A friend recently reminded me that plutonium is not only dangerous as a fissile material and the ability of producing a bomb, but it also excels among other heavy metals in its toxicity: You need not necessarily have a nuclear bomb to use plutonium in a destructive way. If Jonathan's question had been: "Merkel - where's the plutonium?" she might have answered that it was in Hanau, but now it's in Sellafield. Syria already has a nuclear reactor for research aims. So if Israel felt threatened by Syrian nuclear technology, why would they bomb some construction site? As for me, I blame the strike of Sept. 6 on US pressure. After all, Syria, that excepted 2 million refugees, and the US might have different ideas regarding Iraq. Maybe bombing some construction site was the consensus Israel could achieve from the US to avoid human victims (which would probably end all hopes of peace with Syria), but which at the same time would provide the imagination of the Washington Post with some food.
from the article: Syria reportedly to skip summit, as Haniyeh calls meet 'stillborn'