Isreali-Iran prophecy, what do you think?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Mc Cain actually has commented on it.

Exact quote please.

So if Russia flung nukes at America, America would not use nuclear weapons?

Sure it would. But why would Russia strike in the first place? Just like Russia would retaliate if America struck - but America wouldn't strike first. MAD still exists.

[spmetla]

I doubt that Israel will do any sort of military strike on Iran in the near future. I'm sure the US won't let them fly over Iraq and unless the Saudis see Iran as big enough menace and allow use of their airspace with all the consequences that makes for them there's no way Israel could even do a strike.

Additionally I doubt that Israel has the strike capabilities to completely destroy all facilities involved in nuclear research and development.

That and Israel would undoubtedly face retribution from Hamas and Hezbollah which might draw them into Palestine and Lebanon again. Also there's be no guarantee that Syria would sit out such a blatant attack on their only ally in the region. Excluding of course the Chinese civil war and the various anti-imperial rebellions.


As for the US use of the A bombs I feel it was justified. It saved the US from having to do a costly invasion of mainland Japan as well as demonstrated a technological edge over the Soviets which kept a peace in the region until the Soviets got the bomb and the start of the Korean war.
The US bombed one city, they didn't surrender, bombed another which together with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria forced the Japanese to surrender. WWII was total war and unfortunately cities as the location of most factories and workers made them fair game at the time. Both cities were important as centers of production, logistical hubs, and both had military facilities. It's unfortunate that the US resorted to such weapons but considering the times I fully support how they were used.

As for US history books not saying anything bad, I've had more then enough texts books in intermediate and high school that went over things like Manifest Destiny and the genocide of the Indians as well as it's bout of Imperialism after the Spanish-American War and the devestation brought by US use of A bombs as well as firebombing.

[Lord Winter]

Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.

[Husar]

As to nukes in WW2 and today, I fon't think they dropped the two back then to destroy industry, they did it to show they could eradicate two cities and possibly more, it's almost amazing that the japanese didn't pee their pants and give up directly after the first. I think it was justified for the losses prevented and simply because it was new and I don't think the US had detonated any above the ground before that so it's safe to say they did not know about all the effects and most certainly not about the radiation (which killed some US personnel in later tests as well). Might say it's bad to use experimental weapons but hey, they'd been fighting a bloody World War(that they never asked for, neither wanted to join) for three years...

As to whether Israel will strike that reactor now or the US will nuke it, there's only one appropriate smiley available here and it's at the top of my post, probably as accurate as most guesses here.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh but they had detonated a prototype nuke in New Mexico (Trinity; 1945). Much earlier they also blew up estimated equivalents in TNT just to gauge what a nuke would do: the scientists did have a fairly good understanding of the pure destruction a nuke could cause. And the selection of cities has certainly something to do with how well the geography would (not) get in the way of the nukes: much like how the allies made a conscious effort to pick the ‘best’ tools for the job at Dresden.

Justified? Perhaps. But definitely not because people didn't know what was going to happen: they were brilliant enough to pull off a nuke in the first place, they had been at the forefront of relevant physics & military for decades and they were definitely both well-informed & self-conscious enough to realize what it could do and what their role was.

[Hooahguy]

Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.

well Israel did with the iraqi reactor.

[Lord Winter]

well Israel did with the iraqi reactor.

All the sources I've heard have said that the success of a strike is unlikely. Even if it was it would destabilize the region and do more harm then good.

[Jolt]

Well, my cousin, who works in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here of Portugal, says the Israeli will have no choice but to strike until the forthcoming new year.

[Furunculus]

Well, my cousin, who works in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here of Portugal, says the Israeli will have no choice but to strike until the forthcoming new year.

just to clarify, are you saying:
a)Israel will have no choice but to [not] strike until the forthcoming new year.
b)Israel will have no choice but to strike [in] the forthcoming new year.

[Jolt]

just to clarify, are you saying:
a)Israel will have no choice but to [not] strike until the forthcoming new year.
b)Israel will have no choice but to strike [in] the forthcoming new year.

b) She didn't put it [in] but rather [until], which means it may be sooner than that.

EDIT: According to her, the facility will be fully/near-fully operational by New Year, something Israel wishes to stop at all costs.
Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.

[Fragony]

could be, should be imho but there is still a jewish community in Iran don't underestimate that, when they leave we know. edit that did't in any way suggest a nuke.I like these persians somthing about them

[Tribesman]

b)

your cousin doesn't know much then, as despite all the earlier sabre rattling Israel knows that a strike against Iran isn't a viable option.

Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.

Really?

[Sarmatian]

Of course, she is rather afraid of its consequences for NATO, which will support Israel doubtlessly.

What kind of support your talking about here? Military, political, verbal... ?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can we really stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if we want to? We tried sanctions with Pakistan and India and that didn't work. The facilities are far underground and unlikely to be damaged with anything short of a nuke and I think everyone agrees that we can't invade. Instead we should focus on the root causes of the Iranian desire for nukes. The drive towards nuclear weapons is a move for AnotherDinnerJacket to pander to the radicals in the country while keeping the same spirit of the protests we saw in the summer. We also can't overlook the role that the US"s foreign policy has had in inflating the fears of the Iranian people and driving them towards the hardliners. The only thing any step we could take again Iran would do would drive the farther down the path of extremism, and that, not nukes, is the true risk to U.S. interests.

Non-nuclear ordinance that can take out such buried targets is in an advanced stage of development. How soon or if it will be deployed is another question.

[Jolt]

your cousin doesn't know much then, as despite all the earlier sabre rattling Israel knows that a strike against Iran isn't a viable option.

Oh, but she doesn't work only in Portugal. She is a Portuguese delegate in the UN as well. Sure enough, she doesn't work in the International Security Affairs area, but rather in the Economic Cooperation and Development area.
But obviously she is a friend and acquaintance of a great many people of different countries who work in the area of International Security area. Taking that into account, I'd say she would know much more than all of us together. I must say I thought an Israeli attack on Iran rather far-fetched, and after talking to her about it briefly, she says its only too probable.

What kind of support your talking about here? Military, political, verbal... ?

She didn't specify, but I was too surprised at her ready response to even press the matter further. Though, I suppose NATO giving military support is improbable. Probably International support, which might still impact greatly NATO's commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Tribesman]

Taking that into account, I'd say she would know much more than all of us together.

If she knew then she would know that Israel at a push with lots of co-operation and lots of luck by putting all its assets into a single unrepeatable high stakes gamble could if everything went perfectly achieve.....very little.

[Jolt]

If you consider "very little", maintaining the Nuclear monopoly in the region for several/many/a lot of years more, then yes, you would be correct.

[Tribesman]

If you consider "very little", maintaining the Nuclear monopoly in the region for several/many/a lot of years more, then yes, you would be correct.

Whatever happened to your arguement about Israel launching a strike ?

[Jolt]

...Eh? I'm talking exactly about that.

[Tribesman]

Eh? I'm talking exactly about that.

So you realise they can't do it then?

[Jolt]

Honestly I have no idea.

What I was saying is that if they do succeed, they will cripple a uranium refining plant, which seriously throws back the ability (And the date) of the Iranians to produce enough Uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

[Tribesman]

What I was saying is that if they do succeed,

A very very big if.

they will cripple a uranium refining plant,

wow

which seriously throws back the ability

Really?
Israel has the ability to take out if they are lucky one facility at one location in an all or nothing strike that they cannot repeat.
Since the Iranian program involves duplicated facilities at various locations an Isreali strike means aiming to achieve bugger all at a huge cost.
Not even Netanyahu and Lieberman are quite that stupid.

[Vladimir]

Interesting discussion. Information from "sources" in minor European governments and revisionist history. Lovely.

[Beskar]

Mc Cain on Iran

[Jolt]

A very very big if.

wow

Really?
Israel has the ability to take out if they are lucky one facility at one location in an all or nothing strike that they cannot repeat.
Since the Iranian program involves duplicated facilities at various locations an Isreali strike means aiming to achieve bugger all at a huge cost.
Not even Netanyahu and Lieberman are quite that stupid.

Who is to say they'll be hitting merely a single target?

[drone]

As a signatory of the NPT, Iran is required to give 3 months notice to leave the treaty and begin nuclear weapons development. Until that decision is made, their nuclear facilities are subject to inspections and infractions could lead to sanctions. Israel, India, and Pakistan are not signatories, and their situations are not comparable to Iran's.

Once the 3 month notice to leave the NPT is given and the time expires, more power to them. If Iran attempts to hide weapons development without withdrawing, they get what they deserve.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Mc Cain on Iran

You just linked something which didn't actually show the full answer to his question, just the first sentence where he was laughing about a song. Proves...nothing.

[Tribesman]

Who is to say they'll be hitting merely a single target?

It is due to the nature of the targets and the availability of assets
The available cruise and ballistic missiles do not have the neccesary destructive ability.

What would be ideal is a weapon that that Israel doesn't have which is under development by someone else for use with a delivery system that Israel also doesn't have.
Israel does have something that could work though, numerous repeated sequencial blasts delivered with absolute precision and perfect split second timing....using their entire store of the weapons and all their delivery platforms, while utilising their entire refueling capacity to operate at the extreme limit of their range.....errrrr......on a single target

Do you not wonder why Israel has changed its tune so much about launching strikes?
It is because the threat was obviously hollow.