Israeli nuclear counterstike

[FinnMacCool]

Doesn't matter there are no innocents.Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany all Germanywas responsible for him. The nut case that runs Iran was elected,all Iranians are responsible for him.
I understand the Israeli plan completley, You may destroy us ,but we will take you with us.Its the old mutualy assured destruction in a diferent form.

So do you think we should be nuked?

 

[Connecticutter]

The rationality of the Iranian government is at least a subject of debate. The president called for wiping Israel off the map, and one of the ayatollahs has said that it would be worth it to nuke Israel (knowing full well that it would be the end of his government), because such a trade would kill a significant portion of the world's Jews but only a small portion of the world's Muslims.

You know what - I agree. The Iranian leader also said the other day that he wanted to move Israel to Europe. It's like they are living in their own fantasy land where they can just pick up countries and drop them down wherever they want, and nukes have no consequences.

So what can we do? Contain them until their government gets overthrown?

 

[Busta]

In the news today, we see a story regarding how close the Iranians are to a nuclear weapon.

One of the greatest concerns regarding a nuclear-capable Iran is that they will use their nuke(s) against Israel.

If Iran were to nuke Israel, would you support or oppose an Israeli nuclear response? Why?

Israel WILL strike against Iran (and perhaps others, namely Egypt) with nuclear weapons:
Zechariah 14:11-13;
11 And it shall be inhabited, for there shall be no more curse;
Jerusalem shall dwell in security.
12 And this shall be the plague with which the LORD will smite all the peoples that wage war against Jerusalem: their flesh shall rot while they are still on their feet, their eyes shall rot in their sockets, and their tongues shall rot in their mouths.
13 And on that day a great panic from the LORD shall fall on them, so that each will lay hold on the hand of his fellow, and the hand of the one will be raised against the hand of the other;

.....it goes on to insinuate nuclear fallout, an multi-national gathering of funds, WW3.....not to be confused with armagedon, however. That's a separate episode alltogether.

 

[M14 Shooter]

RE : FinnMacCool # 20
Doesn't matter there are no innocents.Hitler was elected chancellor of Germany all Germanywas responsible for him.

Hitler was not elected.

 

[akyron]

i'm tired of hearing people cry about an area of sand smaller then New Jersey

i also don't think said country is worth antagonizing half the world against America

So if Iran wants to end all the bullshit then i'm for it

Well if you arent Jewish,Christian, or a non-believer(non-muslim), I can see your point. Otherwise you are next anyway.

 

[teacher]

Well if you arent Jewish,Christian, or a non-believer(non-muslim), I can see your point. Otherwise you are next anyway.

Reality steps up to the plate and jacks one out of the park. Hi-ho Silver and away.

 

[vergiss]

If Iran were to nuke Israel, would you support or oppose an Israeli nuclear response? Why?

...um. Isn't the problem at hand Iran sauntering in and nuking Israel?

 

[M14 Shooter]

...um. Isn't the problem at hand Iran sauntering in and nuking Israel?

Sure.
But the question is - should Israel respond in like and kind?

The 'yes' response is a no-brainer -- its the 'no' response that intrugues me.

 

[vergiss]

They (and the rest of the world) should most definitely respond - but in the most effective way, even if it's not specifically nukes in return.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They (and the rest of the world) should most definitely respond - but in the most effective way, even if it's not specifically nukes in return.

I doubt you'll convice the Irraelis that there is any effective response other than a nuclear reply.

 

[vergiss]

I doubt you'll convice the Irraelis that there is any effective response other than a nuclear reply.

I'm sure the Israelis are smart enough to realise that getting the job done so it doesn't happen again is more important than blowing the crap out of Iran just for the sake of it.

 

[Tashah]

As a preface, let us clearly understand the evolving situation...

In military parlance, Israel is what is termed a 'one bomb country'. What this means in essence is that 'one nuke' detonated over Tel'Aviv would constitute a catastrophic and fatal strike on Israel. One out of every six Israelis live in Tel'Aviv, and it is the financial and communications hub of the nation.

The Iranian nuclear program is immense, and 300 facilities are expressly dedicated to nuclear research and development. Taking a cue from North Korea, many Iranian nuclear facilities are located either underground or within mountains. The scattered surface facilities are all ensconced within concentric rings of anti-air-missile batteries. Iranian scientists, engineers, and technicians well understand the 'nuclear fuel cycle'. What they lack is practical hands-on experience in managing all facets of nuclear technology. Even so, they have now arrived at a critical juncture in nuclear weapons develpoment known as the cascade-centrifuge. There is only one use for this technology and that is to obtain enriched weapons-grade uranium from uranium-hexaflouride, which is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle. A one thousand unit cascade will yield enough weapons-grade uranium to produce from one to five nuclear weapons per year.

It has been proposed by many that Israel should launch a conventional and preemptive air strike against Iran. To be quite frank, this is not a viable possibiity for numerous reasons. Geographical distance and a large target universe are the main negative considerstions. Israeli fighter jets would have to refuel somewhere enroute to accomplish a round-trip strike. The rich target universe would demand hundreds of sorties over the course of many days. In the interrum, Iran would certainly launch conventional missiles against Israel... with possible C&B warheads. In summation, the only country with the requisite military resources to launch a comprehensive and lengthy preemptive strike against Iran is the United States.

Despite the numerous carrot and stick negotiations conducted by many nations and organizations to curtail Iranian nuclear proliferation, Iran seems determined to possess nuclear warheads. In the not too distant future, Iran will arrive at what Israel has termed the 'tipping point'. This is a precise point where Israel will be able to determine with certainty that Iran is nuclear weapons capable.

This thread is entitled 'Israeli nuclear counterstrike'. Unlike the president of Iran, Israel has never threatened any nation with nuclear armageddon. Thus the thread author assumes that Israel will self-limit itself to retaliatory nuclear strikes against Iran. I reiterate... Israel is a one-bomb country. Ponder that truism and then reconsider the thread premise. Could it be flawed? Must Israel wait until its very heart is lanced with a mortal wound? Would you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I reiterate... Israel is a one-bomb country. Ponder that truism and then reconsider the thread premise. Could it be flawed? Must Israel wait until its very heart is lanced with a mortal wound? Would you?

The premise of the question is not flawerd - that Israel woule be smart to pre-emptively hit Iran with nukes doesnt invalidate the question as to if they should strike back if nuked.

 

[akyron]

Israel is a one-bomb country. Ponder that truism and then reconsider the thread premise. Could it be flawed? Must Israel wait until its very heart is lanced with a mortal wound? Would you?

I think the aftermath of such an encounter would be immense should Iran be taken down. Muslim countries would come out of the woodwork looking for a fight(as if they are not now anyway). Who would avenge Israel should the unthinkable happen? I agree with you that Israel cannot let itself be attacked first. When surrounded by vicious snakes you must keep them defanged or afraid of you or get bitten.

No one talks about it but the other choice is to kill them all and be eating snake sandwiches for lunch for quite awhile.

 

[JOHNYJ]

If Israel has a DOOMSDAY system .Odds are its aimed at more than just one Arab country.

 

[vergiss]

As a preface, let us clearly understand the evolving situation...

In military parlance, Israel is what is termed a 'one bomb country'. What this means in essence is that 'one nuke' detonated over Tel'Aviv would constitute a catastrophic and fatal strike on Israel. One out of every six Israelis live in Tel'Aviv, and it is the financial and communications hub of the nation.

The Iranian nuclear program is immense, and 300 facilities are expressly dedicated to nuclear research and development. Taking a cue from North Korea, many Iranian nuclear facilities are located either underground or within mountains. The scattered surface facilities are all ensconced within concentric rings of anti-air-missile batteries. Iranian scientists, engineers, and technicians well understand the 'nuclear fuel cycle'. What they lack is practical hands-on experience in managing all facets of nuclear technology. Even so, they have now arrived at a critical juncture in nuclear weapons develpoment known as the cascade-centrifuge. There is only one use for this technology and that is to obtain enriched weapons-grade uranium from uranium-hexaflouride, which is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle. A one thousand unit cascade will yield enough weapons-grade uranium to produce from one to five nuclear weapons per year.

It has been proposed by many that Israel should launch a conventional and preemptive air strike against Iran. To be quite frank, this is not a viable possibiity for numerous reasons. Geographical distance and a large target universe are the main negative considerstions. Israeli fighter jets would have to refuel somewhere enroute to accomplish a round-trip strike. The rich target universe would demand hundreds of sorties over the course of many days. In the interrum, Iran would certainly launch conventional missiles against Israel... with possible C&B warheads. In summation, the only country with the requisite military resources to launch a comprehensive and lengthy preemptive strike against Iran is the United States.

Despite the numerous carrot and stick negotiations conducted by many nations and organizations to curtail Iranian nuclear proliferation, Iran seems determined to possess nuclear warheads. In the not too distant future, Iran will arrive at what Israel has termed the 'tipping point'. This is a precise point where Israel will be able to determine with certainty that Iran is nuclear weapons capable.

This thread is entitled 'Israeli nuclear counterstrike'. Unlike the president of Iran, Israel has never threatened any nation with nuclear armageddon. Thus the thread author assumes that Israel will self-limit itself to retaliatory nuclear strikes against Iran. I reiterate... Israel is a one-bomb country. Ponder that truism and then reconsider the thread premise. Could it be flawed? Must Israel wait until its very heart is lanced with a mortal wound? Would you?

Just reading that post makes me want to cry.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Death to the MULLAHS
Death to the President of Iran
Death to RADICAL ISLAM

Sounds like you're a terrorist!

 

[Tashah]

The premise of the question is not flawerd - that Israel woule be smart to pre-emptively hit Iran with nukes doesnt invalidate the question as to if they should strike back if nuked.

If not flawed, then the question is simplistic.

There are two overarching reasons why nations maintain a nuclear arsenal. The first reason is to deter any nuclear attack upon itself via the doctrine of 'mutual assured destruction' (MAD). The second reason is to impliment either a selective or a massive counterstrike should reason number one fail. Your Poll question is an exercise in asking the obvious. Would any nuclear-capable nation that suffered a surprise nuclear attack not reply in kind? Could the government of any attacked nation simply sit on its hands and wait for another nuclear shoe to fall?

The true question is not who would counterstrike, but rather... who will strike first? Israel is reputed to maintain a nuclear arsenal that is larger than that of Britian's. If this estimate is fairly accurate, what would possess Israel to wait until Iran achieved nuclear parity?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the president of Iran has now publicaly vowed the total destruction of Israel on two occassions. Iran's nuclear 'tipping point' is now no more than two years away. The clock is ticking.

Is striking first immoral? Is waiting to be struck also immoral? Is Tel'Aviv less important than a moral high-ground? Does Tehran even care about morality? These are the kind of questions we are approaching. Think about them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If not flawed, then the question is simplistic.

Not when all I want to know is who thinks they should and who thinks they shouldnt.

As we've seen, there are people here that think they should not.

 

[Lantzolot]

i'm tired of hearing people cry about an area of sand smaller then New Jersey

i also don't think said country is worth antagonizing half the world against America

So if Iran wants to end all the bullshit then i'm for it

So you think that killing everyone in israel will make the middle east stop all or most aggression against the US and the rest of the world. That wont happen. The terrorists would use that to ralley the people. Their hatred is much deeper than isreal anyway.

 

[Tashah]

Not when all I want to know is who thinks they should and who thinks they shouldnt. As we've seen, there are people here that think they should not.

Lol... Does that surprise you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol... Does that surprise you?

Surpise me? No.
Baffles me? Yes.

 

[Tashah]

Surpise me? No.
Baffles me? Yes.

Then your poll simply confirms your suspicion, which in turn serves to reinforce the bafflement inherent in your original suspician. A bit circular isn't it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then your poll simply confirms your suspicion, which in turn serves to reinforce the bafflement inherent in your original suspician. A bit circular isn't it?

Not really.
I was just wondering if anyone could give me a reason why Israel should not strike back.
Haven't seen one.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Not really.
I was just wondering if anyone could give me a reason why Israel should not strike back.
Haven't seen one.

Because then twice as many innocents would die.