Comments on: The Syria strike: It was nukes

By: lilmamzer

lilmamzer — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 22:43:58 +0000

I would expect that either of these would leave a fairly large danger zone that should be evident from how Syria is handeling the area.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Baathist regime never lifted a finger to clean up any resultant contamination. Protecting the environment is probably way down on its list of priorities………

By: Charley

Charley — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:14:49 +0000

There is little doubt that whatever was bombed was something very “important” to these countries. however, in all the speculation about what was bombed, I’ve read nothing about what may have happened with the resultant bomb scattered debrie. If the destroyed target was something nuclear then the result would have been something like a dirty bomb. And, if it was something biological it would have certainly created a polluted zone. I would expect that either of these would leave a fairly large danger zone that should be evident from how Syria is handeling the area. I’ve read nothing discussing the incident along those lines. Just wondering if I’m missing something.

By: David Charlap

David Charlap — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:22:10 +0000

Letalis Maximus, Esq. cited JFK and asked : “Why is it that nobody at the Pentagon has any brains, and nobody at State has any balls?”

The way I see it, that’s the way things should be. It’s carrot-and-stick diplomacy. The State Department negotiates and promises good things to those who comply, the Pentagon threatens destruction to those who refuse to comply.

The problem we have is that this only works when you have a president who knows the right time and place for each one. You can’t allow either organization to dictate policy. (And it goes without saying that you shouldn’t let either organization speak to Congress or to the press if they can’t be trusted to support the Administration’s official policy, whatever that policy might be.)

Ben wrote: “if Israel was to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own … Nuclear bunker busters would be required.”

In case you were unaware, the US is developing non-nuclear mega-bombs. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if Israel has similar programs, nor would I be surprised if we’re sharing the tech.

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:58:08 +0000

This is just one salvo in a much larger battle.

By: Lil Mamzer

Lil Mamzer — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:13:22 +0000

What worries me is that the IAF may lose some pilots in action over Iran.

Can anyone tell me why the IAF couldn’t use Shavit missiles launched from Israel in lieu of sending F-15s? I would imagine they could be targeted with JDAM-like precision, and the at terminal velocity should have more than enough kinetic energy to penetrate bunkers at least as well as the aircraft-delivered munitions.

And no Israeli pilots would be at risk in action.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:01:28 +0000

Debka says $1.2 billion worth of munitions including bunker busters.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 11:57:23 +0000

You are forgetting the story from a while ago about the US arming Israel with bunker busters. From our friends at LGF.

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:39:07 +0000

Yes but now he has the money that can no longer be used to fund the terrorists around Israel, and Syria does not have the weapons that they paid for. I don’t think that North Korea would restock Syria for free. THus, Syria winds up losing both the money and the arms.

By: Long_Rifle

Long_Rifle — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:36:59 +0000

“Further, in Rice’s defense, she has just finished the Six Party negotiations with the North Koreans. The notion of highlighting Kim’s arms smuggling ran the risk of backing Kim up and forcing him to walk away from the table. The Israelis were quiet about it, as it turns out, and Kim got to walk away from the deal with his cash that the Iranians gave him for the atomic transaction.”

Ummm….

Why the hell should the US be in negotiations with a country that is ARMING terrorists?

And why should that same country be ALLOWED to get away with it?

We SHOULD have backed him into a wall.

And when he walked away we should have too, with a reminder that they got caught this time, and maybe next time North Korea won’t get off so easy….

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:53:53 +0000

Section9, normally I wouldn’t approve a comment that is insulting, well, everyone, but that line about the funeral was a laugh-out-loud line. It almost redeems you.

Almost.

Kindly do not insult my commenters.