BBC: Israel's Secret Weapon

[DCal430]

belief is hardly proof..link...

Israel is very good at keeping this a secret so definitive proof does not exist, but as far as I know most accept that Israel has enough nukes to kill hundreds of millions of its neighbors in seconds.

 

[Agent11]

If we stop supporting Israel all you would do is increase the likelyhood of a nuclear strike, then if Pakistan shoots off its weapons India may feel the need to shoot theirs...

The genie is already out of the bottle, and you cannot put it back in.

 

[Doppel]

After the US elections of 11/2012, Israel is very likely going to be facing international community and US support to make the Mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.

Amazing how delusional you continue to be. Considering how much you appear to read up on this how can your analysis be so hilariously wrong? Don't answer that: it's your massive bias that makes objectivity impossible for you.

Please point out some examples of countries with real sway recently moving toward any position that demands Israeli disarmament.

 

[Doppel]

but as far as I know most accept that Israel has enough nukes to kill hundreds of millions of its neighbors in seconds.

It really doesn't. It has less than a hundred nukes, apparently, and the immediate destructive force of most nukes is really not that huge. Hundreds of millions of people is 200M+ plus, there's no way Israel has enough weapons to do that.

 

[cybrsage]

If we assume Israel has nuclear weapons, for sake of argument, then we can show they are a very responsible nuclear power. They were attacked by many nations at once while possession nuclear weapons and did not use them. There would be no need to disarm such a nation.

 

[Lemon law]

Amazing how delusional you continue to be. Considering how much you appear to read up on this how can your analysis be so hilariously wrong? Don't answer that: it's your massive bias that makes objectivity impossible for you.

Please point out some examples of countries with real sway recently moving toward any position that demands Israeli disarmament.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Doppel, just because you don't keep abrest of current news, does not make me delusional.

Although this link is somewhat dated, there is alot of current evidence that late 2012 or in 2013, that the world will adopt, with US backing, the radification of the mid-east as a nuclear weapons free zone.

Of course the idea of the mid-east as a nuclear weapons free zone has been on the table for many decades, but anyone who does follow current news the talk is getting far more serious now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

After the US elections of 11/2012, Israel is very likely going to be facing international community and US support to make the Mid-east into a nuclear weapons free zone.

What we'll see is more demands on Iran to allow unfettered inspections and the basis for that is that Iran is a signatory of the NPT. Israel however as you know is not, nor is the NPT compulsory. Not going to happen.

At least Dismona is now protected by the so called Israeli iron dome defnse system. That may partially protect Dismona from low and slow scud type missiles, but when Iran has high and extremely fast ballistic missiles that are very accurate, I for one really doubt the iron dome will protect Dismona in any way.

Possibly, but don't bet the farm. Then there will be retaliation, which will not consist of having a hissy fit and closing the Straits and effectively waging war on the West. Those ships out there aren't assigned because there is concern that Israel will strike shipping.

 

[a777pilot]

Good for Israel.

If Egypt, Syria, Iraq or especially Iran had 100 nukes, do any of you think Israel would still exist? Israel has more than that and the Arab countries continue to live.

For the Jews the call "Never again" is upper most in their plans and daily lives.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Doppel, just because you don't keep abrest of current news, does not make me delusional.

Although this link is somewhat dated, there is alot of current evidence that late 2012 or in 2013, that the world will adopt, with US backing, the radification of the mid-east as a nuclear weapons free zone.

Of course the idea of the mid-east as a nuclear weapons free zone has been on the table for many decades, but anyone who does follow current news the talk is getting far more serious now.

That isn't going to apply to Israel because everyone but the stupid knows that nuclear weapons are what keeps Israel from being wiped out. Considering that making a film about Mohammed causes turmoil, it doesn't take much to realize that being a good neighbor means dead. When Iran is backing the Syrian murderers in word and deed, and quite proud and open about it, they can't be trusted not to extend their "hand of friendship."

Also if you note the concern about a nuclear free zone in context comes about because of the nutjobs who would be able to extend their punishments beyond their borders. In that case consider the "problem" solved in a most dramatic and horrific way.

The best thing we can do is get off of oil with that Manhattan style project I spoke of elsewhere, rendering the ME economically irrelevant, and therefore making trade take precedence over oil blackmail, which is what you've described with Iran attacking the Straits.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It really doesn't. It has less than a hundred nukes, apparently, and the immediate destructive force of most nukes is really not that huge. Hundreds of millions of people is 200M+ plus, there's no way Israel has enough weapons to do that.

That's more towards the minimum. The best estimates are twice to four times that. Enough to wipe everyone out? No, because the geographic region is huge. That does provide sufficient capability to cripple any enemy and devastate them and maintain a large reserve. As Israel has had this capability for some time and has not used it, it follows that only dire circumstances will cause their use. Considering the "brotherly love" those in the region show one another of the same faith, dire is not hard to imagine.

 

[a777pilot]

If Israel only has 200 nukes ("only", now that's funny) what they need to do is make sure that the leadership of their enemies understand that they, the leadership are the true targets of these weapons, not the Arab/muslim people. If the muslim leadership force a war on Israel then it is that muslim leadership that must, at all costs, die.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If Israel only has 200 nukes ("only", now that's funny) what they need to do is make sure that the leadership of their enemies understand that they, the leadership are the true targets of these weapons, not the Arab/muslim people. If the muslim leadership force a war on Israel then it is that muslim leadership that must, at all costs, die.

More people have died over the burning of a Koran than from all the nuclear weapons that Israel may possess. That's the real issue.

 

[blankslate]

If we assume Israel has nuclear weapons, for sake of argument, then we can show they are a very responsible nuclear power. They were attacked by many nations at once while possession nuclear weapons and did not use them. There would be no need to disarm such a nation.

You apparently didn't see this part of the information previously posted.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video/%28page%29/3

If Iran were to become a nuclear power, the most immediate question would be what it means for Israel, where warnings have reached histrionic heights.
"Absolutely nothing will happen," says Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli historian and author of some 20 books on military strategy. "Israel has what it takes to deter Iran, and the Iranians know it."
Mr. Van Creveld is implying that Israel's own nuclear arsenal of an estimated 200 warheads would prevent any Iranian first strike. Israel has the only such arsenal in the Middle East, and – unlike Iran's program – it has never been subject to UN inspection or safeguards.

Iran is sane enough to know that they would be immediately attacked if a nuclear device when off in Israel. Because most people would assume that they were involved. And given "Insane"ahdenijad's previous rhetoric who would blame anyone for reaching that conclusion.



However, Iran is probably trying to get the capability because they have seen what happens to their neighbors who don't have the capability....

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ld-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video/(page)/2

The Iranian media, in fact, tut-tutted last year that Mr. Qaddafi's fatal error was relinquishing his secret nuclear weapons program in 2004.

"If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons," Bruce Riedel, a 30-year veteran of the CIA now at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said in January.

"Look at the neighborhood that I live in: Everyone else has nuclear weapons who matters; and those who don't, don't matter, and get invaded by the United States of America," Mr. Riedel said on a panel hosted by the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.

Another unexpected case of blowback from lying about WMD's to get into Iraq. The Iranian leaders are probably thinking "If they lied to invade Iraq who's to say they won't just invade us?... we'd better be able to actually build it if they're gonna say that we're doing it anyways"

Yeah, I said lied. Because after nearly 10 years of no nuclear programs being found in Iraq two possibilities remain.
Either the Bush administration was incredibly stupid and inept in their assessment of Iraq or incredibly fucking dishonest.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Israel has the only such arsenal in the Middle East, and – unlike Iran's program – it has never been subject to UN inspection or safeguards.

Which means nothing!! Israel is not a signatory to nothing! Yet as a "nuclear" power Israel has proven to be a responsible nuclear power!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You apparently didn't see this part of the information previously posted.


http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0216/What-would-happen-if-Iran-had-the-bomb-video/%28page%29/3

Two problems with your contention. First, Iran has not allowed inspections except where it wishes. There is a whole cleanup in progress in a site they won't allow access to and a pissed off IAEA and UN chairman who can tell you that.

Second, Iran is never going to use it's nuclear capability as a first strike. That would never be the goal. All it needs is the threat. With invulnerability guaranteed it can expand it's influence within the region. They can send in troops to invade and harass others, of which they do the latter now. What is someone going to do? Attack them? Hardly. That's the real purpose and danger of having Iranian nukes, and that they are witless enough to not realize that everything has it's limits. When they are reached and Iran feels itself under direct threat then everything- including nukes- is on the table. I don't know about you, but control of these kinds of weapons by those who consider witchcraft a crime which merits death, as well as stoning adulterers doesn't seem like a safe bet.

 

[blankslate]

Which means nothing!! Israel is not a signatory to nothing! Yet as a "nuclear" power Israel has proven to be a responsible nuclear power!

It means that we don't know how many nuclear weapons they have and neither does Iran. So they'd be stupid to be trying to get the weapons for a first strike. They're more likely trying to get the capability so that they have some of the same deterrence that Israel has.

Second, Iran is never going to use it's nuclear capability as a first strike. That would never be the goal. All it needs is the threat. With invulnerability guaranteed it can expand it's influence within the region. They can send in troops to invade and harass others, of which they do the latter now. What is someone going to do? Attack them? Hardly. That's the real purpose and danger of having Iranian nukes, and that they are witless enough to not realize that everything has it's limits. When they are reached and Iran feels itself under direct threat then everything- including nukes- is on the table. I don't know about you, but control of these kinds of weapons by those who consider witchcraft a crime which merits death, as well as stoning adulterers doesn't seem like a safe bet.

Which goes to show the fact that we must be very careful how we proceed in the area.

You know one of the main reasons the Iranian government is antagonistic to the U.S. don't you?

In 1953 we helped the U.K. overthrow their legitimate leader who was democratically elected and installed pretty much a puppet and the resulting regime lasted some 25 or so years before being overthrown. the U.K. was upset that he kicked out their oil companies. Never mind the fact that Iran actually paid those companies a fair price for the facilities they built in Iran.

So now we're dealing unintended consequences of activities which we took part in over 50 years ago.

We could bomb the crap out of them. But seeing as how we fucked up in the region before and it's messing with our ability to reason with the Iranian regime now.... Betting on the violent option without exhausting reasonable options first Doesn't seem like too safe a bet either.

We might see positive short term results however our record of foreseeing long term consequences in the M.E. makes me wary of following the recommendations of people advocating bombing as an option.



As for the possible conventional military skirmishes already have a real world example of how they might play out.

India and Pakistan are antagonistic to each other, have nuclear weapons, and have engaged in skirmishes. However they have not used nuclear weapons or engaged in major conflicts.

We at least one carrier group in the M.E. or capable of getting there on short notice. If Iran did feel their oats and decide to be antagonistic they don't share a border with Israel so they'd have to provide Palestinians with weapons.

Not practical because Israel would almost certainly have a superior conventional force and again as I stated before if a nuclear device went off in Israel Iran would be at the top of the list as suspects and I doubt anyone would really blame Israel if some sub captain launched nuclear weapons in response.

A former Mossad member has stated before that Iran's regime is rational and capable of seeing the consequences of an unprovoked strike on Israel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULjDZGAmxIo

As far as I know he hasn't changed his assessments of the situation.

 

[irishScott]

Didn't watch the whole thing, but you weren't aware Israel has nukes?

You're not aware of much are you?

 

[irishScott]

Two problems with your contention. First, Iran has not allowed inspections except where it wishes. There is a whole cleanup in progress in a site they won't allow access to and a pissed off IAEA and UN chairman who can tell you that.

Second, Iran is never going to use it's nuclear capability as a first strike. That would never be the goal. All it needs is the threat. With invulnerability guaranteed it can expand it's influence within the region. They can send in troops to invade and harass others, of which they do the latter now. What is someone going to do? Attack them? Hardly. That's the real purpose and danger of having Iranian nukes, and that they are witless enough to not realize that everything has it's limits. When they are reached and Iran feels itself under direct threat then everything- including nukes- is on the table. I don't know about you, but control of these kinds of weapons by those who consider witchcraft a crime which merits death, as well as stoning adulterers doesn't seem like a safe bet.

The real danger is someone in a theocratic government being more theo than cratic and giving said nukes to a terrorist group who would not hesitate to use it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The real danger is someone in a theocratic government being more theo than cratic and giving said nukes to a terrorist group who would not hesitate to use it.

The technology that Iran would be likely to have would create large bombs. There will be a time between having a weapon and being able to deliver it outside a large vehicle. Eventually? It's possible, and it is a concern in the long term.

 

[blankslate]

Didn't watch the whole thing, but you weren't aware Israel has nukes? You're not aware of much are you?

Wow, man if that was directed at me....
I posted links in this thread which stated that Israel has nuclear weapons.

*if* you were replying to me....
"You're not aware of much are you?" right back at you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If fanatics who are educated are willing to kill themselves on the whim of someone else, why could not.one of them be inside the nuclear facility and hand off or take out material for such a purpose.

Iran leadership may want to use nuclear material as a deterent; they do not control fanatics. Once they have it, some crazied brainwashed may be instructed to test it by a power hungry person, Oman, military or government official.

I sincerly doubt Iran has the security vetting that is needed.

 

[blankslate]

Iran leadership may want to use nuclear material as a deterent; they do not control fanatics. Once they have it, some crazied brainwashed may be instructed to test it by s power hungry person, Oman, military or government official.

I dincerly doubt Iran has the security vetting that is needed.

Given that if any nuclear device goes off in Israel in the current situation...

They damn well better be working on such a security vetting program, unless they actually want to get nuked right back by Israel.


Because let's not kid ourselves, Iran would be the first and probably only suspect if Israel was attacked with a nuclear weapon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Which goes to show the fact that we must be very careful how we proceed in the area.

You know one of the main reasons the Iranian government is antagonistic to the U.S. don't you?

In 1953 we helped the U.K. overthrow their legitimate leader who was democratically elected and installed pretty much a puppet and the resulting regime lasted some 25 or so years before being overthrown. the U.K. was upset that he kicked out their oil companies. Never mind the fact that Iran actually paid those companies a fair price for the facilities they built in Iran.

So now we're dealing unintended consequences of activities which we took part in over 50 years ago.

Kermit the Roosevelt as I like to call him. Operation Ajax. Yeah, I've known about that and some of the lesser schemes by the west. The Law of Unintended Consequences. Someone should write a book and have our leaders read it at the beginning of each day.

Iran as it was before the Bush Debacle was becoming increasingly moderate. While the ultimate authority belonged to fundamentalists, there was acceptance of the notion that perhaps some reconciliation was possible. During the late Clinton years there were backdoor overtures on the part of Iranian moderates who were tired of the animosity. You may note that on 9/11 there were protests in favor of the US, something not seen in any other nation in the region. Iran was starting to recover.

The political situation was that the top islamic clerics allowed the moderates and the far right to contend. Immadinnerjacket and his were against the west and violently so. These clerics held the scales and weighed one side against the others. The moderates were starting to dominate, and with obvious public support their future was almost all but certainly bright. Then Bush the Lesser struck with his "Axis" speech, and alienated the entire nation. Iranians are proud of their long history as Persians, and about as nationalistic as Texans. You can imagine that didn't go well. That caused a sudden and overwhelming change of fortunes and was if someone had dropped a ten ton stone on the scale in favor of the extremists. Virtually overnight the moderates were deposed and worse the election process changed so they couldn't even run. Out.

Bush, being as dumb as a mud fence didn't bother to learn what I'm telling you. He didn't realize that Iranian support of terrorism was indeed real, but not by the government itself, but by powerful and semi autonomous forces that by his uncanny ability to do the worst in the fewest words brought to power now.

So we'll have to wait a couple more generations I suppose an hopefully we won't screw that up.

Nevertheless, the threat of potential abuse of nuclear weapons is real. Imadinnerjacket and those who think as he does have the mouthpiece of the press, and the ear of those who make the ultimate decisions. To ignore the reality of the situation is to be as foolish as Bush when he did so. Iran must be kept a known entity. The Bush equivalents of today who say that Iran is no threat have fallen on their head too many times. Their actions have demonstrated it to be true, and no appeal to past sins of ours reverses that truth. The best we can do is reform ourselves and hold Iran close, closer than our friends.

 

[irishScott]

Wow, man if that was directed at me....
I posted links in this thread which stated that Israel has nuclear weapons.

*if* you were replying to me....
"You're not aware of much are you?" right back at you.

It was directed at the OP.

 

[blankslate]

It was directed at the OP.

Mea culpa then.