From: "Robert Comer" 

> Here's another theory.  Either Israel did build nuclear weapons, or it
> demonstrated a convincing ability to do so.

That just doesn't work, either there's enough uranium to do fission, or
there isn't, apparently there wasn't and what you have an extremely
expensive, not very effective, dirty bomb.  I just don't buy it.  Nor do I
buy that the uranium was in the ammo bunkers and was supplied by Syria or
Iran.

> What if it is now using US-sourced enriched uranium, or even US-assembled
> warheads?

There wasn't enough to suspect it either way.

As for Israel having nukes, I very much expect they do from what I've heard.

I don't know where they got the enriched uranium, but I wouldn't be
surprised it was from us.

> I have fewer problems with the idea of a uranium-tipped conventional
> weapon
> as a bunker-buster.

DU would do for that.

--
Bob Comer


"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:4544ad73{at}w3.nls.net...
>> That's pretty much why the whole story doesn't ring true.  With uranium
> you
>> have two options, fission or dirty bomb -- if fission was achieved it
> would
>> have been a whole lot bigger, and detectable, explosion, and for dirty
> bomb,
>> if it were uranium it would be a bigger load if intentional, and if not,
>> it's too expensive, you can get things done a lot cheaper some other way.
>
> Here's another theory.  Either Israel did build nuclear weapons, or it
> demonstrated a convincing ability to do so.
>
> What if it is now using US-sourced enriched uranium, or even US-assembled
> warheads?
>
> If that were the case, its own enriched or partially enriched uranium
> would
> no longer have a nuclear weapons application - enriched, untreated and
> depleted uranium would have the same value.
>
> I have fewer problems with the idea of a uranium-tipped conventional
> weapon
> as a bunker-buster.  Perhaps Israel has inadvertently given away the
> secret
> that it doesn't do its own enrichment any more.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5