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 Plotting Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
According to the following report which quotes Britain's Sunday Times report, which cites several "Israeli military sources" Israel has drawn up plans to use "tactical nuclear weapons" on Iranian nuclear facilities. Though not unexpected, with the current tensions in the region, this news could prove unnerving to some and perhaps provocative to others.
 



news.yahoo.com
LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters."

Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I would expect Israel to be prepared for any possibility, given the region they are in and the risks a Nuclear Iran may pose to their security. However a nuclear strike on Iran would be a major step toward all out Arab Israeli conflict, and war.

Lets hope this stays in the "planning stages" and is never actually necessary.


Related News Link:

Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran (The Sunday Times)


Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Thread:

Israel to Nuke Iran?

[edit on 6-1-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Iran's reaction to this story will be interesting. They seem to count on the court of world opinion, tempered with the usual rhetoric. I wonder if they'll call for U.N. interference.?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Iran would do well to allow it to happen. The tide that would turn against Israel and in their favour would be immense....

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I would agree with you MM. It is unlikely they would hit back rather use the UN.

Im surprised the plans are "being drawn up" You would think they would have had them in place for some time. Also an Air strike would force them to comit a sig. amount of thier frontline strike aircraft using a buddy pack refuling system to get that far and may leave their air defence a bit undermanned during the strike.

An AWST article I posted up a while back seems to indicate that alot of the facilities are so far underground now (using a combination of packed sand and concrete that a nuclear bunker buster may be the only thing that does the trick



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
!-Iran's nuclear facilities are DEcentralized so material and tatical damage won't be so huge provided no one is totally aware of all these decentralized matrix of facilities..

2- Casualties won't be that much because Isreal will use BunkerBusters..

So..

Islamic fascism will have more to win from this strike...

The best way to topple them is boosting a native proxy against the regim ...all subjective and objective resources for such strategy all in hand ...

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Cybernative]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Couldnt Iran take these statements as public threats and follow by the example of the US and launch a "pre-emptive" strike against Israel , for fear of being attacked first?


It wouldnt be considered wrong because the US led by example?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Iran is not in strategic and military position to take such initiative...



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybernative
2- Casualties won't be that much because Isreal will use BunkerBusters..



Hmmmmm I do not think so. Several research efforts seem to feel that unlike an underground test of a nuclear device the bunker busters will leave a fallout plume as well as surface level contamination as the blast will not be completely contained (add to that whatever material is at the site they are hitting)

www.ucsusa.org...

Also the US is just looking at making deep nuclear penatrators so unless the IDF has had some really secret research project going on, its more likely going to be a low yeild ground burst weapon that they are just going another name for PR spin


I do agree with you though, an premeptive nuclear strike may even get the Shiia extremist allied up with the Sunni extremists unlike any other event could do.

[edit on 1/6/07 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   


2- Casualties won't be that much because Isreal will use BunkerBusters..

And? Do you know where all the installations are located? I studied everything about the possibility of a nuclear strike with bunker buster against Iran and it was VERY VERY deadly and from the own CIA analysis, it would kill over 3 millions civilians.

Hell, it's nuclear weapons, not just little bunker buster.

And I suggest that if any country use nukes against Iran, all the others nuclear powers nuke back. Hell, you don't use nuclear weapons against someone else.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmmmm I do not think so. Several research efforts seem to feel that unlike an underground test of a nuclear device the bunker busters will leave a fallout plume as well as surface level contamination as the blast will not be completely contained (add to that whatever material is at the site they are hitting)

Also the US is just looking at making deep nuclear penatrators so unless the IDF has had some really secret research project going on, its more likely going to be a low yeild ground burst weapon that they are just going another name for PR spin


I do agree with you though, an premeptive nuclear strike may even get the Shiia extremist allied up with the Sunni extremists unlike any other event could do.


Ty very much for your informative and insightfull technical post..I learned something here..

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
Couldnt Iran take these statements as public threats and follow by the example of the US and launch a "pre-emptive" strike against


It does not have the military capability to carry it out. It could at best go after US forces in Iraq. They do have a few IRBM such as the SHAHAB-3 which is conventaly armed but I doubt there is enough of them nor are they accurate enough to take out just of thier facilites say Dimona, let alone all of the other ones.

This 1997 article is An interesting read: Could Israel's nuclear assets survive a pre-emptive strike?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Wow, and they plan is to use nukes to carry it out too. That might make this the first actual nuclear war. The israelis are so good at war because they train to nearly the point of excess. If they are at the point where bombers are practicing runs, then they are probably seriously expecting to have to do it.

Interestingly, this probably means that the US has no plans to bomb the plants. If the US did, surely they'd be working with the Israelis, even getting intelligence from them, for the strike. If the yehudis feel that they have to start making serious prepartions for a strike, even as an emergency contingency, then that should mean they have no hints of a US effort.


Personally, I think that it might be better if the US hit the plants, rather than the Israelis. If the Isrealis attack, it could be the final straw for the radical elements in the middle east, and trigger an all out war.

On the other hand, Israel would be better justified than the US, considering that the Iranians have threatened to destroy the Isrealis directly. Perhaps that would mean that people are angry at the attack, but won't see it as an injustice.

Another issue is the route. The paper says that they have three routes planned out, one going over Turkey. Thats interesting, because it means that they wouldn't be going over Iraq, or at least directly over it, with that route. That's important because, clearly, the Iraqi government wouldn't ever give the yehudis permission to use their space to nuke fellow muslims, and if the DID fly over iraq, it'd be because the US granted permission, thus blowing up the nuke plants, and any pretense of Iraq being sovereign.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Nygdan,

To be honest I don't think it matters if its the US or the IDF as both will take the blame for it. If Isreal does it, it will be because the US either a) had them do it or b) let them do it and if its the US making the strike it was because of Isreali pressure etc etc. either way its the same result same blame.

Im trying to calculate the distances involved and likely strike packages they might use. However, unless they get tanker support from the USAF, its really quite a stretch for thier strike fleet. With no long range heavy bombers in thier inventory, they are looking at an Osirak style package using fighter bombers (F-15 and 16's) and buddy store refueling systems to get there and back assuming no interference from the IIAF or any other nation like say Syria that feels compelled to help.

Obviously I do not have all the data I need but without tanker support I wonder if this is just really an exersize in propaganda rather than a real threat. Isreal hit Osirak and was just able to do it. These targets are alot further and while delaying the program would not wipe it out. Perhaps this is just sabre rattling?



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
There was an article from an Israeli newspaper a few weeks back posted on www.watchingamerica.com discussing this very thing. I went back to try and find it but it had been removed. IHave to say, it was one thing for Israel to hit Saddam's nuclear program in the 80's but if they try this with Iran, I have a feeling that they will bite off far more than they can chew. Iran is not Iraq, even in Saddam's heyday. It could very well blow up in their (and our) face big time.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
How does a bunker buster nuke work? How does it bust the bunker any more than a standard nuke? Isn't it just a nuke with a hardened conventional tunneling munition ahead of it? I don't think the design is intended for the nuclear chain reaction to somehow dig the bomb deeper.

It's not really going to get any deeper than any other ground nuke. The crater will simply be maybe fifty feet deeper or so. Same amount of irradiated material gets thrown up in the air, to fall down on the people. A bunker buster nuke seems like a military-only phrase because who cares about busting a bunker when tons of irradiated dirt is vaulted skyward? If the bunker is below 100ft, I don't think it can be gotten by any existing "bunker buster". Can someone explain otherwise?

I see no reason for nuclear use here, and this seems like propaganda or disinfo. They couldn't be that stupid. The scars would last for dozens of years.

EDIT

[Props to FredT who covered the dangerous fallout cloud already. It's the main problem with this supposed plan.]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   
As insane as this idea is, I don't think it will happen because Israel doesn't have any nuclear bunker busters. If they did they would have had to get them from the US and officially they didn't develop them yet. There were plans for development but it was removed from the 2006 budget. Furthermore, they would need a B2 bomber to deliver the bomb, and I don't think they have any of those either. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do believe Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, but not with nuclear bunker busters.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
amount of thier frontline strike aircraft using a buddy pack refuling system to get that far and may leave their air defence a bit undermanned during the strike.

Recall though that they did just that when they went for egypt's airforce. Yet another raid that required absolute airtight coordination and relentless training and preparation. And it worked.


that a nuclear bunker buster may be the only thing that does the trick

Indeed, imagine striking the facility, but not destroying it. The iranians would be able to drop the pretense of not building nukes, and start openly building them after that.


may even get the Shiia extremist allied up with the Sunni extremists unlike any other event could do.

Until the sunnis start to wonder if the shia were in league with the yehudis and go back to trying to exterminate them.
THere's a longer and bloodier history of shia/sunni violence than yehudi/muslim violence.


device the bunker busters will leave a fallout plume as well as surface level contamination as the blast will not be completely contained (add to that whatever material is at the site they are hitting)

The iranians (the public anyway) are probably going to be thinking "christ, that wasn't worth it". Even if they 'stand in solidarity' together, they probably won't be saying 'lets build nukes again'.
Of course, considering their government's inability to properly care for earthquake victims that we've recently seen, there's a darned good chance that, if the plume extends over a wide enough area, the iranian government itself might just collapse. The various factions within the country might use it as an excuse and oppurtunity to stand up for more self-control.

And if Iran even starts to destabilize, the US would have a pretty good excuse to move into to the anarchic parts of teh country; to prevent further chaos, to provide humanitarian aid and recovery, and to 'stand shoulder to shoulder in the cause of liberty'.

www.globalsecurity.org...


It looks like Arak and Isfahan regions are solidly in the persian group:

Natanz looks like it might be in that little persian enclave north of Yazd, in the middle of a 'sparesely populated area'.

Good positioning on their part. Dont' want a nationalist ethnic movement stirring things up around your nukes.

From this map it looks like those three facilities are in an area where they've suppressed the Ba'hai:


There are zoroastrians throughout that region, apparently with large populations in Yazd, where there is a nuke facility.


cybernative
Casualties won't be that much because Isreal will use BunkerBusters

Recall however that there are Russians in those facilities, the israelis know this too. The attack would undoubtedly kill great numbers of russian professionals. That in itself might have unforseable consequences.


Melbourne_militia
Couldnt Iran take these statements as public threats and follow by the example of the US and launch a "pre-emptive" strike against Israel , for fear of being attacked first?

Of course. They could do it, and they'd be relatively justified.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Im trying to calculate the distances involved and likely strike packages they might use.

The article notes that their pilots have been flying to gibraltar in preparation for it all.


and buddy store refueling systems to get there and back

Perhaps they dont' need to worry about getting back. After the strike, they might be able to land at any US controlled airbase in iraq.

Hell, I wouldn't put it beyond them to land at an iranian airbase, take it over, refuel all their tanks and spare tanks, and then hope home.


Obviously I do not have all the data I need but without tanker support I wonder if this is just really an exersize in propaganda rather than a real threat.

The fact that we know about it at all does hint at it being a propaganda effort. If they were ready to hit, the surest sign would be no sign at all.


Iran is not Iraq, even in Saddam's heyday. It could very well blow up in their (and our) face big time.

I don' tknow. They don't have the ability to directly and openly attack israel. The most they can do is put more money and weapons into the hands of the palestinian and lebanese militias. The palestinians seem a bit focused on killing each other for now though.

For the US, it would definitly get worse. And once we leave, they'll probably send troops into the shia sections of iraq, just like syria sent troops to lebanon, to create stability.

I wonder if al-Sadr is hoping that the yehudis hit the plants?


Hal9000 Furthermore, they would need a B2 bomber to deliver the bomb, and I don't think they have any of those either. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Would it be that much of a surprise if they had all of that though? I mean, the US had the stealth fighter for what, a decade, before it was revealed?
Hell, maybe a shipment of Aurora's is being emblazoned with the star of david right now. Maybe we should all watch for donought shapped contrails next to the mushroom cloud.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   
This is not surprised, we have to understand that invading Iraq and taking the nuclear sites in Iran has been the goal of Israel.

They are very pleased that US took the task to take Saddam, but things are not going as well as planned with the results of the invasion and Iran is still their problem.

Now that the American people has chosen to change the make over in congress it definitely have Israel worry.

US may not be able to finish what it started so now they will have to take into their hands the Iran problem that is actually Israel problem to begin with.

I imagine that congress will never allow US into another costly conflict so Israel will probably get all the weapons and support it may need for them to launch such attack.

But the problem is retaliation, because we all know that if you attack another country that country has the right to defend.

If Israel finds itself in trouble, who do you think is going to go into the rescue?

US will, at the expenses of getting the muslin countries against our nation and make us more go into the pit we are already in since the invasion of Iraq.

The question is . . . will US care.

Well we have not to worry about Saudi Arabia because they are Sunnis Saudi already is getting fed up with Shiites in Iraq targeting Sunnis so taking into consideration that Iraq may get more influences from Iran if US leave Iraq, the ones to mostly die in a conflict with Iran LL be Shiites, So I imagine that the gurus in the white house will weight the repercussions of the actions of Israel and then decided if is worth it to get involved.

So in my opinion I think that yes Israel is going to do it and US is going to back them up.


[edit on 6-1-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

If Iran finds itself in trouble, who do you think is going to go into the rescue?

US will, at the expenses of getting the muslin countries against our nation and make us more go into the pit we are already in since the invasion of Iraq.


Huh? I hope this was a typo.


Otherwise it doesn't make too much sense.

edit = I'm pretty sure you meant "If Israel finds itself in trouble..."

Correct me if I am wrong.

[edit on 1/6/2007 by Mechanic 32]




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join