What does the trigger have to do with it? Would not the radiation from a nuclear chain reaction in a lump of fissionable materials, in close proximity to another lump of fissionable materials, cause another chain reaction in the second lump – even if the latter were just sitting there in a storage locker, and not encased in any bomb-mechanism?
Yes, but the efficiency, and the resulting effect, would be MUCH lower.
I’m not getting the criticism of Obama. What does one do when another world leader appears likely to commit mass murder? Go in with guns blazing as a preventive measure? I don’t think so. Issue a stern warning that this will not be tolerated? Yeah, sounds about right. That’s what he did.
So now that it may have happened what does one do? Send in the bombs immediately? Invade NOW? No. The proper thing is to first of all compile the evidence of the facts and work the diplomatic rounds with allies and friendly Arab nations. Pretty much what Bush The Greater did regarding Kuwait. Then you carefully select targets to minimize civilian deaths and act in concert with allies. If this is weak leadership, we sure as hell could have used weak leadership regarding Iraq.
So is he spending a lot of time on the phone with Netanyahu trying to coax him into helping clean up his own neighborhood? A few targeted airstrikes wouldn’t affect Israel’s standing in the region, frankly.
Israel acting as proxy for the US would be a very bad thing for Israel. Sure, not getting involved would not garner Israel any love from its neighbours. But, sticking their nose into a conflict with a nation that shares its border would only make things worse.
As BrainGlutton said, tell it to the Libyans, also Bin Laden and Somali pirates.
I hope that Obama continues doing what he has been doing (making speeches about “red lines” and “game changes”)-I see no upside in intervening in this mess.It is a unique situation-whatever happens, the USA will lose influence, and any new regime that emerges will be hostile to us. If the arab world is so cencerned about this, why don’t they intervene?
They would if Israel does them. Some people are still nursing a grudge over Osirak.
What’s in it for them?
Egypt and Iraq have enough to deal with. Lebanon and Jordan don’t have the resources. Saudi Arabia writes billion dollar checks and hopes that will keep a lid on all the ruckus. Iran won’t risk the humiliation when they lose. Whose left of any consequence?
Non-sequitur?
Care to explain to us how President Terr would have reacted to the possiblity of Syrians gassing their own people? Would you pre-emptively strike? Say nothing? Something in between?
Er… I stated a fact.
I didn’t realized that Bob and I are Bush supporters for stating facts.
Actually very sequiter.
You said Obama speaks loudly and carries no stick.
Just letting you know that others would disagree with you.
Did you look at the post to which you were responding?
If President Terr saw Hezbollah fighting Al Queda fighting Assad - I think he would sit back and quietly applaud. Maybe supply a little bit of weapons to the losing side once in a while.
You are right, I quoted the wrong post, but the point still stands.
Do you often respond to random posts to make your point?
What would President Terr do when confronted with photos of rows of dead children gassed by their own country?
"Hey, Israel, those neighbours of yours that hate you just got their chemical weapons out of storage and have signed their own death warrants by using them. Could you do me a favour and remind them that you exist?
…Israel? Hello? Are you there?"
Same as President Terr would do when confronted with photos of rows of dead children killed by the Syrian rebels.