***Israel Planning Tactical Nuclear Attack***

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

Than New york would be destroyed..

than...

than...


than...


Africa will survive...Ironic

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

Than New york would be destroyed..

than...

than...


than...


Africa will survive...Ironic

Hehe...Yep.

 

[ProfJohn]

Actually I wonder if Russia has the ability anymore to nuke Tel-Aviv. The way their military is the missiles might not launch or hit the targets. And any planes would most likely not get past both Turkish and Iraqi air space. (I do not believe that their subs leave port anymore.)

Plus Russia is not going to war over Iran.

China and Russia will do the same thing they did after we invaded Iraq, bitch and moan and then move on with life.

BTW: I highly doubt we will learn why Israel plans to do from the UK Times or Drudge. More than likely when Israel does, if it does, take action it will be a total surprise to nearly everyone.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Isreal has never admitted to having any kind of nukes, and for good reason. If it became know for certain (such as if they used some), every nation in the M.E. would demand that they be allowed to have them too. That would be Isreal's worst nightmare.

Isreal probably has them, and intends them as a weapon of last resort if they were about to be overrun in an otherwise conventional war.

 

[Aimster]

Israel naval ship in the Persian Gulf ..

I am just throwing BS in the air.

Cruise missiles [6]


* Gabriel-4 anti-ship cruise missile with 200km range and 500kg payload.
* Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile with 120km range and 220kg payload.
* Alleged Popeye Turbo air-launched cruise missile with 200-300km range and unknown payloa

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

The planet would be turned to glass.

Bring it on

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

The planet would be turned to glass.

Bring it on

Hey Dave, what will be the price of gas after Nuclear war?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

The planet would be turned to glass.

Bring it on

Hey Dave, what will be the price of gas after Nuclear war?

Who needs it then?

 

[SsupernovaE]

Russia still has similar capabilities as the United States to launch ICBMs throughout the world.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As the article states this could all be an attempt to force other countries to act before Israel does.

I would not be surprised if they went ahead with a plan like this though, minus the nukes. We?d do the same thing if North Korea started preaching ?destruction to the US? along with its plans to build nukes.

For Israel the threat posed by Iran is real. Plus a nuke launch might stir up Iran?s support for Hezbollah too. Iran has been giving Israel?s enemy weapons and money for years and have never paid any price. This would be a chance for Israel to both eliminate the nuke threat and get a little payback. Plus who knows what will happen in Iran afterwards, there have been many near government over throws in the past, this could trigger one that actually works.

This is pretty naive thinking.

You shouldn't just nuke a country based on "who knows" type reasoning. Especially when that country controls tons and tons of oil, and aids terrorists around the world.

Naieve thinking? Not at all!! As usual Prof John is right on the money with his assesement of the issue!!

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Sorry if I typed what I was trying to say wrong.
My point was Bush's dislike/like level is the same as the Iranian leader?s dislike/like level.

People wanted Saddam dead. Nobody cared about Iraq when the U.S invaded. They wanted Saddam gone.

People dislike Bush and the Mullahs, but people do not wish them dead. If China invades the U.S, the people who hate Bush will fight for the U.S. If U.S invades Iran, the people will fight for Iran.
Nobody (well almost) wanted to fight for Iraq because they hated Iraq. They all wanted to see Saddam gone and shed blood trying in the past.

-
My Opinion:

Attack their nuclear sites and deal with the consequences. It will be a major war and the Democrats and Republicans need to stop fighting each other over this entire BS and actually realize the world is facing a potential future threat.
It will cost the U.S thousands of lives, but isn't that better than watching a millions of people in the Middle East die in the future at the hands of nuclear weapons?

Like I said before in my racist/bigot (whatever you want to call it) comments, Muslim nations should not have the means to develop nuclear weapons.

You're operating from the fallacy that the force of arms can remove Iran's capacity to produce a nuclear weapon, should they so choose to develop one. It cannot. The only thing an attack upon Iran would accomplish is ensuring that they do indeed seek a bomb, and hardening their resolve against the enemies that attacked them. And all the other ****** that war brings. The worst option of all.

To the blind, who fear nothing for they are mighty and therefore cannot be brought down, it should be said that America's supply lines in Iraq are tenuous, being that there's just the one and it runs through today's relatively benign Shia country to Kuwait. America is within a stone's throw of the worst of military fates, encirclement. It is within the realm of possibilty that you would lose your army in Iraq. At the very least you can expect KIA numbers to approach Vietnam's as the other 80% of Iraq joins in with "dead enders". And you, personally, do not want to live in the world where maritime insurers cancel the shipping insurance of all those tankers that travel the Straights of Hormuz, and suddenly there's a whole lot less oil going aroung. And, remember, it was all for nothing.

Israel will never strike Iran, as was brought up this release is intended to provoke action from America. As Aimster suggests, this is no Osirak, and any Israel strike will be far less effectual than what America can pound out. If I am wrong and they do, it'll serve as nothing more than a transparent symbolic warning, for not even tactical nuclear weapons will advance their aims.

Iran is seeking nuclear power plants, something they are entitled to under international law whether you like it or not, and all evidence to the contrary is of the same sort that was proferred against Iraq, minus Saddam's apparent slight of hand.

I do not wish for Iran to have the bomb, but I do not share your concerns about the immediate threat they pose should they aquire one. They are not suicidal, and their aggression is in the eye of the beholder. Bound to MAD they will be. Iran can be convinced to not pursue the bomb, but the path to that lies through the negotiation table and not through the barrel sights.

 

[JEDIYoda]

This whole thread is mindless speculation. Especially from those who know nothing more than what they have read about the capabilities of the Israli Army....

But the way things are at present diplomatically speaking things need to be discussed between all parties.

Don`t you believe that Iran`s military is one built on preventing an invasion....that is very nieve thinking!

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Israel is using small nukes about 1/15th of what was dropped on Hiroshima to burrow deep into the ground. Conventional bunker busters can't do this, I'm guessing. It is nothing new, the US considered the same thing against insurgents in Afghan mountains but didn't do it for a good reason:

Once you use nukes, any kind of nukes no matter how small; you open Pandora's box. It will now be acceptable for the world to use nukes in armed conflicts. This would be a disaster for people and for the environment. Now the nuclear powers can use "mini" nukes to resolve their disputes, without any standard for what "mini' is.

However, Israel needs to do this because some a$$hole with a napoleon complex has threatened to wipe it off the map. While using nukes is terrible because of the political implications, having a nuclear Iran is MUCH worse.

I don't think it will happen. This report was probably leaked to get the UN moving. When the UN thought Iraq was developing nukes they had an embargo that crippled the economy to the point where Iraq was unable to develop nukes or any WMDs - Desert Storm II confirmed this. I think they will do the same for Iran.

Too bad this will just fuel more anti-Israeli sentiment among people who will blame Israel for not allowing a lunatic neighbor to have nukes, before they blame the lunatic for developing them and threatening Israel.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Moscow would be turned to glass if they did that.

The planet would be turned to glass.

Bring it on

Australia will survive

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Iran is seeking nuclear power plants, something they are entitled to under international law whether you like it or not, and all evidence to the contrary is of the same sort that was proferred against Iraq, minus Saddam's apparent slight of hand.

Yeah okay. Civilian nuclear power plants ran and developed by the military. Russia already offered them nuclear power as long as all enrichment is done in Russia.

...and please point out where, under international law, is Iran allowed to have nuclear power. The UN has condemned Iran over and over again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1737

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The most amazing part of all of this is the acceptance of the idea that iran's nuclear program is geared towards weapons development, when there is no proof whatsoever in the accusation. According to the IAEA, they're in full compliance with the NPT that they signed, if not with the "additional protocols" which they never agreed to...

That's from IAEA inspectors onsite at the Iranian facilities.

And it's a bit disingenuous coming from a country that's had its own clandestine weapons program for decades, something they only recently admitted...

Hope all you young neocons are ready to be drafted, because any unprovoked attack on Iran, by either the US or the Israelis, will unleash an incredible shitstorm. Y'all ready for WW3, with the US and Israelis as the aggressors?

Iran had already admitted that it's nuclear program may not be civilian anymore:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348748,00.html

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Iran is seeking nuclear power plants, something they are entitled to under international law whether you like it or not, and all evidence to the contrary is of the same sort that was proferred against Iraq, minus Saddam's apparent slight of hand.

Yeah okay. Civilian nuclear power plants ran and developed by the military. Russia already offered them nuclear power as long as all enrichment is done in Russia.

...and please point out where, under international law, is Iran allowed to have nuclear power. The UN has condemned Iran over and over again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1737

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under that treaty, in exchange for giving up their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, they are entitled to the full gambit of peaceful nuclear power, including the enrichment of Uranium. The watchdog of that agreement is the IAEA, and if they haven't yet declared that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, then the stuff you believe is just the usual bull and rhetoric.

Yielding control of the nuclear fuel cycle to Russia would make them beholden to Russia. Also, this development of nuclear energy is a matter of national pride for them. Imagine if your energy infrastrature was dependant on a substance under foreign control. Oh wait, ours is. Perhaps they're not as dumb as us.

Now, I'll agree with those whose only historical frame of reference is the second world war and the events leading up to it; there is appeasement going on. Only it's appeasement directed to the American government. You may recall when a similar resolution was enacted against Iraq. In the hopes that such a resolution, which does not authorize military enforcement, would abate the drive for war, the rest of the P-5 yields to American pressure. Instead, in return, the resolution is only used as a tool with which to further beat the war drum, just like you are doing.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Strk
Plans are hardly the same as actually doing something. We probably had countless plans on how to take out the Soviets, but last I checked, we didn't.

Yeah I'm thinking along the same lines; I'm willing to bet they have nuclear and non-nuclear strategies drawn up for weeks.

More like years...There is zero chance the US will allow Israel to use tactical nukes on Iran, it would spark a major conflict, one in which we would have to intervene, and one in which we desperately do not want to.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel doesnt have the means or the weapons to attack Iran.

A) their range is too far
B) their aircraft are not stealth
C) they do not have enough manpower to attack all of the sites unless they decide to send in a major wave which would be easily picked up.

The U.S is going to attack Iran with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.
Iran cannot do a thing to stop those.

They absolutely have the means, they can do it if they wish. The pilots could bail out over the sea and Israel could pick them up if they had to. Or they could bail in Iraq and Israel could attempt a pickup. If they felt they HAD to do it, they'd find a way. Never underestimate Israel.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: dahunan
NOt like Iran doesn't deserve it after all the bullshit they have been saying about Israel and the utter lack of respect they show to the world and the UN

Couldn't agree more, they deserve it. However, I'm totally against it because of the implications of such an action.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
If a rag-tag bunch of cab drivers & goat herders can stand toe-to-toe with the strongest war machine in the world, I'm pretty sure Iran would stomp the matzah balls out of Israel.

Edit: If Israel were to nuke Tehran, Moscow would vaporize Tel Aviv.

Russia wouldn't dare intervene in the war with the full US might concentrated there and Israel which can be unpredictable and dangerous.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel doesnt have the means or the weapons to attack Iran.

A) their range is too far
B) their aircraft are not stealth
C) they do not have enough manpower to attack all of the sites unless they decide to send in a major wave which would be easily picked up.

The U.S is going to attack Iran with stealth aircraft and cruise missiles.
Iran cannot do a thing to stop those.

They absolutely have the means, they can do it if they wish. The pilots could bail out over the sea and Israel could pick them up if they had to. Or they could bail in Iraq and Israel could attempt a pickup. If they felt they HAD to do it, they'd find a way. Never underestimate Israel.

how many movies have you been watching?

If Israel's aircraft are detected, the chances of them getting shot down is 50/50. Last time I checked F-16s are not stealth.
They passed Iraq's air defense systems because Iraq was not expecting an attack. It was a total surprise. Iran is expecting someone to attack them.

How is Israel going to pick up their pilots? Flying eagle? Dolphins? Israel is not the United States.

Israel cannot do this operation without the U.S, which would make sense for the U.S to simply carry out the attack.

Unless ....
Israel has missiles that are accurate enough that they can launch from Israel to Iran.
Iran claims their missiles are accurate enough to take out Israel's nuclear reactor so I would assume Israel's missiles are accurate enough to take out Iran's nuclear reactor.
but Iran has the Tor-M1 misssile defense system now and possibly the S-300 which Russia claims can target cruise missiles, etc.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Please, Gamingphreak, the ties between the Israeli rightwing and the neocons are completely obvious, as are the ties to the fundie fringe. As for being "Allies"- cite the documentation for that claim. There isn't any, certainly not anything along the lines of Nato, for example...

Any attack by the Israelis will be viewed as a proxy attack by the US throughout the muslim world, and beyond. And that sentiment won't be far off the mark, if at all. Look at a map- figure out an attack route that won't cross US defended airspace...it doesn't exist, given that such coverage extends thru Turkey, Iraq, KSA and on out to Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean. We'd have to allow their planes to access Iran, which is basically the same thing as doing the deed ourselves...

Dear lord, my ID is right next to this post and you still can't spell it right -_-

At any rate, you are being really circular. You say that we are not Allies (Or at least supporters) of Israel. However, you then say that anything Israel does will be a proxy attack from the US. Which is it??

Now that your fearless Jackass in Chief has squandered our military to the point where we couldn't do anything about Iran or North Korea if we had to, it's a bit hypocritical to piss and moan about how "cowardly" we are.

Squandered?? We have lost just over 3,000 soldiers! We lost more men than that in single battles in the World Wars, Vietnam etc... We are hardly crippled, and though you may not agree with his plan of action, the military certainly hasn't been squandered.

-Kevin

 

[KurskKnyaz]

"in exchange for giving up their sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, they are entitled to the full gambit of peaceful nuclear power, including the enrichment of Uranium."

The security council already demanded that Iran suspend ALL enrichment activities. Iran can have nuclear power, but thats not what It is after - this program is being run by the military.