Jan 07 2007
Israel Doing The Right Thing
Everyone who keeps saying diplomatic resolve and treating Iran as we did Russia to resolve the nuclear situation there better not start whining now with the news Israel is planning to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities with tactical nuclear weapons – because this is the essence of MAD:
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-bustersâ€, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels†into the targets. “Mini-nukes†would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
This is the essence of Mutual Assured Destruction. Clear and open planning of intentions so the other side knows damn well what is going to happen. We did it with our open debate and discussions regarding our nuclear subs, our silos and our bombers. It is well known the B-2 bomber was designed to deliver nuclear ordinance deep inside the old Soviet Union by stealth that would bypass their defence systems. And we planned and practced these strategies basically in the open.
MAD will not work unless it is clear what the implications will be. MAD will also not work if the Mad Mullahs and Ahmdedinejad want to die martyrs with their nation’s people along side them (also known as forced suicide). But it is definitely worth pursuing.
The issue of Iran is coming to a head. 9-11 taught those responsible for our safety that they will not have an opportunity to stop terrorism attacks at some point in the execution. Anyone who originally wanted us to treat Iran like we did the Soviet Union and who complains about this news should be ignored on national security issues from here on out. Because clearly that would be a sign of total incompetence on the issue.
I hear the Israelis are denying this.
It’s poppycock.The dream of the emasculated west and the fantasy of her enemies.
Pajamas Media provides some information about the author which should resolve any doubts about the credibility of the story:
[quote]
First and foremost – one must consider the source of this story. The Sunday Times journalist in question Uzi Mahnaimi, is a controversial figure, who co-authored a book with Bassam Abu Sharif, former senior adviser to Yasser Arafat and PLO press officer.
While some may believe he has actual military sources in Israel who use him to leak stories that won’t make it past censors, others think he is used by foreign agents to push stories that embarrass Israel. Still others go farther, calling him unprintable names and charging that that despite the fact he works for a mainstream British newspaper, his sources makes Jamil Hussein look like the White House press secretary.
One thing is clear: Mahnaimi makes a regular habit of reporting that Israel is about to attack Iran. If his reporting was accurate, Iranian nuclear facilities would already be a smoking ruin – not once, but multiple times.[/quote]
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/01/israeli_military_leaks_iran_pl.php
On Israeli Preparations for Iranian Nuclear Strike…
For starters, should this be this a surprise to anyone? Not to me it isn’t. Indeed, Texas Rainmaker points out that the same paper made similar statements in December 2005 that Israel was preparing for strikes against Iran’s nuclear capabilities….
Hmmmm. I wonder if this has anything to do with the nutjob in Iran racheting up the odds. He hasn’t so far gotten much for his retoric and threats.
Thanks, Clarice, it’s always a pleasure to see you get straight to the facts.
um, it’s only MAD is both sides have nukes. in this case israel is threatening a preemptive nuclear attack. that is not MAD, it’s madness. it would mean crossing a line that no other country has ever crossed, for good reason
up:
So far Israel is not threatening to do anything of the kind. For one thing we do not even know if this is true enough.
For another that holocaust denying mad man in Iran has already said that when they get the capability they will “vomit” the Zionist entity from the region.
But then again he is the kind of guy who likes to stone women, hang gays, execute unwed mothers and yammer about his aura. Why should we be afraid of a nice man like that?
Words are cheap.
The iranians have about as much technological skills at making nukes, as they have of removing oil from the ground. And, they can’t do that well, either.
So far?
You got a war of words.
And, until you hear it from Olmert’s mouth; it’s not worth a bucketful of spit.
People can say anything they like.
It’s to Israel’s credit that when any sort of plan unfolds, people think “yeah.” The Israelis can do that.
It’s never been tested, though.
And, it’s probably one of those exotic design plans you can buy. Sort’a like the plans available when “you want to build your own home.”
Doesn’t mean something isn’t up.
And, I’m betting that Bush now has a different view of the HOUSE OF SAUD. And, they’re in the same boat as Ken Lay. In other words? When you need a bailout, don’t call Bush.
Turki sure left DC in a hurry, ya know?
And, IF there’s been a plot afoot to hurt not just Bush; but to do even more damage than had been anticipated on 9/11. When the Pentagon got hit. But the Capitol Dome did not. Then you might suspect that no matter what “mojo” the aging rulers of Saudi Arabia thought they had, they may not have much.
Mubarak, too, is running out the time clock. (While Castro? How do you know he’s not already dead?)
Shows ya. The way news used to trickle into the headlines took time.
Now? The news works the way Jayson Blair did, at the New Yuk Times.
And, Bush, by putting in Admiral Fallon is, in fact, focussed on American interests. More at sea. Than in Iraq. Where just taking care of business without the gloves on, will change a lot about what’s happening on the ground.
Iraq’s “soft.” It’s been softened by the counter-insurgency that put lots of sunni’s on the run.
The CIA, too, lost altitude.
In other words? As Bush discovers the swivel chairs that tend to make mistakes, jobs close down. And, go elsewhere.
Again, we’re not used to daily reports. So we just don’t know.
But iran? You think the verbal-gerbil is strong? I think he lives in terror of his own military. I think that the knews of the latest ayatollah’s death has been hidden from view. And, yes. I do believe there is a slap down; as much as possible, against students. And, Internet users.
But even during WW2, where the threats came from the germans, people still knew how to hide short-wave radios. Communications just went underground.
Iran’s in the same sort of boat.
While the news headlines? Sometimes they’re written to generate fear. The way Spielberg did in JAWS. You hear the music. And, your skin crawls. That’s the routine.
But IF Bush is angry and the House of Saud, and feels for sure, now, that he owes them no favors; what do you think the outcomes could spell?
But life’s not a movie. Just because the iranians spend big doesn’t bring them close to the science that would have spelled success. Parts of the problem? Not enough curiosity among arabs. Because most of the stuff that excels in science comes with a healthy respect for the academics.
Instead? They got imams. And, imams get hysterical. Or what did YOU make of the imam’s decision not to go near Litvinenko’s “box?” Would you have feared radation?
Again? When you’re working with fools you can sell them anything. Just like Barnum said.
Persians aren’t arabs. But they suffer from the same handicaps.
To be precise – Mutually Assured Destruction refers to the assurance that if one party is struck by nuclear weapons – it has both the will and the capability to retaliate in kind to the extent that both parties will be destroyed, so when AJ says
his is a fundamentally flawed analysis.
The pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons by Israel bears no relationship whatsoever to MAD doctrine – nor to deterrence as commonly understood – it would constitute, however, an act of war – and considering the collateral damage to innocent civilians or other countries in the area – could constitute war crimes by Israel.
While the US was the first nation to use nuclear weapons against civilians, it did so under a state of war against an opponent that had attacked it; a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Israel would forfeit whatever moral highground can be said to be held by Israel, and would put particular pressure of the shaky government of Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal could be placed at risk of falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist factions if push came to shove. This is one very bad, very dangerous idea.
This is one very bad, very dangerous idea.
So, Mr. Lewis, should the Israelis wait until Iran turns Tel Aviv into a pool of molten glass? What then — turn the other cheek? I’d like to hear what other alternatives you think would not be as “bad or dangerous”.
Personally, like Clarice, I don’t give this report much credibility, but anyone who thinks there are “safe” and “reasonable” alternatives in dealing with Radical Islam is just pissin’ into the wind.
” it would mean crossing a line that no other country has ever crossed, for good reason”
I think that’s exactly what they should do, cross that line for good reason. When the leader of a country has said he is going to vaporize your country as soon as he gets the means to do it(for no other reason than you’re of a religion he hates), not vaporizing him first is national suicide.
Spook, I was gonna ask that.
Anyhow, doesn’t the UN have a position on rogue countries building nuclear weapons? Isn’t Iran violating this? Isn’t the UN not doing a damn thing about it? So Israel is supposed to just stand idly by while Iran builds the weapons to destroy it, waiting for the UN to do something, then get wiped off the earth?
To quote Robert Lewis above: “This is one very bad, very dangerous idea.”
I say Israel should apply the golden rule and “Do unto Iran as they would do unto you, but do it first.”
Spookboy:
Here’s a nice simple answer: What in the world – besides idiotic scare propaganda from Faux News et alii – makes you think Iran is so suicidal as to think they could drop a nuke on Israel and not be blown off the face of the earth? Iran talks tough – a lot like George Bush and Dick Cheney – but when the chips are down Iran is chickenshit – again, think Dick and George during Vietnam.
Until someone demonstrates that Iran with a nuclear weapon poses any REAL threat to the United States – then I don’t think its very smart to allow the pro-Israeli neoconservative lobby in the US to maneuver our republic into a situation that is not in the best interests of the United States of America. And allowing the Israeli tail to wag the dog is not in our best interests, as AIPAC and other Israeli related spying incidents aptly demonstrate.
robert lewis
Oh hell, Ken’s back again.
Really? We should wait until the nuke is demonstrated.
Would it be okay if it is demo’d in your neighborhood, or do you prefer the neighborhood where your parents live? Surely you wouldn’t want it to hurt anyone else.
Just for the record, what does this mean? “George during Vietnam.”
You are aware that Pres Bush served more than two years active duty on flight training (voluntarily) during the vietnam war, aren’t you?
How much time did you serve during that period? or any other, for that matter. I guess you must be a Bubba fan, let’s see now, a genuine draft dodger that went to Russia during that time, isn’t that correct? or is your memory foggy on that?
Even if Israel didn’t exist, it’s not in the US interest for Iran to get a nuke. Is it?
Hey Spook, How do you like this? “Spookboy:”
I like those people that start right out calling names, don’t you?
Let’s see, how does that go, calling names is the product of a small mind with nothing else to say or was that? hmm attack the messenger when you can’t logically attack the message something like that?
RL
overlooked this, “What in the world makes you think Iran is so suicidal as to think they could drop a nuke on Israel and not be blown off the face of the earth?”
Duh !!! because they said so?
Their objective is to die as martyrs. They said so.
You must have a comprehension problem.
For Enforcement:
By your perverted logic – Iran would be justified in dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel to stop Israel from pre-emptively droipping a bomb on them. Prior to the lawless and immoral Bush Administration – it was the policy of the United States that it would never use nuclear weapons pre-emptively. So much for the moral highground.
As I mentioned – Iran – like the draft-dodging cowards Bush & Cheney – talks a lot tougher than it really is. Perhaps the course of wisdom and restraint would be to watch what they DO – rather than what they say.
In the history of the relationship between the US and Iran, we have given them a lot of provocation: overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh government in order to install a monarchy on the peacock throne, allowing the deposed Shah to use the US as a refuge – along with $12 billion stoled from the Iranian people, backing Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, a war which cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties and $350 billion, including at least 100,000 victims of poison gas, precursor chemicals for which were supplied by the US to Iraq. With the exception of taking over the US embassy, Iran has for the most part avoided direct real confrontation with the United States.
As far as I’m concerned, the wisest course would be to use Israel as the canary in the coal mine. If Iran nukes Israel, we then have the option of retaliating if we choose to; if they don’t nuke Israel, the point is moot.
robert lewis
Oh hell, Ken’s back again.
FE, great minds think alike — that was my immediate reaction too.
Hey Spook, How do you like this? “Spookboy:â€
I like those people that start right out calling names, don’t you?
I’ve been called worse, FE, and by a lot better people than Robert/Ken.
Prior to the lawless and immoral Bush Administration – it was the policy of the United States that it would never use nuclear weapons pre-emptively. So much for the moral highground.
Whoa, did we use one when I wasn’t looking? “The moral highground”; is that what you claim after you’re blow to bits? If that’s the case, Robert/Ken, then, like For Enforcement, I prefer they test it in your neighborhood.
I am aware that Bush volunteered to be jumped to the head of the line in TANG – in spite of scoring in the lowest quartile on the entry exam – in order to avoid combat; that on the form TANG emembers were required to sign he refused assignment to a commbat area if asked; and that he was the equivalent of AWOL his last two years; having been stripped of his flight readiness rating for failing a drug test. You can call that what you want.
If Israel didn’t exist, I doubt we would be at loggerheads with Iran; more importantly, had two oil company lawyers – John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles – not represented their former employers by overthrowing a democratically elected secular government in Iran, installing a monarchy – the equivalent of if, say, the French had conspired to re-install the House of Hanover by overthrowing our fledgling republic in 1789 – then it is doubtful a racidal Islamist regime would have ever come to power in Iran – and we would probably enjoy the same relationship we now do with Egypt.
In any case – we possess neither the legal nor moral right to attack a sovereign nation just because they are working to develop nuclear weapons.
Robert/Ken,
The way you phrase your comments about Bush’s TANG service, and the fact that you would dredge up that topic AGAIN, tells me all I need to know about you. But if you’re going to use Wikipedia as a source, you ought to at least be intellectually honest enough to include the positive comments as well as the negative: