Jump to content


- - - - -

Isreal plans to use Nuclear Weapons against Iran.


  • You cannot reply to this topic
32 replies to this topic

#1 JokeyMcScrotsack

    If you go fast enough they can't tell how big it isn't.

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Location: Pizza Napoli's

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:15 PM

Quote

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
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.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:

# Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment

# A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels

# A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.

page two

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”

http://www.timesonli...35310_2,00.html

#2 JokeyMcScrotsack

    If you go fast enough they can't tell how big it isn't.

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Location: Pizza Napoli's

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:16 PM

Grab your ankles if this one happens. Damn.  :shock:

#3 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:24 PM

That makes no damned since at all. Quick but idiotic. Really not sure what to say.  :lipsrsealed:

#4 dlewis23

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,178 posts
  • Location: Florida

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:26 PM

i say go for, Isreal  needs to stand up for it self for once. but that is my oupion

#5 loki123

    Full Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Location: El Mirrage, Arizona

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:27 PM

    :knuppel2:      <go get em bat holding person...


yep, no Idea what to say either

#6 JokeyMcScrotsack

    If you go fast enough they can't tell how big it isn't.

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Location: Pizza Napoli's

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:28 PM

Quote

That makes no damned since at all. Quick but idiotic. Really not sure what to say.  :lipsrsealed:





Quote

i say go for, Israel  needs to stand up for it self for once. but that is my oupion
I am with both of you. If I was Israel surrounded by countries that hated me, I would not want them to have nukes either. I don't think ANY country can really understand how Israel feels. At the same time just the word Nuke brings with it alot of emotion.

#7 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:31 PM

Quote

i say go for, Isreal  needs to stand up for it self for once. but that is my opinion
I agree there, but I thought we had a rule of no more nuclear weapons? After Japan. Or was that just us, or was it just the cold war between the US and Russia?

#8 JokeyMcScrotsack

    If you go fast enough they can't tell how big it isn't.

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Location: Pizza Napoli's

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:43 PM

http://www.ynetnews....3348748,00.html

Doesnt this give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

#9 dlewis23

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,178 posts
  • Location: Florida

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:47 PM

Quote

http://www.ynetnews....3348748,00.html

Doesnt this give you a warm fuzzy feeling?

yes it does.

well if iran fires a nuke at isreal you can bet that we will shoot some ICBM's there way. and you can guarantee that ours wont be no little toy nukes.

#10 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:50 PM

Are you a nasty boy shug.
Warm is not the word for it. Fuzzy no.
Although if the boys want to play. Just let us get the heck out first. The world could use some cheap oil right now. Even though I was hoping for an alternative fuel source, really.  :angry:

Say goodnight. No we won't play. Bush of all people has proven that. Dumbasses.

#11 JokeyMcScrotsack

    If you go fast enough they can't tell how big it isn't.

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,650 posts
  • Location: Pizza Napoli's

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:50 PM

Quote

yes it does.

well if iran fires a nuke at isreal you can bet that we will shoot some ICBM's there way. and you can guarantee that ours wont be no little toy nukes.
:iamwithstupid:

#12 ghostmaster

    Expert

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • Location: Sharing a cigarette with negativity...

Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:03 PM

It's not much of a secret, if it's in the news.....By the time they get the mission ready, the uranium would have been moved.  Sounds more like their way of saying, "hey we already have nukes so don't attack us".

#13 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 07 January 2007 - 03:51 PM

Or they could be bluffing til they get them ready. Like Sadam was doing.  :uglystupid2:

#14 rushonbye

    Sr. Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 04:33 PM

Sounds like  a plan to me. We cannot allow that nut in Iran to have nuclear weapons.

#15 Le_Murphant

    TMN Friend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location: Montreal

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:19 PM

I agree that Iran must not get nukes, but this whole scenario somehow reminds me of the cold war, especially with the ICBM's. Hope it doesn't turn into that again.

#16 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 07 January 2007 - 10:13 PM

one ( maybe 2 ) very big differences. The USSR actually was power #1 and we were power #2. Now we are #1 and Iran is waaaaaaay on down the list.  :knuppel2:

I very seriously doubt Bush will wag his tail between his legs like Billy Clinton did. And then try to sweep it under the rug, and try to pretend it never happened.  :smiley: So in my opinion I doubt you will see a cold war. At least for another 1 or 2.

#17 Blunted 2

    TMN Sr. Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,773 posts

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:08 PM

they can fight all they want but if they use nukes the world is gonna think if they can do it so can we and that will be a big problem that we dont want or need.

#18 tommie gorman

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,961 posts
  • Location: western missouri

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:33 PM

True that.  :icon_thumright: But sometimes it is hard to control the kids. Especially if they do not want to play by the rules.  :shrug:

Who knows what will come of it.  :icon_scratch:

#19 Voltageman

    TMN Friend

  • Sophist Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Location: NY

Posted 08 January 2007 - 01:32 AM

http://news.national...uclear-war.html

Quote

Even a small nuclear conflict would cause long-lasting global devastation that could kill tens of millions, scientists warned this week.

Within a couple of decades, 40 countries could have arsenals large enough to cause such a disaster, the researchers added.

This means the threat of global catastrophe is higher now than it was during the Cold War—even though worldwide stocks of nuclear weapons have declined by a factor of three since the end of the four-decades-long conflict.

The dire predictions came from the first ever study of a regional nuclear exchange, unveiled Monday at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Previous studies had looked only at the effects of all-out nuclear war between superpowers.

"This is the greatest danger to survival since the dawn of humanity," said study co-author Owen Toon of the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Environmental Catastrophe

In an exchange in which each side uses only 50 Hiroshima-size bombs—just 0.3 percent of the world's arsenal—the initial explosions could kill more than 20 million people, the scientists calculate.

But more far-reaching would be the resulting fires, which would fill the upper atmosphere with soot—destroying the Earth's ozone layer, blocking sunlight, and reducing average global temperatures by 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.25 degrees Celsius), said co-author Alan Robock of Rutgers University in New Jersey.

The effect would persist for several years and be stronger at mid-latitudes, including the U.S. and Europe.

"This would be a global climate change unprecedented in recorded history," Robock said.

The increase in people living in urban areas is magnifying the danger, said Richard Turco of the University of California, Los Angeles.

Densely populated "megacities" would be the most likely targets in a small-scale nuclear war.

Firestorms from the detonations would feed on a combination of wood, plastics, asphalt roofing, and petroleum products, injecting a black, sooty smoke high into the air, Turco said.

The soot would absorb sunlight before it reached Earth's surface, reducing temperatures and causing the soot to rise dozens of miles higher.

Eventually the soot would settle into the upper layer of the atmosphere known as the stratosphere, where it would block sunlight for many years.

This would have a devastating impact on agriculture, causing a 10 percent reduction in rainfall and shrinking the growing season in some parts of the globe by as much as 30 days.

The particles would also destroy much of Earth's ozone layer, which protects humans and animals from cancer-causing ultraviolet radiation, the scientists predicted.

Toon referred to the result as "a global ozone hole."

"Nuclear Winter"

In the 1980s Turco, Toon, and the late Carl Sagan had similar concerns about the effects of an all-out war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

They dubbed the resulting scenario "nuclear winter" because of the devastating impact on climate worldwide, including entire years with global temperatures below freezing.

The researchers didn't realize, however, that a smaller nuclear exchange would also have dramatic impacts.

"Regional-scale nuclear war can cause casualties similar to those previously predicted for a strategic attack by the U.S.S.R on the U.S.," Toon said.

The policy implications of the research are clear, the scientists noted.

Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, said, "Nobody can use these things without the effects spilling over to the rest of the planet."

"We're just at the beginning of this work," Robock added.

[move][glow=red,2,300]50 Hiroshima-size bombs—just 0.3 percent of the world's arsenal  :idiot2: [/glow][/move]

#20 dlewis23

    TMN Seasoned Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,178 posts
  • Location: Florida

Posted 08 January 2007 - 07:51 AM

Quote

one ( maybe 2 ) very big differences. The USSR actually was power #1 and we were power #2. Now we are #1 and Iran is waaaaaaay on down the list.  :knuppel2:

I very seriously doubt Bush will wag his tail between his legs like Billy Clinton did. And then try to sweep it under the rug, and try to pretend it never happened.  :smiley: So in my opinion I doubt you will see a cold war. At least for another 1 or 2.

other way around tommie, we were #1 USSR was #2 they never had more then 800 nukes we have over 2000. we also have several 24 warhead ICBM's then only had a few 16 warhead ICBM's





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users