Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[Ned]

GePap, very eloquently stated!!

[Sirotnikov]

If NK nukes SK, there is no doubt in my mind SK would invade NK, which would be total war, and end in the crushing defeat of NK. More likely, the US would nuke Pyongyang AND SK and the US would invade NK.

Why? Because once you use nukes offensively, THATS IT. You have done the most you can possibly do. There is no backtracking- there is no going back - to the vast majority of the world, you are already a war criminal, and only successful war criminals stay around and in power.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.
Did anyone care?

Has the UN intervened? At the time? No.


South Korea could actually declare war if the bomb kills lots of its citizens. It is the target of the agression, so obviously it'll want to respond. Just like Iran would, theoretically in our case.

However if the bomb only hurts a small military installation - or explodes in an empty space near the border - it is not so clear. Opening a war over this isolated event would in fact mean the death of hundreds of thousands.

Letting it go, and continuing the current sanctions in exchange, would be a viable strategy for "saving lives" instead of making justice. I'm pretty sure that many EU countries, and Russia will call for not responding in all out war, for fear of fueling the violence etc.

For the rest of the world:
(only 1 nuke) is better than (1 nuke + total war)
therefore total war would better be avoided.

My claim is not about S. Korea.

My claim is that the international community's "rage" is immaterial and will disperse, according to political interests. There are no norms, because no one has the guts to enforce them. Ever.

The only reason Al-Qaeda, Taliban or Iraq are brought to justice, is because the USA had an interest to do that. The international community's rage is a hollow threat. Countries (and citizens) would rather sell out their allies, than get into a messy prolonged war. And then there's America which is the only country with guts to stand for what it believes / wants.

The end of the N. Korean regime is a sure result eventually, and you could always claim it was caused by this or by that step.

I claim that except for S. Korea and Japan, no one would want a response made to a limited N. Korean nuclear attack / "experiment".

Neither would happen with Israel, which has a very different political status.

Of course people will be mad and critical. But many will say "heck, the Iranians had it coming". Israel will get a slap on the hand, and a few weapon sanctions from the EU. And that's it.

That's of course my personal opinion. Let's hope we never find out.

If you honestly think that North Korea nuking South KOrea would not lead to the end of the North Korean regime, one way or another, then you really must leave your job, because no state needs intelligence analysts with that kind of mindset.

who said anything about my job?

besides, I'm just being realistic, instead of melodramatic.

Oh, and on a technical issue, going back to your statement about Israel possibly using a large conventional bomb, or claiming a small nukes was a large conventional bomb:
Beyond the already stated issue of no conventional bomb coming close to 1 KT of blast damage (The MOAB has a blast equivalent to .01 KT), there is also the simple problem of delivery.

As hopefully you know, given your position, Israel's airborne nuclear deterent is carried by F-4's and F-15's. Both aircraft can carry nuclear warheads. Neither aircraft could carry a bomb like a Daisy Cutter or MOAB, both of which were designed to be used from cargo planes. Even the tall boy and other previous masisve bombs could only be dropped from large bombers. Unless Israel all of a sudden procurred strategic bombers to its airforce, your idea could not even be sold.

Possibly correct.
I am not an expert in that field.

On the other hand - It's not above Israel to keep a few secret cards up its sleeve.

I am very interested, however, to know the source for your knowledge about the subject of heavy bomb delivery systems.

I would also make much less speculations about my supposed profession, position or "must know" knowledge.

I rarely claim to post something I know for a fact. My opinions posted here are my own. Some may be plain guesses or opinions. Some may be more 'educated' than others.


I know for a fact though, that most of the army's decisions are made in a situation where knowledge is not centralised. Plenty of facts well known in one place, are not made available to other relevant places / decision making people. (That's why most theories about "Israel MUST have known it has done THIS or THAT, and therefore it is EVIL" are complete and utter bullsht).

Rarely a single person / group of people, knows for a fact everything in every field. That is actually why I tend to distrust many theories or uncorroborated facts posted by you or chegitz.

Both of you boast lots of supposed wide knowledge in dozens of unrelated fields (ranging from politics, to economics, to international law, to military strategy, to military tactics, to weapons technology).

"Knowing everything" often means one has tons of inaccuracies, poor conceptions and often - misleading or untrue facts.

[Rasputin]

unless there money to be made, US wont invade North Korea

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

If NK nukes SK, there is no doubt in my mind SK would invade NK, which would be total war, and end in the crushing defeat of NK. More likely, the US would nuke Pyongyang AND SK and the US would invade NK.

Why? Because once you use nukes offensively, THATS IT. You have done the most you can possibly do. There is no backtracking- there is no going back - to the vast majority of the world, you are already a war criminal, and only successful war criminals stay around and in power.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.
Did anyone care?

Has the UN intervened? At the time? No.


South Korea could actually declare war if the bomb kills lots of its citizens. It is the target of the agression, so obviously it'll want to respond. Just like Iran would, theoretically in our case.

However if the bomb only hurts a small military installation - or explodes in an empty space near the border - it is not so clear. Opening a war over this isolated event would in fact mean the death of hundreds of thousands.

Letting it go, and continuing the current sanctions in exchange, would be a viable strategy for "saving lives" instead of making justice. I'm pretty sure that many EU countries, and Russia will call for not responding in all out war, for fear of fueling the violence etc.

For the rest of the world:
(only 1 nuke) is better than (1 nuke + total war)
therefore total war would better be avoided.

My claim is not about S. Korea.

My claim is that the international community's "rage" is immaterial and will disperse, according to political interests. There are no norms, because no one has the guts to enforce them. Ever.

The only reason Al-Qaeda, Taliban or Iraq are brought to justice, is because the USA had an interest to do that. The international community's rage is a hollow threat. Countries (and citizens) would rather sell out their allies, than get into a messy prolonged war. And then there's America which is the only country with guts to stand for what it believes / wants.

The end of the N. Korean regime is a sure result eventually, and you could always claim it was caused by this or by that step.

I claim that except for S. Korea and Japan, no one would want a response made to a limited N. Korean nuclear attack / "experiment".

Neither would happen with Israel, which has a very different political status.

Of course people will be mad and critical. But many will say "heck, the Iranians had it coming". Israel will get a slap on the hand, and a few weapon sanctions from the EU. And that's it.

That's of course my personal opinion. Let's hope we never find out.

I think you're wearing rose coloured blast goggles.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran.
Did anyone care?

Neither Iraq nor Iran was a US ally with US troops positioned in country you crazy person.

[Sandman]

Chemical weapons are a joke anyway. Comparing them to nukes is surreal.

[Az]

they are hardly a joke. VX, for example, isn't "funny" at all.

[Last Conformist]

Getting shot by a AK-47 isn't my idea of fun either.

[Az]

yeah, but the effects of VX aren't that personal....

[Sirotnikov]

I think you're wearing rose coloured blast goggles.

?

[Sirotnikov]

Neither Iraq nor Iran was a US ally with US troops positioned in country you crazy person.

Which exactly contributes to my point - As long as a superpower does not have a direct interest in the matter - the world community will ignore any amount of violence, including weapons of mass destruction.

I do concede that this point does increase the chance of a US response in case of a N. Korea nuke.

However - if it just explodes on the border, killing no one? As a N.K. 'threat'?

This is a proof of ability which is aggressive, and yet - killed no one.

An attack by the US or SK would mean certain launch of nukes on actual civilian targets. Worth the risk?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
yeah, but the effects of VX aren't that personal....

Neither's being arclighted.

[Az]

nm

[Drake Tungsten]

...

[Az]