Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In the Large Format Photography Froum, there has been a contentious debate on the reported attack on an alleged nuclear facility. I find this fascianting and thought this would be a matter that would benefit from input by our worldwide but small audience!
The orginal Al Jazeera report quoted in the Jerusalem post may be worng about the U.S. involvement and the bomb used. However, aomething "earth shattering" did happen. but what was it?
We have heard no intelligence analysis! So I don't know what you refer to! All I know is that your assertion that the building that disappeared could not have housed a reactor because of lack of water, power grids and aerial evidence of reactor constrcution is utterly flawed. The assumptions therein are just that and from my knowledge shows little to no understanding of a nuclear reactor workings.
Again, you ignore the statements of the highest officials in the Syrian and Israeli govenments who are certainly in a postion to know what happened. I'm not saying that any tactical weapon was used to destroy a Syrian Nuclear site.
However at the very least, I'm convinced that the Israelis undertook a high risk, high priority breech of Syrian airspace and this is matched by the protests by the Syrians and the finding of the jettisioned fuel tanks in Turkish territory. We here from the Syrians that a building was destroyed but gave different explanations at different times.
So we agree that there is no evidence at all of a strategic nuclear weapon or the involvement of the U.S.
You simply ignore the importance of the Israeli action and the Syrian response, I don't.
You dismiss the possibilty that the vanished building was a nuclear reactor because it was "not complex enough". I assert that with purification done elsewhere, the reactor can indeed be very very simple and have modest cooling, water and power needs. That's the neat thing about the physics of fusion!
Asher
The orginal Al Jazeera report quoted in the Jerusalem post may be worng about the U.S. involvement and the bomb used. However, aomething "earth shattering" did happen. but what was it?
We have heard no intelligence analysis! So I don't know what you refer to! All I know is that your assertion that the building that disappeared could not have housed a reactor because of lack of water, power grids and aerial evidence of reactor constrcution is utterly flawed. The assumptions therein are just that and from my knowledge shows little to no understanding of a nuclear reactor workings.
The WMD story was likely not the reason for going into Iraq. For sure it was an expedient reason given. I feel certain the war would have occured anyway, but with another reason given if the first methodology would not be sufficient to persuade people. Reasons for war require a majot analysis. Excuses for war are easy to make slogans of. However it's important not to muddle these up!
Again, you ignore the statements of the highest officials in the Syrian and Israeli govenments who are certainly in a postion to know what happened. I'm not saying that any tactical weapon was used to destroy a Syrian Nuclear site.
However at the very least, I'm convinced that the Israelis undertook a high risk, high priority breech of Syrian airspace and this is matched by the protests by the Syrians and the finding of the jettisioned fuel tanks in Turkish territory. We here from the Syrians that a building was destroyed but gave different explanations at different times.
So we agree that there is no evidence at all of a strategic nuclear weapon or the involvement of the U.S.
You simply ignore the importance of the Israeli action and the Syrian response, I don't.
You dismiss the possibilty that the vanished building was a nuclear reactor because it was "not complex enough". I assert that with purification done elsewhere, the reactor can indeed be very very simple and have modest cooling, water and power needs. That's the neat thing about the physics of fusion!
Asher