The more pertinent question should be, even if they had the capability, why would Iran nuke Israel? Pakistan has nukes, Israel is still there...Turkey has nukes, Israel is still there...This is an honest question... not bright but nonetheless honest, perhaps...if Iran has nuke capacity, the issue is one of delivery capability, right? And the delivery capability in question has to be toward Israel, right? Now, if Iran were to hit Israel with nuclear bombs, wouldn't the fall-out necessarily fall all over Muslim territories, given the prevailing winds? What would be the point of that, in realistic terms?
...but I think the Obama administration is looking to do something, sanctions maybe, but in all honesty, China, which gets most of its oil and other petroleum distillates from Iran to prime its expanding economy, wouldn't just sit there and do nothing if the Israelis or U.S. bombed the Iranian oil infrastructure...
I have assumed (perhaps erroneously), that iran wanted to make a statement about the biggest baddest anti-Israeli power, so that they would want to wipe out all israelis with a bomb. Problem being one of logistics, i.e., you take out the Israelis, you take out your own folks as well. It seems to be a bit of a short range plan, if you know what I mean.
Pakistan keeps its nukes for India threat, nothing more. They may talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk regarding Israel. They have more immediate concerns in India and Casmir.
Israel has well over 300 nukes and thanks to the U.S., the most modern air, sea and land power in the region...Iran supports Palestinian sovereignty, just as we support Iraq and Afghanistan sovereignty, but Iran would be obliterated if it even thought of attacking Israel.I have assumed (perhaps erroneously), that iran wanted to make a statement about the biggest baddest anti-Israeli power, so that they would want to wipe out all israelis with a bomb. Problem being one of logistics, i.e., you take out the Israelis, you take out your own folks as well. It seems to be a bit of a short range plan, if you know what I mean.
Agreed...so, why would they ever actually even think of it?
Why does any country want a nuke? So they aren't the next Iraq....
Sidebar: please correct me if I've misremembered, but isn't it ultimately France that Israel has to thank for it nuclear fuel-cycle proficiency?
I thought the question of delivery was more or less unquestioned, but that the hangup was enrichment capability. They can probably hit the edges of Europe right now, if newspaper reports of Iranian missile tests have any veracity.
I've heard that they don't have enough centrifuges, the ones they have don't work as well as they'd like, and they might not have enough "off-schedule" materials to start with. (By heart, right? I didn't bookmark any of that.)
Why, please?
This is where I begin to wonder if there's a realistic distinction to be made between using *tactical nukes* -- which have never been used outside of test conditions that I know of -- versus using *conventional* nukes.
Is the distinction between tactical and conventional nukes to some extent self-drawn and self-serving?
Does international law make such a distinction?
Does Iran?
Have we even developed a RNEP?
Honestly, I don't know. I do know the missile supposed for the above simulation ("60 times more powerful than Hiroshima") was never funded.
I was sort of intrigued by the doob's suggestion that a strike with "tactical" nukes is somehow not a "conventional" nuclear attack.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
