Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Sunday Times: Israel plans to nuke Iran

Bernie Gunther

Bernie Gunther

Fundamentalist Druid
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-busters”, 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.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
Click to expand...
source
 
Well, it sounds like this might be Israel trying to push the US into doing something by talking tough, but even so, having and threatening (even via leaks to the Murdoch press) to use nukes makes Israel a dangerous rogue state by any reasonable definition.

So presumably we'd better invade, disarm and occupy them. After all, in this case we have far more compelling evidence of the imminent danger to world peace than we ever did with Iraq.
 
equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb
Click to expand...

If Israel has deliverable kiloton nukes, then they've had design help (presumably from the US). They're much harder to design than your bog-standard 15- to- 20-kiloton Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs.

The alternative, of course, is that the journalists are ignorant of this - or that it was the deliberate mistake in the leak that shows they've been had.
 
It's always possible that the US was stupid and crazy enough to give them this help, or that the Israelis simply stole the relevant technical information.
 
What about this Israeli government. Anyone know much about Israeli politics?

The bombing of Beirut was unjustified. Now according to this article, either Iran suspends its lawful nuclear programme, or they get bombed. They seem pretty hardline.

Again in this article, you see the repetition that Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, which has shown to be false, and perhaps is deliberate disinformation.
This is a common factor in most articles about Iran - Israeli tensions, and conveys a false sense of Iran provocations and agression.
 
We should have a news links thread...anyway somewhere on one of BG's other excellent threads (informative, interesting and insightful) I think I posted a link about how Israel are trying to force the US into military action against Iran. It's either that or they are simply softening up public opinion for a "lesser" option of air strikes etc from the US...
 
Kid_Eternity said:
It's either that or they are simply softening up public opinion for a "lesser" option of air strikes etc from the US...
Click to expand...
That sounds more likely... doesn't it? If Israel did have the capability would the US support them?? :(
 
Mation said:
That sounds more likely... doesn't it? If Israel did have the capability would the US support them?? :(
Click to expand...

I think the US would have to let them overfly Iraq to get there.

Either that or they'd have to persuade Turkey to let them go that way, which seems pretty unlikely.
 
It's probably also worth mentioning (again) that the US has reinforced its naval presence in the area with a second carrier battle group. That doubles the already substantial naval air presence. If I recall correctly, most of the stuff (apart from the stealth bombers which are very long range) that the US uses for supressing air defences to permit the sort of attack implied by going after Iran's nuclear facilities, is carrier based. So if there were an attack on them in the works, one thing you'd expect to see is additional carriers arriving in the area.
 
One of the other things you might expect to see if they went ahead with this is the Iranians trying to sink one of the US carriers, which they could have a reasonable bash at doing, simply by doing the naval equivalent of human wave attacks, if the US doesn't also bomb the shit out of their many small fast missile boats while they're still in harbour. So if an attack were to go ahead with US participation, it'd be likely to go wider than just the nuclear sites.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
It's probably also worth mentioning (again) that the US has reinforced its naval presence in the area with a second carrier battle group. That doubles the already substantial naval air presence. If I recall correctly, most of the stuff (apart from the stealth bombers which are very long range) that the US uses for supressing air defences to permit the sort of attack implied by going after Iran's nuclear facilities, is carrier based. So if there were an attack on them in the works, one thing you'd expect to see is additional carriers arriving in the area.
Click to expand...
I can see the Enteprise group listed as being in the Persian gulf, which is the other group? Im assuming its still in transit...
 
I doubt an attack will go ahead with Iraq in its current situation. If Iraq became more stable or the Iran weapons program is further advanced than is public knowlage; then maybe. At the moment, this sounds like Isreal is playing poker.
 
Hmm interesting. This is from Smirking Chimp, so I don't know how reliable it is, but the author is making a case, and providing sources to support his case, that there is a great deal of confusion in the media around this deployment, with a number of contradictory stories flying around about exactly when this carrier group arrives.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/4439

You'll notice that the story also mentions that a couple of their big amphibious warfare ships are deploying, with lots of marines, helicopters and armoured vehicles on board.
 
Ah at times like this it is always worth watching the deployment of the Kitty Hawk from what the RN would have called (back in the day) China Station, the other thing to watch like a hawk is the transit of what the yanks call there 'gataors' these are the assualt carriers like the Iwo Jima and Tarawa, theyd use them to try to force a landing on the straigts of Hozmur to try to keep them open.

Last time this seemed very very likely at the end of October there were two assaut carriers and two CVN strike groups in the gulf region. But the thinking was that the moves towards war would have massively spiked the price of oil and really really hurt the republicans.

This time round is different. Last time the thinking was the force was assembled to produce a patriotic spike just before the elections, then deal with the chaos afterwards, but (as these things have to be planned long long before hand) 2006 did not turn out the way that was anticipated. And the plan was shelved.

Ill have a root around over the next few days and see what falls out of the trees. I think your right about this surge in troops. Notice how a pro surge general (Praetarius) was shuffled in to the top and an anti surge was moved out and errrr well head of centcom is suddenly and admiral.


E2A
Bernie Gunther said:
You'll notice that the story also mentions that a couple of their big amphibious warfare ships are deploying, with lots of marines and helicopters on board.
Click to expand...
Meah you beat me to the punch.
 
Here's a slightly out of date study from the Centre for Non-Proliferation Studies on the feasibility and likely consequences of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

Here's a discussion of various known US battle plans for and simulations of e.g. attempts to take control of the Straits of Hormuz or to grab Khuzestan in the event of a conflict with Iran. The 'Desert Promise' scenario linked in the sidebar is probably particularly relevant if control of the Straits becomes the issue.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-1002.htm
 
Here's a more up to date study of this not very bright idea.
An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be attempted. An air attack would involve the systematic destruction of research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent people as possible. A US attack, which would be larger than anything Israel could mount, would also involve comprehensive destruction of Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes.

Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face of military action by the United States or Israel, including a revitalised Revolutionary Guard.

One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed.
Click to expand...
Oxford Research Group
 
thefishdead said:
I doubt an attack will go ahead with Iraq in its current situation. If Iraq became more stable or the Iran weapons program is further advanced than is public knowlage; then maybe. At the moment, this sounds like Isreal is playing poker.
Click to expand...
You might be right, but on the other hand, the Democrats just took control of Congress, are likely to use that to bury the Bush administration in subpoenas to drag the skeletons out of their closets with a view to taking the Presidency in 2008. In addition, the US is pretty obviously going to end up retreating in shame from Iraq sooner or later, probably with the traditional 'last helicopter leaves the Green Zone with collaborators hanging onto the skids' scene, which may be likely to put an end to the US public's appetite for military adventures for another generation.

So the lunatics in the White House may view this as their last chance to push their agenda to the next stage. Once they've actually started a war with Iran, then even if the Democrats do take the Presidency, they'll be committed to it.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
You might be right, but on the other hand, the Democrats just took control of Congress, are likely to use that to bury the Bush administration in subpoenas to drag the skeletons out of their closets with a view to taking the Presidency in 2008. In addition, the US is pretty obviously going to end up retreating in shame from Iraq sooner or later, probably with the traditional 'last helicopter leaves the Green Zone with collaborators hanging onto the skids' scene, which may be likely to put an end to the US public's appetite for military adventures for another generation.

So the lunatics in the White House may view this as their last chance to push their agenda to the next stage. Once they've actually started a war with Iran, then even if the Democrats do take the Presidency, they'll be committed to it.
Click to expand...

I dont think the U.S. public has the stomach for it. Even selling the nuclear weapons angle to the right wingers would be a challange after Iraq. Non nuclear airstrikes seems the most likely military action. And then there was Isreals misadventures in Lebonan not to long ago. Them probably anit to keen to be straight back in action. And the small victory for modartes in Iran recently.
I dont see it happening unless Iran ups the ante
 
Well, Iran has no motive to up the ante, but the neo-cons do because it's pretty much their last shot, so let's hope that you're right about this eh?
 
They had no good reason to hold a holocost denial conferance or for the 'wipe Isreal off the map' comment. One stupid comment about attacking the US or similer might be the ammo the neo cons need.
 
I mean did we not learn move on from 1945 Black Rain is a film where events are centered on the aftermath of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima has any one seen? good film to show people about Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Though it deals just with Hiroshima one hell of a film.
 
Well, for a variety of reasons, a war with Iran would probably be saleable to the US public once they'd actually started it, despite them being totally fed up with the war in Iraq. For a start as you've mentioned, there is all that nasty holocaust denial stuff. Then there's the whole US Embassy hostages business, which even liberal Americans seem to be quite annoyed about decades later and finally, something that's almost an existential issue for the US. If the neo-cons did manage to start a war with Iran, most of the likely scenarios would put oil prices way up, which means intolerably high petrol prices.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
there's the whole US Embassy hostages business, which even liberal Americans seem to be quite annoyed about decades later
Click to expand...

Ah, yes.

# Jimmy Carter's 'copters are a-burning in the sand # :D

Somewhere I have a photo of the sinaglong outside the Embassy. With the "Historians for the right to work" banner - "We demand a continuing supply of history".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chilango
  • Poll Poll
Who's most likely to use a nuke next?
2 3 4
Replies
107
Views
4K
weltweit
weltweit
bcuster
Tulsi Gabbard's Times' IS Up
Replies
2
Views
159
bcuster
bcuster
brixtonscot
Show Israel the Red Card
Replies
12
Views
843
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
editor
  • Poll Poll
Merging Hamas/Israel conflict and West Bank Front threads?
Replies
23
Views
705
freshapple
F
teqniq
Good ole USA in shocking double standards of alleged Israeli sex offender allowed to leave the US and still detained in Israel Palestinian American
Replies
0
Views
234
teqniq
teqniq
Back
Top Bottom