Alleged secret Syrian reactor

[JollyRoger]

I got two words for you in turn. "American Revolution". Now go do some thinking yourself.

People dont have to live under such dictatorships. If they themselves are unable to enact the change needed to overthrow such dictators, then they can also simply leave and relocate to somewhere more amenable.

Like the Iraqis under Saddam? Guess we shouldn't have wasted so much blood and treasure on people that took Door Number 3.

 

[MobBoss]

Iran is an unelected theocracy.

Try again. Its a theocratic republic and they do have elections for political office. I dont disagree that the head clerics influence this to a great extent, but to refer to it as an 'unelected theocracy' is simply factually incorrect.

While the parliament has some power, if Iran were to launch a nuclear missile at Israel (and there's no reason to suspect they ever would), it would have been the action of the clerics. And yes, "obliterating" a country because its leaders attacked another country is absolutely monstrous (and would violate the laws of war).

Actually, the law of war is strangely silent on the use of Nuclear weapons and the retaliation thereof. You may want to check on that sometime.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Patroklos,

Arghhh! I never said it wasn't monstrous to kill civilians in WWII. Read my posts, it isn't in there.

It's not that there are only two options here: (i) obliterate Iran, or (ii) do nothing. If you don't understand that (and your attempts to ascribe to me ludicrous positions that do not logically follow from my posts suggest that you may not), there's no point to continuing this discussion.

And "nuking for nuking" is not "the best form of retaliation legally speaking."

Seriously, I give up. I should just give you my password so you can log in as "I'm Cleo!" and write whatever you feel like arguing against. Your posts wouldn't change a bit.

Cleo

 

[MobBoss]

And "nuking for nuking" is not "the best form of retaliation legally speaking."

I dunno...it worked against the Soviet Union for a very long period of time.

 

[brennan]

What I like most about this thread is the title: "alleged".

It's amazing that some people around here believe the floor is solid, as no evidence short of God himself thundering truth from the mountains will prove anything to them. Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-american stuff; then the slightest shread of evidence = conviction.

Video and audio? You act as if the "accusations" are without physical evidence.

And you act like someone who hasn't read the OP. I haven't had the opportunity to watch the clip with sound yet, for all I know this is a slam dunk case, in which case i'll change the thread title. There's been bugger all discussion of it so far, despite my prompts, so I guess this video makes a poor case, we'll see in an hour or two...

 

[brennan]

I got two words for you in turn. "American Revolution". Now go do some thinking yourself.

People dont have to live under such dictatorships. If they themselves are unable to enact the change needed to overthrow such dictators, then they can also simply leave and relocate to somewhere more amenable.

You are comparing your ancestors deciding they didn't want to pay taxes with the Despotic regimes in the ME? I don't think that requires comment.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

Actually, the law of war is strangely silent on the use of Nuclear weapons and the retaliation thereof. You may want to check on that sometime.

That is completely false. The ICJ issued an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons over a decade ago that ran hundreds of pages. Thousands of pages have been written about that opinion and what it means. The issue has been written about by military scholars around the world, including those at the military academies in the United States. I've met this guy, who was the head of West Point's "Law of War program" and talked with him about this very issue. Here is an 800+ page book about precisely the question of the laws of war and nuclear weapons.

I have "checked on it," and you're wrong.

Cleo

 

[brennan]

Hey Cleo, you just double whammied Mobbie on both his alleged specialist subjects, Law and War. Congratulations.

 

[Patroklos]

Arghhh! I never said it wasn't monstrous to kill civilians in WWII. Read my posts, it isn't in there.

I didn't say you didn't say it was monsterous. :crazy:

What you did say is that we can not obliterate Iran because it would be monsterous to influct that on a people not responsible for what their leaders do. I pointed out that you should not have done that very same thing to German/Japan/North Korea. You then said that it was monsterous, but only objected to it "near the end"

So you are inconsistant. According to you we can't obliterate a totalitarian state like Iran becasue their people are not responisbile becasue that would be monsterous. But you have no problem, or at least have reconciled yourself, for the need to do just that monsterous thing during most of WWII.

It's not that there are only two options here: (i) obliterate Iran, or (ii) do nothing. If you don't understand that (and your attempts to ascribe to me ludicrous positions that do not logically follow from my posts suggest that you may not), there's no point to continuing this discussion.

What are the expected consequences that make MAD work? And not just MAD, but basically the use of nukes in any offensive capacity for anyone?

And "nuking for nuking" is not "the best form of retaliation legally speaking."

So you don't believe in proportional response? Are you sure you are not a Neocon?

Seriously, I give up. I should just give you my password so you can log in as "I'm Cleo!" and write whatever you feel like arguing against. Your posts wouldn't change a bit.

I am sorry if you can't understand the implications of their words (or their direct meaning, as you denied that in this thread as well).

 

[MobBoss]

You are comparing your ancestors deciding they didn't want to pay taxes with the Despotic regimes in the ME? I don't think that requires comment.

No, I am giving an example where people dont have to accept the status quo.

And your right...it doesnt require any comment because its undisputable.

 

[scy12]

No, I am giving an example where people dont have to accept the status quo.

And your right...it doesnt require any comment because its undisputable.

So as we see Americans aren't revolutionizing today are they to blame for any crime the Bush administration has done ? ( i am not endorsing this statement).

 

[MobBoss]

That is completely false. The ICJ issued an opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons over a decade ago that ran hundreds of pages. Thousands of pages have been written about that opinion and what it means. The issue has been written about by military scholars around the world, including those at the military academies in the United States. I've met this guy, who was the head of West Point's "Law of War program" and talked with him about this very issue. Here is an 800+ page book about precisely the question of the laws of war and nuclear weapons.

I have "checked on it," and you're wrong.

Cleo

Hey Cleo, you just double whammied Mobbie on both his alleged specialist subjects, Law and War. Congratulations.

Uhm....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons

In a split decision the ICJ ruled that:

... There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such ...

but

... the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.

Apparently your 'checking' wasnt exactly complete. No fee for the lesson however. Enjoy.

Oh, and Cleo, I didnt fail to notice you didnt comment on my correction of you in regards to Iran being a theocratic republic that does hold elections. I assume this is a concession on your part then?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

You don't understand the holding of the ICJ, then. If they wrote hundreds of pages of opinion and came to the conclusion that "there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such," then the law is not silent on that issue.

And please don't assume anything about what I choose not to write. If I were you, I might complain that you're misrepresenting me and threaten to report you for trolling. You do so frequently bring that up.

Cleo

 

[Den Valdron]

Ah...the old 'we cant take appropriate action because Osama did this' arguement.....ergo, commiting the logical fallacy that if we do indeed hit a country with a retalitory strike then we are just as bad, if not worse, than Osama.

Nope. That wasn't my observation at all. I was not making any comments with respect to retaliation. I was merely observing that you had taken a moral stance identical to Osama Bin Laden.

Live with your own words.

 

[Den Valdron]

Disregarding trolling and distractions, I note that the matter at issue - alleged Syrian nuclear site, is covered here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/04/25/DI2008042501853.html

Israel has yet to outline its own evidence about the Syrian program, North Korea's role and its version of events in the run-up to the attack on September 6.

Tampa, Fla.: Two questions: First, I've read that the alleged nuclear plant could not have been used to make nuclear weapons. Is this correct? If so, has Israel decided that Arab states cannot have peaceful use of nuclear power?

AFP reports that --

AFP notes:

"They said U.S. intelligence had "high confidence" that the structure bombed by the Israelis was a nuclear reactor, "medium confidence" that the North Koreans were involved in building it, and "low confidence" that plutonium from it was for nuclear weapons."

Second, how could Syria begin to afford to build and maintain a nuclear arsenal? I can understand why Syria might want nukes, to counter Israel's extensive arsenal. But Israel can afford it, not Syria.

Robin Wright: US intelligence claims that the secret site was for a gas-cooled, graphite moderated reactor capable of producing plutonium for a nuclear weapon. It claims that the facility was not adapted to produce electricity, meaning it was not a peaceful nuclear reactor for energy use only. It also claims the site was not suited for research.


At the same time, US intelligence has acknowledged that there was no fuel for the facility yet, even while claiming it was nearly fully operational.


The "low confidence" was based on the fact that much of the evidence to conclude it was for a nuclear weapons program was largely circumstantial, since there was no fuel and no reprocessing plant - both essential elements in a weapons program. So the US relied on other deductive evidence to draw the conclusion that the site was part of a weapons plant, a senior US intelligence official told reporters yesterday.


Finally, you're right about the expense issue. One of the reasons I (and others) initially had doubts about the site was because Syria does not have the resources, technology, and qualified personnel to develop a weapons program. Other countries, notably Iran, do have very skilled engineers and scientists. Syria also is not a wealthy country and a nuclear program for either energy or a weapon would be a very significant drain on its budget.

Make of that what you will. I haven't seen or heard of any indication of release or discharge of radioactive materials or contamination from or around that site. Perhaps someone has?

The principal evidence relied upon by the United States seems to be satellite photography alleging that the facility was consistent with some form of nuclear reactor, but incomplete. How persuasive is that?

What are we to make of the 'low confidence' assessment of nuclear weapons fuel production. There was a notation that there was no 'reprocessing plant.' As I understand it, Plutonium has to be refined to a very high degree of enrichment, 96 or 98% for nuclear weapons grade material. This would be flatly impossible without reprocessing, I would assume. Is there someone qualified to comment upon this?

And the timing is puzzling. Why wait eight months?

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Story...b&&Headline=IAEA+blasts+US,+Israel+over+Syria

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2540300420080425

 

[Ecofarm]

I haven't had the opportunity to watch the clip with sound yet, for all I know this is a slam dunk case, in which case i'll change the thread title. There's been bugger all discussion of it so far, despite my prompts, so I guess this video makes a poor case, we'll see in an hour or two...

It's a slam dunk case.

I'd like to see someone say it isn't.

Even old Jolly doesn't deny the obvious. I can think of a couple CFCrs that would though

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss,

You don't understand the holding of the ICJ, then. If they wrote hundreds of pages of opinion and came to the conclusion that "there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such," then the law is not silent on that issue.

So you make the run for the semantic security blanket? Bottom line, the ICJs findings are inconclusive as to the legality of nuclear weapon use in the Law of War. The point being while the ICJ isnt silent on its interpretation in the law, but the law itself is not conclusive enough to decide the issue one way or the other. Why? Because the Geneva and Hague conventions that do make up the law of war dont really address the issue...i.e. they are 'strangely silent' in regards to nuclear weapon use.........thus my factually correct comment.

And please don't assume anything about what I choose not to write. If I were you, I might complain that you're misrepresenting me and threaten to report you for trolling. You do so frequently bring that up.

Well, I certainly wouldnt want to misrepresent you. Lets clarify then. So which is Iran? A theocratic dictatorship with no elections as you allege or a theocratic republic with elections as I point out?

A fairly simple question for you to answer.

Or will you simply continue to avoid it?

 

[Ecofarm]

A theocratic dictatorship with no elections as you allege or a theocratic republic with elections as I point out?

What? You are aware that noone can "run" for parliament without approval from the Mullahs, right?

It doesn't count as a republic when the government chooses the candidates.

It might not be a dictatorship, since there is more than one Mullah (who CANNOT be voted on in any way) rule with totalitarian power. Does dictatorship have to be a single person? Dunno. I'll have to check the definition.

A government in which a single leader or party exercises absolute control over all citizens and every aspect of their lives: absolutism, autarchy, autocracy, despotism, monocracy, tyranny. See over/under, politics.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship

So yes, it is a dictatorship. The people with real power (Mullahs) are never voted for.

 

[_Philospher_]

I think this one is cut-and-dry.

Clearly we need a bit more evidence to confirm that this is or isn't actually a nuclear site.
If it is, then Syria needs to be put under sanction for hiding its capabilties IAEA or needs to have more pressure placed on it through sanctions. Of course will never really know if this evidence has been faked or overblown. ANd will never see unified sanctions against Syria if it is actually an illegal nuclear facility. Such is the world of idiotic global politics....Nothing ever changes.

 

[Ecofarm]

I think this one is cut-and-dry.

Clearly we need a bit more evidence to confirm that this is or isn't actually a nuclear site.

Syria has alread paved over the site to prevent the easy access to additional evidence. They had months to clean the place up and bury it. I don't think there is anymore evidence coming. Either you believe the photos are real, or you don't.