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 to Nuke Iran?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   



www.cncworld.org..." border=0>


Iran option

A former Navy intelligence officer weighs in on how the world will stop Iran from building nuclear bombs:

"I really believe the Israelis are going to strike [Iran's] several uranium processing factories soon. They cannot survive a first strike. This time, unlike when they sent eight F-16s to destroy the Iraqi reactor Osirak, I think they will use the Jericho missiles and the submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped Tomahawks to do nuclear strikes. Most of the factories are 150 meters underground and too deep for bunker busters."



This is one of the most bizarre little news snippets I've seen in the Washington Times.

Thoughts?




posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I do not think Israel would nuke Iran before the Iranians had detonated a nuclear device. If, and when Iran becomes a nuclear military state, then I think Israel will definately take some sort of action. I think it will be some time before the Iranians have the capability of launching nuclear weapons anyway, so the Israelis will still have some time.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Well whichever one sets off a nuke first would be frowned upon. With the mightiest of all frowns.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Good find Loam,

I think this is right on the money. The situation now as I see it is that the US is in a position that they know that if they don’t take action on Iran Israel will anyhow. With the US fleet on the way as well and the recent Lebanon situation I believe that straight after Ramadan, and the US elections. Strikes will take place by both the US and Israel or unilaterally by one or the other.

It truly is worrying as the ability of the Iranians and other Arabian sympathetic states to inflict huge casualties on the Iraq coalition force, and even try and invade and take over Iraq in return is very possible and real.

Then truly the long held fear of a middle east in flames would be true. God only knows the risk and implications of say the Russians enacting their old plan to sweep into the Arabian Peninsula in 48 hours could be a real threat if they had popular support after nuclear devices were used, and with the help and support of Iran.

Keeps me worried at night some times, but then the Simpson’s help me laugh at it!

Regards

Elf

[edit on 7-10-2006 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Israel may hit Irans nuclear facilities, but i dont Israel is going to "nuke" Iran as the thread title suggests.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Here is an article on this subject that is very well put together i think

www.globalresearch.ca...


We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.

The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to "the Battle for Oil".

The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.

The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war.

The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.



[edit: added ex tags, shortened quoted content]
Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/7/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam



the Jericho missiles and the submarine-launched, nuclear-tipped Tomahawks to do nuclear strikes.





Some former Intelligance officer Israel do not posess Tomahawk cruise missiles , a request for them in March of 2000 was turned down by the Clinton white house.


A senior Israeli defense official confirmed that Dolphin-class subs carry modified U.S. Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Making them nuclear-capable would require an Israeli-developed nuclear warhead and guidance kit for land-attack targets. It is unknown whether the missiles have that modification. In March 2000, the United States rejected Israel's request for 12 long-range BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile exists in a nuclear-tipped version for delivery by U.S. attack subs.


From here

www.thebulletin.org...

For the Israelis the aquisition of tomahawks and cruise missiles in general is very high on there "shopping list"

The Popeye Turbo or a variation of it, is the missile that i believe would be launched in any pre-emptive naval strike by the Israelis.

see here


In May 2000 Israel is reported to have secretly carried out its first test launches from two German-built Dolphin-class submarines of cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The missiles launched from vessels off Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean are said to have hit a target at a range of about 1,500 kilometers [about 930 statute miles]. Israel is reported to possess a 200kg nuclear warhead, containing 6kg of plutonium, that could be mounted on cruise missiles.


From here

www.fas.org...

Or here

www.israeli-weapons.com...

An Interesting point on the Tomahawks would be as they are GPS guided would the Israelis in effect need The US'S permission to strike , as the Gps signal could be downgraded and or switched off , not good for a nuclear deterant , maybe this is why Popeye was developed.


As to the original question or point I think that a nuclear first strike would be suicidal for Israel I think every missile in the Middle East capable of reaching them would be fired at them , causing Israel to fire back maybe more nukes , if say BIO or Chemical weapons were used.

I think that an Israeli response will happen maybe with U.S assistance in the form of airstrikes and or special forces operations , but not with Nukes.


[edit on 7-10-2006 by buckaroo]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
i dont think israel will allow itself to be labled as the first to use nukes. the first country to use even tactical nukes will face world condemnation and israel knows this. however, should you see a nuclear attack in israel, regardless of where it comes from, i think israels first response will be a nuclear attack against tehran. and once that happens, you might as well cash in your chips and head for the basement, because everybody will start launching them.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Just because some countries, in the Middle East for example, launch nuclear bombs at each other, that does not mean every country in the world will start doing so.

I think if nuclear war happens between Israel and other places (which I 99% doubt will happen), it will be contained amongst themselves. The US, Britain, China, Russia, France, and India will not do anything but condemn and see how they can get the oil in the Middle East so the economies don't die.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
If this were true it would cement the idea that the world in spinning in a crazy direction.

Nuke somebody to prevent them from gaining nukes? ARE THEY NUTS? Yeah like that's not going to be a PR nightmare for a country claiming to be fair.

Also, how will the world react when the world sees that the nukes say, made in the USA?

AAC



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Also, how will the world react when the world sees that the nukes say, made in the USA?

AAC


This is a common misconception. Israel's nuclear bombs are not stamped: Made in the USA.

Britain and France are the ones who helped Israel develop nuclear reactors before the US payed any heed to Israel. So their nuclear bombs are Made in Israel with the help of Europe,



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Just because some countries, in the Middle East for example, launch nuclear bombs at each other, that does not mean every country in the world will start doing so.


i disagree. one nuclear detonation will put the entire world on edge....the retaliatory strike will cause a domino effect. everyone will launch for fear that they wont be able to get their's off before they are hit.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
France built Israels nuclear program while the US looked the other way.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
France built Israels nuclear program while the US looked the other way.


lol...no matter who is actually to blame, someone will always find a way to make it our fault. gotta love it.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I think people would expect USA, Britain and maybe the UN to step in before Israel had the chance to launch a nuclear attack. Obviously if it's Iran launching the attack no one's going to be able to stop them with just words...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Here's the problem.

Israel isn't going to attack without the US knowing and approving. It doesn't make sense for the US to permit Israel to attack Iran, since it'd precipiate a region wide war. So if Iran needs to be attacked, the US has to do it, not Israel. Israel brings nothing to the table in the situation. If the US does the attack, it might not precipiate a region wide war. Certainly places like Jordan and Egypt have a better chance of pulling off siding with the US than with Israel.

So I don't see Israel being the one to attack Iran.

The only possibility is that, perhaps the US decides that it needs to get rid of iran as a threat, but that its too dangerous or too costly to do it ourselves. So they let Israel do it, then pull support for israel, and let the whole region descend into real chaos, while being able to stay out of the fray.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
israel refers to its nuclear program as the "samson option"

now, if you're not familiar with the story of samson, he destroyed a column in a building to make it crash down on himself and several hundred philistines

that means that israel KNOWS that nuking another country is a suicidal move

israel will not commit suicide in this situation



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Its not that Israel thinks nuking another country is suicide in itself because of what the other country's response will be. Its that Israel knows as a last ditch effort, if its overall existence is threatened, then it will destroy itself if it means destroying those that are attacking her.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I would say that Iran would be the aggressive party..given their radical government.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Also, how will the world react when the world sees that the nukes say, made in the USA?

AAC


This is a common misconception. Israel's nuclear bombs are not stamped: Made in the USA.

Britain and France are the ones who helped Israel develop nuclear reactors before the US payed any heed to Israel. So their nuclear bombs are Made in Israel with the help of Europe,


Let's not forget that we provided the bombs to Britain. Tube alloys anyone?

AAC




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join