Posted on 08/04/2002 9:51:31 PM PDT by mhking
JERUSALEM — Israel's military has projected that Iraq could launch nonconventional missiles strikes should President Saddam Hussein feel his regime is endangered by the United States.
The threat of an Iraqi attack has led to a revision of Israeli combat doctrine, the sources said. They said Israel has upgraded its early-warning alert of any Iraqi attack despite U.S. pledges to supply such a warning.
In all, the sources said, Israel cannot expect advance warning of more than eight hours of any U.S. attack on Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported. They said this will demand increase satellite reconnaissance and intelligence operations to determine Iraqi military movements.
Military sources said the Israeli intelligence estimate is that Iraq could use medium-range missiles with biological or chemical warheads against Israel amid any U.S.-led war against Baghdad. The sources said the intelligence estimate has concluded that Iraq has several dozen extended-range Scud B missiles capable of reaching the Jewish state.
The prospect of an Iraqi WMD strike against Israel is not certain, the sources said. They said the prospect depends on whether he feels any chance of surviving a U.S. attack and Iraqi capability.
"Iraq has apparently production capability of biological weapons and chemical," Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said. "We can't allow these weapons to be left in the hands of one man."
In that case, the sources said, Saddam could try to fire missiles or place weapons with biological weapons meant to destroy wide areas of Israel.
This could include the use of anthrax, VX or lethal strains of virus. Already, the sources said, Israeli authorities have been stockpiling vaccinations against smallpox.
The Israeli estimate asserts that Iraq could use Palestinian insurgents to launch a nonconventional weapons attack on Israeli facilities.
Military intelligence believes that Iraq has been training Palestinians to assemble such weapons and designate targets in Israel should the United States strike the Saddam regime.
[In London, the Times daily reported that the British government has assessed that Saddam plans to provide biological weapons for attacks against American or Israeli targets. The newspaper said Saddam is trying to develop a range of biological agents that can be launched via an aerosol system.]
[On Sunday morning, an Israeli passenger bus blew up near the northern city of Safed. Initial reports said at least six people were killed and 20 were injured.]
Probably true. Which is why Saddam's death should occur within the first minute of the attack. If that requires a tactical nuke, so be it.
Ah, but the Arab world can blame it on Israel, and cite their preperations as proof the evil Jews did it.
Two problems with your scenario:
1. The Jews don't want Iraq. It wasn't their homeland. They want Israel.
2. The Palis (and the Arab states) don't want Israel so much as they want Jews dead. Moving them to Iraq doesn't help matters.
Think outside the box. Think big. Think a flight of B-52s with nukes enough to make Baghdad and surroundings a memory.
This would accomplish:
An end to Saddam.
No loss of US troops to solve the problem.
And perhaps best of all, it would piss off the european hand-wringers.
Early reports showed that the method for dispersal matched Iraq's technology. Why do you think we suddenly decided that containment does not work?
$2.00 my foot. I know gas is cheap here in Georgia, but instead of the $1.20/gallon for regular, we'd end up somewhere on the high side of $4.50 or $5.00 per gallon.
Don't get me wrong, I'm ready for it (I wouldn't drive damn near as much as I do now), but I don't think much of the rest of the country is. By time Russia gets online and we start seriously debating drilling in ANWR, gas'll drop BACK to $2.00.
More likely the Israelis would first assess the damage (everyone is already equipped with gas masks) and more likely demand certain actions from the US with regards its prosecution of the war or threaten to nuke Baghdad. The US wouldn't have much choice but to do what the Israelis ask.
VRN
There was NOT a region called "Palestine" until the Romans occupied this region and renamed it as an insult to the descendents of the nation of Israel (by then known as Jews).
During the ancient times this region was known as "Canaan" and WAS occupied by many and diverse tribes, including the Israelites.
No problem.
Clinton said he'd be with us this time.
The good thing with the Soviets was that they had enough intelligence to weigh the situation and were not suicidal. Why? Because they knew that no matter who launched the first strike a nuclear conflict would lead to their destruction (as well as the destruction of the USA). That was the beauty of M.A.D! The USSR would never attack the USA out of the need of self preservation; and the USA would never attack the USSR out of self-preservation as well. A beautiful arrangement.
The problem with MAD is that it requires non-suicidal logical people, and most Islamic nations are either suicidal or illogical (usually both). That is the danger with the 'Islamic bomb' since the chances of it getting used are quite high.
Some months ago there was a report of a Pakistani general who said he would be willing to see the whole of Pakistan nuked in an Indian reprisal if it meant destroying 2 to 3 Indian cities. Think of that! This guy is saying he would be willing to see his nation's major cities, industrial centers , political setups ....everything that makes Pakistan Pakistan irradiated completely by India, JUST so that he can destroy 2 indian cities?
That is not logical! It is actually downright stupid! It is like saying you would like to see your whole body torn apart and destroyed just so that you could chop a finger off your enemy! Does not compute.
Anyway the Soviet threat was always present (which is why i guess i see footage of kids in the sixties being told to hide under desks ....as if that would help in a thermonuclear attack) ....but as someone said: I would be more afraid of a guy with one nuclear bomb than a guy with thousands .
That is why both the USA and the USSR had myriads of nuclear ordnance. Part of the reason was to ensure at least part of it survived a surprise attack by the other party ...but the major purpose was for deterrence!
However if you listen to people like UBL who said it is a religious objective for Islamic nations to get a nuclear weapon you have to wonder: would you trust someone who views the world through jaundiced eyes and seems more ready to 'meet Allah' than live a long life with an atomic device? What if the Pakistani ISI 'lost' a nuclear device to al Queda and they managed to somehow get it into the US through Mexico? What if Hamas managed to acquire some small scale atomic device that could take care of Tel Aviv? What if Iraq managed to get one working nuke on an IRBM aimed at Israel?
Do you doubt for one moment they would not use it? Chances are they would say darn the consequences and go ahead with their plan! They would not care that the reprisals would be legion against them. After all with Allah who cares if Israel turns Baghdad (and most of Iraq's other major centers) into sheets of fused glass. If Hamas destroyed Tel Aviv they would not care if all Palestinians are rounded up by angered Israelis ...they would not care since they have finished their job. If al Queda blew up Dallas, or part of NYC, or Washington DC, or (..........) they would not care if we sent off some B-1s and B-2s and nuked every single hideout we think may hide their surviving operatives! They would have finsihed their mission.
That is why these Islamists are dangerous. Unlike the former USSR these jahadis have neither intelligence, logic, or a love for their offspring and families (who would obviously suffer in the reprisals).
The USSR may have seemed daunting ....but compared to the Jehadis the USSR was a huge Amur Tiger in a zoo cage since they had the capability but would not use it unless they had to (the same applied to the US). However the jehadis can be likened to a pack small Chihuahuas ...but ones with rabies and a fervent desire to attack and bite. Not as deadly as the tiger ...but unlike the tiger they are uncaged and more than willing to bite with their infected maws!
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.