Why wouldn't Mutually Assured Destruction be enough to protect nuclear Israel from nuclear Iran?

Estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range from 200-400 warheads, more than enough to wipe out Iran even if Iran got off a fairly successful first strike. But Iran is unlikely to even have rough parity with Israel for at minimum a decade.

Even so, the Soviet Union had more nukes than us at some points, and today Russia has more than us, but somehow that numerical advantage doesn't translate into a first strike.

So why exactly are the likudniks, republicans, and corporate Dems getting their panties in a knot about Iran getting nukes?


That crap about giving the nuke to terrorists is bullshit. If a nuke went off in the US or Israel, either country would respond the same way. We would nuke the country that gave the terrorists the weapon, and if we didn't know who did it, we would claim whoever is on our shitlist did and nuke them instead, much as Bush and Cheney did with Iraq.

The nuclear issue is only real in the sense that if Iran had nukes, it would limit our or Israel's options to act against them in the future. It is more likely that like Iraq, it is not an issue at all--it is an excuse.

But then with MAD there's no way to get our oil from underneath Iranian soil.

It worked with the USSR and the US.

We can't avoid the fact that in time, practically every country will have someone in it able to figure out how to make WMD. The crusade to limit the knowledge to those who already have it is delusional.

when one side feels that allah is completely on their side, and will protect them from the infidels.

and if he doesn't- well...they all get their 77 virgins in the afterlife

Explain to me how that isn't Islamophobic.

There's reason to believe that MAD doesn't apply to Iran. I believe Ayatollh Khomeni made some statement back in the 70's like "Let the Americans send nuclear weapons, Allah will protect us."

(clue: none)

How many were attacked by the "insane clerics" after his death???

(clue: none)

and your point is????

those crazy Iranian muslims don't value human life. They can't be trusted.

However, those crazy Pakistani muslims are valuable allies in our war on terra.

Musharaff is a rational person. Ahmadinejad is not.

:crazy:

The US shot down Iranian civilian aircraft - not the other way around.

call for the overthrow of Saddam? That's not a neutral act. And Ayatollah Khomeini was mad at Saddam. So who's to blame for the war?

Our Dear Saddam calculated that Iran's oil fields were easy pickin's after the revolution (he calculated badly - as he did when he invaded Kuwait).

There was no provocation by Iran.

Obviously you are held back by reality. Just imagine that Iran is the new boogeyman. See?

ents as he announced triumphantly to the bridge officers that the an Aegis missile the cruiser launced just destroyed a slow-moving target that took off from Theran's Mehrabdad Airport. Before anyone else, it should have occurred to him that the target took no evasive action as the missile neared was significant.

If anyone had botheredto check the flight schedules, they would have seen that the target - DEAD, DEAD, DEAD - was an Iran Air A-319 commercial flight that took off the same time each week.

We're only forgiven because so many of us are are so naive.

By the way, Iran is also a coalition government, with power split among various bureaucratic, military, theocratic and commercial elites. Just like Israel.

Now, does that make you feel better?

My point was that Pakistan is run mostly by the military and thus they have a secular leader. Iran has a secular government where the clergy get to decide who can and can't run for office. Some of the people that they might pick to run for President are moderate enough that I could be convinced that they don't really believe that Alah will protect them. Ahmadinejad is not one of them, he is as extreme as they come.

That being said, I don't support war with Iran. The only thing that will keep Ahmadinejad in power is if we do take military action against them before they hold their next election. If things stay the way they are, Iran will elect someone more reasonable that we can negotiate with. Meanwhile I hope that we'll elect someone reasonable that is willing to negotiate.

The message in DC since 2001 is that Pakistan's government no longer has the "keys" to its nuclear weapons - we do. Basically, we've bought them from them.

77 virgins and all...

and is how big? I'm not stating MAD would not work, just that your comparison between 1+ billion living on the Indian Sub-Continent and the 6-9 million living in Israel is poor.

unlike "other" countries in the region...

So, yes, the comparison is unfair...

:evilgrin:

THAT'S the point.

There is no evidence that they would.

Any other conclusion is BS...

Iraq-Iran War, and haven't used them since.

Why should Iran treate a nuclear weapon any differently than these other WMDs?

Colin Powell (Raygun's National Security mis-Advisor) also claimed (wrongly) that Iran was responsible for the chemical attacks against the Kurds.

Iran did not introduce chemical weapons into the Iran-Iraq War - Iraq did - and the Reagan administration aided Iraq in chemical weapons attacks against Iranian forces.

Furthermore, Iran RENOUNCED possession and use of chemical weapons after the Iran-Iraq war ended. It signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993.

If the yahoo islamoscaremongers were right, the nasty insane Ayatollers should have used chemical weapons against Israel by now - martyrdom and 77 virgins and all...

Numbers? How many kids in your family? Give me a number. Tell me how much that number would matter after they are gone?

See?

they could not possibly destory everyone living in India and that they would be vulnerable to counter-strike. Also how many nukes do you need to destroy a land mass the size of India?

get hypothetical answers.


Joan Baez said that, more or less

They can guarantee that Iran will be destroyed even if the Iranians manage to strike first and destroy Israel.

Iran's nuclear force (which of course does not exist) would be useful only as a deterrent against colonization by the unipolar power (that would be us.)

and put themselves in a position to lead their people...and then get them vaporized.

Allah, Jesus, Buddah...whoever. I'm sure that the people who would end up in a position to have their fingers on the trigger see the world in less black-and-white terms than that.

there are plenty of links in this thread even, to others who say that MAD doesn't really apply to iran's way of thinking.

Painting the leadership of Iran with the same brush that's used to portray, say, a suicide bomber is hardly honest.

RW nonsense...

did, few would follow as was the case with Hitler. When he wanted to take the whole country down with him at the end, Albert Speer quietly ignored his orders.

But it does work well when one side feels that God is on their side and will protect them from heathen...?


:shrug:

no u.s. president of the modern era truly believes in a god.

It seems to me that if Iran wanted to clear Israel and didn't care about the repercussions, they would simply bundle some enriched uranium on the tips of their conventional missiles and irradiate the place till it became uninhabitable.

They could do that without all the hassle of a working thermonuclear warhead and invest the difference in mutual funds or something.

Is that just a clever statement, or an actual opinion based on substance?

I ask because it seems to me that Carter was a very spiritual man of God, as were Truman and Eisenhower. Maybe you have information I don't. What would that info be?

when one of the elder senators is speaking to a young julius ceasar, while buying a chicken to sacrifice to the gods- julius questions the senator as to why he is making the sacrifice, when he doesn't believe in the gods...the senator replies that "privately, i don't believe in any of them- publicly, i believe in them all.."

imho- it's the same way in today's politics- i don't believe that someone could rise to the level of potus, and still hold an irrational belief in a mythical deity.

at least i sure as hell hope not.

but they still have to put on the dog-and-pony show for the mind-numbed masses. my canadian in-laws allways marvel at howin the u.s., to get elected, a candidate has to make the kind of religious statements that would get him laughed off the ballot in most civilized countries.

it's scary, really.

  It spells it out, literally, that under "all circumstances" Israel shall have a "qualitative edge" in the weaponry that the U.S. supplies to it. This pledge references the entire pantheon of conventional and nuclear weapons, from top-shelf technology on down. This is not to say that the U.S. supplies Israel with nuclear technology- they've had it for decades.

  What it does mean in the current context is that it is vital that Israel always have superior weapons compared to it's neighbors. Since nuclear weapons are at the top of the weapon food-chain, the only action (following this line of thinking) is to make sure that no Arab (or in Iran's case) Asian country obtains nuclear weapons.

  Our policy in the Middle East has never been based on a parity or equality. Those elements are not seen as being in the U.S. or Israel's best interests.

PB

...part of a "Death Cult" (their words) and that as soon as Iran has nuclear weapons, hell a nuclear weapon, they're going to hot-foot it right on down to Israel to nuke them and be annihilated by the Israeli and American response.

  If Iran really has a death wish they could have exercised it at any time in the last 40 years and Israel would have nuked them. The Iranians are working out long-term deals with Russia and China, moving away from the tanking petro-Dollar to the petro-Euro. In short: They're not typically doing what you'd call preparation for Armageddon.

  The Israeli government tends to favor the stick more than the carrot, knowing the U.S. will send their boys to fight if Israel is ever attacked. Iran, like many other Arab nations is getting sick of this shtick and the routine attacks that Israel carries out with the bounty of U.S. weapons and intelligence which U.S. taxpayers insist they have.

  If Iran posesses nuclear weapons it means that Israel can nolonger passively threaten other countries with nuclear annihilation, or if they do, that it was mutually assured destructions. Stepping outside of the situation and looking at proxies, it means that the U.S. (through Israel) has less options, and they don't like that.

PB

Jerusalem is the site of the third holiest site in Islam. Would they really want to turn it into a radioactive wasteland for 200 years?

Same with the remainder of Israel. Iran says Israel has no right to exist and should be wiped out, but their idea isn't to turn it into a sea of radioactive glass. They think Palestinians are the right inhabitants and want them to be allowed to return to live there. It would be pretty dumb of them to turn over a radioactive wasteland to the Palestinians as a homeland.

Frankly, since Shrubby invaded Iraq, any nation in the world that does NOT try to get nukes is negligent. He's basically told the world that if you've got nukes, you are safe, but if you don't, and you try to get them, we'll invade you. That's what 'pre-emptive war' has gotten us.

Anyway, I've read that the argument of MAD does not apply to Iran because Iran's leaders are "irrational."


http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2006/12/iranian-nuclear-threat-is-madder-than.html

The leaders of Iran are just as interested in having and keeping power in their country as the leaders in the USSR were. So, the "irrational" argument is a canard.
The Professor

Iranians as fanatics -- all the better to scare the sheeple, ya know.

Please do not quote Pajamas Media here for anything, not even indirectly. You might as well cite Jeff Guckert as an authority.

it is important to peruse and, <<yack>> reference these types in order to make a point, otherwise, we have limited understanding, insight and knowledge as to their perspective and, in some case, their intentions. Call it black ops, if you will. It serves a strategic purpose.

I retract my suggestion of a categorical unqualified ban. Rightwing bullshit sources should be used as examples of wrong thinking, disinformation, what the enemy is up to, etc. On the other hand using this stuff without pointing out that its source is a known rigntwing disinformation organization, using it as if it were credible, is not helpful, which was my snarky point.

Next time, I'll do better to warn people, lest they may think I'm a freeper or just plain ignorant. ;)

to an Iranian missile strike. Same mindset as those in Tehran who -- allegedly -- think Iran "can absorb and survive" an Israeli nuclear strike.

Arrow Option and Project Daniel: http://www.milnet.com/beres/Arrow-Part1.html



Iranian Nuclearization And Israel`s `Arrow`: Implications For Preemption Option
Posted 9/28/2004
By LOUIS RENE BERES
Israel`s security from enemy state aggression depends upon a carefully conceived mix of deterrence, preemption and war-fighting postures. It also requires an integrated and capable system of active defenses. The current core of Israel`s active defense system is the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program. An Israel Air Force (IAF) operational undertaking, the Arrow was developed jointly by Israel and the United States and is managed by the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO) in close cooperation with the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The prime contractor for the Arrow ABM is Israel Aircraft Industries/MLM Division.

On July 29, 2004, as part of the ongoing Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP) which is carried out jointly by Israel and the United States, an Arrow ABM successfully intercepted and destroyed its target at the Point Mugu Sea Range in California. This was the 12th Arrow intercept test and the seventh test of the complete Arrow system. According to a statement issued by Israel`s Ministry of Defense (MOD) on that same day: "The target trajectory demonstrated an operational scenario and all the Arrow system components performed successfully in their full operational configuration."

From the standpoint of Israel`s security, these test results are very significant. They indicate not only continuing close cooperation between Washington (DOD) and Tel-Aviv (MOD), but also the intrinsic technical promise of Israel`s ballistic missile defense. But now, serious decisions need to be made. Still faced with a steadily nuclearizing Iran, Israel must quickly consider carefully whether it can rely upon a suitable combination of deterrence and active defenses or whether it must also prepare energetically for an appropriate form of preemption.

On its face, it would appear that with a successfully operating system of ballistic missile defense, Israel`s preemption option is now substantially less urgent. Indeed, if the Arrow is truly efficient in its reliability of intercept, it would seem that even an irrational Iranian adversary armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons could be dealt with effectively by Israeli active defenses. This means that even if Israel`s nuclear deterrent were immobilized by an enemy state willing to risk a massive "countervalue" Israeli reprisal, that state`s ensuing first-strike would still be blocked by Arrow. Hence, why preempt?

a long time ago. Matter of fact, it's probably more likely a case of "when".

Way back in the day before the GOP started making Oval Office oral sex a national priority, this was a serious concern. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons sites were guarded sometimes by little more than a padlock. There are countless warheads unaccounted for. And no one has any idea where they are.

The USSR had very little success in making workable, and stable small nukes. Those they had were, with their full knowledge, >60% likely to detonate, and they did not stay stable for extended periods. The leakage rate was high and they would decay to states no longer detonatable in a fairly short time.

The country that had the most little nukes was us, and we had those that actually reliably worked.

Also, don't get fooled by that "countless warhead" thing. The USSR had far less than advertised. We found that out when the KGB released paperwork after the collapse of the Soviet system.
The Professor

Plenty of material out there. There's enough underpaid disgruntled scientists to go around.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported more than a hundred nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, eighteen of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9549/

Regardless of how large the Soviet stockpile really was, one missing nuke is one missing nuke too many. All it takes is one nuke going off to spark a retaliatory nuclear exchange. More than one just increases the odds and probability.

which a powerful incentive for all parties involved to keep it in their pants.

that the situation is comparable, although you are right that the chance of either country attacking the other would go down. But are you really suggesting a mini-Cold War? So there would be proxy wars instead (more so that is). That would not be good and proliferation is definitely not something to be encouraged. Just because a nuclear holocaust did not wipe out the world in the latter twentieth century, does not mean that it could not have happened. There were many moments in the Cold War where things would have escalated very, very fast- and the Middle East is not very stable already.

rather than an aggressive intervention in its affairs.

How could Israel possibly deal with another peer relationship? That would be unthinkable.

He said (paraphrasing) that he didn't care if Iran survived as long as Islam thrived. I think that's why MAD doesn't apply very well to Iran. Pluss, I take them at their word that they intend to destroy Israel.

among the world's major religions. Even in Israel, there's a split between those who believe that modern Israel was established in 1948 and those who believe that must wait for the coming of the next Messiah.

Judaism would survive even if the State of Israel ceased to be a theocracy politically dominated by one particular faith. There are those in Israel who are just as fanatical, and eschatological, as any of the mullahs in Iran.

If a country has a Nuclear Monopoly, then conventional superiority is less necessary. After WWII, the US used its nuclear monopoly to counter the USSR's conventional superiority in Eastern Europe.

Under MAD, a country with conventional superiority can use it's advantage to a limited degree because its nuclear weapons counter its opponent's nuclear weapons.

Currently, Israel has a tenuous conventional superiority and a Nuclear Monopoly. Israel will do everything it can (and endanger any ally it can convince) to maintain both.

raw numbers of troops don't mean much if they can be killed with over the horizon weapons or airpower as we did in the first Gulf War.

it was a different story.

but the country WITH the tech advantage has an even lower risk of being invaded and occupied for just that reason.

Can you imagine someone trying to occupy us? or Israel?

The "Iran Is the New Nazi Germany" campaign calls for a new theme.

This is about stealing Iraq's and Iran's oil even if they kill hundreds of thousands of their citizens.

Israel and Big Oil (eg BushCo) are fellow travelers and both have Iran in the crosshairs...

we pay for the war, they collect the profits.

And when you try to invade them. So it's simple.

Don't invade Iran.

The only use of nuclear weapons was by us against an already defeated Japan. We were not desperate at all. We used them (at least partially) because we could do so without any fear of retaliation, and primarily to show the rest of the world (i.e. Russia) just what we had up our sleeves.

It works like that. The danger I believe is that the science gets out and some al Qaeda type sympathizer or radical islamist gets the basics or access to enriched uranium...and passes it along to a group who really don't care about mutually assured destruction because that will just mean 72 virgins in heaven for them. IMHO

not thier own, or thier loved ones either.

and the bigots actually believe this!

GSD is the new economic mantra of a resource paradigm that is unsustainable
for the world's population to achieve, one that is self destructing western liberalism,
degenerating for all its high points, in to a suicide culture's mantra.

I've heard that ignorant misrepresentation ad nauseum. Yet somehow during the Cold War, those same people who make that argument about Iran now we're saying that we couldn't trust the Soviet Union not to initiate a first strike on the USA for the opposite reason! It was a popular argument with the fundies that went something like this:

The Soviet Union is Marxist! Marxists are Godless athiests! They don't believe in hell, so they've got nothing to lose in a nuclear holocaust! Why wouldn't they attack first?

My position on the subject is that not only should Iran not have nuclear weapons, NO COUNTRY SHOULD. There's a greater chance of an accidental apocalypse than any purposeful act by a messianic fool (although with the current squatter in the White House, I'm not holding my breath). We need to have unilateral global nuclear disarmament if we are ever to be truly secure.

just enough that they can't be knocked out in a first strike.

I think that 77 virgins bullshit is used to get young kids to go die in a war for you, just as we promise soldiers they'll go to heaven. Somehow I don't think the crackle heads running either government are stupid enough to want to obliterate their entire country instantaneously

when push comes to shove..

Stir in religious zealotry of ANY flavor, and M.A.D. becomes.."I'll happily kill YOU, even if it means I die too".