Netanyahu: Iran 'weeks away' from crossing red line

[-SINAN-]

My opinion in the worst case scenerio between Iran-Israel: Iran can take a Nuke attack and survive. In retaliation Iran will destroy Tel-Aviv with its shahab-3 missiles. If Tel-Aviv gets destroyed Israel can't survive. Simple as that.

 

[bozorgmehr]

My opinion in the worst case scenerio between Iran-Israel: Iran can take a Nuke attack and survive. In retaliation Iran will destroy Tel-Aviv with its shahab-3 missiles. If Tel-Aviv gets destroyed Israel can't survive. Simple as that.

I think it's inconceivable that Israel will use nukes in their fist strike. They survive on ignorance and apathy of public opinion, the world over. Using nukes without provocation will put them in the dog house, with the world public opinion, which will be way more serious danger to their long term survivability, than any potential wars.

So that leaves us with a conventional strike. And the Iranian response to that should be measured, precise and deliberate. Instead they should concentrate on explaining and invoking their right to withdraw from the NPT with just cause. And then quietly build the nukes after that. That's the ultimate victory for Iran. And that will change Israeli behaviour and policies in very profound ways.

 

[muse]

It's absolutely absurd that Israeli or at least Netanyahu and company are focused on Iran, whereas their enemy, not just adversary, are the monarchies and the development of nationalism focused on anti israel sentiment

 

[Declein]

In my opinion many people mistake the relevance of nukes - as in having them makes you "safe" or makes other countries consider twice before attacking you (countries that are nuclear powers or have alliances with nuclear powers).

It really doesn't, all it does is make things a lot more dangerous for the country that can't actually fight a nuclear war but does have nukes (and there are 2 countries that can fight a nuclear war on god's green earth)

If it's an Iranian discussion after all - you guys are badly mistaken if you think that getting nukes will deter the USA (or Israel, if it has USA's blessing) from anything. What it will do is make things extremely dangerous for Iran and somewhat more complicated for USA, and that's about all.

Lets' say you make 300 nukes, which is a huge number ..and USA decides against all odds to attack.Well, first they will go for the nuclear capability.Now, since you don't have boomers, ICBM's or, more importantly, no idea on how to actually fight a nuclear war (meaning troops that are protected, shelters, command structure protected, knowledge on how or were to dissimulate your nukes), the vast majority will be destroyed in the first strike. A couple might survive - then what? Launch them or accept their loss and fight a conventional war? If you launch, it will hurt a lot for Israel/USA, but they will pull through it. Iran, on the other hand, would cease to exit the next hour.

If you made boomers, ICBM"s, etc, all that would change is that the first strike will probably be nuclear, so that's even worst.

So what's the logical step for the Iranian state ? Risk a conventional defeat or sure annihilation, complete and forever?

Btw, this scenario also applies to China/India/Pakistan if they get in to a brawl with the big 2 - any of these countries will make god damn sure that the nuclear super power is assured about not using nukes, in any scenario, never..in fact, I think they will tell them were the nukes are, just to lose them and get it over with..

Israel is somewhat different - unlike you guys, they can't afford to be defeated and occupied, so nukes would be all that's left int hat scenario..

Sorry for the long rant..

Edit: Muse, in the long run, Iran is the main adversary of Israel - they have the capability and potential. Besides that, they can replace Israel as the West's main ally in the area.

The Monarchies aren't a (big) danger, they will exist as something meaningful only until USA gets tired with them or Iran switches (hope I don't offend the Arab members, just my opinion)

 

[-SINAN-]

I think it's inconceivable that Israel will use nukes in their fist strike. They survive on ignorance and apathy of public opinion, the world over. Using nukes without provocation will put them in the dog house, with the world public opinion, which will be way more serious danger to their long term survivability, than any potential wars.

So that leaves us with a conventional strike. And the Iranian response to that should be measured, precise and deliberate. Instead they should concentrate on explaining and invoking their right to withdraw from the NPT with just cause. And then quietly build the nukes after that. That's the ultimate victory for Iran. And that will change Israeli behaviour and policies in very profound ways.

I think conventional aerial strike, is not an option here due to range between Iran-Israel. They would wanna use Jericho missiles but due to range that will not be a surgical strike so they would want to increase the effectiveness of the missille with a Nuke.

If they are serious about destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, that's what they should do. That said, i'm only talking about the method. Of course they will never drop a bomb in Iran.

 

[bozorgmehr]

In my opinion many people mistake the relevance of nukes - as in having them makes you "safe" or makes other countries consider twice before attacking you (countries that are nuclear powers or have alliances with nuclear powers).

It really doesn't, all it does is make things a lot more dangerous for the country that can't actually fight a nuclear war but does have nukes (and there are 2 countries that can fight a nuclear war on god's green earth)

If it's an Iranian discussion after all - you guys are badly mistaken if you think that getting nukes will deter the USA (or Israel, if it has USA's blessing) from anything. What it will do is make things extremely dangerous for Iran and somewhat more complicated for USA, and that's about all.

I agree with you on some points. And I think the Iranian government recognizes those arguments as well. That's why they haven't gone straight for the nukes, despite the fact that they could if they wanted to. And nobody has been under the misapprehension that nukes provide Iran with an invincibility shield. However, the calculus changes when you consider the the extraordinary price Iran is being made to pay over rights that are guaranteed under all treaties and agreements. And that makes the "take 2 for $0.25 more" argument more palatable to me, as an Iranian. In other words, if we're being so harshly punished for something we haven't done, we might as well go ahead and avail ourselves of some the benefits that thing has to offer.

Lets' say you make 300 nukes, which is a huge number ..and USA decides against all odds to attack.Well, first they will go for the nuclear capability.Now, since you don't have boomers, ICBM's or, more importantly, no idea on how to actually fight a nuclear war (meaning troops that are protected, shelters, command structure protected, knowledge on how or were to dissimulate your nukes), the vast majority will be destroyed in the first strike. A couple might survive - then what? Launch them or accept their loss and fight a conventional war? If you launch, it will hurt a lot for Israel/USA, but they will pull through it. Iran, on the other hand, would cease to exit the next hour.

First of all, when and if Iran goes nuclear, like other countries that have done so, she will take measures to protect and minimize damage to her nuclear delivery capability. No country was born with a fully developed military nuclear infrastructure from the get go. This kind of thing gets further developed as the need arises. Secondly, US doesn't live in a fantasy video game land, where pushing a button results in all or most of your adversary's capabilities vanishing in thin air. Hunting down and destroying road mobile platforms are extremely difficult and requires air supremacy over enemy airspace and lots and lots of sorties. And even then... And at this point we are talking well beyond the 1st strike and the element of surprise. 3rdly, if you think Israel can handle a nuclear exchange, but Iran can't, then we have a lot more basic facts to discuss.

So what's the logical step for the Iranian state ? Risk a conventional defeat or sure annihilation, complete and forever?

I would say there are serious risks involved in either scenario. Personally, I would err on the side of taking my destiny in my own hand.

Btw, this scenario also applies to China/India/Pakistan if they get in to a brawl with the big 2 - any of these countries will make god damn sure that the nuclear super power is assured about not using nukes, in any scenario, never..in fact, I think they will tell them were the nukes are, just to lose them and get it over with..

And to that I would add Russia when they started out. Yet they all hold to their nuclear capability and things haven't worked out the way you proposed. There's a rason for that. And that's because you have ignored the principle of proportionality. No matter how strong the US may be, it is unwilling to pay the price of a nuclear exchange, unless it is left with no other option. And there are very few foreign policy goals that are worth a nuclear exchange. And that's how the world has gotten on up to now. And that's how it will do so after a nuclear Iran.

Israel is somewhat different - unlike you guys, they can't afford to be defeated and occupied, so nukes would be all that's left int hat scenario..

This is your own skewed opinion and I fundamentally disagree with it.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

This is his way of getting votes, make the people think they are in danger so he can push across his agenda, although Iran is supposedly building nuclear weapons if they wanted to get power from renewable energy there's always thorium based reactors they could use...

Just saying....

 

[Declein]

First of all, when and if Iran goes nuclear, like other countries that have done so, she will take measures to protect and minimize damage to her nuclear delivery capability. No country was born with a fully developed military nuclear infrastructure from the get go. This kind of thing gets further developed as the need arises. Secondly, US doesn't live in a fantasy video game land, where pushing a button results in all or most of your adversary's capabilities vanishing in thin air. Hunting down and destroying road mobile platforms are extremely difficult and requires air supremacy over enemy airspace and lots and lots of sorties. And even then... And at this point we are talking well beyond the 1st strike and the element of surprise. 3rdly, if you think Israel can handle a nuclear exchange, but Iran can't, then we have a lot more basic facts to discuss.

Well, first I agree that it's impossible to hunt all the nuclear devices - hence I said so in my original post. Then what? Nuke Israel? I agree that they are in a way worst position than you guys, but in practical terms, neither will survive.
You will lob some dozens at them, the USA will lob some hundreds at you. Same net result, 0. Not worth it, IMHO - better to fight a nice, conventional war, if you have to

Secondly, I don't think USA will back-up only because you threaten Israel with nukes.

And to that I would add Russia when they started out. Yet they all hold to their nuclear capability and things haven't worked out the way you proposed. There's a rason for that. And that's because you have ignored the principle of proportionality. No matter how strong the US may be, it is unwilling to pay the price of a nuclear exchange, unless it is left with no other option. And there are very few foreign policy goals that are worth a nuclear exchange. And that's how the world has gotten on up to now. And that's how it will do so after a nuclear Iran.

Different things.

About Russia, USA had the A-bomb, but they hadn't that many and where war -wary after WW2 in which the Soviets were allies. Nevertheless, they almost nuked the Chinese in the Korean war.

About China/India - each had a superpower backing them, that's the reason , they were supported in getting nukes. Even then, China was almost nuked twice. Proportionality be damned, look at the '69 war plans.

Iran is not in that situation, nobody is backing you but many see you as a danger. And a danger with a nuclear program and no backing...

This is your own skewed opinion and I fundamentally disagree with it.

I think that if Israel falls to it's Arab neighbors ghettos is the best outcome for them, while Holocaust v 2.0 is the likely one. In this sense I said that they can't afford to lose (btw, I think that they have nukes, and don't agree on them having nukes, just for the record..)

 

[Serpentine]

It's absolutely absurd that Israeli or at least Netanyahu and company are focused on Iran, whereas their enemy, not just adversary, are the monarchies and the development of nationalism focused on anti israel sentiment

I don't think Arab monarchies pose any threat to security of Israel anymore. U.S has a full control on most of them and it will make them suffer if they even think of taking on Israel militarily.

 

[-SINAN-]

This is his way of getting votes, make the people think they are in danger so he can push across his agenda, although Iran is supposedly building nuclear weapons if they wanted to get power from renewable energy there's always thorium based reactors they could use...

Just saying....

Thorium based reactors are still being developed and have many adversities to dealth with.

 

[LiberalAtheist]

Thorium based reactors are still being developed and have many adversities to dealth with.

I believe the Russians and Chinese have made strides in this area...

 

[-SINAN-]

I believe the Russians and Chinese have made strides in this area...

Sir, this is still a future project. There is no thorium based nuclear plant in the world.

Another issue, Why would Turkey is building 2 Uranium based nuclear plants instead of Thorium based while being Number 2 for having Worlds Thorium reserves ? Thorium

 

[LiberalAtheist]

Sir, this is still a future project. There is no thorium based nuclear plant in the world.

Another issue, Why would Turkey is building 2 Uranium based nuclear plants instead of Thorium based while being Number 2 for having Worlds Thorium reserves ? Thorium

Perhaps Turkey wants to be self sufficient in uranium based reactors and like I said strides are being taken by many countries pretty soon there will be thorium based reactors powering who knows what it is the future and safer alternative to plutonium/uranium reactors Japan and Ukraine have also undertaken studies in this field, why can't Iran?

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

 

[-SINAN-]

Perhaps Turkey wants to be self sufficient in uranium based reactors and like I said strides are being taken by many countries pretty soon there will be thorium based reactors powering who knows what it is the future and safer alternative to plutonium/uranium reactors Japan and Ukraine have also undertaken studies in this field, why can't Iran?

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

Iran can also; but investment in Thorium Reactors means they should have (we also) have to wait for the maturation of the systems for a undefined time.

This like: you want to buy a diesel car but there is a research going on electric powered cars. Those cars will be very cheap to maintain. So you want to buy this new generation car but there is none on the market and it is unknown that when they will be on sale.

 

[bozorgmehr]

Well, first I agree that it's impossible to hunt all the nuclear devices - hence I said so in my original post. Then what? Nuke Israel? I agree that they are in a way worst position than you guys, but in practical terms, neither will survive.
You will lob some dozens at them, the USA will lob some hundreds at you. Same net result, 0. Not worth it, IMHO - better to fight a nice, conventional war, if you have to

Ok, at least we now both agree that Iran will have the opportunity to lob its own missiles at Israel, and consequentially destroy it using nukes, when and if Iran develops them. And that Israel will in return obliterate Iran (Those events in no particular order). Then I would argue that they will have reached an equilibrium of power and they will be subject to the theory of MAD. As a result of which, you will see an increased level of stability and peace in the region.

Regarding the US-Iran exchange, it is clear that Iran's deterrent capability will not be able to catch up with US 1st, 2nd and 3rd strike capacity any time soon. Does that mean the US will freely engage in nuclear warfare against Iran? To answer that question let's look at some historical precedents wrt smaller nuclear powers. Did the US nuke the nascent Chinese nuclear capability while it enjoyed widely disproportionate power to harm them? What about the North Koreans, their psychotic leadership and their 5 bombs? What about India and Pakistan? The answer is no in all cases. That's because nobody is willing to lose an eye or an arm in a fight over lunch, even if they can kill the other guy. We all saw what happened in the US after they lost 3 buildings in New York. You think they'll be ready to exchange LA or DC against an otherwise negotiable issue in middle east? In fact I think it was Moa who used to say something to that effect regarding US support for Taiwan. So I think there's no reason that the same principle won't apply to Iran. Sure, the balance of power between the 2 will slightly shift to Iran's favor. But the end result will be that they will be more civil and considerate toward one another.

Secondly, I don't think USA will back-up only because you threaten Israel with nukes.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Different things.

About Russia, USA had the A-bomb, but they hadn't that many and where war -wary after WW2 in which the Soviets were allies. Nevertheless, they almost nuked the Chinese in the Korean war.

China didn't have nukes at that point yet. But I submit to you we would have witnessed a war on a much smaller scale or potentially no war at all, if the Chinese had them. The Americans wouldn't have been brazen enough to the take the war up to the Yalu river. Both parties would have agreed to a negotiated settlement much earlier.

About China/India - each had a superpower backing them, that's the reason , they were supported in getting nukes. Even then, China was almost nuked twice. Proportionality be damned, look at the '69 war plans.

You are factually wrong. China was in a virtual state of war wiht the USSR. And if I'm not mistaken India got its nukes from civilian heavy water civilian reactors, bought legally from Western firms. Neither had the explicit backing of anybody, when the push came to shove.

Iran is not in that situation, nobody is backing you but many see you as a danger. And a danger with a nuclear program and no backing...

Again, same as above. Niehter did China or India.

I think that if Israel falls to it's Arab neighbors ghettos is the best outcome for them, while Holocaust v 2.0 is the likely one. In this sense I said that they can't afford to lose (btw, I think that they have nukes, and don't agree on them having nukes, just for the record..)

I disagree with you. The Jews will lose their artificially maintained majority on that territory. And hence the political entity known as the Jewish state will cease to operate. But I don't think they will be subject to more massacres than they subjected the Palestinians to. You gotta remember that some neighbouring Arab countries are religiously quite diverse (lebanon and Syria) or have large non-muslim minorities (egypt). So there are many living precedents for that in the Arab world. So I think your opinion is informed more by propaganda and ignorance, than reality.