It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The stage is set for a chain of events that could lead to nuclear war over chemical weapons in the immediate future. If these events unfold, the trigger will be Israel, the target Iran, the nuclear aggressor the U.S



These are the reasons:


Conclusion:
According to Israel, the U.S. administration, and 99.2 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives, Iran will not be allowed to have access to any nuclear technology. No diplomatic options to achieve that goal will remain when Russia and China veto Security Council sanctions, or if the IAEA refuses on Nov. 24 to refer Iran to the Security Council. Military action will occur before Russia ships uranium fuel to Iran, and will inevitably lead to the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. against Iran.

How will it all get started?
No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so.

Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles with chemical warheads, or of being overrun by Iran's conventional forces streaming into Iraq. According to the Pentagon planning, nuclear weapons will be used:

  • "To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

  • "Against an adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations…"

  • "[O]n adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons or the C2 infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies"

  • "[T]o counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces…"

  • "For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms…"

  • "To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations…"

That makes six independent reasons for nuking Iran.

Source:
Anti-War.com

Kind of Scary Article.

Looks like the Nuclear War is Unavoidable if the Current Situation goes as written in the "Scenario" Above. I am sure that Iran will not stop their Civilan Nuclear Program and that the US along with Isreal with not Stop with their Reactions Against it.

So how can we Solve this? How to Avoid a Potential Nuclear Disaster and a possible Nuclear War?



  • Let Iran pursue a civilian nuclear program. Over 30 countries have civilian nuclear programs, while only nine have nuclear weapons. Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!

  • The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces, and any threat from a nuclear nation will be met with U.S. nuclear forces.

  • If Iran were to withdraw from the NPT and not allow international supervision of its programs, it would still take several years for it to acquire a nuclear weapon. There would still be plenty of time to act.

There! That sounds Reasonable! Diplomatic and Civilized.

If that does not happen, things can get Complicated quickly and in the end the US will Nuke a non-nuclear country at her will!

Then again, I ask you, why not Isreal?

A nuclear superpower will have nuked a non-nuclear state that is an NPT signatory and is cooperating with the IAEA, at the instigation of a state that is not an NPT signatory, that reportedly has over 100 nuclear bombs of its own(!), and that initiated hostilities with an unprovoked act of military aggression.

Hmmm... So why is the US NOT disarming Isreal?

Why are they so eager to start a Conflict with Iran?

Why is there no Diplomatic Soultion?

Why are there just Threats?

Like in the Case of Iraq, when Bush Administration Tricked the World with the "Super Intelligence" about Saddam and the WMD's and the Al-Qaeda Connection and even Nuclear Threats - the Same Story all over Again, just Another Country.

One Proof More that Isreal has a Special Place in Hearts of American Politicians, especially the current administration, which has shown little time for democracy and alot time for Waging Wars.

I sincerly Hope that Diplomacy will Win in the Case of Iran - or else, we can all just Wave "Goodbye"....




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Have you guys ever seen the movie "The Day After"?

Its a movie about nuclear war and its effects on a small midwestern town. The war starts pretty much the exact same way in the movie.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
So why is the US NOT disarming Isreal

Why would the US want to disarm one of its strategic allies? Israel makes a nice jumping off point for an invasion of the whole of the middle east, and the yehudis can serve as good proxies for the US in the region short of that.

Besides, when was the last time that the yehudi government refered to the US as 'the great satan' , called for its destruction, and sold weapons to international terrorists that would use the weapons against the US??


The U.S. can guarantee Israel's safety by assuring Israel that any threat to its existence from a non-nuclear nation will be met with the full force of U.S. conventional forces

They already have this assurance, indeed, its a given.

. There would still be plenty of time to act.

If iran withdraws from the NPT or does not get a good cooperate rating from the IAEA, it will be invaded and occupied.

Why are they so eager to start a Conflict with Iran?

Because they want to destroy the great global evil that is the United States.

One Proof More that Isreal has a Special Place in Hearts of American Politicians

? This is a given, the yehudis are clearly favoured, they're a western style democracy that is an ally of the US, of course the US 'likes' them.

I sincerly Hope that Diplomacy will Win in the Case of Iran

IOW you are hoping that the iranians comply completely with the IAEA?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter accuses Iran [...]


Bad investigation.


The old and the new Shin Bet chief: Yuval Diskin (L) and Avi Dichter (R)


Yuval Diskin took office in May.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Let the Nobel-prize winning IAEA and Mohamed ElBaradei do their job!


The same IAEA and Nobel Prize winner who for over ten years were in the dark about Iran having a Nuclear program? Oh yeah lets trust those guys, because they surly can’t miss anything !



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Have you guys ever seen the movie "The Day After"?

Its a movie about nuclear war and its effects on a small midwestern town. The war starts pretty much the exact same way in the movie.


Yes I have it on DVD, I found it to be an honest cinematic representation of what could have happened.
A situation arises in Europe around the (Then) East/West German border and results in the use of a tactical nuclear weapon on a large troop formation.
Both sides 'Fire ze missiles!' and from then on it shows in detail what happens to the residents of a town in Kansas that is near the many missile silos that launch their missiles and become targets themselves.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
A more likely scenario is for Iran to do something aggressive against another sovern country. If it's one with a treaty against attack, then it involves a group of opponents. Outside of the old Iraq, who attacked Iran, the country that thinks it will be attacked by Iran is Saudi Arabia. Don't forget that Syria and Iran have entered into a mutual defense pact of their own.

The response to any attack, would likely be that Iran's electricity, water, communications, airfields, petroleum, transportation facilities and command & control structures, would suddenly no longer function.

Should they use WMD, they would be condemned by the world. It's not likely that the United Nations would authorize a responsive attack. But it also depends on who and where the WMD were used. It's difficult to say whether WMD would be used in return, but what is certain, is that it would not happen again.

I should note that Saddam in Iraq used considerable quantities of WMD, but so secretly, that it never became obvious what Iraq was doing. And I am certain, that it will not happen again in Iraq, at any time in the foreseeable future.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Souljah,

Thanks for pretty much copying the entire article from your original source at antiwar.com. While on the surface the article appears to present a convincing case that "The stage is set for nuclear war," I must beg to differ.

If you will stop by this page over at FAS, and read some of the many articles on that page, you will find that in overall conclusion, it just doesn't make sense to use tactical nuclear bunker busters, when conventional, precision guided bombs can effectively do the job just as well. And especially if used in repetition down the same hole on the same target, if need be, because of depth. Either that or the still available use of barrage tactics in case the exact location of the underground bunker is not known, only suspected with an educated guess.

In contrast, the use of 1 to 1.2 MT tactical nukes to try and take out these targets in Iran or North Korea would be foolish indeed considering the fallout consequences, which may affect and kill people in friendly surrounding countries. In the case of Bushehr in Iran, sitting right on the Persian Gulf, it would be downright stupidity.

The use of nuclear weapons is what the whole underlying theme of the article is, to try to establish that one nuclear country is going to launch nuclear attacks against another non-nuclear country, thereby creating legitimacy for the further use of nuclear weapons, and drawing the world into all-out nuclear conflict.

Now for a dose of reality. It just ain't gonna happen, at least not like the article says. The more reasonable, logical solution to destroying these deep, underground bunkers and tunnels lies more so in disabling them than destroying them. And doing it with the use of conventional, not nuclear weapons, and combining those attacks with subsequent vigilance and repeated similar attacks if the enemy tries to rebuild or salvage them.

Nice try Souljah. But it didn't work. At least not on me.


[edit on 17-10-2005 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The problem with this whole artical is that it assumes that the only way for the US to hold off Iran is with nuclear weapons, and also assumes that Iran would use C/B weapons on the US.

Niether would happen.

Firstly, the US would know in advance that Isreal would strike Iran. Thus, they would be ready for the counter attack by Iran. The US would surely beef up heavy armor, troop numbers, and air assets in the region to completely destroy any Iranian invasion attempt.

Second, Iran would never dare use it's cemical/biological weapons (much like Iraq did not in GWI) because it knows that the US would counter with strategic and tactical nuclear attacks, which would - in a matter of hours - completely destroy Iran.

The artical is actually pretty spot on about the build up, but jumps to a nuclear conclusion at the end.

I addition, it assumes that Iran will not be able to persue military nuclear technology covertly, under the guise of a civilian nuclear program (As they have done before).



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Just to up the paranoia count in this thread a little, the British government has been claiming over the past few days that the tankbusting ordnance used against their troops by militants in Basra is being assembled using Iranian expertise -- or even being imported from there. If this is true, Iran is directly (though unofficially) involved in a very real threat to Coalition forces.

It does seem a rather trifling excuse to use nukes, though I don't doubt that any number of well-placed idiots -- in Israel and the US alike -- are just dying to use the ones they've got. Lookit mama, what a big bang I made, etc.

But having said all that, I must admit I think the chances of a nuclear war involving Iran are a bit slim. My own feeling is that the world's next nuclear exchange, when it comes, will be between India and Pakistan. Poverty and nukes are a volatile combination.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Firstly, the US would know in advance that Isreal would strike Iran. Thus, they would be ready for the counter attack by Iran. The US would surely beef up heavy armor, troop numbers, and air assets in the region to completely destroy any Iranian invasion attempt.


If after November 24 there is not some kind of working diplomatic solution with real results, I think Israel might crank up the heat. But to what degree remains to be seen. And with what openess degree remains to be seen as well. I might point out also that the US forces in the Gulf, I'll bet, are keenly watching what is going on and are ready for anything Iran does, regardless of whether Israel, out of the blue, decides to make an attempt without notifying the US first.

Of course it would be nice if they did, allowing that decision to include allied power opinion as to the potential consequences of that move at that time. And note that even with that allied power opinion, Israeli fears of Iranian desire to wipe them off the map could still exceed allied power opinion- causing them to take unilateral action. And they have already said that they will. It's one thing to contemplate a threat, but it's another to be in it's direct path and have to act. To me it seems the timeline for such an event would likely be before Bushehr fuels, but not necessarily. They may opt instead to act on classified intelligence and do something different.

It's not necessarily in the best US interest at this point to get drawn into a wider conflict with Iran, Syria or even Russia, should they choose to help defend an attempt on reactors in Iran. If on one dark night a few reactors were to light up, or a few tunnels were destroyed, with no one officially claiming responsibility, then what? While accusations will fly, it's hard to say what will happen next. Iran at that point had better consider it's next move carefully. I'm sure they will offer up their best attempt at proof of who did it, much in the same way that Bush offered us his best attempts at proof of WMD's in Iraq. If Iran then acts on their perceived proofs and retaliates, then hey:

History does indeed, repeat itself.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Compliments Souljah. It's hell being the middle beteen two extremes.

As much as I don't want to see another world war, or tactical nuke scenario, or C/B scenario, or any other conflict I imagine if the hawks in power don't get their way quickly, there will be paybacks. And a long line of reasons for the actions they took.

Not that it need be said but reasoning after the fact does not undo the damage.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
Have you guys ever seen the movie "The Day After"?

Its a movie about nuclear war and its effects on a small midwestern town. The war starts pretty much the exact same way in the movie.


Good movie,but imho,Threads is a much better and even more grimmer tale of nuclear holocaust.

imdb.com...

Im 38,I grew up in the tale end of the cold war,frankly I am getting tired of all the rumors of nuclear war.

To this day I still have horrific night mares about nuclear war.Cold sweats,wake up screaming ect..

I am starting to just wonder if its nothing more than some threat to keep the citizens paraniod and under its thumb?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Lets paint a more probable scenerio.

Isreal has about 100 Jericho type ii Missles. (With Fission based 20 kiloton bombs) Estimate. And perhaps 100 other types used via sub, airplane, etc. About 100-200 km total destruction.

Iran has none. But has several thousand tons of Chemical weapons.

Isreal supplies most of its citizens with Gas masks and other bio\chemo safety equipment.

America can destroy the world numerous times with its arsenal. (72,000 km's based on ave. 1 megaton explosion.) Along with 30 thousand tons of chemical agents and supposed 1 ton of biological agents for "testing purposes". (Source est. -globalsecurity.org)

Isreal will strike at Iran. The question is a matter of time. A possible scenerio would be a "Nuclear accident" staged by the Mossad. Such a event would result in a Beirut type scenerio, If Failed. Or a World condemnation of Iran, if successfull.

If Iran or Isreal decide to lob missles at each other. Iran will lose.
If Iran invades. It risks a War with America. For Turkey, and Iraq are in the way.
If Isreal invades. It risks a Jihad War with many nations. For Turkey, Iraq, and Syria are in the way.

Either way, the risks are too great. The Mullah's must have a enemy to stay in power. "Isreal" is thier scapegoat. The Zionist must have a enemy to stay in power. "Iran" is thier scapegoat. Full fledged war is too much of a gamble for either "ideology".

My prediction: The Mossad Blows Blows up the reactor. The world Cries fowl. Iran ups thier terrorist network. And Sharon loses power to netanyahu. Iraq continues to be the terrorist capital of the World. And the libs blame it all on Bush.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Time and time again I've said it. The U.S is being a hypocrite by going after Iran and other countries only suspected to have nuke programs when their own ally, Israel, has them in their own backyard. The Israel themselves are not even a member of the NPT and the IAEA can't do anything about them because the U.S would start barking.

Thus, the validity of U.S going after other nations is deemed useless since one of their allies are also covertly hiding nukes. Til today, I don't understand why U.S are so determined to take out other nations with nukes so quickly without acknowledging Israel's nuclear capability.

That, my friends, is true IGNORANCE.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bootyac

Im 38,I grew up in the tale end of the cold war,frankly I am getting tired of all the rumors of nuclear war.

To this day I still have horrific night mares about nuclear war.Cold sweats,wake up screaming ect..

I am starting to just wonder if its nothing more than some threat to keep the citizens paraniod and under its thumb?





if you're having nightmares and cold sweats about the cold war then you probably should see a shrink.

the only real threat is radical fundimentalist countries having nukes. if they have icbm's then that's not so much of a threat. now sailing a boat into the harbor of large populated coastal cities are.

the premiss of mutual assured destruction (or MAD) is a very sound one.
MAD also has safe guard automaticly built into it. with the nuke triad that the proclaimed 5 have there are pause intervals built in. ie: bombers take several hours to reach destinations. sub's take time to get to launch locations. these built in pauses give leaders time to rethink the next launch or recall the next launch.

see i'm not worried about the person who has a dozen nukes. i'm worried about the person who wants just 1



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bootyac

Im 38,I grew up in the tale end of the cold war,frankly I am getting tired of all the rumors of nuclear war.

To this day I still have horrific night mares about nuclear war.Cold sweats,wake up screaming ect..

I am starting to just wonder if its nothing more than some threat to keep the citizens paraniod and under its thumb?





if you're having nightmares and cold sweats about the cold war then you probably should see a shrink.

the only real threat is radical fundimentalist countries having nukes. if they have icbm's then that's not so much of a threat. now sailing a boat into the harbor of large populated coastal cities are.

the premiss of mutual assured destruction (or MAD) is a very sound one.
MAD also has safe guard automaticly built into it. with the nuke triad that the proclaimed 5 have there are pause intervals built in. ie: bombers take several hours to reach destinations. sub's take time to get to launch locations. these built in pauses give leaders time to rethink the next launch or recall the next launch.

see i'm not worried about the person who has a dozen nukes. i'm worried about the person who wants just 1



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Weapons of Mass Deception

First of all, that You all for contritubting to this Thread - I thought it died at first.


Why did it catch my Eye?

It's a pretty Grim Scenario, and it fits a Movie (like some of you said). I also remember seeing "The Day After" when I was a little boy, and I have watched it with my Father. Good movie! And in the time of Cold War, it was even scarier - it was MAD! I bet the Majority of you has also seen Dr. Strangelove. Anyway, when I was reading about MAD on Wikipedia I stumbeled upon this man: Colonel Stanislav Evgrafovich Petrov - the MAN who has Averted the possible World War 3, by refusing to accept that USA have launched Nuclear Missiles and USSR and with that, refusing to launch a Counterstrike. The Computer made an Error and there were really now Missiles flying towards Russia. But it's just probably one of Dozen stories like that....

Is the World Today any Safer?

Are We still in Dangers of Nuclear Destruction?

I see today how the West (US and UK with Europe) is critical towards Iran pursuing their Civilan Nuclear Program - but how many countries in the World HAVE civilan nuclear program, but do not have nuclear Weapons?

I think we all Agree that Bad Diplomacy is going to make this Situaton even Worse then it is. Bad Diplomacy from All sides. Facts are, that Iran will continue with their Nuclear Program - with help from Russia and China. And the West, with Isreal in the Center, will continue to Threat them. Isreal has proved once before, that they ARE the "Chosen Ones" when it comes to Nuclear Missiles in the Middle East. They won't allow any Nuclear Reactor to be built here - even if it is for Civilan Purposes. What about their Dimona reactor - a Potential Disaster? In there Isreal has produced 250 nuclear warheads, over 1,400 tons of highly-enriched uranium over the past 40 years, 32 tons of atomic waste per year. Not to mention that Lifespan has already run Out. Well there you have a Potential Nuclear Disaster in the Middle East, but Nobody sees it!

Then we have the Bush Administration - the administraton that Lied just about Everything and about every Reason for the War in Iraq. They used every Weapon of Mass Deception in their arsenal, and What makes you think that they WON'T do it again in Iran for their Sinister Corporate Purposes under the Cover of Freedom and Justice? That's what Scares me. Iran has been portraited as "the Enemy" from the Start, when Bush announced the "AXIS OF EVIL" with Iran in the Middle. I don't think he will negotiate with those "Evil Terrorist Supporters from Iran that want to make a Nuclear Bomb". All he needs is a Big Reason and I am sure the CIA and the newly Formed NCS (National CLANDESTINE Service) Will find one for them sooner or later.

I think in late 2006 or early 2007 things will get VERY Complicated in Middle East..

[edit on 18/10/05 by Souljah]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Not to be rude, But the "Bush is evil conspiracy" gets old after a while.

Lets deal with facts. No Country in that area nor the world is "guiltless".

Saddam had WMD's Because the US like the French, Russians gave it to them.

The Smoking "Gun" was a Sarin artillery shell. Shipped from Iraq to Syria after Russia tipped Saddam on the Invasion. And Then Reshipped to Iraq to be used.

The War was about "oil". So was the opposition to the "War". The US wanted it, The other parts of the world did the "black market" route. Saddam used oil to blackmail his own people. Europe Blackmailed the Iraqi people as well. The US used war as a pretense to blackmail Americans.

All countries involved were far from “Noble”. And if their “Resource” interests are threatened then possible war will happen.

It easy to send others to die for you. Its another when Bombs are coming down in your back yard. There is no “rich oil sheik’s Son” human bomber. It always the poor person. When the Mullah’s are threatened with the “Sword of Allah”. They will back down. The Mullah’s allow others to die for their religion. They are too cowardly to die for their own religion. (Unless their fanatical like Osama. And see where that got him. ) The Mullah’s like their palaces not the back of flea infested camels.



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Heartagram,

Have you ever been on a debate team? You know your side of the story and you know the other, but you don't bring it out into the open to let the other team know. This is not ignorance, it's just helping out your team mates. I don't think a lot of Americans realise what this country has done to get where it is today. The people with power are trying to make sure that this country stays where it is by the same means that we have done in the past. I believe that they know exactly what they are doing but the people of this country just can accept the things that we have to do to keep our position.

There is no ignorance here, we are just doing what we have to. There are people who call our country the "great satan" and want to kill Americans. We live in a world where control has been based around power. To keep that power we have to make sure that others don't get the technology that we have to take our power. I once read the someone that rules by fear can't just change their ways. We can't just say sorry for everything that we have done in the past because someone out there is still going to want revenge.

That my friend is what I think is the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join