Posted on 05/07/2008 8:42:51 AM PDT by Hillary'sMoralVoid
There is no one who can solve the problems of the Middle East as effectively as its own group of nations. Iran's sabre-rattling against Israel and its concurrent development of nuclear weapons should be of particular concern to the Middle East nations.
Iran seems intent on developing and using weapons and delivery systems to destroy Israel, but what would be the result?
A Pyrrhic victory at best, in other words, one as costly to the victor as to the victim. This is true even if Israel never fired a return volley. Why?
It would be impossible to obliterate Isreal in a nuclear attack without inflicting serious, direct collateral damage to some of the holiest sites in Islam. But we've only begun to address the results of nuclear detonations.
Not only would there be direct damage to Islam's holy places, the fallout would remain for years, making these places untenable for a very long time.
But that's not all. Detonations would create a large electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) that would render communications in the area unusable. Syria, Iraq, Lebonan and Jordan could all be adversely affected. Communications hubs linking the Middle East to Europe and North America would be at risk, huge quantities of data would be lost, the financial losses would be staggering.
But we haven't even addressed the nuclear fallout issue that would result in those some countries being blanketed with potentially deadly fallout. Prevailing westerly winds could blow this dust into Saudi Arabia and even into Iran itself.
Essentially, Iran's ambitions in destroying Israel could be devastating to the entire region and to Islam itself. Can the US and Israel thwart Iran's nuclear program? Certainly. Is it in our best interest to do so when those with the real stake in Iran's intentions sit by and do nothing. Perhaps not. The burning question is whether we can mobilize those nations by making them aware of the imminent thrat to their self-interest and religious heritage.
It would be impossible to destroy
The sad thing is, Persians are historical allies of the Jews. I hate the fact that the Moon-god cult has turned allies of the Jewish people into enemies. I believe the sons of Ishmael will always have emnity towards the Sons of Isaac. However, it’s tragic that the descendants of Cyrus think they can destroy Israel.
Some Old Book I read seem to hint Persia was someday going to attack the Chosen Ones?
I have no doubt that there are some Iranian leaders who would let the missiles fly and take whatever counterattack or other consequences came, such is their fanaticism.
I hope there are enough sane leaders in Iran to stop that.
I also am waiting to see the West get serious about this issue, but dowbt I will see much timely action. I hope i am wrong about that.
“Not only would there be direct damage to Islam’s holy places, the fallout would remain for years, making these places untenable for a very long time.”
Now, that’s what I like. Hit their “holy places” and Islam will be like a rudderless ship — no longer effective.
Since when has inflicting damage on a shrine or other Muslim 'Holy Site' ever been a consideration within Islam? Seems to me that they utilize Mosques for aid stations and sniper postions as well as for storing weapons caches.
They only really get outraged when a non-Muslim inflicts damage or disrespects a Muslim Holy Site.
I hope that the Palestinians realize that, just as the other Arab states are willing to fight to the last Palestinian, that Iran would not hesitate to create massive casualties among their population in any attack on Israel.
Bears repeating.
One of the things I like about the USA is that most of our internal conflicts go back no more than 250 years, and we don't take our religious conflicts too seriously. But for the Moon Cultists, every other city is a holy place, and every third day some kind of festival (celebrated, apparently, but packing far too many people into one place and crushing them to death.)
“Iran seems intent on developing and using weapons and delivery systems to destroy Israel, but what would be the result?
A Pyrrhic victory at best, in other words, one as costly to the victor as to the victim. This is true even if Israel never fired a return volley. Why?”
Because directly attacking Israel is a rouse, a red herring.
The FIRST target of Iran’s nuclear intimidation is OTHER ARAB COUNTRIES. Why? Because they have little to no ABM defenses and no nuclear response of their own.
Remember how antsy some of them got when Tancredo suggested (as a deterrent) destroying their shrines at Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem?
There are ‘holy’ Islamic sites, and then there are the big three.
Agreed.
For a person who believes in a supernatural being, the prospect of an eternal reward will trump worldly considerations.
Fundamental Muslims are willing to put their lives on the line for "Allah."
The anti-nuke unilateral disarmament movement of the early 80s were mostly liars, ‘chicken littles’ and Communist sympathizers/enablers but they did get one thing right. Once nuclear weapons are used all bets are off and expecting the parties involved to act rationally is a dangerous presupposition.
Any plan/scenario for using nuclear weapons which calls for your opponent to act in a predictable manner according to what would rationally be, in their best interest, is fatally flawed.
The reason is that after such an attack the voices of moderation will be absent, they will not be any moderates or others advising caution at the decision table.
_______________________________
For example imagine the Israeli cabinet meeting in the hours following the destruction of Tele Aviv by 3 Iranian nuclear weapons and the death of 100,000 Israelis.
A third of the cabinet may not be at the meeting because they are dead everyone else at the meeting has just lost a child, spouse, parent or all three.
I can easily imagine a scene in which a left leaning cabinet member starts to argue for restraint and common sense and another cabinet member pulls out a revolver and shoots him dead, He then turns to the remaining cabinet members and asks “Any one else think we should show restraint?”
I can also imagine someone suggesting that in addition to retaliating against Tehran, Israel should drop nuclear bombs on Damascus and Cairo, and someone at the table interrupting them and saying Why not Athens, Rome and Paris?
The thought being, that as long as only middle eastern cities are destroyed Europe will not really see it as a question of ‘life or death’ and will not act. The destruction of their capital cities will make it “their” conflict, they will feel Israels pain
Someone might argue Europe will not retaliate because they don't want to lose any more cities and Israel has clearly shown they will to act in an apparently irrational manner.
I am not saying this is a likely consequence I am just saying that once the line has been crossed with weapons of mass destruction do not expect the outcome to be predictable or manageable.
(Excerpt from http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm) :
HEMP can pose a serious threat to military systems when even a single high-altitude nuclear explosion occurs. In principle, even a new nuclear proliferator could execute such a strike. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that such a state would use one of its scarce warheads to inflict damage which must be considered secondary to the primary effects of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Furthermore, a HEMP attack must use a relatively large warhead to be effective (perhaps on the order of one mega-ton), and new proliferators are unlikely to be able to construct such a device, much less make it small enough to be lofted to high altitude by a ballistic missile or space launcher. Finally, in a tactical situation such as was encountered in the Gulf War, an attack by Iraq against Coalition forces would have also been an attack by Iraq against its own communications, radar, missile, and power systems. EMP cannot be confined to only one “side” of the burst.
Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth’s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.
Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source). As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero.
In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, “the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.”
Of course, as another poster noted, the Middle East is not a place in which logic reigns supreme, so ...
Zek 38-39.... Yep!
Save yourself a lot of time and energy on this one. Read up on the attack that is coming (and it is coming) and how it ends. Ezekiel got a sneak preview. (Chapters 38-39).
Although I agree with most of the analysis, I question these assertions.
Nuclear weapons technology has evolved over the last 60 years. Obviously, making an enemy's territory unliveable long term is not a good strategy; well, maybe islam's case might be an exception. But I digress.
As Chernobyl taught us, planning based on ignorance and fear serves no one well. All the immediate Chernobyl area (thousands of square miles) as well as portions of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, Turkish Thrace, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, The Netherlands, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Ireland, France (including Corsica[18]) the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man would be "unliveable" today.
Obviously, that is not the case.
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.