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

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
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.

By "doesn't respond," do you mean "doesn't launch nukes in retaliation," or do you mean "doesn't do anything at all"?

[Adalbertus]

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

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?

IMO, it's almost as acceptable as attacking Israel when it doesn't actively participate in the war. But even less pacifist people than I will try to get the size of the actual attacks in relation.

Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?

Saddam will try to do everything to provoke Israel. He'll make points in the Arab world when Israel nukes, and if he is safe he doesn't care for his own people.

Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?

Hopefully not. I think it's unwise to do so, because it will do exactly what Saddam speculates on: Unite the Arab world.

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

Don't know, other than miscarriages and cancer due to radioactive fallout (I hope Israel is wise enough not to assume it will be completely unaffected). Depends on who wins the psychological part of the war. But I doubt Arabs will see so far that they are able to look behind provocations. This is something also western people (Europeans, Israelis, Americans) are selectively blind to and I have no reason to assume that Arabs are smarter in that point.

[St Leo]

Why is Israel going to war with Iraq?

[Sandman]

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.

Why don't you retaliate with like for like? If Saddam launches germs or gases, respond with your gases and germs. Since neither are particularly good weapons, little life will be lost.

A new thought crosses my mind. What if Iraq attacks Israel with a "dirty" bomb? It's extremely unlikely and not all that deadly, but do you think that a genuine nuclear response would be justified?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The Middle East will turn into a desert.





Oh wait...

[Sirotnikov]

By "doesn't respond," do you mean "doesn't launch nukes in retaliation," or do you mean "doesn't do anything at all"?

Depends.

I think that if a bio-chem attack occures, and kills more than, say, 2 people - Israel must retaliate very severely.

Either via conventional attack with crushing force (ie bombing the **** out of Iraqi infrastructure) or with maybe a mini-nuke or a neutrino bomb, targetted at the government installations.

[Pekka]

Nah, if Israel is attacked with nuclear weapons, it should be ok for Israel to nuke back. As long as they won't start it.

It's time to worry again about that stuff.. If something happens, it's for absolutely nothing. After many dead and destroyed places people worldwide go 'ooh that's terrible, we should never built those things, this will not happen again, EVER'.. and we wait about maybe 20 years and the same situation again. wtf is the matter with people anyway. Is one man cabable of lighting this thing up like this? I don't think so.

I still believe in some human wisdom about stuff, that none of that will be used. Not Saddam, no one.

[Sirotnikov]

Why is Israel going to war with Iraq?

Read the thread

IMO, it's almost as acceptable as attacking Israel when it doesn't actively participate in the war.

Why is responding to a chemical or biological attack using nuclear weapons unacceptable?

Saddam will try to do everything to provoke Israel. He'll make points in the Arab world when Israel nukes, and if he is safe he doesn't care for his own people.

I think he'll make more points if he successfully causes losses in Israel, without any Israeli retaliation.

I can't see any possible way in which the arabs can hate Israel more. They already believe the worse.

The only thing left, is to scare the **** out of them, to make them lose the idea of using non-conventional weapons against Israel.

Why don't you retaliate with like for like? If Saddam launches germs or gases, respond with your gases and germs. Since neither are particularly good weapons, little life will be lost.

We don't develop gases or germs.

I mean, we do research into them, like any other country - but we don't make weapons. We research it for defense.

Plus, such an attack would require targetting civilians much more specifically - which I object. I don't consider chem and bio weapons to be legitimate.

Nukes are legitimate but usually unjustifiable.

A new thought crosses my mind. What if Iraq attacks Israel with a "dirty" bomb? It's extremely unlikely and not all that deadly, but do you think that a genuine nuclear response would be justified?

It is deadly, but less in the short run and more in the long run.

I think that a mini nuke or a neutron bomb will be very justified.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
The Middle East will turn into a desert.





Oh wait...

ROFLMAO

[Eli]

I mean, we do research into them, like any other country - but we don't make weapons. We research it for defense.

[Pekka]

That's a good one. I was told when I was 'doing time' that nope we don't have any of that stuff (meaning chemicals and stuff), but... if it would be necessary, it would be very easy to make them fast . So go figure. Chemicals and Biological... who doesn't have them? Nuclear stuff is another thing then. Only wussies have nuclear stuff .

[Sirotnikov]

you want to create more mobiuses?

I have so far not seen any evidence of Israeli chem or bio weapons.

I know that we have it, just like any country.

Or are you willing to believe Isaam Mahul?

[Sirotnikov]

I'm sure we could make them.

But we don't have a stash of ready to use bio chem weapons.

Eli - just because weapons are forbidden by the geneva conventions doesn't means they are bio or chemical.

[Pekka]

Siro, I agree with you. Many countries might not have them in storages.. but could easily make lots of them if needed. It's still better than having them already.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov Why is responding to a chemical or biological attack using nuclear weapons unacceptable?

Any use of weapons is unacceptable to me. I don't differentiate very much between non-conventional and conventional weapons - the only difference is that one thinks to know better how to protect oneself against conventional weapons, nothing more. The differentiation is mostly by fear, nothing else. There are situations in which the use of weapons (of any sort) can avoid worse - but things like this are very often taken too easily. It's really weighting the unacceptable against the even less acceptable.

I think he'll make more points if he successfully causes losses in Israel, without any Israeli retaliation.

Victims get always more sympathy than aggressors. This is not different in the Arab world. The Arabs feel themselves as vicitms by Jewish/American aggression (this is not a question what they are but what they feel.) Saddam will get more points as a victim than as an aggressor - but he will also get points as an aggressor. This is what makes the situation so dangerous. It is impossible to make him lose his cause with military - or not military - only. To get around this, in view of the "natural" differences of the Arab and Western world - requires very bright politicians, and I don't see anyone who would intend to and could handle this.

I can't see any possible way in which the arabs can hate Israel more. They already believe the worse.

The only thing left, is to scare the **** out of them, to make them lose the idea of using non-conventional weapons against Israel.

You can't scare people who don't fear death (and those are the worst). When you want to scare the Arabs you'll have to convince them that they'll lose paradise when they continue to attack Israel. I doubt this will be possible for any non-Muslim.

About the hate, you may be right (but I doubt it in this generality), but there are differences in the immediate danger to be felt. To think "I hate Jews" or "IDF will certainly kill all of us during the next two weeks if we don't act" are quite different things. With the first, you have a little chance to deal with. With the second, you don't have any.

We don't develop gases or germs

You also don't develop nuclear weapons.

I think that a mini nuke or a neutron bomb will be very justified.

What is a "mini nuke"? I can't believe that it is possible to develop anything that is much less destructive than the bombs used in Japan. There is something like a critical mass.
"Mini Nuke" is something introduced by tasteless comic strips (which in turn may be sponsored by interested military parties). And dead persons don't ask much about how they were killed.Neutron bombs are IIRC intended to kill people and leave infrastructure intact0. I don't see any moral advantage to conventional nukes.