 |
| |
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
EDIT: Moderators - Please delete several spammous unrelated messages.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y
quote:
Ex-arms inspector: fear is that Israel will use nukes if hit by Iraq
By Reuters
Former chief UN arms inspector Richard Butler said on Thursday his biggest fear was that Israel will be drawn into a war against Iraq and use its nuclear weapons.
If the United States and its allies wage war on Baghdad, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could raise the stakes by attacking Israel, possibly igniting another Arab-Israeli war, Butler told a business conference in Hong Kong.
"The prime minister of Israel has said it will not be restrained, that it will respond (if Iraq attacks it)," Butler said.
"My deepest fear in that context, if that occurs and the war escalates, is that Israel will use its nuclear weapons.
"If that happens, the world would have been changed beyond recognition, and I would fear that if that happens the state of Israel would cease to exist."
Butler stressed repeatedly that he believed the rest of the world had every reason to bring Saddam back under the law and even remove him from office.
He dismissed Iraq's offer to allow the resumption of UN arms inspections as "a stalling tactic."
"That letter (to the UN) does not do the one thing that it was supposed to do, which was to give an absolute guarantee that if inspectors return to Iraq, they will be able to do their jobs unfettered," Butler said.
[snip]
|
Assessment: Israel would only use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means.
Assessment: If attacked by plain Scad missiles carrying no extra load, Israel will abstain from retaliating, for as long as public opinion allows. Retaliation would be a missile or aircraft strike.
Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?
Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means?
Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons?
Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?
Question: What will happen in the region?
Last edited by Sirotnikov on 27-09-2002 at 01:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
your new avatar is somewhat funny!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Now your avatar moneypenny is crap
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
moneypenny, I cant. you're hopeless
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
|
|
 27-09-2002 00:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10
|  |
|
Re: "Israel will cease to exist if it uses nuclear weapons against Iraq"
|
Got spare money?
|
|
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means?
|
Would depend on casualties and damage: a scud with chem weapons hitting some small town and killing 20 people would not justify a nuclear attack. A chem or bio weapons striking with full potency on Tel Aviv or jerusalem, killing tesn of thousands- a nuclear attack on an Iraqi city would be justifiable.
quote:
Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means? |
The answer is no if you listen to Rumsfeld. Against US troops on the field? perhaps. On missile against israel? higly unlikely.
quote:
Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons? |
Unless direcvtly attacked by WMD, use of Israeli nukes would be a HUGE policy mistake.
quote:
Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq? |
Of what, a war, or the use of WMD? People overestimate the damge a single attack by WMD has on major state. Israel would survive a single WMD attack from Iraq, no matter the size. Would do ahuge nbumber on the economy too. A nuclear strike is far more damaging than Chem or Biological, so the damage to Iraq's economy would be great. It would also greatly complicate what the US could do politically in Iraq post-Saddam.
quote:
Question: What will happen in the region? |
If israel struck as a retaliation for a strike on itself- a large and damaging strike- outrage in the ME in general, while still high, would not boil over- Iraq would still be seen as the one that started it. It would make any further re-proachment more difficualt though. If Israel atatcked with WMD as a response to a small attack, or none at all, the region would explode in huge anti-American rallies and calls for the destruction of israel, and a general ME war would not be too unlikely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
Even if an Iraqi missile falls in the desert
By Reuven Pedatzur
Testimony to the mood now prevalent in Israeli society, with massive encouragement from the political and military establishment, can be found in one of the questions pollster Mina Tzemah put to respondents in the survey the mass-circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth published last weekend.
"Under what circumstances should Israel respond with nuclear weapons?" was the question asked of those included in a representative sampling of Israeli society. The replies to the question are much less important than the question itself. According to Tzemah, it's clear to everyone that Israel has nuclear weapons and the only question remaining is when it should use them.
Beyond the lack of proportion between the Iraqi threat and the need for a nuclear response to it that is implicit in the question, it is worth asking why it is that the stronger Israel becomes militarily, the less confidence the public and its leaders have in its deterrence capability. This has reached the point where they need to threaten Judgement Day weapons to confront abstract threats that are very unlikely to be carried out.
The present Iraqi crisis is once again providing us with the opportunity to reenact the regular ritual of increasingly frequent Israeli threats, designed, according to those doing the threatening, to strengthen Israeli deterrence. They believe this deterrence has been undermined from the time when Israel didn't react to the Iraqi missile attacks in 1991. According to the The New York Times, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is explaining to the U.S. administration that Israel will react to an Iraqi attack no matter what the circumstances.
In other words, there won't necessarily be a connection between the Israeli response and the damage caused by the Iraqi missiles. An Israeli military response must follow, because the policy of restraint will be seen by the Arabs as weakness.
In an interview in The New York Times, David Ivry states that Iraq is in fact much weaker than in 1991, its army is less effective, and it has fewer missiles. But Ivry, one of the shapers of national security policy, who has been the commander of the Israel Air Force, the director-general of the Defense Ministry and an ambassador to Washington, hastens to add that in his opinion the present tendency in Israel favors responding this time. Otherwise, he says, Israel will lose its deterrence, and if Israel doesn't react this time, either, countries in the region are likely to think that we have no confidence in our ability.
And if that's not enough, to emphasize the severity of the continuing damage to Israel's deterrence capability, most of the spokesmen are making a point of emphasizing over and over again the damage caused by the unilateral exit from Lebanon, and the connection between it and the outbreak of the intifada.
[snip]
I snipped the article since i completely and totally disagree with it from that point forward. It's whole point is how wrong Israel is. My intention was to show these paragraphs to show you the current mood in Israel.
But you can read it if you want:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...SubContrassID=0
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
The world is going to hate Israel regardless of what they do. If Sadam attacks with WOMD and Israel responds in kind then people would say that Israel provoked it somehow (perhaps by secretly supporting the US invasion). This upcoming war can open up a huge bucket of worms and no one can predict the outcome. If people believe in prayer then now is the time to do it.
What will Sadam do? Anything he is able to do and wants to do regardless of the consequences. He knows he is on his way out. He will take as many people as he can with him.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
 |
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Assessment: Israel would only use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means.
Assessment: If attacked by plain Scad missiles carrying no extra load, Israel will abstain from retaliating, for as long as public opinion allows. Retaliation would be a missile or aircraft strike.
Question: Is it acceptable for Israel to use nuclear weapons if attacked using non-conventional means? |
IMO, it's almost as acceptable as attacking Israel when it doesn't actively participate in the war. But even less pacifist people than I will try to get the size of the actual attacks in relation.
quote:
Question: Will Saddam use non-conventional means? |
Saddam will try to do everything to provoke Israel. He'll make points in the Arab world when Israel nukes, and if he is safe he doesn't care for his own people.
quote:
Question: If so, will Israel use nucler weapons? |
Hopefully not. I think it's unwise to do so, because it will do exactly what Saddam speculates on: Unite the Arab world.
quote:
Question: What will be the actual consequences for Israel and Iraq?
Question: What will happen in the region? |
Don't know, other than miscarriages and cancer due to radioactive fallout (I hope Israel is wise enough not to assume it will be completely unaffected). Depends on who wins the psychological part of the war. But I doubt Arabs will see so far that they are able to look behind provocations. This is something also western people (Europeans, Israelis, Americans) are selectively blind to and I have no reason to assume that Arabs are smarter in that point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
quote:
Why is Israel going to war with Iraq?
|
Read the thread 
quote:
IMO, it's almost as acceptable as attacking Israel when it doesn't actively participate in the war. |
Why is responding to a chemical or biological attack using nuclear weapons unacceptable?
quote:
Saddam will try to do everything to provoke Israel. He'll make points in the Arab world when Israel nukes, and if he is safe he doesn't care for his own people.
|
I think he'll make more points if he successfully causes losses in Israel, without any Israeli retaliation.
I can't see any possible way in which the arabs can hate Israel more. They already believe the worse.
The only thing left, is to scare the **** out of them, to make them lose the idea of using non-conventional weapons against Israel.
quote:
Why don't you retaliate with like for like? If Saddam launches germs or gases, respond with your gases and germs. Since neither are particularly good weapons, little life will be lost. |
We don't develop gases or germs.
I mean, we do research into them, like any other country - but we don't make weapons. We research it for defense.
Plus, such an attack would require targetting civilians much more specifically - which I object. I don't consider chem and bio weapons to be legitimate.
Nukes are legitimate but usually unjustifiable.
quote:
A new thought crosses my mind. What if Iraq attacks Israel with a "dirty" bomb? It's extremely unlikely and not all that deadly, but do you think that a genuine nuclear response would be justified? |
It is deadly, but less in the short run and more in the long run.
I think that a mini nuke or a neutron bomb will be very justified.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adalbertus
|
|
Cologne, Germany
Feb 2001
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov Why is responding to a chemical or biological attack using nuclear weapons unacceptable?
|
Any use of weapons is unacceptable to me. I don't differentiate very much between non-conventional and conventional weapons - the only difference is that one thinks to know better how to protect oneself against conventional weapons, nothing more. The differentiation is mostly by fear, nothing else. There are situations in which the use of weapons (of any sort) can avoid worse - but things like this are very often taken too easily. It's really weighting the unacceptable against the even less acceptable.
quote:
I think he'll make more points if he successfully causes losses in Israel, without any Israeli retaliation.quote:
Victims get always more sympathy than aggressors. This is not different in the Arab world. The Arabs feel themselves as vicitms by Jewish/American aggression (this is not a question what they are but what they feel.) Saddam will get more points as a victim than as an aggressor - but he will also get points as an aggressor. This is what makes the situation so dangerous. It is impossible to make him lose his cause with military - or not military - only. To get around this, in view of the "natural" differences of the Arab and Western world - requires very bright politicians, and I don't see anyone who would intend to and could handle this.
|
I can't see any possible way in which the arabs can hate Israel more. They already believe the worse.
The only thing left, is to scare the **** out of them, to make them lose the idea of using non-conventional weapons against Israel. |
You can't scare people who don't fear death (and those are the worst). When you want to scare the Arabs you'll have to convince them that they'll lose paradise when they continue to attack Israel. I doubt this will be possible for any non-Muslim.
About the hate, you may be right (but I doubt it in this generality), but there are differences in the immediate danger to be felt. To think "I hate Jews" or "IDF will certainly kill all of us during the next two weeks if we don't act" are quite different things. With the first, you have a little chance to deal with. With the second, you don't have any.
quote:
We don't develop gases or germs |
You also don't develop nuclear weapons.
quote:
I think that a mini nuke or a neutron bomb will be very justified. |
What is a "mini nuke"? I can't believe that it is possible to develop anything that is much less destructive than the bombs used in Japan. There is something like a critical mass.
"Mini Nuke" is something introduced by tasteless comic strips (which in turn may be sponsored by interested military parties). And dead persons don't ask much about how they were killed.Neutron bombs are IIRC intended to kill people and leave infrastructure intact0. I don't see any moral advantage to conventional nukes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
. So go figure. Chemicals and Biological... who doesn't have them? Nuclear stuff is another thing then. Only wussies have nuclear stuff 
|