Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[Saras]

Allright. Boring game, anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Can't we just admit that the US would annihilate both the IDF and the Canadians and be done with this?

Then you wouldn't be able to watch TV or go to the movies, since you wouldn't have any Jews or Canadians...

[Last Conformist]

Not every Jew is in the IDF.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I would have no problem with the US knowing where every single one of our nukes was. Try hitting them all without going all out on us before we can launch even a single one.

I wonder how effective stealth aircraft would be for launching a first strike to destroy nukes deployed in that way before they could be launched in response.

[KrazyHorse]

The presence of stealth aircraft is easily detectable. Their exact location is what's so hard to find.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
a) You underestimate the difficulty in spotting nukes
b) You overestimate the time to launch

c) We've got a ****load of space to put the ****ers up north...where flight times aren't that short[/QUOTE]

I'm assuming we track them from the factory. I don't think you could set up the factory in secret.

And I don't know if Canada can see stealth bombers.

d) The reason I'd want a nuclear stockpile in a world where using limited nukes was acceptable against non-nuclear powers would be for deterrence against such limited nuclear attacks, not against an all-out exchange. The US would not be able to credibly knock out 50 warheads without some serious danger to themselves. Given that small tac nukes are useful, but not essential, it would easily deter such an attack. Also, it raises the bar for the lowest level of possible attack. All of a sudden, it's not an option to send two or three tac nukes. You have to send dozens and dozens. With no guarantee of success (and as far as I know, probable failure).

Touche.

[Sirotnikov]

You seem to be grossly underestimating the world's general feelings on the use of nukes. Simply stated, you seem to have no clue.

I think its a bluff.

Its a great assumption which probably no longer holds true.

Heck - lets assume that someone else uses nukes. Say North Korea nukes S. Korea once.

What do you think happens?

Total War?
I doubt it. With the threat of even more nukes being launched - no one would risk war.

More sanctions?
Unlikely. China and Russia will go for appeasement.
Japan will be mad, and develop its own nuclear arsenal, as it should have, years ago.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The Israeli army that won in 1956, and in 1967, and that recovered from surprise (the fault of the generals and pols, not the conscripts) to win tactically (lets not debate war aims) in 1973 was conscripts. Not just conscripts, but heavily reservists as well.

I dont think you understand the structure of the IDF. Maybe its changed the last few years, and Siro can correct me if hes still reading this, but there are NO distinct all volunteer maneuver units. Dont exist. Everyone who enters the army does so as a conscript. Women for 1 year (or is it 18 months? I forget) and men for 3 years. Men who want to stay after 3 years normally do so as non-coms. Or if they qualify get training as officers. I dont think they have any non-conscript privates. Certainly no units of them (im not sure about the special forces)

Even the younger reservists, IIUC, are used as maneuver forces. The only guys who are used only for static defense and occupation duty only are the older reservists (Israel retains men in reserves till age 45, IIUC)

Unit cohesiveness in combat units is very high, since the IDF actually uses it soldiers in combat. Unlike many professional armies that train... and train... and train... and train.... and never have real experience.

What is an all volunteer maneuver unit? I don't understand part of your definitions.

The IDF has unique volunteer units in its special forces - special ops and commandos.

Most NCOs in the army are non combatants, but combat units do have lots of experienced NCOs, though most talented people do serve as officers.

Israeli officers however do the job that many NCOs do in foreign armies, and are very much a part of the cohesiveness of a unit, and actually lead forces on the ground - something very lacking in western armies.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, they don't. Our pathetic navy actually beats their slightly more pathetic navy.

I sincerely doubt any of your ships could acquire any of our ships as a target or hit it

If you go down the navy or air force route - our technology in electronic warfare, command and control, and target acquiring capabilities are close to none.

I have the impression that almost every training exercise performed by Israeli planes / ships vs. non-Israeli planes/ships, end with Israel winning.

This goes for US forces and European forces.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

What is an all volunteer maneuver unit? I don't understand part of your definitions.

KH believes conscripts are not suited for anything other than static defense or occupation duty, so any mainly conscript army must have seperate maneuver units of professionals.

[Sirotnikov]

Speaking of C&C - I doubt many western armies come close to the Israeli experience in C3I. Even though many have the technology - it has never been employed.

I read about a recent c3i exercise in nato command, that wasn't very successful.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I think its a bluff.

Its a great assumption which probably no longer holds true.

Heck - lets assume that someone else uses nukes. Say North Korea nukes S. Korea once.

What do you think happens?

Total War?
I doubt it. With the threat of even more nukes being launched - no one would risk war.

More sanctions?
Unlikely. China and Russia will go for appeasement.
Japan will be mad, and develop its own nuclear arsenal, as it should have, years ago.

No one would risk war? When the nukes start flying, the war has begun.

[Sirotnikov]

Yes. Semantics is a good way to win this argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
No one would risk war? When the nukes start flying, the war has begun.

And when the nukes start flying you'll shoot them down too with semantic bull****.

[Last Conformist]

Technically, there's a war going on on the Korean peninsula right now.

That said, I'm skeptical that the SKn's wouldn't retaliate.