Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Al Jazeera: U.S., not Israel, destroyed Syrian reactor — with tactical nuclear weapons; Update: Source was Islamic message board?

posted at 9:25 am on November 2, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Too good bad freaky deaky to check.

The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two strategic US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a nuclear site under construction.

The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes.

The sources added that each US plane carried one tactical nuclear weapon and that the site was hit by one bomb and was totally destroyed.

I can’t even find the story on AJ’s website; we’ll have to take JPost’s word that it was there. Is there any reason to believe this is something other than pure, undistilled anti-American shinola being peddled by jihadis’ favorite news source? Two that I can think of. If you’re making a daring raid into enemy territory that might very well trigger war you’ll want to make sure you at least destroy the target you came for, including any underground structures. That means using the heaviest club you’ve got. What it doesn’t explain is why U.S. jets would be needed to deliver the goods given that Israel also has nuclear weapons. Conceivably they didn’t have one big enough to take out the building but small enough not to alert the world of the detonation when it went off, and the U.S. did. Would Bush be willing to lend a nuclear hand to take out a reactor that was years away from being usable? Even to scare Iran? Doubtful.

The other reason is this report from Britain’s Spectator that Bryan blogged about a few weeks ago. I’ve wondered about it ever since I read it. The language always seemed a bit too dire for the facts as we know, or think we know, them:

Even more curious is that far from pushing the Syrians and Israelis to war, both seem determined to put a lid on the affair. One month after the event, the absence of hard information leads inexorably to the conclusion that the implications must have been enormous.

That was confirmed to The Spectator by a very senior British ministerial source: ‘If people had known how close we came to world war three that day there’d have been mass panic. Never mind the floods or foot-and-mouth — Gordon really would have been dealing with the bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon.’

Israel and Syria have been flirting with war for most of the year, to the point where IDF officers were publicly predicting it would happen this summer. There’s potential for that conflict to become a world war if Iran jumps in and either it or Syria drags the U.S. in by attacking Iraq. But no one seemed terribly worried about that prospect and Iran, after all, tends to do its fighting through its proxies. So what would explain that hair-raising “world war three”/massive public freakout imagined by the unnamed British minister? Well … a nuclear attack on a Middle Eastern country certainly would. Or maybe the minister’s just a typical British dove soiling himself at the thought of any type of “aggression.”

Here’s a side-by-side before and after of the site for the benefit of any military readers who might have a better sense of what a landscape looks like after a tactical nuke detonates. I think the story’s 99 and 44/100ths crap, but you tell me.

Update: Follow the comments below. People who’d know better than I are saying that it makes no sense to do this with jets, if in fact the U.S. was involved. The aircraft of choice would have been a B2 stealth bomber.

Update: Rusty says he got a tip about this yesterday from an Islamic message board, which may explain where AJ got its info. Or maybe the message board poster had already seen it on AJ and cribbed it from there. Hard to say.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

If true. It would be very easy to proove. Nukes tend to leave a radioactive signature.

TheSitRep on November 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM

We can hope. Why we didn’t take out Ahmadnutjobs plane over the Atlantic still puzzles me. I thought we had a cowboy in the WH.

roninacreage on November 2, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Maybe Al-Jizz is trying to make up for pissing off Osama’s peeps last week.

JammieWearingFool on November 2, 2007 at 9:35 AM

Nukes tend to leave a radioactive signature.

TheSitRep on November 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM

And a nice size crater too….

soulsirkus on November 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Eh. What about the Israeli fuel tanks that ended up in Turkish territory? If I’m remembering right there were press photos circulating of them. Plus Olmert issued Turkey an apology about it behind closed doors. So there was at least some Israeli air assets involved.

Or it could all be misinformation designed to throw us off the scent of the true story: it was designed to pave the way for the NAU.

omriceren on November 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM

I can’t help but think a small nuke in the form of some sort of bunker buster detonating undeground would likely produce some sort of seismographic signature.

Besdies, right or wrong, the political firestorm that would result from our using ANY type of nuke would be massive. If there’s anything I’ve learned about our media, especially when it comes to military.security matters whether they’re classified or not, is that they’d expose it in an effort to make Bush look bad if/when they got wind of it.

Yakko77 on November 2, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Does anybody know if that facility was complete and may have had radio active material in it? Maybe it’s just a lame cover story to account for leaked radiation and blame the US at the same time.

Or maybe the minister’s just a typical British dove soiling himself at the thought of any type of “aggression.” – AP

Probably is.

forest on November 2, 2007 at 9:38 AM

Whatever. The bottom line is the site is gone gone.

saiga on November 2, 2007 at 9:40 AM

What about the Israeli fuel tanks that ended up in Turkish territory?

Decoy!

Note that Israeli jets accompanied the U.S. jets. That would explain the fuel tanks.

I WANT TO BELIEVE.

Allahpundit on November 2, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Or maybe the minister’s just a typical British dove soiling himself at the thought of any type of “aggression.”

AllahPundit

I vote for this. Bedwetting English pig-dog.

Jaibones on November 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Send over Goracle to sniff out the radiation in the air, he is the Grand Poopa of Scientific Knowledge.

Wade on November 2, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Nah, Bushy finaly pulled out the Super Duper Top Secret Area 51 El Blasto Ray!

Either that… or the Illudiam Q-36 Space Fuel Modulatoorrrr..

Get him, Klepton…

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 9:45 AM

Nevermind – I just noticed that it says that Israeli jets were providing air cover, which would conveniently account for the Israeli fuel tanks. I’m still highly skeptical that tac nukes were used and Syria didn’t bother telling anyone.

Incidentally, if the Israelis were counting on threatening to bust Syria by providing irradiated soil samples, wouldn’t using nukes make it harder to get the IAEA to untangle the evidence? I’m sure that the signatures are different, but people here should know whether the samples would still be any good…

omriceren on November 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM

Take a before and after of San Diego county….bet part of it has scorched earth markings like the photo. Brush and desert grasses burn hot and fast….especially after a Hellfire goes off.

Limerick on November 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM

There’s no reason to have Israeli jets follow ours in and in fact it would probably be counter productive to a stealth bomber delivering a nuke.

Besides if a nuke was dropped Syria would be running around like their hair was on fire to every news organization on the planet. I’m sure Russia would have been able to verify it as well.

bj1126 on November 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Nah. This is grade-A shinola, right up there with the Iraqi shark rumor. As lawhawk points out, if the US intended to conduct a strike like this, the obvious aircraft to use would be the B2. The B2 doesn’t need cover from Israeli or any other jets. Their presence would just jeopardize the B2’s stealth. And the B2 could have launched from Diego Garcia or even Whiteman AFB and done the deed on a direct flight with an aerial refueling. We could have had half a dozen B2s with F-117 escorts (those launched locally) on the target without any need for Israeli involvement at all. So the story as Al Jazeera lays it out just doesn’t make operational sense to me.

Bryan on November 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM

I’ll go with 100 percent Bravo Sierra.

steveegg on November 2, 2007 at 9:50 AM

REALITY CHECK!

Even if the U.S. had wanted to nuke Syria, the political and diplomatic consequences of doing it would be huge. Even more so if done by covert operations. The accusations of “rogue cowboy in the White House” would be dusted off yet again with good reason!

The above facts are indisputable. It doesn’t matter the size of the nuke involved. And, make no mistake, an operation of this sort would eventually be leaked out because it is too big and involved to stay secret.

highhopes on November 2, 2007 at 9:50 AM

I doubt this story because the Syrians would have been screaming bloody murder knowing the world would have been behind them if any part of this story was true.

Sue on November 2, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Would Bush be willing to lend a nuclear hand to take out a reactor that was years away from being usable? Even to scare Iran?

Not just doubtful. Idiotic. And regardless of the IQ judgments of the moonbats, he’s not that stupid.

MadisonConservative on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

As lawhawk points out, if the US intended to conduct a strike like this, the obvious aircraft to use would be the B2.

Can the B2 be that precise at that altitude with that kind of weapon? Dropping one of these suckers and missing would be even worse than hitting the target but not destroying it.

Allahpundit on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

bj1126 on November 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Posted while I was typing, but I totally agree. Syria would have used this against the US if it was true. And garnered sympathy.

Sue on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

But Bryan,

That would have made U.S. involvement obvious.

saiga on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Since the “original” article about the Al Jazz posting can’t be found, this is a rumor about a rumor! Don’t let Hot Air sink to the level of the MSM!

With regard to the almost WWIII quotes out of the UK, that never rang true to me. Some Brit politico was hyperventilating is my guess.

doufree on November 2, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Allahpundit on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Sure. It can drop smart weapons too. But with a target like the one in Syria, all by itself out in the desert, and with the aircraft’s stealth, the weapon in question wouldn’t have to be all that smart. The B2 could find the target and basically loiter until it could put an old dumb bomb through the center director’s window.

I could see a scenario where the Israelis played a role in suppressing Syrian air defense or something like that to ensure that the bombers got through and out. Getting from that to us dropping a nuke is a biiig stretch though.

And the more likely scenario remains that the Israelis did this all by themselves, with maybe some technical help from us.

Bryan on November 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM

My first thought was also that the story was floated to cover for any residual (Syrian) radiation.

benjamin on November 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM

I think you can fill in the remaining fraction of a percentage point, AP.

The structure in question–and it does appear to be a single structure–was a Noth Korea designed buiding that was, to the best I’ve been able to see around the net, a non-hardened, above-ground structure. I can’t see why we’d need a B61-11, which is our ground-penetrating low-yield nuke.

Further, the yield of a ground-pentrating B61-11 is significant; unlike other variants of the B61 that are “dial-a-yield,” the B61-11 variant is said to have a static 10-kiloton yield. Seizmologists around the planet would presumably know if something that large detonated underground, becuase the shockwave would be massive.

Combine that with the fact that I’ve read accounts that their was precisely zero radiation released into the air (and the B61-11 would release considerable radiation), then I feel pretty safe in calling this story false.

Bob Owens on November 2, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Maybe the Syrians were hiding the WMDs that were smuggled out of Iraq at that site. That would explain why Syria is just as eager to keep quiet about this incident as Israel is. That would be one thing worth hiding, enough to overlook U.S. nuclear involvement in their country. Would they want to admit to the world that Bush was right about Saddam’s WMDs, and Syria helped hide the evidence? That would give Bush back his justification for the invasion (and might justify extending the invasion to Syria), and Syria would avoid that at all costs–even the the point of giving up its opportunity to scream “nuclear bully” at the United States.

aero on November 2, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Guys… if we had hit this with a Tac Nuke…. it would NOT have been bomber delivered.

It would have gone in on a Tomahawk, launched from long range… no need for an aircraft to even be in the area.

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Prior US Navy nuclear guy here…a couple points stick out at me for what it’s worth:

1. If it was a hydrogen bomb, there would be FAR less fallout and we wouldn’t see anything remotely close to something like a regular uranium/plutonium bomb going off or the nasty cloud that came outta Chernobyl when they decided to jumpstart it with cold water and burn through 3 years of fuel in 3 seconds. So it IS possible there would be little/no fallout and only localized evidence of radiation/contamination that in itself wouldn’t be TOO bad…humans could go in there with rad suits if they didn’t hang around all day and be ok.

2. If it were small enough, and an airburst instead of a ground detonation, it might not have made a big ass crater. It probably would have seared the pavement/sand and the concussion would have leveled the whole thing down to the brick. It could be the lighting or the effect of conventional bombing, but I swear the sand in those before/after pics looks literally like it was seared black. Could it be burned up glass crystals? I ain’t sayin it is and I’m pretty skeptical on this too, but it could be.

But there ya go.

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM

And a nice size crater too….

soulsirkus on November 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Not if it was an air burst. But you’d think someone would have noticed the large mushroom cloud.

Kowboy on November 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM

This is simple. Syria was building a nuke plant, it was blown up, by whom is not relevant. What is relevant is that Syria was building a nuke plant and they want to blame us for the radioactive fallout we haven’t heard about yet. (but Syria knows exists)

Maybe we should send over the peace midget so we can make the charade complete.

swami on November 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Can the B2 be that precise at that altitude with that kind of weapon? Dropping one of these suckers and missing would be even worse than hitting the target but not destroying it.

Allahpundit on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

In a word, yes. The B-2 is JDAM-capable, and I’ll be willing to bet that the JDAM guidance package can be bolted onto the B61 nuclear bomb. Even if it weren’t, we’ve been refining bombing techniques for so long, the B-2 could hit your average-sized Best Buy building from 30,000 feet with an unguided iron bomb.

steveegg on November 2, 2007 at 10:30 AM

romeo13,

Guys… if we had hit this with a Tac Nuke…. it would NOT have been bomber delivered.

It would have gone in on a Tomahawk, launched from long range… no need for an aircraft to even be in the area.

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Think about it bro, Israel coulda done it too if that was the case…just popped it off from a cruiser out in the Med, but we know there were Israeli fighters there on the scene so for some reason unbeknownst to us they HAD to have aircraft there.

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 10:34 AM

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 10:22 AM

To my untrained eye, the “after” is merely darker, with no evidence of scorching. The patterns of dark, with the notable exception of the shadow cast by the now-bulldozed-and-hauled-away building, are essentially identical.

steveegg on November 2, 2007 at 10:35 AM

In the “after” pictures I don’t see any blast damage on the other buildings at the sight nor the surrounding buttes. Whatever was used, was localized and probably a lot smaller than a nuke.

bnelson44 on November 2, 2007 at 10:37 AM

If this were true then Syria wouldn’t need to cover up the facility. It would have been totally destroyed and any radiation could easily be blamed on the U.S.

BadgerHawk on November 2, 2007 at 10:42 AM

Let’s get serious…if we dropped a nuke on Syria, would they remain silent? No. They’d be screaming bloody murder.

Neighboring countries would also be picking up the radiation and running right to the UN Security Council. I think the whole thing is BS.

flipflop on November 2, 2007 at 10:43 AM

I know, let’s get Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and a few of their chums to personally visit the site with Geigercounters to check for residual U.S. nuke-bomb radiation signatures….
then, well, you know, like it says on the shampoo bottle, “wash, rinse, repeat…”

max1 on November 2, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Other point to consider…

There was no reports of the EMP burst a nuke would have put out…

One of the reasons most nuke tests are underground is that it sheilds the rest of us from the EMP burst that would fry electronics for miles around… any Air or surface burst would have been easily detectable from Satelite.

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM

flipflop on November 2, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Not necessarily due, that’s what I was highlighting above…with an H-bomb, especially a small one, there’d be little fallout, relatively low radiation, and only localized evidence anything nuclear had happened.

And again, I doubt we did it too, just sayin it’s pretty feasible from a technical standpoint. One airburst of a tactical hydrogen/fusion nuke.

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Bryan on November 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Agree with you 100% there. No way was this a USA strike. The Israelis (God bless ‘em) did this on their own. Our wimpy state department did their best (worst), but our only M.E. ally did what had to be done.

Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I’m saying that the atom bomb story is pure crap.

First, the US does not lend its atom bombs to other countries. Ever. The bar for using nukes in our own defense is very high. The bar for using nukes in the defense of another country is set near Pluto. It’s just not gonna happen.

Second, this target does not require a nuke. We have plenty of conventional precision guided munitions that can take out a nuclear reactor. We’ve got conventional bombs that can penetrate yards of concrete to take out an underground bunker. You don’t need a tactical nuke unless it is a super-hardened facility buried a hundred feet or more below the surface with a shell of reinforced concrete above it.

These kind of Dr. Evil lairs are generally so expensive (Saddam reportedly paid the Germans $100 million to build his) that they’re only good for preserving the command authority, ie the leaders hide out in them. They’re just too expensive to be big enough to house a nuclear reactor and all its vulnerable components. Syria doesn’t have that kind of money. Even Iran doesn’t have that kind of money. Most of its nuclear development is in soft sites, dispersed to reduce the risk of attack.

The reason nukes were assigned to important targets in the past was that it was hard to put the bomb on the target. When you have a big probable miss distance, you need a bigger bomb to ensure the target is destroyed. For example, the Soviets had a giant sub-launched cruise missile they intended to launch at DC with a giant nuclear warhead on it. They needed a big warhead because the missile was only sure to hit within three miles of its aim point.

Now that GPS can guide weapons reliably in any weather to within feet of an aim point, you don’t need a huge bomb to get the job done. Nukes aren’t as important anymore. The US Air Force is moving to a smaller bomb, half the size of its standard 500 pound Mk 82, because our technology allows us to more precisely place a bomb on target. It’s better to place a firecracker on a vulnerable spot to destroy a target than detonate a nuke three miles away.

Of course, neither Al Jazeera nor the Islamist nut jobs know any of this because they’re dumb as dirt. To their simple minds, you’d use the biggest possible bomb you could get your hands on to throw at a target. They know no constraints and project that mindset upon their enemies, like Israel and America.

Tantor on November 2, 2007 at 11:11 AM

The question remains however, why have Syria and Iran been completely silent ever since this attack?

While the target was destroyed, I think this raid was more about testing Syrian defense systems than anything else. Remember, the Syrians and the Iranians are using Russian built defense technology. If aircraft can penetrate defenses in Syria undetected, then we can expect similar success on an Iranian raid.

The “dry run” was a huge success and now our enemies know they are vulnerable sitting ducks with their existing defense systems. That might make anyone hesitate to make a counter-move, knowing if they did, their homelands would be totally defenseless against air strikes. Their biggest concern now is coming up with Plan B, and you can’t upgrade and install a new system overnight. Furthermore, you need a source, something they are severely lacking. Antiquated Russian technology just doesn’t hack it.

I think we got ‘em shaking in their sandals.

fogw on November 2, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM

But that’s just it…the thing was out in the middle of nowhere in the desert. No witnesses, no EMP effects because there are no electronics to fry, no one to see/hear the blast from nearby and say ‘yeah, it was a mushroom cloud’.

And as far as the satellite angle…the way I’m thinking is that the only peopl with satellites to see something like that at that exact moment probably already know what happened anyway. China, UK, etc…

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 11:16 AM

I know, let’s get Sean Penn, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey and a few of their chums to personally visit the site with Geigercounters to check for residual U.S. nuke-bomb radiation signatures….
then, well, you know, like it says on the shampoo bottle, “wash, rinse, repeat…”

max1 on November 2, 2007 at 10:56 AM

You forgot Cindy Sheehan (God bless her son), Dan Rather, Martin Sheen, Hugo Chavez….

Need a LOT of witnesses, you know. :)

Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM

One of the reasons most nuke tests are underground is that it sheilds the rest of us from the EMP burst that would fry electronics for miles around… any Air or surface burst would have been easily detectable from Satelite.

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 11:06 AM

And that would bring on board the Russian government. Had they detected an EMP, without prior knowledge, they could have responded in kind.

Texas Nick 77 on November 2, 2007 at 11:19 AM

And a nice size crater too….

soulsirkus on November 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM

As others said not an air burst, however for a hardened target an air burst would not be the best usage of a weapon especially in an open area like the target was located in.

Also the area cleanup would have to be postponed for a long long time unless you have political prisoner sacrificial labor.

Nope it was conventional, there are many options to do what the photos have shown without going nuke on someone.

CommentGuy on November 2, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Eh. What about the Israeli fuel tanks that ended up in Turkish territory? If I’m remembering right there were press photos circulating of them. Plus Olmert issued Turkey an apology about it behind closed doors. So there was at least some Israeli air assets involved.

Those tanks were in almost pristine shipping condition. Try dropping one from 14,000 feet at 400kts and see what the tank would look like when it hit the ground. Look at the pictures again. See any impact marks on the soil , a trench how about even some smugged paint on the tank itself.

CommentGuy on November 2, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Is it possible that said reactor had fuel and that the Israeli bombing caused a leak ? If there is residual radioactivity the Syrians might be spreading the story of “A nuke attack” to try and cover any radioactivity found at the site

William Amos on November 2, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Can the B2 be that precise at that altitude with that kind of weapon? Dropping one of these suckers and missing would be even worse than hitting the target but not destroying it.

Allahpundit on November 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Didn’t you watch the shock and awe portion of the start of the Iraq invasion. We could put bombs down with such accuracy it wasn’t which building do you want to hit but which elevator shaft you wanted to send it down.

Cruise missiles don’t get tasked for which building, it’s which window or door do you want to knock on.

You tube probably still has vids showing a string of 6 or 8 bombs hitting 4 to 6 buildings without a single one ending up hitting in the street instead of dead on target.

Heck for this target I wouldn’t even send a bomber. A brace of 3 or 4 cruise missiles would have done the deed and a UAV could have provided real time coverage of the attack and immediate bomb damage assessment.

CommentGuy on November 2, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Follow the comments below. People who’d know better than I are saying that it makes no sense to do this with jets, if in fact the U.S. was involved. The aircraft of choice would have been a B2 stealth bomber.

If the US was involved the delivery system of choice would have been either an air or sea launched Tomahawk, no need for supporting aircraft from anybody…

elgeneralisimo on November 2, 2007 at 11:38 AM

We could have had half a dozen B2s with F-117 escorts (those launched locally) on the target without any need for Israeli involvement at all.
Bryan

Errrmmm … F-117s are actually stealthed tactical bombers. They have no air to air capability.

They got an F-number because the fighter jocks would cry if they got stuck in an A-117.

Kristopher on November 2, 2007 at 11:39 AM

Let’s get serious…if we dropped a nuke on Syria, would they remain silent? No. They’d be screaming bloody murder.

You forgot the part where the bomb didn’t hit anything strategic but instead leveled a hospital holding a convention for orphans.

highhopes on November 2, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Just look at the map for crying out loud. It’s a lot easier strike coming from Iraq based bombers or Persian Gulf cruise missiles than the path the Israelis had to walk to do this deed.

Get a head of steam up coming out of Iraq and you could be on target and gone in under 1/2 hour. A SF team could have laser illuminated the site which is even more accurate than GPS.

A nuke to do the deed would be like hunting quail with a howitzer. Way too much boom for the job at hand. No matter what kind of nuke you used that auxiliary building to the NNW would have never survived the attack. Nope conventional stuff all the way and precision placed with multiple hits to ensure no return trips necessary.

My bets since it was to be a graphite core type plant, hit it before it was fueled up or taken critical to cause radiation side issues. An operational plant would have required support buildings for additional equipment to make it work. This was from the photos the containment building for the core itself. A full plant would have been 8 to 10 times as big if the support buildings were in place.

CommentGuy on November 2, 2007 at 12:04 PM

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Perhaps you would also like to enlighten the rest of us on why the mass hysteria in the ’50’s over the radioactive fallout from the numerous H-bomb tests, since there is, as you point out,

little fallout, relatively low radiation

from a fusion bomb.

A more reasonable explanation for the existence of this story is quite simply, more evidence that the left, and perhaps most in the middle east, CAN’T DO ARITHMETIC.

Even a ’small’ nuke has a blast equivalent of several tens to several 100s of THOUSANDS of TONS of TNT. But when you can’t do arithmetic, you can’t grasp the magnitude of the difference between 100 kilo tons and 500 pounds.

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Let’s be serious now, with a monkey like GWB in the WH, the U.S. couldn’t pull something like this off.

kafiiri on November 2, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Interesting. I just sent in the story about the Cyber Jihad that Al Qaeda plans on the 11th. its a DOS attack.

Just now I went to the Al Jazeera site to check around some more and its offline. Both the Arabic and English sites

hmm

William Amos on November 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Obviously it was Alex Jones that wrote this post. Ok Alex, what did you do with the real Allahpundit?

Maxx on November 2, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I wonder if the nuke attack reference was to throw mud into any radiation that would be detected from the site. It has been speculated that Israeli commandos took soil samples at the site.

As to the use of nukes, if we had used nukes, there would be no doubt as the level of destruction would be obvious in future satellite photos. Everyone would also know it because some asshat in the CIA or Pentagon would have leaked it to the NY Times!

Weebork on November 2, 2007 at 12:42 PM

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM

Not necessarily due, that’s what I was highlighting above…with an H-bomb, especially a small one, there’d be little fallout, relatively low radiation, and only localized evidence anything nuclear had happened.

And again, I doubt we did it too, just sayin it’s pretty feasible from a technical standpoint. One airburst of a tactical hydrogen/fusion nuke.

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Even less with say a 1kt neutron bomb. Because the neutron bomb is a enhanced hydrogen bomb that employees chromium nickel mirrors some 80% of the radiation emitted is in the form of neutron radiation.

While neutron radiation is extremely lethal because (ionizing radiation) of the high electron charge of the neutron it’s low mass means it pretty much passes right through nearly everything. In other words practically no residual radioactive signature.

However that set aside, there is very little reason to suspect that the US was involved simply because as Bryan pointed out, there would be no reason for the Israeli’s to be involved as any Israeli aircraft would have been more of a liability than an asset on such a mission.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I don’t believe this was a nuclear strike, and I don’t think that we did it. There would be a very good reason to not do it with a cruise missile, however. A cruise missile is not very stealthy and is pretty easy for the system the Syrians bought to detect. They might not be able to interdict it, but they know it is coming and can figure out where it came from. When a bomb just appears in the elevator shaft next to you, it is a little harder to attach a name to it. (The list of names is short, but it isn’t the same as having a path leading back to your destroyer.)

But, like I said, this is hypothetical, because we didn’t do either one.

phelps on November 2, 2007 at 12:49 PM

When a neighboring country flies a successful airstrike into your country and both countries clam up about it, that’s pretty darned odd.

So why would Syria try to keep the lid on an attack on itself? Obviously, they perceive the admission would be worse than keeping it quiet. What would be some reasons for that? Syria being a strongman tyranny, it’s possible that the tyrant can not afford to look weak. And remember, Arabs are a shame culture. For them, confessing any weakness is defeat. Look at Saddam Hussein after we cleaned his clock in the first Gulf War. He declared victory in the mother of all battles because the Americans didn’t cook and eat him.

The other obvious answer to why the Syrians want to keep their wound secret is that they were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The admission of whatever they were doing would be more damaging than just taking the punch with gritted teeth. An undeclared North Korean-built nuclear reactor would fit that explanation.

Tantor on November 2, 2007 at 12:49 PM

I think the point here is really that it doesn’t matter if we were or weren’t involved in the strike, or if we did or didn’t use a nuke. Al Jazeera said we did, so Middle Easterners believe it.

aero on November 2, 2007 at 1:00 PM

TheGoblinKing on November 2, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Actualy the EMP burst would disrupt satelite communications for anything within Line of site of the burst… there would have been a momentary loss of TV, Cell phones, and any communications using a satelite… would have lost sink for at least a couple of seconds while resetting…

So, as a US Navy Electronic Tech from the Cold War… back when we actualy worried about these things, unless there was a loss of COMMERCIAL satelite coverage at the time of the strike? It could not have been nuclear.

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM

I think the point here is really that it doesn’t matter if we were or weren’t involved in the strike, or if we did or didn’t use a nuke. Al Jazeera said we did, so Middle Easterners believe it.

You mean like MSM reports that stated, without doubt, that the troops at Gitmo were flushing Korans down the toilet? How many people ended up being killed in the riots that bit of propoganda generated?

highhopes on November 2, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Romeo13 on November 2, 2007 at 1:03 PM

Yup, and it wouldn’t matter what kind or size of device was used, the EM pulse would have left a very tell-tale signature. The EM pulse would have at the minimum disrupted for several minutes any satellite overhead along with sending out a burst of white noise over the entire Ham and shortwave radio frequencies worldwide. Plus with so much of the Ham and shortwave going digital the effect of that white noise would be very pronounced.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Seems to me that the only real message here … is that the Syrians were *really* impressed by what a few Israeli aircraft could do …

I take it as a compliment. Like barely tapping somebody in a fight … then having them call you a bully for punching so hard.

Suck it up, sissies. You’ll know when we hit you as hard as we can.

Professor Blather on November 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Suck it up, sissies. You’ll know when we hit you as hard as we can.

Professor Blather on November 2, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Hah hah hah, no actually they wont, if and when we should find it necessary to hit them as hard as we can, they wont ever know anything again. Right now we are actually subscribing to Edward Nigma’s philosophy

“Don’t kill him! If you kill him, he won’t learn nothin’!”

But you can bet that isnt going to last forever.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 2:05 PM

“US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a nuclear site under construction.”

In other news, 9/11 was an inside job!

Kevin M on November 2, 2007 at 2:07 PM

The CIA invented crack cocaine!

Aliens crashed in Roswell!

Global warming is caused by man!

Kevin M on November 2, 2007 at 2:09 PM

While neutron radiation is extremely lethal because (ionizing radiation) of the high electron charge of the neutron it’s low mass means it pretty much passes right through nearly everything. In other words practically no residual radioactive signature.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I love ‘geek speak’ ROFLMAO

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I love ‘geek speak’ ROFLMAO

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Geek speak? Geek’s are into nuclear physics? I thought geeks were into computer stuff, an pron and silly role playing fantasy games an sci-fi convention an speaking Vulcan or Klingonese…… :o

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM

This is Al-Jazeera TV with breaking news.

We have just learned a giant Star of David dropped from the sky to crush the men, women and children on the ground at the time of the attack. Red, white, and blue smoke streams were spotted coming out of the backs of the US planes, but we have learned from a “reliable source” that the streams are instead coming out of the filthy Western butts of the pilots themselves.

==============

(Hey, you know they’d say this if given the chance.)

Personally, I don’t buy it for a second.

Ryan Gandy on November 2, 2007 at 3:42 PM

PS does the picture in the JPost link look to anyone like 4 toys arranged on a blue table? Its just weird.

Ryan Gandy on November 2, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Ryan Gandy on November 2, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Of course its just toys, every body knows that we dont really have any of those aircraft. Bushitler/Darth Cheney/Haliburton secretly stashed all the money that was supposed to spent on them in their Swiss bank accounts.

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Geek speak? Geek’s are into nuclear physics? I thought geeks were into computer stuff, an pron and silly role playing fantasy games an sci-fi convention an speaking Vulcan or Klingonese…… :o

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM

From the days of the slide rule, and log tables. . .
and short hair. . .
very short hair.

Pocket protectors. . .

Mechanical pencils. .

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Of course its just toys

Well. Now I know what to pick up for Christmas for those on my list who are into radio controlled planes.

Ryan Gandy on November 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

those werent geeks, they were Nerds…(quickly removes tape from glasses)…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Doriangrey:
RE: tape on the glasses

heh.. I’d forgotten that. Thanks for the memories!

Wasn’t it an AOL commercial on the difference between geeks and nerds?

“A geek gets it done, a nerd doesn’t”

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 4:39 PM

While neutron radiation is extremely lethal because (ionizing radiation) of the high electron charge of the neutron it’s low mass means it pretty much passes right through nearly everything. In other words practically no residual radioactive signature.
doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Uhhh sorry neutrons don’t have any charge…they’re uh…neutral. They also don’t pass pretty much through everything. Everything has what’s termed a neutron cross section, that’s the probability of any given neutron colliding with the nucleus of that material. Some things have high cross sections some low. Humans, being mostly water have a high cross sections, especially with thermal neutrons.Residual radiation? Materials get activated by neutron radiation, that’s how neutrons are attenuated, by bouncing off the nuclei of other ’stuff’. This causes a rather high increase in background due to the interaction of neutrons with other materials such as iron and cobalt. In a few days or weeks or whatever after a neutron zapping when the activated materials have had a chance to decay it’d probably be safe to enter but my guess is that right after the thing went off the area would be pretty Hot.

Sorry my inner geek got out for a moment…he’s back in the cage now….I think I spelled most of that stuff right..maybe next time I’ll talk about start up rate or rod control…ya just never know.

Oldnuke on November 2, 2007 at 4:54 PM

The question remains however, why have Syria and Iran been completely silent ever since this attack?

Embarrassment maybe? Remember Osama’s Strong Horse theory.

baldilocks on November 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Oldnuke on November 2, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Cr@p…I hate it when I misremember stuff I really do know…

doriangrey on November 2, 2007 at 5:35 PM

OldNuke brings up a good point.

What ever it was, biological, chemical, nuclear, the Syrians buried it. Like Chernobyl, they didn’t try to repair, rebuild, they just buried it.

rockhauler on November 2, 2007 at 5:58 PM

I like tacticles

TheSitRep on November 2, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.