- #1
LightbulbSun
- 65
- 2
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674699&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull"
Last edited by a moderator:
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear "bunker-busters," . . . .
Evo said:Hi LightbulbSun, welcome to PF and please read the posting guidelines https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .
the following rules apply to all new threads started in Politics and World Affairs effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:
1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.
5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate.
We don't allow threads with nothing but a link to an article. Please explain what it is that you wish to discuss.
Thanks!
russ_watters said:Well, the threat to Israel here is real and needs to be considered.
I had a short and pointless discussion with my boss about this today, as a matter of fact, and he considers it an absolutely 100% certainty that Iran is trying to build the bomb and when they acquire it they will use it on Israel. Given that criteria, Israel must prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb.
The logic is infallible if you agree to the premise, but the premise is, of course, not that clear-cut (which is why discussing politics with my boss is pointless). So the question is: how big of a threat is Iran to Israel really? Would Iran use their weapons for deterrence or would they use them in a hot war? Is the leader of Iran really a lunatic or does he just play one on tv? Not easy questions to answer...
One thing is clear: Israel has done a similar thing before and it is logical to conclude they would do it again if they felt it necessary. Adding the nuclear element to the attack adds a new dimension to it -it puts them in a club that no one in the world really wants to be in.
Well that's what is complicated about this: if using a nuclear weapon really meant that, it would be a no-brainer (you couldn't use them), but clearly it doesn't. If Israel used a nuclear bunker-buster on Iran, who would retaliate on Israel with nuclear weapons? There are only a handful of nations that actually have the capability to wipe out a large fraction of the Earth's population - why would they start lobbing nukes at each other in response to this?LightbulbSun said:Does anyone in government not see the repercussions of nuclear warfare? Counter nuclear attacks will wipe out not only our species, but make the Earth inhabitable forever. So it seems to me rather counterproductive to start a nuclear war.
There are not all that many people on Earth who really are not anti-war. But a small handful of people with a lot of power and perhaps some mental illnesses are capable of getting others to follow them to war.I'm very anti-war. I wish we would get past this territorial game already and focus on more important issues. If everyone looked at life on Earth at a cosmic level they would see we're insignificant in the grand scale of the cosmos. That Earth remains to be our only home for life, and even that's just a pale blue dot to reference Carl Sagan's book. Thoughts on this subject or to my rantings? I know the notion of "embracing the whole human community" sounds rather trite nowadays considering the type of environment we're dealing with, but what's so disquieting about it? I'm sick of these lame excuses about how peace is unfulfilling and boring. How is war fulfilling I ask? Ok, sorry I'll end my line of thoughts here haha.![]()
russ_watters said:Well that's what is complicated about this: if using a nuclear weapon really meant that, it would be a no-brainer (you couldn't use them), but clearly it doesn't. If Israel used a nuclear bunker-buster on Iran, who would retaliate on Israel with nuclear weapons? There are only a handful of nations that actually have the capability to wipe out a large fraction of the Earth's population - why would they start lobbing nukes at each other in response to this?
Nuclear weapons are terrible to be sure, but they are not much more than just big bombs - contrary to the scary propaganda you hear from crackpot activists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. They never were uninhabitable after they were nuked.
There are not all that many people on Earth who really are not anti-war. But a small handful of people with a lot of power and perhaps some mental illnesses are capable of getting others to follow them to war.
The hatred brewed in the Middle-East is tough to get past, but consider this: no two westernized nations have gone to war with each other in 60 years. And these are countries that used to be perpetually at war with each other. War is obsolete for certain countries and I honestly believe that other countries will come into the fold over time.
That question is rather irrelevant, albeit more to Israelis than Iranians.LightbulbSun said:But that leads to the question if Iran really does nuke Israel, does the U.S. in retaliation strike back by nuking Iran?
I wouldn't think so. Why would we?LightbulbSun said:But that leads to the question if Iran really does nuke Israel, does the U.S. in retaliation strike back by nuking Iran?
To raise a minor point, I think this is true, in part at least, because detonantions were at over a thousand feet in the air (to maximize civilian deaths) over H & N. I think if you had detonantion nearer ground (to take out ground level strategic targets) there would be higher levels of secondary radiation for longer...maybe up to a year within a many mile radius (for a payload of the order of tens of kilotons)?russ_watters said:Nuclear weapons are terrible to be sure, but they are not much more than just big bombs - contrary to the scary propaganda you hear from crackpot activists. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today. They never were uninhabitable after they were nuked.
Gokul43201 said:To raise a minor point, I think this is true, in part at least, because detonantions were at over a thousand feet in the air (to maximize civilian deaths) over H & N. I think if you had detonantion nearer ground (to take out ground level strategic targets) there would be higher levels of secondary radiation for longer...maybe up to a year within a many mile radius (for a payload of the order of tens of kilotons)?
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/790607.pdfAfter a period of time, local fallout radiation
levels decay to the point where the
area would be considered “safe,” and survivors
in fallout shelters would emerge.
Nevertheless, low levels of radiation
would persist for some time— indeed, low
levels of radiation have persisted for years
at some sites of nuclear weapons tests.
The question of safety here is a relative
one. By the standards of peacetime, many
such areas would be considered unsafe,
because living in them would expose a
population to a significant risk of longterm
hazards— cancer, genetic damage,
etc. However, in the aftermath of a nucle
ar attack, there may be few habitable
areas that do not have a measurable
(though low) level of additional radiation,
and the survivors wouId simply have to accept
the hazards.
Some fallout is deposited in the troposphere,
and then is brought down to Earth
(largely by rain) over a period of weeks.
Such fallout reaches areas quite far from
the blast. While the doses inflicted would
be relatively small, they would add to the
risk.
Some fallout is deposited in the stratosphere.
It returns to Earth over a period of
years (through the effects of gravity), and
consequently only very long-lived radioactive
isotopes pose a significant hazard.
If the attacks are confined to the territory of the United States and the Soviet Union (and, for that matter, to Europe and China
as well), then stratospheric fallout will be
confined mostly to the Northern Hemisphere,
and the region between 300 and
600 north latitude will receive the bulk of
it.[continued]
After a period of time, local fallout radiation levels decay to the point where the area would be considered “safe,” and survivors in fallout shelters would emerge
russ_watters said:I wouldn't think so. Why would we?
Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?LightbulbSun said:We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.
Gokul43201 said:Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?
I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.
The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.
Gokul43201 said:Who do you refer to by the "US" - the administration, Congress, or the people?
I don't think anyone in the administration or Congress actually believes any of the Shahab 6 speculation (they'd much easier believe the taepodong's supposed range). But this doesn't mean it will be hard to put enough fear and doubt into enough people. Heck, if they could pull this off with Iraq's 100-mile al Samouds, they surely can create a lot more fear about the Shahabs.
The only US "soil" that Iran can reasonably reach are the embassies in the Middle East and vicinity.
Just like with North Korea, Iran does not have the capability to directly attack the US. And if you are comparing that to Iraq - we didn't nuke Iraq. Remember, I'm still responding to your quote about the US nuking Iran for nuking Israel. I could certainly see us giving Iran the treatment we gave Iraq if Iran nuked Israel, but we wouldn't nuke them. It just isn't a worthwhile thing to do. It has no point.LightbulbSun said:Because we're strong allies with Israel, and we consider Iran not only a terrorist threat, but a nuclear one too. We can only assume that if Israel were nuked that the U.S. would feel threatened of an imminent nuclear attack on their own soil no matter how fabricated it may be.
"No country has launched an attack using nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there's indeed a strike on Iran, the last thing the forces would want to do is to use nuclear arms, as long as there are other means," Deputy Director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies Dr. Ephraim Kam told Ynet Sunday morning.
Kam's comments come in response to a Sunday Times report that Israel has formulated a plan to strike three Iranian nuclear facilities using tactical nuclear weapons.
According to Dr. Kam, the use of nuclear arms is an extreme step. "Even though this plan is realistic, I don't know if ultimately we'll see a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Even in case a decision is taken to act, it doesn't have to be done with nuclear weapons – that's a far-reaching move."
How is it "patently obvious"? Other nations that have no oil resources of their own and have to buy and transport it don't have nuclear programs. Furthermore, Iran has been offered to have other nations supply them with reactors AND fuel, but they insist on enriching their own Uranium. They also insist on doing this clandestinely in deep underground facilities and without IAEA inspections.Schrodinger's Dog said:Three, since it's patently obvious that Iran needs Nuclear plants to subsidize it's power and thus get more money from it's oil. I don't see it as anything approaching fair to target it's facilities.
1) what do you think is supplying their power stations with energy at the moment? Oil.Yonoz said:How is it "patently obvious"? Other nations that have no oil resources of their own and have to buy and transport it don't have nuclear programs.
In the present article, Part II of a three-part series, the need for building nuclear reactors in Iran is analyzed. As was pointed out in Part I, in the opinion of this author, the questions that we Iranians must ask and debate, are: Does Iran need nuclear energy, and is acquiring it in her national interests? It was also pointed out that one must decouple Iran's need for nuclear energy which, as argued in this article, is completely legitimate on economical, social, and environmental grounds, from her alleged or real intentions for producing nuclear weapons.
Recall that the main argument of the United States against nuclear energy for Iran is that, Iran has vast oil and gas reserves, and hence she needs no nuclear reactor. This argument is, in general, not necessarily valid. Many countries that are rich in fossil energy resources, including Britain and Russia (both oil exporters), rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their energy needs, while Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, which have no oil or natural gas reserves, have not abandoned nuclear power in favor of more imported oil and gas, even though they can certainly afford this. There are currently 1118 nuclear reactors in the world of which 280 are for nuclear research, while another 400 are used in ships and submarines for producing power. The remaining 438 nuclear reactors are used for generating electricity, of which 104 are in the US, 59 in France, 53 in Japan, 29 in Russia, and 19 are in Germany. Between 1974, when Iran signed her first agreement for building nuclear reactors, and 2000, use of nuclear reactors for generating electricity has increased by a factor of 12!
In the particular case of Iran, the US argument that Iran needs no nuclear energy has no validity at all. While it is true that Iran does have vast oil and gas reserves, she also needs alternative energy sources. I argue that Iran's needs for such alternatives are glaring and indisputable, and I base my arguments on economical, social, and environmental considerations.
We first, however, consider the case for alternative sources of energy on general grounds:
Most of the world's major oil exporters, such as Iran, are developing nations. Thus, these countries must confront the challenge of their demographic explosion without possessing many of the necessary tools, which are strong state structures, rapidly-growing economies, large amounts of investment capitals, numerous entrepreneurs, engineers and inventors, and infrastructres that are reasonably advanced. In fact, we live in a world in which technology and capital are in the countries that are energy-hungry - those that have no major oil reserves of their own (for example, Germany, France, and Japan) or have at best indeaquate sources (for example, the US) - whereas the population growth and social and political turbulence are in the developing countries that are major oil producers (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iraq, etc.).
At the same time, oil is a non-renewable national wealth of Iran (and other oil exporters). Once it is produced and exported, it can never be regenerated. One cannot expect Iran (and other oil-exporting countries) to deplete her non-renewable national wealth recklessly, without receiving any lasting products or benefits in return, but this will happen if Iran's sources for energy are not diversified, and she continues to rely almost exclusively on oil and gas for everything from the only source of energy to her annual budget. Except for Norway, every major oil exporter (including Russia) relies heavily on its revenue from oil sales, so much so that if the oil price stays too low for too long, we may have social instability and even revolution in these countries. What would happen to these countries if all of their recoverable oil and gas are rapidly depleted over a few decades, which would be the case if they rely on oil and gas for everything from their annual budget to energy sources?
Furthermore, Iran has been offered to have other nations supply them with reactors AND fuel, but they insist on enriching their own Uranium. They also insist on doing this clandestinely in deep underground facilities and without IAEA inspections.
WIll they won't they, fact is no one knows and so this is academic. Do you think it would be wise for Israel to nuke Iran, same question reversed? This is just the usual MAD posturing. Only difference is no one knows anything. Should Iran let in inspectors, hell yes. Should it give up it's nuclear reactors to a hypocritical western world, hell no, it has the same rights to exploit it's resources for economic reasons as anyone else. Take a look at the NPT, it says any country may build nuclear plants for the use of power. Apparently though Iran has a law unto itself, it must stop building nuclear plants with the know how it got from America? Does anyone see this as fair at all. Yes inspectors no to halting it's progress.Combine this with the history of Iranian and Iranian-supported attacks against Israeli and Jewish targets all around the world, and the rhetoric of Iranian leaders - and I think you can see why there is no other way for Israel to deal with this existential threat.
TuviaDaCat said:can a nuclear power plant be transformed to a plant capable of making bombs?
turbo-1 said:LightbulbSun, Iran cannot nuke Israel because Iran has no nuclear weapons, and no chance of building any for years. Israel has nukes and may elect to use them on Iran's nuclear facilities, as you noted. The prime time to use them would be early in the 2-month deployment overlap of the Eisenhower and Stennis carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. If Israeli hawks want to draw the US into a regional war, they will have the perfect opportunity during that period. I hope and pray that it doesn't happen, but all the saber-rattling combined with the lack of any diplomatic dialog with Iraq's neighbors does not bode well. These are dangerous times.
russ_watters said:Just like with North Korea, Iran does not have the capability to directly attack the US. And if you are comparing that to Iraq - we didn't nuke Iraq. Remember, I'm still responding to your quote about the US nuking Iran for nuking Israel. I could certainly see us giving Iran the treatment we gave Iraq if Iran nuked Israel, but we wouldn't nuke them. It just isn't a worthwhile thing to do. It has no point.
What does that have to do with anything?Mental Gridlock said:It apparently had a point and they said it was a worthwile thing to do the last time the USA used her nukes.
russ_watters said:What does that have to do with anything?
On the other hand, if you think it's okay to maintain a rhetoric that troubles the rest of the world and refuse to permit the IAEA to satisfactorily inspect your facilities, yet insist that the rest of the world is being unfair to you, you may have a career in Ahmedinejad's cabinet.turbo-1 said:If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.
turbo-1 said:If you think that it's OK to bomb a country relentlessly until they are so helpless that our "demands are met" by their primitive living conditions and lack of defense, you may have a career in neoconservative politics.
Not only does it make no economic sense (sanctions), it makes no diplomatic sense either.Schrodinger's Dog said:1) what do you think is supplying their power stations with energy at the moment? Oil.
2) Would it make better economic sense to use nuclear power and sell the oil?
This would all be good and well had Iran's nuclear program remained under the supervision of the IAEA. Furthermore, all those other nations didn't spread their civilian enrichment facilities and reactors across the country in deep underground tunnels.Schrodinger's Dog said:Sorry I meant patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about it, this source should make it clear anyway.
Iran was supplied with the technology for a civilian nuclear program from the west - just goes to show there would be no problem with such a program had it remained civilian. FYI they also got military-grade enrichment technology from Pakistan.Schrodinger's Dog said:Iran got it's first reactor and the Engineering know how from the US, it got it's centrifugal technology from Germany, as well as engineering input, theese highly advanced technologies don't appear in a country by magic.
Israel isn't headed by religious extremists that encourage martyrdom.Schrodinger's Dog said:WIll they won't they, fact is no one knows and so this is academic. Do you think it would be wise for Israel to nuke Iran, same question reversed?
No one is demanding Iran "give up" its nuclear reactors, "halt their progress" or anything of that sort - only to open its nuclear program for inspection. They've even been offered the fuel for these reactors in exchange for abandoning their clandestine enrichment program.Schrodinger's Dog said:This is just the usual MAD posturing. Only difference is no one knows anything. Should Iran let in inspectors, hell yes. Should it give up it's nuclear reactors to a hypocritical western world, hell no, it has the same rights to exploit it's resources for economic reasons as anyone else.
Take a look at the NPT, it says any country may build nuclear plants for the use of power. Apparently though Iran has a law unto itself, it must stop building nuclear plants with the know how it got from America? Does anyone see this as fair at all. Yes inspectors no to halting it's progress.