'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site'

reply to post by pavil

---

First off, I never at any time said the US used nuclear weapons, tactical or anything. I argued that point earlier as someone else went off on that topic. I did agree that they could have included them in the payload they carried, as the article explains. The article does not even say they used nuclear weapons, just that they were carried by the fighters. 1 nuclear weapon per plane. The article claims 1 bomb was dropped, and did not indiciate that it was nuclear.

I did not suggest that Israeli planes were flying around while we bombed anything. I am suggesting it was a joint strike squadren. There is no indication, according to the article, what plane or which country fired the shot. What I was suggesting was that we were either there to over see the attack and make sure Israel was bombing a legitimate target, or we were there to make the bombing run. If we made the bombing run, we used the Israeli planes as cover, as it would not be surprised for them to be that far into Syria, as they are known to make such flights for survailance.

I am sorry if all the rhetoric confused you. Anything else you would like me to clear up???

Perhaps the U.S. has some sophisticated jamming or stealth technology on board one of their planes which was used to cloak the entire lot of planes. I doubt this but it was a thought that passed my mind. BTW, I think this entire story is bogus.

Lucky Bastard!!
Seriously, its WAY cool he is working with F22s. Awesome!

reply to post by Mirthful Me

---

Finally, thank you Mirthful.

The real underlying reason I ran with this thread is that when Al-Jazeera posts similar articles about Iraqi casualties by the US being innocent women and children, people go out of their way to critisize the US based on the reported news of A-J.

However, I do not feel it to be funny, but sad that people accept the truth when it fits their ajenda, but rail against it when its something like this. If everyone ignored A-J, your right, no reason for me to post this thread.

Hope your football pick thing is going well, I would like to participate next year.

-Trader

Yes!
Of course it is. If not us then who?

[edit on 2-11-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

reply to post by Tom Bedlam

---

Please see my response to Mirthful, as that explains the whole reason I ran with the post.

Thanks

reply to post by tyranny22

---

a nuke is still a nuke wether multi mega ton city blaster or a 1 ton bridge killer - there is still alot of radiation and fallout.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam

---

But who's going to report the readings? I doubt that Israel or the US is going to do another "deep penetration" to get readings from the site.

I highly doubt Syria would report any such evidence (cite the apparent reluctance to acknowledge any strike at all) for fear of incriminating themselves.

Even if tactical nukes were used, Syria knows that to admit the strike, and raise the nuclear issue, is to admit criminal intent and risk bring put on the list of "Axis" terrorist forces.

reply to post by Dr Love

---

Yes that was me. I will post the link to the photo's. not the exact one I was looking for, but it will do. I wiould love to find early time frame photos but don't have the patientience for it.
[www.isis-online.org...[/url]www.dprkstudies.org...


Someone else had a good link as well.

If a tactical nuke was used there were be photgraphic evidence as well as seismo evidence.

reply to post by Harlequin

---

I don't agree with any fallout being released by a nuclear weapon, but "a lot" is a vague statement and subject to opinion. Apparently it was no Chernobyl or we would have an international uproar. More than likely, this was an isolated facility and the stirke only involved the workers and employees at such a facility. These were more than likely killed in the initial blast and I'd say only an handful, if any, suffered from radiation sickness or fallout symptoms.

That doesn't make it ok. I'm sure it wrecked havoc on the surroundings and it's environment, which to me, should be considered a criminal act.

I simply argue the point that people doubt there was a tactical nuke used because there was no readings of radiation or fallout. Such tell-tale signs of a tactical nuke could easily be ignore, or covered-up by parties not wishing to bring attention to such an event.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by tyranny22]

sorry to burst that little bubble

Sorry for the levity in my tone, that link relates to the b-52 blunder. But aircraft often take off carrying nukes, not usually for a planned strike per say - more like we also got that option.

Did the cold war ever end?

Nuclear weapons aside a couple of things have recently been brought to light.

Several media sources are reporting that the IAF overflew turkish territory. Drop tanks were found In Turkey that belong to the IAF

Also AWST reported last week that the IAF may have used a highly classified program called Project Souter that the USAF has developed. It aparently uses networkcentric attacks and emitters that spoof and/or project false info into air defence networks. The precourcer to this was used int he first iraq war in Kosovo. Im at work, but I will dig up the reference when i get home

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

---

I'm not following you. All countries do what is in their own best interests. From the opposite side of the fence I am sure it looks ......well opposite.

Obviously, it looks like Israel took this even nascent attempt at building a nuclear facility as a theat and in it's best interest to remove it.



[edit on 2-11-2007 by pavil]

reply to post by tyranny22

---

any surface detonation would have been felt at monitoring stations around the world - nuclear weapons give off a large amount of heat energy and ionizing radiation (even the air is radioactive inside teh heat sphere) there is no way an atmospheric detonation would have gone unnoticed or unreported.

downwind even as little as an hour you would be able to track the fallout - and we are talking a few million tons on earth displaced into the atmosphere and laced with such wonders as stontium-90.

so i call BS to a nuke being used.


www.johnstonsarchive.net...

have a read - that is how a (fusion or thermonuclear) physics package works , if you stop at the `primary` that is then an `atomic bomb`

I gotcha covered big T.

Translated linky thingy.

reply to post by makeitso

---

A businessman. Sure...now we know where they got their source from.

reply to post by deltaboy

---

Makes me wonder, if by ANY chance, this was a Russian business man, that, perhaps, sells defense radars? thing that make you go Hmmmmm

So good they bomb british soldiers in iraq, yeah really great.

I don't know much about the radiation side of things but if someone out there does, is it possible that if radiation is eventually detected at the site, that the excuse could be "it's from the nuclear materials we destroyed", and not the weapon used?

reply to post by NuclearPaul

---

I would imagine the residue isotopes would be different, allowing someone to tell what occured was either a nuclear detonation or just fallout from a reactor.