Israel bomb iran nuke --- cost of the operation?

how do you feel about the nukes that are going to land in Iran this year? There will make the weather awfully hot given the fact that a nuclear enrichment facility - alleged to be breaking enrichment rules- is going to get hit with a neutron bomb! neutrons that will penetrate earth superbly reaching the highly enriched fissile material inside?



I mean if there is illegal enrichment going on in the Natanz site then can someone tell me what are the consequences of hitting the site with a nuclear bomb?

or are the fissile material not stored on site?


It looks like that Israel is set on defending itself in the form of a preemptive nuclear strike so I am just curious to see if I can ascertain how much the cost of such a battle would be in toady's dollars?

Any help with the answers will be greatly appreciated.



changed subject.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by zurvan]

Israel is not going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack because Iran would respond with biological weapons, and it has both the terrorists and the missiles to deliver them.

But if Israel wants to delay Iran’s nuclear programme by about a decade with a conventional strike then I think that is a great idea. It would save both the West and the financial markets a whole lot more trouble.
Ultimately Iran has a much wider-richer front to attack the interests of the West, than it has to attack the massively smaller and better defended interests of Israel. Besides we could reward Israel for their trouble in other ways.

I also think it’s only right that Israel defends itself because the truth is that Iran is a threat to the West primarily because we are friends with Israel.
I mean for all that they call us the Great Satan (which we are, and perhaps we should also be proud of?) it’s Israel they want to nuke and it is Israel which annoys them the most (and I can’t say that's irrational either; when you look at what they have done and may do again; with respect to places such as Lebanon).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

But if Israel wants to delay Iran’s nuclear programme by about a decade with a conventional strike then I think that is a great idea.

And how do will do that without nukes? You can't take out a underground bunker at more than 100 ft under without nuclear bunker buster... So they go nuclear, a full scale attack with the US, they get strike back or they don't go.

Originally posted by Liberal1984


But if Israel wants to delay Iran’s nuclear programme by about a decade with a conventional strike then I think that is a great idea. It would save both the West and the financial markets a whole lot more trouble.
Ultimately Iran has a much wider-richer front to attack the interests of the West, than it has to attack the massively smaller and better defended interests of Israel. Besides we could reward Israel for their trouble in other ways.

It is not possible to destroy some of the facilities with conventional weapons. It has to be nuclear or a full scale invasion.

[edit on 9-1-2007 by zurvan]

Originally posted by zurvan
It is not possible to destroy some of the facilities with conventional weapons. It has to be nuclear or a full scale invasion.

Neither is true.

Nuclear weapons/“bunker busters” (RNEP) have been shown to be that which is ineffective on these targets, not to mention any use will cause far too much in collateral damage to even be considered and mass invasion is simply not necessary.

Here is brief video demonstration on how ineffective nuclear "bunker busters" would be against these targets:
ucsusa video

mg