While Iran is making their Nuclear Facilities....

[Freshgeardude]

IAEA: Traces of uranium at Syrian site

UN nuclear agency samples taken from a Syrian site suspected of being a secretly built reactor have revealed new traces of processed uranium, the agency reported Thursday.

The Syria report noted Syria's refusal to allow agency inspectors to make follow-up visits to sites suspected of harboring a secret nuclear program despite repeated requests from top agency officials.

The first minute traces of processed uranium from those samples were found late last year. The official said additional analysis had found 40 more uranium particles, for a total of 80 particles.

follow the link for satellite pictures.

So what do people say about this now? still trying to look for "energy" and not for a weapon on Israel?

Good thing the IAEA has looked into this early. I hope the UN will stop them from continuing this

 

[jpeyton]

The UN can't really do anything except sanction.

If the US wanted to to something, GWB would have done it (or given Israel the green light).

We can't really do anything to stop a sovereign nation from acquiring nuclear weapons. Nuclear power (and as a result, the capability to produce nuclear weapons) is an inevitability as we look for ways to power our ever-growing energy needs.

 

[bamacre]

The answer is obvious. Invade Iran and Syria.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Why bother, Israel is just gonna blow it up again.

 

[Craig234]

How many would be willing to adopt a global no-nuke policy, with mandatory inspections, and the UN able to approve the invasion of any nation in violation developing them?

Is the 'there's a small chance someone could develop ICBM's secretly and have the upper hand for nuclear blackmail' such a deal-breaker to make this impossible?

 

[OCGuy]

Israel already took care of this, and killed a couple NK scientists in the process.


Sorry Syria, no nuke for you.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234
How many would be willing to adopt a global no-nuke policy, with mandatory inspections, and the UN able to approve the invasion of any nation in violation developing them?

Is the 'there's a small chance someone could develop ICBM's secretly and have the upper hand for nuclear blackmail' such a deal-breaker to make this impossible?

Small chance? Consider the size and resources of some countries, USA, China, and Russia all come to mind immediately. Plenty of places to hide things, enough resources and technical skill to produce the weapons. So yes, I do believe this would be impossible.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Why bother, Israel is just gonna blow it up again.

They could in theory, but they can't really touch Iran...why bother with one if you can't realistically do them both?

 

[mxyzptlk]

^^ I dunno, But they already did it once to Syria.. I figure they'd just keep reaching for the low hanging fruit^^

yea, no putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. I think we should just give every country at least one nuke. You can make more if you're able to, but everybody's got at least one.

that should provide a little bit of disincentive towards military action.

Of course half of africa might just blow itself the hell up.. or maybe after the first few exchanges, even those tribal jerks could see that fighting might not be the best solution sometimes.

 

[Freshgeardude]

problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

A. Who cares if the world doesnt understand the reason for not wanting fundamentalist states having nukes?

B. The world was almost silent on this operation, and probably privately thanked Israel

C. Syria fighting back would be disastrous for them.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

B. The world was almost silent on this operation, and probably privately thanked Israel

well not what I have seen. rallies, riots, and world leaders condemning israel for their actions.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

B. The world was almost silent on this operation, and probably privately thanked Israel

well not what I have seen. rallies, riots, and world leaders condemning israel for their actions.

Washington Post

"On Tuesday, a front-page editorial in Damascus's main government-run newspaper criticized the United States for not condemning the attack. An Israeli newspaper, meanwhile, noted triumphantly that no nation other than North Korea had come to Syria's defense, rhetorically or otherwise."

"If so, its silence is shrewd. It has allowed Syria to avoid a military response and every other Arab state to pretend that nothing happened"

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

1) Israel so far has shown the ability to go after a site when the site is at the point of becoming dangerous. The attacks have also exposed what was going on; vindicating Israel.

2) See #1 - second sentence

3) Syria up to this point has shown itself to be a toothless tiger. They have to operate using proxies. Their vaunted technology & defense purchased/given by Russia has either failed and/or is manned by incompetent people.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

B. The world was almost silent on this operation, and probably privately thanked Israel

well not what I have seen. rallies, riots, and world leaders condemning israel for their actions.

Washington Post

"On Tuesday, a front-page editorial in Damascus's main government-run newspaper criticized the United States for not condemning the attack. An Israeli newspaper, meanwhile, noted triumphantly that no nation other than North Korea had come to Syria's defense, rhetorically or otherwise."

"If so, its silence is shrewd. It has allowed Syria to avoid a military response and every other Arab state to pretend that nothing happened"

well, for example that situation, I am sure the UN knew israel's position, because they saw syria making the illegal factories. but the UN nor the world looked at israel's position a whole lot during gaza. the attack on syria was a clean slit. no one could even confirm much of it for a few days, while gaza, the world knew in a day

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

1) Israel so far has shown the ability to go after a site when the site is at the point of becoming dangerous. The attacks have also exposed what was going on; vindicating Israel.

2) See #1 - second sentence

not for gaza :/

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The answer is obvious. Invade Iran and Syria.

No no what we need now is a good speech....

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Why bother, Israel is just gonna blow it up again.

They could in theory, but they can't really touch Iran...

What are you basing that on? I would keep a close eye on the next 18-24 months.

Russia has delayed full-scale delivery of S-300 to Iran, and Iran is bitching about it.

This is one thing good to come from Obama. He will delay or cancel our Eastern European missle shield, Russia will give us Iran.


http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090217/120178299.html


"Russia's Kommersant said Moscow had signed an S-300 contract with Tehran, but would not rush to implement it due to a seeming thaw in Russia's relations with the new U.S. administration"

 

[filetitan]

1) Israel so far has shown the ability to go after a site when the site is at the point of becoming dangerous. The attacks have also exposed what was going on; vindicating Israel.

2) See #1 - second sentence

3) Syria up to this point has shown itself to be a toothless tiger. They have to operate using proxies. Their vaunted technology & defense purchased/given by Russia has either failed and/or is manned by incompetent people.

Fixed

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Craig234
How many would be willing to adopt a global no-nuke policy, with mandatory inspections, and the UN able to approve the invasion of any nation in violation developing them?

Is the 'there's a small chance someone could develop ICBM's secretly and have the upper hand for nuclear blackmail' such a deal-breaker to make this impossible?

Small chance? Consider the size and resources of some countries, USA, China, and Russia all come to mind immediately. Plenty of places to hide things, enough resources and technical skill to produce the weapons. So yes, I do believe this would be impossible.

You might be surprised at what the nuclear inspectors can do, given access to investigate.

 

[imported_K3N]

Ultimate goal with Iran and Syria? Play them against Russia against China.

 

[dahunan]

If you were Syria.. wouldn't you feel you needed protection from Israel?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The answer is obvious. Invade Iran and Syria.

Correction....The answer was obvious. Under the GWB administration invade Iran and Syria.[/quote]

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Why bother, Israel is just gonna blow it up again.

They could in theory, but they can't really touch Iran...why bother with one if you can't realistically do them both?

I want some of what you are smokin....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude
problem with Israel bombing it one after another is that 1. people will forget the reason for the actual attacks. 2. the world will scream and blame israel (look at the world when Israel was in Gaza) and 3. Syria may one time fight back

Syria is no position to fight back...that would be like a chihuahua attacking a Pit Bull!