Russia warns of nuclear disaster if Syria is hit

Russia warns of nuclear disaster if Syria is hit

rt.com

A military strike on Syria could lead to a nuclear catastrophe if a missile were to hit a reactor containing radioactive uranium, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned. The remark comes as the US continues to push for a military strike on Syria.

"If a warhead, by design or by chance, were to hit the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) near Damascus, the consequences could be catastrophic," Aleksandr Lukashevich said in a Wednesday statement.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So what do you think, fear-mongering by the Russians or a distinct possibility?

Not an expert on nuclear reactors or anything but judging on the accuracy of U.S. airstrikes and their tendency to kill civilians, I could see a stray missile maybe causing some damage should it land near this facility.

I wasn't aware of this beforehand and I'm quite surprised it being mentioned now. Personally, I do think that any U.S. action against Syria is a war crime and they should be held accountable should a potential disaster like this happen.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


It's really a Line of Horse S[SNIP]T.

Do you really think that WE haven't already considered it?

They are trying to do what they can to deter a strike.

Make note that SMART Bombs are pretty damn smart. . .. . Supposedly.


ETA:

P.S. .. Besides, they are on the oher side of the world and I don't think it would affect US to badly

I fear its more likley to go nuclear if Assad decides he's lost,and starts firing chemical weapons at Israel.
I expect Israel would use nuclear bombs in that scenario.

Of course,the reactor they mention may become a target by Assad or the rebels or some other players.
Especially now RT have alerted everyone to its existence.

I believe the Russians will re-occupy Tartus . because of the possibility of airstrips being damaged in a US attack, Russia cannot supply Syria otherwise, makes logical sense.,which puts Russian forces on the ground etcetcetc

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


Good on RT, these war mongers who are looking for strikes should be telling the people of the risks and not feeding us BS on how there will be more terrorists created if they don't strike.

Last time I checked, the opinion polls where over-whelming in people against this action but so what, who are we?

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


Hi there!

I imagine that Israeli Intelligence will know what dangers exist and what to avoid so they will be giving intelligence to the US Fleet.

Hitting a target like that would definitely not be in Israel's interests.

Russian foreign policy on the possible Syria strike is definitely more aggressive than I have seen in the past with the likes of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Serbia. You really get the feeling that something there is precious to them and that Syria are in some way a valuable asset to Russia.

May be it is oil, may be it is strategic or a mixture of both. I did not get anxious about Russia intervening in the above mentioned, but I do get a feeling that this campaign if it goes ahead has the potential to get very messy indeed.

Now that Obama and Putin are talking face to face I wonder if any side will back down.

I doubt Putin would as he seems to have the support of the populace behind him. Obama really should, but I think him and Kerry have said too much now and backing down is no longer an option. They have taken the lies too far.

Also if congress do not give approval, all it will take is one missile and I think the international community will really kick off. The other alternative is the French strike first, I dont think they would have the balls though given their track record in warfare, but it does seem the only option for them.

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
So what do you think, fear-mongering by the Russians or a distinct possibility?

Yes, if a warhead would strike a nuclear facility in Syria (or the US, or the UK, or in Tehran, or in Adelaide, or in XYZ land) it would be a disaster. Is today a slow news day or what "Nobel prize applicant" just had that astonishing but nevertheless profound epiphany?

According to "the Guardian" Putin is threatening to proceed with the s-300 air defence systems deal If the US get involved:

He (Putin) then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defence missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient", he said: "If we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world." The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia cancelled a few years ago under strong US and Israeli pressure.

www.theguardian.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is ratcheting up more each day.
Not good.

Why can't there be some non military punishment like Syrian government paying compensation to the killed and wounded people. Punishment has to be rendered for using WMDs but only military does not make sense. It can destroy peace in the region, spike oil prices, slide down the stock markets and end up hurting most the people who are not even distinctly connected to the mess in that region.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


An accidental strike hitting a nuclear power plant would definitely not be a good thing in the slightest. All one has to do is look at Fukushima to see what structural damage to a nuclear reactor can do or at Chernobyl to see how long a meltdown would affect an area (still "hot" last I heard). Hard to say, however, how much of a risk there is to this happening without knowing how close missile targets would be to the MNSR or whether it would be a target, itself, as a part of the energy infrastructure (though I sincerely doubt that it would be because of the resultant atrocity). From the article, Syria reported the MNSR as containing nuclear material last week and Israel been targeting facilities in Damascus off and on for a few months now, has it not? I wonder if something got a wee bit close already.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
I fear its more likley to go nuclear if Assad decides he's lost,and starts firing chemical weapons at Israel.
I expect Israel would use nuclear bombs in that scenario.

Of course,the reactor they mention may become a target by Assad or the rebels or some other players.
Especially now RT have alerted everyone to its existence.

Assad will not strike Israel, I think he will leave that to Iran. They said they would do it and this would be the opportunity they have been waiting for.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse

According to "the Guardian" Putin is threatening to proceed with the s-300 air defence systems deal If the US get involved:

Yes, let's think about that for a second.

How are they going to know the U.S. has gotten involved until they Launch Missiles?

By then I think that sending a missile defense is going to be too little too late.

Hitting that facility could possibly leave Damascus a 'ruinous heap'. Could this prophecy have any merit?

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Silcone Synapse

 

According to "the Guardian" Putin is threatening to proceed with the s-300 air defence systems deal If the US get involved:

Yes, let's think about that for a second.

How are they going to know the U.S. has gotten involved until they Launch Missiles?

By then I think that sending a missile defense is going to be too little too late.

edit on 5-9-2013 by ShadellacZumbrum because: (no reason given)

They probably have already installed it. What you say makes sense so seems to me like they are hinting that it may already be in place. Maybe?

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


If the smart bombs were so smart, why it was so many collateral damager in Iraq and Afghanistan, I guess people forgot about them.

Remember this, that is why US have to problems invading Iraq they knew Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons in the country at the time of the strike, so they went directly to protect the oil fields, but now US know, that Syria does have some stock pike remember, some where, or that is what is been sold right now, let not forget the "chemical weapons" arsenal that is the reason for the strike, right? because Assad gas his own people, I don't think that Russia is trying to stop anything I think Russia is pointing to the obvious.

US government and the reasons for the attack on Syria are so obvious that everybody seems to know exactly the lies behind it, but no those that support the attack on Syria.

reply to post by Revolution9


Oil oh sure. Syria produced .5% of the worlds oil in 2010. An oil powerhouse.

Originally posted by victor7
Why can't there be some non military punishment like Syrian government paying compensation to the killed and wounded people. Punishment has to be rendered for using WMDs but only military does not make sense. It can destroy peace in the region, spike oil prices, slide down the stock markets and end up hurting most the people who are not even distinctly connected to the mess in that region.

I don't think any government will go that route. People will then start demanding the western countries start compensating all the people killed in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Also the rebels are not innocent either. Just watch all the gruesome videos of them butchering people.

I agree with what you say but it has to apply to all parties involved.

Just to add another recent story from RT, Congress may still vote no. Hope they do for the sake of us all:

"While President Barack Obama attempts to drum up support overseas for a potential strike against Syria, lawmakers in the United States House of Representatives appear not all that likely to authorize the use of military force."

rt.com...