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

[KrazyHorse]

Zkrib, please try to read the thread before posting nonsense.

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.

This is ridiculous. If you have this capability you would like the Iranians to be CERTAIN that you have this capability. Where you want uncertainty is whether or not you have other capabilities they haven't thought of (while not actually having these other capabilities).

[KrazyHorse]

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

I guarantee you that it is a big deal. It's easier to work up to big totals in extended war because of optimism bias than it is to know ahead of time that you're going to lose a million people.

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/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

I agree.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I guarantee you that it is a big deal. It's easier to work up to big totals in extended war because of optimism bias than it is to know ahead of time that you're going to lose a million people.

Still, the surviving Iranians are going to be ****ing psyched to have wiped out the Jews. I think they would accept a million-plus martyrs for the cause relatively easily.

16-20 million? I'd really bet against it, but who ****ing knows in that part of the world...

[KrazyHorse]

I think you're buying the rhetoric too much.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Shia are pretty badass and crazy, dude. Look at Hezbollah.

I'm not saying I think the Iranian leadership would attack, though. They won't. I'm just saying that the Iranian populace might be more amenable to massive casualties in a nuclear exchange with Israel than you think.

[onodera]

I doubt Iran will launch a nuke from their territory.
Hezbollah contaminating some Israeli city with a dirty bomb is probably a more likely option. Isotopes in one of your water purification plants?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you really want to be sure of your second strike capabilities get a couple of old USN boomers and cruise them around the Med...

Reportedly we can use our subs for that...

Originally posted by Darius871
Well in that vein nobody's "sure" Israel has nukes at all, but a number above 600 warheads has been usually assumed for over a decade anyway. It's smart of them not to disclose what is and isn't deployed, and by what means. But if Siro would be so kind as to breach OpSec, I'm all ears

I had absolutely nothing to do with that so my posts on the issue are based on newspaper articles, just as yours.

And why do you think I'd ever breach OpSec for the sake of an internet argument?

BTW, ISR has actively denied that they've placed nuke missiles on the subs. This is different from their response to questions about nuke capability in general.

Well to our defense (or not), it could be a misleading play with words.

We could have outfitted the subs to be nuclear capable, without actually arming any of them yet, relying on the fact we'll have enough warning time to do that.

The subs are very very small and fragile, and having a constantly armed nuclear weapon on one of them all the time would be extremely dangerous and money consuming.

Israel's official line always was "we'd never be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the area".

This could be read, like I speculated, that the weapons are not 100% constructed and armed, but rather that we have ready-to-construct weapon parts.

Thus in time of conflict, we can construct a weapon in a short matter, but we do not have any weapon 100% ready and armed.

[Sirotnikov]

It is possible they could develope a submarine launched nuclear tipped cruise missle

this is what i heard too.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You don't need a nuke to destroy our missile bases. Their location one can find on google earth, wikimapia and the like.

a) If your stationary missile bases aren't hardened then you guys are idiots

b) If your entire nuke missile force is in stationary missile bases then you guys are idiots

I don't know what resources we have and how hardened are they.

Fact is, most of IDF's bases and assets were constructed way before the missile threat ever became a reality, and was not widely considered.

Knowing the IDF as I do, it is probably only poorly hardened, and even if the missiles themselves are defended, it is very likely that due to an 'oops' decision, the control room is an above ground improperly defended facility.

Israel has not built up enough of a defence for the missile threat, and in the case of a serious attack from an enemy, I suspect that Israel would suffer tremendous failing of logistic lines and communications facilities.

I think that Israel's answer to the missile threat relies on deterrence more than on actual physical defense.

[snoopy369]

Israel was not considered as of ~2000 to have anything remotely approximating MAD. This was not a shock (as they had no nuclear opponents likely to attack them at the time); but nonetheless true. Now, compared to Iran/Pakistan/etc., I'd say Israel is fine (ie, there is nothing Iran could do that could overrun Israel prior to Iran being thoroughly Sodomized in the biblical sense), but on the world scale (US/USSR/UK/France/probably China by now, though UK/France are rather borderline) they do not.
I remember having a discussion of this in my class with Professor Mearsheimer where he decribed MAD as generally requiring several hundred ICBMs, which at the time China was believed to have ~100-150 (plus shorter range weapons). Israel might well have 500 weapons (though I think that would be counting MIRVs multiple times, probably) but they almost certainly don't have the 200+ ICBMs, simply because that would be a waste - they don't need that many ICBMs for their current security environment. They have an adequate deterrent for anything Iran could feasibly do to them.

If they were to need one, submarines would be the way to go. Bombers need regular refueling, are easy to find on radar (even Stealths, comparitively) and can be shot down easily. Subs are virtually impossible to find, can load more weaponry than a bomber, and can stay out for a very long time without refueling or returning to port. Israel would only need to put a few dozen subs in the Mediterranean and send them off on long tours to be fairly safe from retaliation. Particularly given how hard it would be for their primary enemies (Iran, Syria) to field enough subs to find them...

[snoopy369]

Also note that warheads != missiles, and for MAD this is important - you have to have enough missiles to survive. China has ~400 warheads, but less than 100 missiles (what I just read noted 20 warheads per missile, so possibly as few as 20 missiles?). UK and France I believe actually have more missiles (unless they've consolidated some due to START obligations, I don't recall their specific role in that treaty) but few warheads.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I had absolutely nothing to do with that so my posts on the issue are based on newspaper articles, just as yours.

I know, just poking fun.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
And why do you think I'd ever breach OpSec for the sake of an internet argument?

Is there anything more important than winning an internet argument?

[Sirotnikov]

I know, just poking fun.

just wanted to make it clear for everyone

Is there anything more important than winning an internet argument?

hardly

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Israel was not considered as of ~2000 to have anything remotely approximating MAD. This was not a shock (as they had no nuclear opponents likely to attack them at the time); but nonetheless true. Now, compared to Iran/Pakistan/etc., I'd say Israel is fine (ie, there is nothing Iran could do that could overrun Israel prior to Iran being thoroughly Sodomized in the biblical sense), but on the world scale (US/USSR/UK/France/probably China by now, though UK/France are rather borderline) they do not.
I remember having a discussion of this in my class with Professor Mearsheimer where he decribed MAD as generally requiring several hundred ICBMs, which at the time China was believed to have ~100-150 (plus shorter range weapons). Israel might well have 500 weapons (though I think that would be counting MIRVs multiple times, probably) but they almost certainly don't have the 200+ ICBMs, simply because that would be a waste - they don't need that many ICBMs for their current security environment. They have an adequate deterrent for anything Iran could feasibly do to them.

If they were to need one, submarines would be the way to go. Bombers need regular refueling, are easy to find on radar (even Stealths, comparitively) and can be shot down easily. Subs are virtually impossible to find, can load more weaponry than a bomber, and can stay out for a very long time without refueling or returning to port. Israel would only need to put a few dozen subs in the Mediterranean and send them off on long tours to be fairly safe from retaliation. Particularly given how hard it would be for their primary enemies (Iran, Syria) to field enough subs to find them...

So John Mearsheimer was your professor at uni?? So you are probably from Illinois and you studied what?

Anyway, Mearsheimer is an anachronism. It surprises me he even has an audience these days. He could be right on the issue you brought forward there though.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Shia are pretty badass and crazy, dude.

So are Sunni, and Catholics, and Evangelicals, and many others.