No Syrian Nukes

Some analysis on GlobalSecurity.org and Phoenix Woman's blog do a pretty good job of evicerating the claims of nuclear weapons activity.

So, if it's not nukes, what did Israel hit? It hit weapons destined to Hamas in Lebanon.

Why would they do this? To regain credibility after the debacle in Lebanon.

On to the debunking.

First, my analysis:

Syria is not even close to have the basic nuclear infrastructure that could begin to construct nuclear weapons infrastructure. They have little in the way of Uranium, no smelting facilities, no enrichment or other purification facilities, and very little of the human capital necessary.

Second, Phoenix Woman:

A 5 MW reactor is big. From the satellite photo, once can see that the Yongbyon site is 4500 x 2500 m, or roughly 2.5 mi x 1.5 mi. The reactor building is very roughly 250 x 450 m. It consumes massive amounts of fuel: 110 tons of spent fuel per year. John Pike’s GlocalSecurity thinks that the satellite imagery of a uranium enrichment facility might be missed. In my opinion, the large amount of ore required would not be, especially considering that Syria doesn’t have good ore sources (it does have a site which extracts uranium from phosphate at Homs, but the uranium is a contaminant; see Glocal Security below).

In other words, it's just too damn big to hide from the very earliest stages of site preparation.

Third, GlobalSecurity.org:

"dramatic satellite imagery" - the types of activity associated with nuclear weapons development, particularly at the early stages of the program, are precisely the sorts of things that are not going to produce dramatic satellite imagery, which is why North Korea's uranium program is so vexing for the United States.
"primarily from Israel" - the reliance on such liasion sourced intelligence that could not be independently verified was one of the central problems with the Iraq WMD intelligence failure, and either evidence is "primarily from Israel" [ie, HUMINT] or it is independtly knowable by the United States based on "dramatic satellite imagery" but it is difficult to comprehend how both statements could be true.
"restricted to a few senior officials" - this part of the story is designed to explain to other reporters why their sources are unable to confirm any of the details of this report
"arrival at the Syrian port of Tartus" - this is not a large facility, and this news story would have us believe that Israeli intelligence has intimate knowledge of unloading activities at this port, a collection capability that was willingly compromised here
"labeled as cement" -- cement is normally transported as a bulk powder, and less frequently in recent decades in bags -- neither form of transport would usefully conceal nuclear related components, and labeling some other means of transport [eg, standard 40-foot containters] as cement would be so patently false as to immediately draw suspicion to the shipment.
"on the Euphrates River, close to the Turkish border" -- the implication, though not over assertion, is that over the course of three days Israeli intelligence was able to track the shipment as it travelled half-way across Syria, or that Israeli surveillance of Syria is so comprehensive that the shipment was detected upon arrival -- either of which is very impressive and hard to believe.
"using it to extract uranium from phosphates" - Syria has a phosphate industry, which supports the production of fertilizer and phosphoric acid. Between 1996 and 2001 Syria operated a pilot plant at Homs for the purification of phosphoric acid, in order to remove the uranium contanmination so that the phosphoric acid could be used for food processing. This project was financed by the UN Developement Program, supported by the IAEA, and not bombed by Israel.

And if that is not enough, we have John "The Mustache of Doom" Bolton as one of the sources for the press.

On 16 September 2007 former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said "it will be very unusual for Israel to conduct such a military operation inside Syria other (than) for a very high value target and certainly a Syrian effort in nuclear weapon area will qualify. ... I think this is a clear message not only to Syria, this is a clear message to Iran as well that its continued efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are not going to go unanswered..." Bolton never claims direct knowledge of the facts of the matter, only that a strike against Syrian nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of Israel.

John Bolton has never let the truth stop him from making baseless accusations, but even HE is not willing to claim that there is a nuke facility.