Pipe Bomb at Palo Verde Nuclear Reactor

Well, that was exciting.

A contract worker tried driving into the Palo Verde had a "small capped pipe that contained suspicious residue" in the back of his pickup. In plain view.

He was stopped about a half-mile from the containment domes. The worker went into custody, and the nuclear power plant went into lockdown.

So far, there's no indication that this is a case of domestic terrorism. Or, I suspect, that it isn't.

Although I rather doubt that the pipe bomb was there to provide fireworks or be used as a hammer.

I actually feel a bit safer, after this incident. Although what happened today couldn't be considered a serious attempt at an attack, Palo Verde's security seems to respond rather good.

A spokesman for Palo Verde's operator, Arizona Public Service, said that every vehicle going into the plant goes through an "extensive" inspection. "It's not an accident they found it," the spokesman said.. "It's not like an inspection you go through at the airport. The security is highly trained and they are damned good at what they do and they did it today."

There's a video at MyFoxPhoenix.com.

It's good to read about situations where protective systems work. I rather hope that there's a follow-up article on this event. I'd like to know what that dipstick from South Carolina thought he was doing with a pip bomb in the back of his pickup.

Back to Syria's Mystery Building

Syria, Israel, and America have something in common.

None of these nations is helping the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) ("Employing science in the pursuit of international peace.") figure out what Syria had built on the banks of the Euphrates River.

A commercial satellite took a picture of something in Syria, back in 2003. It's the same facility that, at last report, Syria says was a big, unused, warehouse (see "Satellite Images of Syrian Reactor / Warehouse").

ISIS published a paper online (*.pdf format, 5 pages), "SUSPECT REACTOR CONSTRUCTION SITE IN EASTERN SYRIA: THE SITE OF THE SEPTEMBER 6 ISRAELI RAID?." It's a pretty good collection of available information about the Syrian site, including what kind of reactor it could be, based on similarities to a North Korean reactor building.

One of the bits of information is the size of the Syrian "warehouse," compared to a North Korean reactor building:

	Building	Roof Structure
Syrian "Warehouse"	47 x 47 meters	24 x 32 meters
North Korean Reactor	48 x 50 meters/td>	32 x 24 meters

That coincidence in size is no proof, of course. In fact, the ISIS paper says the images "raise as many questions as they answer."

David Albright, president of ISIS, seems frustrated at the refusal of America, Israel, and Syria, to give him all the information he needs to figure out what Syria built on the banks of the Euphrates.

I can understand Albright's frustration. I can also understand the reticence of these governments.

There's a war on. There will be secrets. Some things will be kept secret because lives depend on the other side staying ignorant. Some secrets will be kept to avoid embarrassing influential people.

I don't know what sort of secret the information about that square building is. My guess is that Israel and America don't want to tell any more than they have to about exactly what they knew - and know - about the "warehouse." And Syria isn't likely to admit that it's got a nuclear program: not even other Middle Eastern nations would be likely to take kindly to that idea.

As for the American government giving ISIS all the information it wants, the research organization says that "Throughout its history, ISIS has maintained a commitment to the wide dissemination of its major findings." That's a noble principle, but in times of war, "wide dissemination" of information can have unhappy consequences.

Satellite Images of Syrian Reactor / Warehouse

Satellite images may or may not have shown that whatever the Israeli armed forces hit last month was a reactor. At any rate, there was a big building there that was within a few yards of being the same size as a reactor in North Korea, with another building on a nearby river that could be a pumping station.

Syria has refined its 'unused military building' to "largely empty military warehouse." The list of Syrian identities for what the Israeli air force blew up, updated, is now:

• An unused military building largely empty military warehouse
• An agricultural research station
• Nothing but sand
• Nothing at all: There was no raid

Meanwhile, in France, International Atomic Energy Agency director, and Nobel Peace laureate, Mohamed ElBaradei, is angry at the

• Syrians
• Israelis
• foreign intelligence agencies

... because none of them told him about the Syrian nuclear program. That Syria says doesn't exist. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns." (Emphasis is mine.)

Besides, ElBaradei said, an airstrike puts efforts to contain nuclear proliferation in peril. Here's his argument: "When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein's research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground," he said. "The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem." (MSNBC, from Le Monde.)

True, to a point. But not using force doesn't seem the best idea, either.

Although you have to admit that it would be easier to:

• Let the Bashar al-Asads and Osama bin Ladens of the world do what they want.
• Give the Mohamed ElBaradeis clerical staffs, paper, and plenty of toner and ink cartridges.
• Encourage panels and groups of experts to discuss why terrorism isn't the fault of the terrorists and their leaders.
• Wait and see what gets blown up or burned away next.

'The Jews Blew Up Our Reactor (Which Does Not Exist)'

"Israel was the fourth-largest exporter of weapons of mass destruction and a violator of other nations' airspace, and it had taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria," is what Syrian representative Bassam Darwish said. Emphasis is mine.

As usual, in situations like this, there are at least a couple of contradictory versions of "the truth" floating around.

Syria's government-run, official, Syrian Arab News Agency, SANA, says that Bassam Darwish was misquoted.

However, there were witnesses.

And documentation.

The Syrian slip was recorded in a document released by The United Nations General Assembly's Department of Public Information. it told about what happened at the annual gathering of the U.N.'s Disarmament and International Security Committee.

At least two people, one of them a U.S. delegate to the U.N., confirm that what Darwish wrote is almost exactly what he said. The delegate was very surprised, and nobody can figure out why the Syrian representative said "6 July" instead of "6 September."

The U.S. State Department is guessing that Darwish mis-spoke.

Syria has already called their representative a liar, with the statement "such facilities do not exist in Syria." I think that this time the Syrian statement may be literally true. Now. Before, Syria has said that Israel's September raid was on

• An unused military building
• An agricultural research station.
• Nothing but sand
• Nothing at all: There was no raid.

I think the Syrian government could use a refresher course on the art of lying. I don't approve of distorting the truth, but recognize that there are rules and procedures which must be followed for a lie to be effective. Among the basic are:

1. Pick a story
2. Keep it simple
3. Stick to the original story

The Syrian government seems to have forgotten about the third point.

Now, with accidental confirmation of Syria's nuclear program, and the Israeli response, we've got a better picture of what's going on in the Middle East.

Not a comforting picture, but a more accurate one.

As for Bassam Darwish, I sincerely hope that he survives the turn his career is likely to take after this slip of the lip.

In the News: Anxious Republicans, Castro and Chavez are Friends, and, oh, yes: Israel Destroyed Syrian Nuclear Reactor

Yesterday, the New York Times broke the news that Israeli jets destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor. One that was under construction, at any rate. Some other news services picked it up, too. This is news: It's the second reactor that Israel has destroyed. The first one was Saddam Hussein's, back in 1981.

This afternoon, it's back to business as usual for top news items:

• "More G.O.P. Lawmakers Voice Unease"
• "Castro calls Chavez during live broadcast"
• "9 die as car bomb blasts minibus in Iraq"

The revelation of a super-top-secret raid destroying a nuclear reactor in a dubiously-responsible country apparently isn't as interesting as angsty Republicans and a car bombing in Iraq.

The New York Times article about the Israeli raid raised an interesting point. Syria was the only Arab country to criticise the raid.

Maybe Islamic states in the Middle East didn't want Syria to have nuclear warheads on its Scud missiles any more that Israel did. It must be irksome to be rescued by Jews. Again.

All the News We Want to Print?

I realize that news has to present a changing face, or people lose interest, but I'm impressed at how a car bomb killing nine people headed for worship at a Shiite mosque, tragic as it is, is more important than a top-secret raid that changed the strategic situation in the Middle East.

The old saying, "you can't see the forest for the trees" seems to apply here. Watching and reading what's on the news, it's easy to get the impression that the war on terror is nothing but an unending succession of car bombings and tragic civilian causalities.

Is it any wonder that so many people think that the U.S. freeing Iraq from Saddam Hussein, and helping the new Iraqi government get itself organized is a bad idea? And, are less than enthusiastic about the war on terror in general?

More about the Israeli raid on Syria's nuclear reactor:

• "No Radioactive Kimchi: Israel Blew Up a Syrian Reactor"
  (October 14, 2007)
• "Radioactive Kimchi, or Nuclear Bomb Material?"
  (September 23, 2007)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea, Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  (September 18, 2007)

No Radioactive Kimchi: Israel Blew Up a Syrian Reactor

Israeli jets destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, back on on September 9, 2007. At least, that's what the New York Times and Yahoo! News says. The White House knew about Israeli plans, and apparently there was a divided opinion on whether September of 2007 was too early to blow up the reactor.

For starters, the reactor wasn't anywhere near ready to produce nuclear material. I can see the point of letting Syria and North Korea continue to pour resources into the reactor, then destroy in when it is a bigger loss.

The U.S. position, according to the Times, was that Israel had hit a missile facility or a nuclear facility that Syria was maintaining with North Korean help.

Syrian President Bashar Assad said that Israel blew up an "unused military building." That brings Syrian claims about what happened up to four:

• An unused military building blew up.
• The Jews destroyed an agricultural research station.
• Israel dropped bombs on sand
• There was no raid.

I'll give Syria points for diversity.

However, I'm inclined to go with the Washington version on the reactor.

Israel's blown up a nuclear reactor before, in 1981. That time it was an Iraqi reactor, run by Saddam Hussein's rule.

In each case, I think Israel had the right idea. Hussein's Iraq was was unlikely to let nuclear weapons go unused, and could have earned a great deal of 'street cred' in the Middle East by obliterating at least part of Israel. Syria was in the same position. Israel can't afford to rely on endless rounds of diplomacy, and on the presumed good will of other nations in the region.

American officials, from the huge "Anonymous" family, said that September's strike might have been a signal to Iran, showing Israel's resolve. Maybe, but I think Israel may have been protecting itself from Syria, too.

Tomorrow, I expect politicos to provide a sort of grim comic relief, with more-or-less nonsensical pronouncements about how badly the administration handled the matter, how much better they would have done, and so forth.

Even at this late date, I think it's possible that someone with a recognizable name will say that the Israeli raid was a terrible mistake, and a threat to the delicate Mid East peace process.

I've posted on the Israeli raid before:

• "Radioactive Kimchi, or Nuclear Bomb Material?"
  (September 23, 2007)
• "Nuclear Materials from North Korea, Sand, or Radioactive Kimchi?"
  (September 18, 2007)