Nukes over Tel Aviv...

[Wycco]

Alot of talk regarding the issue of war has circled around Iraq's nuclear weapon program (and to a lesser degree Iran's)...

That got me thinking... What if IraX (doesn't matter if it were Iraq or Iran) HAD developed nuclear weapons- and what if IraX HAD used said nuclear weapons on, say Tel Aviv.

Would that then justify us to nuke IraX?

I don't think there would be any arguement to war if the said tragic event DID happen... But would that authorise us to use nukes in retaliation?

I thought about this and decided, no, not unless we could win this war WITHOUT nukes or a severe loss of lives on our side.

However the contending side may argue- we open ourselves up to more nuclear attacks IF WE DIDN'T respond to an attack on our allies with the same force...

In Gulf War 1, daddy Bush threatened to use nuclear weapons against Iraq if Saddam used Chemical or Biological weapons... I sure hope baby Bush doesn't plan the same if (or when) Saddam releases his chemical weapons...



Anyhow- I was just curious what your reactions regarding what would be the correct response if IraX attacked Israel with nuclear weapons...

[CFF]

Wycco: If Ira(X) were to use (a) nuclear weapon(s) against the people of Israel, the Israeli's would not hesitate to respond in kind, and likely without any consultation with allies *read: USA*. They possess both the bombs, and the means to deliver said bombs to their target.

CFF

[Cine_Man]

Rumsfeld declined to comment on that topic the other day. I'm assuming the policy is to respond in kind.

Cine_...

[alexmd]

Udoubtely Israel will retaliate with a nuclear strike of their own. Udoubtely we will see a whole bunch of Russian nuclear submarines being deployed all over. And undoubtely everyone will start being very carefull with the use of their nuclear arsenal.
In any case, it would only compound a very dangerous precedent the US set in the WWII

[who won]

It is the same policy since the start of the cold war. The assured total destruction that nukes ensure that act as the ultimate deterrent for using them against another country that owns them.

Even suggesting that you should or would not actually use them if you were attacked with nukes invalidates the sole purpose of owning them rendering them pointless.

Israel is a tiny country with Tel Aviv being the most populous, if a nuke were to be dropped on tel aviv, the most significant city would be destroyed representing more than 10% destruction of the entire country.

In per capita populous terms it would be like the US had been carpet bombed with 500 nuclear bombs.
Sure it is going to respond immediately with everything it has, that means a nuclear attack and it will do it as soon as it can before the country that dropped rthe nuke either drops another or starts the ground invasion into the battered and significantly more defenceless country.

It is unfortunately the only thing to do.

If the question is should the US respond with nukes if Tel Aviv is attacked, that is an entirely different question. The US while shocked will not be the one directly affected and would have the luxury of time and contemplation, the US could plan some kind of military response knowing still that it would be virtually impossible for IraX to reach the US with its missiles.

Then again, if a regime is so insane that it is prepared to launch a nuclear attack on another country, then any ground invasion would be doomed before it began as the regime would surely await the build up of troops near its border and destroy them with another attack, or await the impedning attack and launch the chemical or biological attack.

Such a horrendous situation while could only be dealt with by ultimate destruction of the country that sent it.

The risks otherwise would be too high to imagine. I'm talking about a second and third attack from that country.

[smokingun]

nice post who won,
i think that that israel should respond in kind. i know that should pakistan attack my country with nukes, each and every bomb that we pocess will find it's way to that country. if any country does have nukes and does not repond in kind to a nuclear attack, then the whole purpose of having a deterrent is void.

[Henrik]

Okay,

How about another scenario....(and I'm not saying here that this is a realistic possibility, just wondering about what the consequences wouldbe...)

What if, as we are seeing now, the war against Iraq turns out to be more difficult than what the US expected. The fighting drags on, and more and more casualties are reported. The mood in the US begins to fall, the government begins to lose patience, and become irritable. Then we have some terrorist actions happening in perhaps an American city (and this is something I most certainly have not ruled out yet!), further angering Rumsfeld and Bush. Do you think that the US government could be pushed far enough to actual employ a nuke against Iraq in the hope of ending the conflict? What would then the consequences be?

[JWK]

Lets hope it dosen't come to that...

Nevertheless if the Iraqi's did happen to start gaining back ground off the americans and things got bloody, i suspect we would hear a lot more rhetoric of Jihad and mass uprisings of muslims in the region(meaning arabic nations of the gulf), in support of the leader of the revolutionary leader saddam hussain, leading a joint arabic people againt the western infidels and winning.(perception spread through media) The Israeli's may feel extremely isolated at this point-with Palestinians being some of the most vocal and active preachers of this rhetoric- and perhaps would feel so threatened that they would launch their own attack on Iraq, not bothering to avoid civilian areas, so as to assert themselves and the west amongst the turmoil.

It would be a downwards spiral from there...

[JWK]

As to america resorting to nukes, i think that Israel would most likely do something before that occurred, feeling insecure.

Though if america did use nukes then things would get really, really messy. Musharref would rally to the cry of his people, India would arm for self defence, russia would strengthen its ties with india(russia sells a LOT of weapons to the indians). China would either distance itself or embrace pakistan(they have quite a strong bond allready- china has a fear of the indians rising power and has been strengthening ties with pakistan and burma/bangladesh in a strategig power balancing sort of thing, surrounding india in'friendlies')

There would be massive tensions all over the world, we would be on the cusp of a dark period.

*the facts in brackets are roughly correct, but not infallably so...the rest is speculation

[Danny Boy]

From what you are all saying, I think the best thing would be to send all the Israelis back to Russia and the Eastern European countries they came from. This would remove the threat of an escalating nuclear war and give Palestine back to its rightful owners/citizens.

[Wycco]

LOL- Danny Boy, Sounds a nice simple solution... wish it could be done- Unfortunately though, you can't blame a kid for what the parents have done.

Many Israeli's were actually born in Israel- surely we can't completely blame them for their parents stealing Palestinian land...


Nonetheless- regarding the original [sorry origonal] scenario Israel perhaps WOULD respond with nukes... regarding the US stance- I've absolutely no doubt the US would come to Israel's defence... the US seems to view Israel as its baby...


Re: a nuclear attack on Americans, Who Won stated that IraX would probably nuke troop amassment at the borders- perhaps this is true- although lets look at who is likely to use nukes against the west...(N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq) - even if Iran/Iraq had nukes- they would have difficulty securing the Plutonium for more than a couple... Pakistan, Israel, N.K. don't have the nukes to waste dropping bombs on every military camp along the borders (I assume the allies would use common sense and not put all the eggs in one basket following a nuclear attack)...

Also, lets not forget, the west has planes that can travel the globe without refueling... spy satelite's out the wazoo... I've no doubt we could take out most nuclear installations BEFORE amassing troops on the enemies borders.

It would be an expensive war- but when you're facing an enemy using nuclear warheads... cost is not going to be your primary concern!

[daSilva]

Rightful owners?? PLEASE.

How about giving us a quick run down of who has controlled the area over the last 6000 years?

Exactly, that's why in this day and age there should not be any borders. I've said this before, borders breed nationalism, nationalism breeds hate.

Henrik, the answer to your question is NO.

[Henrik]

da Silva,

Thanks for your reply, and I hope you are right!

I have to admit that the current administration has never inspired much confidence in me, and I was very scared just after 9/11 that they would pull a stunt like that, maybe dropping a nume on Afghanistan. They didn't do it then, iven under the immense emotional stress they were suffering, so I suppose they wont now.

But like I said, I don't have much confidence in the current administration, and am frankly scared of guys like Rumsfeld and Cheney and the power they have.

[CFF]

Henrik:

You bring up an excellent point!! What exactly is the threshold for the US moving to use nuclear weapons?

First - let's remember, not all nukes are the same. The USA possesses (and has for some time) what are called battlefield (tactical) nukes - these can be likened to very small thermo-nuclear devices which were developed for use on the battlefield, weapons that could be used by troops to eliminate division-sized opposition forces, without concern for allied troops in the vicinity. Then of course there are the more conventional nukes, ones which can be likened to that used against Japan in 1945. Of course they're much smaller in size now, and have destructuve capabilities of up to 100 times of the weapons used in WWII.

So .... if the Iraqi's were to unleash a WMD on (a) division(s) sized group of Americans, and the result was say 10,000 casualties, would THAT action be enough to warrant a nuclear response by the Americans? Or what if the Iraqi's launched/detonated a "dirty" bomb (conventional weapon laced /w plutonium)?

I honestly don't believe that would provoke a nuclear response. The US (IMO) does worry a great deal about collateral damage, and the use of a nuke *unless the risk to civilians is next to nil* eliminates using them.

CFF

[Cine_Man]

I think Stalin ( at least on this point) had it right when he stated that the only thing nuclear weapons were good for was scaring little old ladies.