Fox news: Israel planning nuclear strike on Iran nuclear sites

[Calabrio]

I tried to make a similar point a while back, but because of the way I worded it, I was labelled as someone who doesn't care about Americans getting killed, an "America-Hater", and the usual drivel.

You didn't say the same thing....

Ah, I found it. Here's what I said...

Regrettably, I admit I was a bit belligerent, but I still stand by my point, which is that the damage to our society and our way of life will come from how we choose react to another attack, not from the attack itself. By the way, that last sentence should have read, "If it's true that Osama hates us for our freedoms, then WE will have successfully eliminated them, and HE will be the victor".

Yeah I know, I'm a prick.

It's not about an erosion of our freedom. The goal isn't to turn our country into a police state. If anything, that makes it more difficult for them. The biggest risk is economic. It doesn't take much to shake up our economy, erode confidence, and trigger world-wide economic crashes.

Example I gave during the holidays- if there were just a handful of suicide bombers hitting malls at Christmas, the impact would be devasting. Malls would be going out of business. People would stay home, retail outlets, who rely on black Friday to stay in business, who go under. The effects would ripple through the economy.

All that with just six guys with $20k bombs.

 

[Calabrio]

The problem no one has addressed yet is the very high probablility that fallout from the bunker busters would kill thousands, if not millions more across the whole region.

Absolutely not true.

And the death of "thousands" is still less than the death of the six million Israelis. Or the large scale military operations that will be necessary to disarm a nuclear powered Iran.

So, even in your worst case, it's still better than the inevitable.

It is a myth that "bunker busters" can burrow far enough underground to contain the radioactive debris. On the contrary, it sends tons of dust into the atmosphere, which makes them, ironically, more dangerous than aerial detonations.

See a flash animation here (sound required):
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

If that site is too left-wing for you, here's a fair and balanced report:

Well, there is some doubt as to what the impact will be. Nor do we really even know exactly what is in the arsenal. And if the ability was made public, the bad guys would just build their bunkers a few feet deeper.

Do you have alternative solution? How do you we target underground bunkers?

 

[Marcus]

It's not about an erosion of our freedom. The goal isn't to turn our country into a police state. If anything, that makes it more difficult for them. The biggest risk is economic. It doesn't take much to shake up our economy, erode confidence, and trigger world-wide economic crashes.

Example I gave during the holidays- if there were just a handful of suicide bombers hitting malls at Christmas, the impact would be devasting. Malls would be going out of business. People would stay home, retail outlets, who rely on black Friday to stay in business, who go under. The effects would ripple through the economy.

...which would likely lead to widespread panic and violence, which would then lead to extreme measures being taken, a.k.a., a police state. That was my point.

 

[RRocket]

My worry about this pre-emptive nuclear strike is creating a precedent for other countries to bomb their enemies because of a perceived threat. North Korea bombing South Korea (or anyone else for that matter), India and Pakistan, say. China and Taiwan. Whoever. I agree with Israel being able to defend itself...but is a pre-emptive nuclear strike defensive..or offensive??

This could be the type of go ahead other countries need to do their dirty work..

 

[RRocket]

That means any dissident voice is squashed. Permanently.

It's funny you mention that. It reminds me of you. Anytime someone says something against your party line, or something you disagree with, you aim is to label them an enemy (or some other name) or a sympathizer, belittle them and squash their right to voice their beliefs. I'm sure if you could ban them from this site, you would. You sure you didn't go to school in Iran, Al-Fossten??

 

[Marcus]

Absolutely not true.

"Absolutely" is a rather... absolute term. You then say there is "some doubt" about the impact further down. Look, I've searched high and low and can't find anything that says that these things "absolutely" won't release massive amounts of fallout.

And the death of "thousands" is still less than the death of the six million Israelis. Or the large scale military operations that will be necessary to disarm a nuclear powered Iran.

Agreed. But in spite of MAC's contention that Ahmadinejad is a self-styled martyr, I simply don't see him doing anything that insane. He comes off as a self-serving megalomaniac, more interested in preserving his popularity in the eyes of his people than someone who is ready and willing to trigger Armageddon. Khrushchev famously told us that "We will bury you", but he was as much of a blowhard as Ahmadinejad. The world is filled with them.

I admit, though, that a simple "gut feeling" about him is not an escuse to ignore him. And there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want him out of the picture (Iran's support of Iraqi insurgents, etc.).

Just keep in mind that an attack on Iran will undoubtedly put him in an even greater light.

So, even in your worst case, it's still better than the inevitable.

Like I said, I don't see Iran attacking Israel as inevitable (at least in terms of first-strike).

Well, there is some doubt as to what the impact will be. Nor do we really even know exactly what is in the arsenal. And if the ability was made public, the bad guys would just build their bunkers a few feet deeper.

Perhaps we do have better weapons than what is publicly known, but there comes a point where the laws of physics (PDF file) comes into play, and no known material can penetrate:

There is a limit to how deep you can get with a conventional unitary penetrator. . . fundamentally, you’re not going to come up with a magic solution to get 100 feet or deeper in rock. If you go to higher velocities you reach a fundamental material limit where . . . the penetrator will eat itself up in the process, and in fact that will achieve less penetration than at lower velocity. So you get into these different regimes where you are really just fundamentally limited, physically, in how deep you can get into rock.

Do you have alternative solution? How do you we target underground bunkers?

Depending on how deep they are and how much concrete or whatever surounds them, it may not even be possible. The only alternative solution is to hit the entrance points with conventional weapons, and close them off. That would require intelligence to know where they are of course. Even if the entrance points originate in civilian areas (very likely), that seems a better solution than resorting to nukes.

 

[Calabrio]

My worry about this pre-emptive nuclear strike is creating a precedent for other countries to bomb their enemies because of a perceived threat. North Korea bombing South Korea (or anyone else for that matter), India and Pakistan, say. China and Taiwan. Whoever. I agree with Israel being able to defend itself...but is a pre-emptive nuclear strike defensive..or offensive??

This could be the type of go ahead other countries need to do their dirty work..

The retaliation from any rogue state using nuclear weapons, of any kind, will be the same, regardless what precedent has been established. Assured destruction will likely cause them to use a different delivery method, one that can't be traced directly back to them.

And, now we have the emergence of non-state actors. So, rather than launching a nuke into Israel, you provide it to a terrorist group to do it.

And the issue of whether things are "offensive or defensive" really is just p.c. non-sense. Niceties we "civilized" Westerners use to feel better. The reality is, it's about survival. And a nuclear Iran means that Israel's ability to survive will be put at profound risk.

We keep sanitizing these concepts of national security to the point that it's lost touch with reality. If my neighbor was talking about killing my family, threatening to push me into the see. He had friends vandalizing my home and killing my pets. And then I see him building a bomb in his shed.... You're damned right I'm going to stop him.

What's the difference? Do I know the explosive is intended for my home? Is it offensive or defensive? Who gives a crap- I can't afford to find out. And if his dog gets killed, instead of mine, so be it....

Sometimes, international relations is as simple to understand as conflicts with a neighbor.

 

[RRocket]

Yea...but what do you say to the police when you burn his shed down and kill him, only to find out later he wasn't making a bomb for you...or perhaps not even a bomb at all? So if I understand US self-defence law, you are justified in using just enough threat to subdue your assailant, and that's providing your life was in imminent danger. In which case a nuclear strike by Israel might be overkill.

Just playing devil's advocate to your "neighbour" scenario....

 

[Calabrio]

Yea...but what do you say to the police when you burn his shed down and kill him, only to find out later he wasn't making a bomb for you...or perhaps not even a bomb at all?

Because there are not actors higher than the state, and states operate in anarchy. So, in this theoretical neighborhood, there are no police.

So if I understand US self-defence law, you are justified in using just enough threat to subdue your assailant, and that's providing your life was in imminent danger. In which case a nuclear strike by Israel might be overkill.

Just playing devil's advocate to your "neighbour" scenario....

And as stated, there are no "police" - states exist in a state of anarchy. There is no international body that all states answer too.

And if you think of one, the state does so voluntarily and can abandon the treaty at any time.

So, pushing the neighbor analogy, it'd sort of be like living in the wild west, before the government had gotten out there. No police, judges, or laws.
Besides, as the saying goes, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[RRocket]

So if that's the case, no law, wild west, then does that mean Iran is well within its right to manufacture nuclear weapons AND use them? Does that mean the US or any other nation can bomb whomever if they think there is a "perceived" threat?

 

[fossten]

So if that's the case, no law, wild west, then does that mean Iran is well within its right to manufacture nuclear weapons AND use them? Does that mean the US or any other nation can bomb whomever if they think there is a "perceived" threat?

Yes, that's right. They have a right to do so, and we have a right to eliminate their right to do so if we see their right to do so as a threat to our right to survive.

And despite your fear that rogue nations will use nukes if we use them, I fervently believe (and can prove with historical data) that if we show a willingness to go all the way to a nuclear option in a war, other nations will think twice about provoking us. It's like the guy in school who was always trying to bully other students, until one guy finally lost it and beat the crap out of him in front of everybody. People thought the second guy was crazy, but nobody ever messed with him again. Reagan did this very thing in the cold war, and the Soviet Union collapsed. He stood up to the Soviets, walked away from Reykjavik, built up our military, and bankrupted them.

One other thing: Show me where I've ever tried to silence anyone on this forum. You call me a freedom-squasher, but all I've ever done is exercise my right to freedom of speech. Criticizing isn't the same as squashing. And if you provoke me, of course I'll respond in kind. As Donald Trump said recently, "I'm a fighter - I chose to fight."

As far as banning goes, that's up to a moderator, not me. If someone repeatedly breaks the rules of the forum, then yeah, I think they should be banned. That includes me by the way. I'm fair-minded about that.

Calabrio: You misquoted me earlier when you said you didn't think it was a good idea to do any more nation-building re: Iran. I've made it crystal clear that I think nation-building is a mistake. In fact, I've even made the distinction between nation-building and nation-smashing.

I've advocated doing a slash and burn straight through Iran, and then leaving them to pick up their own pieces. It would probably take less than a month, especially since with a mission like that our military's morale would be high. The results would be favorable to the American people, and Iran would no longer be a threat. I recall that you have advocated doing a similar thing in the past.

 

[Calabrio]

So if that's the case, no law, wild west, then does that mean Iran is well within its right to manufacture nuclear weapons AND use them? Does that mean the US or any other nation can bomb whomever if they think there is a "perceived" threat?

No, Iran is not within it's rights because it signed a treaty.
If it were to formally abandon the treat, the commitment would no longer exist.

And basically, yes, any country can bomb any nation that they perceive to be a threat. And then they can deal with the consequences. Other states might retaliate.

They can apply Just War theory to there decision making, but ultimately, there is no higher power than that state.

So, yes, the international system is anarchy.

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio: You misquoted me earlier when you said you didn't think it was a good idea to do any more nation-building re: Iran. I've made it crystal clear that I think nation-building is a mistake. In fact, I've even made the distinction between nation-building and nation-smashing.

I've advocated doing a slash and burn straight through Iran, and then leaving them to pick up their own pieces. It would probably take less than a month, especially since with a mission like that our military's morale would be high. The results would be favorable to the American people, and Iran would no longer be a threat. I recall that you have advocated doing a similar thing in the past.

They wouldn't be a nuclear threat, but ISLAM would become an even greater threat throughout the world. Iran would descent into total anarchy, possibly run by an even more hostile regime. Moderate muslims, better defined as "less radical" would likely become even more hostile to the U.S.

To crush Iran, without the nation building would impact Islam throughout the world, convincing most people that we are at war with all Muslims.

Not to mention, this isn't a population that handles defeat well. They take it a bit personally.

I wish it were as easy as you've laid out, but the unintended consequence of a flattening would be terrible.

The "ideal" is that some sort of covert action in Iran, in coordination with the influence of a free Iraq next store, would trigger a change inside that country, liberalizing the state....

It's a terrible state of world affairs, with no simple solution. I can't certainly can't think of a fool proof solution.

 

[fossten]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You don't think we're already at war with Islam? After all you've read of the Koran and all that you've seen and heard? All the recent terrorist attacks on the west have been by muslims. All the threats from the middle east are from muslims. This has been going on for decades and it isn't going to go away just because some of us want to put our heads in the sand. Muslims around the world want to see us destroyed along with Israel. You may not believe we are at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with us.

Furthermore, I have heard Ted Kennedy and his ilk express dismay at the possibility that we might further anger the terrorists (think Muslim fascists) if we don't fight this war in a PC manner. So he thinks we should try to make our enemies like us better. What is the difference between what he said and what you said? You think it matters how angry the muslims, who already hate us, become if we defend ourselves in an overwhelming manner? Geez, this is the United States. They should fear us, and they are probably laughing at us because half our country is filled with pansies who don't want to offend anybody.

As far as my solution, if we take away the ability of the middle eastern countries to hurt us, in other words smash their industries and take away their livelihood, the other nations will sit up and take notice. Yes, I admit it's dangerous, but not NEARLY as dangerous as sitting around waiting for them to nuke one or twelve of our big cities. Can you even picture what the day after would be like if, say, Chicago disappeared in a mushroom cloud? Total chaos. This is preventive medicine, and it's not a pleasant prospect for the squeamish, but it's them or us, and I vote for us.

 

[MonsterMark]

Trust me Fossten.

Some people will be clueless right up until the point their eyes melt in their heads.

Obsession!

 

[fossten]

Trust me Fossten.

Some people will be clueless right up until the point their eyes melt in their heads.

Obsession!

I TIVO'd that movie. Haven't watched it yet, but I just watched the Glenn Beck special on Islam and it was shocking.

I just hate to see our fellow conservatives getting wobbly in the knees over these hatemongers. When it's all said and done, Tomahawk missiles kill them just as surely as they kill any other human beings.

 

[Calabrio]

I can't believe what I'm hearing. You don't think we're already at war with Islam? After all you've read of the Koran and all that you've seen and heard?

I believe that we are actively in a fight with a significant significant section of Islam. I think it's best to refrain from having to fight each and every Muslim individually though.

Brute force is necessary, but indiscriminant use of force will complicate things. To oversimplify the problem is often just as bad as under estimating it.

All the recent terrorist attacks on the west have been by muslims. All the threats from the middle east are from muslims. This has been going on for decades and it isn't going to go away just because some of us want to put our heads in the sand. Muslims around the world want to see us destroyed along with Israel. You may not believe we are at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with us.

This statement is not untrue- BUT- in it's essence it says that a genocide needs to take place and the religion of Islam needs to be purged from the Earth. I'm not ready to make that claim. Nor do I even know how something like that would be executed.

Flattening Iran will not make us safer, it would likely just result in nuclear Pakistan falling to the radicals. Perhaps that could trigger a nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

The dominoes are all lined up right now- rather than knocking one over, if possible, it's best to find a way to remove a few important ones from the middle and prevent the cascade.

Furthermore, I have heard Ted Kennedy and his ilk express dismay at the possibility that we might further anger the terrorists..

Worrying about offending terrorists is absurd. However, we don't want to convince EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM around the world that we are at war with them and that we intend to persecute them.

The military could kill a million of the enemy, and it wouldn't mean anything. But, a handful of terrorist with bomb belts could absolutely bring our economy and way of life to a halt.

As far as my solution, if we take away the ability of the middle eastern countries to hurt us, in other words smash their industries and take away their livelihood, the other nations will sit up and take notice.

Or, more likely, the street populations will become even more radical and motivated. The other countries in the region will be destabilized. Iran will be taken over by even more radical elements, with even less to lose. And I can't even speculate as to how the Muslim populations in Europe would respond. So, how do you contain the chaos?

To clarify, I've never said military action against Iran is wrong. I am simply saying that "flattening" the country, destroying it's infrastructure, and then leaving it to starve will NOT make us more secure. We can't just walk away from that.

This is preventive medicine, and it's not a pleasant prospect for the squeamish, but it's them or us, and I vote for us.

But massive uses of force that sound good but lessen our security are not a good vote.

Any strike would need to be very calculated and involve a strategy for stabilizing it afterwards. The world is too small right now to just blow up a place and walk away, secure that the oceans will keep us safe.

 

[fossten]

I think you don't know your history. Muslim fascists who have been shown the blunt end of military force historically have backed down. Putting up with their terrorism or talking to them is a sign of weakness to them. I'm not advocating genocide, but a muslim nation is no different than a communist nation in that they will not stop until they are hit in the mouth, but once they are, they have no more stomach for fighting.

Check out this early American bout with terrorists from around 1800. Remember that these Barbary States were MUSLIM.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm

 

[MAC1]

I think you don't know your history. Muslim fascists who have been shown the blunt end of military force historically have backed down. Putting up with their terrorism or talking to them is a sign of weakness to them. I'm not advocating genocide, but a muslim nation is no different than a communist nation in that they will not stop until they are hit in the mouth, but once they are, they have no more stomach for fighting.

Check out this early American bout with terrorists from around 1800. Remember that these Barbary States were MUSLIM.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2002_winter_spring/terrorism.htm

I agree that we can ill afford to back down from terrorists. Unfortunately, however, the United States military seems to be more interested in fighting a politically correct war with ridiculous rules of engagement that only serve hinder our war efforts. Back in the day when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were key players in American policy making they were not interested in political correctness when it came to national security. One example of P.C. gone awry is the failure to put Muqtada al-Sadr and his band of thugs out of commission. How a military can successfully prosecute a war by ignoring the enemy is a mystery to me. If the United States wants to make a clear statement that it will not back down it can begin by bringing Al-Sadr to justice.

 

[Calabrio]

I could have sworn that I responded to this post last night... I guess I didn't hit submit

Anyway- the Barbary Coast Pirates episodes in history should be part of the basic curriculum of any education. I only learned of it when reading Jefferson's biography and later listening to Christopher Hitchen's speaking on CSPAN a few months ago.

But you say that Muslim's through history that have been met with force have backed down. And that's true... in the short term. But what they ultimately do is slink away into a corner, take the defeat personally, and then wait until the force looks away, and then strikes again.

After Jefferson used the military against the pirates, they backed down. A few years later, once our guard was dropped again, during the civil war, they started acting up again. Until Madison pulled out the military again, and then ultimately, I think it was the Dutch, that decimated their harbors.

The Israelis have repeated been victorious in battle against the multi-lateral sneak attacks launched against it in the past, but do they now live in peace? No. The enemy would return to it's home, regroup, and wait for another opportunity. And the next always was now personal and an attempt to regain their honor.

So, to be abundantly clear, I whole heartedly support the aggressive use of military force. But I do recognize that there's a bit of a balancing act involved here. Anything the U.S. sets out to do, it must succeed at, regardless how much force is involved. But it is important to pick those mission and establish those goals careful knowing full well what those consequences may be.

If we intend to secure a city, then I support the troops using marshal law and gunships. But the notion of just destroying the country and leaving it to starve will have more negative consequences than positive. Over simplifying the issue, implying indiscriminant force is the solution is often just as bad as the peace-nicks who say that force wasn't necessary.

 

[fossten]

I think we're really arguing about a model. The model I'm speaking of is using diplomacy AFTER using military force. The diplomacy is used to dictate terms to the vanquished, not to ask the enemy not to hurt us.

To be fair, your Israel example leaves out the decades of interference by Presidents Carter, Bush 41, and Clinton, all pressuring the Israelis to negotiate and give ground (appease) to her neighbors. That is backtracking from the progress they made in the Six Day War and Yom Kippur. And now they have a weak-kneed prime minister, Olmert, who is afraid to confront the muslims head-on. And so you get the result of the muslim nations being strengthened and bold to take action against Israel and the US.

The model is consistent, because the same thing happened during the war of 1812. After we beat the Barbary Pirates the first time, we paid a tribute of $18,000 to let some ships pass through, and the whole mess started up again. Only when we disrupted their harbors and sailed into the bays demanding payment did they finally give up on bothering us, and then (and only then) the Europeans found some balls and followed suit.

Gee, it's interesting what happens when the rest of the world unites against Islam. What do you think would be the outcome? The world united vs. Islam united? I'm not liking Islam's chances in that confrontation. I know I'm speaking theoretically and conceptually, because the reality is that the rest of the entire world and half our country are so much pussies, and are thus unwilling to stand against these killers.

Nevertheless, the model stands. It stood up against the Nazis,and it stood up against the Soviets. It stood up in Vietnam, where our cowardice strengthened the Communists and Pol Pot. The model cuts both ways, but the truth is that peace is achieved through strength and usually through war.

 

[Calabrio]

I think we're really arguing about a model. The model I'm speaking of is using diplomacy AFTER using military force. The diplomacy is used to dictate terms to the vanquished, not to ask the enemy not to hurt us.

Agreed. Once we engage, we engage fully, until the enemy is defeated, and then we negotiate from a position of victory over the defeated. Like Japan, like Germany....

Gee, it's interesting what happens when the rest of the world unites against Islam. What do you think would be the outcome? The world united vs. Islam united? I'm not liking Islam's chances in that confrontation. I know I'm speaking theoretically and conceptually, because the reality is that the rest of the entire world and half our country are so much pussies, and are thus unwilling to stand against these killers.

It could happen, but that's when we're really dealing with the full scale class of civilizations. Europe will fall almost immediately, and history will repeat itself and America and England (and some of it's old colonies) will have to save the world again.

 

[fossten]

Agreed. Once we engage, we engage fully, until the enemy is defeated, and then we negotiate from a position of victory over the defeated. Like Japan, like Germany....


It could happen, but that's when we're really dealing with the full scale class of civilizations. Europe will fall almost immediately, and history will repeat itself and America and England (and some of it's old colonies) will have to save the world again.

LOL you are exactly right, my friend. History will indeed repeat itself.

 

[tranquill]

Israeli analyst:qsuggests turning nuclear Iran against Egypt.
He argues that Shia dominance is prefereable to the Sunni's.
See this: http://samsonblinded.org/blog/use-iran-against-egypt.htm

 

[Joeychgo]

Well, lets say -- I heard something today from someone I trust that leads me to believe that some people expect the possibility of all out war with Iran in the near future....