Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on April 04, 2009, 01:50:17 PM
-
The idea of Iran with nukes would cause the USA heartburn and influence in the ME.
I suspect the Israeli perspective is punctuated with thoughts of, "How many nukes can we take before Israel is no longer a going concern?"
The author is correct in that the West is doing a whole lot of nothing. Some (the USA) because we don't want to and others (W Europe) becasue they no longer have the ability or guts.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTJiZDJlODE5MDY4ZDdmODE3NWRmNTVmMGUxYjczNjQ=
The Coming Israeli Attack on Iran [Michael Ledeen]
Richard Beeston, of the London Times, is old enough to remember what happened back in 1981, when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. First, an Israeli went around to all the allied countries, warning that somebody had better do something soon. Nobody did. So the Israelis did it by themselves.
Beeston retells that story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6024654.ece) in the process of warning us that the Israelis have been doing the same thing of late, this time with regard to the Iranian nuclear project. He thinks that the new Israeli government has at least three men who are experienced in dangerous operations. He notes that Israel just attacked an Iranian convoy in Sudan that was headed for Gaza, and the Israeli planes had to fly farther than is required to attack the nuclear facility in Natanz. He concludes by saying that Israel won't attack without at least "tacit American approval," but warns that time is running out.
I can add another piece to his jigsaw puzzle. At the time of the attack on the Iraqi facility, I was Special Adviser to the Secretary of State (the same title that Dennis Ross holds today), and it was quite clear that nobody in the U.S. Government knew that attack was coming. Menachem Begin didn't ask for permission, and while there were some top Americans who were irked that they hadn't received advance warning, I didn't hear anybody say that the Israelis needed our approval, tacit or explicit.
If the Israelis think that Iran is likely to nuke them, I can't imagine why they would feel constrained by American wishes. Good relations aren't a suicide pact, after all. I doubt that the Israelis will ask any such question, in keeping with the old adage, don't ask the question if you don't want to hear the answer.
It's clear that the "Western world" has no intention of doing anything serious about Iran. I rather suspect that many European countries would be pleased if Israel managed to do effective damage to Iran's nuclear program, and I'm quite sure that many Arab countries would privately cheer the event. I really don't know what the president and his various czars would think, although they would undoubtedly join in the chorus of denunciation.
But none of that really matters if you're Israel, and you are convinced that Iran is very close to removing you from the map.
-
When do people stop writing articles claiming that "An Israeli attack on Iran is forthcoming within N months"?
-
When do people stop writing articles claiming that "An Israeli attack on Iran is forthcoming within N months"?
When Israel finally attacks Iran?
-
The sad thing is that the Iranian people seem to be very friendly. I watched a bit on late night cable in which what seemed to be a Brit reporter (by his accent) traveled all around Iran. It's too bad these folks don't have the wherewithall to get out from under the wack jobs that run the place.
On the other hand, look at what we just elected and how we stand by while they bankrupt us with the tacit approval of the MSM.
-
As an aside, why should "the West" attack Iran?
-
I remember a while back right after we went into Iraq and talk was about when we'd go into Iran as well I had the pleasure of meeting a fairly well known Iranian guitar player and the subject turned to war with Iraq/Iran. His statement, "Nobody in Iran wants a war with the US." I agree, it's too bad they can't do anything about getting the wack jobs out of the gov there.
On another note, the 3 anti war protesters were on the corner of Main and Center St in Manchester ct again today. One had a sign that said, "Stop BUSH!" Apprently they don't read many papers or watch any TV. :laugh:
-
As an aside, why should "the West" attack Iran?
Because we MUST operate on the assumption that Iran is about to get a nuke AND wants to use it on Israel.
Doubting the allegations that Iran is within closing distance of a nuclear weapon sufficiently compact to be used as part of a missile warhead AND wants to fight a nuclear war with a country that outguns and outnumbers its military (both of these must be true for an attack on Iran to be justifiable) means you hate Israel. And America. And Jews.
-
As an aside, why should "the West" attack Iran?
So a nuclear war does not transpire in the Middle East.
Wait a tick . . . Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, all smoking, glowing holes . . . hmmmm, you may be on to something there ag, old boy. I say, simply splendid. =D
-
we need to work on techniques for extracting the oil from a place that glows in the dark
-
Or, in the alternative, we could use our own oil. =D
Nah, we would much rather muck around in The Monkey House. :lol:
-
we need to work on techniques for extracting the oil from a place that glows in the dark
Well, you'd save a fortune on night lighting.
The cost savings would probably be eaten up by the cost of radioactive shielding, though...
-
A quick poll:
Who here thinks the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran?
-
More interesting, maybe, but not better.
-
A quick poll:
Who here thinks the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran?
I for one think you're asking the wrong question.
-
I for one think you're asking the wrong question.
I for one think you, like so many every time the issue comes up, just dodged the question.
-
I for one think you, like so many every time the issue comes up, just dodged the question.
Because the choice isn't "Nuclear Iran/non-nuclear Iran".
The question is:
"Are you willing to risk a full-blown war with Iran, which may escalate to an exchange of chemical and biological weapons, based on what we know of the likelihood that Iran MAY be working on a nuclear weapon?"
Considering the fact I live in the impact zone of said chemical and biological weapns, no, I don't.
-
Why should the west concern itself with Doing Something about Iran when all it has to do is push Israel to the wall and then she will act.
I'll say it this way: Israel is the US' Cat's Paw in the ME.
-
Considering the fact I live in the impact zone of said chemical and biological weapns, no, I don't.
you will find folks much more willing when its someone elses realestate being trashed. its a tradition. along with being the only folks to ever use nukes and believing we should therefore ne nuke hall monitor. and then looking puzzled when everyone doesn't applaud the concept.
i think i just agreed with mb. i'm gonna go lay down
-
Well, I guess one would have to break it down logically.
A. Iran is making nukes.
B. Iran just wants everyone to believe their making nukes.
If "A" is true, then either:
A1. Iran wants to use the nukes. Israel, elsewhere, or give them to third parties to use on Israel elsewhere by proxy.
A2. Iran does not really want to use the nukes, but wants the power of being able to engage in MAD.
(And have more immunity to engage in perpetual low-grade proxy warfare with Israel indefinitely.)
If "B" is true, then...
Well I'm not sure what the hell the point of "B" is because you're engaging all the risk of becoming a nuclear power, without the actual benefits of having a nuke.
-
The old nuclear bargaining chip. If you have it, you have it, if you don't, well, they bluff to good effect on the poker star shows too. =D
-
Because the choice isn't "Nuclear Iran/non-nuclear Iran".
The question is:
"Are you willing to risk a full-blown war with Iran, which may escalate to an exchange of chemical and biological weapons, based on what we know of the likelihood that Iran MAY be working on a nuclear weapon?"
Considering the fact I live in the impact zone of said chemical and biological weapns, no, I don't.
If I were in the impact zone I wouldn't care. I would much rather deal with Iran before it has nukes, then after.
you will find folks much more willing when its someone elses realestate being trashed. its a tradition. along with being the only folks to ever use nukes and believing we should therefore ne nuke hall monitor. and then looking puzzled when everyone doesn't applaud the concept.
We've also used poison gas, along with most every European country. We've also all employed torture as a regular form of punishment in our pasts.
Does this mean we should be honky dory with those things to?
Iran is either developing nukes, or doing a damn good job of making everyone think they are. As just developing them is a good way to get yourself hit first there isn't much to gain by making it look like you are. If Iran just wanted to egg itself into being smacked around and crying foul for it there are much simpler surer ways that make you look much less like the bad guy.
-
If I were in the impact zone I wouldn't care.
really? many folks in a nuke impact zone are less brave
-
If I were in the impact zone I wouldn't care. I would much rather deal with Iran before it has nukes, then after.
So, Iran may or may not get a nuke, and yet I am supposed to 'not care' about the fact I may get hit by chem weapons, and gamble on the off-chance that it might get a nuke - knowing that Iran ALREADY has chemical weapons and the will to use them? Despite the fact 80% of Israelis do not have gas masks?
-
if you were here you wouldn't care
-
So, Iran may or may not get a nuke, and yet I am supposed to 'not care' about the fact I may get hit by chem weapons, and gamble on the off-chance that it might get a nuke - knowing that Iran ALREADY has chemical weapons and the will to use them? Despite the fact 80% of Israelis do not have gas masks?
You'd rather wait till you are also in a nuke impact zone to deal with it? Never said it was easy or didn't suck. Were I in the cross hair I'd much rather deal with it before I started glowing.
-
You'd rather wait till you are also in a nuke impact zone to deal with it? Never said it was easy or didn't suck. Were I in the cross hair I'd much rather deal with it before I started glowing.
You're assuming I believe Iran is going to go nuclear.
-
Were I in the cross hair
I'd much I imagine i'd rather deal with it before I started glowing.
-
A quick poll:
Who here thinks the world would be a better place with a nuclear-armed Iran?
The thought of a glowing, post-nuke MB posting, "I told you SO !!" everyday is too horrible to contemplate.....
-
I wonder how many people here would attack their neighbor if you heard he was going to go buy his first gun.
It is, after all, much safer for you to be one of the few armed people in your neighborhood.
Your neighbor might sneak into your house and shoot you, after all.
-
I wonder how many people here would attack their neighbor if you heard he was going to go buy his first gun.
It is, after all, much safer for you to be one of the few armed people in your neighborhood.
Your neighbor might sneak into your house and shoot you, after all.
I would not do so.
However, if my neighbor had repeatedly said I should be killed and my house should be destroyed and I see him building a firebomb, I would probably do something about that.
I think there's a difference between "your neighbor" and "your neighbor who has repeatedly said he wants to kill you".
But that's just me.
-
I would not do so.
However, if my neighbor had repeatedly said I should be killed and my house should be destroyed and I see him building a firebomb, I would probably do something about that.
I think there's a difference between "your neighbor" and "your neighbor who has repeatedly said he wants to kill you".
Not a reasonable analogy.
1.Iran has not said they want to destroy Israel or want to attack it. They say Israel is bad, that it 'could' be destroyed easily with nuclear weapons (sort of a 'Nice shop you got there; it'd be too bad if something were to happen to it. Iran much prefers acting against Israel through people like Hamas and Hezbollah than fighting a direct war against us, because we're stronger, and have more planes, nukes, and ships, and better soldiers, too. I suspect very much they're mostly doing it to gain leverage over all the local factions/groups/governments.
2.Nobody knows if Iran is close to getting a bomb. It could be that they're going to get one in two years. Or in ten years. Or maybe it's all a huge bluff.
3.It's never been proven to any satisfaction that Iran is crazy enough to plan to use a nuke against Israel. IT's likely that if they want a nuke, they want one as a bargaining chip to avoid being Iraqed by either Israel or the US.
4.Iran has a variety of chemical and biological weapons. If we engage in a massive attack on them, they're bound to use them.
Now, if we attack Iran, they smack Tel-Aviv and Hertzliya and kill, say, 50,000 people – remember, the Israeli government took back everybod'ys gas masks! - and it turns out they weren't even going for a nuke, or never going to attack us directly, how stupid will we look?
We are operating on the ASSUMPTION Iraq wants to nuke us AND is going for a nuke actively AND is going to get one soon. If it's not true, we're just risking the lives of thousands over nothing.
Note even if Iran had a nuke, it would be one of those Fat Man jobs. It'd take years for them to get it down to a size where it could fly to Israel on a small fighter jet or a missile.
-
Note even if Iran had a nuke, it would be one of those Fat Man jobs. It'd take years for them to get it down to a size where it could fly to Israel on a small fighter jet or a missile.
No.
Much of the size and mass of Fat Man / Little Boy were due to the need for controls to make sure the bombs went off. Today's basic technology for air pressure, timing, synchronization, etc. are FAR ahead of anything available in 1945, so there's absolutely no need for something that large and heavy. I doubt that Iran could put together something as compact as a man-portable suitcase nuke, a "Davy Crockett" projectile, or something rugged enough to put into an 8" artillery shell, but something that goes on a fighter, especially one where the pilot knows and accepts that he's making a one-way trip so fuel isn't a consideration . . . I can see it.
-
1.Iran has not said they want to destroy Israel or want to attack it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis
By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.
who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."
Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev responded by noting the ties between Ahmadinejad's regime and Hezbollah.
"Our operation in Lebanon is designed to neutralize one of the long arms of Iran _ Hezbollah," Regev said. "Hezbollah is their proxy, being used as an instrument of Teheran to advance their extremist agenda and the blow to Hezbollah is a blow to Iranian interests and a blow to all extremist jihadist forces in the region."
Ahmadinejad accused the United States of using Israel to try to control the Middle East and its oil wealth.
"Today the Americans are after the greater Middle East," he said. "The Zionist regime is used to reach this objective. The sole existence of this regime is for invasion and attack."
He urged Muslim states to "isolate" the United States and Britain, accusing them of supporting Israel's military offensive and saying they should be expelled from the U.N. Security Council.
Ahmadinejad also rejected proposals for deploying international troops along the Israeli-Lebanese border to separate the warring parties.
"Peace and security in Lebanon and its borders has to be preserved by the Lebanese government and people. Deployment of foreign forces is not acceptable in any shape unless it is just, based on U.N. rules and preserves the unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon," he said.
-
Not a reasonable analogy.
1.Iran has not said they want to destroy Israel or want to attack it. They say Israel is bad, that it 'could' be destroyed easily with nuclear weapons (sort of a 'Nice shop you got there; it'd be too bad if something were to happen to it. Iran much prefers acting against Israel through people like Hamas and Hezbollah than fighting a direct war against us, because we're stronger, and have more planes, nukes, and ships, and better soldiers, too. I suspect very much they're mostly doing it to gain leverage over all the local factions/groups/governments.
2.Nobody knows if Iran is close to getting a bomb. It could be that they're going to get one in two years. Or in ten years. Or maybe it's all a huge bluff.
3.It's never been proven to any satisfaction that Iran is crazy enough to plan to use a nuke against Israel. IT's likely that if they want a nuke, they want one as a bargaining chip to avoid being Iraqed by either Israel or the US.
4.Iran has a variety of chemical and biological weapons. If we engage in a massive attack on them, they're bound to use them.
Now, if we attack Iran, they smack Tel-Aviv and Hertzliya and kill, say, 50,000 people – remember, the Israeli government took back everybod'ys gas masks! - and it turns out they weren't even going for a nuke, or never going to attack us directly, how stupid will we look?
We are operating on the ASSUMPTION Iraq wants to nuke us AND is going for a nuke actively AND is going to get one soon. If it's not true, we're just risking the lives of thousands over nothing.
Note even if Iran had a nuke, it would be one of those Fat Man jobs. It'd take years for them to get it down to a size where it could fly to Israel on a small fighter jet or a missile.
I've argued points 2 and 3 in the past.
I am positive that the prodding of Israel and the U.S./EU is to maintain a constant state of external crisis to prop up the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad regime internally. However, I have a hard time deciding if they truly want a bomb, and that is just a bonus, or if that is the intent. :|
Same for the MAD "Can't touch me! Or I'll go NUCLEAR!" factor of being able to engage in low intensity proxy conflict with Israel indefinitely as if the bomb were a "Get out of jail free card.", and let the external crisis that creates prop up the regime as well.
As to what kind of bomb they'll build if they do, I can't say. I suspect the prior NORK "fizzle" waseither a crude a "Fat Man" (Plutonium implosion) or "Little Boy" (Uranium supercritical slamer/gun) WWII type of bomb. I think operating in a hyper-Stalinist state makes people play it very conservatively, meaning they went with as simple a design as possible, fearing a bullet in the back of the head if they failed. (Which they did anyway). Or, outright lying up the chain of command for fear of such reprisals. The NK bomb equivalent of the 10o ton Soviet tractor quota resulting in two 50 ton tractors, etc... =D
OTOH, I don't know what kind of nuclear talent Iran can attract and nurture. Modern technology that even the Third World has access to such as computers and modern CNC machinery, and whatever nuclear knowledge is public, and whatever secret knowledge they have access to could get them a generation ahead right out the door in their bomb program. Or perhaps not.
I think it all really boils down to if whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei really believe the apocalyptic "12 Imam" stuff, and a cathartic showdown with Israel the west is inevitable/necassary. That I don't know. I'd assume that people in Mossad and the CIA who are smarter than I have studied the matter intently and have some guesses. Even if you want to falsely give your enemies the idea you believe something, or you don't, it's hard to live your life in a complete vacuum. They'll be poring over every word they've ever written and uttered looking for hints within the context of their culture as to where their true beliefs, religious or pragmatic, lie.
If they are "true believers", I'd have sent the planes already, while Bush was still in office.
If they're cynical pragmatists, creating a dog-n-pony show for their own internal power games, I'd be hesitant to spill major blood over it, and might choose to play nuclear/MAD-footsie with them.
-
CS&D: Which is what I meant. They make a lot of anti-Israeli statements, but they always hover on the very edge of saying "We will kill you."
AJ Dual:
Fat Man and Little Boy both weighted around 4 tons, if that means anything to you. I'm not sure they can be delivered on an F-4 or an F-14 without a major hit to its performance.
-
MB,
Neutron reflection materials are vastly better today than they were in the 40's, greatly reducing the amount of material required for supercriticality, and the iranians have already demonstrated knowledge of high exposive mechanics... shock wave lensing and the like, that's required for small nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54
SADM variants of the W54 could be cranked up to a kiloton yield and weighed 50 pounds.
-
CS&D: Which is what I meant. They make a lot of anti-Israeli statements, but they always hover on the very edge of saying "We will kill you."
AJ Dual:
Fat Man and Little Boy both weighted around 4 tons, if that means anything to you. I'm not sure they can be delivered on an F-4 or an F-14 without a major hit to its performance.
I know. =| Little Boy was a Uranium gun design, and it's size/length wouldn't change all that much today. You need a certain mass of Uranium to reach criticality without implosion squeezing, a certian distance to keep the slugs apart so they don't "fizzle" on their own just sitting there, and the gun mechanisim has to be of a certain size/strength to direct the slug into the pit where it needs to go. A modern version of the same design wouldn't be much smaller.
I think Fat Man, the Plutonium imploder, was as large as it was not because of the electronics of the day, the Trinity test unit in the tower was about the same size. And Trinity did not need/have a shell, fins, or a radar fuze. And the prolific cabling around it's outside demonstrated that most of it's other infrastructure was elsewhere on the tower.
I don't know this for a fact, but I think Trinity/Fat Man were so large because they could not guarantee the required simultnaiety of detonation of the explosive charges on all sides, so they needed more explosive on all sides to compensate ensuring the "pit" would be adqeuately crushed even if one side of the explosive shell was detonating a few fractions of a milisecond sooner. As is, I recall reading about the pain staking work done with flouroscopes and dental tools filling in every last bubble and void in the explosive shell to get as much uniformity as possible.
So explosives design and the detonator quality has a lot to do with the size of the bomb. Also, there are neutron enhancers, reflectors, and absorbers that improve the fission efficiency of the Plutonium pit. On top of that, tritium can be added for a small fusion boost. The fusion does not add appreciably to the total yield like it does in a true H-bomb, but the extra neutrons help the Plutonium neutron chain reaction and increases the completeness of the fission.
Whether or not Iran can master (or buy) all of these technologies has bearing on whether or not they can deliver a fighter or IRBM deliverable warhead into Israel.
mfree, I agree we had the capability of creating very small devices by the beginning of the 1960's, however, the devil (as always) is in the details. I don't know that "We did it in 1957 = Iran can do it in 2009". How to arrange Neutron reflectors/absorbers and explosive lensing etc. was hard won with lots of live testing, including many "fizzles". So far, Iran hasn't had even an underground "fizzle" test like NK did. I think it comes down to a matter of tech-transfer, and how much, if any Iran has gotten from Russia and elsewhere.
-
"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented,"
Translation: "OK, you've been clobbering us, now back off for a while and let us re-arm for our next wave of attacks."
-
Just a little side note, Little Boy's gun arrangement had almost double the amount of uranium necessary.
EDIT: And part of Fat Man's girth was that they hadn't figured out air tamping yet, and so had to have enough explosives that the wave would overlap with enough pressure to hold the fissile material together instead of squirting it out a gap. First came light alloy tamping, then air tamping/lensing.... slowing and unifying the compression means more consistent density enhancement on less material and better fissile efficiency, particularly if your alloy tamp is beryllium-bearing so you don't lose as many neutrons when you spike past criticality.
Or I've said too much... (actually, all this is public domain, easily google-able if you've got a mind for the data)
-
Just a little side note, Little Boy's gun arrangement had almost double the amount of uranium necessary.
=D Better safe than sorry, I guess. Although I have a gut feeling it was not sso much a miscalculation on the uranium = yield curve, but instead was a matter of not being able to be certain that the interface between the slug and the target would be perfect, more Uranium, more neutrons better guaranteed fission.
I'm not sure, but it has just ocurred to me I thought I remembered reading that U.S. Plutonium production was only sufficient for Trinity and Fat Man as of 1945. I always thought that Fat Man and Little Boy were operational wartime tests of the two designs, but now it seems to me that since Trinity was a Plutonium imploder, that Little Boy may have been just a "kludge" of sorts due to a lack of Pu. (not that we had much U235 on hand either. IIRC Little Boy used up almost all our stock of 235 too...)
-
You're absolutely right, LB was doubled on purpose. They couldn't get any more speed out of the gun, so they increased the fissile material to increase the overall yield. Efficiency was horrible.
Can't use plutonium in a gun-type device for just that reason, you'll never get the segments close enough for supercriticality before some thermal effects make it go cattywumpus.
-
AJ, the Nork fizzle was Pu-239 from spent fuel rods. No gun-type device. ;)
-
The world would be such a happier place if in stead of "Nuclear War" it was just called "cattywumpus"... =D
AJ, the Nork fizzle was Pu-239 from spent fuel rods. No gun-type device. ;)
=D
Any indication they had problems with Pu-240 contamination? (can your type of collection mission tell?) I'd have to wonder if it "fizzled" first, then the explosives went off...
-
I'd attribute it to a tamper problem.
A hitch-in-the-gitalong, as it were. =D
-
If Iran actually gets a bomb, Israel will be forced to strike, even if it is unilateral.
The people running Iran are a bunch of crazies who have over and over stated their intention to destroy israel. Once they have the means, it is just a matter of time.
-
If Iran actually gets a bomb, Israel will be forced to strike, even if it is unilateral.
The people running Iran are a bunch of crazies who have over and over stated their intention to destroy israel. Once they have the means, it is just a matter of time.
I think it's a much more fundamental problem. Iran and Israel/the West are arguing at cross-purposes. They are not "crazy"... by their standards.
Saddam's game with the U.N. WMD inspectors is another example. He was acting on Islamic/Middle Eastern cultural based bluff and posturing. (Accepting for the moment that everyone believed the intel at the time) We were acting on a more pragmatic "failure is not an option" basis. He honestly thought it would be better to get the sanctions lifted by bargaining from a position of strength, by leading the world to believe he had WMD's than it would from compliance with the U.S./U.N. He probably also had concerns of how such compliance would make his level of control and power appear internally within Iraqi politics.
I don't think Iran fully understands Israel and the West's tipping points. And I don't think we completly understand their motivations in getting the bomb, or why they're so intent on pretending they are. This is why the Cold War was so much simpler despite the stakes (on a global scale) being so much higher. We could understand the rational basis for each others actions and postures within a logical framework. Both sides could be counted on to act logically to try and further their interests. One could apply game theory to the situation.
IMO, there is a good chance Iran is just working on it's nuclear program out of some Islamic/Persian combination of honor, machismo, bluff, and a desire for status. They may even have a pre-planned point at which they'll start to engage in rational diplomatic relations over the issue once they feely they have a strong enough bargaining position.
However Israel is going to view Iran's bomb program/pretend program within the context of it's short 60 year history, and will eventualy come to a "better safe than sorry" point, and act.
-
When do people stop writing articles claiming that "An Israeli attack on Iran is forthcoming within N months"?
Micro:
Is it your contention that in the event that Iran acquires the technology to or actually builds deliverable nuclear weapons that Israel will not/should not take any action against Iran to assure that those weapons are not detonated in Israel even in the face of direct statements by Iran that Israel should be wiped off the map?
If so why?
If not - well then - nevermind...
-
Is it your contention that in the event that Iran acquires the technology to or actually builds deliverable nuclear weapons that Israel will not/should not take any action against Iran to assure that those weapons are not detonated in Israel even in the face of direct statements by Iran that Israel should be wiped off the map?
My contention is as follows:
1. We are not certain Iran has or is going for nuclear weapons, and/or the capability to produce them
2. We are not certain how many of the statements of IRan pose true intent and how much of it is bluffing.
3. We are, however, certain, that Iran has other WMDs already in a deliverable stage and the willingness to use them if they're attacked.
4. We are not certain of our capability to destroy IRan's nuclear program.
5. I am also not certain of whether the currnet Israeli government has the spine to order an operation against Iran seeing 1, 2, 3, and 4 and see it through to the end.
-
My contention is as follows:
1. We are not certain Iran has or is going for nuclear weapons, and/or the capability to produce them
Flippancy is definitely called for here: We can't be certain the sun will come up tomorrow either...
On a more serious note: Is Israel willing to risk the consequences of not taking action based on not having a 100% certainty that Iran has and/or can produce nukes?
If Israel takes unecessary action against a non-nuclear Iran a few hundred Iranians may die. If it doesn't take action against a nuclear capable Iran 100's of thousands of Israelis could die. Seems like a rather simple choice to me; especially if one is an Israeli.
2. We are not certain how many of the statements of IRan pose true intent and how much of it is bluffing.
Middle Eastern culture is a culture that respects strength above all else. If one isn't strong the only option is to convince others you are; negotiating all the while until one becomes strong; in other words bluff. If one is strong then negotiations and bluff is not required. Iran is probably bluffing right now. They won't be once Iran gets nukes.
3. We are, however, certain, that Iran has other WMDs already in a deliverable stage and the willingness to use them if they're attacked.
Willing yes. Deliverable to populated sites in Israel. Maybe. But without nukes it would be foolish for Iran's leadership to use chem/bio weapons on Israel when everyone on the planet is aware that Israel does have nukes and using them in retaliation for a chem/bio attack on them would be completely justified.
Islamic fundamentalist leaders may be irrational by western standards but I wouldn't characterize them as foolish by either Western or Middle Eastern standards. Risk takers? Yes. foolish no.
4. We are not certain of our capability to destroy IRan's nuclear program.
Good point if true. Though I suspect that you are not giving credit where credit is due. Even if Israel doesn't have the where withall to accomplish the mission the world believes it does and if truth be told I imagine that Iran's leadership does too.
Aside:If I were a betting man (and I am) I'd bet that Israel absolutely has the capability to take out Iran's nuclear capability if/when Iran develops it.
5. I am also not certain of whether the currnet Israeli government has the spine to order an operation against Iran seeing 1, 2, 3, and 4 and see it through to the end.
Welcome to the club.
-
Looks like Israel is seeking other means of defense, also. Too bad our president doesn't think it's necessary.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_missile_test (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_missile_test)
By MATTI FRIEDMAN, Associated Press Writer Matti Friedman, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 53 mins ago
JERUSALEM – Israel successfully tested an anti-missile system designed to protect the country against Iranian attack, the Defense Ministry said, perfecting technology developed in response to failures of similar systems during the 1991 Gulf War. The intercept of a dummy missile was the 17th test of the Arrow system, a U.S.-Israeli joint venture. Israeli defense officials said the interceptor was an upgraded Arrow II, designed to counter Iran's Shahab ballistic missile.
Israel has identified Iran as its biggest threat, citing the country's nuclear program and its development of long-range ballistic missiles. Those fears have been compounded by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's repeated calls for the destruction of the Jewish state.
Israel believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons that could pose a threat to its existence. Iran denies that and says its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes such as energy production. Israel has threatened military action, and Iran has said it would strike back, warning last month that Israel's own nuclear facilities were within missile range.
Iran's Shahab-3 missiles have a range of up to 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers), putting Israel well within striking distance. Iranian officials were not available for comment on the Israeli test.
In a statement, the Defense Ministry said the interceptor shot down "a missile simulating a ballistic threat in especially challenging conditions." It called the test "an important step in the development program and the development of operational abilities to counter the growing threat of ballistic missiles in the region."
-
Oh yes, the same Israel that Hassan Nasrallah (you know, the guy who regularly comes out on television and in public squares telling the Israelis he'll be happy to face even more military units next time) bombed for a solid month without interruption is going to seek out and destroy this Iranian nuclear program.
Based on the incompetence and corruption in that government, if I were an Israeli I'd be absolutely praying that those yahoos don't try to "rescue" me with another failed and pointless war.
It's possible (maybe probable) that the Iranians have better information about Israel than Israel has about the Iranians. There is no chance that Israel is going to just end the nuclear capability of the country, and there is a certainty that lots of people will die in any attempt...and that the failure will accelerate any existing nuclear program.
-
IMO, if Israel determines Iran actually has a bomb, or is very close to having one, they have no choice but to strike. All this nonsense about cultural bluffing is crap. The crazies running Iran are not all bluff, and their previous actions prove it. Claiming it is just a bluff is just a way some people have to fool themselves about a life or death issue.
Hopefully Israel does not go for a surgical strike if they go. They need to take out as much of Iran's crazy military and government as they can while taking out the nuclear capability. easier said than done, but an Iran without the crazies is better for everyone, including Iran.
-
Poll: Government's top priority should be recession
War and Peace Index finds majority of Israeli public wants new cabinet to tackle financial crisis first, Iranian threat second, peace process third
Ynet
Prioritizing: Israel's economic situation takes top priority on the public agenda, outweighing the Iranian threat and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the War and Peace Index revealed Wednesday.
The War and Peace Index is conducted by the Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research. Published monthly since 1994, it is run by Prof. Ephraim Yaar and Prof. Tamar Hermann and is compiled of a monthly telephone survey of 600 Israeli citizens representing the various sectors in Israeli society.
According to the Index, 62% of Israelis would like to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's new government deal with the financial crisis first; 39% would like to see it deal with the nuclear threat posed by Iran first and 27% would prefer it made the peace process its top priority.
Social issues seem to have taken a back seat, as 31% of the public would like to see socioeconomic gaps top the cabinet's agenda, 19% would like to it tackle corruption and 16% would prefer it focused on changing the system of government.
Some 53% of the Jewish public polled said they believed Netanyahu would indeed pursue the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but only 33% of the Arab public said the same. The majority of both sectors - 56% of Jews and 78% of Arabs - seem to support the two-state solution.
The Index also found that 75% of the Israeli public does not seem concerned about the possibility of a binational state forming, should the two-state solution fail.
Fifty-nine percent of the Arabs polled by the Steinmetz Center and 54% of the Jews said the believed that the government would be able to maintain Israel's good relations with the US administration, despite its rightist composition.
As for recent publication of testimonials by Israel Defense Forces soldiers, implicating the forces in conduct unbecoming during the Israeli offensive in Gaza in January, 64% of the Jewish public dismissed the allegations.
However, should they found to be true, 74% said no charges should be brought against the soldiers and 58% said commanding officers should be exempt from responsibility.
In contrasting results, 61% of the Arab sector public found the allegations to be truthful and stated it supported legal proceedings against IDF troops, especially commanding officers.