Posted on 08/18/2004 8:34:14 AM PDT by dead
Israel can't rely on MAD to assuere their safety. It wouldn't take but 2 or 3 to make response impossible and leave the entire country uninhabitable. At least it seems that way to me.
If Israel strikes first, Iran will either reconsider retaliating or make a futile attempt. Either way, Iran will look foolish.
Call the bluff.
Israel has diesel subs with Tomahawk style cruise missles. Iran might strike Dimona, but Sharon will finish them.
Israel should just let it be known now that any nuclear attack will be assumed as from Iran and that Iran will be attacked if Israel is.
Yes, but that theory doesn't stop the "you destroy my reactor I'll destroy your reactor" reasoning.
Yeah boy, those muslims have a great track record of wars
with Israel and everyone else for that matter.
Have they beaten anyone in say the last ten centuries?
Israel would make tehran glow in the dark.
I wonder how the Iranians expect to get through US-controlled Iraqi airspace and THEN deal with the IAF air defenses? No. Their only option is ballistic missiles, and as others have said here, those are not nearly accurate enough to reliably hit a Nuke facility.
Okay, so, thanks to Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright, the North Koreans can nuke Hawaii.
Who do we thank for everyone standing around slack-jawed while the radical Shiites in Iran achieve nuclear capabilities? I'm not inclined to blame the IAEA because there's been ample evidence to prove the uselessness of anything attached to the United Nations. We have no excuse there. We can't blame the Israelis because for years we've prevented them from defending themselves in the name of "not destabilizing the Middle East"(!) We can't blame Hussein because he's finished. We can't blame Khadafy because he got the same technology from the same guy (Khan) and decided it was not worth the international attention.
We can't blame the Saudis because they have no interest in helping Shiites achieve power. We can't blame Egypt for the same reason.
I'm afraid the blame for this lies directly with Pakistan, the United States, and Britain. The War on Terror would include nations that sponsor terrorism, according to President Bush. Put a checkmark in the column for Iran and Syria. That alone should be reason to prosecute a war with Iran according to the defined War on Terror. Now add in the Nuclear State factor, and is there any doubt that Iran should be in our sites right now? We can't let them go nuclear. It's not tenable with the survival of Western civilization. The ability of Iran to provide WMD to terrorists is the absolute end-game here. North Korea is penned in by China's geopolitical interests. It's highly unlikely they will try anything in the near future. Iran is critical. Israel can't have it, and we can't have it.
End of discussion.
Ping for bookmark.
Iran knows that Isreal will move to prevent an attack. This is an attempt to get the Isreali's to back off.
I'll bet Israel makes sure to do a thorough job on the first pass.
Israel will destroy the nuke plant in coordination with an uprising against the mullahs.
Iran will try to launch and Israel will intercept most of the missiles with a second strike against the refineries.
What I would watch for over the next 6-12 months is a US move to build refineries.
If any Iranian fighter and bomber pilots are reading this, my advice to you is to make sure you bring along plenty of parachutes.
Uhhhhhhh, I think Israel's air force would have something to say about that possibility.
Rout and Persian are synonymous.
There's the problem -- Israel won't just fire one missile. Big miscalculation on the part of Iran.
Actually, they'll need their Mae Wests more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.