RE: Arthur’s fine

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-06-02 AT 03:29 PM (GMT)]First of all please quote where I said the reactor at Osirak was a power station?

In post 105, Garry; here’s the quote:

“And why should Israel attack Iraq if not threatened by them ?? “

You try building a nuclear power station in Iraq….

end quote.

Why do you assume that any nuclear reactor built in Iraq would be purely for making weapons grade plutonium or unranium?

Because Saddam said so, because Saddam always wanted to be a regional superpower, whatever it takes. Because Israel had, and still has, intelligence data that shows the reactor at Osirak was built to deliver weapons grade material. Because Mr. Hamza who worked on the Iraqi bomb says so. That’s why.

Could it not be possible that Iraq might want to use alternative fuels locally to maximise the amount of oil that it could export?

Nope, see above.

When the Americans had nuclear weapons and the Soviets didn’t there were fears that when the Soviets got nuclear capability war was inevidible… in fact it probably made things safer when both countries knew they were no longer safe.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean there were never dangerous moments, whoch could have evolved into disaster. Furthermore, the USSR and the US were never out to destroy one another. Arab states have, throughout the life of the Jewish state, constantly vowed to destroy it, and even tried so, though unseccesfully. This was not the case between the US and Russia.

Israel has nuclear weapons why not let the arabs have some too?

Because Israel is not as suicidal as it’s neighbours, that’s why.

And just to make sure, here is Mr. Hamza’s view:

Al Qaeda’s Not the Only Danger
A firsthand account of Saddam’s effort to develop dirty bombs.

BY KHIDHIR HAMZA

Sunday, June 16, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

The arrest of a “dirty bomb” suspect in Chicago has focused attention once again on al Qaeda. But it would be a mistake to ignore possible state links, especially with Saddam Hussein.
During Iraq’s long war with Iran it became clear that terrorizing the Iranian troops by using chemical weapons was much more effective than all the artillery and aerial bombardment that we could muster. Newly transferred to the Military Industrialization Corp., headed by Saddam’s son-in-law Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, I discovered that a team from the Atomic Energy Commission was already working on radiation weapons on the theory that they could achieve the same effect.
It was 1987 and Iran’s troops were entrenched in Iraq’s only seaport, Fao. No amount of bombardment could dislodge them. The trick was to cut off their supply lines by contaminating the border region with Iran.
Recognizing that this was wartime, and thousands were dying in battles daily, I could not immediately dismiss the idea. Not having a powerful enough reactor, the Atomic Energy team resorted to using reactor materials that had already been irradiated, such as the zirconium in the reactor channels. They could not use the spent reactor fuel since it was checked regularly by the international inspectors. But a test was made in a desert region after enough radioactive material was assembled. As expected, the radioactive materials dispersed too fast and the lethal zone was almost nonexistent outside the blast area. Within a few days there was no more than background radiation outside a very small area. Another test gave the same results and the project was dropped.
But it was recognized at the time that while a dirty bomb is not an effective weapon of war, it remains an effective weapon of terror. A contaminated building is a different story than an explosion in the desert sands. Sure enough, I started hearing reports that Iraqi intelligence was inviting some of our nuclear chemists to inquire about how much is a lethal dose and what are the best sources of radiation. They soon realized that the best way to kill someone with radiation was not to spread it widely over a big area; a person could wander through a radiated area for years without noticeable effects. But if someone inhales radioactive materials such as plutonium dust even in tiny quantities, he will most probably be doomed to disease and death. Thus it’s much more effective to release radioactive materials, not in the desert, but in a confined environment such as a building where it’s more likely to poison people.
Too busy at the time pursuing the nuclear-weapons option, Atomic Energy personnel were stopped from meeting intelligence experts. However, I am sure the intelligence agency pursued the subject more diligently by creating its own research team. Thus I was not surprised at the recent news that a defector from the Mukhabarat, Iraq’s intelligence organization, was part of a team buying Russian radioactive material routed through an African country.

Nuclear materials were handled in a very cavalier fashion in Iraq. Radioactive materials were carried in personal cars without much protection most of the time. Neutron sources for oil well logging (a method of studying the composition of potential bore holes) were dispersed without much training, leading to some accidents that resulted in large contaminated areas. My guess is that if the U.S. nuclear industry is missing some materials, the story is much worse in countries like Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and the former Soviet republics. This creates an environment in which countries can claim lack of discipline of their workers as a cover for many missing radiation sources.
The only serious controls over the smuggling of radioactive materials out of Russia now are the many sting operations by the Russian intelligence services rather than the actual control over the materials themselves. However, such operations are much less in evidence in the other former Soviet republics. Thus, according to one Russian expert, there are more sellers than buyers of nuclear materials in these countries.
This environment is ideal for countries like Iraq to train and support a terrorist operation using radiation weapons with complete deniability. If anthrax spores were used to terrorize the U.S., plutonium particles are more effective. No high technology is needed to create plutonium dust and once tiny quantities of plutonium are lodged in the lungs, there is no known cure. Most probably the victim will not even know that he is afflicted till it is too late. There will be no measurable radiation emanating from his body since the emitted radiation from plutonium is short-range. His lung tissues will absorb the radiation, blocking it from being detected by outside detectors. Thus, unlike anthrax, detection is much harder. And plutonium is much more available in spent reactor fuel.
Restricting the lookout for this source of terrorism to al Qaeda is taking the easy way out. No matter how much their caves and former dwellings were searched, all that was found were some primitive documents about nuclear radiation. The real expertise–and the real stockpiles of nuclear material–remain in countries like Iraq and Iran. With Afghanistan removed as a safe haven, terrorist training grounds and sources of expertise have to come from these countries. It is time to face the real problem and deal with it.

Mr. Hamza, former director of Iraq’s nuclear program, is president of the Council on Middle Eastern Affairs.

Source: [link:http://www.opinionjournal.com|Opinion Journal]

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: Anybody served in the military before ???????

My dad was a tabk driver in the Yom Kippur War, and later became a tank commander. My dad’s brother was a tanker too, in the Lebanon War. Then we have my other uncle, who was with the paratroopers. I got two nieces who were MPs, and another who served on the Golan, I believe with the artillery or something. As you can see, my family is more diverse ;). Don’t know all their ranks though, I don’t keep track of such stuff.

RE: Anybody served in the military before ???????

I didn’t know you were an officer, Skythe?

Anyway, no military for me (yet). I live in The Netherlands, and due to (or thanks to) a law in Israel, I don’t have to serve, unless I plan to live in Israel, or by my own free will of course.

RE: Another PLO victory

No, because obviously the PA is making no effort whatsoever to stop the terrorists from committing their heinous crimes. If that is the case, it is the duty of the IDF to protect the Israeli citizens. Since all other efforts failed, all that is left is temporarily take control over PA territory, to arrest terrorists, deter terrorists, and force the PA to finally take action against the terrorists.

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: Another PLO victory

You’re talking nonsense, tomel. No Israeli government, whether Likud or Labor, wants to rule over the Palestinians anymore. They’re nothing but trouble.

RE: Another PLO victory

I think Skythe and I understand your questions perfectly, Tomel. Again, ypu insinuate that we’d kill thirty of our own citizens just to gain some advantage.

RE: Another PLO victory

The Romans didn’t lead to diaspora. In fact, they wanted to give the Jews their own state, keep their own culture … Romans were NO ANTI-SEMITES.

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD (IIRC), the Jewish people were lead into diapora by… the Romans.

Romans were always seen as the first anti-semites but they were not, in fact, they were rather tolerant towards other religions, though they could find them backwards.

The tolerance of other religions highly depended on what kind of Emperor was ruling the Roman empire and also on the local rulers. Some emperors were extremely anti-semites, others didn’t care. Some were anti-christian, some became christians themselves. But to declare that they were tolerant in general: no. The Second Temple was desecrated by the Romans, Jewish life was made very hard, a Jews were, at times, used as torches to light the gardens of the emperor.

Oh, and try to stop drawing parallels between the Jewish resistance to Roman rule and ‘modern’ terrorism.

Shalom,

Jonathan

RE: Arthur’s fine

“And why should Israel attack Iraq if not threatened by them ?? “

You try building a nuclear power station in Iraq….

So now the reactor at Osirak was a power station? I guess people like Mr. Hamza are lying then… Really Garry, by making statements like this you make yourself redicilous.