Iran has strategic missle -- threatens Israel

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Something doesn't make sense here.

Saddam didn't have a nuclear program after Gulf War I, when the embargo began.

Where have you been. Apparently you never got the news about the discovery of Saddam's nuclear weapons program.

[Agathon]

GePap, the Iranians may not attack immediately. But their possession of nuclear weapons would destabalize the situation dramatically as neighboring states could now attack Israel knowing that Israel could no longer resort to nuclear weapons if she started to lose

And is that likely? Israel has fought numerous wars against the Arabs when the Arabs were in a much better position to win than they are now. But the Arabs have lost every single one of those wars. More to the point Israel will be the strongest conventional power in that area of the world for the foreseeable future, so a conventional defeat is extremely unlikely.

Of course the rational thing for Israel to do would be to come to some peace agreement with the Arab countries, none of whom are really interested in fighting it again. Of course this requires some just solution to the Palestinian problem, and that was what was happening until the US took its foot off the gas and the Likud nutcases decided to wreck the process.

This is not in Israel's interest. There is no reason to think that the power balance will be the same in 50 years time, and if I was an Israeli who cared about my children and their children, I would want my country to have reasonably friendly relations with the surrounding regimes. In diplomacy almost anything is possible if people want it that bady, and the Middle East is no different.

If the US is forced out of Iraq, as seems increasingly likely, then Israel will be in an even worse position than it currently is.

[Agathon]

You know, when four of the top six threads in the OT have been started by Ned, it is clear that Elvis has left the building.

[Ned]

Agathon, all we really have to go on is history. Sharon attacked Saddam's nuclear reactor. I think it likely that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear reactor and processing facilities unless the EU and the UN suceed in getting the Iranians to be more cooperative in a transparent way.

However, I think the Iranians are being very provacative and are even egging Israel on. Announcing a new missile on top of dragging their feet on nuke inspections is just a bit over the top.

[Agathon]

Sharon attacked Saddam's nuclear reactor. I think it likely that Israel will attack Iran's nuclear reactor and processing facilities unless the EU and the UN suceed in getting the Iranians to be more cooperative in a transparent way.

And the world was a different place when he did so.

[Sirotnikov]

More to the point Israel will be the strongest conventional power in that area of the world for the foreseeable future, so a conventional defeat is extremely unlikely.

Ah... riight...
You're welcome to check your facts.
There are people with more money and the almost the same technology.

Israel can not hold a long war due to its extremely small terrain, small resources and reliance on reservists.

We only held out in 73 because we got US aid.

A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

Truth is though, neither Jordan nor Egypt, nor most countries, really want to see a large strong Palestine in this space.

Btw, Iran and Iraq I think have (had) larger armies than Israel.

Then you don't understand the Israeli mentality.

Of which you're an expert. A lefty looney.

[Sirotnikov]

The simple truth is this:

Together (+ using terrorism) the arab states can defeat Israel.

Israel may possess nukes to make them reconsider the threat.

Once Iran possesses nukes as well, the arab agression against Israel will be much less likely to be answered with an attack.

Thus, first, Hamas and Hizbullah will be truly unreigned.

Finally, several countries could join together to rid of Israel.

As I said - I don't think Israeli logistics will last enough, nor could it defend itself in time against a massive blitz krieg.

[Sirotnikov]

This is exactly why Israel has always tried to act first.

It knows that defending is bad.

And attacking won't last very long, because as soon as Israel is winning the UN enforces a cease fire.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ah... riight...
You're welcome to check your facts.
There are people with more money and the almost the same technology.

Who? Egypt, Syria, jordan? Saudi Arabia may be rich and have top notch weapons, but last time I looked, SA has never joined its arab neighbors in fighting Israel (except perhaps in 1948, but IIRC not even then)

Israel can not hold a long war due to its extremely small terrain, small resources and reliance on reservists.

All of which was true in 1967 and 1973.

We only held out in 73 because we got US aid.

What, 3 billion a year for the last 20 years is not enough? And Egypt is no longer an enemy.

A combined arab attack with good use of missiles and planes could probably smite us.

Which won't happen, so what the point of phony hypotheticals?

Truth is though, neither Jordan nor Egypt, nor most countries, really want to see a large strong Palestine in this space.

Jordan is too weak to do anything-Egypt and SA are both US allies/client/weapon customers. your only real threatening neighbor right now is Syria, against which Israel has a massive superiority.

Btw, Iran and Iraq I think have (had) larger armies than Israel.

Which means little given neither border Israel. Iraq right now has no army, and besides ballistic missiles Iran has no way to hit Israel.

Of which you're an expert. A lefty looney.

Ned said Israel would give up if attacked by neighboring Arabs to prevent an Iranian nuke attack- do you think this would happen?

[Sirotnikov]

Who? Egypt, Syria, jordan? Saudi Arabia may be rich and have top notch weapons, but last time I looked, SA has never joined its arab neighbors in fighting Israel (except perhaps in 1948, but IIRC not even then)

all it takes is a small coup.

and : no comment.

All of which was true in 1967 and 1973.

Israel pre-empted in 1967 so it doesn't count.

And the situation is worse today:
Israeli supply lines are small and vulnerable.

Arab planes and missiles are now much more powerful and have much more firepower and new technology.

What, 3 billion a year for the last 20 years is not enough? And Egypt is no longer an enemy.

No, I mean aid as in supply planes flying in, faster than threy flew to allied berlin in the 40s.

Which won't happen, so what the point of phony hypotheticals?

"this won't ever happen" attitude already failed Israel in 1973

Jordan is too weak to do anything-Egypt and SA are both US allies/client/weapon customers. your only real threatening neighbor right now is Syria, against which Israel has a massive superiority.

Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

If they cut off ties with the US, their weapons would last them a long enough time to attack Israel.

Syria also has some quality russian stuff. No further comments.

Which means little given neither border Israel. Iraq right now has no army, and besides ballistic missiles Iran has no way to hit Israel.

Iraq has always sent aid troops.
Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon.
Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

Ned said Israel would give up if attacked by neighboring Arabs to prevent an Iranian nuke attack- do you think this would happen?

I must admit I was mostly amused by that response coming from you.

But Ned isn't very wrong.

Israel would introducing nukes first at any cost, anyways - esp. if there is a chance of a nuclear reaction.

The idea being - saving your citizens life.

Freedom > Absolute defeat
however:
Some living citizens >> no living citizens and glowing in the dark.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

all it takes is a small coup.

and : no comment.

Sorry, but of course there could be a "small coup" in Syria and Iran installing pro-western governments. Trying to make a case that depends of massive regime change is weak at best.

And the situation is worse today:
Israeli supply lines are small and vulnerable.

Arab planes and missiles are now much more powerful and have much more firepower and new technology.

And Israel has even more firepower. No serious military analyst thinks even all four of Israel's neighbors combined would beat Israel with conventional weapons.

No, I mean aid as in supply planes flying in, faster than threy flew to allied berlin in the 40s.

You think the same would not occur today? Why exactly?

"this won't ever happen" attitude already failed Israel in 1973

Israel was cocky- but Egypt now has 0 reason to attack Israel.

Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

If they cut off ties with the US, their weapons would last them a long enough time to attack Israel.

Still basing your arguement on imaginary coups, are we?

Syria also has some quality russian stuff. No further comments.

Right- Israel's military lead over Syria is bigger today than in 1973.

Iraq has always sent aid troops.
Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon.
Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

Iraq is highly unlikely to do anything much for the next decade, perhaps break up into civil war, but nothing more.
Iran alrady gave Hizbullah those weapons- haven't seen them used. maybe if Israel attacks Iran, but otherwise.
As for Iran's airforce, now you are just being silly.

I must admit I was mostly amused by that response coming from you.

But Ned isn't very wrong.

Israel would introducing nukes first at any cost, anyways - esp. if there is a chance of a nuclear reaction.

The idea being - saving your citizens life.

Freedom > Absolute defeat
however:
Some living citizens >> no living citizens and glowing in the dark.

So why do you think the Arabs would not have a similar reaction?

Besides, will people stop exagerating the effect of nukes? And lets remember than a nuclear strike vs Israel will invariably kill plenty of Palestinians and muslims, while an Israel nuclear attack elsewhere has about 0 dange of killing any Jews (except in Iran). Would a bunch of Islamic fundies nuke the Dome of the Rock?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but of course there could be a "small coup" in Syria and Iran installing pro-western governments. Trying to make a case that depends of massive regime change is weak at best.

you misunderstood me.
but no comment.

And Israel has even more firepower. No serious military analyst thinks even all four of Israel's neighbors combined would beat Israel with conventional weapons.

Again, fire power does one one side does not reduce fire power on another side.

If Israeli supply lines and centers are reduced quickly using projected fire power, Israel can only stop so much of it and probably will be left with no war-oxigen.

But I do not wish to speculate further.

You think the same would not occur today? Why exactly?

Because today a united arab front could probably bomb Israel to death despite all its defences before the first plane leaves US soil.

Israel was cocky- but Egypt now has 0 reason to attack Israel.

Internal instability as a result of growing Islamism and growing resistance to incompetence to act against Israeli "agression" against the palestinian brothers.

Guess what - US weapons are not programmed to avoid hitting Israelis.

Seriously.

US weapons could do serious harm very quickly.

Still basing your arguement on imaginary coups, are we?

a. nothing here is too imaginary. especially when a nuclear bomb protects the arab armies from total loss.
b. no coups - just desperate decisions.

Right- Israel's military lead over Syria is bigger today than in 1973.

no comment.

Iraq has always sent aid troops.
Iran has sent out thousands of missiles to Hezbullah, now position in Lebanon.
Iran also kept their US fighters in good shape.

Iraq is highly unlikely to do anything much for the next decade, perhaps break up into civil war, but nothing more.
Iran alrady gave Hizbullah those weapons- haven't seen them used. maybe if Israel attacks Iran, but otherwise.
As for Iran's airforce, now you are just being silly.

Hezbullah is very good at polishing them for use in the next grand-scale conflict. It will rain metal in haifa and tel aviv.

Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

So why do you think the Arabs would not have a similar reaction?

They did have the same reaction.

in 1973 Israel threatened to use nukes, and they backed off.

In 20?? Israel threatens to use nukes, and so will they.

Both sides will prefer to avoid nukes, and by that time the gap between Israel and the rest will be much smaller.

Besides, will people stop exagerating the effect of nukes? And lets remember than a nuclear strike vs Israel will invariably kill plenty of Palestinians and muslims, while an Israel nuclear attack elsewhere has about 0 dange of killing any Jews (except in Iran). Would a bunch of Islamic fundies nuke the Dome of the Rock?

They'd nuke Tel Aviv.

Dome of the Rock would be deserted for 100 years, which they won't care much for, since they never cared that much for it. Its the fact they don't have it now that makes it so damn important. "Islamic land" - a holy value.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Once Iran possesses nukes as well, the arab agression against Israel will be much less likely to be answered with an attack.

Thus, first, Hamas and Hizbullah will be truly unreigned.

Finally, several countries could join together to rid of Israel.

You really think the reason that the Arab states aren't attacking Isreal is because Isreal has nukes? Get real!

[Sirotnikov]

I'm tired of this.

In short - u have a much rosier view of Israeli defences than you should as a self-acclaimed critical thinker. You have too low a view of arab forces.

In short - You've been had by Israeli propoganda.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Wasn't there a joke about the '73 war and the ever disappearing, reappearing and re-annihilated, smashed, etc. Iraqi division to the effect that the Israelis had learned how to handle information from the Arabs, while the Arabs had learned how to fight from the Israelis?