BBC: Israel's Secret Weapon

[blankslate]

Neither have yours. You started with an alternate reality and got worse from there.

I started with links to expert analysis by individuals who are more knowledgeable than either of us about Iran. And you responded with childish posts. At least you are consistent.

 

[cybrsage]

I started with links to expert analysis by individuals who are more knowledgeable than either of us about Iran. And you responded with childish posts. At least you are consistent.

You replied to a post about Israel by talking about Iran. In your alternate reality, they are the same nation. If not, then you were simply trolling. I give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are not simply trolling, but instead are nutty.

 

[blankslate]

You replied to a post about Israel by talking about Iran. In your alternate reality, they are the same nation. If not, then you were simply trolling. I give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are not simply trolling, but instead are nutty.

No I put it in a broader context of how this facility affects Israel's relations to their neighbors and how it should impact how the U.S. proceeds in the area. Cautiously. In the early 2000s the U.S. as a whole proceeded quite recklessly in the middle east.

Before my post speculation about an attack on Israel's facility and the broader issue of the U.S. involvement in the M.E. was already touched upon in other posts.

But in your alternate reality such things are really easy to overlook.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your posts are just stupid because you just can't tell the difference.

 

[cybrsage]

No, you actually replied to a post about how Israel has not used nuclear weapons after being invaded by multiple nations with larger armies than Israel has by talking about Iran.

 

[woolfe9999]

That is why the USSR didn't invade the USSR. and vice versa.



The only time anyone ever gained any traction into Israeli territory was immediately after the Israeli 1948 war for independence. Most of the incursions into Israeli Territory since then were Guerrilla style attacks. Not some thing that is the equivalent of an army ground invasion.

FYI the Israelis didn't start construction on their nuclear reactor with the help of the French until the 1950s and didn't finish until the early 60's well after the major incursions into Israeli territories took place.

Israel took back the West bank in 1967.

Although they fought wars they were conventional wars and in case you missed it the first time here were no major incursions into Israel itself after the early 1960s.

Are you stupid as to assume that the immediate response to conventional invasion would be a nuclear response.... Well based on the above post that seems to be the case.

Israel was in pretty dire straights in 1973:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

Granted, they turned it around with conventional arms. However, his point is not entirely invalid. It would seem that Israel isn't exactly quick on the nuclear trigger finger. Conventional wisdom at the time was that Israel was losing that war about 3 days in. While you don't lob nukes at the first sign of a conventional attack, you might if you're losing in a war which constitutes an existential threat. You certainly wouldn't wait until you're hours from being conquered to nuke the enemy. You wouldn't nuke their military in your own territory, and nuking their cities that late wouldn't prevent conquest and would guarantee Holocaust level retaliation against your populace.

 

[blankslate]

No, you actually replied to a post about how Israel has not used nuclear weapons after being invaded by multiple nations with larger armies than Israel has by talking about Iran.

My first post in in this thread was about Israel in relation to their main neighbor who is seen as a threat.

and the state of our involvement in the middle east.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33999182&postcount=2

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33999189&postcount=3

No, you actually replied to a post about how Israel has not used nuclear weapons after being invaded by multiple nations with larger armies than Israel has by talking about Iran.

As far as your post attributing uber responsibility to Israel because they have not used a nuclear weapon.

It's a stupid metric of responsibility because no nation with nuclear weapons capabilities ever has. Pakistan and India are nearly as hostile to each other as Israel and Iran and they have been involved in skirmishes yet have managed to avoid using them.

For nearly 40 or 50 years the NATO and WARSAW pact nations have avoided using them, even if at time just barely.

After Israel completed their nuclear facility in the middle 60's no nation has encroached into Israeli borders other than the exception of guerrilla and paramilitary forces in asymmetrical force attacks. Not even close to threatening Israel in such a way as to force them to consider the use of Nuclear weapons.

Were there earlier conflicts previous to the middle 60's in which there were armed military (including tanks and air support) incursions into Israel? Yes but that was before they obtained a nuclear capabilities from the French supplied reactor.

Subsequent conflicts involving organized military forces (who could field tanks and air support) involved territory captured from other nations by Israel, not the actual lands that are part of Israel.

Incursions by guerrilla and paramilitary forces did occur, but only a moronic post would equate non use of Nuclear weapons in response to that level of force as a pinnacle of responsibility when the use of nuclear weapons would be patently irresponsible.

*edit*

Granted, they turned it around with conventional arms. However, his point is not entirely invalid. It would seem that Israel isn't exactly quick on the nuclear trigger finger. Conventional wisdom at the time was that Israel was losing that war about 3 days in. While you don't lob nukes at the first sign of a conventional attack, you might if you're losing in a war which constitutes an existential threat. You certainly wouldn't wait until you're hours from being conquered to nuke the enemy. You wouldn't nuke their military in your own territory, and nuking their cities that late wouldn't prevent conquest and would guarantee Holocaust level retaliation against your populace.

The thing is the Golan heights is generally recognized as Syrian territory. Even if held by Israel.

Since the arrival of Israeli nuclear capabilities. No country has made an effort to take Israeli territory that wasn't won during wars they were involved in. We don't know if Syria would have gone beyond taking back the Golan heights in when Israel had nuclear weapons at that time.

No country with nuclear devices has been shown to be particularly quick on trigger.

Probably because every country that gains them realizes that they are good as a deterrent but actually using them, after the devastation they can cause has been demonstrated, would change the international dynamics between nuclear capable countries in ways that no one wants to risk.

Additionally it's likely that no country will likewise risk pushing a nuclear capable country into believing they have nothing left to lose and may as well use them.

 

[woolfe9999]

The thing is the Golan heights is generally recognized as Syrian territory. Even if held by Israel.

Since the arrival of Israeli nuclear capabilities. No country has made an effort to take Israeli territory that wasn't won during wars they were involved in. We don't know if Syria would have gone beyond taking back the Golan heights in when Israel had nuclear weapons at that time.

No country with nuclear devices has been shown to be particularly quick on trigger.

It may well be true that neither Egypt nor Syria planned to go beyond the Sinai or the Golan Heights, respectively. However, the Israelis were definitely afraid of conquest. It's how they perceived the situation which matters here.

I think the issue with Israel and its nukes is that Israel is a known quantity as a nuclear power. Other nations which do not yet have nukes are not. We can assume that other nations acquiring nukes will act in a manner similar to those who already have them, but when it comes to nuclear war, assumptions are not good enough. Also, as a practical matter it is way harder to disarm a current nuclear power than to stop a non-nuclear power from acquiring them. If Israel was in process of acquiring nukes today, I'd oppose it, just as I oppose Iran acquiring them.

 

[blankslate]

If Israel was in process of acquiring nukes today, I'd oppose it, just as I oppose Iran acquiring them.

That's the thing no country on the verge of developing the capability has been kept from gaining it if they really wanted them.

In Iran's case they may be satisfied with obtaining the breakout capability of being able to assemble one quickly without actually producing them.

I posted a link to that assertion about countries and their desire for nuclear devices not being thwarted and the possibility of only wanting the knowledge for rapid construction of nuclear weapons on the part of Iran in post number #51 of this thread.

The advantage of that for Iran would be that if it was believed that they had that "breakout capability" was developed then a pre-emptive strike on them would be much less likely.

Nuclear deterrence without actually building weapons, in effect acquired, while preventing an outcry from the international community over Iran actually adding to the number of nuclear weapons in exitence.

Bombing Iranian facilities could have more detrimental consequences in the long run than Iran gaining a break out capability. Of course any choice made in how to proceed with the situation is risky given that there are other possibilities than Iran ending up with a 'breakout capability'.

Given how the "stick" hasn't worked out out so well thus far maybe trying the "carrot" would obtain better results.

 

[SandEagle]

We supplied Israel with nukes.

i don't know about us, but Germany sure did provide them with it.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=176874

 

[Karl Agathon]

Didn't the French help them withy nuke tech too?

 

[Jadow]

As any succesful attack against Dismona could render Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and parts of Iraq as unihabitable for at least 500 years into the future if not longer.

might be the best option if this crap continues to go on without resolution

 

[cybrsage]

My first post in in this thread was about Israel in relation to their main neighbor who is seen as a threat.

and the state of our involvement in the middle east.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33999182&postcount=2

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33999189&postcount=3

Irrelevant as you replied to MY post with something unrelated to what you quoted.

As far as your post attributing uber responsibility to Israel because they have not used a nuclear weapon.

It's a stupid metric of responsibility because no nation with nuclear weapons capabilities ever has. Pakistan and India are nearly as hostile to each other as Israel and Iran and they have been involved in skirmishes yet have managed to avoid using them.

For nearly 40 or 50 years the NATO and WARSAW pact nations have avoided using them, even if at time just barely.

You keep "forgetting" that none of these nations faced destruction during any time after obtaining nuclear weapons, but Israel did. Stop "forgetting" that part, since it is important.

Were there earlier conflicts previous to the middle 60's in which there were armed military (including tanks and air support) incursions into Israel? Yes but that was before they obtained a nuclear capabilities from the French supplied reactor.

The conspiracy theorists claim Israel obtained nuclear weapons in the 1960s, which (in the post you quoted but ignored) was stated to be assumed true for sake of argument. The Yom Kippur War was in 1973, at which point Israel already possessed nuclear weapons.

So please stop "forgetting" this information.

 

[blankslate]

Irrelevant as you replied to MY post with something unrelated to what you quoted.

It is relevant because you asserted that any nation that doesn't use nuclear weapons is responsible. The fact is no nation who has nuclear weapons has used them every nation that obtained them has seemingly become aware of the responsibility it has taken upon itself. North Korea is one country the world was worried about them going nuclear, but since then they seem to be content having the weapons as a deterrent.
In Iran's case if they became capable and built weapons they'd have to be insane to use one or let one fall into the wrong hands, for reasons stated previously.

The conspiracy theorists claim Israel obtained nuclear weapons in the 1960s, which (in the post you quoted but ignored) was stated to be assumed true for sake of argument. The Yom Kippur War was in 1973, at which point Israel already possessed nuclear weapons. So please stop "forgetting" this information.

I've said that they have gained the nuclear capability from their facility constructed with the help from the French during the 60s.
The Golan Heights and the Sinai which were attacked weren't Israel proper but territory held by Israel. They were obtained in previous conflicts.
In response to that surprise attack which started the Yom Kippur War Israel was able to advance their forces into Syrian and Egyptian territories farther than either of those countries advanced before they were routed.

You keep "forgetting" that none of these nations faced destruction during any time after obtaining nuclear weapons, but Israel did. Stop "forgetting" that part, since it is important.

So you think that the U.S.S.R.'s attempt to put nuclear weapons in Cuban bases was just another sunny day in the park? We'll never know how close the world came to watching things literally blow up during that crisis.

Likewise we'll never know the details of the discussions (if any) the Israeli leaders held about the possibility of using any nuclear weapons they had.

But do go on

 

[Lemon law]

I think Woolfe999 may have unwittingly gotten to the crux of the matter by saying, "It may well be true that neither Egypt nor Syria planned to go beyond the Sinai or the Golan Heights, respectively. However, the Israelis were definitely afraid of conquest. It's how they perceived the situation which matters here."

Because human perception is exactly what matters here. As Mistrust begets more Mistrust on both sides. Which is right now, IMHO, is the main Israeli mistake and danger as the world and technology changes.

Israel has a justifiable fear of being over run by the Arabs and the odds are very stacked against Israel on a population basis. Some 300 million Arabs in the mid-east region against only 7 million Jewish residents inside Israel. What insures Israeli survival is the the best military in the mid-east, that even today could beat the combined militaries of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran. The down side is that the Israeli economy could not afford to maintain such a military and keep modernizing it without the help of Uncle Sucker.

Which exposes two other Israeli problems.

1. To retain the Israeli military hegemony doctrine into the future will become increasingly difficult. As that Israeli doctrine is dependent on Uncle sucker perpetually giving Israel more modern weapons than the combined militaries of the Arabs can acquire. As Arabs with oil money can now afford to build up their militaries and the economy of the USA can't afford to keep matching the spending. Which partially explains why Israel is so fearful of Iran.

2. Being over run by Arab armies is not the real immediate Israeli problem, and terrorism is. Circa the year 2000 and before, the the main Israeli terrorist threat was in the suicide bomber, or Palestinian protesters throwing nothing more leathal than rocks and bottles. Easily contained by the Israeli tactic of walling themselves in and Assad style inflicting disproporanate on any and all protesters. But now anti-Israeli terrorists have acquired rockets, that leap over walls, even though most of their guidance systems make them horribly inaccurate. And when the payload is conventional explosives, most of them simple land in farm fields and ineffectually blow a small crater in the dirt.

But the start of that use of slightly better rockets, is now in its infansy. As, now there are three disturbing trends for Israel. (1) The government of Lebanon, after the rape of Lebanon in 2005, is stockpiling longer range and better missiles in very large numbers. Careful not to use them against Israel, but Israel has also learned its lesson, in terms of putting Israeli boots on Lebanese soil. As its likely other Arab Governments will do the same. As they can also buy very modern anti-tank missiles which is the main stay of Israeli military ground power. (2) But the real threat to Israel is not Arab states and their militaries, and lies in the the Stateless terrorist. Who will sneak into Arab States, lauch terrorist missiles into Israel, and hope Israel retaliates against their neighbors. Which is now already happening in the extremely sparsy populated border between Israel and Egypt. As we can expect more and in more locations in the future.
(3) At least for now, Arab and Al-Quida rocket technology is limited to conventional explosives, but for how long? Poison Gas and biological weapons are long established techologies and well within Al-Quida technical capacities. Nor are rockets the only way to deliver them. Pin point accuracy does not matter nor do terrorists care about points of legality. In short, and especially regarding the Wolfie9999 perceptions of Stateless terrorists, Israel is the enemy that must be destroyed.

In short, and Woolfe9999 is 100% right, perceptions is a two edge sword that cuts both way.

As its always been my position on this forum, current Israeli government strategy is suicidal. As Israel seeming delights in driving Arab hatreds ever higher simply because they have the current military hegemony. As I maintain long term Israeli survival hinges
on Israeli Arab co-operation that is mutually beneficial to all nations in the mid-east. And the first step needed on the Israeli side is to co-operate in forming a Palestinian State. As the mid-east has one common problem, namely lack of water. Israeli Arab co-operation in water projects, with Israel having the bulk of engineering talent, and Iran supply the nuclear energy for desalination plants could do much to increase the supply of mid-east water.

While at the same time driving down the PERCEIVED mistrust issues terrorist need to continue to operate anywhere.