Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Syrian Reactor Capacity was 1-2 Weapons/Year:CIA
Reuters via Yahoo News ^ | April 28, 2008 | Reporting by Randall Mikkelsen; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Posted on 04/28/2008 6:08:54 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die

A suspected Syrian reactor bombed by Israel had the capacity to produce enough nuclear material to fuel one to two weapons a year, CIA Director Michael Hayden said on Monday.

Hayden said the plutonium reactor was within weeks or months of completion when it was destroyed in an air strike last September 6, and within a year of entering operation it could have produced enough material for at least one weapon.

"In the course of a year after they got full up, they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons," Hayden told reporters after a speech.

The reactor was of a "similar size and technology" to North Korea's Yongbyon reactor, Hayden said, disputing speculation it was smaller than the Korean facility.

"We would estimate that the production rate there would be about the same as Yongbyon, which is about enough plutonium for one or two weapons per year," he said.

Hayden's comments were the first indication of the suspected reactor's capacity, and his first public remarks since the United States released photos of what it said was a secret nuclear reactor built with North Korean aid.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: israel; nuclearweapons; syria

1 posted on 04/28/2008 6:08:54 PM PDT by freerepublic_or_die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Just when i thought Israel were wimping out, they surprise me....I hope the USA can still surprise....Damn, I’m so disappointed over the American government’s wimpiness.


2 posted on 04/28/2008 6:14:14 PM PDT by forYourChildrenVote4Bush (911 Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Syrian Reactor Capacity was 1-2 Weapons/Year:CIA

and Iranians are years away

are you kidding me


3 posted on 04/28/2008 6:15:07 PM PDT by Flavius (war gives peace its security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

bttt


4 posted on 04/28/2008 6:18:05 PM PDT by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: girlangler

ping


5 posted on 04/28/2008 6:25:15 PM PDT by girlangler (Fish Fear Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush
Yeah...the Americans...all they did was wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan and a deeply-trenched terrorist government in Iraq, making the world safe from 100,000's of terrorists who would otherwise be active today.

What wimps.

6 posted on 04/28/2008 6:29:22 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: forYourChildrenVote4Bush

I am sure there is yet more to the story.

I am skeptical that we just stood idly by on this one.

The use of US AWACS and the exchange of IFF info alone leads me to suspect a much more intimate situation between the US and Israel in this.


7 posted on 04/28/2008 6:30:27 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo

I am not sure that GWB will leave office w/o a solution of the Iranian Nuke problem...we will see!


8 posted on 04/28/2008 6:34:43 PM PDT by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
“I am not sure that GWB will leave office w/o a solution of the Iranian Nuke problem...we will see!”

I agree. If a Dem would win, W wouldn't just let things go. He understands the nature of the threat. No deterrence against this kind of enemy, etc. We will hit them, I think.

9 posted on 04/28/2008 6:41:34 PM PDT by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Flavius

Just what I was thinking as I read the article.


10 posted on 04/28/2008 6:51:27 PM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agrace

its beyond stupid


11 posted on 04/28/2008 6:56:45 PM PDT by Flavius (war gives peace its security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Axis of evil, indeed. Looks like ole George had it right all along.
This was not something dreamed up overnight.

Someone please inform Queen Nancy to hit the road, again. Loser.


12 posted on 04/28/2008 7:29:24 PM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublic_or_die

Plutonium! That means they were ultimately going for an H-Bomb! Lot easier to build simple, workable devices with U-235 that don’t even NEED any testing.


13 posted on 04/28/2008 8:12:38 PM PDT by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
and Iranians are years away

are you kidding me

I think we can take it for granted that the Iranians have the isotopes and hardened and dispersed separation facilities. Whether or not they can successfully make a usable charge (metallurgy) and set it off (pyrotechnics) is another question. How much isotope they have already separated is an open question.

There's a difference between having isotopes and being able to separate them. Reactors create the isotopes, you then need to separate the fissile material (isotopes) from the uranium ash.

The Iranians are apparently (apparently) using gaseous diffusion for isotope separation, a technique so slow and expensive that the U.S. declassified it in the 1950's, assuming no one would ever do it that again. (that's what all them centrifuges are being used for.)

I worry more that the centrifuges, or claims of centrifuges, are a red herring designed to distract the ever alert CIA < snort> experts < /snort> (a la femme Plame) from looking for evidence of alternative techniques, such as laser chemistry.

Once you separate the isotopes, there is the problem of forming a charge (metallurgy) and a trigger (pyrotechnics). No doubt the greatest problem is isotope separation.

Militarily, the reactors make the easiest targets, by far. Isotope separation can be dispersed geographically and it is relatively easy to harden and disguise the facilities. Reactors are both the first link in the chain and the hardest to disguise or harden. One problem is that you need a sink for all the energy produced. If you can't dump it onto the power grid or into a river or an evaporation tower, the plant is worthless. The heat sink is by necessity a huge target that is difficult to harden.

14 posted on 04/29/2008 4:23:54 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The women got the vote and the Nation got Harding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson