The Final Battle

[nacmacfeegle 0]

The Taepo-dong/Shahab 4 variants have the range and payload capacity, but the Iranians are reputedly having system integration issues.
The Shahab 4 systems are indigenous, Taepo-dongs are imported from your old friends.
Rumsfeld sees them as a serious threat, so that has me worried....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

If Iran were to hold back on the flow of oil and push the price up they would quickly garner support against the US from many who are already questioning the reasons why the US invaded Iraq.

I disagree with this. I don't think people are going to see the US invasion of Iraq as related to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. I think people are going to see gasoline prices doubling and tripling and demand their govt. "do something about it." The power and will of a nation is a much greater force for change than within the govt.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

The Taepo-dong/Shahab 4 variants have the range and payload capacity, but the Iranians are reputedly having system integration issues.
The Shahab 4 systems are indigenous, Taepo-dongs are imported from your old friends.
Rumsfeld sees them as a serious threat, so that has me worried....

Compatability is what I was curious about, although considering Israel would be the most likely target, it wouldn't require a missille.

[freethefly 6]

I hope you are right. Yet, the prevailing attitude towards the US would predict otherwise. Many do see the US has a power hungry animal seeking world domination. Many are our friends during the day and plotting against us during the night. Another war would show who is truely loyal to the US and who is not. There is so much gradiation that it is hard to see the lines in regard to what anything is truely about. What is not hard to see is that everyone from new born babies to the oldest is involved when their is talk of NBC warfare. Iran is extremely dangerous and much more than N. Korea at this point. We have been in a standoff with Iran much like the standoff with N. Korea. I doubt that Iran has nothing but peaceful means for their nuclear ambition. Given the attitude of it's leadership, nothing good is going to come out of Iran if allowed to continue with building nuclear reactors. How the world should deal with this? No one has an answer that will satisfy everyone. There will be opposition no matter which way it goes.
Me, I gotta go. Looking at an earth home this AM. Hope to be able to get it on a contingency sale of my house. Given the nuclear ambitions of our enemies, an earth home might just be the ticket

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"although considering Israel would be the most likely target, it wouldn't require a missille"

Actually I think its Israel that might be first to lose their cool in this scenario.
It is entirely possible that Iran steps up their support for the Palestinians. I don't think its imminent, as the world is currently watching Iran, but its probably more likely than a missile borne first strike from Iran.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[outrager 6]

Quote

So what do you see as an alternative? Allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear program with a good chance they produce a nuclear weapon? I'd really like to hear your solution.

Yep. Iran has every right to have nukes. It will offset Israel's warheads and may finally create some stability in the region. It is too bad Saddam went into Kuwait before developing nuclear arms - if he waited there would not be either of Iraq wars.

The worst case scenario, where Israel and Iran do use their nukes and wipe each other out, might just be the best case scenario - the one that cleanses the whole wasp's nest once and for all.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

The worst case scenario, where Israel and Iran do use their nukes and wipe each other out, might just be the best case scenario - the one that cleanses the whole wasp's nest once and for all.

You do realize, Yuri, that several of Israel’s nuclear systems are targeted on Russian cities including Moscow. According to numerous published reports, Israeli doctrine in the case of an imminent destruction scenario is to launch nuclear strikes against Russian cities and bring ruin down upon the anti-semites which have supported those who would destroy Israel. Something you may wish to consider.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[outrager 6]

Quote

You do realize, Yuri, that several of Israel’s nuclear systems are targeted on Russian cities including Moscow.

I'm afraid you're stretching it a bit - otherwise an immediate pre-emptive strike against Israel is in order

Israel long-range delivery options just aren't quite that good. They can reach southern border areas, but to continue further on (and penetrate air defences) is a very different task. Besides they would be trying to target large Jewish populations

If Israel did have a capability and a policy of launching such a rogue long-range strike against a third country, it would be preemptively destroyed at the first sight of any trouble in the region - out of pure necessity.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

By most accounts Russia possesses a small number of superb radars and radar-guided antiaircraft missiles which could track and conceivably intercept a nonstealthy nuclear missile warhead or a nonstealthy nuclear-capable aircraft penetrating Russian airspace. Mathius Rust has demonstrated there certainly is no guarantee, however.

Unfortunately for Russia, its limited national budget has meant that Russia is not able to maintain an adequate supply of active missile-detecting satellites in orbit, the few that are up there are not in good shape. The first notification that Russia would have of a nuclear attack from the direction of Israel would, in the best-case scenario, arrive in the form of radar returns from a Jericho missile warhead or an Israeli aircraft.

No doubt Russia could detect most if not all of the airplanes in the Israeli inventory. However, based on my review of the information, the Israelis have equipped some of their missiles with stealthy warheads and decoys which would likely result in their penetrating Russian airspace before they could be intercepted.

In addition, the Russian air and nuclear forces readiness state and day-to-day ability to destroy ground targets over contested foreign soil is highly dubious given their lack of practice – they seldom train because of the terrible funding environment in Russia and their systems are not kept well-maintained for the same reason.

So while none of us really knows what will actually happen if Iran is permitted to place nuclear warheads on missiles and it uses them against Israel, I personally would not sleep well at night were I one of the Russian national command authorities, even if my bunker was as deep as Dick Cheney’s, because I would have to allow that some Israeli missiles probably would get through my defense network and I already know they are targeting my important cities.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[Channman 2]

> So while none of us really knows what will actually happen if Iran is permitted to place nuclear warheads on missiles and it uses them against Israel, I personally would not sleep well at night were I one of the Russian national command authorities, even if my bunker was as deep as Dick Cheney’s, because I would have to allow that some Israeli missiles probably would get through my defense network and I already know they are targeting my important cities.

This, I think should give Russia some motivation to put some much needed heat on Iran to comply. We will wait and see if the economic benefits of doing business with Iran out ways the need for peace.

[outrager 6]

Quote

However, based on my review of the information, the Israelis have equipped some of their missiles with stealthy warheads and decoys which would likely result in their penetrating Russian airspace before they could be intercepted.

Based on publicly available information, Israel has not yet deployed missiles of that range and capability - but is actively working on it. What's really important here is its nuclear policy. If what you say is correct, Israel moves into the rogue states league aka Axis Of Evil and will be treated as such. If Russian intelligence agrees with your analysis, you can expect a preemptive nuclear strike any day now

Targeting third countries would endanger Israel more that it would contribute to its safety. It is a small country. If perceived as a rogue nuclear threat by giants like Russia or US, it would still be possible to contain it for a while. However, if Israel advances to the point where reliable containment is impossible, it will have to be destroyed.

Israel applies similar logic towards Iran. This is a pre-emptive strike millenium. Let's see where it will lead.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Old public source info:

“… scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reportedly calculated that the Shavit "could transport a nuclear warhead a minimum of 5,300 km" if deployed as a ballistic missile, and analysts at the Defense Department estimated a range of 7,200 km for the missile, with an unspecified payload capacity. In July 1990, Steve Fetter, a physicist at the University of Maryland, calculated the payload and range parameters of the Shavit, based on data about the two Offeq launches provided in the press. He found that if the Shavit were deployed as a ballistic missile it could deliver a 775-kg payload a distance of 4,000 km, putting the whole of the Middle East (and a large part of the former Soviet Union) within striking distance …”

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/jericho-2.htm

Israeli aerospace technology has only continued to improve since then -- witness Arrow.

So many informed people are convinced the Israelis do have long-ranging missiles today that are quite capable of reaching Moscow. Although Israel does not acknowledge such missile parameters explicitly, neither does Israel acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons.
And the reasons suggested in your post tell us why that probably is a good idea on the part of Israel.


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[outrager 6]

Quote

“… scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reportedly calculated that the Shavit "could transport a nuclear warhead a minimum of 5,300 km" if deployed as a ballistic missile

That's pretty far from operational missiles on hair-trigger alert. Likely to stay that way: careless targeting of a nuklear superpower would be a suicide. It is too easy to completely eliminate such a threat (and the whole country for that matter) as a preventive measure. Israel would have to build a reliable second strike capability for your theory to hold any weight. It probably will posess a very limited retaliatory ability soon to deter Iran-sized threats with a couple of small subs at sea. However only good behavior saves Israel from elimination by two biggest nuclear powers.

But anyway it's a pointless argument. About 20% of Israel today is russian-speaking. This number is even higher in IDF. Sending a warhead to Moscow if attacked by Iran is a fantasy that's only fit for this forum

bsbd!

Yuri.

[NelKel 0]

This is incorrect. Thanks to Russia, N. Korea, and China, Iran has plenty of missles -- they just don't (yet) have a nuclear payload to use with them. <<<

READ MY LIPS!
Something has changed. Someone has given/sold them (Iran) the plans to build the missile to carry the payload. That is why they have started up their program again.

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[Sen.Blutarsky 0]

Quote

That's pretty far from operational missiles on hair-trigger alert. Likely to stay that way: careless targeting of a nuklear superpower would be a suicide.

Look at the date! It was discussing events from the 80's and very early 90's. Time and progress have marched forward.

Here's another credible source which states Shavit, i.e., Jericho 3, with a range of ~3,000 miles, MIRV and radar terminal guidance was scheduled to be fielded last year. Other sources confirm the information: http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/jericho-3_israel.html.

You should read the Seymour Hersh book, "The Samson Option." Although it was written circa 1990, many of the unacknowledged claims at the time regarding Israel's nuclear weapons development activities, aerospace cooperation with South Africa to perfect genuine ICBMs (vice IRBMs) and, yes, targeting of Russia have since been validated and confirmed.

Quote

Sending a warhead to Moscow if attacked by Iran is a fantasy that's only fit for this forum

Israel is a tiny country. Russia could destroy it with only a few of Russia's gargantuan warheads. Russia could also destroy Israel by proxy through Iran. Either way, Israeli policy is to strike Russia - even before any nuclear weapons explode on Israel - if it believes that its destruction is imminent.

Begin reading Hersh and, afterwards, I'll be happy to steer you to credible public sources which should convince you that nothing I have said is mere fantasy.

Yo!


Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners!

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

READ MY LIPS!

Sorry, but the casual reading I've done indicates the opposite. Got any links explaining your assertion? I'd love to learn more.

. . =(_8^(1)

[outrager 6]

Quote

Begin reading Hersh and, afterwards, I'll be happy to steer you to credible public sources which should convince you that nothing I have said is mere fantasy.

This is indeed a very interesting discussion. Let's leave morals aside (as they don't exist in politics) and look at the big picture. We agree that Israel is developing long-range delivery mechanism, a few years sooner or later is not really important. The real question is:

Why do you think Israel has been allowed to do so? It would be too easy to eliminate this threat a few years ago, and even easier in the Soviet Union times. An obvious first guess is that USA has offered a nuclear umbrella behind the scenes. However, a nuclear attack by Israel on Russia would very likely trigger an automatic retaliation against USA, and subsequent global annihilation. It could as well be an attack on US with retaliation against Russia - either country has a second strike capability. Israel does not have one, and could be wiped out by either Russia or US with a first strike, if they perceived it as a serious threat to their own existence. In fact, if a global nuclear war was at stake, Israel would not exist today - no matter what the cost could be at the time. Why would either country permit such a dangerous trigger for a global war to exist, when it was so easy to eliminate?

We are not uncovering anything new here, and analysts in many countries argued over these matters for the last 40 years. Still, Israel exists and is allowed to build its nuclear forces. The only possible explanation is that it does not target or threaten directly either Russia or USA.

Can you come to a different conclusion based on the same facts?

bsbd!

Yuri.

[pirana 0]

I'd agree that they may promise to not target Russia, but wouldn't trust them farther than I could throw them to keep their word.

Israel exists only because the Allied powers supported them post WWII. British & French support soon became just icing on the cake as the US became so dominant and ensured Israel's existence through the 50's and until they gained nuclear capability of their own.

Bottom line is that Israel came into existence, and continues to exist, as essentially a US outpost in the region, politically and militarily. Without US support (money and weapons) they would have been ground to dust decades ago. They still do not have the ability to defend themselves other than the threat that they could take their enemies to the grave with them.

The only thing that keeps the surrounding Arab world from rolling over them by sheer volume of numbers is that the US and others would retaliate.

Which is why there is a new urgency in the land - because there might now be rulers in the region willing to sacrificee themselves and their entire country for the sake of destroying Israel.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Bottom line is that Israel came into existence, and continues to exist, as essentially a US outpost in the region, politically and militarily. Without US support (money and weapons) they would have been ground to dust decades ago.

How little you know about the history of Israel, when it was founded.

Quote

They still do not have the ability to defend themselves other than the threat that they could take their enemies to the grave with them.

And then all those pesky wars they have had with all their neighbors are just figments of our imagination.

Quote

The only thing that keeps the surrounding Arab world from rolling over them by sheer volume of numbers is that the US and others would retaliate.

Wrong. There are more things that keep them afloat. Their willingness to be prepared, as it seems your attitude towards them is rather telling as to why they need strong defense.

Quote

Which is why there is a new urgency in the land - because there might now be rulers in the region willing to sacrificee themselves and their entire country for the sake of destroying Israel.

Not really, the urgency is a muslim despot ruling a government that has pretty much intentions of supporting terrorist causes and flat out deny the right of existence to the state of Israel.

So the new urgency is for the world to stop the spread of a muslim movement who is really trying to rule the world, and I may add to also subjugate women as second class citizens.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,116]

>So the new urgency is for the world to stop the spread of a muslim
> movement who is really trying to rule the world . . .

Ah, how quickly history repeats itself. We even have the wiretaps of the '50s to stop the 'communist menace.' Soon we will have a new McCarthy (if we don't already have him, that is.) And then a Welch will bring him down, and some normalcy will return. And in 20 years, people will laugh when they think about how scared we were of the "muslim menace."

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Bottom line is that Israel came into existence, and continues to exist, as essentially a US outpost in the region, politically and militarily. Without US support (money and weapons) they would have been ground to dust decades ago.

How little you know about the history of Israel, when it was founded.

OK I only know a little, but what I know is precise. Israel was born of a strategically motivated partition orchestrated by Britian in 1947, with the US pulling the strings behind the scenes. The 2 semi-autonomous states almost immediately went to war. The Arabs saw the partition as extremely unfair because the partition gave 1/2 the land to a group of people that only owned 8% of the land. What group would not have been upset to be treated so shabbily in a thinly veiled political land grab. Independence by Israel was formally declared in 1948.

The Arabs were well on their way to ridding themselves of the problem, but made some crucial tactical errors, primarily the granting of a truce that allowed the Jews to rearm. Without the help of their allies, the history of Israel would have been a very short one. Even with that help, if the surrounding Arab countries would have coordinated their efforts they would have run over all of Palestine in very short order. Wars subsequent to 1948 were only won by Israel with money and weapons supplied by outside parties in their effort to maintain influence in the region.

This possibility remained an option for the Arabs right up until the time Israel aquired nuclear capability. The population imbalance between the Arabs and Jews (currently about 160 million Arabs live in the 6 countries closest to Israel, whose population is just over 6 million) meant the Arabs could have rolled over Israel in no time flat had they ever organized their efforts (again and of course, pre-nuclear).

Oh yeah, you were going to tell me about when Israel was founded? (Since you didn't seem to think I knew). Curious, since you do not know me, what made you assume that I did not know when Israel was founded?

They only have the capability to defend themselves because 1) the Arab countries know the US would retaliate, and 2) because of their nuclear capability.

A hostile neighbor negates #2 if that neighbor acheives nuclear capability and is willing to use it despite annihilation of both sides.

Granted, the above 2 paragraphs are just the opinion of one student of geography and politics; but they are largely seen as a plausible assessment of the situation by most people in the know.

I suppose you could go farther back to the Balfour declaration if you wanted to debate the growth of the Zionist movement, and back to the Crusades to examine the hostility between the Judeo-Christians and Muslims, or all the way back to the earliest known history of the area to get completely grounded; but I think 5/14/1948 as the day they declared the State of Israel to be an independent and soveriegn entity to be pretty clear cut. I mean, where would you draw the line?

OK, your turn. Tell me when Israel was founded.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Hackb431 0]

Quote

OK, your turn. Tell me when Israel was founded.

Wow, that was pretty good I got a bit of a history lesson but I am juiced up on caffeine right now so I am gonna guess that Israel was formed at 5:32 and 18 seconds on that same day you said.

Do I win something?

HackB A.K.A. "Puppy"

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bottom line is that Israel came into existence, and continues to exist, as essentially a US outpost in the region, politically and militarily. Without US support (money and weapons) they would have been ground to dust decades ago.

How little you know about the history of Israel, when it was founded.

Quote

Independence by Israel was formally declared in 1948.

At least you got part of the facts right.

Quote

The Arabs were well on their way to ridding themselves of the problem, but made some crucial tactical errors, primarily the granting of a truce that allowed the Jews to rearm. Without the help of their allies, the history of Israel would have been a very short one. Even with that help, if the surrounding Arab countries would have coordinated their efforts they would have run over all of Palestine in very short order.

So much emphasis on the mistakes made by the Arabs, how can you not even concede there was a good probability that Israel kicked some butt and the help was pretty much to even things out. 5 well established countries with armies well defined, against one piss poor country that got some material support (If you really look a little deeper you will be amazed that most equipment Israelis got into their hands were mostly contraband from WWII surplus).
Yes, I can see that your opinion is clouded in some sort of anti-semitic BS.

Quote

Wars subsequent to 1948 were only won by Israel with money and weapons supplied by outside parties in their effort to maintain influence in the region.

Yes, none of the wars were won by an effective military. None. Poor Egypt, Syria, Jordania, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon. They were deafeted only with money, as they had none..., nor any material help or means to get russian supplies.

Quote

This possibility remained an option for the Arabs right up until the time Israel aquired nuclear capability. The population imbalance between the Arabs and Jews (currently about 160 million Arabs live in the 6 countries closest to Israel, whose population is just over 6 million) meant the Arabs could have rolled over Israel in no time flat had they ever organized their efforts (again and of course, pre-nuclear).

And they tried, at least 5 times (READ FIVE TIMES). failed every time.

Quote

Oh yeah, you were going to tell me about when Israel was founded? (Since you didn't seem to think I knew). Curious, since you do not know me, what made you assume that I did not know when Israel was founded?

If you care to actually read and comprehend what I wrote which was literally "history of Israel when it was founded" and not Whay year Israel was founded, then we probably would be discussing something else.

Quote

They only have the capability to defend themselves because 1) the Arab countries know the US would retaliate, and 2) because of their nuclear capability.

So none of your possibilities concede that perhaps they are just afraid of what Israel could actually do by themselves. Is there any reason you can tell us (share the expertise) why Saddam was bombing them during G W I?

Quote

A hostile neighbor negates #2 if that neighbor acheives nuclear capability and is willing to use it despite annihilation of both sides.

Or a hostile neighbor with history of constantly expressing their will to anihilate a neighbor is trying to get their hands on this weapon to used it with this purpose.

Quote

Granted, the above 2 paragraphs are just the opinion of one student of geography and politics; but they are largely seen as a plausible assessment of the situation by most people in the know.

And yet the assessment of the Arabs constantly trying to exterminate Israel, as history proves, skips your lack of understanding of part of the problem.

Quote

I suppose you could go farther back to the Balfour declaration if you wanted to debate the growth of the Zionist movement, and back to the Crusades to examine the hostility between the Judeo-Christians and Muslims, or all the way back to the earliest known history of the area to get completely grounded; but I think 5/14/1948 as the day they declared the State of Israel to be an independent and soveriegn entity to be pretty clear cut. I mean, where would you draw the line?

We can go back to about 5766 years of jewish calendar.

Quote

OK, your turn. Tell me when Israel was founded.

No, as I see it a waste of time, on my part. No fact will deter you from thinking that Arabs won't attack Israel because of the US, and that they only won because they got some US support during their independence, and forward. You seem to negate the fact that they have a very capable army and defense.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[pirana 0]

Thanks for confirming, and I suppose most of what we disagree on is a matter of degrees and perspective. I can asure you I am not anti-Semitic, or anti-Palestinian.

I don't think Israeli's deserve to be the target of terrorists, but I also don't think the Palestinians deserved to have their country yanked out from under them.

Just wanted to add that I don't think this problem will go away anytime soon - at least not until Israel acknowledges the rights of the people they pushed off the land. Seeking to understand the core of the problem is the only thing that will ever lead to resolution, and at that core is that someone was already calling it home before the powers that be at that time gave the Jewish people license to move in. At the time of the Balfour declaration (eve of WWII), Arabs outnumbered the Jewish by about 10 to 1.

Another way to look at it. What if a foreign population that had moved to the US suddenly got a powerful friend to force us to give them half the country. That's a little simplistic, but is pretty much what happened.

Do you really expect the Arabs to ever let this go?

Would you?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

And in 20 years, people will laugh when they think about how scared we were of the "muslim menace."

So today, you laugh at "communist menace" from 20 years ago?

How odd -- what is laughable about it?

. . =(_8^(1)