Author Topic: Israel nukes. Scary stuff they got (Read 634 times)

takeda · « **on:** April 17, 2002, 10:01:27 AM »

As things get worse and worse there, I don´t think this article misses much the point. If theres a country crazy enough to strike with a tactical nuke, I bet on Israel

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/17/13711/7924

mrsid2 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 17, 2002, 10:16:21 AM »

Great so in the end the religious hotheads choose to make the doomsday tomorrow and start blasting..

It's great that there are nukes in the hands of people who blindly believe in a two thousand year old book that says the world is going to end. And I'm not just talking about Israel here..

Sikboy · « **Reply #2 on:** April 17, 2002, 10:23:27 AM »

The Appeal of deterrence policy is that it does not require any sort of transparency. You just have to make sure that the other side is aware of your thresholds. The article states as much "Of course, the deterrence/first-strike dichotomy is a very blunt one and cannot capture all of the different roles for which Israel might use their bombs. It is in their interest to appear more ready to nuke than they really are."

The article does question the "strategic" value of Neutron bombs, but when you're talking about the short distances between borders in the Middle east, these bombs are essential to any deterrence policy. What good would high Yeild bombs be against a close neighbor? If they know that you can't fire them without killing off your own population, they are less likely to be threatened by them.

I think that this is very important in understanding Israeli nuclear policy. It is my opinion, from studying nuclear doctrine at the undergrad level (by no means an expert opinion) that the only way Israel lights off a nuke is if A.) They are on the verge of losing a conventional ground war. or B.) They are hit with a Massive Chem/Bio attack.

-Sikboy

Sikboy · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2002, 10:24:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrsid2
Great so in the end the religious hotheads choose to make the doomsday tomorrow and start blasting..

It's great that there are nukes in the hands of people who blindly believe in a two thousand year old book that says the world is going to end. And I'm not just talking about Israel here..

Doesn't that fit everyone except the Soviet Union [edit] and China?

mrsid2 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2002, 12:50:34 PM »

I'm talking about fundamentalism here, not a normal religious tendency.

Tac · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2002, 01:49:22 PM »

A former NATO chief once commented:

"Our policy agains the Soviets was simple. We will fight with conventional weapons until we are losing, then we will use tactical nukes until we are losing, then we blow up the world"

Scary eh?

Samm · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2002, 01:58:15 PM »

Actually our policy was the same as theirs, fire your missles before the conventional war starts . The objective being to destroy their missles before they can destroy ours . The soviet goal was to kill the enemies military while they still sat in the motor stables and harbors. It was a misconception of the american public that a war with the USSR would culminate into nuke strikes . Soviets attributed this jokingly to american western films that traditionally culminated in a shoot out

Sikboy · « **Reply #7 on:** April 17, 2002, 02:36:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samm
Actually our policy was the same as theirs, fire your missles before the conventional war starts . The objective being to destroy their missles before they can destroy ours .

I'm not sure that I've ever seen anyone claim that either of the superpowers used a doctrine of 1st strike as a primary policy. Granted, both sides used the potential of a first strike to justify retaliatory weapons systems. In fact, it wasn't until a 1993 defense review that Moscow officially changed their doctrine to emphasise "first use" of nuclear weapons. The following articles address the change in Russian Nuclear posture. I'd be interested to see anything on US nuclear posture during the cold war. Unless we're talking about "unofficial" doctrine. But then it's all just speculation

-Sikboy

http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/nsc.htm

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1998/so98/so98arkin.html

Samm · « **Reply #8 on:** April 17, 2002, 04:12:48 PM »

Yeah I should've used the word attitude or posture or something instead of policy . My opinion is developed from books I've read written by defected gru agents etc. And that it makes sense tactically or strategically .

Cabby44 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2002, 04:49:26 PM »

What, a Leftie is "scared"??? What's new about that???

BTW, if you are "scared" of the USA's or Israel's "nukes", good. That is the intent.

If you had any common sense though, you would be a little more frightened of Saddam Insane or some Osam Bin Laden clone with a "nuke" in his possession. But "Leftie" and "common sense" are two terms mutually exclusive of the other......

Keep wringing those hands........

Cabby

takeda · « **Reply #10 on:** April 17, 2002, 05:09:07 PM »

So macho "righties" are inmune to nukes or sumfing?

If we "lefties" weren't scared of such things and watching them , "righties" like you would have blown up everything by now. I bet you even hope you´ll see a little nuke wiping some lesser race in your lifetime. What a waste of resources if it doesn´t happen, right?

Speaking of common sense in a thread about nukes fits you very well indeed. If that's your common sense, I hope we don´t get to see you do any stupid thing

Cabby44 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2002, 06:05:11 PM »

Quote:

"If we "lefties" weren't scared of such things and watching them , "righties" like you would have blown up everything by now"

LOL!! That's hilarious, kid..........

Cabby

Staga · « **Reply #12 on:** April 17, 2002, 07:19:43 PM »

Only hilarious thing I see here is Gabby; True American Warrior

PS: Are you real or just a comedienne?

Cabby44 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 17, 2002, 07:40:53 PM »

^That's "Cabby" to you.........

"True American Warrior". Hmmmm, whatever that means, it sounds kinda neat. Much better than say, "True French Warrior"......

A "Comedienne" is female, i'm male.......

Later, Comrade.......

Cabby

Hangtime · « **Reply #14 on:** April 17, 2002, 08:01:41 PM »

Israel would be insane to use a nuke, tactical or otherwize within 300 miles of their own borders.

They can and would use 'em on anything that looked hostile beyond the 300 mile radiation buffer. Lil PITA countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt west of the canal are no doubt zeroed in targets.

Scenario.. Syria attacks, using all available weapons along with heavy armor supplied and suported by Iraq or Iran. No doubt, they will employ chemical weapons, or threaten to do so. The saudi's and the Egyptians make sympathetic noises in support of syria, palestine and iraq. Israel pounds the syrian attack to shreads with their superior army and airforce, while spitting off 2 nukes to slap down Tehran and Baghdad. Then they eyeball Cairo and the Saudis... "you wanna be next??" and they go on about mopping up the syrians and for good measure they occupy Jordan and Lebannon too... this all becoming the new 'buffer zone'. Palestine becomes a null issue.

We need not waste another dime on supporting israel with 14 fediddlein million per day in aid. They can (and probably will very shortly) whip everybodys bellybutton in that region.. including ours should we stick our nose in. Lets not forget the USS Liberty.. they have no compunctions about shedding american blood to insure their ultimate goal... total domination of the middle east. Think about THAT.