Will Israel attack?

[lwarmonger]

Does anyone relive there is even the most remote possibility that the Isrialis would allow themselves to be nuked with this weapon ?

They aren't omniscient... but you can believe that they are going to do their best to avoid it.

Does any one believe the International nuke liar committies assertion that there is no ongoing program?

I believe that Iran is not actively developing a nuclear device, but instead is seeking to become "nuclear capable" so that in the future they will be able to acquire a number of nuclear devices quickly when they decide to... making the Iranian leadership much more intelligent than I had given them credit for.

Do we believe Iran would NOT use such a weapon, upon it's earliest convenience?

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/...nuclearwar.pdf

Skim through this... and look at the various scenarios. I think Iran would be willing to use nukes, however it isn't going to use them when it will result in their own destruction without guaranteeing the destruction of Israel.

I think a far more likely scenario is the Iranians acquiring nuclear capability, and then covertly giving a warhead to Hezbollah for use on Israel (once they've got enough nukes to offer a credible deterrent). That won't prevent Israel from taking out most of their neighbors... but it would give Iran the ability to hit back.

[Stan187]

I don't know about earliest convenience. As I've outlined, Israel is still useful to them. There is much more power in having and threatening than there is in actually using a weapon. Just like there was more power in threatening to sick Hizballah on the Israelis than the damage that Hizballah was actually able to to inflict once kinetic conflict began.

[1 Observer]

lwarmonger
Military Professional
Much thanks for the creepy, and even creepier scenario run downs.
Think I'll read it to my kids ... if they act up.
Nuclear exchanges are something esquewed by the rational ... but do the rational trumpet the intent to engage in them?

[lwarmonger]

lwarmonger
Military Professional
Much thanks for the creepy, and even creepier scenario run downs.
Think I'll read it to my kids ... if they act up.
Nuclear exchanges are something esquewed by the rational ... but do the rational trumpet the intent to engage in them?

No problem, glad to help... and actually sometimes the rational do trumpet their willingness, if not intent, to engage in them.

Willingness to commit to a nuclear war (and acceptable losses) is what brinkmanship was all about.

[Officer of Engineers]

Nuclear exchanges are something esquewed by the rational ... but do the rational trumpet the intent to engage in them?

Do a google on Stuart Slade, he was a nuclear weapons targeteer.

[lwarmonger]

Do a google on Stuart Slade, he was a nuclear weapons targeteer.

Anything in particular sir? The article posted in 2006 on WAB was pretty interesting.

[Officer of Engineers]

When it comes to Stuart, I'm in over my head. Hell, I had thought that I had the highest clearance (though not necessarily to the info) with regards to his public works. Nope.

[1 Observer]

Willingness to commit to a nuclear war (and acceptable losses) is what brinkmanship was all about.

lwarmonger
Officer of Engineers
Moderator
Scotch taster


Quote:



Do a google on Stuart Slade, he was a nuclear weapons targeteer.
__________________
By now I should know better ... I'm sure I do NOT want to be any better informed ... the sand was a MUCH nicer place for my head.
As in a chess game, conducted allong the "stress point" tactics, I percieve that inestimably small errors could have "end game" consequence.

[lwarmonger]

By now I should know better ... I'm sure I do NOT want to be any better informed ... the sand was a MUCH nicer place for my head.
As in a chess game, conducted allong the "stress point" tactics, I percieve that inestimably small errors could have "end game" consequence.

Here is a little snippet that I found rather disturbing from an article called Nuclear Warfare 101 by Stuart Slade:

Life and stuff » Nuclear Warfare 101 (Stuart Slade)

"Ahh the dear dead days of planning nuclear wars. The glow of satisfaction as piecutters are placed over cities; the warm feeling of fulfillment as the death toll passed the billion mark; the sick feeling of disappointment as the casualties from a given strategy only amounted to some 40 million when preliminary studies had shown a much more productive result. But I digress."

[lwarmonger]

That is actually a very interesting and informative article. It clearly articulates the dangers and limitations of even non-nuclear combat with nuclear powers.

[Zinja]

I think Iran would be willing to use nukes, however it isn't going to use them when it will result in their own destruction without guaranteeing the destruction of Israel.

But sir, what if you are dealing with irrational people who do not believe in the sanctity of human life? What if they believe that such action will advance the advent of a Mahdi? Or you hate another race so much you want to see them suffer anywhere?

Looking at how Ahmedinajad glorifies self death "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Saturday that Iranian and Muslim women have willingly and freely chosen the path to dignity and attaining lofty aspirations and goals....Speaking of women and martyrdom is speaking of the most beautiful and the best things, though it is very difficult, noted the president."
President: Iranian, Muslim women willingly chose path to dignity - Irna

I think a far more likely scenario is the Iranians acquiring nuclear capability, and then covertly giving a warhead to Hezbollah for use on Israel (once they've got enough nukes to offer a credible deterrent).

I don't think Iran would dare do that. If/when they decide to use something like a nuke against Israel, i think it would be only upon decision of a full scale confrontation with Israel, i dont think they would delegate that to Hizbollah or any of its proxies. The reason i say that is a nuclear detonation in Israel by any of its proxies would not shield Iran from a full retaliation directly on the soil of Iran itself. Iran will be sure of either being enhilated or enhilate the next day.

[Zinja]

Ahmadinajad has to be stopped honestly, this guy is just too quarrelsome. Really what does he mean with statements such as these:
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Wednesday that the State of Israel, established 60 years ago this year, has reached the "final stage" before its destruction."

Ahmadinejad: Israel has reached its 'final stage'

[Stan187]

I don't think Iran would dare do that. If/when they decide to use something like a nuke against Israel, i think it would be only upon decision of a full scale confrontation with Israel, i dont think they would delegate that to Hizbollah or any of its proxies. The reason i say that is a nuclear detonation in Israel by any of its proxies would not shield Iran from a full retaliation directly on the soil of Iran itself. Iran will be sure of either being enhilated or enhilate the next day.

Indeed, there have been numerous sources that have said that the Iranians were pissed that Hizballah started the war with Israel without warning the chiefs of the Revolutinary Guards until it was already happening.

[lwarmonger]

But sir, what if you are dealing with irrational people who do not believe in the sanctity of human life? What if they believe that such action will advance the advent of a Mahdi? Or you hate another race so much you want to see them suffer anywhere?

Israel can hit Mecca with nuclear weapons. Israel can kill much of Iran's population. Iranian leadership may not be rational, but even irrational men can realize that nuking the Israeli's without having the ability to guarantee their destruction isn't worth it.

Looking at how Ahmedinajad glorifies self death "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Saturday that Iranian and Muslim women have willingly and freely chosen the path to dignity and attaining lofty aspirations and goals....Speaking of women and martyrdom is speaking of the most beautiful and the best things, though it is very difficult, noted the president."
President: Iranian, Muslim women willingly chose path to dignity - Irna

I think that you will find the Iranian leadership, when facing the prospect of annihilation, will be a little less eager to use atomic weapons. It would be one thing if both sides had a massive deterrent force, or if neither side had a significant number of weapons. But Iran won't catch up to Israel for quite some time even if they do develop nuclear weapons in the near future.

I don't think Iran would dare do that. If/when they decide to use something like a nuke against Israel, i think it would be only upon decision of a full scale confrontation with Israel, i dont think they would delegate that to Hizbollah or any of its proxies. The reason i say that is a nuclear detonation in Israel by any of its proxies would not shield Iran from a full retaliation directly on the soil of Iran itself. Iran will be sure of either being enhilated or enhilate the next day.

Not necessarily. Iran may hope that arab nations absorb most of that first strike. Or they may have elements of their Revolutionary Guard smuggle a primitive device in (perhaps trying to blame Syria or Egypt), and hope that someone else is implicated. It offers the best chance of Iran getting off lightly in any case.

And I'm not saying it is a likely scenario, but I see it as more likely than Iran initiating an all out nuclear exchange.

[Stan187]

Israel can hit Mecca with nuclear weapons. Israel can kill much of Iran's population. Iranian leadership may not be rational, but even irrational men can realize that nuking the Israeli's without having the ability to guarantee their destruction isn't worth it.

So they may not be irrational, but even irrational men will act rationally? I'm not following. Hitting Israel with a nuke pretty much guarantees its destruction, the population is very concentrated, a large nuclear weapon will effectively end the existance of Israel as we know it, when we factor in fallout. The fact that their Muslim brothers of Palestine will be dead also does not seem that bothersome

I think that you will find the Iranian leadership, when facing the prospect of annihilation, will be a little less eager to use atomic weapons. It would be one thing if both sides had a massive deterrent force, or if neither side had a significant number of weapons. But Iran won't catch up to Israel for quite some time even if they do develop nuclear weapons in the near future.

They know damn well that they are faced with the prospect of annihilation. They welcome it. The Ayatollah has said that if it takes the death of Iran to wipe out Israel, that's a good trade. Ahmadinejad has said that he'd be ok with seeing half of Iran destroyed to see Israel destroed. Who am I to stake my bet on the fact that these idiots mihgt be lying? You can make the assumption, I'd rather not.

Not necessarily. Iran may hope that arab nations absorb most of that first strike. Or they may have elements of their Revolutionary Guard smuggle a primitive device in (perhaps trying to blame Syria or Egypt), and hope that someone else is implicated. It offers the best chance of Iran getting off lightly in any case.

Syria and Egypt do not have nukes, and they are not as far as Iran in the development process. Do you suggest the Iranians will wait until they have their own weapons? Because otherwise, implicating someone else sounds pretty futile, especially when taking note of how successful Israel's intelligence services have been to date. Not to mention that letting RG or Hizballah "sneak it in the backdoor" as you suggest ultimately take the trigger out of the hands of the Iranian leadership, which I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about. They were not happy about Hizballah pulling the trigger on Israel in 2006 on their own accord either.

And I'm not saying it is a likely scenario, but I see it as more likely than Iran initiating an all out nuclear exchange.

.