to the consequences of such actions? Yeah! Let's get 'em all...
rolleye.gif


You know, I heard your house has chemical weapons...maybe we should blow it up just "in case".

:disgust:
Lets also consider the possible consequences of not acting as well. For example it is well known that Syria was and is an active sponsor of several terrorist organizations. I believe 14 was the number reported on a cable news program in the past couple of weeks. So what have some prominent terrorist organizations done to us recently? Well i seem to recall a few passenger jets being crashed into some large buildings in N.Y. and Washington D.C. resulting in the deaths of over 2500 innocent civilians. Now imagine the consequences of a country like Syria providing some of those weapons to similar terrorist organizations. Consider the possibility of 9/11 never even happening if we had actively gone after Al Queda and Bin Laden several years ago or flexed our military muscle in countries where terrorists are harbored and trained. Not arguing here just trying to point out another viewpoint.

I welcome other viewpoints. :) Here is my problem with that way of thinking. I personally think invading countries solely on the basis of a percieved threat is a dangerous road to travel. Now, here is a opposing viewpoint, taken to an extreme, but it illustrates what I am trying to say. Every time I leave my house, I run the risk of getting hit by a bus. Now, since there is a perceived threat to my well being, and anyone else who goes out from any and all buses on the road, should we get rid of all buses? Now, of course, I don't think many would disagree that this is a crazy idea. However, we need to weigh the benefit against the consequences of our actions. If there was such a danger from Syria, don't you think it would have happened by now? Syria has been there a long time and, to my knowledge, has not ever done what you claim could happen. There is a point where we need to rely on our internal security and intelligence to protect us from these threats as invading any country that could be a threat is a little extreme in my view and not very realistic. Countries like Syria and Iraq are easy to argue that they support terrorism, but there are many other countries out there that could pose the same risk that would be counter-productive to try to invade. Case in point, NK and maybe even Russia. Also, I think 9/11 was a isolated occurance that is not likely to happen again anytime soon, especially with the whole country being so wound up about terrorism post 9/11.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
This is why Iraq is so important. They know now that we mean business and if the UN isn't going to disarm them, we sure as hell will. Its all a part of the war on terror. If Syria is a threat to innocent people through terrorism support than that threat has to be removed. I'd suspect that after the Iraq situation, some of the dictators in the ME will be a little more cooperative.

That is a narrow point of view IMO. Do you think the ME is the only source of a percieved threat from terrorism? NK supplies a good deal more to terrorists, and has much more advanced stuff to sell like advanced weapon systems and nuclear arms. How about Northern Ireland and the IRA? It is not as simple as invading everyone that could possibly supply terrorists. There would a dangerous climate created if we just decided to start invading anyone that we say could be a threat to us.
 

snowwie

Member
Aug 8, 2002
137
0
0
syria definitely supports terrorism

When I was in Lebanon and Syria, we saw Hamas and Hizbollah camps
we could see the distinctive flag centered by a fist holding an ak-47 from the main road.

but they're still small time, nothing that really concerns us
sure, hamas and hizbollah can be linked to terrorist acts in israel, but all they really are is syria's contract bullies