1 Observer

Your analysis is far more comforting than I had first taken it. I would love be be more confident in your assertions.

lwarmonger

So would I. Don't get me wrong... I DO NOT WANT Iran to acquire nuclear weapons... if they do, even if they don't use them, suddenly every Sunni nation in the area that has had cause to fear Iran (and given the Shia-Sunni divide, that means most of them) will suddenly have an added impetus to acquire similar capabilities.

I just don't think that Iran will go around looking for nuclear war the second they get the ability.

1 Observer

First, suggest another near future arms race ... of sorts ... Second, and this is the "Wonky" bit ...I just don't think that Iran will go around looking for nuclear war the second they get the ability Although I agree it would be counter intuitive (in their position) to engage in such an exchange, They have engaged in irresponsably antagonistic rhetoric, including the stated goal of employing said weapon upon Isrial ... We can only hope they go the way the Chinese did. Hoping isn't the most secure position, especially given the potential stakes of the gambit. So perhaps my sigh of relief may be premature.
You sound more than a realist than some rabid "Warmonger" , I admit, I was mislead by the connotations of your moniker.
I am now prepared to place great-er faith in your future assertions ... at face value. (an unmitigated compliment, if I may say so)

Zinja

My point is there is no present non-nuclear nation that can detonate a nuclear device(either now or in the foreseeable future) in a current nuclear nation and live to tell a story about it. A detonation on the streets of Israel by Iran by whatever means, means the Israel 'self-restraint' key goes down the nigra falls and it will be a long time before someone finds it again. When it comes to nuclear attack forget Syria, forget, hizbollah, forget hamas, you deal directly with the source of the evil (learn from 911).

lwarmonger

Israel doesn't enjoy that luxury though. Don't get me wrong, if a nuclear weapons were detonated in Israel much of Iran would disappear... however Israel would also have to nuke, or reserve nukes, for Syria, Egypt, Jordan, ect. Remember, the United States can afford to lose a city and only hit back at the nation who struck us... we are large and have two oceans and the worlds largest navy (plus nuclear forces capable of taking everyone). Israel is surrounded by people (who are vastly more numerous) who would be perfectly happy to see Israel "wiped off the map," has no strategic depth and a limited nuclear arsenal. If they are severely weakened, Syria and Egypt will pounce unless Israel either weakens them or shows it still has the ability to weaken them.

Zinja

Not when there are nuclear weapons involved. Unless the Arab countries too have nuclear weapons, as much as they hate Israel, when Israel and Iran start exchanging nuclear weapons the last thing they would want is meddle and have the next nuclear missile headed your way. The Arabs by now know very well that if you don't mess with Israel, Israel leaves you alone. Saudis have virtually been unscathed all along because they have basically kept their noses off Israel issues. In two of Israel's wars Israel gave express warnings to both Syria and Jordan that if they dont meddle they will be left alone, but if they do they will be given same treatment given to their enemies. True to their word, where they were left alone people they saved their necks but where they meddled ah, the rest is history.

lwarmonger

I'm not saying that the Arab nations would meddle, I am saying that Israel would have to nuke them or retain enough weapons to nuke them. Think, if Israel loses 1-1.5 million people from Iranian nukes in an exchange, loses all immigration (the primary cause of the increases in their Jewish population), and suffers major flights of capital... they are going to be in a seriously weakened position after a war with Iran. Meaning that they will either have to destroy their neighbors in order to make sure they can't take advantage of that, much the way that the Soviets and the US were prepared to reserve nukes for China in the event of an exchange with each other.

Those wars weren't going to be devastating to Israel if Israel won... a nuclear war with Iran would be. And so Israel couldn't afford to be so magnanimous.

Stan187

A nuclear attack on Israel means that Israel lost. Even if they win, they still lose, once you factor in radiation downwind and what not.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

lwarmonger

No it isn't. Read this report (I mean it, it is really helpful) and research nuclear war a bit more (there is a lot of information out there) before making that assertion.

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option...k=view&id=4172

Mobbme

You're forgetting the main component here, Saudis also invest alot of money into U.S. Saudis are US friendlies.

Stan187

He's right you know. Syria was also untouched as long as they were not posturing, same with Jordan. Neither are heavily invested with the US. Jordan more so, but Israel hasn't fought the Jordanians in a loong time.

Stan187

I'll read it in the next few days and get back to you.

Zinja

I don't think it would be that easy for the Arabs. The greatest strength of Israel is not the nukes as far as the Arab countries are concerned. It is not the nukes per-ser that are detering the Arabs but rather Israel's conventional capability. In the 1982 war Israel had nukes but still did not stop Syria from trying. (Im not sure about the 73 war but i suspect Israel already had nukes then but still could not prevent the war). Israel is head and shoulders above any of the Arab countries conventionally even without nukes.

As for Israel losing 1.5 million poeple, it depends. Unless the losses are restricted to military assets, even with that much of a population reduction if its conventional capability is still intact the Arabs would have a hard time invading. Remember, this would be a defensive war for Israel not an aggressive one which would require large conscripts. Hardware and quality of millitary would deny penetration of Arabs into Israel from a distance, and that does not require equal numbers of the Israelis manpower to the enemy's. Israel has fought wars at odds of 10 to 1 and prevailed. Therefore i think unless the Arabs have an answer to Israel's conventional capability, i don't think would dare.


Im not sure i understand what you mean there but i will have a try. If you mean those wars were not potentially devastating for Israel, i will beg to differ. If Israel had lost those wars the, Jewish state as we know it would have vanished from the maps. Surely all was at stake there. In the words of one of the pilots in one of the wars he said 'We(Isreal) when we fight, we have one advantage: we have no alternative'.

Zinja

True Mobbme. But my point is the Saudis are not exactly buddies with the Israelis. Given a choice im sure they would rather have things differently.

Mobbme

That is SO true. When the Arab nations were on the offence, you would not hear any war protests coming from any other country. When Isreal goes on the offence AFTER their defence is taken care of, everyone is in a frenzy "big bad Isreal is killing muslims again!! Somebody STOP THEM!!"

I don't blame Israelies for feeling that way, that they have EVERYTHING to lose when going to war.