What if Iran nukes Israel?

[Silverhair]

I have posted several times, that nukes tend to have a stabilizing effect on the country that has them. A nuclear armed country becomes very careful about managing conflicts with another nuclear country. Nukes kept the cold war cold. Since both India and Pakistan have become nuclear powers, they have settled their differences with diplomacy. Before, they fought.

There seems to be a natural law that makes heavily armed opponents loathe to fight each other. Lions will usually go through many display ceremonies before they attack another lion. A fight would leave even the winner badly torn up. But two lightly armed animals that can't really hurt each other will fight readily.

But the key word in that is - usually. There are exceptions. So it is reasonable to ask what would happen if Iran became is exception.

-------
So, Bush has left office (However, whenever) and YOU are POTUS. About a week after you have taken office you are awakened at 3 AM and informed that Iran has nuked several Israeli cities. (Not including Jerusalem which is also sacred to Islam.) About five minutes later another aid says that the Israel has retaliated and the first nukes are starting to go off in Iran.

Now what do you? (I think we may assume you will not read "My Little Goat".)

[BushOut06]

1. Under that scenario, I don't think we'd have to do much

It would be Israel's problem, and Israel would have taken care of it. At that point, we should be trying to restore peace, not further enflaming it.

[wixomblues]

114. We wouldn't have much to do....

if countries started nuking each other in the middle east? Sounds like something Pat Buchanan might say after sex. I think we would be pretty involved in that situation, it threatening the peace and safety of the world, as well as the economic balance. Yeah, probably.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The ME becomes a radioactive wasteland

Israel will un-load, and unofficial they have 100 of them... can you say nuclear winter?

By the way the Iranians have repeatedly said they are building nuclear plants for their energy needs as they are are running out of oil... in spite of CNNs bad translation... that said yes their current president is a nut job, but so is ours... and here si the most shocking comment, we have no authority to say a thing about what Iran does after going on a preemptive war

[Ian David]

3. myth: countries that both have a MacDonalds don't fight each other?

And it's not "My Little Goat" or even "My Pet Goat." It's "The Pet Goat."

A nuclear war in Israel is precisely what Bush and his fundamentalist Xian handlers want-- The War of the Apocalypse.

[K-W]

19. They want the people living on the oil to stop existing.

The sooner the better.

[barb162]

66. That would make sense except the radioactivity would

contaminate the oil drilling, the pipelines, etc., too, so how would one get the oil in any case.

[K-W]

145. You are right, nukes would be a last resort of course.

For the reasons you mention, but I think theyd rather have radioactive oil fields than no oil fields at all.

[Democrats_win]

4. Bunny pants would luv that question because it promotes his agenda of fear

The one thing about Iran is that it is a stable democracy with an unstable leader. Sort of like the U.S. and pre-stroke Israel.

[murray hill farm]

8. Iran doesnt have nuclear weapons...Israel does...

so the real question would have to be..what if Israel nucs Iran....then we side with Israel..the rest of the ME sides with Iran...not a pretty scenario

[SPKrazy]

45. Iran Is Developing Nukes

You dispute that?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

88. I do.

So far, the evidence of that is rather soft.

We do know, however, that Israel has developed a bunch.

Query: you're an oil producing nation. You've reached peak oil production. When the oil is gone, you'll slide back into obscurity. Knowing that, would you try to make as much money off your oil as possible in the open market while you can, or gleefully use it at home to keep the lights on? If you could defray your in-country use of oil w/ noookyuler power, wouldn't that seem a viable alternative?

Not a flame. Just a query.

[kenny blankenship]

138. America used to encourage Iran to develop nuclear power

back during the Nixon administration. They certainly need to think about nuclear science for their longterm economic needs and also the basic capability to make bombs if need be, to defend their sovereignty. Iran has been invaded in recent memory and the war cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Iran is in a very tough neighborhood with several nuclear powers nearby, and it sits atop the world's most important commodity. They are not as of this moment making bombs, but any leadership of that nation has a reason to want to say: We'll be able to do it or credibly claim that we can do it, if stormclouds gather on our frontiers again.
Given the nature of American foreign policy in the new millennium stormclouds are bound to gather again.

Naturally all the handwringing going on outside of the Fascist Bush Administration is about Israel. Naturally this is rarely acknowledged by the handwringers in an overt and honest manner. It's not a problem for America nor Americans. There is simply no crisis nor cause for alarm.

Israel has a thirty year soon to be forty year head start building bombs. Iran cannot and will not challenge it. When we demand (on threat of invasion/pre-emptive nuclear attack) that Israel turn over its fissile plutonium/ U235 and that country turns out every corner for UN nuclear inspectors to inspect and it hands over its nuclear warheads I'll consider similar calls to interfere in Iran's affairs as possibly legitimate. Otherwise they're just more of the same Fascist and racist attack on the oil producing Muslim world.

[lumberjack_jeff]

This summer, the CIA estimated that Iran was 10 years from a bomb

Doesn't strike me as the imminent catastrophe, nor a plausible scenario.

Pakistan has 'em right now.

[SPKrazy]

148. I think they DO want nookyular power

I also think they want to enrich uranium for weapons

[murray hill farm]

130. Right now, the concern is that..

in developing nuclear power, Iran will concurrently...and innadvertantly...also develop the ability to transfer at a later date to nuclear weapons....and so we say...well if that is the case, then just that possibility means that you cannot develop the nuclear power capability that you need to provide future security in the way of electricity for your country and your people! In the mean time, we continue to develop nuclear power plants in our country..and we continue to develop nuclear weapons...why is that OK? It is OK because we are..ahum...more responsible?????? The chosen????? The better able to hold that awesome power? Bullshit!!!!!!!

[slaveplanet]

170. If Iran had all the pieces

already, and that's a big "If"...many experts claim it would take 3000 days from there to complete their first viable warhead.

Israel already has the warhead and a "hawk" in the knesset has already threatened publicly to use them on Europe.

[oblivious]

179. If you're going to promote propaganda here, you need to give some proof.

There is proof Iran is developing nuclear-generated electricity. But the IAEA inspectors have found no proof whatsoever that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If you know more than they do, you should provide proof here.

[oly]

5. I wonder if we'll be the first to use nukes in the ME.

Gotta get those bunkered nuke labs in Iran.

[bpilgrim]

6. What if Israel nukes Iran?

or the U.S.?

those scenarios seem much more likely.

peace

[Swamp Rat]

31. Yes... what if India nukes Israel? what if Iran nukes Russia? what if

Israel nukes the U.S.? what if China nukes Pakistan? What is the U.S. nukes all the other 'nuclear nations'?

:eyes:

[Colorado Blue]

39. Oh puhleeze.

[bpilgrim]

61. what...

it's all just in my head?


more...
http://GLobalFreePress.com

peace

[Colorado Blue]

80. How many people have you lost to suicide bombers? Hmmm?

Be real careful, my friend. There are human beings out there on the "other side" of your argument.

[bpilgrim]

155. does that include all bombers or just suicide ones?

either way we all lost way too many...

peace

[0007]

49. Thank you....I was thinking along those lines and also of

Mordechai Vanunu - The Israel Nuclear Scientist. Then I thought, what a worthless flame bait question. Then it would wind up in I/P forum. And then....0h never mind you got the picture.

:hi:

[bpilgrim]

156. hi 0007

i always figure that at least this way we get to air these rw talking points out in public to help disinfect them good... and we got a paper trail ;->

:hi:

peace

[Delphinus]

110. This was my thought too! n/t

[ComerPerro]

113. Israel nukes Iran, I could definately see

but not the US. Or did you mean, "What if the US nukes Iran?"

[uppityperson]

169. my thought too, what if Israel nukes Iran.

Israel nuking USA seems rather remote, but Iran I can see happening

[ugarte]

7. Everyone knows that attacking Israel is tantamount to suicide

I don't believe the Iranians have a national death wish.

[Individualist]

9. Moot question

Iran doesn't have nukes.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. not moot...hypothetical.

The premise of the OP is that what if Iran becomes a nuclear power with nuclear weapons. It is not based on the current situation, thus it is a hypothetical. A moot question would have been if the OP presented with current conditions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Cozy up to Venezuela because the ME oil would be gone.

Or, at least unattainable for a few thousand years.

[CJCRANE]

11. This is based on a misconception:

muslim fundamentalists don't want to physically destroy Israel: they believe it's Palestinian land and want the Palestinians to return to their old homes.

Not gonna be much to go home to if they nuke the place.

[Richard D]

12. it won't happen

unless Iran is attacked first. They don't want their county to be a sheet of molten glass.

[Yollam]

13. Strange question. Israel seems much more likely to do so.

They have nukes, and Iran does not, and they have a history of unprovoked attacks on other countries in the area (like Iraq back in the 80's).

So what if Israel nukes Iran?

[Ian David]

25. You been drinking the kool-aid, or did someone poison your well with it?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Yollam]

27. Oh brother.

:eyes:

[BiggJawn]

139. Your'e in good company.

I'm on their ignore list, too.
Some people can't get it through their skulls that you CAN be critical of Israeli policy and NOT be an "anti-semite".

[Yollam]

177. I don't even bother anymore.

I don't have any horse in that race myself, but the fact that the holocaust happened does not mean that our default position in any conflict involving Israel should be to support Israel. Israel has been and done wrong. It has also been wronged, to be fair. But it is not a helpless little waif surrounded by wolves as it likes to portray itself. It is a powerful country that has shown little hesitance to assert its military might.

I hope for a long, prosperous future for Israel, but one where she is a little less belligerent to her neighbors, and with true, full equal rights and autonomy for Palestinians. It's a long way yet to go for those things.

[Colorado Blue]

81. I'm afraid to put too many people my ignore list, because

then I won't know the worst.

I guess on balance, I'd rather know.

But it's a toss-up. Some days I really can't bear to look.

[bananas]

89. Put me on it too

Does Israel have nuclear bunker-busters?
I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel+nuclear+bunker+busters&btnG=Google+Search

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 194,000 for israel nuclear bunker busters. (0.27 seconds)

IRmep: Why the US Should Cancel "Bunker Buster" Bombs to Israel
GBU-28 Bunker Buster. Busting Progress on the Iranian Nuclear Program Delivery
of the GBU-28 to Israel would boil over the simmering question over Iran's ...
www.irmep.org/GBU.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

US may sell bunker busters to Israel - Mideast/N. Africa - MSNBC.com
The Pentagon proposes to sell 100 guided bunker-busting bombs to Israel, ...
Israel — believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear armed state — has denied ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7646107/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

Telegraph | News | Israel challenges Iran's nuclear ambitions
Israel admitted yesterday that it is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs, which
could be used to hit Iran's nuclear facilities, as Teheran paraded ballistic ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/.../news/2004/09/22/wnuke22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/22/ixportaltop.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US to sell bunker bombs to Israel
Washington is proposing the sale of 100 bunker-busting bombs to Israel, ...
Israel - assumed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed state - says it is ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4493443.stm - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

The Militant - May 16, 2005 -- US gov’t to sell ‘bunker buster ...
US gov’t to sell ‘bunker buster’ bombs to Israel in move aimed against Iran ...
In 1981, Israeli bombers attacked the Osirak nuclear power plant in Iraq, ...
www.themilitant.com/2005/6919/691904.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Eyeing Iran Reactors, Israel Seeks US Bunker Bombs
Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria. ... Convinced
Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons, Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0921-20.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

US unveils plans to sell 'bunker busters' to Israel
... suspected nuclear weapons program and Israeli plans to act unilaterally to
... Military experts believe GBU-28 "bunker busters" are the only existing ...
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050428-israel-bunkerbusters.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US
as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out ...
www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Jeffrey St. Clair: Bunker Busters and City Levellers
Bunker Busters and City Levellers. By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR. In the fall of 2004,
anti-nuclear activists won what appeared to be a stunning victory when the ...
www.counterpunch.org/stclair02092005.html - 96k - Cached - Similar pages

Iraq & Our Energy Future - Nuclear Options
The targeting with nuclear “bunker busters” weapons on chemical and ... Israel has
possessed nuclear weapons since the 1970s and has received help from the ...
academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/resenhmw.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Try your search again on Google Book Search

[Behind the Aegis]

38. they have a history of unprovoked attacks on other countries

Not a very accurate statement. The implication is that Israel often attacks other nations unprovoked, and that is not true. It has happened on a few occasions, but it is hardly the ethos of Israeli military options.

[Yollam]

42. Well, compared to the US, they're almost pacifist in that respect...

But who has Iran attacked without provocation? Rhetoric is one thing, actually following through is another. Iran's present leader is doing the same thing N. Korea's Kim did, enjoyed the increased attention and clout brought about by big talk vaguely threatening plans of "peaceful" nuclear development.

This too shall pass.

[bpilgrim]

74. Israel certainly does... what can we do to STOP them?

more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/me

peace

[Behind the Aegis]

76. .

:eyes:

[gulfcoastliberal]

84. Yup.

I'll see your :eyes: and raise you a :crazy:

[leveymg]

14. That scenario is unrealistic.

A nuclear exchange would never come as a complete surprise. It would have to follow months of escalating theats and is unlikely to mark the onset of actual armed hostilities.

My first act as President would have been to tell both sides -- and made it clear I was not kidding -- that the first side that pushes the nuclear button gets flattened by the Strategic Command. I would invite the Russians to communicate the same message. I would be very surprised if either side dares to be the first, under these conditions. The two sides might then actually gain enough breathing space to start working things out.

[enigma000]

15. And if someone pushes the button?

What do you do? Carry out your threat? Become the greatest mass-murderer in history?

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

20. What would have greater consquences?

Not carrying through with such a serious threat could result in equally or even worse reprucussions. Kind of a catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[enigma000]

24. damned is right

Turning millions or tens of millions into fallout to keep up the pretense of "we carry out our threats" is a piss poor way of conducting human affairs. 60 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki we still endlessly the ethicalness of dropping the A-bombs but at least this had the legitimacy of ending a catastrophic world war.

In this new scenario it would be genocide to hone in the salient point for the next century: don't mess with us because we will do the unthinkable.

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

30. It's not really about flexing our nuclear muscle.

Nuclear Weaponry is not difficult to construct, it is rather in the scheme of things extremely old technology. The point is that we all know that as time progresses more and more nations will obtain such weaponry. If a nuclear strike by some nation on a rival isn't dealt with harshly and brutally by the world community how else could you set the tone for the future to never use such weapons unless you wish to see your nation a radioactive hellhole? How will you keep smaller, more radical nations from using such weapons in a technologically progressing world, where the nuclear bomb is slowly but surely becoming a more realistic asset for smaller nations to obtain? That's the dilemma I was adressing. Seemed to me either way millions will die, which you could consider a more moral solution I'm unsure.

[Silverhair]

55. Interesting question. Worthy of it's own thread. NT

[leveymg]

107. The point is collective security, and that nobody dares be first to start

a nuclear exchange that endangers the whole world.

As unpleasant as it is, in practice, deterrence through a credible threat of mutually-assured destruction has for six decades proven to an effective and workable approach to preventing the actual use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. and Russia have avoided nuclear war because both understand that first use against the other would be suicidal.

Preemptive wars are clearly not the solution, as they can turn into protracted guerilla wars, vendettas, and regional conflicts that spread and ignite wider hostilities. The unilateral use of preemptive force is thus destabilizing and counterproductive.

The biggest problem is the threat of disproportionate responses by nuclear-armed states against rivals who are developing their own nuclear capability. Lacking the deterrence of mutually-assured destruction, there is a dangerous temptation by an existing nuclear power to strike-first in an attempt to preempt a rival from developing its own capability. That is the situation today that applies to Israel and Iran. A preemptive war, no matter who starts it, threatens to ignite a regional war and global economic crisis with catastrophic results for collective security.

How does one address this dangerous situation? If a system of diplomacy and mutual rewards fails, is there a way for outside powers to deter the outbreak of hostilities? A credible threat of collective, proportional retaliation against nuclear first-users would serve as deterrence.

[K-W]

16. They wouldn't do it in a million years.

They would be committing national suicide.

They would only do it as a response to an attack by Israel. And if this happened, and I were president, I would probably issue an ultimatum that the next nation to use nukes will be attacked by the US and then attempt to broker a peace agreement through the UN.

I would then most likely be assassinated and replaced by someone who would throw in with Israel.

[bryant69]

18. So all of the potential national insanity in the Iran Israel conflict

will be found on the Israeli side of the equation?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[K-W]

21. Nuclear powers wont nuke each other,

its mutually assured destruction. Iran would only nuke Isreal if it was desperate (ie about to be invaded) or if it thought it could get away with it, which it couldnt.

Now I could more invision Isreal bombing Iran because its possible that Iran might arrive at a bomb without Isreal knowing it. But really, unless Isreal goes nuclear or invades Iran, I dont see them using it. Any nuclear attack on Isreal would be met with US retalliation. It would be a suicide attack.

We only have to worry about Iran nuking anyone if someone backs them into a corner.

[Bandit]

17. When has Iran ever attacked another country unprovoked?

I don't see it happening. I see Israel attacking Iran because Israel is known to attack other countries at will. I see Iran defending itself by whatever means possible and if per chance they do have nuclear weapons they might just use them in response.

[Colorado Blue]

40. Oh for heaven's sake. The Iranian mullahs have actually

proposed that Israel could, because it's so small, be blown off the map, whereas the 1.3 billion people of Islam, spread around the globe, would survive any counterattack.

[barb162]

63. what does the question have to do with the present leaders there

The past is not really a predictor of the future. The current leader there seems to be itching for a fight.

[Colorado Blue]

100. That's what I'm afraid of. MAD worked because USSR and

the West were essentially sane, nobody was going to go to heaven, etc, and nobody really hated the "enemy". We actually had a lot in common and now we're back to being trading partners, etc.

[chopper]

108. asdf

when has the leader of israel ever said that iran should be wiped of the face of the earth?

yeah, israel has been in a lot of wars. but it isn't because they want to just attack everyone for the hell of it. if you were surrounded by a bunch of countries which at various times invaded you and tried over and over again to destroy you, you'd have started a few wars yourself. iran hasn't been that lucky.

[mogster]

22. I'd kiss my ass goodbye n/t

[ThomWV]

23. So very silly. Ask Yourself The 1st Question. Which One's Got Nukes?

Will Iran nuke Israel?

What a question. Which country has nukes with which to incinerate the other country? Israel, that's who.

So your question should not be what if Iran nuked Israel, it should be the infinitely more possible, what if Israel - one of the most belligerent countries on earth - were to nuke Iran?

[Zynx]

26. Iran getting nuked = why Iran won't nuke Israel

MAD generally works pretty well.

[Yupster]

68. What if the nuke can't be traced to Iran?

What if it was set off by just some terrorists based in Lebanon?

To me that's the most likely scenario.

[chopper]

109. asdf

actually, the ability of US scientists to determine the type of bomb and yield and (most importantly) type and source of fissile material these days is pretty advanced. in the aftermath of a bomb, it would be determined pretty quickly whose bomb it was cause they'd be able to determine the source of the uranium used.

'hey, look at the X and the type of Y. this had to have come from Z'

[Zynx]

140. Exactly. Iran would not run even the slightest risk that they might be

nuked in retaliation.

[Silverhair]

28. This has been more like a Rorschach Inkblot Test than I expected.

The answers have been of three general types.

1. Won't happen because Iran is one of the good guy and Israel and the US are the bad guys.

2. Won't happen because of MAD. I addressed this in my first paragraph. I noted the effect of MAD. The question I asked was, "What if.", not "Why not?"

3. Some tried to joke about it. Understandable. Nobody wants to think about the unthinkable. But sometimes you have to. Ignoring it won't make it go away, but thinking about it may prevent it.

4. A couple of people actually tried to address the question of, "What if?"

The answers have told me more about the responders, than about, "What if?"

[Swamp Rat]

32. Don't forget to look at mine! #31

So Dr. Freud, what is the resulting analysis? :D

[Silverhair]

33. Grouped under #3.

Variation on the same theme.

[Swamp Rat]

36. Thanks! Where do I send 5¢?

:D

[Silverhair]

53. LOL. Good sense of humor.

I was going to say that I didn't know Lucy's address, and then I saw picture in your post and you beat me to it.

[SidDithers]

34. I'm trying to find the posts that say Iran is one of the good guys...

mostly what I'm seeing is "Israel is the one with nuclear weapons, not Iran" type posts, which you seem to have left off your summary list.

Sid

[bananas]

95. There aren't any - shows the bias of the OP.

What really amazes me is that some didn't know Israel has had hundreds of nukes for decades.

[Colorado Blue]

44. I noticed that. The US and Israel being the bad guys,

it's a kneejerk reaction.

It's difficult to have a serious discussion given that all too common predisposition.

Maybe folks with this point of view should go experience life in Egypt, Syria, Iran - and not as tourists. I'm sure that there is much that is wonderful. But it wouldn't be remotely the same.

And ladies, take your hijab.

[bpilgrim]

73. you've been reading recent history, eh?

:hi:

peace

[Colorado Blue]

79. I think, as Silverhair is trying to point out, that's in the eye

of the beholder.

And I'm not into absolutist thinking.

Sorry. But it's dumb.

[bpilgrim]

87. do you even know american history?

just the last 1/2 century?

peace

[Colorado Blue]

98. Give me a break.

[bpilgrim]

116. why

you keep posting one sided stories

peace

[0007]

51. Drum roll.......he's making a list .. I hope I'm on it.

[leveymg]

117. "told me more about the responders" - that is the point, isn't it?

I'd be surprised to see many answers that diametically oppose the response you have assigned to category 1. May I impute that the questioner does not share that opinion? You can frame the results as you wish, but there aren't really any black-or-white "Iran is good, and the US and Israel are bad" responses here.

By the same token, we're free to answer questions as we wish. Whether we instead reframe the question (category 2) or laugh it off (category 3), both are equally valid responses.

I'm not sure that there really are any acceptable options for an American President caught in the dilemma you pose. But, I think I get your drift behind the question: you would like us to appreciate a potential problem that might arise should Iran get the bomb. That's a valid point to raise.

I think I've offered a rational response, even if it pulls the rug out from under your intended results.

By the way, the outcome that I would prefer would be a deescalation of tensions in the region and the U.S. to serve as an honest broker in that process. The policies of the current Administrations in the U.S., Israel and Iran are pushing that goal further and further over the horizon. A sensible solution, I believe, is a change in regimes in all three countries. Any thoughts on that?

[Wordie]

29. Right now, Iran has 0 nukes, and Israel has 400. eom

[Colorado Blue]

41. Where do you come up with that number? Israel has never

actually even carried out a nuclear test.

[Silverhair]

47. They may have done one.

There was that mysterious blast that was far out at sea that the US claimed was a nuke test, then a few days later claimed that the satellite has mistaken a lightening flash for a nuke. I never believe the second story. Many believed that Irael had worked with S. Africa, and that it was a joint test.

Impossible to prove, but I tend to believe it.

[Colorado Blue]

82. Interesting, I hadn't heard that. EOM.

[Wordie]

56. This is according to Nat'l Resources Council & Fed. of Amer. Scientists.

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is suspected to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979 (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they may possess 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them above the median in the declared list.(9)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

[Colorado Blue]

83. Thank you. EOM.

[bananas]

93. Mordechai Vanunu exposed it back in 1986

It's been public knowledge for ten years, I don't know how you missed it.
edit: twenty years!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu ▶ (help·info) (מרדכי ואנונו) (born October 13, 1954), also known by his baptismal name John Crossman, is an Israeli former nuclear technician who revealed details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986. He was subsequently lured to Rome by an American Mossad agent, abducted and smuggled to Israel, where he was tried behind closed doors and convicted of treason.

...

[0007]

149. We've tested the nukes before they were shipped to Israel.

[mmonk]

178. Remember

that nuclear weapons such as the ones we have can be duplicated and deemed reliable.

[bridgit]

37. never happen, israel will take them out herself long before...

it comes to that http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074,00.html

[SPKrazy]

43. Nuke Iran

no doubt about it!

[Colorado Blue]

46. Anyway, to answer your question:

I don't think we could do much of anything at that point, except try to limit the damage.

I would get on the phone immediately with whoever was left alive in the region in the way of leaders, and try to figure out how to calm the people of the area. I would have my people get other people on the horn to the UN and the EU, Russia and China, and start humanitarian action as fast as possible. I would order carriers and submarines to full alert and then I would, being a good American president, figure out how the oil fields were holding up.

They're vital to our economy, folks, so I would secure them asap.

I think it wouldn't last long. Israel would be gone. It is smaller than Lake Erie and has fewer people than a L.A. or New York - 6 million. Once Israel was gone people would probably freak out and go, oh no, lookie what happened.

Another holocaust. Gee. I don't understand how that could happen.

Then, we'd be stuck with a hell of a radioactive mess.

[SidDithers]

48. A more likely scenario...

What if Israel uses conventional weapons to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities? What do you do then?

Sid

[Silverhair]

50. Israeli could do that only with our active help.

Israeli planes would have to cross Jordan and Iraq. They would have to air refuel in Iraq, both directions. We might as well do it ourselves.

From what I have read, Iran has built their facilities underground in hardened bunkers. They can't be touched with conventional bombs.

An effective non-nuclear airstrike would be a very tricky problem.

A nuke on their facility would carry too high a political price, even for Bush.

I don't think there is much we can do, militarily.

[leveymg]

126. Look at a map - down the Red Sea and around the Horn.

If the list of targets were small, the IDF could do it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/30/9052/45376

But, there are some 350 potential nuclear-related targets inside Iran, so there's no way that Israel alone -- using conventional weapons -- can do away with Iran's nuclear program. http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=940

So, what would a unilateral attack by Israel accomplish, other than to start a war? It might draw the U.S. into it, which is something the Joint Chiefs and CIA strenuously oppose.

[Silverhair]

131. Requires air to air refueling several times.

Israel doesn't have that kind of air tanker support.

[leveymg]

134. They have the capability to convert C-130s and C-135s into tankers

Israel has dozens in mothballs.

According to public sources, the IAF currently only has five tanker aircraft. Not enough to refuel a sufficient number of strike aircraft to assure a successful mission. If this is the case, they could be preparing to temporarily seize airstrips in north-east Somalia near the outlet of the Red Sea. There's a paved 13,000 ft. runway at Berbera and a 3,500 ft. dirt strip at Bosaso. The long, paved strip could be a place to land and refuel the three big KC-135 (Boeing 707) IAF tankers and the turboprop KC-130s could use one of several dirt strips. Some of the fighter-bombers may also have to stop there to gas up.

I suppose, if anyone spotted C-130s being converted or saw someone moving jet fuel into storage near Somali airports, that might tell us something.

[Silverhair]

135. Isn't a C - 130 is too slow to refuel jets?

Anyway, an operation that required a landing and seizure of a facility beforehand would almost certainly require our help.

[leveymg]

137. No. KC-130s refuel jets all the time.

No. Unless we helped at Entebbe.

What would be implausible would be if the IAF did any of this without our noticing it.

[Silverhair]

141. Thanks for the correction. NT

[Deja Q]

52. Russia has been selling Iran weapons for YEARS. Why then hasn't Iran

attacked Israel yet? More fun to use nukes they have yet to get compared to the arsenal they've spent years purchasing? (indeed. The US has nukes. Why didn't we nuke Iraq (1990) (or ~1998 when Clinton was hyping the same frothing drool that Bush II had done in 2003)? Or Korea? Or Vietnam? Or Kosovo?

Iran is all mouth and they know it. They, like the rest of us know, that when one nuke is launched, the whole game is over. Nukes don't recognize land territories and any neighbors to the countries hit will not sit back and let their own fry to death via radiation burning. Religion is odd, but nobody and I mean NOBODY is going to use nukes unless they know that THEY will survive. And THEY know they ultimately cannot.

Not that my reply means anything, it's just a series of loose rambling thoughts.

On edit: I've said before Iran is a threat because it's got weapons, et cetera. Doesn't mean they'll do anything, but as a terrorist will die in the name of their religion, it is possible that they would use nukes and carry out their threat against Israel. And that's why I am scared. People and their religion is in ways worse than the old proverb regading fools and their money.

And angry for Russia for selling to them all this time and lately now acting "concerned" (which I doubt is genuine on their part... they just don't want to be seen as selling weapons to Iran and being part of that axis of evil...)

[Silverhair]

54. I too, hope that MAD continues to work. NT

[oneighty]

57. "If" is for children.

Seems Silverhair might know that.

Hey Silverhair. How you been?

180

[Silverhair]

59. "If" is the basic question of all planning.

Things are going faily well, Thank You.

This has been an interesting thread. I was surprised by the way the responses divided.

[oneighty]

62. First thing that came to my mind

is an old chicken hawk phrase. "The best defense is a good offense." (Unless we wanna safely kick your ass).

One day Nuclear Weapons will be as common as 'Chicken Hawks' and the 'Chicken Hawks' will stop strutting and will threaten no more.

180

[Coastie for Truth]

58. The better theory, and the history

(US-USSR, India-Pakistan), according to Henry Kissinger's PhD dissertation, , is that bilateral possession of nukes is a stabilizing factor. You can call it "Mutually Assured Destruction."

[Silverhair]

60. I addressed that in my first paragraph. NT

[Coastie for Truth]

70. Still a valid point - the most valid point. NT

[Silverhair]

71. But not the question that I asked.

I asked, "What if?" not "Why not?"

[Yupster]

75. A valid point until a nuke goes off

then you better have a better response plan than, "gosh, that wasn't supposed to happen."

Sometimes things are less likely and happen anyway. You need to think about and have a plan for even less likely stuff.

[Coastie for Truth]

78. Your guess is as good as mine ---

<><><><>

<http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1560256036.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg>

[Silverhair]

104. Mathematically, MAD will fail someday.

Perhaps not with iran/Israel, but someday it will. MAD greatly reduces the chances of a nuclear exchange, bu does not reduce those changes to zero. And each day the "Wheel of Horror" is spun again. Someday the abominable number will come up.

[Coastie for Truth]

120. The one constant of philosophy and theology

We all die. In the long run we are all dead.

[leveymg]

128. Better later than sooner, and not all at once. eom

[Chomskyite]

173. But Kissinger assumes too much

We can't count on every nation that develops nukes to have those nukes controlled by rational actors. There will always be a Hitler or a Napoleon-type who will be governed by his or her own mad logic. My hope is that the present unspellable named leader of Iran does not have control of a dogcatcher much less a brigade or a warhead. But history demonstrates I can't count on that.

Napoleon was a madman. But he could pull the trigger on a decade of senseless mass killing in Europe. Hitler was mad. But he could command the Luftwaffe, the Einsatzgruppen and the Cyklon B showers.

So should the present leader in Iran be demonstrated to have true control of the nuclear button, constant efforts should be made in secret to remove him from that control. Bribery. Assassination. Stealth bomber missions. Whatever it takes.

But can we count on Bush to actually wait for evidence or to make ANY decisions to keep the world out of this trap? He showed during debate one with Kerry that he didn't know the difference between a nuclear plant and a nuclear weapons program.

But to the question: if Iran and Israel exchange nukes, Pakistan will attack Israel pretty quickly. And India will attack Pakistan. After that, the world returns to the early 19th century.

[tyedyeto]

64. Your DLC inference is not enough to stop anyone from using...

nuclear technology. Give it a rest.

[barb162]

65. immediately call the UN sec-gen and Israel

No more: stop it now. Meeting tomorrow, etc. Cannot risk a world war.

[maveric]

67. The only country who will nuke anybody is the USA.

Any other nation who uses nukes, knows that if they do they will be destroyed by someone else with nukes. In almost every scenario that "someone" will be GWB/USA.
Iran aint nuking anybody.

[lonestarnot]

69. Well then I guess we would have war with Iran wouldn't we.

[tyedyeto]

72. Correction:

it's 'My Pet Goat'.

Whatever... your scenario has more to do with right wing talking points than with practical thinking.

Why should the US demand no one else have nuclear weapons while we still have TONS of them. Isn't that hypocritical of us?

[leesa]

77. Well, Israel has been working long and hard to provoke this result.

[Colorado Blue]

85. Oh for heaven's sake. eom.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. .

:eyes:

[bpilgrim]

90. ..

is that all you can do?


peace

[Behind the Aegis]

91. ...

..considering the post, it is the "politest" thing I can do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

92. Simple; Form a coalition to help neighboring countries deal w/fallout

There will be nothing else to do for either country, they will both be destroyed.

P.S. It is 'my pet goat'

[USA_1]

94. A likelier scenario

If Israel was nuked by Iran more likely it would have been a bomb planted by the CIA and made to look like it came from Teheran. Don't be surprised if this is being planned today by the Bush regime.

[Yupster]

96. This is how I see the scenario playing out

A dirty bomb or small nuke device goes off in Tel Aviv.

Israel blames a terrorist group associated with Iran in Lebanon.

Iran, Lebanon, Syria and everyone else deny any knowledge of it.

Europe appeals for calm. The Arab world is agreed that Israel did it to itself to start a war.

The argument at DU was whether Bush did it LIHOP or MIHOP.

I think if a terrorist group gets its hands on a nuke, it can explode it in Israel pretty much cost-free. In the environment explained above it would be difficult for Israel to effectively retaliate, and against whom would it even aim?

I think Israel realizes this and I would be surprised if they stand by and watch as Iran acquires nukes.

[Colorado Blue]

99. There is another aspect to this nasty scenario, which in

fact could be carried out easily by Hizbollah.

The oil fields are too valuable. People would accept the destruction of Israel, or heavy casualties there, but not the oil fields. Italy, for example, gets all its oil from Iran.

When people were staging protests outside the Iranian embassy, due to Ahmadinejab's genocidal speeches, the Italian foreign minister said he couldn't go. They're afraid to rock the boat.

And I totally agree, the conspiracy theories would say the Israelis did it to themselves. I've seen the same thing when suicide bombers have blown up innocent people in Israeli markets.

Something else: I read an editorial in Jerusalem Post tonite, about films that seek to humanize terrorists, like the one, "Paradise Now", that won the Golden Globe award.

The writers were wondering is such a film would ever be made, if the terror victims weren't Israeli? The fact is, the world seems to feel that Israeli lives are expendable.

[leveymg]

129. Why assume that Iran is more likely to give nuclear material to

terrorists, than say, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Russia or any other potential black market source?

The most realistic scenario I've seen is in Posner's book: al-Qaeda gets its hands on one or more of the Saudi "doomsday" dirty bombs (explosive radiological devices -- non-fissionable nuclear waste sheithed in plastic explosives they produced in some numbers and planted in their oil facilities as a deterrent to someone coming in and grabbing the country). A couple of these things could render lower Manhattan and downtown Washington uninhabitable for the duration.

Consider this: planted in Tel-Aviv as a false flag operation, they could prompt the Israelis to retaliate against the regional rival of choice. In a hypothetical case, Israel retaliates against Iran, taking out its oil production facilities. Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz. Oil goes over $125/barrel - guess who would benefit from that outcome?

This is precisely why nuclear brinksmanship is so dangerous. There is too much room for error and deception. All parties would do better to lay off the rhetoric and ratchet down the threats.

[bananas]

97. Or planted by Pat Robertson to start armegeddon nt

[Colorado Blue]

101. They are gonna be SO SURPRISED when their "savior"

doesn't return.

Something tells me, if they're waiting for Jesus, He was a person of peace and would thoroughly disapprove of people trying to provoke Armageddon.

[bananas]

102. They'll be standing around the rubble, saying "Where is he?" nt

[sandnsea]

103. Interesting thread

It's baffling to me how so many people can believe every non-western country on the planet is sincere and peace-loving, that the US will do anything to instigate war; and then be offended when they're called America haters. :crazy:

Is there any non-western country that is disingenuous in their claims to want peace?? Does Iran have ANY responsibility for its recent threats to wipe Israel off the map?

[Silverhair]

105. And every election we get hammered with the charge,

and so many wonder why it sticks.

"Mr. & Mrs. Middle America, I hate your country, so vote for the candidate I endorse." :crazy:

Yep, a real vote getter. :sarcasm:

[bananas]

106. See post 34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=164042&mesg_id=167838

[sandnsea]

111. Don't put words in my mouth

I referred to posts that paint western powers as launching unprovoked attacks with Iran completely innocent in all matters of war and weapons. I didn't say anybody say Iran was a good guy.

Funny about all these comments on Iran though, when we're talking about the Iraq chemical weapon attack, many of these people blamed it all on Iran. Now though, Iran is completely trustworthy.

Adherance to a set political ideology is always dangerous.

[bananas]

118. These are your words, not mine.

"so many people can believe every non-western country on the planet is sincere and peace-loving"
"I referred to posts that paint...Iran completely innocent"
"I didn't say anybody say Iran was a good guy"

[sandnsea]

122. I never said that

I never said anybody said Iran was a good guy. I referred to posts that made claims like the one below, that western countries have an "even MORE cruel record". They find no fault with non-western countries and will even flip their views in mid-sentence, as they have on Iran who has consistently been blamed for the chemical attacks, when it was beneficial to have it not be Saddam.

[bpilgrim]

112. no one is suggesting that

folks are just pointing out that the west has just as cruel and often even MORE cruel record then the official evildoers.

of course it will be spun as us being american haters, just like the rw wackos do when the other-side of the story is pointed out.

Does Israel have ANY responsibility for its 6 decades of occupation & threats against the palestinians?

peace

[LincolnMcGrath]

115. SHHH You need to pipe down, America hater!

:eyes: Man the blue dogs are howling this morning, no?

[sandnsea]

125. Listen

If people weren't so dishonest in their debates, I wouldn't have anything to point out. But when many people on the left, yes the LEFT, said Iran was the real threat and not Iraq; but turn around now and start building Iran up as an innocent victim, then I'm going to say something. When Iran has been blamed for gassing the Kurds in order to make an excuse for Saddam, but that little detail is now ignored, I'm going to say something. The dishonesty people on the left have with serious issues like these is appalling. There are some people here who have never had a decent thing to say about this country or 95% of its leaders or citizens. I don't know whether they hate this country or not, but I can sure understand why some people think they do because that's all they ever say. That's all I said.

[LincolnMcGrath]

142. So be honest Yourself and call an America Hater an America Hater

Stop beating around the Bush. As if 'the left' are the only political animal on the planet to criticize their own government, please. The only apparent dishonesty I see here is you trying to sugarcoat your hatred of leftists. Just lay your agenda on the table.

There isn't a poster in this thread who will deny the atrocities of the Iran/Iraq conflict.

Some of us even know how the conflict started.

[sandnsea]

143. That's not what I said

I'm not sugarcoating anything. I'm pretty clear on what I think and I tend to think leftists are hypocritical and disingenuous, never hid that. Doesn't mean I hate them. I'm suggesting that some people might want to look at their own comments and consistent reaction to foreign affairs to figure out why they're called America-haters.

So who gassed the Kurds?

And I know the history of the Iran/Iraq conflict. You really can't presume that the answer to everything is that everybody else is stupid except you.

[LincolnMcGrath]

144. lol

You follow === "I tend to think leftists are hypocritical and disingenuous"

With === "I'm suggesting that some people might want to look at their own comments and consistent reaction to foreign affairs to figure out why they're called America-haters"

:rofl: It's all the leftist's fault. :rofl:

[sandnsea]

146. Why won't you answer my question

:shrug:

Who gassed the Kurds? Iran? That's who gassed them last week when the left was sugar coating Saddam. Now that the Iranian threat that the left said was being ignored has bubbled to the surface, Iran has never been a threat to anybody, anywhere, either. Kind of backed into a hypocritical corner there, seems to me. I mean somebody gassed those Kurds, unless you're going to claim a Jim Jones suicide now.

Yes, the left causes serious image problems and has few solutions. They may be right on some issues, but they sure don't know shit about putting together a message that anybody can hear.

[LincolnMcGrath]

147. The Reagan Democrats sure led us to the promised land didn't they?!

There were Kurds gassed last week?
Start a separate thread if you want to know who gassed the kurds. Otherwise I am not interested in your straw-man. You post ZERO links to back your claims about the left, and you are projecting your own anti-left bias into the equation.

[sandnsea]

151. What a hoot

I never voted for a Republican in my entire life.

I've posted quotes from this very thread that back up my claims. Dead Kurds back up my claims. Who gassed them? Because if Saddam didn't do it, then Iran did. So which one of them has the capacity to be that kind of threat?

[bpilgrim]

153. yeah let's recycle the same BS excuses we used in Iraq for Iran

genius!


more...
http://GLobalFreePress.com

peace

[sandnsea]

157. Yeah let's

Iraq wasn't a threat. Iran gassed the Kurds. Iran isn't a threat. Oh my god, who gassed the Kurds.

(I'm not saying either is a threat worthy of a war. I am saying the left really wouldn't know a threat until they were dead.)

[bpilgrim]

161. i doub't you'll find many supporters for that plan

the right loves to kill us but our universal truths live on.

"We German Social Democrats pledge ourselves solemnly in this historic hour to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and socialism. No enabling act can give you power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible."

Hitler was enraged and jumped up to respond.

"You are no longer needed! - The star of Germany will rise and yours will sink! Your death knell has sounded!"

source...
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/dictator.htm

you do realize what we are up against, don't you?

peace

[sandnsea]

162. What plan???

There was no plan in that post. What in the hell are you talking about?

[bpilgrim]

164. recycling the same lies we used to demonize iraq to now demonize iran

as i said just above sarcastically that you seemed to endorse not only in your reply but the gist of most of your posts in this thread.

the fear factor is getting old...

peace

[sandnsea]

166. Over and over and over and over

I never said anything about Iran. I referred to what OTHER people said about Iran. Can you not grasp the difference???

The left can't spend two years saying Bush's Iraq war distracted him from the real threat of Iran; then turn around and say Iran was no threat It's illogical and why they have no credibility.

That isn't me expressing an opinion on Iran at all.

[bpilgrim]

174. pfft... who said here that iran is the 'real' threat in arguing the IWR?

and at the same time you are also gonna try and say you aren't arguing that point :crazy:

cya

peace

[sandnsea]

175. Denial

Sy Hersh. Michael Moore. And all sorts of people on DU too. But denying that anybody from the left said it is exactly what I'm talking about anyway. So I'm not surprised.

[bpilgrim]

152. psst...

you do realize this is a 'left' board, right...

& then you presume to know the collective left position & feign ignorance and/or insult when lefties disagree and call you on your black & white false dichotomy & limited world view.

please... give us lefties a break, already!

trying to sell the fox news fear factor on DU ain't goin no where fast.

why not deal with the other facts presented instead of reducing EVERYTHING to attacks against your fellow LEFTIES :shrug:


do you know what time it is?

peace

[sandnsea]

154. No it isn't

It's a board to primarily support getting Democrats elected to office. Leftists aren't necessarily Democrats and many of them would be horrified to be associated with Democrats. So when I point out what so many others have point blank told me, I don't know why I'm villified.

[bpilgrim]

158. fyi

the dems are commonly associated with the LEFT, at least in america...

now, if we can't even agree on that common ground how are we gonna get to the rest of your broad brush strokes and strawmen :shrug:

peace

[sandnsea]

160. Much to our detriment

I've said 1001 times that I'd like the left to build a stronger voice outside the Democratic Party. America won't hear them until they do; and won't hear Democrats either. As long as the left insists on beating up Democrats from within, and vice versa, we're just going to be one big fat mess. And, FYI, centrist Democrats piss me off just as much as the left. It's just that the left beats them about the head more than enough around here, I don't hardly need to join in.

[LincolnMcGrath]

165. Wow

Just wow, nothing more to say. :crazy:

Theleftisbeatingdownthe democrats,buttheyarenotreallydemocratsanyway,butI'mnotbashingdemsby disowningthe base,whodon'twanttobedems,leftistsaretoblame,Igotnomessageotherthantheleftistblame game,etcKurds!

Holy Mackerel!

[sandnsea]

167. *sigh* still no answer n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

171. Who kept stealing my Kerry sign in 04? Huh answer me.

Whats that you say? You say it has nothing to do with the topic at hand?


Just keep saying 'the left' has no credibility, that should help the party in general. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

172. Who gassed the Kurds?

If the left has credibility, there will be an answer to that. And the left is not the Democratic Party, as so many from the left have told me.

[sandnsea]

123. Yes, the west is MORE cruel

Exactly. Always. No matter what. Is Iran still responsible for gassing the Kurds, or is it more convenient to have Saddam be responsible again???

[Colorado Blue]

176. Good points. I don't understand that myself. Apparently

everything Western, American or Israeli is defacto bad, and vice versa.

[mattclearing]

119. Iran would never do such a thing.

It would ensure that Tehran (at the bare minimum) would be turned to glass, and not by us, but by Israel.

I don't deny any country's right to nuclear development anymore. The U.S. has a double standard, and is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons.

The main concern is that Iran would be able to sneak nukes to terrorists and deny culpability for an attack that they facilitate, but even then, if a nuke blows up in the U.S. or Israel, Iran is going to be the first suspect anyway, and even if we find out it was done by someone else, our strategic goals will demand that we take the opportunity to wipe Iran from the map (like we invaded Iraq despite 9/11 having nothing to do with it).

Long story short, it wouldn't happen, because it would be suicide.

[Strawman]

121. Conference call the other nuclear powers

and prevent any escalation.

[seabeyond]

124. What if Iran nukes Israel? or isreal nukes iran

or the u.s. nukes someone.

what if...... then all these religious crusades kick in and we truly have our holy war

then we go from there

this is what i got reading your subject. after reading your whole post...... when bushco went after iraq illegally and has created the mess he has, and has stated he has this right to do it. i have to ask, who the hell are we to say a country should constrain themselves and not make nukes. bush clearly shwed the world and each of these countries the powerful cna do what they want.
i say who are we NOW to say whether a nation should do without. we took our argument for them to listen to us, off the table. that is bush gift to the world

[rman]

127. What if Israel or the US becomes the exeption?

Seems an equally valid question.

To answer your question: whichever nation uses nukes first, we'll all end up in deep shit.

[kentuck]

132. I think the reverse is more likely...

especially if there is a power vacuum when Sharon leaves the scene...

[KG]

133. this is BS. iran doesn't have nukes, not even close

not to mention the lack of a way of delivering them.

nice try tho. thanks for playing the fear card.

[Hyernel]

136. Maybe we should have established Israel on Madagascar.

It's much nicer than that desert wasteland they're on now. Plus all those tasty lemurs!

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Do? Start coordinating a massive global relief effort for the survivors.

What the fuck else would there be to do?

[against all enemies]

159. Great question, here's another -- What if Israel nuked itself?

Ok, you're right they're both stupid questions.

[TheBaldyMan]

163. they don't have nukes

and would have to spend 10 years developing them in order to be in a position to even think about it. Even then they'd need a weapon system capable of delivering it.

The supposition makes about as much sense as 'What if Israel nukes Iran'

[wtmusic]

168. unrealistic

1) they don't have delivery capability

2) They would be destroyed. Iran assuring their own destruction won't happen, unless there is a rogue fanatic in the government who gets the keys, and Ahmadinejad ain't him.

What if there was a Santa?