[Kerrigan]

WTF, this deserves a rule 8 violation

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Sunday Times - Times Online

edit: OK my opinion is that this is a lose-lose situation. I would have to side with Iran on this, this is simply ludicrous. The US used nukes to end a bloody war, Israel may be using them to start one. This would push the Muslim world into complete chaos.

[mduell]

With what? The jets don't have the range and the missiles don't have the accuracy.

[Kerrigan]

In the article, the jets have made practice runs to Gibraltar and back, and they have nuclear-tipped bunker busters, which will follow up conventional explosives to blow a hole in the facilities.

[rambo47]

We have those plans too. We have plans to invade or nuke almost every nation on earth. The question is, are we going to use them?

[Kerrigan]

If the unnamed source is to be trusted, this sounds like something more than a contingency plan.

[vmarks]

The Times has been wrong when revealing 'secret' plans in the past.

The precedent for such a thing is the removal of the Osirak reactor in Iraq.

From time to time, Israel does favors for the world. Osirak was one. Will this be one? No way of knowing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

This would push the Muslim world into complete chaos.

I hope it's ALL of the Middle East that gets put into chaos. Let them turn it into one big cluster-f*ck of tribal and/or religious factionalism. We can sell Israel weapons and they can lob missiles at whoever thinks about threatening them. At the same time, all the other Arab states will be fighting one another over whose brand of Islam will be triumphant. If we are lucky, those that take up arms will spend the next 50 years or so fighting with one another and we can forget about the whole region and focus on ourselves here at home.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

If the unnamed source is to be trusted, this sounds like something more than a contingency plan.

Is there a such a big difference between training to use a conventional bunker buster and a nuclear one?

If anything, I would imagine the big difference is all the extra protocols in place to make sure you intentionally, rather than accidentally, start World War III.

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't any practical difference at all, even down to the distances one would use it in normal circumstances. I mean, the whole point is to put the force of the blast into the ground.

I would however, be surprised if this nuclear "plan" is being considered as the first strike. I don't see the Israelis having trouble maintaining air-superiority, even after they have lost the element of surprise. If conventional isn't assessed to have worked, then they bring out the big iron.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is there a such a big difference between training to use a conventional bunker buster and a nuclear one?

The nuclear pollution perhaps? Radiated dust is a very serious health risk that will contaminate the immediate area … and Israel isn't that far away from Iran either.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The nuclear pollution perhaps? Radiated dust is a very serious health risk that will contaminate the immediate area … and Israel isn't that far away from Iran either.

I said training. It is unlikely that training would be conducted with live nukes.

Edit: that's my point, I am surmising that the training involved for using a nuke is learning the proper responses to the question:

Code:
You are about to start World War III, are you sure? Y/N

This would be something that is just tacked on to a conventional training mission. The article makes it seem like the nuclear option is specifically what they are training for. I'm guessing it's a relatively minor portion of an operation that is designed not to go nuclear.

[vmarks]

I would be careful in using the word 'start.'

It's reasonable to suggest that WWIII began with any number of events already taken place:
1) the 1979 Iranian revolution.
2) the 1983 beirut attack on the US Marine Barracks
3) the 9/11 attacks
4) Iran's rush to get nuclear weapons and their threats to use them (Yes, they have already threatented publicly to use nuclear weapons against Israel. Yes, they did say nuclear weapons this time.)
5) North Korea.

Remember, WW1 was started by the murder of Archduke Ferdinand. Who would have thought that would have launched the world war, but in hindsight, it is the commonly named beginning event.

[subego]

Whoever tosses the first nuke wins the prize.

I think it's a bit odd you would even consider this point debatable.

[Volanges]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I would be careful in using the word 'start.'

It's reasonable to suggest that WWIII began with any number of events already taken place:
1) the 1979 Iranian revolution.
2) the 1983 beirut attack on the US Marine Barracks
3) the 9/11 attacks
4) Iran's rush to get nuclear weapons and their threats to use them (Yes, they have already threatented publicly to use nuclear weapons against Israel. Yes, they did say nuclear weapons this time.)

or the founding of Israel in 1948

[subego]

Originally Posted by Volanges 

or the founding of Israel in 1948

Which was because of WW II.

Which was because of WW I.

God damn that Archduke Ferdinand.

[vmarks]

I think it's absolutely debateable that the first to use a nuke is not the starter of WWIII.

I also think that it's wrong and illegitimate to suggest that WWIII began with Israel's founding in 1948.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

I think it's absolutely debateable that the first to use a nuke is not the starter of WWIII.

It the sense that the scenario is completely hypothetical, I suppose so.

If one were to play the odds, the number of scenarios wherein the first user of a nuke will be considered the instigator overwhelmingly outnumber the scenarios where they won't.

[amsalpemkcus]

nevermind.
EDIT: It makes sense, although it is crazy thing to do.

[Kerrigan]

The odd situation is that Israel would be justified in using conventional weapons in destroying the nuke facilities, but using nuclear bombs, even ones of equal or lesser force than regular bombs, escalates this to the level of Nuclear War, and nobody knows what will happen.

[Chuckit]

Like subego said, why on earth would they be training with the actual nukes? I imagine there is some truth behind this, but the story as reported does not sound believable.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mduell 

With what? The jets don't have the range and the missiles don't have the accuracy.

Depends which jets you are talking about. And where they launch from.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Like subego said, why on earth would they be training with the actual nukes? I imagine there is some truth behind this, but the story as reported does not sound believable.

You don't have to carry actual nukes to train with them.
They could carry simulated nukes that mimic the aerodynamics and procedures. Several of my profs talked about carrying simulated nukes on B52's and other aircraft all the time. One tested delivery methods for free fall tactical nukes between the Korean War and Vietnam. He didn't carry actual nukes, just a mockup. He was pretty proud of the fact that he only missed the target by 40 feet with an inverted vertical basket toss delivery, or some such thing, cause you know, you have to be accurate with nuclear veapons.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whoever tosses the first nuke wins the prize.

I think it's a bit odd you would even consider this point debatable.

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. The recent election will have 0% effect on Mr. Bush, IMO. This is a Good vs Evil thing for him. IMO, he will announce another 20-50,000 troops to Iraq on 1/3/07. No troops are leaving prior to 21Jan09.

As of Friday we will have 2 full carrier groups near the Gulf. IMO. A third will be there by April 1st.
By then we will have a Navy Admiral in charge of the Southern Command. Or are you one of the confused wondering why he was picked for the largest coordinated Naval multinational airstikes in history.

Bush is on a Holy Crusade. They are going to have to remove him from office to stop this.

Personally, IMO, it's too late. This will all be done through executive signings. Over the past 4 -5 years how many articles have there been about the abuse of Executive Power under Bush compared to all the good old body counts each day.

The entire situation we are in today is from the abuse of Executive Power in this Whitehouse. The media should be ashamed.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Bush is on a Holy Crusade.

Where's that tinfoil hat picture…

[Hawkeye_a]

I think Israel is just preparing for Nuclear war.Cause one of the contries in her vicinity has repeatedly stated it wants to wipe her off the face of the earth and is at the same time, attempting to develop nucler technology purposely forgoing international laws.