Nuclear Exchange between Iran and Israel

[Vladimir]

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2007/11/the-unthinkable-consequences-of-an-iran.html

This is why I posted the article:


some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

Even if Iran struck first Israel would still be the bad guy! :laugh4:
"Oh all those poor Irianians; Israel should have engaged in constructive dialogue before the counterstrike. This is a time for healing. :yes:"

Reminds me of the current conflict: Suicide bomber blows up a shopping mall killing 10. Israel bombs the house of the Hammas leader who organized it killing 15. Conclusion: Israel is teh suck.

Anyone agree with this analysis?

[naut]

Having studied the conflict in depth, I have decided, both sides is teh suck. NEXT!

[Vladimir]

Having studied the conflict in depth, I have decided, both sides is teh suck. NEXT!

:laugh4: Good answer!

[The Black Ship]

Neither agree nor disagree with your analysis.

However, it cannot be lost on anyone that Iran can devastate Israel with a single device, whilst it would take multiple strikes by Israel to produce a proportionate level of devastation. In this case size(geographic) does matter.

I do wonder what the international response would be for an exchange of 1 Iranian bomb to say 4-5 Israeli bombs. I keep thinking "proportionate response". Then again what is a proportionate response for an atomic attack?

[PanzerJaeger]

Reminds me of the current conflict: Suicide bomber blows up a shopping mall killing 10. Israel bombs the house of the Hammas leader who organized it killing 15. Conclusion: Israel is teh suck.

Anyone agree with this analysis?

Yes.

The palestinians have embraced the same bloodthirsty arab/muslim mentality that led to 9/11, yet Israel is the bad guy.

In the Western World, some people will always side with the culturally deficient and the technologically inferior, regardless of how egregious their beliefs are (mostly because they don't take the time to actually learn what organizations such as Hamas truly believes). The irony is that such free thought is only possible because of countries which have embraced democratic principles, such as Israel.

As I've said before, a picture of a kid throwing a rock at a Merkava is enough for some idiots to make up their minds.

[TinCow]

This skips the most likely outcome which is that a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran would ignite a general war in the region which would quickly involve NATO nations and possibly Pakistan, India, Russia, and China as well. Most likely it would be the start of WW3.

[rory_20_uk]

Starting WW3? hardly. Most of the countries you name can't even transport their forces to the area - unless for reasons I fail to understand they suddenly turn on each other which frankly makes no sense.

Panzer. Look how emotive Americans got after one attack on their country, which for the vast majority did nothing. They were prepared to believe anything as long as they could get "payback". Palestinians have in the last 60 years been thrown off their land, had their economy crippled and are denied most basic human rights. The majority have been born into this situation.

Yet you're surprised that they join someone - anyone - who says they'll get them out of this? doing nothing has led to more and more land bieng taken so clearly doesn't work. Your plan would be for them to wait for Tony Blair to sort it all out? :inquisitive:

When one side comes in, blows up a few houses, demolishes a few more then decides to cut power it is rather easy to see them as the enemy.

Hamas wants Israel to cease to exist. But Israel existing means that a state of Palestine effectively doesn't exist. How is one view fine and the other not? Is it that the Jews started bombing the British earlier which makes their demands justified?


Roll on renewable fuels and we can forget about the whole region.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

This skips the most likely outcome which is that a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran would ignite a general war in the region which would quickly involve NATO nations and possibly Pakistan, India, Russia, and China as well. Most likely it would be the start of WW3.

That is unlikely as the military bonds present during the Cold War are much weaker now. This is also an exchange that would occur over a matter of days or hours; far too little time for NATO to mobalize. Pakistan wouldn't get involved directly as they lack a sufficient delivery system. China would have the same problem with its army. They would also have to re-nuke portions of tiny Israel.

[naut]

Thanks rory, I echo your sentiment entirely.

[TinCow]

That is unlikely as the military bonds present during the Cold War are much weaker now. This is also an exchange that would occur over a matter of days or hours; far too little time for NATO to mobalize. Pakistan wouldn't get involved directly as they lack a sufficient delivery system. China would have the same problem with its army. They would also have to re-nuke portions of tiny Israel.

You're missing the point that such an Iranian-Israeli war would likely exacerbate religious tensions to the point where it would re-ignite the Pakistan-India conflict. That's where their involvement (and possibly China's) comes into play. NATO nations would likely be forced to intervene if a general regional war broke out to protect their own interests, as an Iranian-Israeli war would be almost guaranteed to shut off the oil supply to the west. Russia could see such a conflict as a distraction to allow them to settle some unfinished business in the Caucasus region, most notably with Georgia and Chechnya.

[drone]

Where would the fallout from the Iranian strike go? I assume it would spread east, but I'm not familiar with the weather patterns in the area. Syria and Jordan would not be too happy about it, I would imagine.


Roll on renewable fuels and we can forget about the whole region.:yes:

[Ronin]

Having studied the conflict in depth, I have decided, both sides is teh suck. NEXT!

agreed :smash:

[rory_20_uk]

You're missing the point that such an Iranian-Israeli war would likely exacerbate religious tensions to the point where it would re-ignite the Pakistan-India conflict. That's where their involvement (and possibly China's) comes into play. NATO nations would likely be forced to intervene if a general regional war broke out to protect their own interests, as an Iranian-Israeli war would be almost guaranteed to shut off the oil supply to the west. Russia could see such a conflict as a distraction to allow them to settle some unfinished business in the Caucasus region, most notably with Georgia and Chechnya.

I doubt that India-Pakistan would get involved merely as one lot of Muslims are fighting Jews - especially in light of what Nuclear weapons can do. Equally, if not more likely would be a situation where both sides engage in talks to prevent this happening.

China? Unless they decided to attack India on the offchance that an army with more than 1 million troops can't fight on two fronts and there are no nuclear tipped missiles left, their direct involvement seems remote at best.

NATO would not be keen in loosing masses of troops and equipment in the malestrom - let alone would there be public sentiment.

As Russia is almost already at War in the Caucasus that is more likely, but this distraction no more than any other.


The big power blocks would be first ensuring that they had adequate supplies from areas that weren't nuked, then after the conflict was over would look to help in the area. This is where life differs from Risk.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

[Vladimir]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

You say that now but Redleg is going to bust in here and give you the blast radius of varions nukes.

[TinCow]

The problem is that most level-headedness will go the way of the dodo once nuclear warfare erupts. That's what we're talking about here, not a conventional war. Once nukes start popping off over Tel Aviv and Tehran, the rules have to be re-written. Hezbollah, Hamas, and Syria are likely to join in the attack on Israel, threatening a general Middle-East War. Muslims across the region will probably take up arms against Israel on a massive scale. Militant groups in many nations will gain a signficant number of followers and begin attacks on local governments that are seen as supporting the West, notably in Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan. Fundamentalist groups could easily overthrow the governments of several of these nations, most notably Lebanon and Pakistan.

A nuclear armed Pakistan controlled by fundamentalist muslims in the midst of or recent aftermath of an Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange would pose an immense threat to India, possibly resulting in an Indian pre-emptive strike to prevent the fundamentalists from gaining control over the nuclear weapons in the first place. China is an unlikely participant, but it has long had tense relations with India and a possible nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would greatly threaten stability in the region, possibly inciting them to intervention. At the same time, increased islamic militantism across the region will certainly result in attacks on Russian interests in the Caucasus, with the inevitable response.

On top of it all, the massive losses that Iran is bound to suffer will greatly weaken the power of the Shi'ite community at large, which will probably result in sectarian warfare across the region between Sunnis and Shi'ites.

I'm not envisioning a world where NATO is fighting Russia and China, more of a general hodge-podge of many small to moderate sized wars all occurring at the same time across the broader region. However, such a situation poses a real risk that these conflicts will bleed into one another, resulting in unfortunate incidents which incite some of the larger belligerents into war against each other. It is very plausible that China would supply military aid to Pakistan. In turn India defeats the Pakistani navy and blockades the Pakistani coast. Chinese ships then hit mines laid offshore and sink, with many lives lost. This is how small wars turn into large wars. WW1 and WW2 both had similar chain reactions that dragged multiple smaller conflicts into a single overarching war.

Once the nukes start flying, it will be very hard for any nation to maintain a level head.

[Adrian II]

The problem is that most level-headedness will go the way of the dodo once nuclear warfare erupts.I don't think so. I think such an exchange will be a tremendous shock to the world system, but it will initially result in a deafening silence of public opinion, followed by frantic attempts to control the damage and prevent further escalation. In the longer term there will be a drift toward authoritarianism, inspired by the sense of doom that will have spread in the wake of the episode.

[Geoffrey S]

Pakistan's the sore point. That could go at any time when things start moving.

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.
Considering Arab treatment of Palestinians over the decennia, I doubt they'd particularly care.

[Vladimir]

Pakistan's the sore point. That could go at any time when things start moving.

Considering Arab treatment of Palestinians over the decennia, I doubt they'd particularly care.

Iranians aren't Arabs!

[HoreTore]

Starting WW3? hardly. Most of the countries you name can't even transport their forces to the area - unless for reasons I fail to understand they suddenly turn on each other which frankly makes no sense.

Yeah, why would everyone including every major european power turn on each because some wackjob in Serbia killed a guy? :inquisitive:

Oh wait, that sounds familiar...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of all the nuclear scenarios, a strike by Iran presents Israel with the "cleanest" options. Iran is a nation-state and has targets of value as well.

Israel could not simply stand down -- politically unacceptable -- but Iran has a number of primarily military site that could be targeted in a counterstrike producing fewer civilian casualties than would any strike in Israel. For example, the Iranian naval drydocks for their diesel sub fleet would likely not last long. Thus, Israel could counterstrike as would be a political necessity, but could do so at a "counter-force" target and avoid the approbation of a "counter-value" strike.


Of course, the most likely scenario for an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be a truck or cargo container driven into Tel Aviv (comparatively little arab/palestinian presence but lots of Israelis) by a jihadi from one of the militant sects available. Even if the nuclear signature were linked to an Iranian facility, Iran would claim that the material/device had been stolen (actually, this could even be true given the odd relationship between Rev Guard and formal military/security organs), that they had not notified anyone for fear of embarrassment, and that they had no responsibility for the heinous act. Israel would be unlikely to attack the terrorist base responsible for the direct attack, as it would be sited in a major urban area just chock full of innnocents, and would be viewed as a nuclear agressor if they struck at Iran after Iran had said they weren't responsible and apologized for their poor internal security.

Most likely result would be no counterstrike. This lack of response would be followed by a rapid vote of no confidence, ushering in a new and decidely conservative/hard-line governing coalition. The inevitable crackdowns in the territories would generate increased "hero" status for Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever other group (if any) pulled off the physical attack. Since this
would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

[Husar]

Yeah, why would everyone including every major european power turn on each because some wackjob in Serbia killed a guy? :inquisitive:

Oh wait, that sounds familiar...
Back then they were all just waiting for a reason, I'm not sure about these days, at least here in Europe it seems like most people don't really want any more wars.

[HoreTore]

Back then they were all just waiting for a reason, I'm not sure about these days, at least here in Europe it seems like most people don't really want any more wars.

More than enough conflict in this world... and remember that a war can still count as a world war even if France and Germany are on the same side ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

Since this would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

There is one loss, and that would be of lives.

If such an attack occurred, Israel would disrespect as many borders, kill as many civilians, invade as many nations, and incur as much collateral damage as necessary to hunt down and kill every single person even remotely involved with it. We're talking no holds barred here.

As much as Hamas and Hezbollah like to talk up martyrdom, the leaders are just as invested in their power as any others. While they're happy to send young fanatics to blow themselves up, they may think twice about threatening their own survival in such an attack.

Of course, one shouldn't underestimate the insanity of many in the arab world.

[Geoffrey S]

Iranians aren't Arabs!
Sad as it may be, that probably means they'd care even less.

[Papewaio]

An Israel vs Iran war does not mean then a Pakistan vs India war.

Iran has an alliance with both Pakistan and India. In fact the Iranian alliance with India (http://www.voltairenet.org/article30081.html) is so strong that they are proposing an oil pipeline through Pakistan (and Pakistan is being paid to keep the oil flowing).


Cultural Affinities and Convergence of Interests

Iran and India are the two main Shiite Muslim countries of the world. Historically, their cultural affinities go back even beyond the cult of Mitra, in the pre-Christian era. In fact, the inhabitants of modern Iraq, the South of Iran and the West and North-West of India, came from the same region, something that one day led pundit Nehru to say: «Few peoples have been so closely united by their origins and history like the peoples of India and Iran». We also find a people in the hills of Beluchistan, the barhuis, who still have an Iranian culture and speak a Dravidian language similar to that spoken in the South of India. The very name of Iran is of a Sanskrit origin, airya (noble), like the word aryen, in reverse order, the term India evolved from the ancient Persian.


Also Turkey is trying to supply oil to India. How?

Part of it is to build an oil pipeline through Israel.

Turkey offers oil pipe lifeline to India (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/south_asia/jb27df03.html)

Things are a little more complex then they first appear.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is one loss, and that would be of lives. Would be Great Captains -- of nation-states or non-state actors -- have historically been willing to accept this as a cost of achieving their objectives. This is especially true of the leader of a "jihadi" effort, since they know, not believe, but KNOW, that death for such a cause ensures that individual's salavation.


If such an attack occurred, Israel would disrespect as many borders, kill as many civilians, invade as many nations, and incur as much collateral damage as necessary to hunt down and kill every single person even remotely involved with it. We're talking no holds barred here.

As much as Hamas and Hezbollah like to talk up martyrdom, the leaders are just as invested in their power as any others. While they're happy to send young fanatics to blow themselves up, they may think twice about threatening their own survival in such an attack.

Of course, one shouldn't underestimate the insanity of many in the arab world.

Potentially, but they would face the same problem -- hunting a small number of the "responsible" among a great mass of innocents possessing a varying degree of sympathy for the anti-Israel cause. Israel lacks the resources to methodically eradicate all of those responsible on an individual basis, and massive military response would involve a slaughter of the (mostly) innocent that would parallel the kind of pogrom Israel was founded to prevent.

The Mossad hunted the planners of Munich and got many, but not all.

The IDF has invaded Lebanon several times, but not squashed the terror attacks.

Israel is only a small place, and for all its pluck can do only so much.

I suspect that Israel will, one day, be absorbed into some greater Middle East collective. What will be interesting to see will be the terms under which that occurs.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I imagine it would be part of a "moderate" axis - Jordan, Israel and Egypt, the first and last having somehow dealt with the problems an alliance with Israel would pose for parts of its population.

[Samurai Waki]

An Egyptian-Israeli Cooperative would be a very scary military machine. But unlikely, Egypt has some Extremist Problems as it is, and they would make every effort to silence the moderate voice. It would be a struggle to even get their military to cooperate with government, considering a large part of it are Paramilitary and controlled by an outside branch of government.

[Brenus]

some wackjob in Serbia killed a guy? in Bosnia, Sarajevo, Gavrilo Princip was a Serb, but from Bosnia:beam:

[Mikeus Caesar]

What i'm getting from this is that tl;dr the world as we know it is most likely going to fall to bits within the next century, possibly even the next 50 years. But with all this talk of nuclear fun, i have a question - where is our lord and master, the United States, in all of this?

[Geoffrey S]

I imagine it would be part of a "moderate" axis - Jordan, Israel and Egypt, the first and last having somehow dealt with the problems an alliance with Israel would pose for parts of its population.
Egypt, moderate? It's a practical dictatorship scared witless of the large number of religious extremists amongst its population. For the last few decades it's been practically paralyzed in trying to keep a small clique in power.

[Ironside]

Of course, the most likely scenario for an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel would be a truck or cargo container driven into Tel Aviv (comparatively little arab/palestinian presence but lots of Israelis) by a jihadi from one of the militant sects available. Even if the nuclear signature were linked to an Iranian facility, Iran would claim that the material/device had been stolen

The inevitable crackdowns in the territories would generate increased "hero" status for Hamas, Hezbollah, and whatever other group (if any) pulled off the physical attack. Since this
would increase recruiting and polarize the situation further -- both of which would enhance the power of these non-state actors -- it is very much to their benefit to carry out such a strike as soon as they can procure the materials. For them, it is win-win.

I think you severely underestimate the responce of the use of a nuke, no organisation would survive taking responsibillity. None would dare sponsor them and I suspect that most Palestinians on the street would also feel that it's one hell of an overkill (aka support dropped to zero). It's an open declaration of war, where the Israelis will have all the western world as support and the Arab world will stay very quiet.

And Iran's nuclear reputation would be severly damaged. At best (for them that is) no bombs will fall.
But still either they lie (dropping their trustworthyness to about zero) or they cannot control their nuclear material. Both cases spells the doom for any influence in the region outside pure bullying.

[JR-]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.
if iran were mad-dog crazy enough to initiate a first strike, i really don't think the plight of palestinians would sway the matter either way.

[TinCow]

But with all this talk of nuclear fun, i have a question - where is our lord and master, the United States, in all of this?

If Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel, the US would most likely declare war against it. A real declaration of war, not one of these Vietnam and Iraq presidential police action things. An unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel would also sway the vast majority of US public opinion (likely 90%+) into approval of such a war. The public may even support the re-introduction of the draft in such a situation. If the war lasted for more than a week, I would expect a full-scale mobilization in the US.

[Vladimir]

If Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel, the US would most likely declare war against it. A real declaration of war, not one of these Vietnam and Iraq presidential police action things. An unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel would also sway the vast majority of US public opinion (likely 90%+) into approval of such a war. The public may even support the re-introduction of the draft in such a situation. If the war lasted for more than a week, I would expect a full-scale mobilization in the US.

Or unconditional talks depending on who becomes president. :juggle2:

[Viking]

Or unconditional talks depending on who becomes president. :juggle2:

Instead of two destroyed states, we'd have just one. That'd suck.

Oh well, one'd assume that Israel has got the ability go MAD anyway.

[Samurai Waki]

if iran were mad-dog crazy enough to initiate a first strike, i really don't think the plight of palestinians would sway the matter either way.

I think the Palestinians would cease to exist in Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank. I think either by extermination, or more likely getting expelled on a tragic scale, and forcing countries like Syria, Egypt, and Jordan to accept such a measure and these countries all the while being completely hamstrung by the international community.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Nuclear weapons can not distinguish between Israelis and Palestinians. Eliminating Israel means eliminating Palestine.

That would certainly settle some problems, wouldn't it?

[Papewaio]

If the war lasted for more than a week, I would expect a full-scale mobilization in the US.

Iraq:
Pop:28,221,181
"mostly broad plains; reedy marshes along Iranian border in south with large flooded areas; mountains along borders with Iran and Turkey"

Iran
Pop:65,875,223
"rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts"

So 3 times the population in mountains... I think it would be more then a week. And you would have to get China & Russia on side as India and Pakistan probably wouldn't.

[TinCow]

So 3 times the population in mountains... I think it would be more then a week. And you would have to get China & Russia on side as India and Pakistan probably wouldn't.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that Israel or the US would defeat Iran in a week with ground forces. I'm simply talking about the reality that in an all-out nuclear exchange, the war is likely to end before much conventional warfare is involved. Any post-war occupation would definitely be messy, but the US would probably be willing to accept the costs. 9/11 alone is enough to keep support for Afghanistan relatively high to this day. A nuclear first strike by Iran would put the US public on in an unconditional victory mentality for a long, long time.