Transition source: Obama to extend "nuclear umbrella" to Israel?

[Darius871]

Yeah, that was probably a brain fart. The last time I've even read about this topic was 3 years ago, so every stat is jumbled with several others. Whether 100-200 or 2000, the point is that they're nowhere near as open about their capability than the U.S. or USSR had been. As KH mentioned, one would think that a deterrent weapon should be known to exist, so I don't get why it's not all out on a silver platter for Iran to see. Oh well.

[KrazyHorse]

Possible that it's not deployed yet. Or that ISR wants to keep taking delivery of Dolphins from GER and can't admit what they're using them for yet to avoid embarrassing the krauts

[Traianvs]

Because it's still a sensitive subject I think. If it were to become official, it would no doubt give surrounding countries more incentive and more right to develop their proper nukes.

PS: I always thought Israel had around 80, but wiki says 100-200 so I must be wrong

[KrazyHorse]

Nobody knows for sure, dude (well, those that know aren't telling). Is based on likely output of Israeli military reactor(s)

[Darius871]

P.S. Wiki aside, random googling does find a number of sources (some reputable, some not) pointing to 200-600, so my memory was at least within the range of speculation, but on both extremes it is just pure speculation. If they bothered with such overkill, it would have been possible to keep most of it under wraps.

But from Vanunu in the 1980s onward, cracks have opened in the Israeli "plausible denial" routine. Even Shimon Peres some years back slipped and implied that Israel has a nuclear bomb. Most estimates place it more precisely at about 200 bombs on the low end, up to as many as 500-600 nuclear weapons on the other extreme.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/3108.htm

[Patroklos]

The US would be more or less required to take sides with Israel - being allies after all. The US would lose face in the Middle-East, and get involved in an unwanted conflict.

Lose face? There isn't a Middle Eastern nation out there that would not be lock step with us if Iran pulled such a stunt. They would all look at Iran ane say "Dude..."

Nobody's sure if they outfitted the diesel-electric boats they bought with nukes or not.

They don't. It is possible they could develope a submarine launched nuclear tipped cruise missle, but they haven't. It would be very easy to tell from looking at the hulls.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871
P.S. Wiki aside, random googling does find a number of sources (some reputable, some not) pointing to 200-600, so my memory was at least within the range of speculation, but on both extremes it is just pure speculation. If they bothered with such overkill, it would have been possible to keep most of it under wraps.

But from Vanunu in the 1980s onward, cracks have opened in the Israeli "plausible denial" routine. Even Shimon Peres some years back slipped and implied that Israel has a nuclear bomb. Most estimates place it more precisely at about 200 bombs on the low end, up to as many as 500-600 nuclear weapons on the other extreme.
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/3108.htm

The higher estimates were based on intelligence that Israel had upgraded its reactors, which was later found to not be true.

edit: syntax

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
They don't. It is possible they could develope a submarine launched nuclear tipped cruise missle, but they haven't. It would be very easy to tell from looking at the hulls.

Errrr...why?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The higher estimates were based on an intelligence that Israel had upgraded its reactors, which was later found to not be true.

Ah.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Lose face? There isn't a Middle Eastern nation out there that would not be lock step with us if Iran pulled such a stunt. They would all look at Iran ane say "Dude..."

I was talking about Israel performing a pre-emptive strike, not about Iran pulling a stunt. No dictator in his right mind would support Israel (and the US) if Israel performed a pre-emptive strike. The local populace would go berzerk.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Darius871
That's one theory, the other is that imminent conflict is made only more likely by making 100% crystal-clear to Israel that the U.S. would allow a nuclear-armed Iran, and thus giving them more incentive to strike Iran than when the U.S. position was ambiguous. Obama had repeatedly stated that a nuclear-armed Iran would be an "unacceptable" "game-changer," and refused to take airstrikes off the table, which could have left Israel peacefully wondering if he might prevent it himself, but now they'll know if they don't do it, nobody will.

To think this would stop Israel from making its own strike is not necessarily to assume that Iran could be so easily deterred from making a conventional nuclear attack or (more likely) an unconventional one by proxy, but rather to assume that Israel would make that assumption. Whether they would, I can't say.

By the way, if Obama gives guarantees to Israel that he will help fend off an Iranian attack, such an agreement entails that Israel needs US permission to launch an attack. Similar agreements were made during the Cold War too. That's why I think it's Obama's idea to reduce the chance of conflict.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Nuclear deterrent works so well because if you miss EVEN ONE missile the consequences for you are catastrophic.

I don't really agree with this. People tend to overestimate the killing power of a single nuke. Given the casualty tolerance demonstrated by Iran in the Iran/Iraq War, I'm not sure a few hundred thousand casualties would seem "catastrophic" to the mullahs.

That being said, extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to Israel is a dumb ****ing idea. You only extend the umbrella to countries without nukes (like Japan) that you don't want to develop them. The Israelis already have a nuke capability, so let them manage their own deterrence.

If they're worried about preserving a second-strike capability and haven't already tricked out their subs to do it, just sell them a couple Ohio-class subs. God know we don't need them all, with the way we've been converting some of them to cruise-missile carriers.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't really agree with this. People tend to overestimate the killing power of a single nuke. Given the casualty tolerance demonstrated by Iran in the Iran/Iraq War, I'm not sure a few hundred thousand casualties would seem "catastrophic" to the mullahs.

I don't know the composition of Israel's nukes, but they are known to have thermonukes, so yields of order of ~1 MT are quite reasonable for missile-delivered warhead. Tehran has a pop of ~10 million. A single properly placed nuke of this yield could be expected to kill >1 million people and destroy all economic and government activity of the city for years to come.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nobody's sure if they outfitted the diesel-electric boats they bought with nukes or not.

Excellent.

There are three ways to protect your nukes: put them in hardened silos, make them mobile (e.g. on planes, on railroad cars) or hide them (e.g. subs). The fact that no one knows if the Israelis have nukes on subs, adds uncertainty to the equation, and the Iranians will have to think twice about trying to launch a first strike.

[Naked Gents Rut]

A single properly placed nuke of this yield could be expected to kill >1 million people and destroy all economic and government activity of the city for years to come.

So they lose somewhat more people than they lost in the Iran/Iraq War in exchange for destroying their most hated enemy. Big deal.

Then again, the "single nuke" scenario isn't very realistic. We're looking at something like 16-20 million Iranian dead in a plausible scenario.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1196847416688&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull