N. Koreans Taped At Syrian Reactor

[Tchocky]

By all means continue this spirited exchange, but if either of ye quote that massive f*cker again I'll send Dick Cheney after you.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

You're missing the point, we're talking about a bombed building, I'm pretty sure that no Israelis were harmed in the process. By the way Syria does much more harm to Arabs in Lebanon than to Israel, but they're just "arabs" with a low case "a"

So supporting and arming Hizbollah, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad, that want to wipe Israel of the map, isnt harming Israel?
So when they try to start making plutonium, Israel shouldnt assume its directed against them?
Sorry, it doesnt make sense.

[mrbeast]

Would there be agression by Israel if arabs stopped the terror?
Would there be agression by the arabs if Israel stopped hitting back?

No doubt there are some Palestinians and Arabs who will never accept Israel's existance, and will continue to attempt to destroy it. Vice versa there are Israelis who will not accept that Israel should reamain inside its borders and cease to occupy palestinian land.

If Israel dismantled its settlements and accepted the 1967 borders as the UN has asked it to do then it would draw much of the poison out of the whole situation and lend Israel a degree of moral authority that it has lacked for the last 40 years.

Thats the difference between a democracy and murderous regime or a terrorist group.
If you cant see this your living in La La Land.

You don't seem to understand that democracies are also capable of commiting terrorist acts, aggresive acts and oppressing people. Israel more so than most. As a state Israel was founded upon terrorism, just Google 'King David Hotel', IIRC the worst case of terrorism commited in palestine.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

No doubt there are some Palestinians and Arabs who will never accept Israel's existance, and will continue to attempt to destroy it. Vice versa there are Israelis who will not accept that Israel should reamain inside its borders and cease to occupy palestinian land.

If Israel dismantled its settlements and accepted the 1967 borders as the UN has asked it to do then it would draw much of the poison out of the whole situation and lend Israel a degree of moral authority that it has lacked for the last 40 years.

You don't seem to understand that democracies are also capable of commiting terrorist acts, aggresive acts and oppressing people. Israel more so than most. As a state Israel was founded upon terrorism, just Google 'King David Hotel', IIRC the worst case of terrorism commited in palestine.

Says you, to me they have the morale highground. But im sure thats not what they worry about, when they try to keep their citizens safe from attacks.
So Israel should go back to 67 borders even if the attacks wouldnt stop?
Kinda high price to pay, to gain moral authority in your eyes.
All democracies take measures and defend themself when they are under attack.
Yes, the bombing where the bombers were trying to drive civilians away from the bomb. Im not saying it was right but that is fact also.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Are you? Just because the Israeli's or the US "says" it was "not intended for peaceful use" doesn't mean it's true. Where are the rest of the processing facilities?

Don't know one way or the other which type of reactor it was (do they even say?) but there are two types of reactors. Is the Syrian reactor just a light-water nuclear reactor? If it was it shouldn't have been bombed. If their reactor was a heavy water reactor capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium are you going to take their word they won't start a weapons program? My trust of Arab countries is nonexistent. The U.S. doesn't know where all Iran's processing facilities are so if Syria has/had better security....

[Tchocky]

Syria had no method of acquiring fuel for the reactor, and if they did they were ten years away from gaining any sort of bomb fuel. Hmm.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Any two bit dictator state that feels like it may be/is threatened by the United States IS going to pursue nuclear weapons as long as they have the money/means. Because they all recognize by now that their conventional military will be nothing but a speed bump to the US military. It is just a fact of life and something that will have (and has been) to enter into the calculus of national security.

You can say that WMD triggered Saddam's fall, but I think that was preordained and had little to do with WMD. Look at North Korea. The world saw them test a bomb for all to see. And what did they get? Carrots, not sticks.

PD

[August]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Look at North Korea. The world saw them test a bomb for all to see. And what did they get? Carrots, not sticks.

PD

Yeah but NK has their big Chinese brother on their northern border keeping the sticks from being used.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah but NK has their big Chinese brother on their northern border keeping the sticks from being used.

I think the millions of men (and masses of artillery within range of Seoul) they station along the DMZ may also have had something to do with it . They wouldn't have to try very hard to ruin a pretty huge portion of the world economy. And as long as you at least pretend to cooperate with the IAEA, we won't be coming after you militarily. This is certainly true of Iran, and to a much lesser extent Syria. And in the name of "regional stability" (read economic in most cases), I have no doubt other states will be able to acquire a nuclear capability without too much of a problem.

PD

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Syria had no method of acquiring fuel for the reactor, and if they did they were ten years away from gaining any sort of bomb fuel. Hmm.

Neither did Israel, Korea or Pakistan? Wait until year 9 before doing anything? If you have a heavy water reactor it's not to roast potatoes.

[August]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I think the millions of men (and masses of artillery within range of Seoul) they station along the DMZ may also have had something to do with it .

Bah, Saddams much vaunted 4th largest army in the world also looked impressive just before Swartzkopf chopped them to pieces. I think the South Koreans would go through them like butter, especially with our backing. China is the key.

They wouldn't have to try very hard to ruin a pretty huge portion of the
world economy.

Nothing that wouldn't be survivable but again most of that would depend on Chinas reaction.

And as long as you at least pretend to cooperate with the IAEA, we won't be coming after you militarily. This is certainly true of Iran, and to a much lesser extent Syria. And in the name of "regional stability" (read economic in most cases), I have no doubt other states will be able to acquire a nuclear capability without too much of a problem.

Here we agree. I fear that as more nations acquire a nuclear capability the likelyhood of someone detonating a nuke in anger somewhere increases as well. What will we do then?

[PeriscopeDepth]

[quote=August]

Bah, Saddams much vaunted 4th largest army in the world also looked impressive just before Swartzkopf chopped them to pieces. I think the South Koreans would go through them like butter, especially with our backing.

I agree that in a prolonged conflict, there is no doubt who'd be the victor. But this is different. Minutes from the say so, artillery shells would be raining on Seoul. This isn't to speak of all the other nasty things the NKs could do. I don't doubt the economic damage could be withstood in the long term, but I think we have a very low pain threshold economically speaking these days. It would hurt. And we will not bomb a nuclear installation in Korea for exactly this reason.

China is the key.

Agreed, but to a point. Things would get awfully tough(er) for North Korea without the Chinese propping them up with the free food, fuel, and other stuff. But that being said, China doesn't control North Korea's destiny. Commie dictator and Company do. Not the most sensible of folks. China is playing for regional stability, that is as far as their interest in North Korea goes.

Nothing that wouldn't be survivable but again most of that would depend on Chinas reaction.

Of course it would be survivable. It's just how much the current politicos are willing to put up with. And in current conditions, not much I'd say. EG: we aren't beating on Iran anytime soon, because (among other reasons) god knows how far up gas would go with a tanker or two mysteriously exploding in the Persian Gulf.

Here we agree. I fear that as more nations acquire a nuclear capability the likelyhood of someone detonating a nuke in anger somewhere increases as well. What will we do then?

I think the answer to that is: it depends . But yes, scarily/sadly enough a nuclear exchange in the future is almost inevitable.

EDIT: And by the way, by "depend on Chinas reaction", are you implying a military reaction by China? China will not be bleeding for North Korea again anytime in the foreseeable future. As I said, they just want to avoid a $hit storm in the region.

PD

[baggygreen]

I think theres a lotta people who are blindly opposing certain leaders, govt, etc because its the trendy thing to do.

there are countless posts dating back with 'show us proof' of wmd stuff, yada yada.

here, we have proof, but you still cry foul? here is evidence of a reactor, and lets face it who in the world would honestly feel perfectly safe knowing that syria was running nuclear reactors, and was receiving help from the north koreans who we all know has nukes....? I wouldnt.

To me, it seems like even when you're offered proof, you blindly reject it.

i'll put in a disclaimer that 'you' isnt aimed at anyone rather a generic term for seemingly 3/4 of the world atm...

[Steel_Tomb]

One reason Israel has lost faith in the international community is because of its previous experiences with it. When Saddam was building the nuclear plant the Isareli's voiced their concern to its purpose. The international community just ignored their worries, so they took it upon themselves to solve the issue themselves. It was later revealed by a senior scientist who escaped from Iraq that the plant was NOT for peaceful means, and was for the research/construction of WMD's.

Has it also not been thought that the nuclear fuel could have been bought from Iran? I mean why would they produce a nuclear plant if they had no fuel for it???

The yanks and Israeli's are not perfect by any means, but I would trust them a lot more than these greedy, backstabbing arab states. Syria is up to something I think, and I would bet that its not peaceful.

In the middle of a desert, where the sun shines 90% of the time... would it not be better to pursue solar/wind energy? Would be a lot cheaper than pursuing nuclear power. Would also remove the great big "shoot me" sticker that the middle east seems to love slapping on everything it owns at the moment.

[August]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

EDIT: And by the way, by "depend on Chinas reaction", are you implying a military reaction by China? China will not be bleeding for North Korea again anytime in the foreseeable future. As I said, they just want to avoid a $hit storm in the region.

PD

I think they'd fight PD, although they might call the troops they send "volunteers" like they did in 1950.