Nuclear Syria

For the OTL hubbub

The POD(s) occurs in the early 2000s. The first is that Syria decides to site the OTL Al Kibar nuclear reactor elsewhere. The second is that U.S. Intelligence in 2005 overlooks a cooperative project between Syria and North Korea. The third is basically a bunch of further mini-PODs in which the Syrians get a lucky break in general. 2007 passes without OTL Operation Orchard being launched, but the U.S. and Israel do start to suspect Syria is up to something in 2008. By the time the U.S. and Israel realize what Syria is doing in 2009, it is too late, and the reactor has gone critical. Due to ITTL siting of the reactor, striking at it would release fallout over a population center, so Israel and the U.S. decide to go public with this information, hoping to bring international pressure on Syria to dismantle the reactor. International Condemnation is swift in coming when the U.S. and Israel release information regarding the site to the UN and other organizations…..

What happens after this?

I really don’t think this will seriously butterfly the Arab Spring (even without Bouazizi self-immolating, the general area was a powder keg), but what happens when the Syrian civil war starts? Assuming that the Syrians have 2-3 nuclear weapons by this time, would the west be more or less likely to intervene?
 
Due to ITTL siting of the reactor, striking at it would release fallout over a population center, so Israel and the U.S. decide to go public with this information, hoping to bring international pressure on Syria to dismantle the reactor.
That's assuming that the Israelis don't simply shrug, decide 'Sucks to be you I guess' and bomb the reactor anyway, arguing that it's the Syrian government's fault for placing it upwind of a major population centre. They've always been very proactive about what they view as potential existential threats to their nation.
 
That's assuming that the Israelis don't simply shrug, decide 'Sucks to be you I guess' and bomb the reactor anyway, arguing that it's the Syrian government's fault for placing it upwind of a major population centre. They've always been very proactive about what they view as potential existential threats to their nation.

I've read that they would not have struck the Osirak reactor if it had attained criticality. Of course, Osirak was a "legitimate" reactor and Syria's ITTL version of the al Kibar reactor won't be, so international condemnation for creating a nuclear incident may be slightly more muted.
 
That's assuming that the Israelis don't simply shrug, decide 'Sucks to be you I guess' and bomb the reactor anyway, arguing that it's the Syrian government's fault for placing it upwind of a major population centre. They've always been very proactive about what they view as potential existential threats to their nation.

They might also hit it with overwhelming force and then claim they didn't do anything. The Syrians can squawk all they want, but they're the ones who put an illegal nuclear reactor upwind of a population centre. It's not like they'll invite inspectors in to guarantee it wasn't a meltdown.
 
They might also hit it with overwhelming force and then claim they didn't do anything. The Syrians can squawk all they want, but they're the ones who put an illegal nuclear reactor upwind of a population centre. It's not like they'll invite inspectors in to guarantee it wasn't a meltdown.

why would the reactor be illegal ?
 
Hidden fast-breeder reactors clearly meant to produce weapons-grade nuclear material in the hands of nasty regimes are generally looked down upon by the international community.

of course they are. hell, i'd probably order a strike myself if I was in charge. however, and I repeat my question: what makes it illegal ?

was the manhattan project illegal ? or the soviet program ? what about tube alloys or the thing the french did ?
 

AndyC

Donor
of course they are. hell, i'd probably order a strike myself if I was in charge. however, and I repeat my question: what makes it illegal ?

was the manhattan project illegal ? or the soviet program ? what about tube alloys or the thing the french did ?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty).
The Manhattan Project, Soviet programme, Tube Alloys and the French programme all predate the treaty (signed in 1968).

Syria is one of the 189 signatories and is bound by it; for any signatory state other than the Five recognised nuclear powers (France, Russia (inherited the USSR position), PRC, UK and USA) to attempt to produce nuclear weapons is illegal under that treaty.
 
Top