Isreali plans for tactical nucular strike on Iran revealed?

User45701

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

Is this site reliable?
my first time going to the site and i thought you guys might have some more info on this
thanks

philologos

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07012007/325/israel-plans-nuclear-strike-iran-paper.html

yes and I think its very plausible that Israel would conjure up such a plan. A bit stupid if you ask me seeing that Ahmadinejad is only providing nuclear power to his people.

secret_squirrel

Well its the online site of the Time newspaper in the UK. So its likely as reliable as the paper. Its a broadsheet.

Just remember its owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Sun, Sky News and Fox News.

Form your opinions accordingly.

If you ask me its a slow news day type story.

I dont doubt the Israeli's are mental enough to use a nuke, but couldnt see it being anything as a last resort, since it would result in pretty much worldwide condemnation and all arab countries declaring war on them.

philologos

also by Reuters London (if you look at that Yahoo link)
The Israelis used depleted uranium in Lebanon, what's gonna stop them using nukes in Iran?

secret_squirrel

Jakkass wrote:

The Israelis used depleted uranium in Lebanon, what's gonna stop them using nukes in Iran?

How exactly does that correlate with using Nukes?

Its about as valid as saying using Lead in bullets means you will use nukes.

MOST modern militaries use depleted uranium in their Shells for example. Its sheer density helps penetrate modern armour and structures. Any radioactivity (and its tiny) is an UNwanted side effect. You think they want their Tank and Gun crews going down with radiation poisoning?

If you are refering to the mysterious radiation from 2 destroyed Hizbollah bunkers - the cause of that is still unknown, so I would suggest not tarring the Israeli's with that particular brush just yet.

joebhoy1916

Didn't the UN preform radiological studies of the bomb sites in question and found no evidence whatsoever of either spent or enriched uranium in Lebanon?

Kinda scary though when you have people like Bob Beckel talking.

Húrin

I would really not like to see Israel attack Iran. It would probably devolve into open war.

However, Most countries with sizeable militaries draw up strategies to attack other countries should the eventuality arise. For example, the USA has such plans for Canada. It doesn't mean that they have any intention of implementing them.

jesus_thats_gre

Of course Israel have plans made for an attack on Iran. This does not mean that they intend putting the plans into action though. A little sensationalist to be honest.

H&#250

H&#250 wrote: »

However, Most countries with sizeable militaries draw up strategies to attack other countries should the eventuality arise.

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Of course Israel have plans made for an attack on Iran. This does not mean that they intend putting the plans into action though.

Spot on.

Obviously a bad day for news...

Black Swan

Typical media sensationalism. Sells advertising and improves ratings. Sure, Israel will have plans, but they will not nuke Iran. Only the US nukes people, and the Israeli's have a better appreciation of their place in the world community.

InFront

This sounds like something that should be on conspiracy theories.

Well done Mr Ahamadinejad is what I say, the fact that most people don't entertain the idea of Israel/ USA acting aginst him right now suggests that he is defending his country well from becoming another Iraq.

hmmm

The Israeli's aren't going to sit around and accept another holocaust, particularly one as well flagged as from the Iranian leadership. Personally I've no doubt that the Israelis would use whatever they decided was needed when the point of no return in the Iranian nuclear program is reached.

InFront

Oh please, the fact that Ahmadinejad onbiously has an anti-Jewish bias does not make him the instigator of a Holocaust in America's lap dog itself, a foreign country like Israel. That's the most outlandish theory I've seen on politics in a while.

hmmm

InFront wrote:

Oh please, the fact that Ahmadinejad onbiously has an anti-Jewish bias does not make him the instigator of a Holocaust in America's lap dog itself, a foreign country like Israel. That's the most outlandish theory I've seen on politics in a while.

huh?
Quote from the US lapdogs at Al Jazeera

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.

Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be an existential threat to Israel.

ChessHacker

MOST modern militaries use depleted uranium in their Shells for example. Its sheer density helps penetrate modern armour and structures. Any radioactivity (and its tiny) is an UNwanted side effect. You think they want their Tank and Gun crews going down with radiation poisoning?

If you are refering to the mysterious radiation from 2 destroyed Hizbollah bunkers - the cause of that is still unknown, so I would suggest not tarring the Israeli's with that particular brush just yet.

DU only becomes dangerous after munitions impact.
The dust particles, when injested are very dangerous.

Not only does Israel (and the US ans UK) use DU coated weapons but they have also used DIME weapons.


From The Independent:
"According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defence - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples.

Dr Busby's initial report states that there are two possible reasons for the contamination. "The first is that the weapon was some novel small experimental nuclear fission device or other experimental weapon (eg, a thermobaric weapon) based on the high temperature of a uranium oxidation flash ... The second is that the weapon was a bunker-busting conventional uranium penetrator weapon employing enriched uranium rather than depleted uranium." A photograph of the explosion of the first bomb shows large clouds of black smoke that might result from burning uranium."

hmmm

ChessHacker wrote:

From The Independent:
"According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures".

"The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) is a committee set up in 1997 by the European Green Party" - any chance of verification by an actual scientific body that is independent and not politically motivated?

Red Hand

Jakkass wrote:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/07012007/325/israel-plans-nuclear-strike-iran-paper.html

yes and I think its very plausible that Israel would conjure up such a plan. A bit stupid if you ask me seeing that Ahmadinejad is only providing nuclear power to his people.

Most military ppowers will have plans for attacking other nations, even if they are no immediate threat. For instance, the Prussians during the 1860s had strategies for invading the East coast of the USA, even though the US wasn't an enemy and the Prussians didn't possess a navy of any significance.

Of course the Israelis will have plans for dealing with most eventualities. They do have alot of enemies and potential adverseries after all.

secret_squirrel

ChessHacker wrote:

they have also used DIME weapons.

2 Questions.

1. Link to proof please. And I dont count speculation by some Italian Journalists as proof.

2. How exactly is it relevant to Nuking Iran's Uranium enrichment?

As far as I can the only relevance your post has is that both stories are media speculation with little in way of evidence to back them up.

ChessHacker

secret_squirrel wrote:

2 Questions.

1. Link to proof please. And I dont count speculation by some Italian Journalists as proof.

2. How exactly is it relevant to Nuking Iran's Uranium enrichment?

As far as I can the only relevance your post has is that both stories are media speculation with little in way of evidence to back them up.

Doctors in Gaza has seen wounds compatible with their use.
There are pictures if you look for them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1924524,00.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1502.shtml
Of course, it will be denied but the evidence suggests that a DIME type weapon was involved.

Actually, the Sunday Times has a long history of claiming such an attack is imminent so the article should be taken with a grain or two of salt.
That the US or Israel would like to bomb Iran's facilities is not questioned.

Also, regarding Iran's enrichment, the IAEA has no evidence that Iran is trying to create HEU (required for a bomb) and the US's NIE said that Iran was 5-10 years away. In addition, Iran is a signatory to the NPT unlike India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

hmmm

ChessHacker wrote:

Also, regarding Iran's enrichment, the IAEA has no evidence that Iran is trying to create HEU (required for a bomb) and the US's NIE said that Iran was 5-10 years away. In addition, Iran is a signatory to the NPT unlike India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

It's great to live in Ireland and not be Jewish. The question is what will Israel do, not what would someone living in Ireland do who can afford to be wrong on the date as to when Iran gets the bomb. If Iran are close to producing a nuclear weapon and don't back down, or if the rest of the world doesn't force them to back down, the Israelis will attack. They see this as an existential threat and I agree with their view.

is_that_so

In an ideal world that would be their answer. "Bomb the bast*ds and to hell with every one else". And in that ideal world the Israeli military would also be able to take on all comers and defeat them, something it was clearly unable to do in Lebanon recently.
Much as the US have had plans to bomb most of the world at some point in time, the Israelis have almost certainly indulged in a few of their own fantastic war games.
Adding up the pros and cons in that scenario would not be pleasant. Apart from upsetting the Palestinians, Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians , the EU and everyone else and risking Middle East collapse.
Even the Israel friendly US wouldn't be up for that. A plan doesn't mean it's going to happen. The Israelis have since come out and denied it as nonsense but the idea has now been put out.
A suggestion has been made that the story was "leaked" to refocus attention on the Iranians as the Iranian nuclear problem has slipped out of sight of late.
Of more interest is the veiled Iranian threat in this piece.

Manic Moran

ChessHacker wrote:

Not only does Israel (and the US ans UK) use DU coated weapons but they have also used DIME weapons.

I'm not sure I see the issue. DIME need not contain uranium at all: There are other heavy metals which could be used which would be easier to process or obtain.

NTM

MorriganGael

Technically the DU or other heavy material is usually the core of the ammo.

There are a number of atomically heavy materials, barite for example which is almost as heavy as some forms of lead and used to reduce radiation in nuclear power plants, barite concrete.

However in the case of the shells from an F-16 gatling gun, they would be raw DU with perhaps a metal jacket.

The US Marines use a 25mm depleted uranium [DU] round in the GAU-12 Gatling gun on AV-8 Harriers. Most peopel think it's just the A-10 that has the cannon that shoots DU. Many current aircraft do.

The Israeli Air Force received its F-16Is in February 2004.
The M61A1 (Vulcan) is a 20 mm six-barrel gatling gun firing a subcaliber sabot projectile using a heavy-metal (either tungsten or depleted uranium) 15mm penetrator surrounded by a plastic jacket.

Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS), Depleted Uranium sub-caliber penetrator at 4500 rounds/min.

The Israeli F-16's probably fired some rounds from their single 20mm gatling gun and those rounds were probably anti-tank or ground rounds.

If some genius in Eire wanted to make a billion euros, he'd design and market a Barite round for General Dynamics, that is heavier and more effective than DU he'd call it the Eco-friendly shooters round. But of course do any of us understand why DU is used?
They decided to use DU as a way to quietly get rid of the the US nuclear waste from powr plants and share the love with the developing nations.


Barite or Ba has an atomic weight of 137.34
Tungsten or W has a atomic weight of 183.85
Lead or Pb has an atomic weight of 207.2
Uranium or U has an atomic weight of 238.02891, twice that or Ba, but it discourages war with it's ugly low level radiation and makes war not a people pleaser.

The public would love it, and rightly so.
We do have to look at the costs. Barium is widely used in the North Sea oil drilling, it is cheaper than Tungsten or the other exotics. Lead causes blocking of the nervous system in children and forget DU.

Sooner or later, when we conquer, kill and give democracy to these people, we will have to clean up and be accountable, if we want to look good.

Will Israel use a nuclear bomb strike on Iran? Time will tell. I don't think it would be justified. I don't think the planning of it is even justified. Only retaliatory, second strike, defensive nuclear weapons planning is justified.

An Israeli so-called "pre-emptive" nuclear strike would not be justified by the world community.

Manic Moran

MorriganGael wrote:

If some genius in Eire wanted to make a billion euros, he'd design and market a Barite round for General Dynamics, that is heavier and more effective than DU he'd call it the Eco-friendly shooters round. But of course do any of us understand why DU is used?
They decided to use DU as a way to quietly get rid of the the US nuclear waste from powr plants and share the love with the developing nations.


Barite or Ba has an atomic weight of 137.34
Tungsten or W has a atomic weight of 183.85
Lead or Pb has an atomic weight of 207.2
Uranium or U has an atomic weight of 238.02891, twice that or Ba, but it discourages war with it's ugly low level radiation and makes war not a people pleaser.

We do have to look at the costs. Barium is widely used in the North Sea oil drilling, it is cheaper than Tungsten or the other exotics. Lead causes blocking of the nervous system in children and forget DU.

I'm not sure I see the military logic in advocating Barite. It is the lightest of the metals you list, thus making it the least capable in terms of armour penetration.

NTM

RedPlanet

is_that_so wrote:

Of more interest is the veiled Iranian threat in this piece.

What threat?
You mean the Straits of Hormuz?
But that's not veiled.
Anyway, what is worse: a megalomaniac Superpower threatening war on a country that is trying to pursue it's right under international law; or a country threatening to cut the supply of dope?

hmmm

MorriganGael wrote:

Will Israel use a nuclear bomb strike on Iran? Time will tell. I don't think it would be justified. I don't think the planning of it is even justified. Only retaliatory, second strike, defensive nuclear weapons planning is justified..

If you were living now in Tel Aviv, and you had the religious fanatic President of a country who doesn't fear death because he thinks he's the second coming of God threatening to eradicate you, would you be happy to just sit and wait to be nuked? There's a reason why a tiny country like Israel has poured money into becoming militarily superior to its neighbours.

We all know what happened the last time the Jews sat back and allowed themselves to be herded like sheep to their death.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the holocaust gives israel the right to occupy territories and ignore international law? great.. the Ira should have milked the famine for all it's worth. amateurs.

Lemming

hmmm wrote:

If you were living now in Tel Aviv, and you had the religious fanatic President of a country who doesn't fear death because he thinks he's the second coming of God threatening to eradicate you, would you be happy to just sit and wait to be nuked? There's a reason why a tiny country like Israel has poured money into becoming militarily superior to its neighbours.

We all know what happened the last time the Jews sat back and allowed themselves to be herded like sheep to their death.

So rather than trying to learn from the altogether tragic lessons of the past and trying to find peaceful ways of living with your neighbours, you advocate conducting a holocaust of a nuclear nature on them? Neighbours that, I might add, had nothing to do with the holocaust of 1939-45.

Bravo .... :rolleyes:

The victim has, in classic psychological fashion, become the bully.


One other thing to note .... President Ahmadinejad is playing popular real-politik and pandering to the lowest common denominator to gain public support. Much the way Bush played the religious card to entice fundies to vote for the Republicans in the US elections, or much the way pretty much ANY other politician exploits popular public sentiment. Hardly a litmus test for accurate opinion.

Dontico

hmmm wrote:

It's great to live in Ireland and not be Jewish. The question is what will Israel do, not what would someone living in Ireland do who can afford to be wrong on the date as to when Iran gets the bomb. If Iran are close to producing a nuclear weapon and don't back down, or if the rest of the world doesn't force them to back down, the Israelis will attack. They see this as an existential threat and I agree with their view.

if israel has nukes. iran should have nukes too. iran is so much more civilised than israel. why should only the bloodthirsty countries, israel, america, britain, are allowed have nukes? note these three have the wors human rights record than any current gov. note the nazis are gone, but still i would rank britain and america wost than the nazis. israel is cathing up though. if they attack iran with nukes, thats enough for me to rank them worse than the nazis.

MorriganGael

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm not sure I see the military logic in advocating Barite. It is the lightest of the metals you list, thus making it the least capable in terms of armour penetration.

NTM

It depends on what military doctrine is being discussed.

A military attached to an administrative state such as Rome, will have a more humane doctrine, as the administrative government has to then rule the occupied territory.

A military attached to no administrative state, such as a guerilla or terrorist military, does not have to necessarily govern the occupied land.

So military doctrine is dependent upon the state that funds and is attached to it.

People think that not using low level radioactive munitions, such as DU rounds, is a fun and eco-friendly thing to do, but in fact it is the smart long term administrative thing to do. If your army, your citizens are not in of radioactive occupied zone, and you have another nation's people doing the occupation for you, then your military doctrine can be one of a terrorist groups.

For example, the US is occupying Iraq to protect another nation. The US is using DU and it's soldiers are coming down with DU illnesses and birth defects, yet the nation they are protecting, Israel, is not affected by the current US military doctrine of using DU.

Uranium does have a higher pentration capacity under current usage. But it has a social effect of loosing the peace, loosing the occupation. A conventional, civilized, military does have some obligation to use honorable, sustainable force. Killing or bombing all the children of the enemy combatant with carpet bombing or DU contamination, is not the most sustainable military projection.

Let us do remember that military tactics is the maneuvering of forces and brainwork. It's not contaminating the water supply with DU that the children of your enemy drink out of.

Depleted Uranium is cheap because they have to pay people to take it. It's nuclear waste, so of course it's going to be "cheaper" than safer substitutes. But the cost of using DU in the long term is very high and not smart in a military doctrine sense because the enemy will end up using it aginst you. It works fine for a short time on the lands of developing nations, but there will be payback, humans have a way of seeking justice.

The only military doctrine that leaves a lasting mark is that which is sustainable and that comes from fighting with honor and respect for human life.

Manic Moran

MorriganGael wrote:

Uranium does have a higher pentration capacity under current usage. But it has a social effect of loosing the peace, loosing the occupation. A conventional, civilized, military does have some obligation to use honorable, sustainable force. Killing or bombing all the children of the enemy combatant with carpet bombing or DU contamination, is not the most sustainable military projection.

<snip>

But the cost of using DU in the long term is very high and not smart in a military doctrine sense because the enemy will end up using it aginst you. It works fine for a short time on the lands of developing nations, but there will be payback, humans have a way of seeking justice.

There is a very simple balance that comes to mind when referring to 'not using DU because the enemy will use it'.

If I'm in my tank, I want the toughest damned armour I can have around me. I am not going to be happy to simply rely on the fact that 'we'll play nice so the other people won't be shooting the most penetrating weapon possible at us'.

Presumably the other chap will be thinking the same thing.

The simple fact is that until a more powerful penetrator than DU is found, or until the world agrees to ban it, DU is going to be used in armour piercing rounds and in armour.

NTM