Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




First of all, Rafsanjani does not, nor qould he ever, actually control the nukes. They would be in the control of the higher clerics, as advised by the military.

And while that sounds like fine rhetoric, in simple numbers, Tehran has more people than all of the mandate region combined.

This is "fine" rhetoric to use, but words are cheap. If the Iranian regime was so suicidal, why did it make peace with Saddam Hussein back in 1988? Why not martyr the whole country? Heck, a few more years of suicide waves and the Iraqis might have totally broken. Yet somehow, the Iranian regime came to a "rational" decision.

If Iran so wanted to create nukes to self-destroy themselves then they are certainly going about it wrong, no? They should have left the NPT long ago and rushed and invested everything to get nukes, instead of chosing a path that takes decades but eventually gives them the infrastrcuture needed to make a bomb without even needing to make one.

since when does someone irrational have to be consistently irrational about everything?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
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.

No it won't. It doesn;t take ten years to make more centerfuges, and once the Iranians know how to make them and run a long cascade, that is what matters. Bombs don;t destroy knowledge. Osirik was just a small research reactor. Ten years after it was attacked, Iraq was very close to a nuke, BECASUE the attack spurred it to speed up. Iran is FAR ahead of an Osirik stage. NOt one target off the list - Bushwer (sp), the nuclear power plant being built by Russia. That goes into operation next year. You think it won't be Iranian technicians in there?

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)".

What you admit is irrelevant, nuclear fision will leave trace elements that would not be available for a large conventional bomb, plus no conventional bomb is even close to 1 KT, which is the supposed size of these bombs.

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.

NO. The terrible destructiveness of nukes is the problem yes, which is why most states have a total ban on owning them, not just the big kind you would lob at cities. Some weapons are beyond the pale in any form. Nukes are one of them, according to world opinion.

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.

Yes, "currently." That chages. Any state that "introduces" nukes into the ME, and Israel would certainly "introduce nukes" by using them courts the other major states to build them, simply because one never knows how the wind blows. After all, in 1970 Egypt was the implacable mortal threat against Israel, while Iran was a friend.

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 US is perpetually the reason why worse things have not occured to Israel in the UN. The US has used enough political capital in protecting Israel from a host of actions. If Israel were to be the first state to use nuclear weapons offensively in the NPT world, well, I doubt the US has that much political capital left to burn.

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.

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

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.

Wait, you mean just like Israel's attacks on Hizbullah in the summer did nothing to strengthen the group? Even represdive regimes like KSA and Egypt at the end must be accountable to the masses. The sunni-shiite split in the heart of the average Egyptian or Saudi is strong, but less than the Muslim-Not Muslim split. Anyone attacked by israel immidiately becomes the darling of the Arab world. The more violent the attack, the more sins are forgiven.

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).

I doubt either of those states would be foolish enough to root for this. Again, Lebanon is a great example. These two regimes probably did not mind Israel going after Hizbullah, until their peoples began chanting pro-Hizbullah slogans and they realized that those attacks were a political failure of the first kind. An Israeli nuclear attack would be all kinds of worse from the first second.

[GePap]

Originally posted by LordShiva


For a lefty loon, you give a pretty astute analysis

Its my astute analysis on a variety of issues that make me a lefty

[Rasputin]

lets give nukes to every country then we all cool.

[Ned]

Ras, you do have to consider that Saddam actually used WMD's when he had them. Your plan carries some risk.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

NO. The terrible destructiveness of nukes is the problem yes, which is why most states have a total ban on owning them, not just the big kind you would lob at cities. Some weapons are beyond the pale in any form. Nukes are one of them, according to world opinion.

I dont think theres any practical way to let states have tactical nukes and yet assure theyre not used on cities. You dont need megaton nukes to hit cities = the bombs we dropped in 1945 werent much bigger than modern tactical nukes, IIUC.

In some ways analogous to the problem of allowing enrichment.

BTW, im not sure what you mean by most states have a ban on owning them. Wouldnt it be more correct to say that most states dont own them? Or do you mean a ban on private citizens owning them? The only limitation on states owning them is the NPT, which is an international treaty, not a ban by certain states. Would it be correct to say that Canada has a ban on Canada owning nukes? Or that Canada has a ban on Denmakr owning nukes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
Ras, you do have to consider that Saddam actually used WMD's when he had them. Your plan carries some risk.

Well Ras, looks like even the most fisherman can get a bite here.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nukes are cheap when you have the experience. And we've got a fully functioning civilian and research reactor program running.

You can't confuse us with some pissant third world country trying to scrape together enough plutonium to make some ****ty fizzle of a nuke.

We spend twice as much on our military as, for instance, Israel does. And We don't need a 200 warhead arsenal like theirs. 50 would do fine.

The problem is that any country with which a nuclear exchange ever makes sense is the US (and that doesn't really either) and I doubt Canada would first strike. If you did start developing a nuclear stockpile we would probably know and might even be able to figure out where you put them, which means we would easily knock them out before they could be launched, since we're so close.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

BTW, im not sure what you mean by most states have a ban on owning them. Wouldnt it be more correct to say that most states dont own them? Or do you mean a ban on private citizens owning them? The only limitation on states owning them is the NPT, which is an international treaty, not a ban by certain states. Would it be correct to say that Canada has a ban on Canada owning nukes? Or that Canada has a ban on Denmakr owning nukes?

There are a host of nuclear-free zones created by treaties between states above and beyond the NPT:

* Antarctic Treaty, for the Antarctic territory
* Treaty of Tlatelolco, governing Latin America and the Caribbean
* Treaty of Bangkok, governing ASEAN states
* Treaty of Pelindaba, governing the continent of Africa
* Treaty of Rarotonga, over the South Pacific
* Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone, over the five Central Asian states
* Mongolian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Status, covering Mongolia
* Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, covering East Germany

The bans are self-imposed, but so is the ban on biological weapons and those on chemical weapons. Any ban is just a law, and in the realm of international relations in the age of soverign states, ANY rule that prohibits some weapons is just something states voluntarilly agree to. So if we say that explosive bullets are banned, why not nukes?

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Ned
Ras, you do have to consider that Saddam actually used WMD's when he had them. Your plan carries some risk.

life is a risk !

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The problem is that any country with which a nuclear exchange ever makes sense is the US (and that doesn't really either) and I doubt Canada would first strike. If you did start developing a nuclear stockpile we would probably know and might even be able to figure out where you put them, which means we would easily knock them out before they could be launched, since we're so close.

They would chose subs as the rational delivery system.

[Rasputin]

no jsut drive them across the border ....

[Drake Tungsten]

Nukes are cheap when you have the experience. And we've got a fully functioning civilian and research reactor program running.

Helicopters are cheap, too.

We spend twice as much on our military as, for instance, Israel does.

Really? Where the hell is the money going, then?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
They would chose subs as the rational delivery system.

They have subs capable of launching ballistic missiles? I thought they just had some cheap crap they bought secondhand from the Brits. And even if they got some, remember they'd be dealing with a first strike from the USN.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


They have subs capable of launching ballistic missiles? I thought they just had some cheap crap they bought secondhand from the Brits. And even if they got some, remember they'd be dealing with a first strike from the USN.

So what? If a single Canuck sub with say ten warheads survived, they could nuke the financial and political centers of the US, killing a few million. That would be sufficient to maintain nuclear deterence. As for developing sub-launched nukes, the system does not even need to use ballistic missiles, it could do with cruise missiles, given how close most major US cities are to the coast.