It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Syria may have Nuclear Weapons

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
AINA





All indications are that Syria is building a potent nuclear program with Iran's assistance and help. The United States government has never disclosed publicly the information but some believe that the CIA is fully aware of the damage that Khan has done and that Syria's nuclear program is more advanced than previously stated.



Now if that doesnt scare the bejezus out of you I dont know what would.

Interesting the way the middle east is shaping up, With Syria being so close to Israel anything launched from Syria would not have to be ballistic, rudimentary guidance would be enough to hit Tel Aviv.

The Plot thickens.




posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The phrase "same poo, different day" oddly springs to mind


Funny, the Terms & Conditions Of Use springs to my mind.


Mod Note: Avatar & Signature Guidelines – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 14/8/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I am not surprised About Syria, I am still waitiing to see if they will attack or not!
According to they bible codes the possibility is there (Armageddon-Assad Holocaust) even if the timeframe is way off since the 9th of Av has passed!

www.exodus2006.com...

Just thought to pooint it out. Thanks.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Sorry I'm new to all this posting and stuff, but does anyone seriously beleive that Syria have nukes!!! If by some long shot they had managed to aquire them they would have let the world no pretty dam quick! IMO this is nothing but part of the wider plot to scare the population into sitting quietly whilst the west blows apart the middle east.

Oh well at least nothing suprises me anymore!!



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Well that article states that they *could* have a nuclear program, not that they actually have nuclear weapons.

Even if they did have nuclear weapons I see it as a reduction of the chances of war arising. Think about it, Syria would gain nothing from nuking Israel so it's basically not going to happen. But instead of Israel feeling it can attack Syria with impunity thanks to the nuke arsenal at her disposal, she will think twice of attacking a nuclear armed nation.

MAD worked with the much demonized Soviet Union, I see no reason why it would not work with Iran and Syria too.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Anything that has Bolton in it has to be bogus. I wonder why we have never seen these reports before. Something smells funny.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I seriously doubt that Syria has the resources to build nukes.
They're a country of less than 20 million with a $3500 per capita GDP (118th on the planet).

This sounds like more scaremongering to me.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Anything that has Bolton in it has to be bogus. I wonder why we have never seen these reports before. Something smells funny.

To be sure. Perhaps Iran has been put in the 'too hard basket' and the neo-con/christian zionists are setting their cross-hairs on relatively weaker Syria.

I always wondered why they were prepping Iran for regime change ahead of Syria. Iran is much too advanced and militarily capable of repelling any such action. Whereas Syria is basically a sitting duck.

Syria is the final nation with any chance of reigning in Israel in the immediate region. Iran can theoretically challenge Israel but it has to get through the American army sat on it's Western border in Iraq. Not to mention the American army on it's Eastern border in Afghanistan.

I'd be willing to wager that we'll suddenly have some "evidence" showing Syria has a nuclear weapons program thanks to CIA/ISI asset AQ Khan. Then priorities will shift from Iran to Syria. Israel will unleash itself fully on Syria in a Lebanon style attack. I would also assume attempts would be made on President Assad's life and an exiled opposition group would try to claim leadership of Syria with the United States blessing and support.

If things get a little hairy for Israel, their US big brother could lend military assistance from it's battle hardened and ready troop pool in Iraq. It could even be linked as 'striking at the heart of the Iraqi insurgency'. Hell we could even be shown some nice satellite intel showing where Assad is keeping Hussein's WMD's that 'were shipped from Iraq to Syria'.

Yeah I think that's what's on the cards. Oh joy...and probably in time for the US elections no doubt.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
They may have a program and it would be smart on Irans part for them to have one, provides a backup and dispursion of rsources.

And i would make sense to me for the US to take out Syria instead of Iran. Syria is the only ally Iran has in the region and would back hem into a corner of being surrounded by US occupied nations and US friendly nations. BUT I dont expect it to happen any time soon. We could do just as with Iran and bomb the hell out of them but we have no troops to send in ISrael would only make things worse if they got militarily involved because of general feelings toward them.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I seriously doubt that Syria has the resources to build nukes.
They're a country of less than 20 million with a $3500 per capita GDP (118th on the planet).

This sounds like more scaremongering to me.


But there's always money for weapons.

And uranium should not be hard to obtain in such societies.

Watch this:
Uranium missing at UK plant
www.aftenposten.no..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Swedish nuclear watchdog allays fears about missing uranium



www.vanderbilt.edu...

Zaitseva said that, over the past 10 years, at least 88
pounds (40 kg) of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium
had been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities
in the former Soviet Union. While most of this material
subsequently was retrieved, at least 4.4 pounds (2 kg)
of highly enriched uranium stolen from a reactor in
Georgia remains missing.

Other thefts have included several fuel rods that
disappeared from a research reactor in the Congo in the
mid-1990s. While one of these fuel rods later resurfaced
in Italy -- reportedly in the hands of the Mafia -- the
other has not been found.




Enough uranium to nuke the entire world away. Seriously, if Iran would necesarrily feel a need for more uranium it would be for one 1: peaceful purposes 2: expand their current nuclear arsenal. It's not so difficult for a rich country to illegally obtain uranium.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
"DEBKAfile: Syrian president Bashar Assad: They said peace was the only way but now, after seeing how Hizballah fought, I see an option.

August 14, 2006, 9:24 PM (GMT+02:00)

“Syrian hands will liberate Golan.”

The Syrian ruler threatened not only Israel but also the Siniora government in Beirut: It’s time to go, he said.

DEBKAfile adds: There is deep concern in Washington for the life of Fouad Siniora. It is feared he may be the victim of a murder conspiracy by Hizballah and Syrian intelligence as a means of trashing UN Security Council resolution 1701 and any chance of ending hostilities in Lebanon.

Debka


Wow, The cogs keep turning.

They really couldnt be that bold unless they either had fully military support from Iran or other devious weapons.

JC



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Any trustworthy sources?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
If Syria has nukes, they arent their's. They bought them from someone else. Im not saying they dont have them...who knows, but im saying they definitely did not produce them indigenously.

[edit on 14-8-2006 by princeofpeace]



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
SureSyria has nuclear weapons...they're North, South, East and West, and thereabouts round Damascus! (over to you, Rummy) *slaps forehead*



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I'm not sure about this either, but I can tell you that if I were a country building a nuke, I certainly would not let anyone know until I had a couple completed and ready to fire. Once you have them, you have some political power of negotiation. You have a threat. If you are merely building them and talking about building them, you are as good as dead.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Yeah I noticed this came from "Concern from the Bush Administration". Enough said. BS!



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
"DEBKAfile adds: There is deep concern in Washington for the life of Fouad Siniora. It is feared he may be the victim of a murder conspiracy by Hizballah and Syrian intelligence as a means of trashing UN Security Council resolution 1701 and any chance of ending hostilities in Lebanon."

Who Benefits?

The Syrians would not benefit, The Lebanese resistance would not benefit. The US and Israel would most certainly benefit from having the blame laid at the door of either group and having them at each others throats.

The old divide and conquer game. By way of deception?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Syria has to open a political doctrine to have nukes right now.

Lab experiments (accidents) can have to much erroneous data.

Anyone who has taken HIgh school level courses knows this.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join