Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran (dated January 7, 2007)

London Times ^ | 01/07/2007 | Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington

[mountn man]

I agree with your statement.

I doubt that Israel will use nukes. Proper conventional bunker buster bombs will do the desired outcome.

Plus, on the world stage, like that really matters, Israel would lose whatever moral high-ground might be perceived by others. (I use "whatever moral high-ground might be perceived by others", simply because with the rest of the world, Israel never seems to have any moral high-ground, no matter what they do, or don't do.) How can one country use nuke weapons, to stop another country from developing a nuclear "energy" program. It would seem rather hypocritical (if viewed strictly from how the actual facts will be spun, not by what the actual facts truly present) to use the very force they accuse the other of trying to obtain.

Besides, Israel has never admitted to having nuke weapons. It has never been adequately confirmed either. Just alot of educated "speculation".

If Israel uses nukes, it then confirms they have them.

If they use them in a first strike offensive, it will validate (in their own minds) that every mid east country needs and deserves nukes, because of the existence of a nuke armed and aggressive Israel. It would also weaken the U.S.'s defense to the rest of the world who would seek retaliation or finger pointing at Israel.

[Brad from Tennessee]

There was an article in Scientific American in the last two years about nuclear bunker busters. I tried to access it but it is by subscription. As I remember, the article said the weapons were impractical because they raise the level of any conflict from conventional to nuclear and poison the immediate area which could later endanger friendly occupying troops. The article went on to describe a theoretical high explosive penetrator that could almost match the nuke penetrator in the U.S. arsenal.

This is a link to the nuclear penetrator:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61-11.htm

[Capt. Tom]

There is no end to this kind of speculation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1806970/posts

[Skibane]

Why does your link take me to a page titled "The Sunday Times", with a date of JANUARY 7, 2007?

[G8 Diplomat]

Israel’s ready to go, let’s join ‘em. They know what they’re dealing with, unfortunately our Congress and many people here refuse to recognize it.

[Aristotelian]

Thanks for the insight.

[Pizonce11]

I don’t blame them.

[kjam22]

If they were really serious.... they’d nuke Imanutjob’s palace at about 2 am some morning.

[mad_as_he$$]

Or they could just be having fun with Iamanutjob. This has to have him bonkers after the Syrian thing.

[ken21]

i doubt it.

[Aristotelian]

I assume that is a typo because I found the item headlined on the Times front page and it links to that article. Go to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/global/ and see under “US fears Israeli strike against Iran”

[Quackattack]

It is not a typo. The article is 305 days old:

http://digg.com/world_news/Revealed_Israel_plans_nuclear_strike_on_Iran

[Star Traveler]

Yes, it could be part of some action (verbally so) in order to get them to change their behavior. There is a lot of posturing that goes on, too, in these kinds of things.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[Admin Moderator]

Not a typo. I googled a phrase in the article, which showed this item posted to other sites early this year. Probably a glitch at The Times, because I clicked where you did on their front page and got sent where you got sent.

[Steamburg]

This is propaganda. It has been common knowledge to everyone who has been outside their basement, that every country with a military capability has plans for war with every other nation on the earth and probably extraterrestrials. I’m sure that Israel has contingencies for an attack on the US at least somewhere in their games book. The fact that the Times thinks this is news is not aimed at the facts, its aimed to stir up anti-Israel or anti-US sentiment among the Times supporters.

[mountn man]

Likely to be fact: Israel wouldn't have a prayer of taking on Iran using only conventional weapons.

If we're talking a nuclear Iran you're right.

If we're talking an Iran backed by Russia, highly likely, then again you're right.

If your talking Iran with a coalition of other Arab nations, very possible, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and maybe a few others, you're right.

If your talking a conventional armed Iran, by itself, with Iran attacking Israel, in an all out attack, I'd say the war lasts 3 days, maybe 1 week, with Iran not faring well.

The problem is the afterward. Iran is one of the largest players in the world oil market. The after effects globally would be huge. Add to that the alliance with Russia, and its oil and natural gas resources, Russia wouldn't sit idly by as Iran got its buttox kicked.

If Iran were sure of its conventional military, Ahmanutjob would be doing more than just rhetoric.

[rbg81]

I want to see the look on Alemanutjob’s face after Israel or the US turns his country into a glowing nuclear ruin. I’m sure the Iranians will appeciate his leadership after that.

[Aristotelian]

Sorry for the screw up.

[hermgem]

There is another alternative to not wiping out Iran’s atomic aspirations:
Both Europeans and Americans get ready and absorb all those Israeli refugees that survived Ahmadinejad’s atomic blow on Israel.

[Jeff Head]

A nuke is too valuable to waste on that whack. When the time comes, a single GBU-12 or GBU-38 will take care of him nicely.