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

[Sava]

Originally posted by orange
who would be seen as the 'cause' of ww3 in that case? US? Israel? Iraq? Arab world?

It depends who wins. If the US wins, then I'm sure Bush and his cronies will make it look like it was Iraq's and Muslim extremist's fault. IMO it is the US's fault. #1 for imperialism... #2 for choosing the wrong course of action to deal with terrorism and Iraq... #3 because even after WW3, the US won't change its imperialistic practices. It will just expand them into a "liberated" Middle East.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kepler
Dogs and cats living toether. Mass hysteria.

Kepler, I luv u..

[des-esseintes]

Originally posted by orange
who would be seen as the 'cause' of ww3 in that case? US? Israel? Iraq? Arab world?

There would be no historians to decide that.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by des-esseintes

There would be no historians to decide that.

Don't say that, my fiancee's a historian.

(thinks about it)

Then again...

[Ned]

Today, Israel says that it will respond if attacked. But, the MAD doctrine says that to prevent attacks in the first place, the other side must know that any attack will result in obliteration. Thus to provide a credible deterrent, Israel must be very clear on the issue. Today, it is not clear at all.

Air raids against infrastructure are contrary to US war planning. We are trying to defeat Saddam with minimum physical damage.

Any Israeli conventional air strikes will only invite further counterstrikes by Saddam. The strikes themselves may so piss off our coalition members that the US war effort may be hampered by the loss of critical bases.

The use of Israeli ground forces complicates these problems even further.

The only thing I can think of that might be acceptable without resorting to nukes is a tartgeted raid, perhaps using paratroops, on Saddam himself.

[axi]

What will happen in the region?

Israel will continue massacreing Palestinians. It's the only thing hat's going to happen for sure.

Btw, if the **** ever hits the fan, guess where the hundernds of thousands of Israeli refugees will end up? Yep, that's right, Cyprus and Greece.

This is why Siro should be polite to paiktis, since a friend in a land of exile is always invaluable....

[Arrian]

For once I wish I had a scanner...

One of my favorite Far Side cartoons is the one where there are a bunch of aliens looking up at the sky at the Earth (presumably from Mars) and there are huge explosions & mushroom clouds visable. The caption is "Ooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

Hmm, to ensure this post isn't entirely spam...

Sharon has to know that the use of a nuclear weapon on Iraq has a high chance of triggering a Arabs vs. Israel war - even if Israel had been attacked with a Scud bearing a chemical or biological warhead (Saddam most likely has no nukes as of yet). Of course, he very well may WANT such a war. That being said, I do not think that Israel would use a nuclear weapon on Iraq unless a significant number of Israelis were killed by an Iraqi non-conventional attack. The nuclear response would have to be at least vaguely proportional.

Would Saddam launch a non-conventional weapon at Israel? I'm not sure. On the one hand, if he does that he may trigger an Arab-Israeli war, which from his perspective would be good. On the other hand, if he fails to bring Israel into the war (if for some unknown reason Sharon shows restraint), he pretty much justifies the US-led attack on him.

This whole thing is getting worse and worse. I still hold out (slim) hope that the US is merely playing "bad cop" and will stop short of invading Iraq.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

When you use a nuke, your goal is to create widespread destruction of property.

That is very much a matter of opinion. I'm no nuke expert, but the heat blast and radiation will have a far worse effect on flesh and bone than on concrete and steel. Furthermore, your view is totally undermined by your consideration of neutron bombs as acceptable.

When you use a gas - you specifically hunt out people - usually civilians, as army has means to combat gas.

Gas masks are considerably easier to mass produce than bunkers. It's far easier to protect civilians from gas than it is from nukes. And please, explain how you reconcile this with your view that neuton bombs are okay?

You're juding only based on result.

I certainly am. It's far easier to establish than intention.

If we compare only losses without looking at how they were killed and what was the intention - you are bound to err in judgement.

It's nigh impossible to demonstrate that civilian deaths are just 'side-effects' with a nuclear weapon. It's genocide, plain and simple.

I disagree.

It's one thing to fight against an army in battle, when the strongest / best equipped man wins.

It's another thing to poison the enemy's food and water.

You have not answered my query. Firing a nuke at a city with a handful of military targets is morally equivalent to gassing the city, that's my opinion. Both cases have little to do with a samuraish honourable combat, and both have rather a lot in common with poisoning the enemy's food or water.

[SpencerH]

While reading this thread I was struck by the number of posts that believe it is only right (from various perspectives) for Israel to use nukes if attacked with WMD first. Does it seem reasonable to generalize this retaliation-only option as the normal "western european" viewpoint? Why is the retaliation-only option also seen as the Isreali viewpoint? Israel has consistently acted in what it sees as its own interests, including striking first when deemed necessary. Why do you assume that Israel will not strike first in order to pre-empt a perceived Iraqi strike? Because it is illogical for us? As GePap and others have said, this is the scenario with the worst consequences, but that is our assesment not necessarily the Israelis.

The funny thing (not ha-ha) is that the threat of an Israeli first-strike and the likely effects of that act could be used as an argument to either invade Iraq or not to do so.

[GePap]

Everyone is ignoring US aims here, and the US is the Superpower- I don't care what Israeli public sentiment is- no Israeli government will cross the US seriously- heck, if the Germans are reprimanded by thie admin. for screwing with iraq policy, what chance doea nation that gets 4 billion dollars a year from Uncle Sam have?

The US is going in to remake Iraq in the image the Bushies see fit. Any major Israeli strike, be it nuclear, or conventional, will only screw the US up: lets remember, the scenerio is that Saddam will attack Israel post an American invasion: what if there are US troops in Baghdad at the time the Israelis decide to atatck? would Israel begin bombing an area with active US presence? OR woul it attack infrastructure the US and its allies within Iarq were using? I doubt it higly- Washington would not be ammused. So, how much damage would Iraq have to do to Israel, so that pressure within Washington , not Jerusalem, would allow for a massive Israeli strike? I think it would have to be somehting very big- if lets say 20 Israelis die, and then Israel does somehting that kills large numbers of Iraqis, making the US job much harder, and then leading to several more billions of US dollars having to be spent, or more US lives lost- again, Washington would not be pleased- and the pro-Israel lobby in the US is only so strong.

Everyone in the region is having to bend to US pressure- Israel is not immune, specially after the thing get going. An israeli pre-emptive strike woul be a huge disaster for the US- thus it wil not happen- after all, any Israelki strike into Iraq woul be done with US intelligence data and would have to be clear with US warplanes in the region. Lets not be kid into who's the boss here- the US is, and Israel does not have much capitol to mess around with Uncle Sam.

[SpencerH]

GePap I think you're vastly underestimating the independence of the Israelis and "America-friendly" Arab states. If our influence was so great we wouldnt even be having such interesting discussions.

I agree though that an Israeli first-strike is much less likely if America and Britain are truly preparing for, or are actively engaged in, the military removal of Saddam Hussein. The potential threat will come in the future if no action is taken against Hussein ie more ineffective UN weapons inspections in conjunction with some perceived benefit for Hussein for an attack on Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
GePap I think you're vastly underestimating the independence of the Israelis and "America-friendly" Arab states. If our influence was so great we wouldnt even be having such interesting discussions.

I agree though that an Israeli first-strike is much less likely if America and Britain are truly preparing for, or are actively engaged in, the military removal of Saddam Hussein. The potential threat will come in the future if no action is taken against Hussein ie more ineffective UN weapons inspections in conjunction with some perceived benefit for Hussein for an attack on Israel.

An israeli first strike is an non-issue: Israel does not have the wherewithall to hit iraq's weapon delivery system, if any: it would need US intelligence to aquire targets to hit even stationary targets: and an israeli first -strike with WMD is totally out of the question- the fatest way for Isreal to face stiff international sactions, and cals for the Israeli cabinet to be handed in as war criminals.

The US keeps saying it hasn't decided. Bullsh1t, it has, just trying to get the diplomacy right. Every state as to measure its own self-interests. The biggest fears of our Arab friends us their own people: if they think their own people will make them the new Shah on the block if they go along, they won't - its against their basic national interests. The US doesn't need many of these state anyway- and many neo-conservatives are rethinking the relations anyway- the opposition of these states is not too great a limitation or a danger to US interest in Iraq. Now, israel's great fear is its neighbors, so there, israel needs the US: we are israel's diplomatic bodyguard in the UN security council, and for a state with a GNP of 120 billion, 4 billion a year is big money, specially when its equal to 1/3 is yearly Defense budget (12 Billion). Israel can't afford to screw up the relation with the US- and a major Israeli strake against Iraq, short of it having carried out a higly damaging attack on israel, woud greatly complicate US-Israeli relations. Could you imagine the furor in the US if Iraq kills, lets say, 10 Israeli civilians, and then Israel strikes, and creates a situation in which more US soldiers than that die? Not good press for the Israeli embassy to cover.

[Sirotnikov]

An israeli first strike is an non-issue: Israel does not have the wherewithall to hit iraq's weapon delivery system, if any: it would need US intelligence to aquire targets to hit even stationary targets: and an israeli first -strike with WMD is totally out of the question- the fatest way for Isreal to face stiff international sactions, and cals for the Israeli cabinet to be handed in as war criminals.

1) If they build a nuclear reactor - it won't last long. Same goes for Iran which is about to finish it's reactor.

2) We don't need US intelligence that much no more since we've launched Ofek 5

3) A pre-emptive attack using nukes would indeed be the most idiotic thing possible, for any side in the conflict, and Israel would cease to exist in any case (either a radiation pond if attacked, or will be dismantled if attacks).

The US keeps saying it hasn't decided. Bullsh1t, it has, just trying to get the diplomacy right. Every state as to measure its own self-interests.

Exactly.

The biggest fears of our Arab friends us their own people: if they think their own people will make them the new Shah on the block if they go along, they won't - its against their basic national interests. The US doesn't need many of these state anyway- and many neo-conservatives are rethinking the relations anyway- the opposition of these states is not too great a limitation or a danger to US interest in Iraq.

Agreed if I understand you right.

Now, israel's great fear is its neighbors, so there, israel needs the US: we are israel's diplomatic bodyguard in the UN security council, and for a state with a GNP of 120 billion, 4 billion a year is big money, specially when its equal to 1/3 is yearly Defense budget (12 Billion). Israel can't afford to screw up the relation with the US- and a major Israeli strake against Iraq, short of it having carried out a higly damaging attack on israel, woud greatly complicate US-Israeli relations.

Exactly.

Could you imagine the furor in the US if Iraq kills, lets say, 10 Israeli civilians, and then Israel strikes, and creates a situation in which more US soldiers than that die? Not good press for the Israeli embassy to cover.

Bingo.

[MOBIUS]

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

I sincerely hope that's a rhetorical question - because otherwise you're advocating genocide of innocent people!!!

Not that I'd put that past you...

If they build a nuclear reactor - it won't last long. Same goes for Iran which is about to finish it's reactor.

Especially seeing as you appear to find it perfectly acceptable to commit an act of war on another nation peacefully going about the business of building a power station within it's own borders...

[Spiffor]

I think everybody in the Israeli military knows what nuclear missile mean : send it on Baghdad, and the city is completely razed, its inhabitants melted (ever read witnesses from Hiroshima - Nagasaki, which got much less powerful nukes than those of today ?)

Several people here are talking about genocide, and that's a fitting term : in order to strike Saddam's regime, we'd kill millions with this method, as "colateral damage". By doing this, Israel would range among the worst genociadial nations, just after the nazi Germany. You can imagine how much they'll be hated by the whole world.

Sending nukes to Irak (or anyone else) would be an incredible political mistake : the US, in order to avoid a full-scale war with the Arab world, will stop supporting Israel. Europe will stop to be schizophrenic, and wil now blatantly support everything arab -currently, the Zionists have enough influence to avoid this support to go to far.
It's very possible there is a major trade embargo on Israel from the international community (Africa as a great provider of raw resources could participate because of the influence of the former colonists)
No reasonable politician would do this : without foreign support, Israel would be able to hold on a bit, but not long : a trade embargo would mean no oil for the troops, no plutonium for further nukes, no resources to build new weapons... I don't know if Israeli agriculture can sustain the whole population or not.

But I think Israel on't use its nukes for a different reason : there are no genocidial policies currently going on. From the beginning of the second Intifada, Israel could have easily mass murdered Palestinians : Israeli have MUCH more modern and massive destruction means than Pals. Such a slaughter didn't happen, and won't happen in the near future even with Sharon at power.
By the same token, I don't think Israel will genocide any nearby country except for one condition : if the very existence of Israel is seriously threatened, then the country will do everything it can to survive, includin sending nukes, gasses, neutrons and everything. Until then, the warfare remain in conventional proportions