What if

[BudW]

[QUOTE=Officer of Engineers;600366]At 350-600 missiles, the Israeli system would be overwhelmed. With a mustard gas attack, you're not looking for accuracy, you're looking for saturation on one single target and I can think of one - Tel Avi.[/QUO

Why do you assume all those missiles survive the attack? how would you launch them given the resulting emp from a massive strike?

[Yusuf]

Why would Israel spend all its nukes of Iran, when it has other enemies around as well. What would the immediate provocation be for it to do so? If its Irans nuke program, then it will launch a mission a la Orsirak. That will not involve the use of nuclear weapons i think.

I am with OoE, Even if an Israeli first strike manages to take out some of the missile sites in Iran, even if a third of it survives then that means around 200 missiles filled with chemical and biological weapons on Tel Aviv.

[Officer of Engineers]

Why do you assume all those missiles survive the attack?

How many SCUDs did we get during the Kuwait War?

how would you launch them given the resulting emp from a massive strike?

They're 3rd World military. If they're not in use, they're unplugged.

[Skywatcher]

Wouldn't Sarin (or some other nerve agent), if the Iranians had them, be more effective than mustard gas?

[Officer of Engineers]

Mustard gas hugs the earth much better.

[bugs]

Wouldn't Sarin (or some other nerve agent), if the Iranians had them, be more effective than mustard gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...emical_weapons

Iran has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, in chemical attacks during the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War. As a result, Iran has promulgated a very public stance against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums. Iran did not resort to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran–Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons. Following its experiences during the Iran–Iraq War, Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993 and ratified it on November 3, 1997.

A U.S. Central Intelligence Agency report dated January 2001 speculated that Iran had manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them. It further claimed that during the first half of 2001, Iran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having indigenous nerve agent production capability.[137] However the certainty of this assessment declined and in 2007 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency limited its public assessment to just noting that "Iran has a large and growing commercial chemical industry that could be used to support a chemical agent mobilization capability."[138]

Iran is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical weapons, delivery systems, and production facilities. Iran has not made any declaration of a weapons stockpile under the treaty.