Israel to Nuke Iran?

[Beanbag]

Why does everybody assume only a nuclear weapon can destroy a nuclear program? If nothing else, the two Gulf Wars have shown that well-designed conventional weapons can burrow their way through even the hardest defenses and take out a target.

Nuclear processing sites and reactors are by their very nature large and delicate. It wouldn't take a nuke to thump one hard enough to render it inoperative without the political and actual fallout from a nuclear weapon strike.

Iran keeps pushing with their fat mouth, brainless statements about what they want to do. Sooner or later, Israel will have to push back. Common sense says it would be better to hit them while their program is in the early phases.

I think what's stopped the Israelis this far is the lack of stealth technology. As soon as they secure an equivalent of the F117, I would expect a mysterious increase in Iranian reactor accidents.

Beanbag

 

[geni]

Israel would get along w/o US gov't support of any kind. Their nuclear arms are 100% home-grown,

Not quite true. Some material was supplied by the UK.

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.

Only in the short to medium term.

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.

Bad move. Iran is unlikely to have a large stockpile so bits of Israel could well be habitable after an Iranian strike. After a Saudi Arabian strike (Saudi Arabia is looking into aquireing nukes if iran gets them probably through purchase from pakistan) on top of that that is unlikely to be the case.

 

[geni]

Why does everybody assume only a nuclear weapon can destroy a nuclear program? If nothing else, the two Gulf Wars have shown that well-designed conventional weapons can burrow their way through even the hardest defenses and take out a target.

Not exactly. The weapons used were mostly updated versions of the british Grand Slam. The problem is that you need heavy bombers to carry the things which basicaly means you need near total air domination (ie you need to have knocked out all the SAMS) and even then there appears to be a praticle limit of maybe 50 meters down.

Nuclear based bunker busters tend to solve both these problems.

I think what's stopped the Israelis this far is the lack of stealth technology. As soon as they secure an equivalent of the F117, I would expect a mysterious increase in Iranian reactor accidents.

Tracking an F117 is far from imposible to track and shoot down these days.

 

[TsarBomba]

Just Grin and Bear it?

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

Yes, of course! Make peace! Just give the Iranians what they want and everyone can live in a peaceful universal brotherhood!

[Whisper in ear]

What?

[More whisper in ear]

You mean the Iranians want to blast Israel to dust?

[Affirmative nod]

And kill every living Israeli?

[Affirmative nod]

That's nonsense! Who told you that?

[Whisper in ear]

Oh, the President of Iran? But they don't have the means!

[Affirmative nod]

What? You mean if they get nukes that could actually follow through on their explicit threats and destroy the State of Israel? The hell you say.

Still, Israel should just make nice-nice and hope that the Peaceful Persians don't follow through. If they are to submit to nuclear weapons destroying Tel Aviv, Haifa, Eliat, and Jeruslalem they should grin and bear it and then respond with harsh diplomatic condemnations in the United Nations. That's the way a civilized nation would handle it, isn't it? I mean, that's what Neville Chamberlain would have done, isn't it?

He was a nice man.

 

[gtc]

The neocon goal of asserting American/Israeli influence through force of arms is now sitting in tatters.

I hear this a lot. What evidence do you have that such a goal exists and that America and Israel are working together to achieve common aims through force of arms?

 

[davefoc]

I hear this a lot. What evidence do you have that such a goal exists and that America and Israel are working together to achieve common aims through force of arms?

Here's an editorial discussing this issue:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/03/new_american_century_lives_on.php

The tie in seems nearly irrefutable. It seems that people who have been identified as key decision makers with respect to middle east foreign policy and the Iraq war in the Bush administration are also people who have strongly advocated for Israel and who have strongly advocated for American military action in the middle east. Almost the all Bushco foreign policy staff up through the start of the Iraq war were in some way connected with PNAC.

I don't quite understand what is going on here, Bushco seems to have believed that the goals of Israel and the US were inextricably linked in the middle east. More so than any other administration. Bushco seems to have been more aggressive militarily than even the current leadership of Israel was comfortable with. If rumors are to be believed Bushco was one of the main drivers behind the Israeli bombing of Lebanon and in fact wanted the Israelis to continue on and attack Syria. Whether this is true or not, I don't know but I suspect it might have been given the overall preference in the Bush administration for military solutions.

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, of course! Make peace! Just give the Iranians what they want and everyone can live in a peaceful universal brotherhood!

No one here has said Iran should get what it wants. You launch tactical nukes at Iran, the stakes world wide and possibility of attack go a notch higher. Here we have people worrying about the possibility of WMDs, so they go out and use them themselves.

 

[Solus]

I'll just jump in here for a second. If Israel were to actually use a NUCLEAR weapon that would cause shockwaves throughout the world. I think it would make Israel a pariah state worldwide, not just in the middle east among enemies. The cost of using such a weapon far outweights the benefits. I don't think Israel would do something so stupid. A conventional air attack on the otherhand who knows, that's possible I think. Most likely though nothing will happen (for now).

Israel is better off letting Iran attack first anyway. If that ever happens, the US and Europe would send support and Iran would be wiped off the map. That's what I would be thinking as an Israeli leader.

 

[richardm]

The Arabs have not improved their fighting ability significantly since then.

I'm not so sure about that - the IDF seemed to be rather surprised by the quality of weapons used against it in Lebanon recently.

It's a difficult position for Israel to be in. I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions for real. As a hypothetical I think the best resolution would have to be aimed at finding a political way for Iran to stop their nuclear programme; I'm not sure that such a way exists unfortunately. I can't imagine them going for a first nuclear strike, so I'd expect, then, for conventional attacks to be the way to go. I'm sure that a way could be found for Israel to get those F-117s and kick of Beanbag's "Accidents".

Israel would get along w/o US gov't support of any kind.

It would be a lot harder for them though. I wonder if they could ramp up supply quickly enough if the US withdrew support and the bombs started flying. I'm not so sure.

 

[TsarBomba]

I'll just jump in here for a second. . . . The cost of using such a weapon far outweights the benefits.

The cost would, undoubtably, be very very very high. If you are the government of Israel, you would, of course, do a cost-benefit analysis. So you weigh that high high high cost against the total destruction of your country and the murder of close to 100% of your citizens. Since most of those citizens are Jews, I know that most of the world outside the U.S., Canada, and Israel sees this as a no-brainer, i.e. the destruction of Jews is a benefit to mankind, so don't do anything prevent it--please! I think that Israel and the U.S. (I just included Canada because they are one of the few countries in the world that doesn't openly hate the Jews as a matter of course) might think otherwise. In fact, I think that Israel might see the murder of close to 100% of their citizens as an unacceptable result, something that they need to stop at any cost, even if it would mean raising the ire of the rest of the world for having the gumption to try to stay alive.

 

[Gurdur]

.....Since most of those citizens are Jews, I know that most of the world outside the U.S., Canada, and Israel sees this as a no-brainer, i.e. the destruction of Jews is a benefit to mankind, ....
I think that Israel and the U.S. (I just included Canada because they are one of the few countries in the world that doesn't openly hate the Jews as a matter of course) .....

You've tried this incredible garbage of a claim before, and you never replied to the challenge to your claim with any evidence. Your claim is complete twaddle. Codswallop. Bilgewater. I don't know why you're so prejudiced, but I assure you, it is complete crap to keep trying to claim most countries hate Jews.

 

[Luke T.]

No one here has said Iran should get what it wants. You launch tactical nukes at Iran, the stakes world wide and possibility of attack go a notch higher. Here we have people worrying about the possibility of WMDs, so they go out and use them themselves.

This may be a historical moment for the forum in that I find myself in agreement with AUP for, I think, the first time ever.

Nuking Iran is a lose/lose proposition. Nukes have only been used once (twice, if you want to be freaking technical about it), a long time ago, and I like it that way.

But my fear is tempered by a couple things. First, this is all based on a single report in a British newspaper, and that suggests to me that it is a "trial balloon" to see what the reaction would be. Second, nuking Iran is a "plan". Sort of like our plans for World War III. It does not mean it will be implemented. It is just an option.

Oh, a third thing. Iran is probably at least a couple years away from actually realizing their nuclear weapons goal. That's gives the whole planet some time to come up with alternatives.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Non-news. I am continually amazed by the press' breathless reporting of these types of plans by governments.

They have a plan for hitting Iran, using nukes.

They'd be negligent if they didn't.

We have a plan for hitting Iran. Guaranteed. I'll bet we have multiple plans that include Mexico and Canada, as far as that goes.

Heck, it's safe money that France, Germany, and China all have plans for going to war with Iran.

I don't see it meaning anything about intentions or actions, though.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nuclear based bunker busters tend to solve both these problems.

Yeah, but it's not clear anyone even HAS nuclear bunker busters. Hell, we only started looking into it seriously quite recently. It's a nontrivial engineering task to get something as complicated and delicate as a nuclear weapon to survive the penetrating impact and still detonate successfully. It probably cannot be done without years of engineering and testing, and if they don't have one already (which I suspect is the case), I don't think they can make one fast enough to be a viable option for trying to solve the Iran problem.

 

[richardm]

It's a nontrivial engineering task to get something as complicated and delicate as a nuclear weapon to survive the penetrating impact and still detonate successfully.

Quick (hopefully) question: Could you drop a series of smallish ones in the same spot to achieve the same effect? Sort of chiselling your way through rather than getting through in one go. I'm guessing that GPS controlled bombs are good enough to get close enough to the same spot as would make no odds.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Quick (hopefully) question: Could you drop a series of smallish ones in the same spot to achieve the same effect? Sort of chiselling your way through rather than getting through in one go. I'm guessing that GPS controlled bombs are good enough to get close enough to the same spot as would make no odds.

Yes, (see April 2004 Scientific American on "bunker busting small nukes" for a good discussion of the pros and cons of that) one can use GPS guidance packages on bombs with a nuclear payload to do such a thing, just as one can use GPS with penetrators (up to a certain capability) to do repeat penetrations/attacks on a fairly narrow CEP.

What the silver bullet gang want is a "one shot, one kill" bomb for a hardened, underground site.

DR

 

[Luke T.]

Quick (hopefully) question: Could you drop a series of smallish ones in the same spot to achieve the same effect? Sort of chiselling your way through rather than getting through in one go. I'm guessing that GPS controlled bombs are good enough to get close enough to the same spot as would make no odds.

Let's see. Shoot a small nuke through a preceding nuke's fireball, or through a hardened bunker. Tough call.

 

[Luke T.]

Also, even small nukes require a certain quantity of radioactive material which you cannot drop below for the necessary critical mass. So the more nukes, the more radioactive crap you are throwing around.

 

[Ziggurat]

Quick (hopefully) question: Could you drop a series of smallish ones in the same spot to achieve the same effect? Sort of chiselling your way through rather than getting through in one go. I'm guessing that GPS controlled bombs are good enough to get close enough to the same spot as would make no odds.

There's a limit to that (though I don't know exactly what the limit is), since debris will stay in the hole, the deeper the hole gets the more debris will stay in it (pobably most of it even from the first impact if it's penetrating deep into the ground), and debris will still slow down any subsequent penetrator (by about the same amount as the original covering, too, if it's penetrating into earth and detonating well above a concrete bunker). So you might gain a bit by repeated impacts, but probably not a whole lot. What repeated impacts would be really useful for is cases where you could damage but not destroy (or not be confident that you destroyed) the bunker with one impact, but if you can't even damage it with one, more might not do much good.

 

[richardm]

Let's see. Shoot a small nuke through a preceding nuke's fireball, or through a hardened bunker. Tough call.

You could, of course, wait until the preceding fireball has dissipated before dropping the second effort.

So the more nukes, the more radioactive crap you are throwing around.

This is a consideration, of course, but if I'm at the point where I'm so desperate that I'm throwing nuclear weapons about I might not care so much about this. I might care enough to ensure that the wind is blowing the right way first.

Thanks, Zig and Darth, I guess that answers my question.,