Posted on 02/01/2010 8:56:09 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
During the Cold War serious protocols were set to protect the Americans and Soviets in case of a first strike and even more vigorous protocols were in place regarding how to respond to it. Unlike conventional weapons, nuclear weapons are countervalue weapons, which do not distinguish between civilian and military targets - they will destroy all.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the prevention and deterrence of a nuclear strike on Israel by Iran. Most assume the missile would originate from Iran. But with US airpower in Iraq and Afghanistan, multitudes of Awacs and electronics in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, and with NATO ships with sophisticated electronics positioned in the Persian Gulf, it is doubtful that missiles could make their way from Iran to Israel. However, missiles could easily be launched from locations much closer to Israel. There is so much instability in the region that it would be easy for a rogue nation to entice one or more proxies to act on its behalf.
While Iranian plans for nuclear self-sufficiency were born in the early 1970s and are the focus of a great deal of national pride, achieving nuclear capability during President Ahmadinejad's tenure is said to be a mandate of the Iran Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). With the IRGC's significant influence and control over the Iranian economy, security, public policy and military, the goal will undoubtedly be reached.
(Excerpt) Read more at jpost.com ...
The west can then debate the proper return address. Since in fact everyone up to Putin is rooting for this outcome, that could be lots of places. If Israel believes it should be Teheran, why are they sitting around waiting to be hit first?
Because the reality is unpleasant enough they will hope and hope and do nothing, until the day the sky falls.
It’s pretty easy to determine the “return address” from the types of fallout and remnants of the blast. There won’t be any question about where these materials came from. Admittedly, this won’t be of much comfort.
Ping
Maybe it just looks that way to us.Maybe they have it all under control and will astonish the world with the ferocity of their strike.They've done pretty well up till now considering what's been thrown at them in the last 60 odd years.
As for the rest of your post,you are soberingly spot on I think.
It would be very difficult to launch a nuke missile without it being obvious where it came from. A nuke smuggled in an ostensible civilian shipment would be harder.
Israel is not the only party that a nuclear Iran makes nervous. Saudi Arabia has the jitters too. If Saudi Arabia wants to put the hammer down on Iran, it has the dough to buy a huge hammer indeed. It wouldn’t be unthinkable for them to quietly collaborate with Israel.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
“Unlike conventional weapons, nuclear weapons are countervalue weapons, which do not distinguish between civilian and military targets - they will destroy all.”
Because conventional bombs only go off when targeted at the military? Countervalue and counterforce is one thing but where did this guy pull his reading of countervalue weapon from?
Therefore, it is not a theoretical matter, but a clear operational fact already accomplished, that nuclear proliferation to rogue actors as an indirect method of nuclear attack, can be engaged in by great powers, with sufficient distance and cutouts along the way, that those attacked would not even dream of treating the last originator as responsible for said attack.
The reason Russia and China can get away with both is their large nuclear stockpiles and their economic and regional weight in other respects. Iran aspires to the same advantages, and expects to have them once it has 25 to 50 nuclear weapons of its own, sitting weaponized atop intermediate range ballistic missiles.
When years and multiple proliferation routes exist between the state sponsors of terrorist attacks and the targets, the state sponsors are not remotely worried about direct retaliation. And rationally so, given the lack of spine shown continually about the whole subject by the entire civilized world.
Nobody is remotely serious about any of it or has any idea what hellfire they are playing with. Urban civilization is incompatible with indirect nuclear warfare by terrorist cutouts. Pretending that cold war era deterrence already solved this problem, is pretending and a crock.
The reality is, early-stage nuclear weapons are only effective against countervalue targets because they lack the accuracy to destroy missiles in hardened silos (which takes 100 meters accuracy and hundreds of kilotons blast), but advanced nuclear weapons are fully counterforce capable.
There has been a great deal of discussion on the prevention and deterrence of a nuclear strike on Israel by Iran. Most assume the missile would originate from Iran. But with US airpower in Iraq and Afghanistan, multitudes of Awacs and electronics in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, and with NATO ships with sophisticated electronics positioned in the Persian Gulf, it is doubtful that missiles could make their way from Iran to Israel. However, missiles could easily be launched from locations much closer to Israel. There is so much instability in the region that it would be easy for a rogue nation to entice one or more proxies to act on its behalf.Thanks sonofstrangelove.
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.