Nuclear Exchange between Iran and Israel

[Vladimir]

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2007...f-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!
"Oh all those poor Irianians; Israel should have engaged in constructive dialogue before the counterstrike. This is a time for healing. "

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!

Good answer!

[Ronin]

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

agreed

[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?

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.

[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?

Oh wait, that sounds familiar...

[Husar]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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

Things are a little more complex then they first appear.