YouTube has multiple reports from Al Jazeera, the BBC and other sources about missile strikes two weeks ago about the Israeli nuclear weapons complex at Dimona. RantWoman does not remember this coming up in the media streams RantWoman consumes most regularly. RantWoman thinks it may be too early to expect other reporting about the incident discussed in the video below.
This video contains reference to automatically generated audio, a point which always makes RantWoman treat the content with caution. That said, RantWoman can also easily see the point about governments not necessarily wanting to advertise strikes like the ones outlined here. Finally, RantWoman observes that former inspector Ritter has acquired the kind of black mark which sometimes comes to someone known for telling too much of the truth.
The basic points:
--After 3 rounds of missile strikes, containment around the Dimona reactor is almost certainly damaged.
--There is a serious question about whether missile strikes could result in wide dispersion of radionuclides even if there is no reactor meltdown.
--One indicator of damage would be increased presence of radionuclides in the atmosphere around the area. Apparently, Israel is doing nothing to warn there population but Jordan is distributing potassium iodide prophylactically to border towns.
But RantWoman, do readers really care about one more problematic nuclear site and a bunch of missile verbiage?
Here's why RantWoman decided to post this.
The world demands nuclear inspection in Iran, but Israel REFUSES to allow IAEA inspections, does not sign the Nonproliferation Treaty. WHY should Israel be the only country in the Middle east permitted to have nuclear weapons? What if the world demanded that Israel also give up nuclear weapons?
What if the world demanded of Israel the same level of scrutiny and limits on nuclear program that are being demanded of Iran?
As an aside for all the people saying some version of "we have been trying to curtail Iran's nuclear program for decades. Now is the time so future generations don't have to deal with it:" Note: 20% of Iran's population is under 14 and overall Iran's population skews younger than the US. Shouldn't the world be setting an example of dealing positively with nuclear issues instead of colidifying resentments for another generation to seethe with???
And furthermore, if there is some general principle about governments that are too crazy not being allowed to have nuclear weapons, shouldn't the US look in the mirror and worry about some self-important foreign power showing up "for our own good?"
Oh no, what will happen to the market for US weapons exports?
One wants both to corroborate this content with other sources and to observe tartly that sanctions which starve civilian populations also create conditions where military technologies evolve in very efficient low resource input directions. Smoke that everyone who says the US needs to spend more money on defense.
Interests: Digital Inclusion, Languages and language access, walkability, accessibility, disaster preparedness.
When in doubt, laugh about something!
http://rantwoman.blogspot.com
PLEASE NOTE: I use both screen reading and screen enlargement. I would love to say Blogger is screen-reader friendly, but I am in no position to comment!
Posts
