• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Israel to bomb Iran's Nukes?

Melensdad

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
Just curious what your take on the news is, as today I was reading that:
  • Iran is now saying it will "hide" its nuclear program (to me it seems a little late in the game to start to hide it)
  • and Iran it said that it was going to share its nuclear capabilities with Syria (which is universally considered a rogue nation)
  • and that it would stop cooperating with the I.A.E.A. (I'm curious when it actually ever did cooperate)
  • and it said it may pull out of the Atomic Non-proliferation Agreement (which it does not comply with so what difference does it make?)
Anyway, given that Israel is known to be a target of Iran, and given that virtually any successful deployment of a nuclear weapon against Israel could destroy a large portion of Israel, I'm just wondering if Israel will send up its air force, or possibly send in a covert team, or somehow deploy its forces to protect its interests/security and somehow destroy Iran's nuclear sites?

Let's face it, we are all over ourselves with our hand wringing and huff & puff rhetoric, but Israel is a nation of action . . .

Thoughts?
 
I'm willing to bet they do just that. They are not like us when it comes to taking action. We need to sit down, talk for years about it, figure out how to do the job so we don't look bad, figure out a scapegoat if need be, get it all together, then deploy. From what I have seen in the past, Isreal just goes and does their own thing regardless of the consequences. They do however get the job done.
 
Jim, that is my thought too. The one thing that Israel does very well is protect itself from threats.

I'm actually pretty surprised they have not taken action already, although I suppose they were hoping that this whole thing would end in some diplomatic solution, with the aid of Russia acting as the mediator. But Putin seemed to fail as a peacemaker/dealmaker so far and Iran seems hellbent on angering every possible nation it can anger. Consequently I think that some military action.
 
Bob,

I believe Iran is talking about sharing with Sudan, not Syria.

Well, Israel is taking action. They launched a spy satellite today just to watch Iran's nukes and missles.

I do believe Israel will most likely make a strike if they believe Iran is getting close to making a nuke.
 
The thought that I shouldn't post this response passed my mind because I know I will get a big ration of crap for it but I am doing it anyway - so start complaining.

I have been saying it and I will keep saying it - this is exactly why the US should have never invaded Iraq. While it may be true that Iran is full of crazy Muslims who want nothing more than to kill Americans and blow up Israel they didn't form this opinion in a vacuum. Iran has a history of US meddling and has been threatened by us for decades now. I am not saying this is an excuse BUT - if I was Iran frankly I would have been doing the same thing. So you can't just dismiss this as the actions of raving lunatics - there is a logic to it.

This topic has been brought up before on this forum and there are certain members who think we should strike Iran ourselves. I am dead set against that. As soon as we start striking Iran they will after us - you forget that we have about 120,000 troops in Iraq right now - way too few to do anything militarily against Iraq in a ground offensive. That leaves air power and or missile strikes to take out Iranian nuclear targets. Anybody who has ever read any military history knows that nothing ever works out perfectly - so in the end we could never be guaranteed that we really did take out their nuclear capability. The only thing that could guarantee it would be nuclear strikes followed by a complete invasion of the country as a whole. Nukes without invasion would just set back their program (maybe for decades) - would piss them off and give Iran (and others) a real reason to nuke us pre-emptively - and would accomplish absolutely nothing as far as making American citizens more safe. The invasion option is off the table - without a draft we do not have the military manpower to invade Iran and occupy it. Saddams troops gave up to us by the thousands when we invaded Iraq - Iranians will fight. Without invasion the nuke option is a very bad idea - so if the nimrods in our goverment that are thinking of these things really think it thru ( not confident of that ) they will see that this option is off the table too.

So what does that leave you with?

Diplomacy and containment. I gave this reply before and I will say it again - the US still has the capability to wipe Iran off the face of the earth - if however we do it pre-emptively we make every other country on the planet wonder if maybe they would not be better off wiping us out too. So the only way nukes can be used in this scenario is as a big stick.
Tell Iran that if a nuke goes off anywhere - the US, Israel, Europe - whatever - pick a place that the Muslims dont like. The US will do some investigation as to where the explosion originated from - and once there is the slightest hint that the bomb was Iranian in origin we will completely wipe Iran from the face of the earth.

This is the only option besides diplomacy that will work. Since our current administration does not seem to have much talent at diplomacy this is the ends up being the only option that will work. The one thing that Bush has going for him is that if this threat is made I think the Iranians will probably believe it coming from him. They might not have from Clinton - but from Bush they will.

The Iranians have been working on nuclear technology for 20 years or more. I am sure that any of their really important facilities are already underground and hidden. They have known we have spy satellites for all that time. If they are talking about sharing nukes with Syria they must be very close to having them - if they were not they risk having the US pre-emptively invade Syria to stop that outcome. While I do not believe that the US has the capability to invade Iran successfully Syria is a different story so that might happen.

Just remember - when the shit starts flying there are hundreds of thousand of Americans over there that will be caught in the middle of this - courtesy of our goverment.

There are conservatives who don't think invading or striking Iran is a great idea:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_04_10/cover.html
 
jd and I don't always agree, and he is currently pissing me off by putting words in my mouth in another thread, but on this matter we're in total agreement.

I boil it down to this: We don't think anyone else should have nukes because they might use them. Therefore, we'll use our nukes to make sure no one uses nukes. Yep, uhuh, that's the ticket.
 
JD you make a great point that is difficult to argue with.

I would say (my worthless opinion) : If an iranian (or any other islamofacist sponsored) nuclear weapon goes off, anywhere, the second will detonate over Mecca within the hour of the first.

Mutually assured destruction, all over again.
 
The saddest part ofthis whole chain of events is that by invading the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, the Bush administration has squandered our chance for meaningful action if it becomes necessary. Nearly a majority of Americans (46%) now is opposed to an invasion of Iran for any reason, period.

Now, I'm sure that an administration with balls would take action if necessary regardless of the attitude of the public. However, I do not believe the Bush folks have those kinds of balls. They attack an easy nation when they thing they have it made, and virtually collapse under the pressure of a few insurgents. I do not believe they have what it takes to actually defend us if it truly became necessary.
 
Personally I think it would be a mistake for the USA to strike against Iran.

However, my question was asking about Israel simply because I think it is very likely that they will do it if they feel it necessary, and because I believe they will have more world support if they do it than if the US did it.


BTW, yes Brian, it was not Syria, it is Sudan. An incredibly unstable government. Probably more dangerous than Syria because it is corrupt, unstable and likely to be bribed, bullied and controlled by factions that would happily sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.
 
B_Skurka said:
Personally I think it would be a mistake for the USA to strike against Iran.

However, my question was asking about Israel simply because I think it is very likely that they will do it if they feel it necessary, and because I believe they will have more world support if they do it than if the US did it.


BTW, yes Brian, it was not Syria, it is Sudan. An incredibly unstable government. Probably more dangerous than Syria because it is corrupt, unstable and likely to be bribed, bullied and controlled by factions that would happily sell nuclear weapons to terrorists.
Click to expand...

If Israel does it then we will be just as involved as if we did it ourselves. Whether it is true or not the Arabs will perceive it that way and will strike back just as if we did it. I would hope that our leaders would recognize this fact and put pressure on the Israelis not to do anything. In the end though they will do what they feel they need to do to survive. And we should do that same - and Israel's fate should not complicate the decision by our leaders to do what is right for the US.
 
JimR said:
I don't think the US is going to be nuking anyone Don.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Sat Apr 8, 2:24 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

A senior unnamed Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

"If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.
Click to expand...
Emphasis is mine.
 
jdwilson44 said:
If Israel does it then we will be just as involved as if we did it ourselves. Whether it is true or not the Arabs will perceive it that way and will strike back just as if we did it. I would hope that our leaders would recognize this fact and put pressure on the Israelis not to do anything. In the end though they will do what they feel they need to do to survive. And we should do that same - and Israel's fate should not complicate the decision by our leaders to do what is right for the US.
Click to expand...

Actually if Israel takes out Iran's nukes we will have world wide plauseable deniability of the action. No doubt that we will be abliged to come to their aid for resolving the world's problem, which is widely seen as our problem, also no doubt that we will be blamed by many for the action anyway as supporters of the 'Zionist' attack, but the reality is we would not have done it and that provides for some political cover in the court of world opinion. We have many allies, such as Germany, France, Italy, Spain & Turkey that would oppose the US if we went to Iran . . . but if Israel goes to Iran then our relationships may strain a little, but won't break. It is widely known that Israel does keep military secrets away from the USA and shares only what is necessary. An attack on Iran would not be seen as a necessary event to share with the US in advance of an action. There is a real level of separation between our two nations and their military plans, despite our often common (or at least parallel) goals.
 
I thought some of the problem for Israel was that they don't have planes that can make it to Israel and back without refueling. In order to get the refueling operation going they need to have lots of planes in the air and that would be "noticed" by the US forces operating in that area. So the US would have to "ignore" these planes which would undoubtedly be construed by all the usual anti-US groups as support for the bombing.

So what do we do? Protect Iran from Israel or protect Israel from Iran? Personally, I think Israel is a lot nicer to us and if I had to pick sides then I'd pick Israel.

We're screwed everyway you look at it. Let's just build bigger walls and stick our heads in the sand.
 
PBinWA said:
I thought some of the problem for Israel was that they don't have planes that can make it to Israel and back without refueling. In order to get the refueling operation going they need to have lots of planes in the air and that would be "noticed" by the US forces operating in that area. So the US would have to "ignore" these planes which would undoubtedly be construed by all the usual anti-US groups as support for the bombing.
Click to expand...
PB,

I would think they would use cruise or ballistic missles.

That would probably be better for the US if they did since we could say (claim) they were too low, fast... for us to be able to stop them as they went over Iraq.

The problem is the location of the target and the missle accuracy. If/as Iran hides its "stuff", I would strongly suspect that it would be put in dense civilian population areas. If a missle does hit its target, it may take out a school or hospital as well which will raise even more intense international as well as Iranian protests.
 
Hasn't anyone ever heard of the Manhattan project? These guys were inventing the wheel that wasn't even known to work, and did all the work without benefit of modern technology. From the time the project began until an operational weapon was deployed was 4 years! Who are the ninnys who are projecting the many years it will take Iran to do the same thing? Probably the same idiots who think Saddam wasn't a threat and think he should still be in power. Heaven help us!
 
PBinWA said:
I thought some of the problem for Israel was that they don't have planes that can make it to Israel and back without refueling. In order to get the refueling operation going they need to have lots of planes in the air and that would be "noticed" by the US forces operating in that area. So the US would have to "ignore" these planes which would undoubtedly be construed by all the usual anti-US groups as support for the bombing.

So what do we do? Protect Iran from Israel or protect Israel from Iran? Personally, I think Israel is a lot nicer to us and if I had to pick sides then I'd pick Israel.

We're screwed everyway you look at it. Let's just build bigger walls and stick our heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that Israel has been "nice" to us - Israel needs us so they suck up and manipulate us to get what they want.

So how do we solve this problem? Simple tell Iran AND Israel - if either one of you nukes the other one we will nuke both of you - no questions asked.

That will get everybodys heads cleared out and thinking clearly - unfortunately it is pure fantasy because our politicians do not think in terms of what is best for the United States, their thinking is clouded by considerations for Israel and international opinion. There are solutions to this problem - it's just noboby has the balls to do it.
 
Just a little update from Israel via Fox News:

Israel: Iran Missiles Can Carry Nukes, Hit Europe
Thursday , April 27, 2006
service_ap_36.gif

JERUSALEM — Iran has received a first batch of BM-25 surface-to-surface missiles that put European countries within firing range, Israel's military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, was quoted as saying in the Haaretz daily on Thursday.

The missiles, purchased from North Korea, have a range of 1,550 miles and are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, Haaretz reported.

The report comes as U.N. members consider slapping sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. The United States, Israel and other Western countries say Iran is trying to get nuclear arms, but the Islamic regime says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes only.

CountryWatch: Iran

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until Friday to stop enriching uranium, a necessary step for developing nuclear weapons. Should Iran refuse to comply, which it has indicated it will do, the Security Council is likely to consider taking punitive measures.

Israeli security officials confirmed the Haaretz report. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Yadlin has warned of the new Iranian missiles in several recent interviews to the media. Iran already has missiles capable of reaching Israel, but the BM-25 missiles are a significant upgrade over its existing top of the line missiles — the Shihab-4 and Shihab-3.

Those missiles spurred Israel to develop its Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system, which is can intercept the Iranian missiles.

Israeli concerns have been heightened in recent months by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls to wipe Israel "off the map."

Iran has also tested several long-range missiles in recent weeks, including a "top secret" missile capable of being fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters, the Iranian state-run television reported.

Iran also tested the Fajr-3, a missile it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

American intelligence officials have said that Iran is at an advanced stage of developing a missile that can carry a nuclear warhead. The United States has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of the details of the Iranian missile program.

On Tuesday, Israel launched a satellite meant to spy on Iran's nuclear program. The satellite, launched from Russia, is designed to spot images on the ground as small as 27.5 inches and would allow Israel to monitor Iran's nuclear program and long-range missiles, an Israel defense official said.

​
 
I see WWIII looming ahead with a bunch of radical Arabs setting the stage with the push of a button in Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top