Limiting Colateral Damage in a Nuclear War with Iran

[buffycat]

It seems that most of the calls for attacking Iran are originating with our old friend Israel, here is but one article - but it's a real whopper:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7316

As you see, it's an Israeli source (not some 'Arab propoganda site - which a few folk here accuse me of using - which I don't btw). So straight from the horse's mouth:

excerpt:

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.

The neutron bomb, if detonated at altitude, destroys soldiers, not property, meaning no bad PR photos. Just a handful of neutron bombs will be sufficient. Unlike other nuclear weapons, neutron bomb radiation dissipates in a week, allowing Israeli soldiers in a subsequent ground invasion to pass right through the nuked areas to reach the Iranian nuclear facilities, so experts can be brought in to carefully destroy or dismantle them without excessive release of radiation throughout the region. This is the only way.

In The Prince (Chapter 3) Machiavelli wrote, "The injury we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance." There is no way to facilitate an easy invasion of Iran without sowing chaos in the land. A hydrogen bomb on Tehran would do this, at a cost of up to 12 million lives.

Those lives can be saved if, instead, a neutron bomb is detonated over the Alborz Mountains to the north of Tehran. If detonated at the right spot and at the right altitude this would leak into Tehran just enough radiation to cause panic and pandemonium in the city, effectively evacuating the city temporarily and creating chaos across the whole country, making the Israeli ground invasion of Iran much easier.

This would facilitate disruption of the whole country every bit as much as a hydrogen bomb on Tehran and would save 12 million lives. And because the neutron bomb causes no long-term fallout, the city of Tehran could be occupied a week later. Just one neutron bomb on the Alborz Mountains will ensure that the Iranian populace has lost its enthusiasm for jihad. The whole country will be in chaos. Meanwhile, stories in the press of Israeli soldiers desperately marching through nuked areas to reach Tehran and Iranian nuclear facilities will cast them in a heroic light, even though, in fact, those areas will not be radioactive by the time IDF ground forces march through them.

All the government ministries and key national infrastructure are in Tehran. We want to take over those offices. We want to get into the files there in the same way that seizing German files at the end of World War II helped confirm the extent of the Holocaust. We want those Iranian files because they contain vast evidence of Iran's atom bomb program. This evidence will help us fully find and dismantle that program and it will also be proof to the world that Iran's nuclear designs were not peaceful, justifying the whole Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.

More at the source.

So - who is threatening who?

Really???

[buffycat]

Just some observations, as I would really hope that NO one gets nuked.

It is clear that Iran will not be nuking Israel - since she has no nukes, nor does she have the means to deliver them. Even if she did - to do such a thing would bring destruction upon herself.

I am really hoping that this article is nothing but shear rhetoric - designed to instill some fear. How any human could justify what this gent is justifying is beyond my capability to grasp. I cannot fathom the bloodthirstyness of this particular individual and surely I do see he certainly does not speak for all Israelis - many of whom are quite frustrated with the Likud war machine, who IMO has placed Israel into a far more dangerous place - just as the neocons in the US have tarnished the Americans' reputation.

I hope to heck nothing like the wet dreams of this guy, this sick individual, ever comes to pass.

(Now I will wait for the usual smear crowd to appear and justify why nuking Iran is okay dokay)

[Guest American Woman]

That editorial is about Israel nuking Iran, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the U.S.. And it's nothing more an editorial, so it's not Israel threating Iran. It's no different from, say, Rush Limbaugh saying we need to attack Iran. In fact, according to wikipedia, the Israeli government hasn't even given Arutz Sheva a license to broadcast. Evidently it's identified with religious Zionism, which wouldn't speak for the Israeli government.

[buffycat]

There has been talk about using tactical nukes by both Israel and the US Admins.

This editorial illustrates that despite what so many think - there are radical nuts in Israel who condone such ideas.

As I stated - I really don't believe that nuking Iran would sit well with the majority of Israelis.

I wanted to counter however, some of the crazy things posted here about Muslims - to show that each and every group has their whackos - and it's easy to find.

Tis all.

But you may want to look a little deeper, since the nuclear option is not off the table according to either Administration (again I truly hope they are simply using it as a scare tactic).

[Bonam]

So - who is threatening who?

Of course every group has whackos. And of course suggesting that a preemptive strike on Iran with a barrage of Neutron bombs (a weapon that presently does not even exist, even in the US or Russia) is either necessary or desireable is incorrect. The difference, however, lies in who is the whacko. Is it some random newspaper editor, or is it the president of the country, that is making these statements. I'm sure you could find some random Canadian that thinks we should nuke the US and would be willing to write an opinion piece on it; it doesn't mean that we're actually threatening to do it though.

Anyway, what administrations mean by "the nuclear option is not off the table" isn't that they are seriously considering using nukes, but rather that they will not explicitly promise that they will not. The power of nuclear weapons lies mainly in their role as a deterrent. If you say "we absolutely will not use nukes no matter what", and your enemy believes you, then you have just given up that deterrent.

As for Iran, the only kind of strike that might be justified at this stage is a surgical (and conventional) attack on their nuclear research facilities, similar to the one carried out against Iraq.

[AndrewL]

Anyway, what administrations mean by "the nuclear option is not off the table" isn't that they are seriously considering using nukes, but rather that they will not explicitly promise that they will not. The power of nuclear weapons lies mainly in their role as a deterrent. If you say "we absolutely will not use nukes no matter what", and your enemy believes you, then you have just given up that deterrent.

What an excellent argument for why Iran might be seeking nukes.

Andrew

[Topaz]

I don't think Iran would nuke anyone unless they had Russia and China behind them. At the same time, I think Cheney and Bush do want to strike Iran before leaving office. I believe if they do try, then the US will have China on its tail, both militarily and financially! Its time for the strongest countries to stopping threatening what they could do to one another and start talking what it the best for the world and peaceful ways of settling things!!

[Argus]

That editorial is about Israel nuking Iran, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the U.S.. And it's nothing more an editorial, so it's not Israel threating Iran. It's no different from, say, Rush Limbaugh saying we need to attack Iran. In fact, according to wikipedia, the Israeli government hasn't even given Arutz Sheva a license to broadcast. Evidently it's identified with religious Zionism, which wouldn't speak for the Israeli government.

No, but it's typical of the Israel haters, who dismiss as rhetoric the threats Iran's president makes, or the threat her ex president made to nuke Israel, but who seize frantically on the mouthings of some nobody Israeli as "Israel threatening Iran".

[bush_cheney2004]

No, but it's typical of the Israel haters, who dismiss as rhetoric the threats Iran's president makes, or the threat her ex president made to nuke Israel, but who seize frantically on the mouthings of some nobody Israeli as "Israel threatening Iran".

Agreed....Israeli nukes bad...Iranian nukes good! Israel could have "nuked" Iran years ago if it wanted to. Few trust that Iran knows how to play responsibly with such "toys".

The Neutron Bomb began with Sam Cohen back in the late '50s during thermonuclear warhead development. It was Jimmy Carter's (Man of Peace) administration that proposed modernizing the weapon for Lance missiles and artillery shells in Europe to counter the Soviets. This never happened, and Reagan got the job done in the 80's with (non radiation enhanced) nuclear capable GLCMs (cruise missiles) and Pershing IIs instead. Europe was free at decade's end.

France actually put enhanced radiation warheads into production from 1982 -1986. But I guess it's more fun to pick on Israel.

[jbg]

Of course every group has whackos. And of course suggesting that a preemptive strike on Iran with a barrage of Neutron bombs (a weapon that presently does not even exist, even in the US or Russia) is either necessary or desireable is incorrect. The difference, however, lies in who is the whacko. Is it some random newspaper editor, or is it the president of the country, that is making these statements. I'm sure you could find some random Canadian that thinks we should nuke the US and would be willing to write an opinion piece on it; it doesn't mean that we're actually threatening to do it though.

This is not a "wacko" option. Those people have put the West in their crosshairs. A UN resolution isn't going to impress them.

Anyway, what administrations mean by "the nuclear option is not off the table" isn't that they are seriously considering using nukes, but rather that they will not explicitly promise that they will not. The power of nuclear weapons lies mainly in their role as a deterrent. If you say "we absolutely will not use nukes no matter what", and your enemy believes you, then you have just given up that deterrent.

This is a tailor-made situation for nukes, as was Japan. A conventional attack would create untold numbers of casualties on both sides, and the current situation is intolerable.

Lest we think that will create permanent enemies, look at Japan. They seem to be close US allies.

As for Iran, the only kind of strike that might be justified at this stage is a surgical (and conventional) attack on their nuclear research facilities, similar to the one carried out against Iraq.

If the facilities are not too well-concealed and bunkerized, yes.

[M.Dancer]

It seems that most of the calls for attacking Iran are originating with our old friend Israel, here is but one article - but it's a real whopper:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7316

As you see, it's an Israeli source (not some 'Arab propoganda site - which a few folk here accuse me of using - which I don't btw). So straight from the horse's mouth:

Wonder why an "israeli source" would be hosted out of Balitimore?

Buffy, do you know what the difference is between opinion and fact?

[M.Dancer]

There has been talk about using tactical nukes by both Israel and the US Admins.

Source?

[buffycat]

Source?

Oh Dancer, I think you are capable of running an internet search all on your own!! Why do you need me to do it for you?

Here is a suggestion: If you type in the keywords: 'using nuclear weapons against Iran' you will get around 2 million hits! That's almost two million articles etc which you can look at all on your own!!

Have fun.

[M.Dancer]

Oh Dancer, I think you are capable of running an internet search all on your own!! Why do you need me to do it for you?

Because you are known for saying things that have no bearing in reality and because as per the rules, when you make a claim, be prepared to back it up.

RESEARCH YOUR POST

If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc).

So here's a suggestion, back up your wild claims or continue not to be taken seriously.

[buffycat]

Because you are known for saying things that have no bearing in reality and because as per the rules, when you make a claim, be prepared to back it up.

So here's a suggestion, back up your wild claims or continue not to be taken seriously.

Haa haa!! Coming from you that is rich rich rich!!

I usually always back up what I have said with links - do YOU??

Bugger off Dancer and go and look it up yourself. There is alot of it out there - or why don't you prove me wrong and find me something which says they will NOT use any kind of nuclear weaponry (including nuclear bunker busters).

Go on, I'm sure you can find something somewhere maybe....

Ah heck just for fun here is one out of about two million:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../09/wbush09.xml

Cheers Dancing boy.

[M.Dancer]

Go on, I'm sure you can find something somewhere maybe....

Ah heck just for fun here is one out of about two million:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../09/wbush09.xml

Cheers Dancing boy.

I realize seperating reality from fantasy is rather difficult for you Buffy, so let me help.

You said:

There has been talk about using tactical nukes by both Israel and the US Admins.

Can you find anywhere in that article where the admin is quoted discussing using nukes....

HINT: investigative writers with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts are not part of the US Admin. Neither are unnammed military chiefs, unnamed pentagon "consultants"......

Back up your claims

[Bonam]

Dancer, remember, this is buffy here. The same person that brought up an article from some random journalist with some crazy suggestions, and attempted to represent it as Israel threatening Iran with a bombardment of neutron bombs.

[jbg]

Oh Dancer, I think you are capable of running an internet search all on your own!! Why do you need me to do it for you?

Here is a suggestion: If you type in the keywords: 'using nuclear weapons against Iran' you will get around 2 million hits! That's almost two million articles etc which you can look at all on your own!!

Have fun.

Buffy, it should be easy, since in Canada a proof is a proof (link which supplies the proof).

[jdobbin]

Buffy, it should be easy, since in Canada a proof is a proof (link which supplies the proof).

And the U.S. know what it knows when it knows it?

[gc1765]

Because you are known for saying things that have no bearing in reality

Link?

[jbg]

And the U.S. know what it knows when it knows it?

I know you don't like Rummy. I, however, have great admiration for the Winston Churchill of the North, Jean Chretien.

[buffycat]

You know it wouldn't matter which link I put up since Dancer is only here to spin and lie. Period.

It is quite clear with the threats being made by the US and her ally Israel that 'nothing is off the table'. Discussions of using nuclear bunker busters were circulating quite a bit last year. The threat is there - I recall a study to see which way the radioactive cloud would travel and how many folk might die.

So to that I leave Dancer to go find his own material stating unequivocably that Nukes will NOT be used in any way shape or form - outside of that 'ALL options are on the table' means exactly that.

For those of you who might actually have a rationaly open mind (NOT Dancer nor Bonam) here is a pretty good piece with many imbedded links:

Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran

Click to read and follow links.

There are over a million more hits so others can go and search it on their own.

Edited August 24, 2007 by buffycat

[M.Dancer]

So in otherwords absolutely no evidence that the Admins of the US and Israel have discussed nuking Iran....

[M.Dancer]

Link?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=245602

and so on.....

[Bonam]

It is quite clear with the threats being made by the US and her ally Israel that 'nothing is off the table'.

Go read what I said on the first page:

Anyway, what administrations mean by "the nuclear option is not off the table" isn't that they are seriously considering using nukes, but rather that they will not explicitly promise that they will not. The power of nuclear weapons lies mainly in their role as a deterrent. If you say "we absolutely will not use nukes no matter what", and your enemy believes you, then you have just given up that deterrent.

The threat is there - I recall a study to see which way the radioactive cloud would travel and how many folk might die.

Of course there's a study. There are studies on everything. The US also has studies on what would happen if they eradicated the entire human population of Earth with thousands of nukes. Does that mean they are threatening to do so? No. There's a difference between having considered doing something, being able to do something, and actually planning to do it.