Thread: Will Israel attack?

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, but after having been on the winning side of a nuclear war the Israeli's would be substantially weakened over the long term, with the attendant domestic effects I listed above. In order to survive that they would have to reduce the numerical superiority of their neighbors.

Keep in mind that China wasn't a threat to either the US or the Soviet Union, even after we had fought a nuclear war. That didn't stop us from recognizing the long term threat that China posed (by virtue of sheer numbers) were we both to be weakened.

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.

Your still thinking immediately. The Israeli's are thinking of survival. In the immediate aftermath of a nuclear war Israel would still be able to handle any of its neighbors. However economically, demographically, and ultimately (after a couple of years have passed) militarily they would be fatally weakened. That is why Israel would have to at least seriously consider lashing out at everyone around them.

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'.

I am saying that even if Israel were to win a nuclear war, they would be devastated. In all of their previous wars to lose meant complete ruin, but winning did not. In a nuclear war even winning calls their long term survival into question, and kills a significant proportion of them (25% casualties among a people who are already outnumbered by their neighbors is nothing to take lightly).

lwarmonger

Having read at least parts of the CSIS report that you linked to, it appears that some of my primary points of concern were well founded. There is not much talk of casualties from fallout following the initial devastation, a point that you will not I made earlier, one of particular concern in Israel because of the concentrated population. Second, though admittedly a more minor issue, is that the report uses estimates of nuclear development capability for both Israel and Iran which are unverified.

Originally Posted by Stan187

lwarmonger

Having read at least parts of the CSIS report that you linked to, it appears that some of my primary points of concern were well founded. There is not much talk of casualties from fallout following the initial devastation,

Insofar as modern countries go, Israel is quite well protected from chemical and biological attack, and given the prevalence of bomb shelters, also from fallout. There are fallout vectors given, and these assume fairly primitive nukes (small in output but dirty).

Second, though admittedly a more minor issue, is that the report uses estimates of nuclear development capability for both Israel and Iran which are unverified.

Well, first of all it assumes that Iran follows the same developmental path for its arsenal as all nuclear powers before it, which in my opinion is a fair assumption (this is not positing current capabilities as Iran doesn't have any).

Second, while the state of Israel's nuclear deterrent is unknown (although we know quite a bit about their defenses), even at the lower estimates (roughly 100 small but sophisticated devices, capable of being both air delivered and delivered by mobile IRBM's... I've seen estimates as high as 400) the nuclear strikes that the report indicates to me seem more than reasonable.

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Insofar as modern countries go, Israel is quite well protected from chemical and biological attack, and given the prevalence of bomb shelters, also from fallout. There are fallout vectors given, and these assume fairly primitive nukes (small in output but dirty).

Prevalent bomb shelters might work to somewhat cancel out the risk of fallout in a high concentration of population, so it would still make it just as vulnerable as a population that is not as concentrated, which is still hefty risk.

Personally I do not think Israel would attack; they were successfully held in check by the USA in Desert Storm. And that was against actual not possible attacks. I think that, although they have the means to do it, the consequences could be ecologically and economically catastrophic for the whole region.

Originally Posted by Elbmek

Personally I do not think Israel would attack; they were successfully held in check by the USA in Desert Storm. And that was against actual not possible attacks.

I think part of the reason they were held in check was that the US and coalition was going in there to kick some serious ass anyways. It wasn't like Israel could add a whole lot to that, and their participation would have pissed off a lot of our allies who were making the whole thing possible. Very different situation these days.

I think that, although they have the means to do it, the consequences could be ecologically and economically catastrophic for the whole region.

Ecologically and economically catastrophic for Iran... and I wouldn't want to be east or south-east of Iran either, although that would probably only cause somewhat higher rates of cancer.. I wouldn't think Israel would have much to worry about though.

) Why not ask the Pakistani Air Force to do the Job? They sure have the required skillset.

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

) Why not ask the Pakistani Air Force to do the Job? They sure have the required skillset.

You mean the same they did in the 6 day war, fight other people's war for the sake of UMMAH

Originally Posted by Adux

You mean the same they did in the 6 day war, fight other people's war for the sake of UMMAH

Yeah!) You see....they are really qualified people.

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

Yeah!) You see....they are really qualified people.

What's the new word for this sort of thingie- Security Contractors, I will ignore the Old school meaning.

Hmm... blackwater should think about hiring the pakistani airforce for that job. I mean, it is only a matter of time before that company takes over and rules a country anyways, right?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

Hmm... blackwater should think about hiring the pakistani airforce for that job. I mean, it is only a matter of time before that company takes over and rules a country anyways, right?

It will be great to have President with the last name Prince.

Pakistani airforce will be ready for service, make no doubt about that

Originally Posted by Adux

It will be great to have President with the last name Prince.

Pakistani airforce will be ready for service, make no doubt about that

I wonder how much they will charge?

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

I wonder how much they will charge?

Not "peanuts". Ask Jim carter.