Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Extensive Camouflage Dupes Experts

syria-nuke-plant.jpg

I thought this was an interesting story in today's Washington Post. It speaks to the extreme skepticism early on with reports that the Syrians were building an illicit nuke plant that the Israelis blew up a few months ago.

I remember attending a roundtable lunch a few days after the attack where nuclear "experts" cast serious doubt on the contention that the Syrian facility that was bombed actually was used for nuke fuel processing or anything else weapons related.

But the Washington Post story today speaks to the camouflaging capabilities governments are now employing to conceal their intentions. It's an interesting look at the lengths to which governments will and can conceal their secret efforts from overhead surveillance and also it shows some of the laborious techniques they'll employ to send out red herrings.

Experience With Syria Exemplifies Challenge That Detection Presents

Syria went to extraordinary lengths to conceal its undeclared construction of a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor from spies in the sky and on the ground in recent years, according to a draft report by independent nuclear experts briefed by Bush administration officials.

The effectiveness of the camouflage effort raises new doubts about the prospects for certain detection of future clandestine nuclear weapons-related activities, the Institute for Science and International Security concluded in its report on the Syrian facility. "This case serves as a sobering reminder of the difficulty of identifying secret nuclear activities," the report said.

According to the ISIS report to be released this week, the fake roof was just the start. Syrian engineers went to "astonishing lengths" to hide cooling and ventilation systems, power lines and other features that normally are telltale signs of a nuclear reactor, authors David Albright and Paul Brannan wrote.

For example, the main building appears small and shallow from the air, but it was evidently built over large underground chambers -- tens of meters in depth -- that were large enough to house the nuclear reactor, as well as a reserve water-storage tank and pools for spent fuel rods, the report said.

An extensive network of electrical lines appears to have been buried in trenches. Traditional water-cooling towers were replaced with an elaborate underground system that discharged into the Euphrates River. And, instead of using smokestack-like ventilation towers prominent at many reactor sites, the ventilation system appears to have been built along the walls of the building, with louver openings not visible from the air, the authors contended.

The ISIS report noted that early skepticism that Syria was building a reactor there was based partly on the observable absence of revealing features. "The current domestic and international capabilities to detect nuclear facilities and activities are not adequate to prevent more surprises in the future," the report warned.

And here's the ISIS report to pick over for yourself...

-- Christian

Comments


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/08/uk.iraq


Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Friday April 8 2005

"We got it wrong on Iraq WMD, intelligence chiefs finally admit

Intelligence chiefs have admitted for the first time that claims they made about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were wrong and have not been substantiated.
The admission is revealed in the annual report of the parliamentary intelligence and security committee which also sharply criticises the lack of communication between ministers and the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. "

Posted by: Wembley at May 14, 2008 08:05 AM



"They HAVE found WMD evidence in Iraq"

What - mobile biological warfare labs, an active nuclear program, yellowcake from Niger, long-range rockets?
Or just remains of chemical weapons built long before?
The WMD issue was Causus Belli for the UK, so it has received a lot more attention in the media. When no evidence was found the government admitted they got it wrong. - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3054991.stm

Posted by: Wembley at May 14, 2008 08:03 AM


If the reactor was camouflaged then maybe the extent of the damaged was camouflaged. Also, maybe it took so long release all the info and the inside photos because it took that long to extract the guy, and his extended family, who took those photos.

Posted by: Wild Bill at May 13, 2008 01:30 PM


They HAVE found WMD evidence in Iraq, you just arn't hearing about it in the MSM. Dig a little deeper than google, TV and newspapers. They just didn't find the stockpiles, which could have been moved OUT of Iraq just before we went it. The northern border with Syria was not secure till months after the US went in. I've had some reliable sources..but I'm not a pro so don't take my word for it, research it yourself.
But hey, what do I know, I'm just a shill for the (rat bastard) Bush administration (wheres my check guys?)

Posted by: coolhand77 at May 13, 2008 10:25 AM


I don't think Syria has a "right" to attack Israel. I would say they have a justification. A "Right" implies that it is protected by law and can be enforced by law. Obviusly, the UN cannot enforce Syria's "right" to attack Israel. I don't think you ever have a "right" to retaliate agaionst someone. You simply have varying levels of justification.

Posted by: pantera at May 13, 2008 08:56 AM


" to conceal its undeclared construction of a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor "

- Er, who says that's what it was? Let's not go swallowing the official version again without any questions. Remember those WMD that were absolutely, positively in Iraq according to this type of intelligence?
It now turns out the pictures released of the Syrian site were not exactly untouched - maybe we should be looking at that rather than the misdirection intended here. The key line is 'briefed by Bush Administration officials...'

Posted by: Wembley at May 13, 2008 08:28 AM


Everyone keeps dancing around the subject. So let's get to the point and not be an oblique red herring. Is North korea pre-developing the H-bomb for syria and iran? Or is that one a myth. A yes or no is suffiecient. If I wanted red herring I would go out to red lobster and buy a seafood platter.

Posted by: Max Anderson at May 13, 2008 07:40 AM


The age old problem of overhead intel versus eyes on the ground. This sort of surprise is what can come when we over emphasize a particular intelligence collection method over everything else

Posted by: Trey at May 12, 2008 09:44 PM


Well, one question still remains... was this the only reactor being built? What if the destroyed reactor was merely the decoy, feint, or distraction in a sleight of hand? Sure it could have been productive if it had become operational. But maybe there's a Syrian super duper double secret spy-satellite resistant underground special reactor that nobody, not even Syria, knows about?... Maybe. 8)

Posted by: Camp at May 12, 2008 06:51 PM


Sam said: "Syria now has the right to retaliate against Israel."

I doubt they will, cause they know the US has Israels back.

Posted by: murc at May 12, 2008 06:01 PM


Now, now, Sam.

Are you still upset about the IAF beating the pants off the Syrian Air Force in 1982? Quoting from GlobalSecurity.org:

"During the Israel's Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 Israeli aircraft struck Syrian surface-to-air missiles, resulting in the destruction of nineteen sites and the damaging of four. Israeli aerial mastery was confirmed in the skies over the Biqa Valley. At the conclusion of the first week of the war, after the participation of approximately 100 combat planes on each side, a total of 86 Syrian MiG-21, MiG-23, and Sukhoi-22 aircraft had been shot down with no Israeli losses."

EIGHTY. SIX. TO. ZERO.

Please... let Syria try... the IAF can use the workout.
(evil Zionist Bwahh-haa-haa!)

Posted by: Joshik at May 12, 2008 05:03 PM


It is unfortunate that the Dimona nuclear reactor was not bombed years ago before it became active.

Syria now has the right to retaliate against Israel.

Posted by: Sam at May 12, 2008 01:02 PM


I think that the story of the Syrian reactor is a good sign. Persistent surveillance forced the Syrians to build this reactor (if that's what it was) underground using all of these crazy new techniques. No doubt this greatly escalated the cost. Even at this expense, the reactor was still discovered and destroyed. 2 points for good, 0 for proliferation.

Posted by: Mike at May 12, 2008 11:43 AM


The only way to catch this stuff is to go in early and track changes over time. With a single snap-shot it'd be difficult to detect trend changes. For instance, you'd get evidence of construction (trucks going in, dirt going out...etc).

Don't know if spy planes would help any...probably not though. Emphasis will shift back to people on the ground doing the spying...maybe unmanned ground vehicles would conduct better surveillance?

Of course, this only serves to drive things underground, DPRK-style.

Posted by: Charlie Seto at May 12, 2008 10:59 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.