Iran has strategic missle -- threatens Israel

[Edan]

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)

IIRC, Saudi Arabia contributed troops at least in the Six Day War and possibly 1948 and the Yom Kippur War as well (not to mention paying part of the funding)

[Agathon]

Past Performance is never a guarantee of future performance.

But, in the absence of other evidence, it is always the most reliable guide.

Is it in their interests to have a true peace with Israel? After all, the A-I conflict has, in many cases strengthened the governments of their countries from internal dissent. Even countries that have a peace agreement with Israel try to stoke those flames (eg, Egypt's Protocols miniseries)

No, Assad and his ilk don't like the idea of anyone actually provoking a real, significant conflict with Israel. That would be the end of them. Why do you think they didn't want Saddam removed? They hated him too, but they foresaw trouble for themselves no matter what happened in Iraq.

[Urban Ranger]

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

You mean uranium that Saddam never bought from Niger? Or those aluminium tubs? Or that one part of what would be a centrifugal machine that would take 10 years to enrich a gram of uranium?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You mean uranium that Saddam never bought from Niger? Or those aluminium tubs? Or that one part of what would be a centrifugal machine that would take 10 years to enrich a gram of uranium?

No, seriously, UR. The UN Weapons inspectors discovered it circa 1995, IIRC. Prior to that date, Saddam had steadfastly maintained that he had no such program.

[Ned]

Bush promised O'Reilly last night that Iran will not have nukes.

"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/bush.tuesday.ap/index.html

What does this mean? That WE will take out Iran's reactors?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even Bush isn't that dumb. It's empty rhetoric.

[GePap]

Bush said the same about NK nukes. Now he just shrugs the question off.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush said the same about NK nukes.

I call BS on this one...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Solver
Israel can't afford to start a full-scale war there. Not only Iran is much bigger, several other countries will then definitely also attack Israel. And Israel can't be fighting Iran, Syria, Lebanon and someone else at the same time.

If you had read your history books, Israel was attacked by all of it's neighbors in 48, 67, and 73.
Actually in 73, Israel saw the neighbors at the door, so she attack them first.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned
Bush promised O'Reilly last night that Iran will not have nukes.

"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush said in a TV interview broadcast Monday. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Pressed on whether he would allow Iran to build a bomb, Bush said: "No, we've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/bush.tuesday.ap/index.html

What does this mean? That WE will take out Iran's reactors?

Ned,
Why don't we get rid of our nukes as a gesture to all nations that having nukes is baaad. Otherwise what right does the only nation that has ever used nukes in anger against anyone have to decide who should and should not have nukes.

[Sirotnikov]

As someone said, no serious military analyst believes this. One of the reasons many Arab countries are unhappy with the Palestine situation and the invasion of Iraq is that they are deathly afraid that their own populations will demand they do something about it by attacking Israel. They would do anything to avoid that because they know that they would lose.

Yes, I imagine you are well acquainted with many military analysts. Oh wait...

1. Why hit Syria? So you begin your hypothetical with an Israeli act of war against an Arab state? rolleyes:

Because Syria, just like Afghanistan was, is currently a haven for terrorist leaderships, training camps and so on.

Part of the logic of the war on terrorism is striking the regimes which actively or passively support or condone terrorism. Terrorism needs such host countries, otherwise it has difficulties surviving. Syria is on that list of supporting countries. High up there.

Maybe if Israel gives up the tired ideology that attacking its neighboring Arab states will solve the palestinian problems, this would not occur yet again.

Attacking Syria will most definitly almost completely solve the problem with Hizbullah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Its not an ideology but a fact.

You already have lebanon included. Even with Israel starting the war, i don;t see Egypt or SA coming to the aid of Syria thanks to heavy US pressure.

If Israel attacks Syria (no matter justified or not) and Syria is losing, I'm willing to bet that Egypt and SA will save it.

Iraq was a unique case which the US located, which could be attacked without real resistance from the Arab world. Syria is not a (semi) legitimate target like Iraq.

You think Israel won't launch them if it is about to be extinguished?

Yes, I think that if Iran has nukes, Israel won't use theirs and won't even threaten to use theirs.

No Israeli nukes = nothing to stop a sudden successfull Arab attack.

So how likely is an Israeli attack vs, Iran be.
Iranian airforce really ain't that bad.

It is similar to Civ II with howitzers - it depends on the element of surprise -

With the current amount of firepower on both sides, the initiator is much more likely to win.

Again, with what? You are inventing a conventional threat that does not exist.

Egypt and SA are very much an existing conventional threat.

Israel would have total air superiority over itself, and within little time over the entire area: balistic missiles are not good against military targets, and Israel's neighbors lack cruise missiles.

Ballistic missiles / rockets / airplane raids are great against supply centers and supply routes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Bush said the same about NK nukes.

I call BS on this one...

Another great example of your powers of memory

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Part of the logic of the war on terrorism is striking the regimes which actively or passively support or condone terrorism. Terrorism needs such host countries, otherwise it has difficulties surviving. Syria is on that list of supporting countries. High up there.

1. The "logic" of the war on terror is idiocy.
2. Hamas has office in Syria- its bombers come from the occupied territories, and its active leadership is there as well.

Attacking Syria will most definitly almost completely solve the problem with Hizbullah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Brigades and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Its not an ideology but a fact.

Fact? To be a fact it would have to already been proven true. By definition this can't be a fact.

If Israel attacks Syria (no matter justified or not) and Syria is losing, I'm willing to bet that Egypt and SA will save it.

And this is based on what exactly? Any new info you care to share?

Egypt and SA are very much an existing conventional threat.

So is the US by that mode of thinking.

Ballistic missiles / rockets / airplane raids are great against supply centers and supply routes.

Ahh, ballistic missiles avaibale to Israel's neighbors are not accurate enough to hit miliotary targets any smaller than say a port. Even then, it might not hit anything of value.

I already went into the air raid issue.

[Pax]

Every country has the right of self-defense attacking other countries before they attack you is not self-defense. Building weapons to defend against countries who feel they have the right to attack you in order to make sure you remain weak is not only self defense but wise.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
Ned,
Why don't we get rid of our nukes as a gesture to all nations that having nukes is baaad. Otherwise what right does the only nation that has ever used nukes in anger against anyone have to decide who should and should not have nukes.

I support, as I hope you do PAX, mutual reduction of nuclear weapons by nuclear states.