Russia warns of nuclear disaster if Syria is hit

[adipocere]

This is interesting. I wonder if this is rhetoric or if the Russians are privy to some intelligence that indicates that the US is considering bombing the reactors...(which would absolutely not surprise me)

Russia warns of nuclear disaster if Syria is hit



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.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry urged the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to complete a risk evaluation as the US continues to seek support for military action. It asked the agency to “react swiftly” and carry out “an analysis of the risks linked to possible American strikes on the MNSR and other facilities in Syria.”
Lukashevich stated that the region could be at risk of “contamination by highly enriched uranium and it would no longer be possible to account for nuclear material, its safety and control.” He added that such material could fall into the wrong hands.
The IAEA said that it is aware of the statement, but it is waiting for a formal request asking the agency to complete a risk evaluation. “We will consider the questions raised if we receive such a request," Reuters quoted an IAEA spokesperson as saying.
The agency said in a report to member states last week that Syria had declared there was a “small amount of nuclear material” at the MNSR, a type of research reactor usually fuelled by highly enriched uranium.
Although this type of a reactor would not contain a lot of nuclear material, it would be enough to cause "a serious local radiation hazard" if the reactor was hit, nuclear expert Mark Hibbs from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told Reuters.
The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on Wednesday to approve President Obama's plan to strike Syria in retaliation against the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Should Congress move to approve the president’s request, the US could soon initiate a limited strike on Syria.
On the other hand, Moscow needs convincing proof – not rumors - from UN experts that chemical weapons were used in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with AP and Channel 1 on Tuesday.
“We believe that at the very least we should wait for the results of the UN inspection commission in Syria,” Putin said. He added that so far there is no information regarding exactly which chemical agent was used in the attack in the Damascus suburb, or who was behind it.

http://rt.com/news/syria-strike-nuclear-disaster-427/

[4MyNation]

I doubt it, countries have been threatening to nuke each other for decades. I'm sure this will just be another Cuban Missile Crisis. If not...

DUCK AND COVER

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I doubt it, countries have been threatening to nuke each other for decades. I'm sure this will just be another Cuban Missile Crisis. If not...

DUCK AND COVER

You clearly didn't read the article. This is about a US missile hitting a reactor in Syria, not a Nuclear world war.

[4MyNation]

You clearly didn't read the article. This is about a US missile hitting a reactor in Syria, not a Nuclear world war.

What makes you think the US or Israel won't retaliate with another nuclear strike?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Retaliate why? Russia isn't threatening to nuke anyone, so an atomic strike by the US or Israel would be a major act of escalation... for what purpose?

[Slavic]

The article is about possible collateral damage if a nuclear plant in Syria were to be mistakenly/intentionally hit by US cruise missile.

I personally don't think that the US would intentional direct a cruise missile at the plant. The prospect for the bombing of Syria is already very unpopular amongst the US population at large and portions of the congress. An intentional hit on a reactor and the resulting fallout would not sit well with the already unhappy US population and congressmen. This is especial true since the stated premise of the bombing campaign is to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths at the hands of "immoral" weapons.

[adipocere]

The article is about possible collateral damage if a nuclear plant in Syria were to be mistakenly/intentionally hit by US cruise missile.

I personally don't think that the US would intentional direct a cruise missile at the plant. The prospect for the bombing of Syria is already very unpopular amongst the US population at large and portions of the congress. An intentional hit on a reactor and the resulting fallout would not sit well with the already unhappy US population and congressmen. This is especial true since the stated premise of the bombing campaign is to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths at the hands of "immoral" weapons.

I tend to agree, but the pentagon and it's allies are not above an "accidental" hit.
(I've always suspected that Chernobyl was sabotaged - but that's just me)

[Red_Banner]

That would also be a Geneva Convention violation if the USA deliberately targeted a reactor.

[The Douche]

I tend to agree, but the pentagon and it's allies are not above an "accidental" hit.
(I've always suspected that Chernobyl was sabotaged - but that's just me)

The pentagon (or, the military brass) actually do not support military action against Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...3a8_print.html


Military action is not being supported by the public (has an approval rating under 10%) or the military, the drive is coming from the executive/department of state.

[adipocere]

The pentagon (or, the military brass) actually do not support military action against Syria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...3a8_print.html


Military action is not being supported by the public (has an approval rating under 10%) or the military, the drive is coming from the executive/department of state.

They are embarrassed because they are old guard and the US's traditional military is being supplanted by unconventional warfare which is rendering them irrelevant and they know it.

[RebelDog]

That would also be a Geneva Convention violation if the USA deliberately targeted a reactor.

I doubt that the US would target the reactor. I however do not doubt that international law, will, as usual, be of no concern to them if they were to target it.

[The Douche]

They are embarrassed because they are old guard and the US's traditional military is being supplanted by unconventional warfare which is rendering them irrelevant and they know it.

Hahaha, what?

Embarrassed? The US military opposes intervention in Syria because it is embarrassed that the US no longer uses its standing army and prefers instead to use unconventional warfare?

Hey man, were you living under a rock for the last 12 years? Maybe you're just not even 12 years old? In case you didn't fucking know, the US military is still engaged in a war in Afghanistan, and until very recently was still engaged in combat operations in Iraq. (a place where I was engaged in combat operations, probably before you joined those hacks at the CPUSA, or even heard of them)

You are arguing that US government no longer has a use for its military and that they are instead, using "unconventional warfare". Ahhhh yes, the "unconventional warfare" of cruise missile strikes.


Why do people always want to be so assertive and so head strong about shit they so obviously know absolutely nothing about? Sorry, guy, your "argument" doesn't even make sense.

[servusmoderni]

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" -Einstein.

Hey People! Buy swords!