Syrian Reactor

[1969912 0]

Below is a link to what's purported to be a CIA video presentation about the Syrian reactor that was destroyed by Israel in Sept. '07. It shows the covert pictures that were taken of the facility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7366235.stm

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Amazon 7]

Reactor fall down when go boom

[1969912 0]

Quote

Reactor fall down when go boom

Yep, all gone. As is anything for the IAEA to inspect for NPT violations.

While the pictures in the video convinced me that the facility was a graphite-moderated reactor similar to the North Korea's Yongbyon reactor (i.e. "MAGNOX" design), it didn't provide much in the way of proof that its purpose was the production of plutonium for use in nukes. Lots of circumstantial evidence though....

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kelpdiver 2]

You don't find the fact that Syria brushed the subject under the rug as proof enough? My recollection is they accused Israel of invading air space, but denied their hidden nuclear facility was bombed. It was barely a news item at all, unlike say the bombing of the Iraqi reactor years ago.

[auburnguy 0]

Bring that fucker down!

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[1969912 0]

Quote

You don't find the fact that Syria brushed the subject under the rug as proof enough? My recollection is they accused Israel of invading air space, but denied their hidden nuclear facility was bombed. It was barely a news item at all, unlike say the bombing of the Iraqi reactor years ago.

Proof, no. Behavior supporting a conclusion (backed by other good evidence) that it was a Pu facility, yes.

What I was trying to say was that the video didn't provide anything new other than actual pictures of the structure and reactor head. AFAIK, the rest was common knowledge. Additionally, they could have addressed the much-asked question about Syria's apparent lack of capability to separate the Pu from the irradiated fuel, (a nontrivial task), but didn't.

BTW, I believe that it really was a Pu production reactor. Sure, it could have been an electrical generating plant, but I really doubt it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Everon 0]

Quote

it didn't provide much in the way of proof that its purpose was the production of plutonium for use in nukes. Lots of circumstantial evidence though....

Actually it's pretty clear it certainly wasn't for electrical generation - no transmission lines, poor location and no turbines.

[auburnguy 0]

It was right next to a major river which is a necessity for producing tritium (major component in nuclear weapons) as well as the necessary amounts of coolant needed for a heavy water pressurized reactor producing Pu-239, which from what I understand is what they were shooting for. I find it hard to believe this facility was meant for anything other then nuclear weapons research/ Pu-239 production.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[1969912 0]

Quote

It was right next to a major river which is a necessity for producing tritium (major component in nuclear weapons) as well as the necessary amounts of coolant needed for a heavy water pressurized reactor producing Pu-239, which from what I understand is what they were shooting for. I find it hard to believe this facility was meant for anything other then nuclear weapons research/ Pu-239 production.

The reactor was actually a graphite-moderated, gas-cooled design, but water is used in a secondary loop to cool the gas (CO2). The reactor core is made from blocks of graphite, and the graphite moderates the neutrons as opposed to water. It's believed to be a copy of a the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon. That type of reactor can use natural (as opposed to enriched) uranium fuel, and is also highly efficient in re converting U-235 to Pu. Tritium can be extracted from irradiated fuel (as opposed to primary cooling water), but a basic fission bomb can be made without using it.

It's highly unlikely the facility was anything other than a Pu production plant supporting a weapons program. I'm curious about where the Pu extraction facility is (assuming it's been built). Irradiating the fuel to make Pu is the easy part. Extracting the Pu is a complex chemical operation (assuming PUREX process) that must be done behind 4+ feet of concrete shielding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongbyon_Nuclear_Scientific_Research_Center

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[auburnguy 0]

No matter what type of Pu producing reactor design, I'm glad its now gone.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[GQ_jumper 4]

No matter what type of Pu producing reactor design, I'm glad its now gone.

Quote

Gotta love the way Israel rolls! Question though, how much would everyone be up in arms screaming about how the "chickenhawks" were just looking for another fight if the US had pulled the trigger itself?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[Skyrad 0]

I thought the presenter had a boring voice, Colin Powell was much more entertaining.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[1969912 0]

Quote

No matter what type of Pu producing reactor design, I'm glad its now gone.

Quote

Gotta love the way Israel rolls! Question though, how much would everyone be up in arms screaming about how the "chickenhawks" were just looking for another fight if the US had pulled the trigger itself?

Israel doesn't fuck around. And it wasn't the first time; in '81 or so they used F-16's to wipe out an Iraqi reactor facility that was just about ready to receive fuel. The reactor was a French design used for testing the efects on materials exposed to the intense radiation inside a reactor core. For several reasons, that type of reactor is well suited for making plutonium. It wasn't the best choice for a government who's claim was that they wanted to develop peaceful nuclear power. The reactor wasn't their first choice, though. What they wanted was a gas-graphite reactor like the Syrian one, which is the very best way to make PU, but inefficient for power generation. France didn't make them anymore, and offered them a standard LRW power reactor (NFG for Pu, great for electricity). Iraq said no and bought the test reactor. The pile of rubble is still there. Can't blame Israel one bit for bombing either one of the reactors.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

• Quote

[shropshire 0]

How would everyone feel if some one bombed one of you numerous Pu plants?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Skyrad 0]

I agree, its not very friendly.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How would everyone feel if some one bombed one of you numerous Pu plants?

Like I said, Syria didn't seem to mind that much. They seemed more concerned about not being caught.

[DZJ 0]

I heard an utterly hilarious radio interview on this subject between the BBC's John Humphrys and an Israeli spokesman whose response to every question was 'We do not discuss this'. He even acknowledged there had been an attack (one time saying something like 'We do not talk about the attack') but it was the most extraordinary example of hoping an issue will go away if you don't talk about it.

[shropshire 0]

Wonders why he even allowed himself to be interviewed.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Skyrad 0]

So his Mum could see him on TV?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

No matter what type of Pu producing reactor design, I'm glad its now gone.

Quote

Gotta love the way Israel rolls! Question though, how much would everyone be up in arms screaming about how the "chickenhawks" were just looking for another fight if the US had pulled the trigger itself?

True enough. But then again, a nuclear Syria is not a danger to the United States; it is a danger to Israel.

• Quote

[DZJ 0]

Quote

So his Mum could see him on TV?

No such luck, it was a radio interview!

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

Quote

No matter what type of Pu producing reactor design, I'm glad its now gone.

Quote

Gotta love the way Israel rolls! Question though, how much would everyone be up in arms screaming about how the "chickenhawks" were just looking for another fight if the US had pulled the trigger itself?

True enough. But then again, a nuclear Syria is not a danger to the United States; it is a danger to Israel.

This is very true, but at the same time Isreal is one of those allies that in my mind is worth pushing the limits to help out. You can bet ur ass that if Syria ever pushes us to the point that we have to engage them Isreal will be right next to us standing tall.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[nerdgirl 0]

The DNI released transcript of 24 April “Background Briefing with Senior U.S. Officials on Syria’s Covert Nuclear Reactor and North Korea’s Involvement.”

Observations (no specific conclusions or analysis, yet):
-- “Iran” appears 13 times in the 16 page transcript.
-- “Cash” is put forth as DPRK motivation.

Excerpts:

“SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: With respect to Iran, the Syrian episode reminds us of the ability of states to obtain nuclear capability covertly and how destabilizing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would be. And obviously everyone is concerned about that with respect to Iran, and we hope that disclosure will underscore that the international community needs to rededicate itself to ending Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities, and needs to take further steps to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. And countries can start by the full implementation of the U.N. Security Council resolutions already dealing with Iranian nuclear activities, which are not being implemented as aggressively and fully as they should.”

“SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL 1: Can I just make a comment on Iran because I know that’s eventually, if we stayed long enough, you’re eventually going to get there. [Who says senior spooks don’t have a sense of humor or wicked cynical streaks? – nerdgirl] And I think it’s useful to talk about nuclear weapons and Iran in this context because this all is potentially interrelated.

“There are a couple of ways to get to nuclear weapons. One, we’re describing how North Korea did it. The path that Iran is choosing to pursue is different….

On DPRK motivation:

“SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: …And what is the intention of North Korea’s cooperation here? Is it cash-motivated? Are they looking to get plutonium themselves for their own reprocessing?”

“SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL 1: Cash.”

“SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL 2: It’s cash.”

Anyone else find irony that one of the last remaining communist nations is motivated by cold hard cash? Free market at work: Syria wants to buy something, DPRK wants to sell something.


Unanswered questions (only thing that there might be more of are rampant speculations): Former-Los Alamos National Laboratory Director, now-co director Stanford’s Center for International Security & Cooperation (where SecState Rice started her Stanford career), Sig Hecker noted on his recent visit to the Yongbyon fuel fabrication plant that it has not been made functional again since the Agreed Framework shutdown, i.e., the DPRK could not supply fuel to Syria (or anyone else). This is a good thing, very good thing.


One the ‘rampant speculation’ front: the analysis is being done through a lens of 20th century nuclear proliferation, which of course includes Pakistan’s AQ Khan. Total speculation (one w/which VP Cheney would not oppose, but that’s not reason alone to dismiss it): 21st century nuclear proliferation may be transglobal in ways that even AQ Khan could not have imagined, in which activities are dispersed in different locations in different countries or non-recognized regimes/sub-state actors. Resources are shared, knowledge instantaneously available, and the output (nuclear weapons) shared. No activity in any individual state overtly appears too suspicious alone. That would require an (almost ?) unprecedented level of trust between perilous states. As I wrote, speculation. …

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Anyone else find irony that one of the last remaining communist nations is motivated by cold hard cash? Free market at work: Syria wants to buy something, DPRK wants to sell something.

Has any communist country with something to sell not done so? The USSR sold arms wherever possible, a mix of political and capitalism in the cold war. They needed hard currency. N Korea really needs money to stay afloat.

Quote

Total speculation (one w/which VP Cheney would not oppose, but that’s not reason alone to dismiss it): 21st century nuclear proliferation may be transglobal in ways that even AQ Khan could not have imagined, in which activities are dispersed in different locations in different countries or non-recognized regimes/sub-state actors. Resources are shared, knowledge instantaneously available, and the output (nuclear weapons) shared. No activity in any individual state overtly appears too suspicious alone. That would require an (almost ?) unprecedented level of trust between perilous states. As I wrote, speculation. …

VR/Marg

That would be an amazing level of secrecy to maintain, once where you couldn't let any members leave the alliance, just as the mafia doesn't let people quit. Certainly couldn't have a nation as prone to swapping sides as the USA.