Syria's Nuclear Reactor - Was It Really For Iran?

By GordonTaylor Posted in National Security — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

As the controversy continues to swirl about Israel's bombing of a suspected Nuclear reactor in Syria, I can't help but think that it was a back-door program instigated and probably funded by Iran.

With so much world pressure and scrutiny, Iran may have convinced Syria to let North Korea install a breeder reactor for their use. Syria is heavily tied to Iran, as we know, and receives military and monetary assistance from Iran, why not let them build a breeder reactor, as a back up for the enrichment plan.

Members of Congress will be told this week about intelligence suggesting that North Korea was helping Syria build a nuclear reactor similar to one it has constructed north of Pyongyang, a government official familiar with the matter said.

The Senate and House intelligence committees were scheduled to be briefed Thursday, and several other panels, including the Senate Armed Services Committee, were expected to be briefed as well.

North Korea has been suspected of helping Syria with a nuclear program, but both countries deny it. Pyongyang says it has never spread its nuclear expertise past the North Korean border.

While the technologies of producing a bomb from enriched uranium gas are different from those using plutonium, it is widely believed that Iran has received the technology from NK for producing both types of bombs. They [Iran] have been working feverishly to develop missile technology to carry a Nuclear warhead greater distances, and a plutonium warhead is more compact and therefor easier to send a greater distance.

In fact, I will take this one step further and suggest that the whole centrifuge show was merely a smoke and mirrors game to hide their true intentions, that of developing a plutonium bomb.

isn't Iran by Brandozilla

building its own reactors?
I'm not sure why they would need Syria.

Reply To This — User Info — #1

Yes, they are, but... by GordonTaylor

their are of the type fuled by enriched uranium gas, and do not produce plutonium. Enriched uranium can be used in a bomb, but, it must be enriched to a higher grade then needed to fuel a reactor.

The type of reactor that is built by NK, produces a small amount of plutonium, which makes a better bomb. That is the difference between what is commonly called an H-Bomb or A-bomb.

We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Reply To This — User Info — #2

correct me if i'm wrong by Brandozilla

but i'm pretty sure that h-bomb = hydrogen bomb. A-bomb's refer to any of the fission bombs, whether they are plutonium or uranium.

Reply To This — User Info — #3

Both are fission bombs.. by GordonTaylor

the plutonium makes it easier to produce the fission necessary to produce the explosion.
Here is a pretty good explanation.
We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Reply To This — User Info — #4

I know both are fission bombs by Brandozilla

but an h-bomb is a fusion or hydrogen bomb.

Reply To This — User Info — #5

A kowalski on this... by GordonTaylor

The above explanation is very basic, the earliest bombs were called A-bombs, the later ones called H-bombs. Both are examples of fission bombs, the earliest type developed and the ones we used against Japan in WWII.

All nuclear weapons that are not pure fission weapons use fusion reactions to enhance their destructive effects. All weapons that use fusion require a fission bomb to provide the energy to initiate the fusion reactions [a boosted fission bomb].

Plutonium is, simply put, an easier way to produce the desired fissionable reaction.

We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Reply To This — User Info — #6

Aargh! Some basic physics here, folks! by rocketeer

The original bombs are called atomic bombs. They both rely on fission. There was a uranium bomb and lots of plutonium bombs. It seems that plutonium was/is easier to come by, or manufacture, etc. The WW2 bombs were of about 50,000 tons yield.

The next development is using fusion of hydrogen, an H-bomb. This gives larger yields. The largest ever tested was Russian, of about 100,000,000 tons yield. You need an atomic bomb to trigger the fusion, so an H-bomb is a fission bomb with a fusion component. A more typical yield is from about a third of a megaton to about 2 megatons.

By all accounts, Minutemen missiles were equipped with about half-megaton warheads, and Russian missiles equipped with about 2-5 megaton warheads. The differences were the types of targets they were intended for and the perceived accuracy of getting them onto target.

All of this information I obtained through public sources in the 80s (Scientific American, Aviation Week, etc.).

For a while there was something called a cobalt bomb, but that is just evil. An atomic bomb (fission only or fusion bomb) wrapped with the element cobalt, with the sole purpose of being a dirty bomb.

Redstate