Israel and Iran playing nucelar chicken

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

And Nuke Sacramento any time you want. That would be entertaining as well.

[scandal 951]

Time for a realistic evaluation of the situation, Ron. That is not a very friendly part of the world, never has been, and probably never will be. That a group of people you have an affinity with decided to live there, is not to going to change that at all. History has a way of repeating itself, and the weapons are more lethal, and more destructive than ever. Figure it out for yourself.

Sorry Bill, I agree with Pooky on this one.

Yes, Israel is in a really shitty neighborhood, and it needs to make the best of it.

When it comes to "conventional" terrorist - rockets being lobbed daily by Hamas at Ashkelon and Sderot, or even full scale wars such as 2006 in south Lebanon, I suppose we need to "accept" that this is the price of having such wonderful neighbors. It's rather like living on a block with a meth lab to your left and a biker gang to your right.

Israel is doing its best to deal with this "conventional" threat.

But the nuclear threat is a different game altogether. Shortly after Hiroshima, and certainly by the early 50s when the Soviets had the bomb, it became abundantly clear to military planners that there was no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. The only possible role for nuclear weapons was as a deterrent, not as a first-strike offensive weapon that could be deployed and somehow leave your side winning while the enemy was taken out. MAD became gospel at the Pentagon and the Kremlin. It also influenced all of the attempts to put in place non proliferation treaties and test ban treaties in the decades to come. It's a very scary world out there with nukes in North Korea, Pakistan and possibly other unstable places (Khazakstan and other former FSU states?). Any one such nuclear strike that takes out a major world city is going to mean global catastrophe.

I hope Iran can still be prevented from getting the bomb. I doubt they can. I personally don't believe that an Israeli (or American) military strike is feasible against Iran. The result is not pleasant to contemplate, but there is no choice. We need to start thinking of Iran as a nuclear power. If not now, then in 5 to 10 years, certainly. N. Korea is one, Pakistan is one. We're still here. I think maybe we'll find a way to still be here even after Iran is one. Deterrence and MAD worked with Khruschev and the Politburo. They should work with the mullahs too. If not, game over. For all of us.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sorry Bill, I agree with Pooky on this one.

Yes, Israel is in a really shitty neighborhood, and it needs to make the best of it.

When it comes to "conventional" terrorist - rockets being lobbed daily by Hamas at Ashkelon and Sderot, or even full scale wars such as 2006 in south Lebanon, I suppose we need to "accept" that this is the price of having such wonderful neighbors. It's rather like living on a block with a meth lab to your left and a biker gang to your right.

Israel is doing its best to deal with this "conventional" threat.

But the nuclear threat is a different game altogether. Shortly after Hiroshima, and certainly by the early 50s when the Soviets had the bomb, it became abundantly clear to military planners that there was no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. The only possible role for nuclear weapons was as a deterrent, not as a first-strike offensive weapon that could be deployed and somehow leave your side winning while the enemy was taken out. MAD became gospel at the Pentagon and the Kremlin. It also influenced all of the attempts to put in place non proliferation treaties and test ban treaties in the decades to come. It's a very scary world out there with nukes in North Korea, Pakistan and possibly other unstable places (Khazakstan and other former FSU states?). Any one such nuclear strike that takes out a major world city is going to mean global catastrophe.

I hope Iran can still be prevented from getting the bomb. I doubt they can. I personally don't believe that an Israeli (or American) military strike is feasible against Iran. The result is not pleasant to contemplate, but there is no choice. We need to start thinking of Iran as a nuclear power. If not now, then in 5 to 10 years, certainly. N. Korea is one, Pakistan is one. We're still here. I think maybe we'll find a way to still be here even after Iran is one. Deterrence and MAD worked with Khruschev and the Politburo. They should work with the mullahs too. If not, game over. For all of us.

Tactical nukes were contemplated as ADM when I was in the Army, and I don't think that has changed. There is more to the situation than you have been lead to believe.

[alienlovechild 75]

But the nuclear threat is a different game altogether. Shortly after Hiroshima, and certainly by the early 50s when the Soviets had the bomb, it became abundantly clear to military planners that there was no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. The only possible role for nuclear weapons was as a deterrent, not as a first-strike offensive weapon that could be deployed and somehow leave your side winning while the enemy was taken out. MAD became gospel at the Pentagon and the Kremlin. It also influenced all of the attempts to put in place non proliferation treaties and test ban treaties in the decades to come.

I hope Iran can still be prevented from getting the bomb. I doubt they can. I personally don't believe that an Israeli (or American) military strike is feasible against Iran. The result is not pleasant to contemplate, but there is no choice. We need to start thinking of Iran as a nuclear power. If not now, then in 5 to 10 years, certainly. N. Korea is one, Pakistan is one. We're still here. I think maybe we'll find a way to still be here even after Iran is one. Deterrence and MAD worked with Khruschev and the Politburo. They should work with the mullahs too. If not, game over. For all of us.

Better temper your history of the Cold War and nuclear deterrence with some major differences. MAD only makes sense if the enemy survives the first strike and can deliver enough nukes to hit back making a nuclear war the equivalent to suicide. Both the U.S. and USSR had huge landmasses and big diverse arsenals or ICBMs, bombers and subs. How many nukes would it take to knock out Israel? Would Israel be able to fire more than a couple of missiles at Iran after a first strike?

Then there's ideology as the Cold War superpowers didn't have a deathwish and both (especially Russia) had experienced WWII. Throw in the Iranian martyrdom complex and Israel's well-founded fears getting exterminated and you get a tense mixture. I don't think Israel or Iran have much lead time from missile launch to impact probably 15 minutes or less and don't the possibility of direct talks to consider any form of arms control/safety measures.

[scandal 951]

Better temper your history of the Cold War and nuclear deterrence with some major differences. MAD only makes sense if the enemy survives the first strike and can deliver enough nukes to hit back making a nuclear war the equivalent to suicide. Both the U.S. and USSR had huge landmasses and big diverse arsenals or ICBMs, bombers and subs. How many nukes would it take to knock out Israel? Would Israel be able to fire more than a couple of missiles at Iran after a first strike?

Then there's ideology as the Cold War superpowers didn't have a deathwish and both (especially Russia) had experienced WWII. Throw in the Iranian martyrdom complex and Israel's well-founded fears getting exterminated and you get a tense mixture. I don't think Israel or Iran have much lead time from missile launch to impact probably 15 minutes or less and don't the possibility of direct talks to consider any form of arms control/safety measures.

You make some valid points.

In the event of an Iranian (or other hostile regional power - say, a fundamentalist Islamic regime that may have taken over in Pakistan) nuclear first strike on Israel, let's assume Israel is utterly destroyed. The population of Israel is concentrated in a compact area from around Rehovot/Kiryat Gat in the south to Haifa/Tiberias in the north, and includes Jerusalem and Tel Aviv - easily 80% of the country could be hit with a single missile and its fallout.

I would expect that Israel has ground launched silos deep in the Negev desert - they may or may not survive such a strike and be available for a counter launch. But I think the real linchpin of Israel's deterrence has to be submarines. They bought several, and my guess is they are on constant patrol in the Persian Gulf or Arabian Sea, ready to launch. Should "churban bayit shlishi" (Destruction of the Third Temple - aka end of Israel) ever happen, those mullahs will get theirs back from a submarine launch.

Now, are they crazies? Ahmedinijad talks crazy, that's for sure. He's not the guy with the tactical controls, that's still the mullahs. Are they crazy? Probably. But I don't think they're suicidal. No more so that Khruschev was, and he was certainly crazy.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

MAD only makes sense if the enemy survives the first strike and can deliver enough nukes to hit back making a nuclear war the equivalent to suicide.

they don't necessarily have to survive it to ensure mad. if they detect a first strike coming in, they can always launch in response before the incoming hits.

[Pooky 3,844]

Ask most people when, since the end of WWII, the world got closest to a nuclear conflict and they will say 1962. I'd bet money on it. Thing is, they'd be wrong.

In 1973, the Israelis had their IRBMs fueled and ready for launch in the Negev Desert, with apparent orders to strike Cairo, should the Egyptian army's tank advance through the Sinai succeed and the Egyptians breached Israel's 1967 border. And the tanks got really close, before the Israelis turned it around. That was 37 years ago.

I have no doubt that if Iran developed a nuclear warhead, mated it to a means of delivery and looked like it was meaning to use it, Israeli intelligence would know. Israel is ranked as the 6th largest nuclear power in the world, so they don't just have one or two warheads. If the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter (Syria, anyone?), decided to launch a weapon, or a salvo of weapons, the Israelis would have theirs in the air before any strike reached its targets. All of them.

But this is focusing on the military, dare I say it "conventional", delivery method. With their acknowledged links to terror, I would be more worried about the Iranians developing small-scale "suitcase" bombs, and delivering them with suicide bombers. Then things could get really nasty.

[mawilson 2,133]

I hope Iran can still be prevented from getting the bomb. I doubt they can. I personally don't believe that an Israeli (or American) military strike is feasible against Iran.

Our only hope is Sarah Palin 2012... she'd invade Iran in a heartbeat. Tanks and troops and white phosphorus munitions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ask most people when, since the end of WWII, the world got closest to a nuclear conflict and they will say 1962. I'd bet money on it. Thing is, they'd be wrong.

In 1973, the Israelis had their IRBMs fueled and ready for launch in the Negev Desert, with apparent orders to strike Cairo, should the Egyptian army's tank advance through the Sinai succeed and the Egyptians breached Israel's 1967 border. And the tanks got really close, before the Israelis turned it around. That was 37 years ago.

I have no doubt that if Iran developed a nuclear warhead, mated it to a means of delivery and looked like it was meaning to use it, Israeli intelligence would know. Israel is ranked as the 6th largest nuclear power in the world, so they don't just have one or two warheads. If the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter (Syria, anyone?), decided to launch a weapon, or a salvo of weapons, the Israelis would have theirs in the air before any strike reached its targets. All of them.

But this is focusing on the military, dare I say it "conventional", delivery method. With their acknowledged links to terror, I would be more worried about the Iranians developing small-scale "suitcase" bombs, and delivering them with suicide bombers. Then things could get really nasty.

Yep. The most likely first use scenario would be the use of tactical nukes, striking a small, concentrated area. The US has been developing "conventional" weapons with the same yield as a small nuclear device. At the current technology, there is only a perceived difference between tactical nukes, and high-yield conventional weapons.

Everyone keeps forgetting chemical weapons, which according to the old Soviet doctrine that most of the Gulf States still follow, is a first strike, "conventional" weapon. The US, (and Israel as well), has always reserved the use of Tactical nuclear weapons and demolitions, as a first strike weapon in response to the use of chemical, or biological weapons.

[alienlovechild 75]

I have no doubt that if Iran developed a nuclear warhead, mated it to a means of delivery and looked like it was meaning to use it, Israeli intelligence would know. Israel is ranked as the 6th largest nuclear power in the world, so they don't just have one or two warheads. If the Iranians, or anyone else for that matter (Syria, anyone?), decided to launch a weapon, or a salvo of weapons, the Israelis would have theirs in the air before any strike reached its targets. All of them.

I doubt the Israelis could detect and launch a retaliatory strike in under 15 minutes. There would have a heighten state of alert due to some incident and don't think the Israelis would fire their entire arsenal based a radar blip or large explosion mimicking a tactical nuke or big conventional bomb.

Scandal's belief in the Israelis' subs seems a more probable reality than a Israeli first strike based on sketchy intelligence. If that happened, can you imagine the outrage of several Iranian cities and nuke sites nuked and the Israelis say "oops" in response to a false attack.

Edited March 11, 2010 by alienlovechild

[Pooky 3,844]

I doubt the Israelis could detect and launch a retaliatory strike in under 15 minutes. There would have a heighten state of alert due to some incident and don't think the Israelis would fire their entire arsenal based a radar blip or large explosion mimicking a tactical nuke or big conventional bomb.

Scandal's belief in the Israelis' subs seems a more probable reality than a Israeli first strike based on sketchy intelligence. If that happened, can you imagine the outrage of several Iranian cities and nuke sites nuked and the Israelis say "oops" in response to a false attack.

No-one even knew the Syrians were trying to import North Korean nuclear tech, yet the Israelis bombed it in 2007.

No, they don't have the early-warning capability of the USA, but a man on the ground is just as good. The coalition forces in the first Gulf War used special forces as forward observers, trying to locate the Iraqi mobile Scud launchers, and the Israelis would likely use the same kind of scouting to keep track of the Iranian launch sites, as they don't currently have a mobile launch capability.

But imagine the following scenario ...

With heightened tension, as the Iranians boast of their new nuclear capability, the Israelis move to ready their own tactical arsenal. Iran, seeing Israeli moves as provocation, make increasing boasts about their new weapons, threatening to make good on their promise to wipe Israel off the map. In a self-fulfilling cycle of threat and counter, and with the world trying everything it can, and failing, to defuse the situation, the extremists in the Iranian government accuse their own leaders of losing face by allowing "world opinion" to dictate their course of action. Hemmed in on all sides, the Iranian leadership feels it has nothing to lose by not striking, thinking that the Israelis would not have the nerve to strike back.

Meanwhile, with reports coming back from their spotters on the ground, the Israelis roll the dice and launch an airstrike over Iraqi territory, with the USAF quietly providing tanker support on the way out. The airstrike is a 75% success, but the Israelis haven't got enough airpower to cover all the targets. Fearing that they will have to use them or lose them to a follow-up strike, the Iranians launch what they have left. The Patriot missile defences do a good job on the incoming tactical IRBMs, but one gets through and Haifa disappears.

Do you really think the Israelis would leave much of anything standing in Iran?

There are a million and one different scenarios for the Middle East to go nuclear and you can bet that none of them will involve a surprise nuclear attack. Both sides in the scenario above had time to prepare and time to respond. And the Israelis have a lot more to respond with than the Iranians. The only side with a chance of a surprise attack is Israel, and I'm pretty sure they would not do it, because Israel would be damned if they did.

Regardless, allowing Iran to develop a military nuclear capability is inviting something like this. It's a frightening thought.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But imagine the following scenario ...

With heightened tension, as the Iranians boast of their new nuclear capability, the Israelis move to ready their own tactical arsenal. Iran, seeing Israeli moves as provocation, make increasing boasts about their new weapons, threatening to make good on their promise to wipe Israel off the map. In a self-fulfilling cycle of threat and counter, and with the world trying everything it can, and failing, to defuse the situation, the extremists in the Iranian government accuse their own leaders of losing face by allowing "world opinion" to dictate their course of action. Hemmed in on all sides, the Iranian leadership feels it has nothing to lose by not striking, thinking that the Israelis would not have the nerve to strike back.

The Mossad is probably the best intelligence network/agency in the world. It's only failing is it often cannot distinguish between fact and ideology. But even with limitation, given their history, they probably have enough deep cover agents and double agents to know what the Mullahs in Tehran are going to do, or not do, before even Ahmadinejad even does.

I do agree with your scenario. There will be a lot of posturing, and we will go to the brink of conflict. Whether, or not, the young American President has the balls to stand in the middle, the Secretary of State surely does.

If I were to make odds, I would say even money, either way. I have near personal knowledge what Israel is capable of doing, even to their allies (re: USS Liberty), and I have no doubt that the Persians, given their equally "distinguished" history of several millennia, can be just as ruthless.

[scandal 951]

No-one even knew the Syrians were trying to import North Korean nuclear tech, yet the Israelis bombed it in 2007.

No, they don't have the early-warning capability of the USA, but a man on the ground is just as good. The coalition forces in the first Gulf War used special forces as forward observers, trying to locate the Iraqi mobile Scud launchers, and the Israelis would likely use the same kind of scouting to keep track of the Iranian launch sites, as they don't currently have a mobile launch capability.

But imagine the following scenario ...

With heightened tension, as the Iranians boast of their new nuclear capability, the Israelis move to ready their own tactical arsenal. Iran, seeing Israeli moves as provocation, make increasing boasts about their new weapons, threatening to make good on their promise to wipe Israel off the map. In a self-fulfilling cycle of threat and counter, and with the world trying everything it can, and failing, to defuse the situation, the extremists in the Iranian government accuse their own leaders of losing face by allowing "world opinion" to dictate their course of action. Hemmed in on all sides, the Iranian leadership feels it has nothing to lose by not striking, thinking that the Israelis would not have the nerve to strike back.

Meanwhile, with reports coming back from their spotters on the ground, the Israelis roll the dice and launch an airstrike over Iraqi territory, with the USAF quietly providing tanker support on the way out. The airstrike is a 75% success, but the Israelis haven't got enough airpower to cover all the targets. Fearing that they will have to use them or lose them to a follow-up strike, the Iranians launch what they have left. The Patriot missile defences do a good job on the incoming tactical IRBMs, but one gets through and Haifa disappears.

Do you really think the Israelis would leave much of anything standing in Iran?

There are a million and one different scenarios for the Middle East to go nuclear and you can bet that none of them will involve a surprise nuclear attack. Both sides in the scenario above had time to prepare and time to respond. And the Israelis have a lot more to respond with than the Iranians. The only side with a chance of a surprise attack is Israel, and I'm pretty sure they would not do it, because Israel would be damned if they did.

Regardless, allowing Iran to develop a military nuclear capability is inviting something like this. It's a frightening thought.

Your analysis is sobering, and I agree with it pretty much entirely.

I am certain that war-game planning teams in Israel, the US, Iran, and every affected country in the world go through such scenarios on a very regular basis. What you are posting is not so far fetched at all. We live in a dangerous age. It's been that way since the 50s, but proliferation is making it much worse. It was bad enough when all we worried about were the Russkies. Today with Kim Jong Il, the mullahs, disgruntled Russian scientists going to the highest bidder, and A Q Khan, the cat is completely out of the bag.

Just to throw another scenario out at you, nuclear armageddon may not come from the MidEast at all. It could still come from the Korean peninsula, or N.Korea/Japan, or China/Taiwan, or India/Pakistan over Kashmir, or India/China, or.....

What kind of odds do you place on humanity surviving to see the year 2100?

Look on the bright side. Maybe we've been far too worried about global warming and the financial crisis and unaffordable Social security and healthcare.

We're all gonna die anyway so what difference does it all make?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Look on the bright side. Maybe we've been far too worried about global warming and the financial crisis and unaffordable Social security and healthcare.

We're all gonna die anyway so what difference does it all make?

Aye! That's the spirit mate! Something my generation has had to live with for the last 50 plus years!

[scandal 951]

Aye! That's the spirit mate! Something my generation has had to live with for the last 50 plus years!

LBdeCxJmcAo

And it's 5, 6, 7,

open up the pearly gates

Well ain't no time to wonder why,

whoopee!! we're all gonna die! :dance: