Israel preparing to use nuclear weapons against Iran

so just to clarify... israel has had nukes since the late sixtees early seventees, including during the yom kippur war, and has never even threatened their use. iran is attempting to build them, doesnt have them yet, but promises to wipe israel off the face of the earth, which can only lead one to assume that they plan on using them on israel when they get them.

who exactly is the aggressor here souljah?

Originally posted by Souljah
But will they Penetrate the Underground Bunkers in which the Nuclear Fascilites are Hidden?
OR will Nuclear Buster Bombs be Needed?

Undoubtedly, before speculation runs from rational to absurd, consider a couple things here, in relation to what you ask, Souljah:

One, the bunker busters used by the US in Iraq had absolutely no problems in hitting and disabling/destroying those hardened Iraq underground communication bunkers, etc.

Two, do you know the depth that those Iranian underground bunkered facilities are at?

Three, again, the use of NUKES by ISRAEL is unsound and unfounded logic and rationality. For Israel to use nukes would be to bring down worldwide condemnation with severe consequences [ie: sanctions, etc., etc.], thus as I have reasoned already in this topic, nukes is not a viable option that Israel will opt to use. Israel has one of the most capable air forces in the world. Israel has one of the best intelligence services in the world. These two combined will determine Israel's course of CONVENTIONAL response, but definately not one requiring the use of any type nukes.






seekerof

[edit on 5-1-2006 by Seekerof]

I read the article Seekerof, But from what ive read the ones we are selling arent the deep penetrators,

An Israeli newspaper says the United States plans to sell Israel nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 one-ton "bunker buster" bombs that can penetrate two-meter thick concrete walls.

Sounds more like the
BLU-109
or maybe the
BLU-116

The big one, is the
BLU-113(GBU-28)

It all comes down to how deep and how strong Irans facilities are, And rather isreal wants to take the chance of there strike not getting the job done, Giving Iran the chance to launch nukes if they have them.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le
Sounds more like the
BLU-109

Google:
Israeli hawks circle Iran's N-plants
Isreal has BLU-109 bunker busters

or maybe the
BLU-116

The big one, is the
BLU-113(GBU-28)

Bear in mind, those 500 'bunker busters' that Israel acquired from the US were not entirely specified as to what type. The most frequently mentioned one being acquired was the BLU-109, but the full details of that transaction and subsequent acquisition was not fully disclosed, thus, Israel may well have all types of 'bunker busters' available for use.







seekerof

Seeker
Those bombs penetrate 2 metres of reinforced concrete according to the source article. Doubling that to allow for the possibility the specs have been underreported, they're still insufficient to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

If I understand the situation correctly, Iranian bunkers of extremely high operational importance (that is to say those bunkers containing retaliatory weapons and the means to manufacture them) are buried several thousand feet underground, and are reinforced with 10's of metres of concrete. [ I just checked, Natanz is only 18 metres underground, LOL, I left the above up so everyone can see how wrong I can be - of course Natanz might not be anywhere the deepest they have, but still, 18 metres is miniscule compared to the depth I thought they were built at. If Iran is trying to protect Natanz, they didn't do a good enough job.]

Using nukes allows the attacker to disregard all of that, since if you detonate them underground they can basically shake the place apart by transmitting energy through the rock, like a localized earthquake.

My opinion is that conventional weapons, even reasonably advanced ones such as the 500 lb guided bunker busters, are not up the task of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Such weapons would be useful for taking out forward command posts, or urban basement bunkers, but they're pretty pathetic in the face of extreme depth and a fair bit of concrete.

Granted, the sort of bunker I could build in my backyard would not withstand a direct hit from a 500 pound burrowing bomb. But I'm not a fabulously wealthy nation, they have the means to undertake construction projects on the scale necessary to easily defeat conventional weapons.

I don't think anyone SHOULD nuke anyone else. I'm simply stating what I believe to be fact, which is that if Israel wants to eliminate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons, they are going to have to resort to the same. Time will tell. I could be completely wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!" - General Turgidson









[edit on 5-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Man I really hope you guys are wrong.
Nukes BAD.
I think we have made it clear that we (The US) will support Israel through thick and thin, so if this thing escalates like Iran seems to want it to, I think we are all in trouble. From what this guy has said about Israels destruction we should all hope he is bluffing.
Its been pretty common knowlege that Israel has "the bomb", so how long till Iran develops theirs?
Cant we just play nice?

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by DaftDebunk
As I understand it.

The only reason for Iran getting nukes is to avoid being occupied by US. That way there will be a terrorbalance. Take a look att North Korea thats a greate example of terrorbalance. US do not dare to touch them.

EXACTLY!

Again, flawed logic.

You have them, but so do WE!

Irrelevant.

Nobody wants to risk a Nuclear Exchange - that is the Fear since the Cold War.

Correct. So if logic prevails, unless utterly pinned against the wall, so to speak, Iran, if they had nukes, would not use them unless as specified previously.

So, every Country, that is on the US Hit List must just Obtain Nuclear Device and therefore Guranatee itself Immunity from an Invasion or, as people like to call it Liberation

Super flawed logic.

But the Problem of Iran is, that it is VERY close to Isreal.

Correct, also can hit Europe.

Isreal did not have a Problem with Pakistan,

Can Pakistan hit Israel.
Does Israel consider Pakistan a national security nuclear threat?

Isreal did not have a Problem with India,

Again, can India hit Israel and does Israel consider India a national security nuclear threat?

Isreal did not have a Problem with North Korea getting Nuclear.

Again x 2, can North Korea hit Israel and does Israel consider North Korea a national security nuclear threat?

So, that is what the Heart of this Problem is.

The actual heart of this problem is that neither Pakistan, India, or North Korea has determined or sanctions that Israel be utterly destoryed--removed from the map. The issue here is ideology. Who has repeatedly called fopr and sanctioned the utter destruction of Israel? Iran. Nuff' said.






seekerof

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Seeker
Those bombs penetrate 2 metres of reinforced concrete according to the source article. Doubling that to allow for the possibility the specs have been underreported, they're still insufficient to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

I am going to repeat what I have mentioned already: you are considering one type of 'bunker buster' and penetrator, WrydeOne, not any other types. Accordingly, there has been no open and full disclosure as to the types of 'bunker busters' that Israel has to use if they did a strike on Iran. You are making a baseless claim and assertion concerning Iran's underground facilities and Israel's use of 'bunker busters.' Do you know or can you link a source(s) that indicates the depth of those Iranian underground facilities?

I will maintain, as I have since the initial commentary to this topic, based upon my experiences in the US air force, Israel will not use nukes on Iran's underground or above ground facilities. Furthermore, if Israel does strike Iran conventionally, Israel will be equipped with the assets to meet the strike requirements.





seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Correct. So if logic prevails, unless utterly pinned against the wall, so to speak, Iran, if they had nukes, would not use them unless as specified previously.

Why do you make Assumptions, that the First Decision that Iran would make, when they Gain Nuclea Technology, would be to Nuke Isreal?

Super flawed logic.

In YOUR Opinion that is.

Correct, also can hit Europe.

Isreal can Also Hit Europe.

Can Pakistan hit Israel.
Does Israel consider Pakistan a national security nuclear threat?

Pakistan can Hit US Bases in Afganistan.

Does that Represent a National Security for the US Forces?

Again, can India hit Israel and does Israel consider India a national security nuclear threat?

But you wouldn't mind some Limited Nuclear Exchange between India and Pakistan?

Again x 2, can North Korea hit Israel and does Israel consider North Korea a national security nuclear threat?

But they can Hit US Military Bases in South Korea and Maybe Japan.

The actual heart of this problem is that neither Pakistan, India, or North Korea has determined or sanctions that Israel be utterly destoryed--removed from the map. The issue here is ideology. Who has repeatedly called fopr and sanctioned the utter destruction of Israel? Iran. Nuff' said.

Wrong.
The Actually Heart of the Problem is in Isreal and the Immunity they Enjoy in the International Western Society and the Support they receive from all the sides. The Problem is, that the Nuclear SUPERIORITY Must at all cost remain in Isreal and no other Country that Surrounds it (ALL of them Muslim) must not be allowed to gain any Nuclear Weapons. By doing that the Supremacy of Isreal would be Eliminated and Iran would have a BIGGER Voice in the Middle East and could use these Nukes as any other Country in the World that already has them already - to get the Nuclear Immunity Card which allows them to be Spared of the Liberation from the Western Countries.

Originally posted by Souljah
we have managed to interview Israel's most prominent dissident.

DISSIDENT. Should read – traitor. He spent 18 years in prison for
trying to give away Israel’s defense secrets, including the nuclear
ones, to it’s enemies. Enemies that have sworn to destroy Israel.
Then Vanunu whined because he was in prison. What the heck did
he expect? He just tried to hand over Israel’s defense to those who
promised to destroy it. Not too bright.

He is now anti-Israel. His information may be accurate, or it may
be just anti-Israel bias.

www.brainyquote.com...

Nuclea Detonation IS a Holocaust by itself, and whoever drops
it is directly responsible for the Warcrimes against Humanity.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely necessary. The events
saved more lives than they took. The Japanese (the aggressors)
absolutely refused to quit. Even after being warned about the A bomb.
Even after it was dropped the first time. The ones responsible for the
deaths from the A Bomb in WWII are the Japanese Royal Family and the
Japanese government as it was. NOT to end the war when it was in our
power to do so would have been a crime against humanity.

www.theenolagay.com...

I simply Hate Nuclear weapons, because I know that sooner or
later there WILL be Maniac that will use them and shock the world.

Sure, I’d love to see a fairytale world without war at all. But there always
has been war and always will be. The FACT is that Israel has had the
bomb for a long time and hasn’t used it. The FACT is that if Israel didn’t
have the bomb, it would have been invaded and destroyed long ago by
those who have promised to do so. This includes IRAN. The loon that is
in charge of Iran is the maniac that you dread coming upon the scene and
actually using nukes in the Middle East. He has promised to do so. He
has promised to use it against Israel. His anti-Jewish rants all back this
determination up. Israel has a right to defend itself and a
RESPONSIBILITY to defend it’s citizens BEFORE they are slaughtered.

That being said, I don’t think Israel will need to do anything. The young
people of Iran want MTV .. they don’t want war with anyone. I doubt the
whack job that is in office in Iran will be there for any significant time. The
young people of the country will rise up and get rid of him. At least I hope
they do. I am sure they want to.

By doing that, they would also kill Thousands of Palestinians.
That simply is Not Logical, Captain.

Terrorists are not logical. This suggestion that Israel wouldn’t be attacked
with nukes by Muslim countries because Palestinians Muslims would die
has been discussed before. Two things always come up. One – the Arab
world (except for Jordan) has never treated the Palestinians as equals.
They kick the Palestinians out of the Muslim countries and the oil rich
Muslim countries do not help the Palestinians with food, education, or
health care much at all. These countries only pull out the ‘Palestinian card’
when it suits them to do so. They really wouldn’t care if they died. And
the second thing, Muslim radicals have already said it doesn’t matter if
other muslims die when they are killing ‘infidels’. They just consider them
to be martyers, even though technically they are just murder victims.
(victims of their fellow muslims).



[edit on 1/5/2006 by FlyersFan]

Seeker
I know the facility at Natanz is 18 metres. Past that I haven't the foggiest apparently, since I initially thought facilities like Natanz would be much, much deeper. God knows if I was Iran I would have built them much, much deeper.

Presumably Iran has a number of undisclosed facilities, and presumably Israel knows about most or all of them.

Do you think Israel is so against the use of nuclear weapons they would forego a strike to avoid using the same? I guess I always assumed Israel would do whatever it took to preserve Israel, since that's the 'Prime Directive' of every organism, be it animal or political.

The US used nuclear weapons, and it wasn't even threatened with destruction. We were just sick of the war and wanted to end it without the massive loss of life an invasion of the home islands would guarantee. If we're willing to use nukes to hasten the end of a war, what makes you think Israel wouldn't do the same? Are you just confident the conventional means exist? (That's really more of a rhetorical question since I think you've stated as much earlier in the thread)

I'm really not trying to be confrontational, hope I haven't insulted you too much with my 'baseless' claims.

FYI, my claims weren't baseless, they were just based on incorrect information.

Originally posted by Souljah
The Actually Heart of the Problem is in Isreal ....

The Actual Heart of the Problem is in Iran.

It's the loon in charge of Iran that's the problem. Iran needs to
be someone who minds IRAN's business and doesn't threaten
it's neighbors (both close and distant neighbors)
with Nuclear obliteration.

Blame the batterer, not the victim.

When a husband continually threatens and promises to kill a wife.
To kill her and her children. There comes a point that the wife must
defend herself and her family. When the law enforcement authorities
refuse to help because 'nothing has happened yet', when there is no
safe place for that woman and her children to go to ... then sometimes
a wife takes matters in her own hands and kills the man before he
can kill her and her children.

If the people of Iran fail to take control of the government then,
the international community MUST take care of Iran before it
murders the country of Israel. Otherwise, it would be the same
as leaving a woman and her children to die after a man threatens
to kill them.

Put the blame where it belongs .. on the man who is actually
promising to wipe out the country of Israel.

Souljah, avoidance of propaganda cereal should be Priority One

Originally posted by Souljah
Why do you make Assumptions, that the First Decision that Iran would make, when they Gain Nuclea Technology, would be to Nuke Isreal?

Assumptions?
Let me show you assumptions, if you will:VVV

Isreal can Also Hit Europe.

Israel wants to hit Europe? For?
Pointless and avoidance of what I asked.

Pakistan can Hit US Bases in Afganistan.
Does that Represent a National Security for the US Forces?

Pakistan and the US are allies.
Pointless and avoidance of what I asked.

But you wouldn't mind some Limited Nuclear Exchange between India and Pakistan?

Assumption.
Pointless rhetoric and further avoidance of what I asked.

But they can Hit US Military Bases in South Korea and Maybe Japan.

And the North Koreans have stated that they would?
Pointless and avoidance of what I asked.

Wrong.
The Actually Heart of the Problem is in Isreal and the Immunity they Enjoy in the International Western Society and the Support they receive from all the sides. The Problem is, that the Nuclear SUPERIORITY Must at all cost remain in Isreal and no other Country that Surrounds it (ALL of them Muslim) must not be allowed to gain any Nuclear Weapons. By doing that the Supremacy of Isreal would be Eliminated and Iran would have a BIGGER Voice in the Middle East and could use these Nukes as any other Country in the World that already has them already - to get the Nuclear Immunity Card which allows them to be Spared of the Liberation from the Western Countries.

Assumption.
You neglect ideological truth for the guise of International Immunity Card.
You must have missed my mention of the flawed logic behind thinking that because Israel has nukes that they are the cause of all the problems in the Middle East and the reason that Iran and Saudi Arabia are seeking to acquire nukes? Your reasoning is about as inadequate as the initial source you provided to create and start this bogus topic. Your rhetoriocal musings are in tune with your past counterpart: Dr. Horacid.







seekerof

[edit on 5-1-2006 by Seekerof]

I just poked around a little, and apparently most of the declared Iranian underground sites are simple cut and cover jobs. They dig a trench, probably no deeper than 75 feet or so, then cover it in cement. Conventional munitions wouldn't have a problem with that.

I also found mentions of a number of tunnel networks being used to store centerfuges. Tunnels are also easy to defeat, with any bomb that can cause heavy overpressure. You don't have to collapse the hole, you just pulverize everything in the hole with a pressure wave.

On a side note, I have no hard evidence whatsoever, but I have to think that Iran has utilized some of their mine shafts for underground weapons manufacture/storage. According to one global security archive, Iran has several operational uranium mines at depths exceeding 300 metres. Good luck with those. If Iran was smart, they housed their really important facilities in similar deep mines, in sealed and independently vented branches near the bottom.

Sorry I couldn't offer more information, but when I really got to thinking about it, details of Iran's secret underground facilities are probably not floating around the internet, and I'm probably a fool for taking the time to look for specifics just now. I wonder how many red flags I've earned in the last twenty minutes...

Originally posted by Seekerof
Your rhetoriocal musings are in tune with your past counterpart:
Dr. Horacid.

Yeeeeeeowtch! But you are correct. The flip side of the coin.

All your information has been interesting and educational.

You have voted Seekerof for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have used all of your votes for this month

Originally posted by Seekerof
You must have missed my mention of the flawed logic behind thinking that because Israel has nukes that they are the cause of all the problems in the Middle East and the reason that Iran and Saudi Arabia are seeking to acquire nukes? Your reasoning is about as inadequate as the initial source you provided to create and start this bogus topic.

You dislike my Source and dislike the News and Articles that they put, because they are opposed to your Flawed Logic, which can be found in all sorts of .gov and .mil sites. So maybe that is the reason behind your Patronising attitude, which ended up with petty Insults, which you very well, that they were not suited.

Anyway, you have Your Opinion and I have Mine.

Your rhetoriocal musings are in tune with your past counterpart: Dr. Horacid.

I did not expect that you would go that low mister Taliban - I guess I was Wrong.

[edit on 5/1/06 by Souljah]

Hey All,
Not a bible thumper but i do believe there are some accurate predictions in the book imho.
Of particular interest are the words of Jesus (paraphrased...i dont have a bible with me):"There will be wars and rumours of war and famine and earthquakes in diverse places but be not afraid for the end is not come.But when you shall see the Abomination that maketh desolate standing in the holy city, flee to the hills for the end is nigh.I say again, when you shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet you shall know the end is near..."
Turning to the book of Daniel for clarification on the "abomination that maketh desolate" we find a description of a star falling from heaven....and the heavens departed as a scroll...(mushroom cloud?)...and all the people within died and all the waters were made bitter in that all who drank from them died, and the land was made uninhabitable for generations....
Again these arent direct quotes but i think anyone familiar with the scripture will concur:nuclear war between Israel and her enemies has been predicted as the end of the world (or the beginning of the end).
Sweet dreams,kids.....

According to one global security archive, Iran has several operational uranium mines at depths exceeding 300 metres. Good luck with those.

You just take out the entrances and they can keep their nuclear material in that 300 meter deep mine.

Yea allisoneisall, the approaching events are getting a bit scary for us "bible thumpers." I doubt most christians even read the bible, so thanks for the info. I do remember thinking something to the same effect when I read a lot of those parts. Interpretion is everything with the Good Book, so I can only hope we are wrong in ours.

So there's a lot of discussion as to how deep the bunker busters Israel has gotten can go, and if they could be effective against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Let's say the bunker busters can only go through 2 meters of reinforced concrete. Israel got 500 bombs. No where in the rules does it say you can only drop one bunker buster per bunker...Iran would have to build their nuclear facilities with a little more than 18 meters of concrete to prevent a strike. If you recall, the US didn't use just one bunker buster when they went after a target. Remember that opening salvo against the position we suspected Saddam to be at? How many missiles and bombs did we drop on the same target?

I don't see why the nuclear option is the only option to take out Iran's facilities. Even as Westpoint said, Israel could take out the entrances to the facilities along with the mines, and then take their time destroying the actual facilities.

What's really interesting is Iran comes out saying a nuclear war with Israel is a viable option because, while the Arab middle east would suffer, they would survive while Israel would be flattened in the nuclear strikes. Then, a couple weeks later, it becomes blatantly obvious to supporters of Iran that it is actually Israel who will do what Iran said it would do, because Iran is smarter than actually following through with what they said they'd do... Did y'all want to try to capitalize on the outrage expressed towards Iran after those statements and try to twist it to be against Israel?