[Wiskedjak]

Would that not make Israel a rogue nuclear power and therefore a threat to world peace?

[Splinter]

Attack whom first? If you mean Iran’s nuclear facilities then technically that label could have been slapped on Israel when Osiraq went boom.

[Millennium]

Where is the quote from? Honest question; I haven't seen it before.

It makes some sense, but there appears to be no indication that they are seriously considering it. If they do start considering it, then they would be a rogue nuclear power, just as you say.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Where is the quote from? Honest question; I haven't seen it before.

It makes some sense, but there appears to be no indication that they are seriously considering it. If they do start considering it, then they would be a rogue nuclear power, just as you say.

From Cheney.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1106191077589

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

[Millennium]

OK; thanks for the info.

Nevertheless, this is still nothing more than speculation on Cheney's part. It remains to be seen whether or not Israel is considering such a thing. I certainly wouldn't put it past them to do so, but there is nothing to indicate that they actually are, and since Nagasaki nuclear powers seem to have a way of threatening to use nukes long before actually using them. So long, in fact, that they haven't been used to attack anyone since them.

Besides, for Israel to use nuclear weapons, it must first admit that it has them. They've been remarkably reluctant to do that.

[vmarks]

First of all: Cheney is a smart man, and does not say things casually, but he is not an elected Israeli, and does not dictate Israeli policy.

Second of all: Israel doesn't need to use nukes to destroy a nuclear weapons program: Fighter planes work fine.

Lastly, the second point may not even be necessary: Iran has suicide bombers guarding it's nuclear facility.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Where is the quote from? Honest question; I haven't seen it before.

It makes some sense, but there appears to be no indication that they are seriously considering it. If they do start considering it, then they would be a rogue nuclear power, just as you say.

Like I said if that was the decider for the label then we have been a rouge nuclear power since the Osiraq bombing when we destroyed Iraq’s nuclear facility.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The Israelis were justified in bombing Iraq’s nuclear program in the early 80’s, and they’d be justified in taking out Iran’s now. They were correct to assess that oil rich nations don’t need nuclear power- and that ultimately the ruse is a stepping stone to acquire nuclear weapons.

That said, Israel needs to get rid of its own stock of nuclear weapons as well. They have far less clout dealing with Iranian nuclear capacity, when they have weapons themselves.

No Middle Eastern nation should have nukes, including Israel. As long as Israel has them, it encourages other M.E. nations to acquire their own, so ultimately, they are in large part responsible for fostering their own problems in this area. And I say this as a general supporter of Israel.

Nuclear weapons have no place in the entire region. They don’t deter conventional aggression. They don’t deter terrorism. Terrorists aren’t swayed by ‘assured destruction’- they often provide just that for themselves in suicide attacks. A newly acquired nuclear weapon in this day and age serves only one true purpose; a political ‘power play’ that sends a message of overt aggression toward an enemy, and demands a response.

Therefore, Israel is justified in responding to Iranians acquiring a nuclear device, by destroying any such attempts. But once again- their own program demands a response from their enemies- which is acquiring the very weapons that Israel will later have to respond to AGAIN. A nasty self-propagating catch 22. The buck needs to stop with Israel itself. No M.E. nukes for anyone, and the ‘trustworthiness’ of the owner makes no difference in the equation, as there is no justifiable need for nukes in the region.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It makes some sense, but there appears to be no indication that they are seriously considering it. If they do start considering it, then they
would be a rogue nuclear power, just as you say.

I don’t quite understand the logic here. Destroying Iran’s nuclear program has nothing to do with Israel itself using nukes, therefore the charge of ‘rogue nuclear power’ based on this, makes no sense. As vmarks pointed out, one doesn’t destroy nukes with nukes, nor does it even make sense that this would be the case.

[Wiskedjak]

I do not know if Israel is planning to preemptively attack Iran. Obviously, Cheney will have more incite into this issue than me.

What I do find interesting is that the Bush admin seems to be using speculation that Israel might preemptively attack Iran as an excuse to preemptively attack Iran first. If Israel preemptively attacking Iran is undesirable, shouldn't the US take preemptive actions to prevent Israel from doing so, rather than attacking their target before they can?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
They were correct to assess that oil rich nations don’t need nuclear power- and that ultimately the ruse is a stepping stone to acquire nuclear weapons.

I don't buy this. Oil-rich nations have even more incentive to use nuclear power, because every gallon they use internally is a gallon they don't sell. They make so much money on each barrel exported out of the country that any oil used in the country (and not exported for profit) is like flushing money down the toilet. A good nuclear program in oil-rich countries can more than pay for itself in the additional oil profits that it leads to.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The Israelis were justified in bombing Iraq�s nuclear program in the early 80�s, and they�d be justified in taking out Iran�s now. They were correct to assess that oil rich nations don�t need nuclear power- and that ultimately the ruse is a stepping stone to acquire nuclear weapons.

That said, Israel needs to get rid of its own stock of nuclear weapons as well. They have far less clout dealing with Iranian nuclear capacity, when they have weapons themselves.

No Middle Eastern nation should have nukes, including Israel. As long as Israel has them, it encourages other M.E. nations to acquire their own, so ultimately, they are in large part responsible for fostering their own problems in this area. And I say this as a general supporter of Israel.

Nuclear weapons have no place in the entire region. They don�t deter conventional aggression. They don�t deter terrorism. Terrorists aren�t swayed by �assured destruction�- they often provide just that for themselves in suicide attacks. A newly acquired nuclear weapon in this day and age serves only one true purpose; a political �power play� that sends a message of overt aggression toward an enemy, and demands a response.

Therefore, Israel is justified in responding to Iranians acquiring a nuclear device, by destroying any such attempts. But once again- their own program demands a response from their enemies- which is acquiring the very weapons that Israel will later have to respond to AGAIN. A nasty self-propagating catch 22. The buck needs to stop with Israel itself. No M.E. nukes for anyone, and the �trustworthiness� of the owner makes no difference in the equation, as there is no justifiable need for nukes in the region.

Excellent post.

As volatile as the situation is in the Middle East no country should have nuclear weapons.
For all the angst in this country about our use of these weapons, we do a highly structured
chain of command that would prevent some mid-level officer from going off on his own to
start a nuclear exchange with someone else. It's a comfort, not much of one, but it's there.

[vmarks]

Here is an op-ed that posits why Cheney said the words he did, and I think it's a pretty good hypothetical.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects...?itemNo=530512

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m




Last updateÂ_-Â_02:07 23/01/2005


Israeli joker in the Iranian poker game



By Amir Oren

The quotes were accurate but the interpretations were wrong. U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney did indeed say, last Thursday, that Israel "might well decide to act first" to eliminate an Iranian nuclear threat. However, the headlines that claimed Cheney was apprehensive about such a development misunderstood the point he was making. Cheney is not worried about the Israeli context, nor is he warning Israel not to act without coordination with Washington. He is using the possibility of an Israeli operation against Iran to threaten Tehran, while shaking off American responsibility for that kind of escalation. His comment was not a warning to Israel but a means of deterrence against Iran.

In an interview with MSNBC, Cheney placed Iran at "the top of the list" of the world's "potential trouble spots." He reiterated the Bush administration's desire to avoid war and to use diplomacy to resolve the controversy over Iran's nuclear program - give and take with the European powers, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council and sanctions to force Iran to honor its commitments. This is an essential path for the Americans, who this time - more than in the case of Iraq two years ago - will need to enter a multilateral, international framework. In the meantime, the Iranians are using the time to examine how bothered they are by their temporary agreement to freeze the uranium enrichment process. Their representatives in the negotiations with Germany, France and Britain are not hiding their intention to reassess the agreement and disavow it, should it emerge that the damage to their nuclear program outweighs the diplomatic advantage of gaining time.

In contrast to the Iranian use of Europe, Bush's independent ally, Cheney cites Israel as an ally even less amenable to American control. One of the concerns, he noted in the interview, is that Israel is liable to act against Iran "without being asked. ... If in fact the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterward."

As secretary of defense in 1991, in the administration of the current president's father, Cheney made use of a similar threat against Iraq, also in a television interview, which the enemy could receive and understand without mediation. Two weeks before the first American war against Saddam Hussein, Cheney told CNN that Iraqi use of chemical warheads against Israel was liable to result in an Israeli nuclear response. That was a rare comment in two regards. Senior U.S. officials publicly tend to ignore the Arab allegations that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. Cheney mentioned such weapons as though their existence were not in question, in a realistic tone, not one of denial, as a fact the foe (common to both the Americans and the Israelis) must take into account.

In contrast to the situation 14 years ago, Cheney this time refrained from talking about Israeli nuclear capability. Had he done otherwise, he would have implicitly raised the question of why Iran is forbidden to do what Israel is allowed to do (and perhaps reply that the difference is that Israel is not plotting to destroy Iran).

A nuclear Iran is in fact a common danger to Jerusalem and Washington, though each side in the partnership finds it convenient to cast the responsibility on the other. Israel wants to stop being an Iranian target and foist the burden of dealing with the issue on the international community, headed by President Bush. It is important for the Americans not to give the impression that they are eager to precede diplomatic discussions with a military strike, but also to remind the Iranians that their bluff in the nuclear poker game is liable to fall apart in the face of a card not part of the European deck - the Israeli joker.

In 1991 the U.S. administration, including Cheney's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, secretly extracted from Israel a commitment not to take independent action against Iraq. In 2005 the coordination between the two countries and the two armies is even greater. If Israel does take action, Bush and his vice president will be the last to be surprised.



/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=530512

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Cheney is not worried about the Israeli context, nor is he warning Israel not to act without coordination with Washington. He is using the possibility of an Israeli operation against Iran to threaten Tehran, while shaking off American responsibility for that kind of escalation. His comment was not a warning to Israel but a means of deterrence against Iran.

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What I do find interesting is that the Bush admin seems to be using speculation that Israel might preemptively attack Iran as an excuse to preemptively attack Iran first. If Israel preemptively attacking Iran is undesirable, shouldn't the US take preemptive actions to prevent Israel from doing so, rather than attacking their target before they can?

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I don't buy this. Oil-rich nations have even more incentive to use nuclear power, because every gallon they use internally is a gallon they don't sell. They make so much money on each barrel exported out of the country that any oil used in the country (and not exported for profit) is like flushing money down the toilet. A good nuclear program in oil-rich countries can more than pay for itself in the additional oil profits that it leads to.

It's not (only) about that: Iran is a large country, it's population is rapidly expanding and new industries are popping up everywhere. At this rate, within 20 years it will become an oil-importing country. Unless it builds nuclear power plants.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:
It's not (only) about that: Iran is a large country, it's population is rapidly expanding and new industries are popping up everywhere. At this rate, within 20 years it will become an oil-importing country. Unless it builds nuclear power plants.

I think there are two main-drives behind the nuclear ambitions:

a) to fulfill the needs of the iranian industry for more energy, as well as to have more oil to sell and also to prepare for the days the digging of oil is not attractive anymore for whatever reason.

b) to gain nukes as a deterrent against the US, Israel and Pakistan.

But on topic, Israel has no international right to strike Iran, no matter what, except when Iran strikes Israel first. Iran is legally allowed to pursue a nuclear program, even the enrichment of Uranium is not prohibited in the non-prolifery-agreement.

So, when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear plants, off course only with US-permission, Iran has every right to strike Israel's nuclear plants with its rockets, and would likely do so.

Taliesin

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think there are two main-drives behind the nuclear ambitions:

a) to fulfill the needs of the iranian industry for more energy, as well as to have more oil to sell and also to prepare for the days the digging of oil is not attractive anymore for whatever reason.

b) to gain nukes as a deterrent against the US, Israel and Pakistan.

But on topic, Israel has no international right to strike Iran, no matter what, except when Iran strikes Israel first. Iran is legally allowed to pursue a nuclear program, even the enrichment of Uranium is not prohibited in the non-prolifery-agreement.

So, when Israel attacks Iran's nuclear plants, off course only with US-permission, Iran has every right to strike Israel's nuclear plants with its rockets, and would likely do so.

Taliesin

Even if Iran would retaliate I don’t think it would be a deterrent for Israel since

1. It has very able countermeasures against any missile attack that Iran could launch

2. The threat of conventional missiles being launched at us is a much lighter burden then the active threats of nuclear strikes on Israel.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Even if Iran would retaliate I don’t think it would be a deterrent for Israel since

1. It has very able countermeasures against any missile attack that Iran could launch

2. The threat of conventional missiles being launched at us is a much lighter burden then the active threats of nuclear strikes on Israel.

I know the ballistic countermeasures that Israel has developed. They are good to counter one rocket or two or up to a handful at a time, but not more.

While their successrate is better than most other nation's countermeasures, it's still lacking.

Israel can't even counter homemade-rockets that palestinians fire at them.

Besides, if iranian rockets would hit israeli nuclear plants, it could lead to radioactivity set free and in the extremest case even to a meltdown.

Taliesin

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I know the ballistic countermeasures that Israel has developed. They are good to counter one rocket or two or up to a handful at a time, but not more.

Thats why there are multiple Arrow launch sites many advanced patriot sites and plenty of air to air missle interceptors that cna be put on the air force jets. Trust me they know Irans capabilities better then anyone on this board combined. They know that Iran is no joke and that they need to be ready for anything. They will be.

Originally posted by Taliesin:
While their successrate is better than most other nation's countermeasures, it's still lacking.

The arrow you mean? its the best success rate of any tested system. however it has no been tested in actual combat yet. It has been tested as best it can against real time missles and such but there is still a diffrence in real combat so we will see.

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Israel can't even counter homemade-rockets that palestinians fire at them.

How are you supposed to counter home made rockets? they have no warning system till they are already in the air and thier flight time is mere seconds...

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Besides, if iranian rockets would hit israeli nuclear plants, it could lead to radioactivity set free and in the extremest case even to a meltdown.

Taliesin

That is very true. But I have a feeling you would be looking at nuclear retaliation if that happened. Plus Iran is not forgetting that the wind blows mostley to the west. thats towards the west bank and jordan from Dimona... I think Jordan and the Palestinian would be rather pissed.

[Taliesin]

Seems like Iran isn't the only middle-east-country pursuing a nuclear programme, Egypt is also engaged:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4216395.stm

Maybe Israel can also fly to Egypt and bombard there a bit after it has hit Iran, that would save time and hassle, thanks.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

That is very true. But I have a feeling you would be looking at nuclear retaliation if that happened. Plus Iran is not forgetting that the wind blows mostley to the west. thats towards the west bank and jordan from Dimona... I think Jordan and the Palestinian would be rather pissed.

I'm not sure Iran is concerned with the plight of the Palestinian in the least bit.