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.

 

Limiting Collateral Damage in a Nuclear War With Iran (Opinion)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Limiting Collateral Damage in a Nuclear War With Iran


www.israelnationalnews.com
Opinion Article:

Israel is going to nuke Iran. Every alternative has run out of time. The only question is whether Iran nukes Israel first. It is just and inevitable that Israel will make a nuclear attack on Iran and Syria against military forces to soften their armies up, facilitating an easy invasion of Iran via Syria, crossing the small land gap between them through friendly Kurdish territory. From there, Iran will be occupied to seize all Iranian nuclear sites.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 6-8-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My first question is to the reliability of the Israel National News and the writer, Shmuel Ben-Yehoshua. I realize that what is posted above is a very sensationalistic snippet from the article, but it got my attention. Does anyone here have any comments on the source and the veracity of the article? Should it be taken seriously, or is this paper just Israels version of the Enquirer or Pravda?

www.israelnationalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   


Israel is going to nuke Iran.


Wow, a little blunt? I really hope this isn't true. Let's all hope there is no validity to this claim.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mekanic



Wow, a little blunt? I really hope this isn't true. Let's all hope there is no validity to this claim.


My thoughts exactly Mekanic. I am hoping that the article is leaning toward commentary than actual analysis. Because, we all know where Israel goes, the Us will faithfully follow.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Well i've seen many more sources on the i-net confirming that the IAEA has noticed Iran doing experiments of seperating polonium 210.
The Polonium-Beryllium trigger is relatively easy and not too complicated to build for detonating a nuke[all kinds of but not much for civilian purposes], for this new kid on the block the polonium-210 is a serious option
.Or they replace it every two year of they gonna use it for seriously arming a nuke ready for use[in short term]..
We're all speculating about false flag ops and stuff, Israel has their own agenda, they're just gonna do it..
and i dont blame them..

[edit on 6-8-2007 by Foppezao]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I don't blame them either, but nukes???? I think that's a little extreme. Even the neutron scenario that was laid out in the article, could still kill millions if done wrong.

I have a very bad feeling that if this is true, this is where it all starts. Think about it. Iran and Syria have allies just like Israel does. Who's gonna step up? Is the U.S. definately going to jump up and defend Israel if they provoke start the war? I believe Syria will stand behind Iran regardless of who attacks. Will China and Russia stand for Israel launching nuclear weapons? A conventional war is one thing, and I can see allied forces standing down for something like that, but a nuclear strike? How will that play into the "game"?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
If any country started chucking nuclear bombs, no other country would accept it. MAD?

[edit on 6-8-2007 by redled]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Sorry but the premise of the opinion piece is preposterous. As much as I loathe the Israeli government I cannot see them unilaterally nuking Iran. It's just not even an option even for the fascist cesspit which is the Israeli government.

For starters any nuclear attack on Iran would have direct environmental consequences for Israel due to fall out. Second, the Israeli people would not tolerate a government who causes a nuclear holocaust of millions of innocent Iranians. The parallels between the Holocaust of WW2 and any nuclear Holocaust might be lost on the rabid hawks in the Knesset but they are certainly not lost on Israelis in general.

The Iranians are not a military threat to Israel, Israel knows it and so does Iran. The only things being fired from Iran towards Israel is rhetoric. For the Israelis to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike due to hostile rhetoric is preposterous. And to claim that doing so would "soften up" the Iranian army thus making an invasion easier are just as insane. For starters the nuking of Iran wouldn't soften up the Iranian army, it would annihilate it. Second, the Israelis would be sending in their troops into a radioactive area. Third, they don't have the troop numbers to invade Iran. Fourthly, what would be the benefit of invading Iran?

My prediction is the war of words will continue on both sides in a US/USSR Cold-War repartee. To do so is politically beneficial for both the Israeli government and the Iranians. An armed conflict might arise out of the Israelis using conventional arms, or commandos, to attack Iranian nuclear sites. The Iranian response to that could go one of two ways, they could launch a full guerilla attack, in conjunction with Syria and Hezbollah, against Israel proper or they could take to the international stage and win widespread international condemnation of Israel and further undermine Israel's long standing grip on the sympathetic high-ground.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
If any country started chucking nuclear bombs, no other country would accept it. MAD?


Very well thought out and short comment.

The only problem in this scenario is a couple of small problems. The article started out with limited air attacks and then onto a land invasion. Israel could kick Syria as* in a heartbeat. Not a problem.

Go across the Kurd area of northern Iraq, bigger problem. First the Kurds do not love Israel, Turkey has an army massed on the border looking for any reason to come into Iraq, more on this later. The US army may have something to say about this adventure across land they hold, in theory.

But follow on, onto Iran and the further destruction on Iran's nuclear capability. A couple of immediate problems show up. First is the population of Iran does not like Israel and they would welcome the Israelis with open arms. An AK-47 in one hand and a knife in the other waiting to hug them. But this isn't Israel's biggest problem. It's logistics, the land army need bullets and butter. Remember the Turkish army, it's in a great place to just cut off the Israeli army. Would the US help a NATO member or Israel. This IS the question now.

The author of the article is as good a general as Saddam Hussein. This clown wrote from emotions, not strategy. The bombing part is the best recourse. The land invasion is a fool's quest of WW2 thinking at it's finest. Israel is in no position for this type of adventure. They couldn't even beat a terrorist gang in Lebanon and this guy thinks the army can march across 2 countries and invade another. Israel is a large player in an area of weak and small armies and has the full backing of the USA, up to a point.

Redled said it best.....MAD



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   


www.israelnationalnews.com
Opinion Article:

... It is just and inevitable that Israel will make a nuclear attack on Iran...


What?!? How is a nuclear attack just in any means of the word or the scenario? How do these people believe in a god and at the same time consider a nuclear attack just? That is 'just' crazy...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
QUOTE: "They couldn't even beat a terrorist gang in Lebanon and this guy thinks the army can march across 2 countries and invade another. "

Anyone who thinks that Israel seriously tried to beat Hezbollah last summer is sadly mistaken. The leadership and politics held Israel back, not the lack of ability to defeat the enemy. They could have (if the leadership gave carte blanche action to the military and used all disposable means) walked right over helzbollah and all of Lebanon...and rather easily. That "war" saw a small fraction of Israel's military ability.

That being said, i dont think Israel can invade and take over Iran. I mean look at the US in Iraq. Defeating a country's military is one thing, but taking over and establishing a new government etc is a totally different thing. Folks lose site of this. ANY strike on Iran is to cripple/eliminate the nuclear program-not an invasion or regime change. Ground troops wont even be needed.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg


www.israelnationalnews.com
Opinion Article:

... It is just and inevitable that Israel will make a nuclear attack on Iran...


What?!? How is a nuclear attack just in any means of the word or the scenario? How do these people believe in a god and at the same time consider a nuclear attack just? That is 'just' crazy...


Are you recommending that Israel just let themselves be destroyed and let Iran nuke them to death; until all Jews are dead?
I know many would prefer that. If it boils down to us or them, I think Israel prefers them.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
We need to try and look at this situation from the Israeli perspective. Israel is tiny - just a few nuclear bombs could literally wipe it off the face of the earth. A large enough conventional force could do the same thing. To a Jewish person that is beyond unthinkable because all of their history, heritage and most of their people would be gone as well. Think how hard you would struggle to save your own life or the life of your family in hand to hand combat. That is literally the situation that Israel faces.

We can disagree all we want or think the Israelis are dispicable but they will not commit national suicide. The day they feel that Iran is a true threat to them is the same day that Iran will be destroyed by Israel's nuclear weapons. I don't think there would be any ground forces involved at all. If it took nuclear bunker busters to get to all of the nuclear production sites in Iran that is what would happen. The fallout would not be a deciding factor in this scenario.

That is only my opinion.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I think the land invasion scenario is preposterous, as would the Israelis I'm sure. The only use of nukes is bunkerbusting. Some of the deeper facilities require it. Iran new this when they built them. They're counting on the fear of first use to stop US/Israel. The only question is whether we/they have the fortitude to call that bluff.

I'm not condoning any course of action, I'm simply saying that Iran has dugg these things deep for a reason. So if they are deemed an existential threat to Israel, this is the choice that will have to be made.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
QUOTE: "They couldn't even beat a terrorist gang in Lebanon and this guy thinks the army can march across 2 countries and invade another. "

Anyone who thinks that Israel seriously tried to beat Hezbollah last summer is sadly mistaken. The leadership and politics held Israel back, not the lack of ability to defeat the enemy. They could have (if the leadership gave carte blanche action to the military and used all disposable means) walked right over helzbollah and all of Lebanon...and rather easily. That "war" saw a small fraction of Israel's military ability.



I agree,
Israel didnt lose, because Israel didnt effectivley let the dogs of war loose.
Maybe that was the Idea? Lull Hezbollah, Syria and Iran into a false sense of security?

But Im sure Hezbollah realise they only dealt with a minimal israeli offensive, so why they are gloating I do not know.



That being said, i dont think Israel can invade and take over Iran. I mean look at the US in Iraq. Defeating a country's military is one thing, but taking over and establishing a new government etc is a totally different thing. Folks lose site of this. ANY strike on Iran is to cripple/eliminate the nuclear program-not an invasion or regime change. Ground troops wont even be needed.


Israel will have NO DESIRE to invade Iran.
There in the mess they are in now BECAUSE they invaded nations around them.

Israel WiLL not, and... i tend to believe shouldnt have to deal with a nuclear Iran, especially when Iran are declaring and end to Israel.
I dont think Iran are dumb enough to Nuke Israel, but in saying that a crude device in Haifia wouldnt effect jeruselum too badly.

Maybe they are trying to force Israel to strike.. knowing how much outrage striking Iran would bring israel from various muslim nations...
Maybe Iran believes this outrage will force arab nations to act against Israel?

At present, the USA and Israel DO have the upperhand..
Militarily speaking.
Morally and ethically they do not.

Right always wins.... remembers this...

And we (the west) are in the wrong....

My perception of hows this will play out..

1. Israel will strike the nuclear facilities in a dawn, lightning raid.. utilising American Nuclear bunker busters.

Iran will retaliate against the greenzone, and various Israeli sites with crude nuclear devices.
Syria will re-take the Golan, and assist Hezbollah in fighting Israel from the north.
Iran, having already sent thousands of people into Iraq and Syria, will push Israel from the East
Americans will be slaughtered in Iraq.
A crude device will be detonated in the gulf, crippling the US Navy.
Israel will be over run, hundereds of thousands of innocents will be massacred, the rest will flee to Cyprus and various other nations through the assistance of the UK, US & Russia.
The US Will declare a state of WAR with Iran, Syria and Iraq.
The British will suffer a terror attack in london using chemical weapons.
Europe will suffer a chemical attack in various locations.
A state of war will be declared on the muslim faith, muslims whom are seen as a 'possible' threat or whom appear sympathetic to the arab enemy will be deported and expelled.

OR

The US & Britain and/or Israel will fund a violent civil war in Iran, through blackops causing mass public outrage.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Personally, I think this is all just chest thumping.

Nobody is dumb enough to attempt an invasion of Iran, and no-one is dumb enough to use nukes as an attack procedure.

Iran has no desire to openly engage anyone either. Their military is a defensive military, not intended to be deployed in force anywhere other than their own country.

Nothing is going to happen. This is just nationalistic chest pounding coming from a small scale media outlet.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

facilitating an easy invasion of Iran via Syria, crossing the small land gap between them through friendly Kurdish territory. From there, Iran will be occupied to seize all Iranian nuclear sites.


While I am sure Israel wouldn't mind nuking Iran, it's not very likely given the current situation. As for the land Invasion....well, someone better give them a map, going that route logistically would be next to impossible for Israel to carry out. Israel's armed forces are not built for long drawn out campaigns far away from Israel. Their whole doctrine is based on quick, overwhelming the enemy kinds of wars close to home.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Israel won't nuke Iran or any other Muslim country first. It was mentioned in an earlier reply that Iran won't strike first because it has a "defensive" military. Well, so does Israel. I'll make this one easy to quote because its bound to start something....

ANYONE who believes this idiot leader of Iran wouldn't strike first IF he had nuclear weapons is an idiot.

Ahjaminebad has stated repeatedly that he would wipe Israel off the map. Right NOW, he couldn't. Given the Muslims' 1000 year history, once they thought they could, they WILL TRY. (Can you say Constantinople?) ISRAEL is the one lamb in a bed of vipers. I don't recall any history of Jews committing genocide, but the Muslim record on this is full of examples (Armenia, Greece, Africa[various], Iraq). The Quran encourages this! Who is the aggressor? Who is the instigator? Israel does what she does in defense of herself. You can point fingers at Israel for starting conflict in the past but if you truly do your research OBJECTIVELY, you'd see this pattern of Israel defending herself not only tactically, but STRATEGICALLY, from MUSLIM AGGRESSORS.

Israel isn't about to nuke anyone out of aggression. But I guarantee if you have Muslim troops knocking on Tel Aviv's doorstep, they got them--they'd use them.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Israel nuke Iran, what a load of rubbish! Is israelnationalnews.com actually a proper source of news? Apparently Shmuel Ben-Yehoshua (the idiot author) is an artist! Not one I've ever heard of to be honest, and searching for any painting or illustration bearing his name is proving to be a fruitless search.

In fact the only "art" he appears to produce are nasty little articles with all the sophistication of a congenital retard, including gems like this:



"Sometimes, when a child is bad, he needs a good spanking. Iran needs a good nuking. There is no "moral dilemma" here and it is no more complicated than that."


and:



"Iran's terrorist allies in the region are sure to initiate missile attacks on Israel during this war. This can be limited greatly by dropping leaflets throughout the region warning that what happened to Iran could happen to them if they don't get out. "


Genius! If of course you identify genius with earthshattering stupidity..... drop leaflets, for goodness sake this isn't some kind of psyops operation from the 1950's.

Iran has the second largest population of Jews in the Middle East (after Israel). Surely a point worth taking into account.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Yes but Iran doesnt hate the Jews.
It hates Israel, and with good cause.
They arent wild rabbits living in squaller camps outside the luxury homes of Israel.. they are human beings, with feelings, families and fantasies.

Hatred was bound to fester.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join