Posted on 03/03/2006 5:37:30 AM PST by SJackson
The year 2006 could become a fateful one for Israel and for the entire world. Still struggling to survive in the very worst of international "neighborhoods," the always imperiled Jewish State knows only too well that nuclear war and genocide need not be mutually exclusive.
Listening to the chilling bluster and bravado from the openly murderous president of Iran, it is increasingly evident to every prudent leader in Jerusalem that nuclear weapons can never be allowed in that particular Islamic regime. With this existential awareness in mind, it is now altogether likely that an Israeli preemptive strike against certain pertinent Iranian nuclear assets and infrastructures will take place sometime before the summer. If it does, this strike – following the recommendations originally detailed by Project Daniel three years ago – will be an expression of what is correctly called "anticipatory self-defense" under international law.
But the nuclear threat from Iran is only the most obvious existential danger to Israel, merely the "tip of the iceberg." Let us look together now behind the news. What is the basic situation of Israel’s own nuclear weapons, and why is this situation entirely different from what is rapidly emerging in Iran?
Israel’s nuclear forces have never even been formally acknowledged. Hence, they certainly have never been used in a threatening fashion by Israel’s civilian or military leaders. Israel’s nuclear weapons, unacknowledged and unthreatening, exist only to prevent certain forms of aggression. This includes the prevention of genocide.
It is absolutely inconceivable that Israel’s nuclear deterrent force would ever be used except in defensive reprisal for certain massive enemy first-strikes, especially for Arab and/or Iranian attacks involving nuclear and/or certain biological weapons. For the time being, at least, Israel’s enemies are not nuclear, but – as we have just noted with Iran – this could change dramatically in the foreseeable future. If it should change, Israel’s nuclear weapons could continue to reduce the risks of unconventional war, but only as long as the pertinent enemy states would (1) remain rational; and (2) remain convinced that Israel would retaliate massively if attacked with nuclear and/or certain biological weapons of mass destruction.
As recognized meaningfully by Project Daniel, there are many complex problems to identify if a bellicose enemy state is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. These problems would belie the conceptually agreeable notion of balanced nuclear deterrence. The Middle East neighborhood would simply not allow the sort of stable equilibrium that once characterized U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War. Whether for reasons of miscalculation, accident, unauthorized capacity to fire, outright irrationality or the presumed imperatives of "Jihad," an enemy state in this neighborhood could opt to launch a nuclear first-strike against Israel in spite of that country’s devastating nuclear capability. Israel would certainly respond, to the extent possible, with a nuclear retaliatory strike. Although nothing is publicly known about Israel’s precise targeting doctrine (see some of my prior columns special to The Jewish Press), such a reprisal (per precise recommendations from Project Daniel) might be launched against the aggressor’s capital city or against a similarly high- value urban target. There would be absolutely no assurances, in response to this sort of Arab/Islamic aggression, that Israel would limit itself to striking back against exclusively military targets.
What if enemy first-strikes were to involve "only" chemical and/or "minor" biological weapons? Here Israel might still launch a reasonably proportionate nuclear reprisal, but this would depend largely upon Israel’s calculated expectations of follow-on aggression and on its associated determinations of comparative damage-limitation. Should Israel absorb a massive conventional first-strike, a nuclear retaliation could still not be ruled out altogether. This is especially the case if: (1) the aggressor were perceived to hold nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction in reserve; and/or (2) Israel’s leaders were to believe that non-nuclear retaliations could not prevent national annihilation. In this connection, recognizing Israel’s uniquely small size, the threshold of existential harms would understandably be far lower than wholesale physical devastation. To quote directly from the Project Daniel final report, Israel’s Strategic Future: "In an age of Total War, Israel must remain fully aware of threats to its very continuance as a viable state....Certain WMD attacks upon Israeli cities could be genuinely existential. For example, biological or nuclear attacks upon Tel-Aviv that would kill many thousands of Israeli citizens could have profound and dire consequences for the continued viability of the country."
Faced with imminent and existential attacks, Israel – properly taking its cue from The National Security Strategy of the United States of America –could decide to preempt enemy aggression with conventional forces. First announced on September 20, 2002, this still-evolving American strategy affirms the growing reasonableness of anticipatory self-defense under international law. If Israel were to draw upon such authoritative expressions of current U.S. policy, the targeted state’s response would determine Israel’s subsequent moves. If this response were in any way nuclear, Israel would assuredly undertake nuclear counter-retaliation. If this enemy retaliation were to involve chemical and/or biological weapons, Israel might also determine to take a quantum escalatory initiative. This sort of initiative is known in military parlance as "escalation dominance," and could be essential, for Israel, to favorable intrawar deterrence.
If the enemy state’s response to an Israeli preemption were limited to hard-target conventional strikes, it is highly improbable that Israel would resort to nuclear counter-retaliation. On the other hand, if the enemy state’s conventional retaliation were an all-out strike directed toward Israel’s civilian populations as well as to Israeli military targets –an existential strike, for all intents and purposes – an Israeli nuclear counter-retaliation could not be ruled out. Such a counter-retaliation could be ruled out only if the enemy state’s conventional retaliations were entirely proportionate to Israel’s preemption; confined entirely to Israeli military targets; circumscribed by the legal limits of "military necessity"; and accompanied by explicit and verifiable assurances of no further escalation.
(To be continued)
---------------------------
Why does Israel's response need to be "proportional"? Why can't it be final?
It has to be final. Or, we lose.
Some FReepers have asserted a chilling thought-that Iran already has one or more of the missing USSR nuclear devices and all this talk from their leader is simply to provoke Israel into a first strike to give them an excuse to go nuclear with their counterstrike(s).
Aside from their lunatic president and a few radical clerics, I believe most Iranians, including military leaders, know that an attack on Israel with nuclear or C/B weapons would prompt a swift and devastating response that well could include nuclear weapons. For the Iranians a clear demonstration of their of their nuclear weapons capability which is then used for political and propaganda ends is their best option. Any actual use of these weapons against Israel, Iraq or US forces would be suicidal. However, if the Iranians opt to share their nuclear capability with terrorist surrogates, then the prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East greatly increases.
All Mullahs...all of them...have barely any real "university" background whatsoever. Most have no idea how to perform any math calculations...most have almost no knowledge of science or medicine. Few speak foreign languages. And they certainly have no fundamental knowledge of history beyond what happened to Mohammed.
So lets examine how this little scenario really runs out. The military heads who control nuke or missiles...won't get the order. It'll be an elite suicidal squad of men...selected by two or three Mullahs...with no political interaction...who will be given the order to nuke Isreal. They likely will only use one or two weapons. Commerical aircraft would be my choice...but its unlimited as to how they bring them into the country.
The two nukes explode. Over 60,000 dead Jews, and another 100,000 immedately wounded...who will die in the weeks ahead. From over in the Palestianian region...it'll be far enough that no immedate deaths...but at least 20,000 will die in the weeks ahead from exposure...and probably another 50,000 will die from immedate Isreali responses (neighborhood after neighborhood...you can sit and watch the mortars and rockets land).
Within 12 hours, the first squadron of Isreal aircraft go to launch nukes into Iran...they will be chiefly aimed at the capital...I can only guess a dozen on the first day. Most of Tehran will be brought to ruble. It'll be 20 years before the town will ever be livable again. The Mullahs who ordered the attack...will sweep up the mosque dimwits...charge them with the responsibility of revenge...and a holy war will develop.
The US and NATO will be standing there...scratching their heads...because they have to defend Isreal...its the only thing to do. Oil transfers will halt so a massive economic slide will begin. No one in the middle east will care except the Saudis....their charm and wit will have gone south...and no living person can halt this entire episode.
We can sit and watch the whole mess unfold...and there won't be a thing we can do to stop it. Mullah's are absolutely the threat to the free world...there is no doubt. But it is too late to stop them or terminate their existence. We may simply be part of a very stupid future where Mullahs determined our fate.
The 'bluster and bravado' emanating from Iran is actually goading gone wild and the reason must be that they do have nuclear capabilities at hand. Giving in to the bully would be a grave mistake. Israel must remain steadfast and cunning as they have in the past.
If a nuclear attack were to happen, the liberals who survived would be clamoring for immediate surrender to whoever attacked us. Bet on it!
The initial post is worth reading.
The following posts are mostly tripe.
Thanks for the ping. There is a whole lot stuff going on in the public arena. We can only guess what is going on behind the curtains.
Within 2 hours, the first Jerico 2 missiles are launched toward Tehran...and Damascus...
We DID test our nukes before we bombed Japan, and we did drop leaflets over the target areas warning the residents to depart.
We would probably see a nuke test before Iran became a threat. I don't think the mullahs would bother with the leaflets, though.
The mullahs have already pointed out that Israel's retalliation would be meaningless - there are so may more Muslims and they are much more dispersed than the Israelis.
If they are nuked, I hope the Israelis take out Mecca, Medina, Qom, etc., in retaliation... You can't do enough damage to the Muslim population, and it doesn't matter if you nuke 'em back to the stone age - its a short trip for most Muslim nations, but lets see how many Muslims want to keep praying towards a radioactive crater.
ping
You're a real glass-half-empty kind of person, aren't you?
You're close...but not quite there..Israel's nuclear deterrence has always been centered on the belief that the leaders of the Arab states, while all to happy to encourage their underlings to become martyrs, do not have a death wish themselves..so they are told that if ANYTHING involving WMDs happens to Israel, we will kill you..and if we have to take out one of your cities and several hundred thousand of your countrymen, well, too bad...but you, the guys at the top, will all be toast..Problem with this is that if you have a suicidal madman running a country, like in Iran, if he is indeed willing to die for Jihad..then all leverage goes out the window..Hitler, deluded, at the end of WW II..believed that he had to die because the German people had let him down...they did not deserve his "genius"..and they had "earned" the destruction the Allies were inflicting on the country..
Not publicly we didn't. We tested them to make sure that they worked (and to see what the actual effect would be), not to send a warning to anyone.
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.