Israel to Nuke Iran?

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_israel_dc

iran has just stated that they might build nuclear weapons if threatened. with that said...does israel have any choice but to destroy their nuclear reactors? and if they did use a low-yield nuclear device deep under ground...is it morally wrong?

i dont think israel should have nukes...but they would never use it on a civilain target. there is a good possibility that iran would do just that.

 

[Katana]

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert appears to have come close to admitting that his country has nuclear weapons.
Speaking on German TV, he said Israel did not threaten "any nation with annihilation" while Iran openly threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

"Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?" he said.

Link

I strongly suspect that Israel already has nuclear weapons. I also suspect that Iran thinks the same. Whether that changes anything Iran does remains to be seen.

 

[Grammatron]

Who doesn't think Israel has nukes?

 

[DanishDynamite]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070106/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_israel_dc

iran has just stated that they might build nuclear weapons if threatened. with that said...does israel have any choice but to destroy their nuclear reactors? and if they did use a low-yield nuclear device deep under ground...is it morally wrong?

I, for one, would be okay with Israel using a pre-emptive strike against Iran, given the rhetoric of the president of the country.

i dont think israel should have nukes...but they would never use it on a civilain target. there is a good possibility that iran would do just that.

I don't think any country should have nukes, but given that the genie is out of the bottle, I could (hopefully) live with only democratic countries having it.

 

[CBVan]

When you use a nuke, by definition you cannot descriminate and not kill the civillians, if you use it on land. A nuke, by its very design, destroys everything. One side or the other will use them, unless things change dramatically.

 

[davefoc]

These kind of threads gross me out a bit.

Any attack on Iran at this point is likely to result in hundred's of thousands if not millions of deaths.

The myth that somehow Israel can just go off and kill a few thousand Iranians or so with a little surgical strike and then all the other Arabic countries will be so afraid of Israel that they won't do anything against Israel looks like crap to me. Not to mention all the nuclear fall out that blows across the region and back into Israel

Israel needs to figure out how to make peace with its neighbors. Setting up settlements that harass the Palestinians is not the path that will accomplish that. Neither will building walls through Palestinian villages and claiming that it's being done for security.

The neocon goal of asserting American/Israeli influence through force of arms is now sitting in tatters. America and Israel are more subject to terrorist attacks now than before, Iran is now absolutely the most significant power in the region, the possibility that a non-Israeli country in the region was going to have nuclear weapons has now been turned into a likely hood, millions of Iraqis have been displaced many out of Iraq entirely, and the most likely government in Iraq when this thing settles down will be somewhat fundamentalist and Iraqi women will probably have less rights than they had before the US intervention.

Is there anything that can end this military madness? I thought that even if the new congress didn't assert itself enough to stop the squandering of American lives to save Bush from admitting what a huge disaster he is responsible for they could at least prevent an attack on Iran. I hope this is so and all that will happen over the next two years is that Bush squanders the lives of a few thousand soldiers in the name of his mindless foreign policy.

The US has created chaos and now instead of people stepping back and saying gee maybe preemptive invasions aren't such a good plan we have people thinking the message is next time we should just bomb people preemptively? One of the topics that comes up in these threads periodically is whether Jews are safer as a result of the founding of Israel. Given that roughly 4,000,000 Jews are in Israel, a country that now people are suggesting is so desperate that they should consider attacking a nearby country with nuclear weapons, I'd say the answer is disturbingly obvious Just how safe do people think those 4,000,000 Jews will be when Israel turns the middle east into a mass of completely pissed off people many with the sole goal of killing Israelis?

 

[DanishDynamite]

These kind of threads gross me out a bit.

If you prefer to live in blissfull ignorance of the real world, why do you post here?

Any attack on Iran at this point is likely to result in hundred's of thousands if not millions of deaths.

At least.

The myth that somehow Israel can just go off and kill a few thousand Iranians or so with a little surgical strike and then all the other Arabic countries will be so afraid of Israel that they won't do anything against Israel looks like crap to me. Not to mention all the nuclear fall out that blows across the region and back into Israel

Looks like a crap myth to me as well. Why did you mention this crap which no one apparently believes in?

Israel needs to figure out how to make peace with its neighbors. Setting up settlements that harass the Palestinians is not the path that will accomplish that. Neither will building walls through Palestinian villages and claiming that it's being done for security.

The neocon goal of asserting American/Israeli influence through force of arms is now sitting in tatters. America and Israel are more subject to terrorist attacks now than before, Iran is now absolutely the most significant power in the region, the possibility that a non-Israeli country in the region was going to have nuclear weapons has now been turned into a likely hood, millions of Iraqis have been displaced many out of Iraq entirely, and the most likely government in Iraq when this thing settles down will be somewhat fundamentalist and Iraqi women will probably have less rights than they had before the US intervention.

Is there anything that can end this military madness? I thought that even if the new congress didn't assert itself enough to stop the squandering of American lives to save Bush from admitting what a huge disaster he is responsible for they could at least prevent an attack on Iran. I hope this is so and all that will happen over the next two years is that Bush squanders the lives of a few thousand soldiers in the name of his mindless foreign policy.

The US has created chaos and now instead of people stepping back and saying gee maybe preemptive invasions aren't such a good plan we have people thinking the message is next time we should just bomb people preemptively? One of the topics that comes up in these threads periodically is whether Jews are safer as a result of the founding of Israel. Given that roughly 4,000,000 Jews are in Israel, a country that now people are suggesting is so desperate that they should consider attacking a nearby country with nuclear weapons, I'd say the answer is disturbingly obvious Just how safe do people think those 4,000,000 Jews will be when Israel turns the middle east into a mass of completely pissed off people many with the sole goal of killing Israelis?

Israel has blown away the Middle East before. The Arabs have not improved their fighting ability significantly since then.

The fittest survive. What's your problem?

 

[davefoc]

The fittest survive. What's your problem?

I suspect this was meant a bit in jest, a bit as a devil's advocate kind of comment and a bit seriously. Not too bad a use of language for somebody whose first language isn't English.

I don't really have a great answer to the question on any of the levels it may have been intended.

I would like to see that Palestine/Israeli situation ended peacefully. I would like not to see massive death in Iran and probably the whole of the middle east. I would like not to see massive chaos in the middle east that substantially affects my life and my country. I think it would also be nice if massive chaos in the middle east doesn't spill over into Europe to the point where the internet is disrupted and I might not be able to hear what DD has to say about the world.

All of these things will be significantly threatened by an American or an Israeli attack on Iran. That roughly is my problem.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I would like to see that Palestine/Israeli situation ended peacefully. I would like not to see massive death in Iran and probably the whole of the middle east. I would like not to see massive chaos in the middle east that substantially affects my life and my country. I think it would also be nice if massive chaos in the middle east doesn't spill over into Europe to the point where the internet is disrupted and I might not be able to hear what DD has to say about the world.

All of these things will be significantly threatened by an American or an Israeli attack on Israel. That roughly is my problem.

I'm assuming you mean "on Iran" and not "on Israel" in the second to last sentence. I don't much care to see a war with Iran occur, but I seriously doubt it will result in a catastrophe to the extent that you are indicating. Arabs won't like an Israeli attack on Iran, but Arabs and Iranians do not exactly have a strong liking of each other either. So the idea that an Israeli attack on Iran is going to somehow balloon into a gigantic Middle Eastern war that then will spill into Europe is quite a leap.

I don't think anyone wants to see another war, particularly between Israel and Iran. But doomsday scenarios seem a bit hyperbolic at the moment.

 

[davefoc]

I did mean Iran. Thank you. I fixed it in my previous post.

As to the substance of what you said:

You might have a better feel for this than I do. I do know that wars are highly unpredictable and nobody knows where something like that could end up. I would expect an immediate disassociation between Europe and Israel. I would expect a massive increase in the potential for terrorist activity. A united Arab attack on Israel is a potential outcome if not probable outcome. I can not imagine an Iran so cowed that vengeance would not be the primary goal of Iranian leadership for generations to come. I would assume that Israel would lose all middle eastern oil imports for years. I just don't know where this would end. A huge contingent of the US would be wildly opposed to the action and it might finally end the Israeli foreign aid slush fund, although I wouldn't peg that at a better than 50% chance. At least some of the US evangelicals would be telling us that the action fulfilled God's will or something like that. The military suppliers would be pressuring congress to give Israel even more stuff because now the Arabs might really make a concerted attack to destroy Israel. Israel itself would be terribly divided over the action with a large percentage of the Jewish population and nearly all of the Arab population opposed to the action.

And all this happens before we begin to assess the impact of nuclear fallout on the region including the Israelis.

 

[WildCat]

A united Arab attack on Israel is a potential outcome if not probable outcome.

Flesh this scenario out a bit. Which Arab countries do you think will attack Israel? How will they do it in the face of the superior Israeli military? If they did somehow gain the upper hand, why would Israel not nuke their attackers also to avoid their own destruction?

I can not imagine an Iran so cowed that vengeance would not be the primary goal of Iranian leadership for generations to come.

Nukes sure seemed to tame Japan's aggressive tendencies for the last 3 generations.

I would assume that Israel would lose all middle eastern oil imports for years.

Israel will be weighing destruction via Iranian nukes vs. higher oil prices... doesn't seem like as hard a choice as you make it out to be.

I just don't know where this would end. A huge contingent of the US would be wildly opposed to the action and it might finally end the Israeli foreign aid slush fund, although I wouldn't peg that at a better than 50% chance.

Death now vs. a burdened economy later, again I'm not seeing the difficult choice you do.

At least some of the US evangelicals would be telling us that the action fulfilled God's will or something like that. The military suppliers would be pressuring congress to give Israel even more stuff because now the Arabs might really make a concerted attack to destroy Israel. Israel itself would be terribly divided over the action with a large percentage of the Jewish population and nearly all of the Arab population opposed to the action.

And all this happens before we begin to assess the impact of nuclear fallout on the region including the Israelis.

I really don't think that Arab nations will want to follow Iran's example in becoming a glowing radioactive wasteland, if they have a military trump card I'm unaware of please enlighten me.

Note I'm not advocating an Israeli nuke strike on Iran at this time, just questioning your belief that Arab nations would commit suicide by attacking a nuclear nation w/ a weak conventional force.

 

[webfusion]

from davefoc:

Israel needs to figure out how to make peace with its neighbors.

No. Israel doesn't.

Some of our more belligerent neighbors must make their best-interest decisions, and figure out how to live in peace with the jews.

Israel made peace with two neighbors (who were previously fanatic enemies) -- Jordan and Egypt.

So, the Israelis certainly have already "figured out how" to make peace.
You're just making up stuff, davefoc.


Israel intends to take out the isotope centrifuges at NATANZ and ISFAHAN with whatever weapons are suitable for the job, and will do so at an appropriate time of their choosing, to put an end to that particular project, for good.

 

[davefoc]

Note I'm not advocating an Israeli nuke strike on Iran at this time, just questioning your belief that Arab nations would commit suicide by attacking a nuclear nation w/ a weak conventional force.

I will say to you the same thing that I said to ARubberChickenWithAPulley, your insights might be better than mine about this.

I think you underestimate greatly how negatively a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran would be viewed in the middle east and Europe. Israel is a tiny country that could exact a terrible toll on its neighbors, but notice even during the Lebanese bombardment Israel found it necessary to import bombs from the US to keep blasting away. Now imagine it surrounded on all sides by enormously hostile neighbors, most of whom are too close for Israel to use nuclear bombs on without seriously contaminating itself.

My guess is that a majority of Americans are already opposed to aid to Israel. They don't have the power to stop it because a very committed minority favors it. The preemptive use of a nuclear bomb by Israel could eventually solidify what already is a probably a majority view into a committed majority view to cut off aid to Israel in the US. Unless a neocon type guy happens to be president after Israel explodes its nuclear bomb I wouldn't look for American military support after an action like that.

The internal situation within Israel is dicey with respect to this also. I just don't know how this shakes out. The Jewish population while initially mostly opposed to the action might find itself working in survival mode, an internal war between Israeli arabs and Jews could be touched off. Emotions from the surrounding countries could result in an enormous influx of impassioned Arabs siding with the Israeli Arabs and the Arabs on the west bank. The Iraq war has created millions of refugees many of whom are armed and ready to do battle with people they don't like. Expect to see some of those folks show up.

I don't know how real the possibility of any of this stuff is. And I might be inclined to think your judgment is better than mine about what might happen. None the less, I think you would agree that the preemptive use of a nuclear bomb by Israel against Iran could have disastrous ramifications that can not easily be predicted.

ETA: edit to fix a typo which confounded the meaning of this sentence that I had intended:
I think you underestimate greatly how negatively a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran would be viewed in the middle east and Europe.

The bolded words were changed.

 

[webfusion]

davefoc goes on:

My guess is that a majority of Americans are already opposed to aid to Israel.

Based on what evidence?

I think you underestimate greatly how negatively a nuclear strike by Iran would be viewed in the middle east and Europe.

And, how exactly would the 4-million dead jews view it, after a nuclear strike by Iran on Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel?

Emotions from the surrounding countries could result in an enormous influx of impassioned Arabs siding with the Israeli Arabs and the Arabs on the west bank.

Result in Arabs siding with the palestinians? They already do, by the millions.
That's never been in question.

I don't know how real the possibility of any of this stuff is.

VERY real.
The man who is in charge of putting all this into motion is Avigdor Lieberman.
It's essentially his call to go ahead with this mission to NATANZ.

 

[davefoc]

As to whether a majority of Americans favor continued aid to Israel or not:

I found a few different sources with results that cut both way but I think net of the sources that I looked at was that my guess was roughly wrong and that currently a small majority favor continued aid to Israel:

from http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/IsraelPalestinians/IsrEgyptAid.cfm

Americans support for aid to Israel has been lukewarm. In a CCFR survey in June 2002 55% wanted to keep the current level of economic the same (37%) or increase it (18%). In a November 2000 PIPA poll, respondents were asked to rate their feelings about US aid to Israel and Egypt on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being very bad, 10 being very good, and 5 being neutral. Only 27% gave a rating above 5, 31% gave a rating of 5, and 40% gave a rating below 5. The mean score was 4.45. [1]

but from the same article:

When asked to rate various reasons for giving aid, strategic reasons that would apply to Israel and Egypt score much lower than one based on humanitarian considerations. In the November 2000 PIPA poll the lowest-rated reason for giving aid was "to increase US influence over other countries," with a mean score of 4.40. The highest-rated reason for giving aid was "to alleviate hunger and disease in poor countries" (7.71).

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I do know that wars are highly unpredictable and nobody knows where something like that could end up.

I agree, almost all wars have some potential to explode into wider conflicts. But I think the likelihood is fairly low.

I would expect an immediate disassociation between Europe and Israel.

Europe isn't particularly supportive of Israel to begin with, so I don't think this would be a huge shift.

I would expect a massive increase in the potential for terrorist activity.

Maybe, but most of it would be likely directed against Israel, and it would probably be in the form of funding by Iran of anti-Israeli terrorist groups. Iran may send out terrorist-type operatives of its own as well, but I don't think the level of terrorism would be suddenly gigantic.

A united Arab attack on Israel is a potential outcome if not probable outcome. I can not imagine an Iran so cowed that vengeance would not be the primary goal of Iranian leadership for generations to come. I would assume that Israel would lose all middle eastern oil imports for years. I just don't know where this would end.

This is what I see as the biggest breakdown of your chain of events. I think you are confusing Iran (Persian) with the rest of the Middle East (primarily Arab) -- or at least are not fully appreciating the differences between them. Arab nations may join in solidarity with Iran as Muslims -- maybe -- and in a "the enemy of my enemy is a friend" sort of way. But I am not convinced that they would rise up and risk a major regional war to help Iran simply because Iran was attacked. There is enough animosity between Persians and Arabs that I don't think the Arab world would step up and ally themselves with Iran in an all-out war unless they thought there was serious risk to their own countries specifically.

I also don't think it is far-fetched to think that many Arab countries themselves may not be particularly fond of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. I have no doubt they would vehemently denounce the attacks in public, and may not be too thrilled about Israel asserting itself militarily, but they may not be as outraged as it seems at seeing Iran's nuclear programs take a hit.

 

[davefoc]

I also don't think it is far-fetched to think that many Arab countries themselves may not be particularly fond of the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. I have no doubt they would vehemently denounce the attacks in public, and may not be too thrilled about Israel asserting itself militarily, but they may not be as outraged as it seems at seeing Iran's nuclear programs take a hit.

That sounds at least reasonable. The shiite sunni divide is deep as we are seeing in Iraq. That is not to say that the Arab/Persian divide isn't significant also. So who knows where this goes and maybe you are right that the results might be much more contained than I suspect.

The Israelis will probably look to get approval from the Americans first. My thought here is that Bushco would approve it and any subsequent American presidents would be likely to oppose it. I don't know how that might enter into the Israeli mindset on this. I don't know how American voters would take to Israeli nuclear fallout coming down on American soldiers while they are in Iraq. And I don't know how Iraqi Shiites would treat American soldiers if Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran. All sounds very dicey to me.

 

[WildCat]

My guess is that a majority of Americans are already opposed to aid to Israel. They don't have the power to stop it because a very committed minority favors it. The preemptive use of a nuclear bomb by Israel could eventually solidify what already is a probably a majority view into a committed majority view to cut off aid to Israel in the US. Unless a neocon type guy happens to be president after Israel explodes its nuclear bomb I wouldn't look for American military support after an action like that.

Israel would get along w/o US gov't support of any kind. Their nuclear arms are 100% home-grown, and they are quite capable of making their own conventional munitions if needed. Yes, it would be more expensive for them, but not quite as expensive as an Iranian nuke exploding over Tel Aviv. And if the latter ever happened, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the last thing the Israelis do before being destroyed is vengefully launch nuclear missiles at Arab targets - Damascus, Riyadh, Mecca, etc. as a final "f you" to those who funded groups seeking their destruction.

 

[davefoc]

Israel would get along w/o US gov't support of any kind. Their nuclear arms are 100% home-grown, and they are quite capable of making their own conventional munitions if needed. Yes, it would be more expensive for them, but not quite as expensive as an Iranian nuke exploding over Tel Aviv. And if the latter ever happened, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the last thing the Israelis do before being destroyed is vengefully launch nuclear missiles at Arab targets - Damascus, Riyadh, Mecca, etc. as a final "f you" to those who funded groups seeking their destruction.

The level of vitriol and inability to empathize that seems to underlie a statement like that is truly disturbing.

It is hard to imagine a more damning statement on the existence of Israel than this. You put a bunch of European colonists in an area already occupied by somebody else, the existing population is massacred or forced off their land, then over a period of years a slow motion colonization program is put in place to take even more land. And then when the displaced population has not shown sufficient acceptance of the European colonists you propose that anybody that has sided with them might be bombed with nuclear weapons as well. All the while accepting the fact that the European population that you suggest might do this will suffer enormously from nuclear fallout and complete international isolation.

webfusion said that Israel knows how to make peace with its neighbors and gives Egypt and Jordan as examples. Would there peace with these neighbors without Jimmy Carter backed up by bushels of money from the US. I doubt it. Lots of Israelis know how to make peace, I suspect, but right now the Israelis who know how to make war and know how to keep the population sufficiently on edge by the skillful application of settlers to antagonize the indigenous population into active resistance are in power.

 

[Darat]

When you use a nuke, by definition you cannot descriminate and not kill the civillians, if you use it on land. A nuke, by its very design, destroys everything. One side or the other will use them, unless things change dramatically.

Even the proposed apparently "safer" 1 megaton bunker-busters would have still resulted in 3 million deaths, if just one had been used.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html