Are Israel/the American right actually crazy enough to use nukes preemptively?

Or is it just more posturing?

This seems to have become the topic of debate whenever Iran comes up these days, in blogs and a few TV panel shows, thanks to recent statements by American right wingers, President Obama, and Israel, and it genuinely confuses me.

Why is this even being discussed? These people are supposed to be educated and intelligent political and military thinkers, how can they not recognise that preemptive use of nukes would spell the end of us all? Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been the end of the Pacific Theatre of WW2, but they were also the beginning of a little period of strife...what was it called again...tip of my tongue...oh yeah, the Cold-fucking-War. Decades passed during which humanity teetered on the brink of self-annihilation, trillions were frittered away on ludicrous military projects, entire nations collapsed into poverty....does it really only take these cretinous fucks a few years to forget all that?

What terrifies me most is that the idea is not inconceivable, that I don't immediately scoff at the very thought, that these loons have said and done so much crazy shit(Ahmadinejad is Dr Evil, volcano base under a mountain, Bond villain crazy; these guys are supposed to be world leaders) that it's honestly hard to tell if they're serious. I mean seriously, you expect this sort of talk from inbred rednecks, or the hardest of the hard-line bugfuck-insane religious whackadoos in Israel, but actual politicians? Utter lunacy.

Israel is absolutely crazy enough and willing to. I don't believe the American right has the balls to be perfectly honest.

Using nukes aggressively is probably the biggest taboo in the world right now-Its a line nobody has crossed for over sixty years. The US won't use them-some of their politicians may not seem entirely reasonable but no one is that crazy.

Israel however is a more frightening mattter-I get the impression that Israel is truly scared-they take Irans talk of their destruction seriously rather than the posturing it hopefully just is. When Israel is scared they tend to kill a whole lot of civilians to make them self feel like they are doing something about it-so a bombing campaign against Iran would not be impossible-However I would say that Israel would realize that using nukes may be the one thing the rest of the world will not tolerate from them hence the chance of them using nukes rather than conventional bombs is quite unlikely.

NUKES? No nation on Earth is that crazy. Not even Iran (well maybe them as a last ditched middle finger gesture). If there is going to be a war involving Iran and Israel and maybe the USA it will NOT be nuclear.

Honestly, one of the fastest ways to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about on foreign policy is to talk about countries using nuclear weapons.

One thing you have to realize about Israel, they are paranoid, its almost like they are surrounded by people that want to destroy them...oh wait they are. My point is, if you try and play the brinksmanship game with Israel you are just going to lose. Iran doesnt seem to understand that or if they do they are doing a very good job faking ignorance.

Besides I think Israel likes that status quo of "you guys have nukes right?" "no no of course not...whatever gave you that idea...^_^"

Hang on a sec.

Israel is the one nation above all others that repeatedly succeeds at fucking up other people's shit without anyone even seeing them do it, or knowing it was them at all. Whether it's infiltrating commandos into foreign countries to rescue captured hostages, destroying an entire country's air-force before they even had the chance to take off the ground, launching viruses into Iran's computer networks to hamper their nuclear progress, or just plain old taking out dangerous individuals with creative assassinations, Israel has shown time and again that when it comes to covert operations, the rest of the world is leagues behind them. This very thread is an example: we're discussing the possibility that Israel would use nukes, despite the fact that Israel has at no point confirmed or denied one way or the other that they actually have nuclear weapons.

"Yeah, well we know that they've got them. It's obvious."

True, but you can't prove that they have them. And until you can, that is just one more example of how close to its chest Israel can play its cards.

Now, Iran on the other hand, is a country ruled by an extreme religious elite, who have admitted today that they've helped militant terrorist groups launch attacks at Israel, and that they will help anyone who is willing to wipe Israel off the map. Their president is a fanatical anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust ever took place, and their Ayotollah called Israel a 'cancer.' Oh, and they've kept up with their nuclear programme despite calls to stop and allow the rest of the world to see what the fuck it is they're actually doing, almost kind of like they've got something to hide...

And you're worried Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

I consider myself a lefty on most things, but when it comes to Iran I'm right there with the conservatives: If Iran gets hold of a nuke, then everyone in Israel needs to get the fuck out of dodge, because Iran have given absolutely no reason why they wouldn't use it, and a shit-ton of terrifying evidence that they might actually be crazy enough to do it.

Magichead:
Or is it just more posturing?

This seems to have become the topic of debate whenever Iran comes up these days, in blogs and a few TV panel shows, thanks to recent statements by American right wingers, President Obama, and Israel, and it genuinely confuses me.

Why is this even being discussed? These people are supposed to be educated and intelligent political and military thinkers, how can they not recognise that preemptive use of nukes would spell the end of us all? Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been the end of the Pacific Theatre of WW2, but they were also the beginning of a little period of strife...what was it called again...tip of my tongue...oh yeah, the Cold-fucking-War. Decades passed during which humanity teetered on the brink of self-annihilation, trillions were frittered away on ludicrous military projects, entire nations collapsed into poverty....does it really only take these cretinous fucks a few years to forget all that?

What terrifies me most is that the idea is not inconceivable, that I don't immediately scoff at the very thought, that these loons have said and done so much crazy shit(Ahmadinejad is Dr Evil, volcano base under a mountain, Bond villain crazy; these guys are supposed to be world leaders) that it's honestly hard to tell if they're serious. I mean seriously, you expect this sort of talk from inbred rednecks, or the hardest of the hard-line bugfuck-insane religious whackadoos in Israel, but actual politicians? Utter lunacy.

Ameirca? No.

We have very few enemies that we would NEED to use Nukes on if we wanted to utterly destroy them.

Isreal... Maybe?

They are surrounded by people that want them dead, and the feeling is pretty mutual.

Of course, they will know their will be hell to pay if they use the Nukes that they never quite confirmed they have.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Hang on a sec.

Israel is the one nation above all others that repeatedly succeeds at fucking up other people's shit without anyone even seeing them do it, or knowing it was them at all. Whether it's infiltrating commandos into foreign countries to rescue captured hostages, destroying an entire country's air-force before they even had the chance to take off the ground, launching viruses into Iran's computer networks to hamper their nuclear progress, or just plain old taking out dangerous individuals with creative assassinations, Israel has shown time and again that when it comes to covert operations, the rest of the world is leagues behind them. This very thread is an example: we're discussing the possibility that Israel would use nukes, despite the fact that Israel has at no point confirmed or denied one way or the other that they actually have nuclear weapons.

"Yeah, well we know that they've got them. It's obvious."

True, but you can't prove that they have them. And until you can, that is just one more example of how close to its chest Israel can play its cards.

Now, Iran on the other hand, is a country ruled by an extreme religious elite, who have admitted today that they've helped militant terrorist groups launch attacks at Israel, and that they will help anyone who is willing to wipe Israel off the map. Their president is a fanatical anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust ever took place, and their Ayotollah called Israel a 'cancer.' Oh, and they've kept up with their nuclear programme despite calls to stop and allow the rest of the world to see what the fuck it is they're actually doing, almost kind of like they've got something to hide...

And you're worried Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

I consider myself a lefty on most things, but when it comes to Iran I'm right there with the conservatives: If Iran gets hold of a nuke, then everyone in Israel needs to get the fuck out of dodge, because Iran have given absolutely no reason why they wouldn't use it, and a shit-ton of terrifying evidence that they might actually be crazy enough to do it.

The Israeli scientist who flat-out confirmed it, and was imprisoned as a result, would seem to be pretty conclusive evidence of the existence of Israeli nukes.

Your characterisation is...lopsided. You talk about Israel launching "covert operations", while Iran "aid militant terrorist groups"; blowing up civilian scientists seems fairly terrorist-y to me. Iran is ruled by an "extreme religious elite", yet Israel, a nation predicated entirely on an ethnic and religious identity, who's leaders have sanctioned and defended acts every bit as brutal as the ones perpetrated against them, get a free pass? Iran is crazed and aggressive, but Israel, ruled currently and at many times in the past by a government who have intentionally sabotaged negotiations in order to literally steal land out from under others, who's government spends most of its time on the international stage posturing and threatening, they're a safe bet?

I wouldn't trust Iran with enrichment facilities or nuclear weapons, but I scarcely trust Israel more, and less so at the moment when Israeli advocates and analysts of Israeli policy are greeting me when I sit down to watch the evening news by explaining that since Iran's potential nuclear infrastructure will be beyond the reach of conventional bunker-busters, and that if Israel do engage in the preemptive strike they keep threatening, they will necessarily have to employ tac-nukes.

As much as they might want one, Iran does not currently have a nuke, nor do they have the facilities to manufacture one, or the international clout necessary to buy one. They can talk about wiping Israel off the map all they like, they lack the means to do so. Israel, however, and the US, absolutely do have the capacity to wage a nuclear war, on whatever scale, and have repeatedly insinuated that they would do so if Iran doesn't back down completely.

That, to me, is far more worrying than the rantings of an impotent loon.

Israeli right? Well, thank G-d the farthest right wing party is not in power, because I would not put it past them whatsoever. Other than that? Pfft, there are far easier ways to deal with any problems.

And Iran's government sucks balls, but I have a great amount of sympathy for a country royally fucked over for a long time.

Seekster:
Honestly, one of the fastest ways to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about on foreign policy is to talk about countries using nuclear weapons.

There's a few exceptions to this, but generally yeah, especially on the sort of stuff that does tend to get discussed.

OK on Al-Jezeera they told of memo's made public between Israel and the USA. Israel said that it in the "near future" was wanting to attack Iran's nuclear program.

The USa's response was one of shock, dread, discouragement and stalling...

Now the threat from Israel is real... very dangerously real. It's just the case of when and how they may go about it.
Most Arab countries as revealed by the wiki-leaks Embassy memo's do not like Iran, and some even going as far to say they want US help against them. Even I believe Saudi Arabia desiring strategic bombing of Iran...

Israel would attack Iran if given the chance... With nukes... I don't know................ But it makes me frightened to contemplate if they did.

Comando96:
OK on Al-Jezeera they told of memo's made public between Israel and the USA. Israel said that it in the "near future" was wanting to attack Iran's nuclear program.

The USa's response was one of shock, dread, discouragement and stalling...

Now the threat from Israel is real... very dangerously real. It's just the case of when and how they may go about it.
Most Arab countries as revealed by the wiki-leaks Embassy memo's do not like Iran, and some even going as far to say they want US help against them. Even I believe Saudi Arabia desiring strategic bombing of Iran...

Israel would attack Iran if given the chance... With nukes... I don't know................ But it makes me frightened to contemplate if they did.

An attack would most likely mean air strikes and that's about it. Israel's objective is to cripple or at least set back Iran's nuclear research. An invasion by Israel would not be militarily practical.

Israel would never use nukes, you can rest assured of that.

Comando96:
OK on Al-Jezeera they told of memo's made public between Israel and the USA. Israel said that it in the "near future" was wanting to attack Iran's nuclear program.

The USa's response was one of shock, dread, discouragement and stalling...

That's probably more support than I would give. I personally would say "if you even think about doing that, you're on your own for the next five years. Good luck with that."

Comando96:
Now the threat from Israel is real... very dangerously real. It's just the case of when and how they may go about it.
Most Arab countries as revealed by the wiki-leaks Embassy memo's do not like Iran, and some even going as far to say they want US help against them. Even I believe Saudi Arabia desiring strategic bombing of Iran...

Israel would attack Iran if given the chance... With nukes... I don't know................ But it makes me frightened to contemplate if they did.

You know you're in a bad position when you trust the Ayatollah with nuclear weapons more than the parliamentary elected PM.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Hang on a sec.

Israel is the one nation above all others that repeatedly succeeds at fucking up other people's shit without anyone even seeing them do it, or knowing it was them at all. Whether it's infiltrating commandos into foreign countries to rescue captured hostages, destroying an entire country's air-force before they even had the chance to take off the ground, launching viruses into Iran's computer networks to hamper their nuclear progress, or just plain old taking out dangerous individuals with creative assassinations, Israel has shown time and again that when it comes to covert operations, the rest of the world is leagues behind them. This very thread is an example: we're discussing the possibility that Israel would use nukes, despite the fact that Israel has at no point confirmed or denied one way or the other that they actually have nuclear weapons.

"Yeah, well we know that they've got them. It's obvious."

True, but you can't prove that they have them. And until you can, that is just one more example of how close to its chest Israel can play its cards.

Now, Iran on the other hand, is a country ruled by an extreme religious elite, who have admitted today that they've helped militant terrorist groups launch attacks at Israel, and that they will help anyone who is willing to wipe Israel off the map. Their president is a fanatical anti-Semite who denies the Holocaust ever took place, and their Ayotollah called Israel a 'cancer.' Oh, and they've kept up with their nuclear programme despite calls to stop and allow the rest of the world to see what the fuck it is they're actually doing, almost kind of like they've got something to hide...

And you're worried Israel is going to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack?

I consider myself a lefty on most things, but when it comes to Iran I'm right there with the conservatives: If Iran gets hold of a nuke, then everyone in Israel needs to get the fuck out of dodge, because Iran have given absolutely no reason why they wouldn't use it, and a shit-ton of terrifying evidence that they might actually be crazy enough to do it.

Israel? Good at viruses and cyber attacks? They were made fools of by multiple hacker groups.

Any "cyber attack" by a government is just banging rocks together. If you want the real shit, you go talk to the likes of team poison, etc.

Also: considering their enemies lack a lot of the power of modern countries, that isn't anything to brag about. That's like saying you have a 17th century musket in a rural village.... in 2012...

When it comes to Africa and the middle east, the countries are push overs.

NuclearShadow:
Nuclear weapons are not a option in such a manner. The spoils of war are required for a war to happen, even if a obvious gain isn't present there is always something there. To just outright nuke when being the aggressor would not make sense as it would most certainly remove the spoils.

I'd disagree, somewhat. The spoils don't have to be anything physical that can be destroyed as such, political or economic benefits, for example.

On the other hand, using nuclear weapons would cause all sorts of political/economic problems almost unrelated to what is actually destroyed.

One thing that I never understood about the talk of nukes is they never talk about the size of them. I mean all nukes are bad, but there is a big fucking difference between a Fat Man and a Tsar Bomb, the difference is like firing a bullet into a crowd compared to setting off a MOAB in a crowd.

I mean what standard of nukes are we talking about here, something the size of Fat Man can't even destroy a modern city, something like a B53 is enough to destroy multiple cities, a Tsar Bomb equivalent would only require 3 of them to destroy the entire country of Israel.

Iran is also at a serious disadvantage because it is east of Israel. If they were to use any nuclear device of considerable size they risk exposing themselves to the fallout.

God, I hope not. I'm already paranoid, I don't need this sort of thing hovering over my head...

The MAD balance of the cold war wasn't caused by wiping out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was caused by the Soviet Union and China also getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

So if one want to avoid a new MAD balance with Iran, then ultimately a pre-emptive military strike could be necessary. Doesn't have to be with nukes though, the Iranian army is no match for the conventional NATO forces to begin with, so using nukes would be quite excessive at this point.

It seems that conventional weapons these days would be more than adequate - Tactical nuclear weapons would be an unnecessary escalation of tensions in the region and I doubt it would be feasible that they were utilized.

Put it simple, in the middle east whoever fires the first nuke will be razed by the rest.
Israel is surrounded by hostile countries and now without egypt as an ally and without turkey which they royally pissed off they won't have any help, not even the U.S. will try to defend a country who carried out a first strike nuclear attack.

This is my opinion, feel free to differ and tell me fuck off.

pyrate:
One thing that I never understood about the talk of nukes is they never talk about the size of them. I mean all nukes are bad, but there is a big fucking difference between a Fat Man and a Tsar Bomb, the difference is like firing a bullet into a crowd compared to setting off a MOAB in a crowd.

I mean what standard of nukes are we talking about here, something the size of Fat Man can't even destroy a modern city, something like a B53 is enough to destroy multiple cities, a Tsar Bomb equivalent would only require 3 of them to destroy the entire country of Israel.

Iran is also at a serious disadvantage because it is east of Israel. If they were to use any nuclear device of considerable size they risk exposing themselves to the fallout.

Well...given that Israel's devices are secret, and Iran's yet to be constructed, it's hard to say.

But, if Iran was to develop it's first device, it'd almost certainly be fission. The higher yield devices incorporate a fission device with extra stuff stuck on to create fusion, they require more resources and technology.

Nobody tends to build really big devices anymore, they were needed way back when when the accuracy wasn't very impressive, so you needed to be able to destroy the target even if you miss by quite an amount. There are some uses for really big things nowdays, the Russian command centre at Yamantau, for example, is deep underground with a mountain range on top, you have to remove the mountains and dig down very far to destroy it, but that's a rare example.

Additionally, it's not cost effective to build big devices. Double the radioactive materials, and you get less than double the yield. Also, due to the inverse square law, doubling the yield gets you less than double the potential destructive power. And, unless your target is a big perfect circle, alot of potential destructive power will be wasted on things you don't really care if you destroy. So you build multiple small devices rather than one big one...this also prevents you from having your all eggs in one basket, lets you attack targets far distance from each other and so on.

Even a one megaton device would leave most of London (relatively) unscathed, you don't tend to want to initiate a device somewhere and hope for the best, you sit down and look at what you want to remove and decide how many, and what yield, devices to do it with. Then possibly bung in multiple attacks at the same target, given that some missiles won't work properly, or will miss the target enough to enable it to survive and especially if the enemy have anti-missile defences...if a random 50% of your devices don't reach their targets, if you just double the amount of them you use, 25% of targets still won't be affected (another 25% will be hit twice)...you can either gamble with your nation's future and say 75% of targets destroyed is good enough, build loads and loads of missiles, or decide not to risk it and settle things with diplomats. This tends to make ABM systems more desirable than the raw stats would have you believe. Admittedly this doesn't apply here so much.

As to fallout, if you initiate a device at ground level (a "groundburst"), about half the energy goes up, and is wasted, about half of it goes down, digs you a big hole, and turns whatever it dug out radioactive and spreads it around as fallout...but unless there's something underground you want to remove, that's generally a waste. You get a thin horizontal slice of the energy going out and destroying surface stuff, but that's it.

Now, pick the device up and initiate it in the air (an "airburst") and half the energy still goes up and is wasted, but alot more of the energy going down ends up reaching things you want harmed, making it popular for dealing with parts of cities, for example. Also, there's less stuff in the fireball to become radioactive (the device itself, water vapour, dust etc).

Because of this, it can be argued that attacking cities (well, various things that unfortunately happen to be in cities) is more humane than attacking underground military installations and the like. I'd more recommend trying this argument, though.

Getting an Iranian nuclear device up in the air above an Israeli city isn't going to be easy though, if they really wanted to initiate one in Israel for some reason, they might have to go for a groundburst somewhere they can smuggle one in.

...

Oh, EMP...overstated, modern military stuff is hardened against it (it's not that difficult), and the effects aren't that wide reaching (long cables such as power lines are more vulnerable, but a decent surge protector will work).

Ok I would like to ask anyone who is interested to take a look at the wiki article on Israeli Military Doctrine. It should help people better understand how Israel deals with potential threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces#Doctrine

Here are the basic points of the doctrine:

-Israel cannot afford to lose a single war
-Defensive on the strategic level, no territorial ambitions
-Desire to avoid war by political means and a credible deterrent posture
-Preventing escalation
-Determine the outcome of war quickly and decisively
-Combating terrorism
-Very low casualty ratio

Israel cannot afford to lose a single war, it simply does not have much of an insurance policy if it loses a large scale war. This was offset somewhat by the taking of territory to use as bargaining chips. The most notable example of this is the Sinai. It created a buffer zone and when Egypt made peace with Israel then Israel gave it back (it didnt have enough troops to adequately secure such a long border with Egypt anyway.

Israel has no territorial ambitions (note that as far as Israel is concerned, Jerusalem and certain parts of the West Bank and maybe the Golan Heights belong to it now so when it says no territorial ambitions it means in addition to the territory it already claims). The only reason Israel would actually occupy any further territory is to use it as a buffer zone/bargaining chip.

Desire to avoid war is fairly obvious. Israel cannot afford to lose a war and the best way to avoid losing a war is to avoid fighting a war. One of the best ways to avoid war is to solve disagreements diplomatically, one of the best assets in diplomacy is to find yourself a strong benefactor (Syria for example is taking advantage of Russia as its benefactor at the UN right now). Israel has the best benefactor you can possibly get, that would be US (that pun never gets old). This does however mean that Israel will take care not lose its benefactor too so its not going to nuke anybody, that would be suicidal for any nation but it would also mean that Israel would lose the support of the United States. Another side effect of this relationship is that the United States historically has been one of the only nations (outside of the Middle East) to demonstrate a consistent ability to calm Israel down when someone does something to validate their paranoia.

Prevent escalation is another way of avoiding war...quite literally by avoiding it. Israel has proven an amazing ability to be patient and when it does act militarily it will usually do so in a way that minimizes the damage to itself (both physically and diplomatically). At this Israel has had mixed success but this part of their doctrine means that Israel is not in the habit of acting without planning.

The quickly and decisively part goes back to what I said in the last paragraph. The faster a war is over the less potential for physical and diplomatic damage to Israel. The more decisive the war is the less chance the exercise will need to be repeated again. When faced with multiple opponents on multiple fronts Israel's strategy is usually to bring the majority of its force to bear against what it sees as the greatest threat while fighting a holding action on other fronts. Of course ideally Israel prefers to avoid wars on multiple fronts, that is one reason why they are very concerned about Egypt right now.

Combating terrorism is self explanatory so I wont get into that.

Very low casualty ratio is a necessity given Israel's relatively small manpower reserves compared with its potential enemies. Take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_East_countries_by_population

Israel is the 11th most populated country in the Middle East with about 8 million people. Syria is the 10th most populated country in the Middle East with over 22 million people. Do you see the problem? If not then lets keep going. Iran is the 2nd most populated country in the Middle East with over 75 million people. Egypt is the most populated country in the Middle East with a population of over 80 million people. Yeah, Israel has to go for quality over quantity. This is also a reason why the IDF is very open about who it allows to join up. The IDF has a long tradition of allowing women to fill combat roles and as of 2000 women have an equal right to any role in the IDF as men do by law. Also Israel is the only nation to conscript women. In addition to women, homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the IDF. Israel also accepts ethnic minorities including Arabs into the IDF. As of 2010 there are about 1,500 Arab volunteers in the IDF.

I hope this post helps people better understand how Israel conducts itself in terms of foreign policy.

If Israel were ever to use a nuke it would be an act of desperation at the end of a war they were losing badly. A first strike makes zero sense. First off in such a small area they would get fallout too. Secondly, they would lose any support they had in the world by using a nuke as a first strike. I can't think of a single thing that could justify that. Israel has also never started a war, so its unlikely they would now. Finally there is little Israel can't pull off in the area with a non-nuclear strike.

The US still believes in the MAD strategy, its the only reason they still have nukes. They serve no purpose in the field.

Jean Hag:
Put it simple, in the middle east whoever fires the first nuke will be razed by the rest.
Israel is surrounded by hostile countries and now without egypt as an ally and without turkey which they royally pissed off they won't have any help, not even the U.S. will try to defend a country who carried out a first strike nuclear attack.

It's a little more complicated than that. There's other hostilities going on, such as between Sunnite and Shi'ite countries, internal struggles in all Arab countries, and anti-western countries and others.

To name an example, a large part of the population of Jordan are ethnic Palestinians, but those are denied all rights of Jordanese citizens, and there's a lot of strife between Palestinians and Jordanians, often violently so.

It's also no coincidence for instance that Oman sent troops to help fell Khadaffi. Khadaffi was their mortal enemy in the days he preached Arab supremacy and a clash of cultures against the west, whereas Oman is a tiny sheikdom that is either made or broken by exporting oil. The last thing they need is some kind of race war. Likewise Saoudi-Arabia is very hostile towards Iran and vica versa, because Iran's imperialist ambitions are both a threat to the status quo, the power balance in the region and because Iran is a Shi'ite country. The Iran-Iraq war is also another good example of religious hostilities erupting into open war.

Syria is tearing itself apart not in the last place because a 15% Shi'ite minority rules over a country that's over 75% Sunnite.


All in all, the times when a united pan-Arabic racism created a middle east that consisted of Israel&the west versus all the Arab nations is long past, and no longer relevant.

Yes, the dumb masses in most Arab countries are still vastly anti-semitic and this can create problems, but it's nowhere near as bad as in the past.

Blablahb:

Yes, the dumb masses in most Arab countries are still vastly anti-semitic and this can create problems, but it's nowhere near as bad as in the past.

Remember back a while when that Zenga Zenga video making fun of Gadahfi came out and all the people in Libya thought it was great until they found out an Israeli guy was the one who made it?

Though I did see at least one story where a guy said "who cares if he is Jewish, its still funny."

Kendarik:
The US still believes in the MAD strategy, its the only reason they still have nukes. They serve no purpose in the field.

Not entirely true.

At the moment, yes, they couldn't use them for political reasons, but that might change in the future, and if it did, they'd probably want to have a nuclear arsenal and people who knew how to use them right away. They have a variety of types of weapon and delivery devices to keep their options open.

Places like the Russian command centre at Yamantau...you need nuclear devices and many/really big to deal with that.

thaluikhain:

Kendarik:
The US still believes in the MAD strategy, its the only reason they still have nukes. They serve no purpose in the field.

Not entirely true.

At the moment, yes, they couldn't use them for political reasons, but that might change in the future, and if it did, they'd probably want to have a nuclear arsenal and people who knew how to use them right away. They have a variety of types of weapon and delivery devices to keep their options open.

Places like the Russian command centre at Yamantau...you need nuclear devices and many/really big to deal with that.

That still invokes MAD. If you nuked that command centre it would result in a massive nuclear counterstrike, and before its over, both countries would glow in the dark. There really is no way to go nuclear on another nuclear power without it going very very very badly for everyone.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked