"Israel will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons against Iraq"

[Sirotnikov]

EDIT: Moderators - Please delete several spammous unrelated messages.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=212935&contrassID=1&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Ex-arms inspector: fear is that Israel will use nukes if hit by Iraq

By Reuters

Former chief UN arms inspector Richard Butler said on Thursday his biggest fear was that Israel will be drawn into a war against Iraq and use its nuclear weapons.

If the United States and its allies wage war on Baghdad, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could raise the stakes by attacking Israel, possibly igniting another Arab-Israeli war, Butler told a business conference in Hong Kong.

"The prime minister of Israel has said it will not be restrained, that it will respond (if Iraq attacks it)," Butler said.

"My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons.

"If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist."

Butler stressed repeatedly that he believed the rest of the world had every reason to bring Saddam back under the law and even remove him from office.

He dismissed Iraq's offer to allow the resumption of UN arms inspections as "a stalling tactic."

"That letter (to the UN) does not do the one thing that it was supposed to do, which was to give an absolute guarantee that if inspectors return to Iraq, they will be able to do their jobs unfettered," Butler said.

[snip]

Assessment: Israel would only use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means.

Assessment: If attacked by plain Scad missiles carrying no extra load, Israel will abstain from retaliating, for as long as public opinion allows. Retaliation would be a missile or aircraft strike.


Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?
Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?
Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?
Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?
Question: What will happen in the region?

[Bereta_Eder]

your new avatar is somewhat funny!

[DinoDoc]

I wasn't aware that Israel actually admited to having nukes.

[Bereta_Eder]

Now your avatar moneypenny is crap

[Pekka]

I have no problems for Israel to strike back with nuclear force, IF Iraq does it first. Threat is not enough, if it actually does it.. then sure. That way they have the moral high ground. I don't like the idea of pre-emptive nuclear strikes.. If Saddam is so stupid, then he pays the price and catches some too.
I don't think he will do that, maybe he'll fire those scuds again though.

What would it do to region? I don't even want to think about it. Something bad to everyone.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Now your avatar moneypenny is crap

Make me a better one.

[Lemmy]

Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?

if non-conventional is nuclear, i guess so.

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

when pushed into a corner, maybe, if he has them.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

no

Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?

with nukes? WW3? or just one ****ed up middle east

Question: What will happen in the region?

see above

[DanS]

I dunno. I sorta like the sexy anime swordswoman in leather!

[Bereta_Eder]

moneypenny, I cant. you're hopeless

[GePap]

Re: "Israel will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons against Iraq"

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?

Would depend on casualties and damage: a scud with chem weapons hitting some small town and killing 20 people would not justify a nuclear attack. A chem or bio weapons striking with full potency on Tel Aviv or jerusalem, killing tesn of thousands- a nuclear attack on an Iraqi city would be justifiable.

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

The answer is no if you listen to Rumsfeld. Against US troops on the field? perhaps. On missile against israel? higly unlikely.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

Unless direcvtly attacked by WMD, use of Israeli nukes would be a HUGE policy mistake.

Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?

Of what, a war, or the use of WMD? People overestimate the damge a single attack by WMD has on major state. Israel would survive a single WMD attack from Iraq, no matter the size. Would do ahuge nbumber on the economy too. A nuclear strike is far more damaging than Chem or Biological, so the damage to Iraq's economy would be great. It would also greatly complicate what the US could do politically in Iraq post-Saddam.

Question: What will happen in the region?

If israel struck as a retaliation for a strike on itself- a large and damaging strike- outrage in the ME in general, while still high, would not boil over- Iraq would still be seen as the one that started it. It would make any further re-proachment more difficualt though. If Israel atatcked with WMD as a response to a small attack, or none at all, the region would explode in huge anti-American rallies and calls for the destruction of israel, and a general ME war would not be too unlikely.

[Sandman]

Israel would be justified in responding like for like, I suppose. But replying to chemical or biological attack, which would probably only kill a few dozen people with nukes would be utterly unjustifiable.

[Sirotnikov]

Even if an Iraqi missile falls in the desert

By Reuven Pedatzur

Testimony to the mood now prevalent in Israeli society, with massive encouragement from the political and military establishment, can be found in one of the questions pollster Mina Tzemah put to respondents in the survey the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth published last weekend.

"Under what circumstances should Israel respond with nuclear weapons?" was the question asked of those included in a representative sampling of Israeli society. The replies to the question are much less important than the question itself. According to Tzemah, it's clear to everyone that Israel has nuclear weapons and the only question remaining is when it should use them.

Beyond the lack of proportion between the Iraqi threat and the need for a nuclear response to it that is implicit in the question, it is worth asking why it is that the stronger Israel becomes militarily, the less confidence the public and its leaders have in its deterrence capability. This has reached the point where they need to threaten Judgement Day weapons to confront abstract threats that are very unlikely to be carried out.

The present Iraqi crisis is once again providing us with the opportunity to reenact the regular ritual of increasingly frequent Israeli threats, designed, according to those doing the threatening, to strengthen Israeli deterrence. They believe this deterrence has been undermined from the time when Israel didn't react to the Iraqi missile attacks in 1991. According to the The New York Times, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is explaining to the U.S. administration that Israel will react to an Iraqi attack no matter what the circumstances.

In other words, there won't necessarily be a connection between the Israeli response and the damage caused by the Iraqi missiles. An Israeli military response must follow, because the policy of restraint will be seen by the Arabs as weakness.

In an interview in The New York Times, David Ivry states that Iraq is in fact much weaker than in 1991, its army is less effective, and it has fewer missiles. But Ivry, one of the shapers of national security policy, who has been the commander of the Israel Air Force, the director-general of the Defense Ministry and an ambassador to Washington, hastens to add that in his opinion the present tendency in Israel favors responding this time. Otherwise, he says, Israel will lose its deterrence, and if Israel doesn't react this time, either, countries in the region are likely to think that we have no confidence in our ability.

And if that's not enough, to emphasize the severity of the continuing damage to Israel's deterrence capability, most of the spokesmen are making a point of emphasizing over and over again the damage caused by the unilateral exit from Lebanon, and the connection between it and the outbreak of the intifada.

[snip]

---

I snipped the article since i completely and totally disagree with it from that point forward. It's whole point is how wrong Israel is. My intention was to show these paragraphs to show you the current mood in Israel.

But you can read it if you want:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=212674&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[Lincoln]

The world is going to hate Israel regardless of what they do. If Sadam attacks with WOMD and Israel responds in kind then people would say that Israel provoked it somehow (perhaps by secretly supporting the US invasion). This upcoming war can open up a huge bucket of worms and no one can predict the outcome. If people believe in prayer then now is the time to do it.

What will Sadam do? Anything he is able to do and wants to do regardless of the consequences. He knows he is on his way out. He will take as many people as he can with him.

[Sirotnikov]

But replying to chemical or biological attack, which would probably only kill a few dozen people with nukes would be utterly unjustifiable.

Well the whole point is that I think we should judge according to intention and not result.

The fact is, that if Saddam targets Israel with chem or bio weapons, and Israel doesn't respond, it sends a message, that it is possible to attack Israel with bio chem weapons, as long as less than X people die.

[Eli]

Re: "Israel will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons against Iraq"

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Assessment: If attacked by plain Scad missiles carrying no extra load, Israel will abstain from retaliating, for as long as public opinion allows. Retaliation would be a missile or aircraft strike.

Possible, but not certain. ()

Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?

Depends.
In retaliation to a nuke strike, of course.
If it is a small chem/bio missile attack that kills a small number of people(not more than a couple hundred), Israel will probably join the war as an active side.
If thousands or tens of thousands will die, Israel will use nukes.

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

Against Israel? Yes.
But only ineffective bio/chem weapons. He will want to create a situation in which Israel was attacked with non-conv weapons and did nothing in retaliation. It will **** up our ME image even more.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

See "Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?".

Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?

Israel - Ranging from minor damage to lots of casualties.
Iraq - Ranging from regime overthrow and destruction of the army to total annihilation. Depends on what they choose to use.

Question: What will happen in the region?

Many Lebanese civilians will die in the war with the Hizballah. Israel will attack Syria in this case.
A possible mega-teract made by the Pals, in combination with an extremely effective Hizballah attack and lots of casualties caused by Iraq can even trigger a Transfer. Highly unlikely though.