Atomic attack on Iran? Here's how it might go down.

[LuckyTheDog]

My guess is that Israel will attack Iran using small tactical nukes and then try to deny that anything other than very powerful conventional weapons were used. The Bush White House will back them up.

Afterward: There will be reports of radiation in the air. Leakers inside Israel will confirm (anonymously) that small nukes were used. Other evidence will emerge. But the right-wing echo chamber will shout it all down -- in unison -- as rumors and will attack the credibility of anyone news organization that reports any of it.

People who demand an investigation to determine the truth will be called "moonbats" and "conspiracy nuts" and will be accused of being on the side of Iran, anti-American and/or anti-Semitic.

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

[pwb]

1. you don't think any country will retaliate???

the precedent will be set. all countries will feel that they too can use nuclear weapons. wtf ?

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Retaliation would be likely

But that's not what I was addressing. I merely said that I think that, if small nukes are used, then there is a good chance that there would be an attempt to cover that up.

[Bucky]

20. Retaliation would be certain. Israel would have to hit ALL of Iran's missile batteries

Iran has literally lined their Gulf with hidden and mobile missile batteries. They'll sink every tanker in the Gulf and wipe out every US-contracted production center in Iraq. Israel knows that it has to prevent this, altho they probably can't. The next step would be that pro-Iranian groups in Iraq will step up attacks on all US facilities. The first warning of an Israeli attack on Iran will be a sudden and hopefully quiet exit of top American dignitaries from Iraq.

It will be hell. In the end, I don't Israel will do it. They can't be that crazy.

[madokie]

31. I hope you're right about that last part

[FogerRox]

21. yup

[Behind the Aegis]

2. You figured this all out based on a story that has no identifiable sources...

...and was printed (basically the same story, definitely the same headline) two years ago?

[LuckyTheDog]

5. Not so sure

There certainly HAVE been stories about Israel planning a possible attack on Iran. But I think (correct me if I am wrong) that this is the first story to indicate that Israel would use nukes.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. There have been stories...

...the author of the piece you reference, wrote a very similar article almost two years ago. That piece even has the EXACT same title. The piece from 2005 references bunker-busters, but does not refer to them as 'nuclear' in nature. It is also not the first article to claim that Israel would use nukes. There have been articles saying Israel was going to use them on Lebanon, the Palestinians, and a few other places. This is nothing but anti-Israeli propaganda and pro-war propaganda being used to manipulate and saber-rattle.

[LuckyTheDog]

11. The Times?

What motive do you think the Times has to publish "anti-Israeli propaganda and pro-war propaganda"?

Certainly Israel has a track record re: destroying the nuclear sites of hostile states in its region. And it would surprise me a lot if they were not drawing up contingency plans for taking out the sites in Iran. How close they are to actually doing it -- and whether or not they would use nukes -- is the only question, IMO.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. The "Times" has a history of anti-Israeli and pro-war bias.

Do remember we are not talking about the "New York Times," but about a British paper. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch and is on par with FOX news and The "Washington Times."

[LuckyTheDog]

17. I am not convinced

But then, I am not usually convinced by assertions that have no evidence to back them up.

Also: Do you really think that Israel is not -- at the very least -- actively making a plan to attack Iran, "just in case"?

[Behind the Aegis]

18. What are you looking for?

The ownership of the paper is no mystery...google can clear that up. There are varying opinions on the veracity of reports from that paper, mainly it depends on who the editor is at the time.

As for whether Israel has planned for an attack on Iran, I would say it has. It probably has plans for a variety of scenarios, including attacks from now-allies. That really is not news. IT is no more news than if it were reported that Iran has plans drawn up to attack Israel.

[dave_p]

25. No

The Times is fairly consistently pro-Israeli. Unlike most of Murdoch's empire it's occasionally critical, but that's all.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

4. They won't even bother

They'll just fess up to it. "We used a nuke. So what."

And they're going to do it soon -- before opposition has a chance to grow.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. They are not stupid

Israel is not stupid. If they can maintain some ambiguity about their nuclear capability, they will.

[wtmusic]

8. Their nuclear capability is very clear

and has been for thirty years, despite what the government says.

Their inability to use one without detection is clear as well.

[Skidmore]

10. Israel's biggest problem is that it is

arrogant though.

[dave_p]

26. None

Any ambiguity went when they locked up Vanunu. And every other power knew they had it in the 1970s. For decades the only ambiguity's been whether they got the bomb in 1967 or 1968.

[LeftCoast]

9. There would be no way to cover up a nuclear attack

This whole article makes no sense at all. The consequences for Israel would FAR outweigh any possible benefit of such an attack. The Israelis are far from stupid, so why would they engage in such a stupid plan?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. You are correct.

The piece is nothing but yellow journalism.

[terrya]

14. I certainly agree.

Nuclear weapons haven't been used since, when...World War II? There is NO way this could be covered up. Israel would be a world pariah if they went ahead with this. It is a stupid plan.

[LuckyTheDog]

16. I disagree

If the bombs really were 1/15th the size of a Hiroshima bomb and were detonated underground, it might not be entirely clear to outsiders that they were nukes.

[dave_p]

27. It will be

The Iranians will make that quite clear - there'll be no reason not to invite outsiders if the facilities are destroyed.

[maine_raptor]

32. When nukes are set off, even underground,

they create a very distinctive seismic signature. This is how the current test ban is enforced. And the force of the bast does not have to be large (for example North Korea's 4th of July test) to be detected. Many nations (France, Russia, etc.) have monitoring systems that look for this signature. It would be quite apparent that nukes had been used even without any visit to ground zero.

[ProfessorGAC]

36. How Would One Bury 2.93 Million Pounds Of TNT. . .

. . .underground in someone else's country? Answer: They can't. The story has no legs.
The Professor

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. They pull a stunt like that & they can kiss their ass goodbye.

[dave_p]

28. There's no-one to hit back

Who will? A few crappy conventional missiles, if they get through? They're ready for that.

[The_Casual_Observer]

29. There are other ways to disrupt things.

They haven't seen anything yet.

[Junkdrawer]

19. Saber Rattling

saber rattling
n.
A flamboyant display of military power.
A threat or implied threat to use military force.

[FogerRox]

22. Isreal may no longer be the only Mid east country w/nukes

Saudi Arabia "donated" 5 billion to A Q Kahns Pakistani bomb effort. There are some Ex Russian loose nukes floating around, who owns them?

It may be the Bush Cabal is daft enough to attack Iran, but I think there are many ME players who are working double time to bring some balance to the unbalanced Bush caused problems.

[dave_p]

24. No

Saudi doesn't have 'em. Backing Pakistan's effort was likely a move to bolster it against Iran. And the Saudis definitely aren't going to lift a finger for Iran.

No Muslim country apart from Pakistan has them. And Pakistan won't take any action either beyond welcomingany weakening of Iranian influence in Afghanistan.

[dave_p]

23. Bringing it on

This is worrying stuff, more alarming than a few US carriers milling round the Gulf. Yes, Israel's bellicose enough to do it. There's no ambigiuty about Israel's possession of nukes, and no other power with a nuclear capacity's about to retaliate, which is why they're so hell-bent on stopping any potential enemy from getting one.

The Times may be owned by Murdoch, but it's his flagship, and it survives by its reputation despite its pro-US, pro-Israeli bias: it's definitely not Fox or one of his gutter tabloids. It has no reason to falsely attribute such a story to reliable "Israeli military sources" when many have long suspected such an attack's in the offing.

Israel's been the party driving the whole anti-Iran enterprise of recent years, since it suddenly decided Hamas (which it had once encouraged as a rival Palestinian faction) was a more dangerous foe enemy than the PLO. The BBC recently revealed that Israeli contractors had been working on airfields in Iraqi Kurdestan, useful in Israeli terms only as a refueling or emergency landing point for an attack on Iran.

Israel's a far likelier candidate for such an attack than the US, assuming it has the appropriate weapons - and there's no reason to believe it hasn't. Israel rightly calculates that it's so hated by most of its neighbours that it's little to lose in PR terms. Its government will be prepared for low-level conventional counter-strikes, which is the only likely blowback. And dead Israeli civilians only strengthen the government's grip on the public mind: this proves that they want to kill us all.

There's no reason to disbelieve the story, and every reason to credit it. Israel hopes to deter any future nuclear attack by a non-state enemy with the threat of nuclear retaliation against all neighboring opponents, and that suits the more Rapture-fixated of Bush's Fundie base just fine: this just brings us all a step closer to their beloved Armageddon. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Garbo 2004]

30. Previous articles also by author of The Times article linked in OP:

This article appeared in Sunday Times (UK) November 15, 1998:
Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in
by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin

ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks.
http://www.peace.ca/geneticwarfare.htm

The Sunday Times July 18, 2004
Israel targets Iran nuclear plant
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Peter Conradi

ISRAEL could launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power station if Russia goes ahead with plans to supply it with fuel, a senior American official warned last week.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2761-1182664,00.html

The Sunday Times March 13, 2005
Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant
Uzi Mahnaimi

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522978,00.html

The Sunday Times December 11, 2005
Israel readies forces for strike on nuclear Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, Washington

ISRAEL’S armed forces have been ordered by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister, to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran, military sources have revealed.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1920074_1,00.html

The Sunday Times September 03, 2006
Israel plans for war with Iran and Syria
Uzi Mahnaimi, Tel Aviv, and Sarah Baxter, New York

THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340486,00.html

I dunno. Seems like a pattern. Israeli sources seem to be quite chatty with this author about their super secret plans, considering they'll wind up in the Times.

"Ethnic bomb??"

[Lurking Dem]

34. People seem way too eager to accept this story.

Everything that comes out of Iran is disputed, questioned, and analyzed. A writer with an obvious hard on for Israel (Salon debunked the ethno bomb story) does another unsourced hit piece and its gospel.

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

CONFLAGRATION!

WWIII!

JOOOOOOOOOS!

Unbelievable.

[LuckyTheDog]

41. What's your point

Are you saying that a story that is followed by a reporter over time --and on which the reporter writes several articles -- has to be false? What is the logic in that?

[ProfessorGAC]

35. Doesn't Sound Technically Feasible

A "small" tactical nuke is typically 1-4 kilotons. Exactly what conventional weapon would provide the detonative capability of 2.2 - 8.8 MILLION POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES?

If the device were made small enough to emulate a conventional blast (2 - 4 metric tons) then what would be the point of using nukes? If all you want is the impact of 10,000 pound of explosive, why not just use 10,000 pounds of explosives?

Really small devices are very difficult to make and very expensive to machine and build. It would be WAY cheaper to use chemical explosives. No explanations or cover-up needed.

If you needed to blast potential of millions of pounds all at once, there is no alternative to nukes, and there is no hiding an actual nuke with that sort of yield.
The Professor

[LuckyTheDog]

44. You are assuming that all the facts will get out

You are assuming that all the facts will get out, that they will be accurately reported and that there will be no mind-blowing propaganda effort. Those are big assumptions to make during the Bush era, I think.

If it happens, there is little doubt that the Iranians will make the evidence available. But people are already trained to disbelieve anything that comes from Iran (with some justification). And, during the "fog of war" that would follow the strike, a lot of "details" will tend to get smoothed over or ignored.

[LuckyTheDog]

37. This was thread moved?

How come? This has NOTHING to do with the Palestinian conflict. It is about a possible war between Iran and Israel.

I fail to see why all threads about Israel have to go here.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Why does it matter?

[LuckyTheDog]

43. I just seems odd

This forum is supposed to be a place to discuss the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My post has nothing to do with that.

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Happens all the time.

It isn't that it is about anything other than Israel. you could post something along the lines of "Israeli wins peace prize" and it would eventually devolve into a flamefest (usually anti-Israeli) and it gets moved here. However, I fail to see why it really matters that it was moved here. The only thing one can't do here is recommend a thread to the "greatest page." Other than that, and a few extra rules to promote civility, it really doesn't matter.

[Dover]

40. Will be interesting to see

if an attack by Israel on Iran, or vice versa, gets reported at all in LBN.

[oberliner]

42. Israel/Lebanon was posted about extensively in LBN and GD

During that recent conflict. Did you read any of those threads? What did you think of the quality of that discussion?

[Dover]

46. Yes, I read them. Some discussions seemed relevant, some were flame wars.

Just like so many topics at DU. I could say more about this but, apparently even this type of discussion about DU policy is taboo among its members in an open forum, so will have to keep my response limited.

[Dover]

39. Thought this was interesting.....Taiwan 'may' have just met with U.S. officials

which might make sense if they were concerned about China taking advantage of a U.S./Israeli conflict with Iran to seize Taiwan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2679550

[Dover]

47. My thoughts,

From an older thread (during the Lebanon/Israel conflict)-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1820859&mesg_id=1820859