Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Celumnaz

Israelis urge U.S. to stop Iran's nuke goals

226 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Celumnaz

The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.

As a last resort, they said, Israel itself would act unilaterally to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Iran will not be deterred "by anything short of a threat of force," said Arieh Eldad, a member of Israel's right-wing National Union Party, part of a delegation of Knesset members visiting Washington this week.

"They won't be stopped unless they are convinced their programs will be destroyed if they continue," he said.

Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said the best hope was for the United States and other major powers to make it clear to Iranian leaders now there was "no chance they will ever see the fruits of a nuclear program."

"Threats of sanctions and isolation alone will not do it," said Mr. Steinitz.

Yosef Lapid, head of the centrist opposition Shinui Party in the Knesset, added that Israel "will not live under the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb."

"We feel we are obliged to warn our friends that Israel should not be pushed into a situation where we see no other solution but to act unilaterally" against Iran, he said.

Mr. Steinitz, a member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud Party, stopped just short of a direct threat to bomb suspect Iranian nuclear sites.

Mr. Steinitz said Israeli officials estimate that Tehran is only two to three years away from developing a nuclear bomb and that time was running out for the world to act.

"We see an Iranian bomb as a devastating, existential threat to Israel, to the entire Middle East, to all Western interests in the region," he said.

"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050929-114709-2065r.htm <== more in the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I would love to see the US get the heck out of Israels business. I understand there are very good people there(Some who even are on this board) who deserve safety and security, but that can be said of EVERY country in the world. We have stuck by Israel for a very long time, and it has cost us a great deal both financially and politically.

In my opinion Israel needs to take care of itself, and stop having us be involved in supporting it in so many of it's decisions.

Iran will be dealt with in the world forum; not just the US. The world has a stake in the outcome, and the world should come together to resolve the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

In my opinion Israel needs to take care of itself, and stop having us be involved in supporting it in so many of it's decisions.

I agree - the US should let Israel deal with it's problems. On the other hand, I see no problem with us buying weapons from you - after all, that's what keeps your economy up and running (you give us money so we'll buy weapons that are made in american companies, the money isn't just used how Israel wants it to).

Iran will be dealt with in the world forum; not just the US. The world has a stake in the outcome, and the world should come together to resolve the issue.

Being that the US is the world's sole super-power, and has struggled for 45 years to base itself in that position, it has reponsibilities. One of them is to keep the world safe from fanatical religious regimes going nuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

I've spent a lot of time 'wargaming' options for dealing with an Iranian nuclear weapon. Now the amount of definitive information I have to work with is finite and sometimes questionable. The only conclusion that I have been able to come to is that if Iran does decide to build a nuclear bomb and either the United States or Israel decide to take military action to destroy it the results could be ugly.

Intervention will carry a lot of risks for everybody involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

Its a really interesting concept to play whit. What would be the international reaction in the case of a convencional/nuclear attack from the USA/Israel against Iran in the case that the last one get the nuclear capacibility to strike?

I dont see to much countries backing the USA in the case of a conventional attack, and the arab world could be very mad in the case of a nuclear attack form part of any of the two countries you mention Dr. Strangelove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Its a really interesting concept to play whit. What would be the international reaction in the case of a convencional/nuclear attack from the USA/Israel against Iran in the case that the last one get the nuclear capacibility to strike?

I dont see to much countries backing the USA in the case of a conventional attack, and the arab world could be very mad in the case of a nuclear attack form part of any of the two countries you mention Dr. Strangelove.

I built my scenarios on the assumptions that Iran would both disperse and fortify their weapon sites. Some nuclear facilities are easier to fortify than others. There seems to be this concern that Iran will have most of their facilities buried deeply in bunkers. This limits the effectiveness of conventional munitions. Dispersal is only as much a problem as the number of aircraft and missiles you deploy.

Both Israel and the United States could opt for sending in special forces to destroy the facilities but this is a gamble at best.

What I am wondering about is if the United States has something in its arsenal that we haven't told anybody about? I've been avidly following the efforts to get a 'bunker-buster' type weapon but haven't seen a lot of signs that we have a viable one yet. It just makes me wonder if we have a conventional weapon that could do the job? I'll have to research this more closely.

Of course if Iran chose to use a nuclear weapon offensively, that is to say they launched it against Israel or the United States, then the scenario radically changes. It would only take confirmation of the strike and determination that the weapon came from the Iran to get the necessary command authorisation. Then the United States would take out Iran's nuclear facilities within about an hour. Their would be some world wide condemnation after the initial shock faded a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl

I built my scenarios on the assumptions that Iran would both disperse and fortify their weapon sites. Some nuclear facilities are easier to fortify than others. There seems to be this concern that Iran will have most of their facilities buried deeply in bunkers. This limits the effectiveness of conventional munitions. Dispersal is only as much a problem as the number of aircraft and missiles you deploy.

It is much more complicated than that.

Iran has disperesed it's nuclear facilities mainly amid heavy populated centers. Any attack will have to consider the huge moral implications of such a strike.

Being that terrorists use the same tactics - ie, hide amid civilians to give the same moral consideration and thus protection against the democracies they are attacking, I know all to well how complicated the issue is.

Of course if Iran chose to use a nuclear weapon offensively, that is to say they launched it against Israel or the United States, then the scenario radically changes. It would only take confirmation of the strike and determination that the weapon came from the Iran to get the necessary command authorisation. Then the United States would take out Iran's nuclear facilities within about an hour. Their would be some world wide condemnation after the initial shock faded a bit.

Should Iran launch a nuke against Israel, Israel has the capability to recognize it on the fly and allegdly we have the means to retaliate. I hope it won't come to this point though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Israel has a potentially very viable intercept system with the Arrow missile. The problem with any such system is that if it fails against a nuclear attack the consequences could be literally apocalyptic. Israeil also has been working with THEL; this could also possibly destroy an inbound missile if Arrow should fail.

Now if Iran did launch such an attack and it was verified that the missile had a nuclear warhead I doubt that the placement of the facilities near civilian population centers would matter much. Israel has a number of potential nuclear systems and, speculatively, about 200 estimated fission and fusion weapons. I also don't know of any intercept systems that Iran has. It doesn't look like Iran would be able to do much to stop any type of strategic attack.

What I am seeing is that if Israel even used even a fraction of this speculated nuclear arsenal against Iran the slaughter would be incredible. I would only hope that Iranian leadership has also realised this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
The United States and its allies must act to stop Iran's nuclear programs -- by force if necessary -- because conventional diplomacy will not work, three senior Israeli lawmakers from across the political spectrum warned yesterday.

Those are not lawmakers; they are warmongering future-tellers! They know in advance that diplomacy won't work and we have to go into war, pushing their American friends into another catastrophy while they are at their sinister schemes. Diplomacy has worked so far because Iran has not managed to acquire nukes and probabely can't do it in the future if reason, international treaties that Iran has signed too, and intelligent diplomacy are applied, that is if we believe the supposition that Iran is really after them and can actually mange to build them under this much pressure.

"Despite all the different circumstances, we see similarities to what happened in the 1930s, when people underestimated the real problem or focused on other dangers. For us, either the world will tackle Iran in advance or all of us will face the consequences."

See how they mislead people by making invalid comparisons and references to situations that have absolutely nothing to do with the realities we face today. See also how they justify starting a war (notice the use of 'in advance' there), that most likely they wouldn't be able to control the outcome of, and then ending their propaganda by warning the world of the consequences of a hypothetical situation that they exaggerate about and make seem as immenent as possible, while the greatest danger to peace in the ME right now is the Israeli possession of dangerous WMD and ignoring the international treaties. But I don't think they really want to start a war with Iran, they just talk about it to the media and other politicians; that already serves quite well the goals that they are after, one of them being fuelling conflicts between nations.

I would love to see the US get the heck out of Israels business

The problem is that Israel does not want to get the heck out of US's business. The US government is constantly being manipulated by pro-Israeli lobby, and not necessarily toward US interests either, especially in matters concerning the ME.

Intervention will carry a lot of risks for everybody involved.

Thank you for your expertise; Doc. That's what we need the most of right now, expertise instead of bully politics. Apart from purely military aspects of a war, the socio-political and economic consequences are extremely hard to predict. Given the geopolitical situation of Iran, I agree with you that it's going to be very very bad for a lot of people in a lot of places if warmongering lunatics decide to go beyond their usual propaganda and drag the world blindly into yet another bloody war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Well Zeph, thanks for appreciating my statements. The sad fact is that I see a lot of provocative statements being made by leaders everywhere. Now that nuclear weapons have entered the situation the consequences of bad decisions by anybody have gone up shockingly.

About a month ago I was driving on a highway near Ellsworth AFB and contemplating all the nuclear firepower within a few miles of me. I thought how even a single weapon could change the course of human history. The terrible thing was I couldn't see how using any such weapon by anybody would make the world a better place.

This is coming from a guy who seriously likes these damn things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I think that the bottom line is that there is no way to really stop the development of nuclear weapons in countries that are determined to get them and financially capable of financing the research and development.

The information is already out there to be had. With enough money to research and put together the lab equipment it can be done like the way we did it 60 years ago. It may not be fast as they would not be able to go to other countries to buy supplies, but they have all the fixins' in their own country already as far as I know.

It could be as secret as our development and really there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop them.

As with any technology, once the information is out there, there is no way to take it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

I think that the bottom line is that there is no way to really stop the development of nuclear weapons in countries that are determined to get them and financially capable of financing the research and development.

The information is already out there to be had. With enough money to research and put together the lab equipment it can be done like the way we did it 60 years ago. It may not be fast as they would not be able to go to other countries to buy supplies, but they have all the fixins' in their own country already as far as I know.

It could be as secret as our development and really there wouldn't be much anyone could do to stop them.

As with any technology, once the information is out there, there is no way to take it back.

You are absolutely correct Fluffybunny. I could direct you to several internet sites that supply more than enough information to allow you to assemble a fission device. The problem is in that the 'garage atomic bomb' is a little too easy in concept. Real and practical nuclear weapoons are within reach of most nations that are determined enough to have them.

The problem will be in how the world decides to deal with them. I am not wise enough to claim to know how the world will confront this. Somehow I feel that attempting to keep some nations from having them will be futile. I'm sure that there will be earnest attempts to do so but I am not hopeful of their ultimate success.

I see a very dark future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

I'm not wise enough to know how the world should deal with nukes either, but I know for sure that war is not one of the solutions. It's illogical to want to stop dangerous regimes from getting nukes by waging unpredictable wars against them; that argument is self-defeating as wars can only lead to more unstability, fanaticism and terrorism, not to mention the arms races of all kinds that could result.

IMO, the dismanteling of nuclear weapons by all the countries that already have them and emphasis on democratic and fair international laws and organizations seem to be a logical and civilized way of avoiding a nuclear catastrophy. Right now, it's basically the law of the jungle. Who can have nukes and who can't have them and the international reactions, or lack of them are mainly based on who is whose friend and how much economic and political pressure can be applied to bring countries to one side or the other; a completely primitive and ineffective approach worhty of the middle ages and one that has so far led to more and more countries trying to, or developing nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

zep wrote:

IMO, the dismanteling of nuclear weapons by all the countries that have already have them and emphasis on democratic and fair international laws and organizations seem to be a logical and civilized way of avoiding a nuclear catastrophy.

I agree. But we don't have a head honcho that can go around the world and do this. We don't have a one world government. Today, we can't trust other countries to disarm.

I think, unless we can change the world as you say, zep, we have to play the cards dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

zep wrote:

I agree. But we don't have a head honcho that can go around the world and do this. We don't have a one world government. Today, we can't trust other countries to disarm.

I think, unless we can change the world as you say, zep, we have to play the cards dealt.

Good point Babs. I have to admit that as much as I fear these weapons I am also not ready to dismantle our own arsenal. I will just wait until somebody wiser than me can come up with a workable plan.

In the meantime I will keep on working on the same systems that, hopefully, will insure we don't use the weapons in error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

Ummm....i have the idea that the disarm and global central goverment will be only reach after a global catastopher, one strong enought to "dismantle" the current govs. But its only a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
__Kratos__

Break down the world percents per country for nukes and have a meeting spot so each country with each talk could bring a certian percent of nukes to their countries entire arsenal and then dismantle them there with each talk. As time goes on, the numbers will go down all the same for each country per a talk. There would need to be some sort of treaty though to say no country could again try to make nukes.

Just my two cents. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

The problem has always been the verification. As long as any nation is suspicious another might have nuclear weapons then they won't disarm. The United States and Soviet Union have spent billions trying to perfect viable verification systems with relatively little success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

The problem has always been the verification. As long as any nation is suspicious another might have nuclear weapons then they won't disarm. The United States and Soviet Union have spent billions trying to perfect viable verification systems with relatively little success.

...that's a very good point Dr_ Strangelove. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

It also looks to me like we are soon going to see a new generation of nuclear weapons. This isn't just efforts on the part of the United States either. One of the biggest questions is how small a nuke can actually be and new abilities to shield weapons from detection.

Back in the 'Good Old Days' of the Cold War their were a variety of surveillance technologies that allowed for a reasonably confident level of verification. If reports are true that some nations have started working on their own 'Davy Crockett' type bombs then just about any weapon's platform could support a nuclear weapon. Such a bomb could easily be transported in any small commercial aircraft or even a radio-controlled drone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
I think, unless we can change the world as you say, zep, we have to play the cards dealt.

Governments are going to have to learn to grow up and behave like responsible adults instead of playing their little childish games based on sinister schemes designed to score useless and short-term political points at the expense of the people. The cards that are dealt are so bad that they are hardly playable; playing them ignorantly will only lead to more chaos, conflicts and wars as it has done so far, and I'm not sure how much more of this the world can actually afford given the limited resources it has, the environmental and economic problems we face today, the sophistication of mass murder weapons and the fact that wars and conflicts are no longer local but tend to negatively affect everyone one way or other. Change in governments' behaviour and the need for them to grow up is rapidly becoming a necessity rather than a choice.

The problem has always been the verification

That is of course due to weaknesses in international laws and organizations which in turn have led to the jungle laws ruling the world. Humanity still has one foot well planted in the dark ages, and modern and civilized gestures can no longer hide this sad aspect very well either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Very well put Zeph! I've always found it somewhat ironic that one of the hallmarks of our technological society, nuclear power, fails to be constrained because of certain base human weaknesses. We keep our nuclear weapons out of fear and distrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
icet925

I had this friend when i was in high school and he got into a fight with another student I was suspended because i got involved...

Ganging up of any sort should be allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

I had this friend when i was in high school and he got into a fight with another student I was suspended because i got involved...

Ganging up of any sort should be allowed

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saladins follower

It is much more complicated than that.

Iran has disperesed it's nuclear facilities mainly amid heavy populated centers. Any attack will have to consider the huge moral implications of such a strike.

Being that terrorists use the same tactics - ie, hide amid civilians to give the same moral consideration and thus protection against the democracies they are attacking, I know all to well how complicated the issue is.

Should Iran launch a nuke against Israel, Israel has the capability to recognize it on the fly and allegdly we have the means to retaliate. I hope it won't come to this point though.

why are we jumping to assumptions real quick, we dont even know they are going to use the weapons to do damage to isreal, arent the irane's the one's getting mistreated. you are not allowing muslims to pray in one of the most sacred places to us, because of the borders you have set up, and they are not allowed to cross, if they try they are kicked out of the car, the car gets repo'd and they have to walk home, when the people with israeli, and US license plates pass with out a care. you destroyed all the land after you got the land "god" set out for you :sleepy::sleepy: what if they get nuclear weapons, your saying they cannot defend themselves, they could also use it for other resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.