'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'

Etherzone.com | August 15, 2002 | Ze'ev Schiff

[1bigdictator]

'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'

By Ze'ev Schiff

If Iraq strikes at Israel with non-conventional weapons, causing massive casualties among the civilian population, Israel could respond with a nuclear retaliation that would eradicate Iraq as a country. This grave assessment, from American intelligence, was presented last week to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

During the 1991 Gulf War, then U.S. defense secretary Richard Cheney, now vice-president, told CNN that Israel could respond with nuclear weapons to an Iraqi strike that included the use of chemical weapons. This assessment has only been strengthened since then, because according to all the signs, Iraq now has biological weapons that could cause mass casualties.

According to one assessment, military-grade biological weapons can be almost as lethal as a nuclear bomb.

The U.S. intelligence assessments include an analysis of possible Israeli responses. The lowest probability is that Israel would respond initially with a conventional military retaliation if it is slightly harmed, and would add a warning that a non-conventional response was possible if the Iraqi attacks on the Israeli civilian population continued.

The possibility of Israel using nuclear weapons against Iraq appears in a document submitted by military expert Dr. Anthony Cordesman, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Presumably, the document is based, in part, on official administration assessments.

In the worst case scenario, writes Cordesman, Israel could face an existential threat to important urban areas such as Tel Aviv or Haifa. Under such conditions, it would threaten nuclear retaliation against Iraqi cities and military forces to cease the [Iraqi] attack.

If the Iraqi attack were to continue, and there was a lethal biological strike on an Israeli city, Israel would certainly respond with nuclear strikes against Iraqi cities that were not yet in the hands of American forces, Cordesman says. Such an Israeli reaction could destroy Iraq as a state.

Based on this assessment and the possibility of an Israeli retaliation in the event of an Iraqi strike, it is presumed that the United States will, at the earliest stages, make a special effort to neutralize any possible use of Scud and El Hussein rockets that Iraq positions in its western regions, as it did in the Gulf War, for a more convenient launching site for attacks against Israel. During discussions in Washington, Israeli representatives asked the United States to take action against the missiles in western Iraq.

The Americans know that Iraq is not depending only on long-range missiles in its plans for using chemical or biological weapons against its enemies, including Israel. As part of its preparations, Iraq has also been working on developing pilotless planes. Unlike the usual development of drones used primarily for intelligence gathering purposes, the Iraqis are working on normal-sized planes loaded with chemical or biological weapons and intended to be flown by remote control. They are working on an Eastern European training plane and on a version of the MiG-21. Both planes have been tested.

[1bigdictator]

No chicken littles need respond to this article. It would be a positive event... not the loss of non-combatant lives in Iraq... but the hundreds of millions of lives it would preserve by finally detering the support that has spread militant Islam like a cancer across the globe.

[CWRWinger]

Israel is the only country which knows how to eradicate terrorists. They have the will to do it. Nuke 'em, Israel.

[bluester]

In what way would it be a positive event?

[Steely Tom]

This grave assessment, from American intelligence, was presented last week to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Grave assesment? Grave for whom?

Puh-leeze.

(steely)

[HELLRAISER II]

That's a pretty scary thought, but one that is oh so real. What lies ahead for the age of man, WW III?

[1bigdictator]

No need to repeat my earlier post.

[Havoc]

I have a better idea for them. Instead of nuking them, we should export our liberal media to Iraq. They'd be right at home selling their propaganda and make Sadam shoot himself so he wouldn't have to listen to their tripe any more. See - two birds with one stone.

[Paradox]

The fact that Israel has a nuke or two targetted on the Aswan Dam (Lake Nasser in Egypt), has kept the Egyptians from being too belicose against them. (If the Aswan dam were to break down/be destroyed, millions of people downstream would be killed, and a vital amount of workable land would be lost.)

[Mr. Mojo]

In what way would it be a positive event?

Hey bluester, what is it about the phrase "the hundreds of millions of lives it would preserve by finally detering the support that has spread militant Islam like a cancer across the globe" (in post #2) don't you comprehend?

[Hacksaw]

I'd still like to read of the famous bombing raid they did on the Iraq nuke plant.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

"Your duty is not to die for your country. It's to make the other sonofabitch die for his." - Gen. George S. Patton

[TheDon]

Unfortunately, I don't think the threat of nuclear retaliation will stop Saddam, as he knows he will be facing Allah within a year, if not by the end of this year. And, he doesn't care a whit about his people.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

What lies ahead for the age of man, WW III?

Uh, technically, this is WW IV, if you haven't been paying attention.
WW III being the brinksmanship between the US and USSR. Admittedly, not a lot of big battles, but battles nonetheless.
We're now in a war between civilization and Islam. I draw the distinction because Islam lacks a lot of the elements of civilization (defined city-state, legal/political process, unified presence, common language, citizen's rights, etc.)
Effectively, Islam is no better off than when Mohammed founded it.
Since they're bent on killing all non-Muslims, and they're not proving they can co-exist (how many Muslims have pitched in and helped at the WTC? What Muslim countries have sent funds or offered support to victims families? Zero.)
They're really not leaving much room to bargain.
Just because someone didn't call it WWIII or WWIV doesn't mean it's not the case.

[1bigdictator]

I agree. Saddam will seek to use biological and chemical weapons against Israel once the U.S. strikes. Israel will respond accordingly-- depending on the severity of the Iraqi strike. Israel's arab neighbors will sit on their hands for fear of recieving tactical nukes too.

[makoman]

No Nukes!

[mhking]

No Nukes!

Too late.

I think we've passed the "if" point, and are now looking at the "when" and "who."

[Mr. Mojo]

Unfortunately, I don't think the threat of nuclear retaliation will stop Saddam, as he knows he will be facing Allah within a year,

You're exactly right. Saddam knows he's a goner, so of course he's going to kill as many Israelis as he can before he goes. Nuclear deterrence means absolutely nothing.

[crystalk]

I do think that WW III is in effect already going on, and I do expect nuclear weapons to be used before it is over. It may be episodic, "dying down" to some extent after a given country is reconfigured.

It is not certain that rogue nukes might not arrive in the USA.