Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I so miss the Soviets.

Ditto. Things were so much simpler then.

[dannubis]

Well, I believe Mao said similar things when China became the third world power (pun intended)...

Anyway, if true (the sun ??? ) this would be a great way for Israel to actually bring about their own destruction. Because I don't know what excuse the US would use to continue to support them. And I think Pakistan would be more than happy to supply the nukes.

[Edan]

I wonder if the reporter was using the same "sources" he used to break the story of Israel making an "Ethnic bomb" that's been debunked?

[Ned]

Since this is a game forum, I think Israel's use of nukes would play out something like the use of nukes does in Alpha Centauri. Everyone breaks their alliances with the aggressor and declare war on them.

Israel could do nothing more stupid than use nukes in the current situation. I think the Israeli's know this too and would only use nukes if Iran used them first. So, the more I think of this, the more I think this is a smear where ultimate contingency plans have been trumpeted as first resort plans.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Ned
Since this is a game forum, I think Israel's use of nukes would play out something like the use of nukes does in Alpha Centauri. Everyone breaks their alliances with the aggressor and declare war on them.

Israel could do nothing more stupid than use nukes in the current situation. I think the Israeli's know this too and would only use nukes if Iran used them first. So, the more I think of this, the more I think this is a smear where ultimate contingency plans have been trumpeted as first resort plans.

You haven't actually considered the context - or read this thread, have you?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
You haven't actually considered the context - or read this thread, have you?

Who do you think you're talking to?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by GePap
I wouldn't call the Olmert government "millenarian fanatics"

While I can see why a nutcase like Drake would think this a sound plan, for Israel to attempt it would be a disaster.

Assuming the plan was to work anyways, which is doubtful because Iran has hidden much work, Israel attacking Iran with any form of nuclear weapon would:

1. not stop Iran. Iran would only be slowed down, but such an attack would give it carte blanche to drop out of the NPT and persue nukes, since it could claim accurately that neighboring states were seeking to destroy it with nuclear weapons.

2. Destroy current Israeli nuclear policy and spur both Egypt and KSA to build nukes. A state that uses nukes shows itself capable of anything, and obviously its neighbors would have every rational reason to think that regime no longer trustworthy.

3. Possibly ring the deathknell of the NPT if Israel were not severaly punished by the international community for using nulcear weapons. If Israel used nukes offensively and the UNSC did not slap harsh sanctions on them for it, the rest of the world would seriously have to evaluate their current aquiescense to a nuclear monopoly.

4. Strengthen Iran's diplomatic hand in the ME and undermine any attempts by Egypt or KSA to sideline them. NO Muslim government could possibly do anything else other than side with Iran under those conditions.

One hopes none in Israel is stupid enough to contemplate such an attack seriously, and if I am mistaken with that preposition, hopefully no one in the US is so monumnetally moronic (unlike several poly posters) to actually ever let the Israelis think the US would go along with such idiocy.

For a lefty loon, you give a pretty astute analysis

[Cort Haus]

While the hypothetical scenario is indeed horrifying, and probably/possibly not even true, the scenario was about eliminating Iran's capacity to destroy Israel rather than destroying Iran. The fact that Israel's policy is to defend itself against a genuine existential threat is of course irrelevant to those poly posters who themselves wish it destroyed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


You haven't actually considered the context - or read this thread, have you?

I read the original post only and have no idea what was in the thread until I first posted.

[Ned]

I also agree with GePap's post. If Israel were to actually use nukes, she would seriously risk losing US support as I think that most Americans, not to mention, most of the world, would be appalled.

But, as I said, I think that Israel must KNOW this. Which is why I think that there is something seriously amiss about this story. It cannot be true.

[lord of the mark]

I presume Israel would only contemplate this as policy at such point as they thought there was no chance of stoppping Irans nuclear program through any other means, and that this would entail most of the consequences claimed for the attack itself - IE the nuclearization of Egypt and KSA, and effective death of the NPT, at least as far as ME is concerned. And of course contingent on their intell indicating that the odds of Iran launching a first strike, or otherwise using their nuclear weaponry in ways more disastrous to Israeli security than the consequences of a preemptive strike were enough to warrent the risks.

And I presume this is NOT where they are at the present moment.

The very leak itself being evidence of that. They didnt leak the Osirak attack. In general they dont leak surprise attacks. Unless their operational security has gone all to hell, they are leaking this in lieu of an attack - they are trying to remind everyone (including, perhaps, Russia and China) of the dangers to the region and to world peace if the Iranian nuclear program is NOT dealt with peacefully, but effectively.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Ned
I also agree with GePap's post. If Israel were to actually use nukes, she would seriously risk losing US support as I think that most Americans, not to mention, most of the world, would be appalled.

Not for long. If they do it like it is suggeested they do, with minimal casulaties and fallouts they won't be scorned for that long. And besides, the target is Iran so deep down in your heart you'll be thinking they were just asking for it, denying the holocaust and all...

But i agree that if they can do it with conventional bombs - even if it means more casualties and damages to the surrounding areas - they'll probably get off easier.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Assuming the plan was to work anyways, which is doubtful because Iran has hidden much work, Israel attacking Iran with any form of nuclear weapon would:

I'm sure it has hidden lots of things.
It IS our job to find out

1. not stop Iran. Iran would only be slowed down, but such an attack would give it carte blanche to drop out of the NPT and persue nukes, since it could claim accurately that neighboring states were seeking to destroy it with nuclear weapons.

This will set them back ten years or more, which might very well make them reconsider, or bring about a change in regime before they ever reach the critical stage.

2. Destroy current Israeli nuclear policy and spur both Egypt and KSA to build nukes. A state that uses nukes shows itself capable of anything, and obviously its neighbors would have every rational reason to think that regime no longer trustworthy.

I don't agree.

We don't even have to admit we used nukes.

There's really no difference between using a nuke, and a really really really really really large bomb ("daisy cutter".

The use of nukes is disliked because of the widespread damage of radiation and the potencial thousands killed in civilian population.

If Israel uses nukes wisely in a way which does not pollute and only hurts distant military installations, this would not hurt it much.

Egypt and the KSA are signaling that if Iran goes nuclear, they will too - so really comes down to a choise of bad vs. worse.

And Iran is "worse" currently.

3. Possibly ring the deathknell of the NPT if Israel were not severaly punished by the international community for using nulcear weapons. If Israel used nukes offensively and the UNSC did not slap harsh sanctions on them for it, the rest of the world would seriously have to evaluate their current aquiescense to a nuclear monopoly.

Death of the NPT would be a good thing.

Here's to hoping a new treaty with actual teeth and more limitations arises.

the UN already dislikes us, and the UNSC will not do too much, as it has not done to much more obvious agressors. They will obviously be terribly upset!

The rest of the world will not reconsider anything, because this is really far from a "wild" uncalled for nuclear attack. It is a tactical use of a nuclear weapon as a really good bunker buster.

Even if we do use it, I expect it will eventually rock the undies on nobody.

4. Strengthen Iran's diplomatic hand in the ME and undermine any attempts by Egypt or KSA to sideline them. NO Muslim government could possibly do anything else other than side with Iran under those conditions.

Again nonsense.

Israel bombing Iraq has not strengthened Iraq in any way.

This will in no way change the strategic interests of Egypt and the KSA against Iran's influence - which is quite large and evil as it is.

And while publically everyone will criticise Israel, as always, this will bring about very little change - since it was so damn expected and probably even rooted for, by some countries (ie KSA, Jordan).


Your whole scenario is based on cold-war era assumptions, relating to the use of Nukes against populated areas.

A tactical military use, against a well known enemy will make no difference at all.

It will cause lots of stir, but it will relax in a year or two, and have no bad effect.

Except for the possible rain of missiles on Israel from Iran and Lebanon

[Ned]

Siro, it seems, from your post, that Israel is considering small nukes because it has no means of delivering on target "very, very, very, very big bunker busters."

Why doesn't Israel buy a few B1's?

[David Floyd]

Put yourself in Israel's place. Yeah, Israel has done some nasty stuff in the past. Yeah, I don't agree the country should have been set up to begin with after WW2. Yeah, Arabs have rights too.

Now, let's deal with the here and now for a moment, shall we?

Iran is run by a religious nutcase who believes in the imminent return of the Mahdi. That's rather like having the US run by a Southern Baptist who believes the Rapture is soon approaching, and who believes that the solution to abortion is bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors. Extend that mentality into foreign policy, and you approach something comparable to President Ahmadinejad.

Next, consider the fact that Ahmadinejad has repeatedly promised, in public, to destroy Israel - "wipe it off the face of the earth", I believe, was the phrase he used. He denies the Holocaust regularly, and recently hosted a Holocaust denial summit which was essentially a front for anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish sentiment.

Third, the nation that could have deterred Iran effectively, or presented the greatest possibility for a pre-emptive military strike, is the United States. I say "could have" because most of America's combat power is locked up in Afghanistan and Iraq, or has rotated home on leave and is not combat ready. The US can't risk Iranian intervention in Iraq, because ground forces are stretched too thin as it is. While the US could undoubtedly bomb the hell out of Iran with little or no risk to its own air power, Iran could easily escalate by moving into Iraq. Why shouldn't they? Not only that, but diplomatically speaking, the US has used up all of its international goodwill and then some that resulted from 9/11, through its ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Domestically, the American people aren't going to support another war, either.

So if you're in Israel, add all of that up. A religious nutjob running a country, who has repeatedly promised to destroy you, is actively pursuing nuclear energy, and probably nuclear weapons as well, and on top of that, the nation that would typically check Iran is probably unable to do so for both military and political reasons. What would you do? Clearly, negotiations are out of the question. Capitulation is also out of the question, because that would basically involve suicide on a national level. What's left? I certainly can't say that I would oppose an Israeli strike on Iran - if the US wasn't in Iraq right now, I'd be in favor of a US strike.