No Holocaust repeat, Israel tells Iran

The Daily Telegraph ^ | December 14, 2005

[dennisw]

I always disagreed with those that believe that by nuking Mecca, it will end the Islamic militant assault on Western society. My main argument is that mulsims tend to idolize every act of major "martyrdom". They would still bow down to Mecca in my opinion if we nuked it, for they would simply say this was the grave of all the "martyrs killed by the Zionist pigs". It would also sway large chunks of the other billion non-comatant muslims to join the fray in the name of jihad. Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, a country that is a stated enemy of Al Queda. Do you really think we should nuke another country that is an ally to help them exterminate their bug problem?

Would you be in favor of nuking Mecca Median Qom after a Muslim nuclear bomb going off in America? I'll bet you'll say yes, thus we are really in agreement. Realistically, what other response could we have to nuclear terrorism on American soil?

[dennisw]

Mecca Medina Qom and not necessarily in that order. Israelis should waste them before the Muzz waste them. This is what the top Israeli councils are considering

You said Israelis are actually planning to nuke Mecca. They aren't. 

Israel absolutely has plans to nuke Mecca Medina Qom but it's a plan for retaliation. They will do this only if the Muslims (Iranians?) hit them first with a nuclear weapon

There are your fantasies, and there are realities. I live in one, you spout about the other.

To be more precise:
Israel is considering a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear program. This will (would) be done conventionally but who knows where it might lead to if Iran has a nuke or two or procures a nuke or two on an emergency basis. From North Korea or Pakistan for example. I think the North Koreans would sell them a nuke for a billion dollars

 

[Slings and Arrows]

I believe in a few months Israel's stockpile of nuclear warheads will be reduced to around 185 and Iran's desire for Nuclear Power will be ......REALIZED.

All the power they want - but the transmission rate's a real b*tch.

[Slings and Arrows]

Ahhhhhh.......... the F-4 Phantom......physical proof that if you put big enough engines in a brick, it will fly...

I thought it was just so ugly that the ground repelled it.

[Drammach]

I haven't found a single Muslim who likes anything about Israel

I have had similar experience with Pakistanis..
They have stated, categorically, that they wouldn't think twice about killing jews if they got the chance...
They were actually surprised that there was any question or doubt about what action should or would be taken..

[Drammach]

the F-4 Phantom......physical proof that if you put big enough engines in a brick, it will fly...

IIRC, the P51 Mustang also earned that reputation..
While it flew quite well, it was due to the massively powerful engine it had...
The flight characteristics when in "glide" were dismal..
When the engine wasn't pulling it's weight, it became a dead weight..

[JasonC]

And how many people did it kill in Duluth? None. The immediate radiation causalties, who are the only ones who died directly as a result, happened only to those working on covering the reactor to contain the results. The health effects, statistically speaking contributory causes etc, were confined to a modest area of the Ukraine immediately downwind of the site, where the most radioactive particles fell - which have half lifes of a week or so. While the longer lived stuff and stuff spread farther away, dilutes the delivered rads so extensively in space, time, and people, that it has no significant effect on anybody.

As for 10-25 megatons, modern warheads are 10-100 times smaller than that. And thousands of the larger ones used back in the first 10 years of H-bombs, managed to elevate trace radioactive elements for a decade or two only enough to be rounding errors in expected cancer rates, with no immediate radiation sickness casualties.

Most of even those effects come from one item, radioactive iodine, most of it 8 day half-life stuff in the immediate plume, because it is readily absorbed and delivers a significant dose because it concentrates in the thyroid. Later gamma stuff (not taken internally etc) is so modest in overall delivered energy it has no significant effect outside the immediate blast area.

The only other effect even measurable, let alone significant, from all the above ground testing ever done, was a slight uptick in bone cancer and related anemias from a few longer lived isotopes that follow calcium, biologically. Again concentrated in the populations immediately downwind of test sites. The rest of the world, no noticable effect at all.

From more bombs and larger ones than Israel's entire arsenal. The world wide direct radiation effects of a nuclear war someplace else, involving a few hundred warheads, would be negligible. Those directly under the attack would of course be killed wholesale, and immediately downwind the radiation would be serious for several weeks, and radiation induced diseases somewhat more prevalent. But that is in regions of a few score miles, not in Duluth, where nobody would even notice.

Greens have spread systematic disinformation about health effects of radiation for decades, as part of their campaigns against nuclear energy and in cooperation with pacifist organizations. The serious dangers of large scale nuclear war - tens of thousands, not hundreds - concerned many other scientists as well, most of all from the direct effects to be expected from a general nuclear exchange between superpowers. The last is perfectly legitimate, scientifically speaking. But much of the first and second is pure bilge, presuming on the general ignorance of the public (e.g. over 3 mile island etc).

It won't fly here.

[dljordan]

Ha! They do smoke don't they? I still thought they were purty!

[bert]

...There will be no second 'final solution'," Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said.....

That statement is the driving force of American liberalism

[JasonC]

No they don't, and they don't confuse Iran with Saudi Arabia. Yes they are looking at ways to take out the Iranian nuke program. But unlike you, they know there are no Iranian nuke assets in Mecca. Nor are their any magic mcguffins in Mecca that energize and motivate evil mechanical bunny rabbits. You might as well try to conquer England in 1940 by bombing stonehenge. Wrong century, no assets there.

Your actual motivation is simply agitprop and a bigoted desire for revenge, in which the former vastly outweighs the latter. Bin Laden would like to see endless war between all Muslims and the west, and so would Russia and China, your paymasters.

In order to bring that about, you find it expedient to urge stupid indiscriminate retaliation against any and all Muslim targets, on not your own masters (Russians) but those of others (Israel, US) that you'd like to see in such wars. Meanwhile you support Russians arming exactly the real threats, and urge those actually threatened to pick fights with somebody else, more broadly, rather than dealing with the actual threat (Iran) and its actual backers. You don't do this because you think it is good advice, but because you are well aware it is lousy advice and are not aiming to help the US or Israel.

Russia wants the US fighting all Muslims and not winning. Our own actual interest is in fighting only those Muslims actively fighting us, first and foremost those the Russians are deliberately aiding (Iranian government), separating them from the rank and file who are perfectly willing to live in the modern world via democracy and just government, and thereby actually winning a less-than civilizational war. You know this, but not wanting us to actually win, deliberately urge a stupider course, hoping it appeals to passions here, rather than reason.

But it hasn't a prayer of actually working. It is all a sick fantasy from start to finish, and destined to lose.

[quant5]

"Would you be in favor of nuking Mecca Median Qom after a Muslim nuclear bomb going off in America? I'll bet you'll say yes, thus we are really in agreement. Realistically, what other response could we have to nuclear terrorism on American soil?"

Their is no simple answer. Of course if this happened, the first question is to identify which country/organization was responsible. Would I opt for a nuclear retalitory strike if I was POTUS? Yes, but it would unlikely be for Mecca, unless I found out that Saudi Arabia ruling party had involvement. It is likely that the bomb would come from Iran or North Korea reactors and that radiation is traceable.

[Centurion2000]

Kelly,

you need to start studying more ... some excerpts from a couple of nuclear testing pages.

The United States conducted 119 nuclear tests at the NTS from the start of testing in January 1951 through October 1958. Most of those nuclear tests were carried out in the atmosphere. Some tests were positioned for firing by airdrop, but metal towers were used for many Nevada tests at heights ranging from 100 to 700 feet (30-200 meters) above the ground surface.

Soviet nuclear test site

Nuclear Tests and Peaceful Nuclear Explosions by Type
Air explosions	177
Surface explosions	32
Underwater and water surface explosions	5
High-altitude explosions	1
Space explosions	4
Total at atmospheric, underwater, and space explosions:	219
Tunnel tests	245
Shaft tests including cratering explosions	251 5
Total number of underground tests:	496
Total number of tests:	715

Now 300+ weapons have been detonated in the atmosphere and your childish fears regarding nukes can be satisfied so that a 200+ nuke war in the Middle East would NOT end the world.

[Kelly_2000]

"The United States conducted 119 nuclear tests at the NTS from the start of testing in January 1951 through October 1958"

OK so you think you know what you are talking about? Your type I label under the "a little knowledge is dangerous"

The devices detonated and tested in the 1950s where not modern day two stage thermonuclear devices. In other words they are in the 10-100 kilotons range where the modern day equivalents weigh in at around 20-30 Megatons. Do you see now the ignorance in your statement? your argument style is embarrassing, awkward crude and childish, think twice about parading around your high school scientific knowledge.

[Centurion2000]

OK so you think you know what you are talking about? Your type I label under the "a little knowledge is dangerous"

Yep, I do know what I am talking about. The US nuclear forces do NOT use 10-30 MT nuclear weapons. the biggest gravity weapons we have are the B-53 (9 MT yield), B-61 (strategic, 100-500kt) and B-83 (1-2MT) warheads.

Here's the inventory as of 2003. And lay off the insults since you are too frightened of nuclear weapons.

2003 Nuclear Arsenal, USA

U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2003
Type	Name	Launchers	Year deployed	Warheads x yield (kiloton)	Warheads active/spares
ICBMs
LGM-30G	Minuteman III
	Mk-12	150	1970	1 W62 x 170	150
	Mk-12	50	1970	3 W62 x 170 (MIRV)	150/15
	Mk-12A	300	1979	3 W78 x 335 (MIRV)	900/20
LGM-118A	MX/Peacekeeper	40	1986	10 W87 x 300 (MIRV)	400/50
Total		540			1,600/85
SLBMs
UGM-96A	Trident I C4	96/4	1979	6 W76 x 100 (MIRV)	576
UGM-133A	Trident II D5	288/12
	Mk-4		1992	8 W76 x 100 (MIRV)	1,920/156
	Mk-5		1990	8 W88 x 475 (MIRV)	384/16
Total		384/16			2,880/172
Bombers
B-52	Stratofortress	94/56*	1961	ALCM/W80-1 x 5–150	430/20
				ACM/W80-1 x 5–150	430/20
B-2	Spirit	21/16	1994	B61-7, -11, B83-1 bombs	800/45
Total		115/72			1,660/85
Non-strategic forces
Tomahawk SLCM		325	1984	1 W80-0 x 5–150	320
B61-3, -4, -10 bombs		n/a	1979	0.3–170	800/40
Total		325			1,120/40
Grand total**					~7,650
ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile (range greater than 5,500 kilometers); MIRV: multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles; SLCM: sea-launched cruise missile; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile. * The first figure is the total inventory, including those used for training, testing, and backup; the second figure is the primary mission inventory: the number of operational aircraft assigned for nuclear or conventional missions. ** Nearly 3,000 additional intact warheads are retained in reserve or inactive stockpiles.

See any 20-30 MT weapons listed there?

I didn't think so.

The only one using a 25MT single warhead would be Russia. The SS-18 mod 1 uses a single 25MT warhead in it's yield and was designed to turn Cheyenne Mountain into Cheyenne Lake.

[Kelly_2000]

"Yep, I do know what I am talking about."

Really are you sure? you just listed the USA weapons inventory when in fact a theoretical discussion of nuclear escalation and exchange between Iran and Israel is being discussed. That seems to fly in the face of your claim to knowing what you are talking about.

"And lay off the insults since you are too frightened of nuclear weapons. "

only a redneck would be unconcerned about nuclear weapons a fool is not concerned. as for frightened? I work with the most deadly disease on the planet everyday in a laboratory grow up and don't get so sensitive and emotional about a single debating subject you obviously appear obsessed with.

my husband is a former marine and he often tells me the foolish warmongers are the ones that never saw combat. The courageous are the quietly confident that realize from experience war is the last resort, not to be feared of course but an option that should be treated with respect.

An exchange between two countries using the highest yield weapons (tactical not strategic as you stupidly included in your inventory quote) will have a knock on effect on the local environment and the wider environment. You don't have to be a tree hugging lefty to think that is a bad thing. the much more sensible alternative is to pound the country flat with conventional weapons and take away any capability that Iran will have to avoid the nuclear scenario.

[montag813]

"Thank God, Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran. There will be no second 'final solution'," Sharon's spokesman Raanan Gissin said.

Talk is cheap, Mr. Gissin.

I watched an ESPN show on Munich '72 last night. How Israel could go from that to Oslo to the Road Map is absolutely despicable. Israel seems immune to the instinct for self-preservation. Their enemies brutalize them and threaten them, and all they seem to want is "peace". They had a chance in 1967 to demolish the mosques and rebuild the Temple, and failed to do it. They even left the diaperheads with authority over the Temple Mount! Arafat and the entire PLO fled Lebanon in 1982 on a big cruise ship. Israel could have sunk it, and it would have ended "Palestinian" terrorism once and for all. They failed again. They could have crushed Hamas and destroyed the P.A., but instead perform ethnic cleansing on their own people on their own land to make room for Al Queda training camps in Gaza and Judea.

Talk is cheap, Mr Gissin. Let's see some action, dammit!

[FYREDEUS]

You may be right about US USSR weapons yields but do you know the yields of ISRAELI weapons which is what is being discussed here? I doubt that they are equivalent in yield to old Sov SS-18 warheads but who knows really?

But regardless of yield 200 detonations in the middle East would be an unprecedented Humanitarian catastrophe.

Kelly is exactly right in saying

"This is not a welcome event, nuclear war is something that would happen as a last resort, not something to be cheered for. A conventional attack on Iran is far more sane and less damaging to the west."

"Bomb Iran" may have been a gallows-humourous expression of American frustration during the '79 Hostage Crisis but was never a rational option nor is it today.

[Centurion2000]

you just listed the USA weapons inventory

When you get the list for the Israeli nukes and their yields be rest assured you will be hailed as the greatest spy since Richard Sorge. In the meantime, US weapons are the closest that we can pattern them after.

my husband is a former marine and he often tells me the foolish warmongers are the ones that never saw combat

5th Bn / 10th Marines - Desert Shield/Storm myself. I pray for peace more than most but I am not blind to the reality that if Iran gets a nuke they WILL use them.
Maybe you haven't checked the difference between the Soviet and muslim mindset. The reason the US and the Soviets never went to war was that the Soviets were RATIONAL people that thought dying was a bad thing. Muslims think dying is the key to heaven and all it takes is one fanatic with a nuke to kick off a major war. highest yield weapons (tactical not strategic as you stupidly included in your inventory quote)

Streategic weapons have higher yields than tactical. I suggest that you go look up what those definitions are. Tactical weapons are by definition smaller. If you still don't believe me maybe you should read the bottom of the chart I posted where it states NON-STRATEGIC; the yields are much smaller.

Would a general nuclear exchange be a good thing? Hell no, but it would not be the end of the world as you posted above. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki for how long it takes to recover from fallout. Those weapons were dirty fission devices compared to the fission/fusion/fission bombs we use now.

[Petronski]

I don't think there should be any doubt that if Iran attacks Israel, Israel will nuke the f*** out of Iran in return.

[Centurion2000]

You may be right about US USSR weapons yields but do you know the yields of ISRAELI weapons which is what is being discussed here? I doubt that they are equivalent in yield to old Sov SS-18 warheads but who knows really?

The SS-18 Mod 1 and the Mod 3 were the single re-entry vehicle missiles mounting the big 25MT warheads. Their warhead payload (weight) was about 7.2 tons or so. Reference for SS-18. The Jericho II is the MRBM that Israelis' have. The entire missile weighs something on the order of 13 tons, so it could not carry a big 25MT warhead.

Jericho II reference

The problem with Kelly's idea to bomb all of Iran with conventional weapons is that we do not have enough planes or boms to completely saturate something bigger than California. Nukes are about the only way to ensure that we get everything.