Is Israel about to bomb bomb bomb Iran?

[kactus]

The US and some NATO members already have forward deployed warheads. Israel neither confirms or denies such things as a matter of policy.

What is what? Why would the world shed extra tears for Iranians compared to Iraqis, Libyans, Tunisians, Syrians, Egyptians, Afghans, Lebanese, Palestinians, or even Israelis? What's so special about Iran?

Well it does matter. Hypothetically, if Iran was still an ally of US, which happened to be the case during the Shah then having a nuclear bomb wouldn't have materialsed...Infact it was the US that encouraged them to acquire the capability back then.

The question is not about treating Iranians differently from iraqis, libyans, israelis or anyone else for that matter. It does however raise a bigger question that if Israel can bypass the questioning by becoming a non-signatury of the treaty other countries will follow suit...

[bush_cheney2004]

Well it does matter. Hypothetically, if Iran was still an ally of US, which happened to be the case during the Shah then having a nuclear bomb wouldn't have materialsed...Infact it was the US that encouraged them to acquire the capability back then.

Not necessarily...if you recall...the outcome of the October 1962 "Missile Crisis" was removal of such things close to the Soviet Union's border (e.g. Jupiter missiles in Turkey). The NPT cause followed that. The Islamic Revolution set Iran on a collision course with Israel and the "West"; before this Iran and Israel were much closer and aligned in a Cold War context.

The question is not about treating Iranians differently from iraqis, libyans, israelis or anyone else for that matter. It does however raise a bigger question that if Israel can bypass the questioning by becoming a non-signatury of the treaty other countries will follow suit...

Israel never was a signatory...it didn't "become" anything. Israel and South Africa aborted S.A.'s attempt...Libya gave up after Ghaddaffy saw Saddam get deposed the hard way. The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in 2003, consistent with its objectives. Other NPT nations have considered such development as well, in the open or covertly, and took heat for doing so.

Edited November 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[olp1fan]

lol you can't deny the U.S being ridiculous now

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/13/iran-practicing-for-an-emp-attack-on-the-u-s-say-u-s-lawmakers-but-how-credible-is-that-claim/

And now, some lawmakers in the U.S. are suggesting that Iran might have some ideas on what to do with those nuclear weapons (if they do indeed have them).

They claim that Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard are practicing for the detonation of a nuclear weapon near space, the ultimate goal being an Electromagnetic Pulse attack on the U.S.

Republican Representative Trent Franks says Iran is practicing launching a ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea and they also have tested high-altitude explosions with their Shahab-111 missile.

“Terrorists think that electromagnetic pulse or some type of attack is their ultimate asymmetric weapon,” he told Aviation Week recently. “Iran’s (actions) clarify that jihadist nation’s intent for the U.S. and Israel.”

But how real is the threat from Iran? That is unclear.

If Iran had the bomb, would it use it on an attack against the U.S., as that would likely mean the destruction of Iran in a retaliatory strike?

Edited November 13, 2011 by olp1fan

[kactus]

Not necessarily...if you recall...the outcome of the October 1962 "Missile Crisis" was removal of such things close to the Soviet Union's border (e.g. Jupiter missiles in Turkey). The NPT cause followed that. The Islamic Revolution set Iran on a collision course with Israel and the "West"; before this Iran and Israel were much closer and aligned in a Cold War context.

Nevertheless the question still remains...Iran during Shah was a powerhouse in the ME and a viatl ally to US protecting their oil interest. You say Iran under islamic revolution was at collision course with the west which is true and perhaps explains why the eight year war with Iraq played a vital role for the west to arm Iraq and weaken the theocratic regime in Iran. No one forgets that infamous handshake of Saddam with Donald Rumsfeld in the eighties before Saddam reached his expiry date later. What baffles me is how the US administration that always thought Iran's theocracy at loggerheads with western values literally removed two of Iran's bitter enemies namely taliban and Saddam. What kind of message do you think this sends to mullahs?

Israel never was a signatory...it didn't "become" anything. Israel and South Africa aborted S.A.'s attempt...Libya gave up after Ghaddaffy saw Saddam get deposed the hard way. The DPRK withdrew from the NPT in 2003, consistent with its objectives. Other NPT nations have considered such development as well, in the open or covertly, and took heat for doing so.

Well...that is my point of contention...If countries like Israel, South Africa and even North Korea abort/ withdraw from such treaties what kind of credibility do you think such a treaties will have in the light of imminent threat. If there is lack of credibility because countries abort it what difference does it make if countries like Iran adhere to it?

Afterall, we know that becoming nuclear has made it harder to attack North Korea because they have a deterrent. I guess the same thing can be argued for Israel if any country even contemplate to attack.

Edited November 13, 2011 by kactus

[bush_cheney2004]

....What baffles me is how the US administration that always thought Iran's theocracy at loggerheads with western values literally removed two of Iran's bitter enemies namely taliban and Saddam. What kind of message do you think this sends to mullahs?

Which ones? The Saudis are not in love with Iran either, but this is more than just Shia vs. Sunni. Destabilizing the mideast has had intersting consequences (good and bad), but it is consistent with the post Cold War decision to break out of static containment policies given the nature of world oil dependencies and counter-terrorism objectives.

Well...that is my point of contention...If countries like Israel, South Africa and even North Korea abort/ withdraw from such treaties what kind of credibility do you think such a treaties will have in the light of imminent threat.

Israel was never a NPT signatory, for obvious reasons. Iran was. On balance, the NPT remains a viable carrot & stick international protocol that is largely followed.

If there is lack of credibility because countries abort it what difference does it make if countries like Iran adhere to it?

Because of means and will in a counter-terrorism setting and Israeli escalation for a perceived existential threat.

Afterall, we know that becoming nuclear has made it harder to attack North Korea because they have a deterrent. I guess the same thing can be argued for Israel if any country even contemplate to attack.

Argentina attacked the UK's Falklands (Las Malvinas) despite being a credible nuclear power. One can't mix and match the two scenarios directly because of several factors. The USA has also been "attacked".

[kactus]

lol you can't deny the U.S being ridiculous now

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/11/13/iran-practicing-for-an-emp-attack-on-the-u-s-say-u-s-lawmakers-but-how-credible-is-that-claim/

And now, some lawmakers in the U.S. are suggesting that Iran might have some ideas on what to do with those nuclear weapons (if they do indeed have them).

They claim that Iran’s military and Revolutionary Guard are practicing for the detonation of a nuclear weapon near space, the ultimate goal being an Electromagnetic Pulse attack on the U.S.

Republican Representative Trent Franks says Iran is practicing launching a ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea and they also have tested high-altitude explosions with their Shahab-111 missile.

“Terrorists think that electromagnetic pulse or some type of attack is their ultimate asymmetric weapon,” he told Aviation Week recently. “Iran’s (actions) clarify that jihadist nation’s intent for the U.S. and Israel.”

But how real is the threat from Iran? That is unclear.

If Iran had the bomb, would it use it on an attack against the U.S., as that would likely mean the destruction of Iran in a retaliatory strike?

Inorder to attack you need to create a contrived atmosphere that the enemy exists...After the cold war there was a vaccum. Islam seems to have filled that vaccum... Let me articulate it this way: If you give zero credibility for your perceived enemy then it doesn't matter what action you take as long as you can remove that perceived threat by whichever means even though there is no proof that the threat even existed. Iran with a theocracy is a perceived threat to the west and their interest in the Middle East. Even if the iranian leader hasn't said "wiping another country off the map" (you can check the exact quotes) it still justifies for an attack...You may ask yourself why? That's because those fanatics, carzy, rabid mullahs (that are dissimilar to saudi royal family puppets) want somehow to take on the whole world and attack every single western country when the consequence of even attacking one country is fully known to them. Saddam reached his fate when he attacked Israel and subsequently Kuwait...Why should Iran follow the same fate?

Unfortunately, Iran is that perceived threat in many eyes to gather the support of all other countries for taking action.

Let's face it if Iran didn't have oil we probably wouldn't be having this conversation on why Canada should participate in these "gathering support" against Iran!

Edited November 13, 2011 by kactus

[DogOnPorch]

Well it does matter. Hypothetically, if Iran was still an ally of US, which happened to be the case during the Shah then having a nuclear bomb wouldn't have materialsed...Infact it was the US that encouraged them to acquire the capability back then.

Nice try.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams

[Bonam]

If Iran had the bomb, would it use it on an attack against the U.S., as that would likely mean the destruction of Iran in a retaliatory strike?

Not necessarily. An EMP strike that didn't actually directly kill anyone may well not engender that level of retaliation. I think a US president would have a really hard time justifying to the American people and to the world the eradication of an entire country and the extermination of 75 million people in response to an EMP strike. No doubt a military response of some sort would be used, but I'm fairly certain that a US response to an EMP strike would most likely be a conventional invasion, topple the regime, destroy the WMDs type of deal.

That is of course unless the country in question had a lot more nukes, enough to try to destroy the US outright. In that case, of course, overwhelming and immediate nuclear response is the only option. Destroy them before they can launch enough to saturate ABM defenses. However, Russia is still the only nation that could pose that type of threat to the US, and the two of them aren't about to start nuking each other any time soon. And, even if Iran develops nukes, the reality is it would still take them decades, even completely unimpeded and if it was the sole focus of their national economy, before it could pose that threat to the US, even if US military technology stayed still.

So an Iranian official, I think, can draw up their various plans safe in the knowledge that assured destruction of Iran by the US is likely not gonna happen.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Bonam

[dre]

Not necessarily. An EMP strike that didn't actually directly kill anyone may well not engender that level of retaliation. I think a US president would have a really hard time justifying to the American people and to the world the eradication of an entire country and the extermination of 75 million people in response to an EMP strike. No doubt a military response of some sort would be used, but I'm fairly certain that a US response to an EMP strike would most likely be a conventional invasion, topple the regime, destroy the WMDs type of deal.

That is of course unless the country in question had a lot more nukes, enough to try to destroy the US outright. In that case, of course, overwhelming and immediate nuclear response is the only option. Destroy them before they can launch enough to saturate ABM defenses. However, Russia is still the only nation that could pose that type of threat to the US, and the two of them aren't about to start nuking each other any time soon. And, even if Iran develops nukes, the reality is it would still take them decades, even completely unimpeded and if it was the sole focus of their national economy, before it could pose that threat to the US, even if US military technology stayed still.

So an Iranian official, I think, can draw up their various plans safe in the knowledge that assured destruction of Iran by the US is likely not gonna happen.

And, even if Iran develops nukes, the reality is it would still take them decades, even completely unimpeded and if it was the sole focus of their national economy, before it could pose that threat to the US, even if US military technology stayed still.

Iran kinda missed the boat. It needed to make more progress in the 90's while Doctor Kahns nuclear super market was still up and running, and China was still selling hex plants, etc.

Its having to homebake a solution now for the most part and only a couple of countries in history have ever been able to do that.

The problem is that a huge part of a nuclear program is intellectual property. Once Iran has perfected refinement all bombing facilities does is set them back a bit. Especially since pretty much anything you do over there drives up oil prices which results in Iran having more revenue at its disposal.

[DogOnPorch]

Iran kinda missed the boat. It needed to make more progress in the 90's while Doctor Kahns nuclear super market was still up and running, and China was still selling hex plants, etc.

Its having to homebake a solution now for the most part and only a couple of countries in history have ever been able to do that.

Ummm...it is highly suspected that Iran's nuclear program was started with Abdul Qadeer Khan's help.

[kactus]

Iran kinda missed the boat. It needed to make more progress in the 90's while Doctor Kahns nuclear super market was still up and running, and China was still selling hex plants, etc.

Its having to homebake a solution now for the most part and only a couple of countries in history have ever been able to do that.

The problem is that a huge part of a nuclear program is intellectual property. Once Iran has perfected refinement all bombing facilities does is set them back a bit. Especially since pretty much anything you do over there drives up oil prices which results in Iran having more revenue at its disposal.

Let them get into that mess they wanna create...Only time will prove what kind of fabricated BS is behind all this.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So an Iranian official, I think, can draw up their various plans safe in the knowledge that assured destruction of Iran by the US is likely not gonna happen.

Agreed....many people make this mistake in nuclear weapons calculus. Nixon and Kissinger overhauled the USA's nuclear response options/plan (SIOP) for just such limited contingencies, and it has been very much refined since then.