Going Nuclear

[lightly]

Yes nukes are nuts. Keep in mind the "scorched earth" policy. The Soviets used it in WW2. Burn every building, crop and factory, kill all the livestock that you can't remove from your own homeland when it's being invaded, that way the successful invaders conquer nothing.

true.. a time tested and effective policy for making it tougher on an invading force... but the land is still there, ready to be used. Irradiated land is poisoned and worthless for quite awhile? I guess it would depend on the amount of radiation ... anyone know how long it took before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited? Or did they not leave entirely!? .. from the perimeters?

Edited November 17, 2014 by lightly

[+DieChecker]

From what I have read the radiation from a hydrogen bomb, like Hiroshima, is very short lived. A week after the bomb, radiation levels are down to a millionth what they were at detonation and almost gone in a year.

[Uncle Sam]

I am seriously wondering if majority of the readers and the world here on the forums have a very short memory. I stated over a year ago, Iran will obtain an nuclear warhead in secret, but they would be hardliners who would give away their intentions. Much like Iraqi episode, the Iranian government is building one in secret in disguise of peaceful nuclear reactor. The difference is that Iraqi got caught and Iran is stonewalling investigations while belittling United Nations inspectors. Only problem is that the specs of the reactor doesn't match up to normal nuclear reactors, but match up to nuclear weapon grade producing reactors. Saw this coming 10 years in advance, yet I am powerless to do anything about it except maybe talk on the forums and that is it. Most posters didn't believe me or acted like I am spouting off nationalistic crap.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Uncle Sam

[+DieChecker]

What I've read Sam is that the Iranians have had the parts of an A-bomb for years and years, and know how to put it together quickly. All they need is the fissionables. They even already have long range missiles that could reach Israel.

[+and-then]

I think it's time for a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East without having to take into consideration it's effects on Israel. Instead of some kind of asset, we drag the relationship into every negotiation like a rotting albatross around our necks, fouling the discussion. Israel is all grown up and nuclear powered, now. The Zionists can take care of themselves. Israel is not a U.S. Protectorate.

That depends on just how far we are willing to remove ourselves from helping an ally. The prognosis for Israel is uniformly negative in the world if US support in the UN evaporates. Imagine the first year after that... sanctions from the world community that cripple her economy for a start. Eventually there would be talk of military action against the state unless it gave land to the Palestinians. At some point the people of Israel would have to decide to leave the land or fight for it. How do you think they would choose? And if they fight and are close to being overrun do you think America's interests globally might be impacted by a nuclear war in the M.E.?

[DarkHunter]

true.. a time tested and effective policy for making it tougher on an invading force... but the land is still there, ready to be used. Irradiated land is poisoned and worthless for quite awhile? I guess it would depend on the amount of radiation ... anyone know how long it took before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited? Or did they not leave entirely!? .. from the perimeters?

Radiation decays at a exponential rate so after 3 or 4 days it is moderately safe at the blast site since radiation will have dropped by 80% roughly. After about a week the radiation will barely be above background levels, you will still be able to detect radiation from the blast for the next thousand years or so but it won't be any more dangerous then standing in a warehouse of bananas.

Most current nuclear weapons, with the exceptions of neutron bombs and dirty bombs, produce far less radiation then the two bombs used on Japan. Basically the more powerful a nuclear blast is the less radiation it produces since more of the radioactive material is being used in the blast and not being spread around.

That really just leaves the two exceptions of the neutron bomb and dirty bomb. If I remember correctly the neutron bomb creates an intense gamma radiation burst and doesn't really leave behind much if any radioactive material after detonation so I am not sure how much residue radiation would be left at the blast if any at all but assuming any is left it wouldn't last any longer then the radiation from a conventional nuclear weapon.

Even though this is a bit off topic it is worth noting that the neutron bomb is far less developed then other nuclear weapons. It was planned to be used on armored divisions since conventional nuclear bombs are pretty ineffective against armored divisions, the blast would kill the units at ground zero of the blast site but that would be roughly it while disabling a few more vehicles that where close to ground zero but leaving the crew largely unharmed. The neutron bomb would be able to kill about mmost if not allof the armored division. But the neutron bomb also had the problem of that while it would kill most if not all of the armored division only about 10% would die instantly leaving the rest to die anywhere from 12 hours till about a month later with the average being around 2 and a half to 3 weeks later if I remember correctly. So while it would destroy the armored division it was used on in time you would have an enemy armored division where due to how radiation sickness effects humans would still be able to fight for part of that time span and would know that they are going to die anyway. I also read once it was considered to be used to clear out infantry held up in a location considered either to valuable to destroy or resident to convention nuclear bombs.

Now dirty bombs are completely different in that they work by spreading extremely radioactive material over a wide area. A dirty bomb depending on what material is used could render a city unliveable for hundreds if not thousands of years or at the very least cost billions if not trillions in a slow clean up that would take decades.

[+Hammerclaw]

That depends on just how far we are willing to remove ourselves from helping an ally. The prognosis for Israel is uniformly negative in the world if US support in the UN evaporates. Imagine the first year after that... sanctions from the world community that cripple her economy for a start. Eventually there would be talk of military action against the state unless it gave land to the Palestinians. At some point the people of Israel would have to decide to leave the land or fight for it. How do you think they would choose? And if they fight and are close to being overrun do you think America's interests globally might be impacted by a nuclear war in the M.E.?

If a Jewish state in Palestine can't survive without the United States, it should never have existed in the first place. The way you describe it, it's a de facto U.S. colony.

[+and-then]

If a Jewish state in Palestine can't survive without the United States, it should never have existed in the first place. The way you describe it, it's a de facto U.S. colony.

The way I describe it it is a threat to the whole world if it's enemies are not constrained. It is the perfect insoluble human problem isn't it? We speak of values of human freedom, of democracy. A country which actually attempts to put those ideals into practice despite the attacks against them over decades is left in a position where to survive they have to threaten annihilation to others. Yep, human hatred on display at it's best. And for my part I believe Israel WILL be left to fend for itself - and soon. What flows from that will be a negative for the planet, not a positive. My point ultimately is that I actually agree with you. Israel SHOULD be left alone to defend itself. Consequences be damned.

[jeem]

It's obvious that Iran has bad intentions towards Israel. Why is Iran allowed to continue with its Nuclear program?

The whole world hate Israel.Ah!!! Come on guys give us some new story

Edited November 18, 2014 by jeem

[Ogbin]

The whole world hate Israel.Ah!!! Come on guys give us some new story

I wish there was a different story to tell, but there isn't. The world is revolving around Israel more and more today. Soon something major is going happen, it's inevitable. There is way to much hostility towards Israel in the Middle East to believe otherwise. In fact the world's sentiment towards Israel as whole is steadily changing to the negative. Blaming Israel for all problems solves nothing, only makes things worse.

[keithisco]

Way, way too much Political Capital is wasted on Israel - all we ever hear is that the entire world is at risk if the USA does not back -to-the-hilt Israel's continued occupation of land that is not theirs. Why? what on earth is the global backlash if an Iran - Israel war breaks out? How would it effect Africa, Europe, the Americas, Asia, Oceania etc? Basically it wouldn't. The M.E. would still trade it's oil willingly (they need the decreasing revenue it generates), it would not matter if Israel or Iran won in such a conflict because no nations are entirely dependent on their industrial output - Trade is King, which is a Truism.

As previously stated, Islam already has it's nuclear weapons through Pakistan (who has not used them - yet) and yet we are constantly threatened that if Iran developed a Nuclear capability then that would constitute the Islamic Bomb which would solely be used to decimate the Western world?? Such arguments make no sense.

It is high time that the USA stopped being Israel's proxy as a de facto permanent member of the Security Council at the UN and started using its veto where it should be used. IMO

[+and-then]

Way, way too much Political Capital is wasted on Israel - all we ever hear is that the entire world is at risk if the USA does not back -to-the-hilt Israel's continued occupation of land that is not theirs. Why? what on earth is the global backlash if an Iran - Israel war breaks out? How would it effect Africa, Europe, the Americas, Asia, Oceania etc? Basically it wouldn't. The M.E. would still trade it's oil willingly (they need the decreasing revenue it generates), it would not matter if Israel or Iran won in such a conflict because no nations are entirely dependent on their industrial output - Trade is King, which is a Truism.

As previously stated, Islam already has it's nuclear weapons through Pakistan (who has not used them - yet) and yet we are constantly threatened that if Iran developed a Nuclear capability then that would constitute the Islamic Bomb which would solely be used to decimate the Western world?? Such arguments make no sense.

It is high time that the USA stopped being Israel's proxy as a de facto permanent member of the Security Council at the UN and started using its veto where it should be used. IMO

Agreed. Hopefully we will see just this. It's time Israel stood on her own. Past time actually.

But I take issue with your opinion that it wouldn't affect the rest of the world in any significant way. First, it seems to show that either you do not believe such a conflict could go nuclear (I disagree) OR that if it did, it isn't the concern of anyone else. When any nation decides to annihilate another it's the whole world's problem eventually. Millions of people would die in such a war between Iran and Israel even if it were only those two affected immediately. You seem pretty sanguine about that. Perhaps in your world this would be no big deal?

Pakistan's bomb was a counter to India's desire for a bomb - as well as the world prestige and respect that comes from being a member of the club. If the ISI ever gained full control of the weapons and codes we might well see the Islamic bomb being used in other ways.

The world seems to share your opinion of a possible Iranian bomb so we will see it as soon as the world conditions make it possible for them to assemble it unnoticed. Israel will then be faced with watching every test launch from there as though it could mean the end of the world for them because it COULD be. Maybe their anti ballistic defenses would work, maybe not. But the more likely scenario for the aftermath of an Iranian bomb would be more and more devastating terror attacks by Iran's proxies. Once they have an umbrella to work under they will use it to full advantage. Until one day they push too hard, too far. Then the world will get to see the price (again) of cowardice.

Edited December 4, 2014 by and then

[Leonardo]

As Yes_Man has previously pointed out, the document produced by the Iranian leadership stated this...

"While he and other Iranian leaders have spoken similarly of Israel in the past, the one-page document, packed with specific details, was new.

It says the "proper way of eliminating Israel" is for "all the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews wherever they are, whether inside Palestine, in refugee camps in other countries or just anywhere else, take part in a public and organized referendum." The "Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part," he adds."

...which is not calling for the "annihilation" of Israel, nor is it calling for any sort of military action against the State of Israel. It suggests a peaceful, democratic solution to the problem of the conflict in the Levant with focus on the situation in the West Bank.

It does, by neglecting the rights of lawful immigrants (not those who have occupied illegal settlements) to have their say, promote prejudice and it probably isn't at all workable or realistic - but it is a far cry from the "nuclear holocaust" the OP and many others posting here appear to be projecting onto Iran's ambition in the Middle East.

[+and-then]

As Yes_Man has previously pointed out, the document produced by the Iranian leadership stated this...

"While he and other Iranian leaders have spoken similarly of Israel in the past, the one-page document, packed with specific details, was new.

It says the "proper way of eliminating Israel" is for "all the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews wherever they are, whether inside Palestine, in refugee camps in other countries or just anywhere else, take part in a public and organized referendum." The "Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part," he adds."

...which is not calling for the "annihilation" of Israel, nor is it calling for any sort of military action against the State of Israel. It suggests a peaceful, democratic solution to the problem of the conflict in the Levant with focus on the situation in the West Bank.

It does, by neglecting the rights of lawful immigrants (not those who have occupied illegal settlements) to have their say, promote prejudice and it probably isn't at all workable or realistic - but it is a far cry from the "nuclear holocaust" the OP and many others posting here appear to be projecting onto Iran's ambition in the Middle East.

If your neighbors got together and voted and decided you should vacate your home and land, would you do it? I suspect you would do so only if they could force the issue. The 6 million or so Jews living in Israel will not be displaced without a major, bloody and expensive war. They are a nuclear power and are descended from grandparents who literally faced annihilation simply for being born Jewish. The Muslim states - Arab and Persian - want this state GONE. Moreover they want the Jews destroyed and say so regularly. It's easy enough to act as if they aren't serious or fully willing to carry out their plans but history shows otherwise. I take a certain satisfaction from knowing that this Iranian bomb that is coming will inconvenience a LOT more people than just the Jews of Israel. There will be many economic costs from it eventually and a LOT less security in the world. The old folks used to call this "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

[keithisco]

Maybe their anti ballistic defenses would work, maybe not. But the more likely scenario for the aftermath of an Iranian bomb would be more and more devastating terror attacks by Iran's proxies. Once they have an umbrella to work under they will use it to full advantage. Until one day they push too hard, too far. Then the world will get to see the price (again) of cowardice.

"Cowardice!? is this your latest epithet for "reason"? Is it cowardice to enslave an entire people behind fences, deny them their legal right to trade and live in peace, instead to use them for bombing practise? THAT is cowardice and Israel does not deserve support from the rest of the Western World whilst this remains the status quo....

[Leonardo]

If your neighbors got together and voted and decided you should vacate your home and land, would you do it? I suspect you would do so only if they could force the issue. The 6 million or so Jews living in Israel will not be displaced without a major, bloody and expensive war.

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of the document in question produced by the Iranian leadership. That document does not call for war, nor does it call for violence - it calls for a peaceful, democratic referendum.

As I said, this may be - certainly is - completely unrealistic, but the suggestion made by the OP and several other posters in this thread that this document amounts to a military threat by Iran against the State of Israel is scaremongering and absolutely false - plain and simple.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

Which is completely irrelevant to the question of the document in question produced by the Iranian leadership. That document does not call for war, nor does it call for violence - it calls for a peaceful, democratic referendum.

As I said, this may be - certainly is - completely unrealistic, but the suggestion made by the OP and several other posters in this thread that this document amounts to a military threat by Iran against the State of Israel is scaremongering and absolutely false - plain and simple.

Of course it is Leo. If the war and violence happen anyway - as many expect - then will you still cling to the document? I remember another guy in history who did something similar. Anyone who can listen to the bellicose rhetoric out of that Theocracy and act as though it isn't a threat is someone I wouldn't want managing my foreign policy.

[keithisco]

Of course it is Leo. If the war and violence happen anyway - as many expect - then will you still cling to the document? I remember another guy in history who did something similar. Anyone who can listen to the bellicose rhetoric out of that Theocracy and act as though it isn't a threat is someone I wouldn't want managing my foreign policy.

It is you and your ilk that peddle rhetoric nonsense. When faced with the truth you resort, yet again, to unfounded rhetoric. Is it not time that the Zionists grew up a little, and realised that their "final Solution" is unsupportable?

[+and-then]

It is you and your ilk that peddle rhetoric nonsense. When faced with the truth you resort, yet again, to unfounded rhetoric. Is it not time that the Zionists grew up a little, and realised that their "final Solution" is unsupportable?

Unsupportable to tell the world that if they are overrun they will lash out? Maybe not, but it isn't what the world thinks here that matters - only what THEY think. Here's an idea - DON'T try to destroy them, then there's no problem for anyone, no?

[SolarPlexus]

obvious attempts to demonize Iran by the Zio-Nazi warmongers

[+and-then]

obvious attempts to demonize Iran by the Zio-Nazi warmongers

Of course it is. Iran has no global geopolitical ambitions. They are the height of purity and tolerance. With any luck, all those who support them will be ruled over by them someday.