Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html

March 13, 2005
Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant
Uzi Mahnaimi

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.

The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.

In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.

Silvan Shalom, the Israeli foreign minister, said he believed that diplomacy was the only way to deal with the issue. But he warned: “The idea that this tyranny of Iran will hold a nuclear bomb is a nightmare, not only for us but for the whole world.”

Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, emphasised on Friday that Iran would face “stronger action” if it failed to respond. But yesterday Iran rejected the initiative, which provides for entry to the World Trade Organisation and a supply of spare parts for airliners if it co-operates.

“No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said an Iranian spokesman.

US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

Additional reporting: Tony Allen-Mills, Washington

 

[android]

God why don't these idiots (US and Israel) realize that they only want nukes as a deterrent to a attack. Kinda like the reasons they have them.

 

[Drozmight]

If it had to go down like that, I'd rather the US do it than Israel.

 

[BigJonsson]

And the USA has plans to attack Canada

Doesn't mean it will happen

And to attack Iran would just legitimize the Mullahs and rally the people...

The best course of action is diplomacy, let the people overthrow the regime

 

[Hamfam]

And the USA has plans to attack Canada

Doesn't mean it will happen

Sure about that?

 

[android]

And the USA has plans to attack Canada

Doesn't mean it will happen

"I'll handle Canada"

 

[Red Scarlet]

Cool, that was written in the future.

WWIII iz coming.

 

[FightyF]

If Israel wants them to stop, all they have to do is end their own nuclear weapons programs.

Ah well, that'd make too much sense though, would it?

Cool, that was written in the future.

WTF? Reading too much fiction dude.

 

[Iceman]

"If Israel wants them to stop, all they have to do is end their own nuclear weapons programs.
Ah well, that'd make too much sense though, would it?"

Right, because... what?

 

[Nightbreeze]

Does the US really have plans to attack Canada? wow.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

If Israel wants them to stop, all they have to do is end their own nuclear weapons programs.

Ah well, that'd make too much sense though, would it?



WTF? Reading too much fiction dude.

No, if Israel wants to stop them, they tell Bush to stop beating the war drum.

 

[Macam]

God why don't these idiots (US and Israel) realize that they only want nukes as a deterrent to a attack. Kinda like the reasons they have them.

Don't be so naive. For one, you're suggesting, just as the administration is, that Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons; something Iran itself denies. If they are indeed pursuing weapons, then certainly that may be part of the reason, but a deterrent alone isn't enough of a reason alone, since there are other ways of deterring an attack in the first place. Allowing more transparency to assuage fears of the development of a nuclear weapon for example, would suffice in alleviating most of the pressure currently leveled at Iran since a large part of the reason Iran is even being targeted is because of its nuclear ambitions, "tyrannical regime" talk aside. Nor would Israel giving up its nuclear program and arsenal stop Iran; that's simply absurd. Israel is strong enough militarily to deal with Iran without nuclear weapons and as the only remaining Arab nation to still not acknowledge Israel's existence, it would only be more than happy to obtain an advantage.

Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons plain and simple. They're not a trustworthy government (and I know the inevitable questioning of our administration's trustworthiness, etc.), there's no need for them to have them in what's supposed to be an era of nonproliferation, and for the greater good of Middle Eastern stability, which is, at least for the moment, taking baby steps in the right direction.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Does the US really have plans to attack Canada? wow.

Yes, but the plans were written up back in the early 50's, while the states was still paranoid about communism spreading in Canada, and wanting the resources. Or something to that effect.

 

[Red Scarlet]

I was referring to the date..3/13/05. It's not 3/13 here. I was just being culturally ignorant at the likeliness of that article being written east of the US, nothing big. :lol

 

[DopeyFish]

Yes, but the plans were written up back in the early 50's, while the states was still paranoid about communism spreading in Canada, and wanting the resources. Or something to that effect.

Uh, no.

Attack/defence plans exist for any situation which has been thought about.

It's called being prepared.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Uh, no.

Attack/defence plans exist for any situation which has been thought about.

It's called being prepared.

I know that, I was specifically talking about their 50's plan. I know there are think tanks that do nothing but think of different scenarios.

 

[Space Age Playboy]

I definitely don't want to see a medieval theocracy with nuclear weapons.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

Yes, but the plans were written up back in the early 50's, while the states was still paranoid about communism spreading in Canada, and wanting the resources. Or something to that effect.

Actually, it was in the 20's, and it was more against Great Britain than Canada. Americans were very pacifistic after World War I, and the Army didn't want strategic plans involving attack plans against a more logical enemy (like say Germany) to get out, for fear of a public outcry. If plans involving attacking Great Britain (thru Canada) got out, they could say they were just strategic exercises and nothing more, and be more easily believed.

Anyway, I don't think this news about Isreal and Iran is exactly surprising. It's always been assumed that Israel would do this if Iran got nuclear capabilities. Iran is a theocracy run by people who want to annihilate Israel. Of course Israel isn't going to be too happy with the idea of them getting nuclear weapons. It's like us bombing an al Qaeda nuclear site, if al Qaeda had a nuclear site.

 

[Phoenix]

This should surprise no one. Israel destroyed the plant in Iraq in 1981. Israel will handle these sorts of things long before the US even puts a strike package in the region.

 

[android]

Don't be so naive. For one, you're suggesting, just as the administration is, that Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons; something Iran itself denies. If they are indeed pursuing weapons, then certainly that may be part of the reason, but a deterrent alone isn't enough of a reason alone, since there are other ways of deterring an attack in the first place. Allowing more transparency to assuage fears of the development of a nuclear weapon for example, would suffice in alleviating most of the pressure currently leveled at Iran since a large part of the reason Iran is even being targeted is because of its nuclear ambitions, "tyrannical regime" talk aside. Nor would Israel giving up its nuclear program and arsenal stop Iran; that's simply absurd. Israel is strong enough militarily to deal with Iran without nuclear weapons and as the only remaining Arab nation to still not acknowledge Israel's existence, it would only be more than happy to obtain an advantage.

Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons plain and simple. They're not a trustworthy government (and I know the inevitable questioning of our administration's trustworthiness, etc.), there's no need for them to have them in what's supposed to be an era of nonproliferation, and for the greater good of Middle Eastern stability, which is, at least for the moment, taking baby steps in the right direction.

So you are saying that Iran isn't seeking nukes and yet at the same time you say they are. Do they have nuclear ambitions or don't they? Or are you saying that the US and Israel are up in arms because of Iran's desire to power it's nation with nuclear power? No, the US and Israel believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons not power. If Iraq had let off a nuclear test weapon there would have been no invasion. Do you think the citizens of the United States or the US goverment, would have let Bush sends it men and women into such a high risk area, if Iraq had a proven capability. Absolutely not. The US went into Iraq to prevent Saddam from finishing the weapons the Bush administation lied about him having. That's why they seemed to be rushing to attack. They claimed they were trying to stop him before it was to late. Just like they are doing with Iran now. Therefore it would have be a deterrent if Saddam did have a weapon. And what about the fact that the Axis of Evil has seemingly lost North Korea and gained Syria. Hmm lets think. What changed. Thats right. North Korea now claims they have nukes. Now the chances of an attack on North Korea is slim to none, when compared with Syria and Iran. There is no greater deterrent in this world than having nuclear weapons. It did prevent World War Three from happening in 1962.

Now you are right about Israel giving up its weapons. It wouldn't change anything. It would probably spur Iran on to their own weapons. But I didn't say that. I said that Israel has nuclear weapons to prevent or avenge an invasion, just as Iran now desires them. You talk of Non-Proliferation and yet Israel was one of only three countries not to sign (along with India and Pakistan) the agreement. When they didn't sign they claimed it would create a a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots". Seems pretty hypocritical now doesn't it. They are the ones claiming, that another country can't have nuclear weapons, something they previously protested against. Iran has as much right to protect themselves from invasion, just like Israel and the US, whether you like it or not.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

Now you are right about Israel giving up its weapons. It wouldn't change anything. It would probably spur Iran on to their own weapons. But I didn't say that. I said that Israel has nuclear weapons to prevent or avenge an invasion, just as Iran now desires them. You talk of Non-Proliferation and yet Israel was one of only three countries not to sign (along with India and Pakistan) the agreement. When they didn't sign they claimed it would create a a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots". Seems pretty hypocritical now doesn't it. They are the ones claiming, that another country can't have nuclear weapons, something they previously protested against. Iran has as much right to protect themselves from invasion, just like Israel and the US, whether you like it or not.

Except of course Israel is both stable and a democracy, and Iran is neither. The whole "we're all equal, let's let everybody have nuclear weapons" is rather simplistic.

 

[android]

Except of course Israel is both stable and a democracy, and Iran is neither. The whole "we're all equal, let's let everybody have nuclear weapons" is rather simplistic.

It's also simplistic to believe that nukes would go flying out of Iranian air space the second they get them. They know it will be their destuction if they use them, so it's their trump card. They will use it to avenge a invasion, kinda like Israel will.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

It's also simplistic to believe that nukes would go flying out of Iranian air space the second they get them. They know it will be their destuction if they use them, so it's their trump card. They will use it to avenge a invasion, kinda like Israel will.

Because fundamentalist Islamic exremists would never do anything as unreasonable as ensuring their own destruction by blowing something up becuase it is the will of Allah. Especially when it involves something so unimportant and unrelated to their religion as removing the Zionist infidel from Jerusalem.

 

[Space Age Playboy]

Taliban: "Allah will make the bombs miss."

Taliban = kaboom.

 

[Phoenix]

Because fundamentalist Islamic exremists would never do anything as unreasonable as ensuring their own destruction by blowing something up becuase it is the will of Allah. Especially when it involves something so unimportant and unrelated to their religion as removing the Zionist infidel from Jerusalem.

Point and match.....

 

[ghostface]

Israel is strong enough militarily to deal with Iran without nuclear weapons and as the only remaining Arab nation to still not acknowledge Israel's existence, it would only be more than happy to obtain an advantage.

Iran is not an Arab nation.

Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons plain and simple. They're not a trustworthy government (and I know the inevitable questioning of our administration's trustworthiness, etc.), there's no need for them to have them in what's supposed to be an era of nonproliferation, and for the greater good of Middle Eastern stability, which is, at least for the moment, taking baby steps in the right direction.

Exactly how is the ME heading in the right direction in terms of stability? And please don't mention the Iraqi elections.

 

[android]

Because fundamentalist Islamic exremists would never do anything as unreasonable as ensuring their own destruction by blowing something up becuase it is the will of Allah. Especially when it involves something so unimportant and unrelated to their religion as removing the Zionist infidel from Jerusalem.

And you know prefectly well that regimes, from Sadaam to Quaadfi to the Saudi Royal family, care about one thing and one thing only, and that is maintaining a hold on their power. They aren't living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan here. They are the rulers over 60 million people who follow their every edict and order which they claim comes from God. They can talk all they want but they know they would never give that up. Don't equate a nutjob living on his own in the mountains with nutjobs who rule their own little wealthy country. They have to very different goals in mind. One to hold onto power with a iron grip and the other to attack anyone they feel slighted them. It's like comparing David Koresh with George W Bush.

 

[ghostface]

Point and match.....

Not so fast...

And you know prefectly well that regimes, from Sadaam to Quaadfi to the Saudi Royal family, care about one thing and one thing only, and that is maintaining a hold on their power. They aren't living in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan here. They are the rulers over 60 million people who follow their every edict and order which they claim comes from God. They can talk all they want but they know they would never give that up. Don't equate a nutjob living on his own in the mountains with nutjobs who rule their own little wealthy country. They have to very different goals in mind. One to hold onto power with a iron grip and the other to attack anyone they feel slighted them. It's like comparing David Koresh with George W Bush.

Agreed.

 

[Macam]

So you are saying that Iran isn't seeking nukes and yet at the same time you say they are. Do they have nuclear ambitions or don't they? Or are you saying that the US and Israel are up in arms because of Iran's desire to power it's nation with nuclear power?

*snip*

... Iran has as much right to protect themselves from invasion, just like Israel and the US, whether you like it or not.

"Nuclear ambitions" doesn't equate to "nuclear weapons"; at least, I didn't mean it in that context. I'm not claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were given their history. What I am saying is that their nuclear ambitions, which at face value by their claims is simply pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, and their lack of transparency, alongside the "war on terrorism", is what's making administrations notably nervous. Iran is a hostile regime to Western interests, pursuing nuclear technology, and, as the accusations suggest, a supporter of terrorism. It's no surprise that the administration is bothered by Iran; and given their focus on stabilizing and reforming the Middle East, it's easy to see why they've left North Korea on the backburner (a move I strongly disgaree with).

Iraq has nothing to do with this in particular. Nor does North Korea which, techincally, still remains on the "Axis of Evil"; as far as I'm aware, Bush hasn't used that term for years now, and Syria isn't technically a part of that. We've long been critical of Syria, but that's nothing new.

As for Israel and nonproliferation, I'm talking about the current time period, not the NPT from more than ten years ago. I'm not arguing against Iran's right to protect themselves from invasion, nor whether nuclear weapons is a state's right or not. There are other ways to protect themselves that would reduce the tension of the current situation, and furthermore, just because they have a right to protect themselves doesn't mean having nuclear weapons is in our interest as a country. By such logic, we should be completely unbothered by the idea of every country, even those that are openly hostile to us and our way of life, having nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

You make it sound like that my desire to see Iran not obtain nuclear weapons is mere trifling of a thought that I magically plucked out of the air; I think you fail to realize the very real implications of what Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and an ultimately stronger Iran under the current regime means. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is not in our interests, Europe's, or, for that matter, much of anyone's in the region, perhaps save Syria.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

And you know prefectly well that regimes, from Sadaam to Quaadfi to the Saudi Royal family, care about one thing and one thing only, and that is maintaining a hold on their power.

Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Saudi royal family are Islamic extremists. They use Islam as a political tool to prop up their regimes. Libya doesn't have the means to launch an all out assault on Israel, and Quadaffi seems to be past his "kill all the Zionists" stage. The same cannot be said of Ayatollah Khameini's Iran.

 

[LinesInTheSand]

Awesome. Good job Israel.

 

[Macam]

Iran is not an Arab nation.

Exactly how is the ME heading in the right direction in terms of stability? And please don't mention the Iraqi elections.

My mistake on the first point.

As for the second one, I'll name a few: the Lebanese protest and the resignation of the pro-Syrian government, Egypt's presidential election initiative, Saudi Arabia's allowing of voting for town councils, and the recent elections in Palestine alongside Arafat's passing and Sharon's moves to attempt to give the new administration some leeway and legitimacy with Israel. Now, please note these are largely moves to democracy and not necessarily stability and that I noted baby steps; by no means am I suggesting the Middle East is going to be healed and patched up anytime soon.

However, the growing currents of democracy should help stabilize matters a bit by allowing the people to use their power to vote to invoke some level of change. That said, a lot of these changes are hindered by setbacks or toothless legislation: only men were allowed to vote in Saudi Arabia and not for any notable government positions, the Lebanese have now seen the pro-Syrian PM voted back in, Mubarak's initiative is fairly weak, and the peace between Palestine and Israel has been broken by attacks. That said, I think these movements will ultimately help lead to a more stable Middle East region in the long, long run...but that's hard to see when we have daily attacks being reported from Iraq, Bush heckling Iran, and so on. But it's a start, however paltry: Baby steps.

 

[android]

"Nuclear ambitions" doesn't equate to "nuclear weapons"; at least, I didn't mean it in that context. I'm not claiming Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were given their history. What I am saying is that their nuclear ambitions, which at face value by their claims is simply pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, and their lack of transparency, alongside the "war on terrorism", is what's making administrations notably nervous. Iran is a hostile regime to Western interests, pursuing nuclear technology, and, as the accusations suggest, a supporter of terrorism. It's no surprise that the administration is bothered by Iran; and given their focus on stabilizing and reforming the Middle East, it's easy to see why they've left North Korea on the backburner (a move I strongly disgaree with).

Okay i misunderstood your meaning there.

Iraq has nothing to do with this in particular. Nor does North Korea which, techincally, still remains on the "Axis of Evil"; as far as I'm aware, Bush hasn't used that term for years now, and Syria isn't technically a part of that. We've long been critical of Syria, but that's nothing new.

To say that they have nothing to do with this is to forget the past four years. Or do you forget Colin Powell going before the UN crying wolf. What I was saying was if Saddam had set off a nuclear test, the talk of invasion would have immediately ceased. Futhermore if Iran sets off a nuclear test, all talk of attacking them will cease. Exactly like North Korea. Therefore nuclear weapons are a deterrent

As for Israel and nonproliferation, I'm talking about the current time period, not the NPT from more than ten years ago. I'm not arguing against Iran's right to protect themselves from invasion, nor whether nuclear weapons is a state's right or not. There are other ways to protect themselves that would reduce the tension of the current situation, and furthermore, just because they have a right to protect themselves doesn't mean having nuclear weapons is in our interest as a country. By such logic, we should be completely unbothered by the idea of every country, even those that are openly hostile to us and our way of life, having nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

You make it sound like that my desire to see Iran not obtain nuclear weapons is mere trifling of a thought that I magically plucked out of the air; I think you fail to realize the very real implications of what Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and an ultimately stronger Iran under the current regime means. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is not in our interests, Europe's, or, for that matter, much of anyone's in the region, perhaps save Syria.

I agree they should not have these weapons. But they have every right to have them. And Israel has no right to play the big dog now, when they were on the other side of the fence in the past. Do you think every Muslim nation in the region was overjoyed when the "democracy" of Israel was believed to be gaining nuclear weapons. Of course not.

 

[Heezzi]

JOHN TITOR was right !!!!

 

[android]

Neither Saddam Hussein nor the Saudi royal family are Islamic extremists. They use Islam as a political tool to prop up their regimes. Libya doesn't have the means to launch an all out assault on Israel, and Quadaffi seems to be past his "kill all the Zionists" stage. The same cannot be said of Ayatollah Khameini's Iran.

Yeah lets forget the fact that Saddam fired missles into Israel. Every single one of the other nations would be leaping for joy at Israel destruction. And you do know that some Saudi royals have helped Osama don't you. What they say in public is different than what they say behind closed doors.

Edit:

They use Islam as a political tool to prop up their regimes

Missed this but what???? So does Iran. They are all talk, and nothing more. Futhermore Saddam led one of the most secular regimes in the region. Religious leaders were frequently persecuted.

 

[Nintendo Ate My Children]

Do you think every Muslim nation in the region was overjoyed when the "democracy" of Israel was believed to be gaining nuclear weapons. Of course not.

Apples and oranges. If one of the founding principles of the "democracy" of "Israel" was the utter destruction of every Muslim nation in the Middle East, then there would be something to talk about.

Yeah lets forget the fact that Saddam fired missles into Israel. Every single one of the other nations would be leaping for joy at Israel destruction. And you do know that some Saudi royals have helped Osama don't you. What they say in public is different than what they say behind closed doors.

Saddam fired missiles into Israel to goad the Isralis into firing back, in an attempt to get Muslim countries to support Iraq. It was a strategic move that backfired, and wasn't based in any way on fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. Also, just because the third cousin twice removed or whatever of Prince Abdullah gave money to al Qaeda, it does not make Saudi Arabia a fundamentalist theocracy.

 

[ghostface]

Nintendo Ate My Children, an attack by Israel on nuclear installations will not be guarenteed to have 100% success, as Iran has reportedly been doing a good job of spreading around their sites all over the country, with frequent moves for quite a while now.

With that said, if Iran's leaders are the crazy "Lets kill Israel at all costs" fundamentalists that you say they are (and yes, I agree that they are nuts), then an attack by Isreal on nuclear installations would enrage the regime even further and make them go on a "I'm taking you down with me" type of thing against Israel. While Israel's military capabilities far surpass those of Iran, the Islamic regime's army is far from being as crippled as Iraq's was right before the 2003 invasion. That coupled with the very small geopraphical size of Israel, things could be desastrous for the Jewish state. Come to think of it, why haven't they attacked Israel directly already (waits for some dumbass to step in and say "becoz they wud get their asses whooped!1" without having read any of my post)? That is why I disagree with the point you made, and am more convinced of the "deterance" explanation that Android alse seems to agree with.

And Macam, yes, all the things you mention seem like positive actions, but I just feel that they are only for show and that REAL progress towards stability has yet to be made.

 

[android]

"becoz they wud get their asses whooped!1"

With that said, if Iran's leaders are the crazy "Lets kill Israel at all costs" fundamentalists that you say they are (and yes, I agree that they are nuts), then an attack by Isreal on nuclear installations would enrage the regime even further and make them go on a "I'm taking you down with me" type of thing against Israel.

Plus the people, who are the most western leaning in the region, would unite behind their leaders.

 

[ghostface]

"becoz they wud get their asses whooped!1"

Plus the people, who are the most western leaning in the region, would unite behind their leaders.

Exactly, dumbass.

 

[Azih]

but a deterrent alone isn't enough of a reason alone, since there are other ways of deterring an attack in the first place

The American reaction to Iran's other two 'axis of evil partners' gives the lie to that stament. Iraq has no nuclear weapons and gets invaded despite rolling over and showing its belly to the U.N weapons inspectors; N.Korea does and doesn't despite being belligerent and non-cooperative. That alone is enough to convince me and I would imagine Iran that the only effective way to prevent an American invasion is nuclear deterrance.

And yeah you would not BELIEVE how quickly disaffected Iranis would really to the mullahs if Israel attacked.

 

[tetsuoxb]

The American reaction to Iran's other two 'axis of evil partners' gives the lie to that stament. Iraq has no nuclear weapons and gets invaded despite rolling over and showing its belly to the U.N weapons inspectors; N.Korea does and doesn't despite being belligerent and non-cooperative. That alone is enough to convince me and I would imagine Iran that the only effective way to prevent an American invasion is nuclear deterrance.

And yeah you would not BELIEVE how quickly disaffected Iranis would really to the mullahs if Israel attacked.

Yeah, but it is a bit myopic to think that the only thing preventing the US from invading North Korea is their nuclear capability. Their 1,000,000 man army is another biggie. Not to mention the fact that they are within striking distance of Japan with conventional weapons as well, which they would use and cause a great deal of harm to the world economy. Finally, with relations between the US/Japan and China a bit chilly, it is fair to say any long ground campaign could eventually provoke the Chinese. Then you have world war 3, because the Chinese would not bother sending troops towards the US, they would just lob ICBMs if the shit hit the fan.

 

[Phoenix]

Nintendo Ate My Children, an attack by Israel on nuclear installations will not be guarenteed to have 100% success, as Iran has reportedly been doing a good job of spreading around their sites all over the country, with frequent moves for quite a while now.

Any attack wouldn't come from just the air I'm sure because Iran has learned a lot from the raid on the baghdad plant and a pure air strike will at best just delay any weapon development.

While Israel's military capabilities far surpass those of Iran, the Islamic regime's army is far from being as crippled as Iraq's was right before the 2003 invasion. That coupled with the very small geopraphical size of Israel, things could be desastrous for the Jewish state.
Come to think of it, why haven't they attacked Israel directly already (waits for some dumbass to step in and say "becoz they wud get their asses whooped!1" without having read any of my post)?

Heh. May have something to do with the fact that they have no land route into Israel and would have to go through several other countries to launch an attack

 

[ghostface]

Phoenix, you are right. and I wasn't implying that Iran would totally destroy Israel, or even be able to. But strategically targeted waves of their longer range Shahab missiles, of which supplies are a plenty, would be, I think, able to deliver a strong blow to Israel. Feel free to prove me wrong technically.

 

[Santo]

What's this I hear? Iran needs help with their nuclear program? We got them covered.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

God why don't these idiots (US and Israel) realize that they only want nukes as a deterrent to a attack. Kinda like the reasons they have them.

Bah. Nukes are symbols of power and potency, like Dubs or gaudy mansions to a westerner. You're just not noticed or feard as an authortarian dictator unless you can whip out an ICBM or three.

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, you are right. and I wasn't implying that Iran would totally destroy Israel, or even be able to. But strategically targeted waves of their longer range Shahab missiles, of which supplies are a plenty, would be, I think, able to deliver a strong blow to Israel. Feel free to prove me wrong technically.

Well they'd have to get past one of the most sophisticated ABM systems deployed in the world to date. Every anti ballistic missile system that the US has developed has been developed jointly with Israel or developed by Israel. While they have no means to prevent an attack, and would certainly take damage - they are by no means in a position where they'd have to bend over and endure warheads landing on their heads.

If Iran really wants to get into all this, they need to do so soon as Israel is also one of the premier nations involved in laser based ABM technology and have stationary systems around the nations power nuclear power plants. The mobile variant of this laser system will be deployed towards the end of next year.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html


One of the sad things about the general US populace is how 'behind' their views are on the deployed military technology in a variety of nations. While I'm not taking your post as an example, it is a general observation that I've seen here and a variety of other places.

 

[Phoenix]

Bah. Nukes are symbols of power and potency, like Dubs or gaudy mansions to a westerner. You're just not noticed or feard as an authortarian dictator unless you can whip out an ICBM or three.

And lets not forget that ICBMs *became* a weapon of deterrent. Those weapons were developed to actually be used and only after they were built up in large numbers did they become weapons of deterrence. There was a time where there were very real opportunities for those weapons to be used, and they are always 'on the table' should the situation warrant it.

 

[Senior Lurker]

And yeah you would not BELIEVE how quickly disaffected Iranis would really to the mullahs if Israel attacked.

I wouldn't be so sure. I wrote a long-ass post and clicked preview, only to be faced with "Queue jumpers get dumped" at the top left, and a message saying I followed an invalid link or whatever. WTF? I don't feel like retyping that so I may postpone it to later.

 

[ghostface]

Well they'd have to get past one of the most sophisticated ABM systems deployed in the world to date. Every anti ballistic missile system that the US has developed has been developed jointly with Israel or developed by Israel. While they have no means to prevent an attack, and would certainly take damage - they are by no means in a position where they'd have to bend over and endure warheads landing on their heads.

If Iran really wants to get into all this, they need to do so soon as Israel is also one of the premier nations involved in laser based ABM technology and have stationary systems around the nations power nuclear power plants. The mobile variant of this laser system will be deployed towards the end of next year.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/thel.html

I had a feeling you would look up some technicalities/specs and post them.

Anyway, I'm not saying Iran should or will do this, my whole point was that if that was their intention, they probably would've already acted in that direction.

 

[ghostface]

I wouldn't be so sure.

I would, and so would most political analysts.