Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'If attacked, Israel might nuke Iraq'
Etherzone.com | August 15, 2002 | Ze'ev Schiff

Posted on 08/15/2002 9:33:30 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; Israel; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: america; iraq; israel; nuclearresponse; terrorism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 next last
To: 1bigdictator
I have a scenario -

Iraq launches a scud at Israel. Missile defense systems shoot it down. It is quickly determined that it had a WMD payload. Should Israel nuke Bagdad at that point?

I think they need to make this clear ahead of time, and follow through on it.

Further, what about a detected incoming missile - should Israel "launch on warning"?

61 posted on 08/15/2002 11:54:52 AM PDT by MrB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kdoxxx
"They have no missles capable of reaching us"

The Russians buried radio-controlled bombs in major U.S. population centers. Our new friends have not been forthcoming in helping us to find and neutralize them.

I suspect that there are several crude nukes already in place, "owned" by one or more of the scores of active terrorist cells still in operation inside our borders. You do not need missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. A truck or freigher is sufficient.

--Boris

62 posted on 08/15/2002 12:05:18 PM PDT by boris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1bigdictator; All
I have no problem with the idea... FYI- some useful info:

Nuclear News you *can* use--

Nuclear, Biological, & Chemical Warfare- Survival Skills, Pt. II

The Samson Option-- what is known about Israel's Nuclear Weapons?

63 posted on 08/15/2002 12:07:12 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: kdoxxx
it's just going to be the US and Israel against the entire Moslem world. Our European Allies don't seem too eager to participate.

So? What's the problem? Do you not think we can handle the task at hand on our own?

Why we concentrate on Iraq when Saudi Arabia has many more ties to the Islamic extremists is beyond me.

I see this "either/or" disease is nearing epidemic proportions. Understand this: Our war is against the WHOLE of the militant Islamic world, and that includes both Iraq AND Saudi Arabia. We'll take care of the former first; the Saudis will get theirs in due time.

65 posted on 08/15/2002 12:09:27 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: boris
The Russians buried radio-controlled bombs in major U.S. population centers.

Is that the gospel according to defected General Stanislav Lunev? If so, I'll take it with a grain of salt. He has made several predictions since joining the staff at Newsmax, and he's batting ZERO so far.

66 posted on 08/15/2002 12:15:39 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

Comment #67 Removed by Moderator

To: kdoxxx
Muslim radicals - a redundancy, I'm all too aware - have declared a Jihad against US, not the other way around. We'll finish what they started.
68 posted on 08/15/2002 12:22:37 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: bluester
I don't think nuking anybody would be a positive event, but there are worse outcomes. It could possibly end up being the lesser of two evils, but I don't think it has a strong possibility of actually occurring. I do think it is good that Israel has that sort power to back them up, though.
69 posted on 08/15/2002 12:37:10 PM PDT by Britton J Wingfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

Comment #70 Removed by Moderator

To: Britton J Wingfield
I do think it is good that Israel has that sort power to back them up, though.

That I can understand. As a mean to deter a possible attack. That's not a problem with me.

71 posted on 08/15/2002 12:49:08 PM PDT by bluester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: kdoxxx
Not all Muslims are radicals

I know they're not. I'd estimate that only around 20% are. Unfortunately, 20% is around 200,000,000.

Our President has already made it clear that our fight is against terrorism, not Islam.

Watch what Bush does, not what he says. Can you name one terrorism organization we're now at war with this isn't Muslim? I know it's difficult for you to accept, but we're at war with radical Islam, and as I mentioned already, radical Islam has hundreds of millions of adherents.

This anti-Arab rhetoric that is becoming so common will only encourage those Arab states to seek a closer alignment with China,

No, but a successful war effort will encourage them to stop their ridiculous and self-destuctive Jihads. Strength is the only concept they can fully comprehend.

If you think we can just bomb these people into submission you are mistaken.

Yes, I think we can bomb them into submission. But if submission doesn't work, annihilation will have to do.

We need to look out for our interests in a practable way, one of which would be to take a more even-handed policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I see...you're another "blame American firster." Why should we be evenhanded? Israel is a civilized democracy, and the majority of Palestinians are Jihadist barbarians.

I know this view doesn't sit to well with some of the pro-Israel factions here, but hey, American interests come first whether you like it or not.

The number one American interest is to destroy radical Islam, and the best way to go about accomplishing that is to destroy radical Muslims. Sit back and enjoy the show.

72 posted on 08/15/2002 12:56:20 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
Yeah but the fundis ain't in Iraq Saddam is a useful guy he had all the fundis in Iraq killed years ago. Saudi Arabia needs to be nuked.
73 posted on 08/15/2002 1:14:48 PM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kdoxxx
< "But calling Iraq a threat to the US is stretching things. They have no missles capable of reaching us and they are a secular (albeit brutal) regime that is easily contained."

Calling Iraq a threat to the U.S. not only is not a "stretch", but rather an understatement. It is diplomatically unpopular to seek a military solution to Iraq, moreover it is fashionable in socialist liberal culture like the EU to placate threats to their soveriegnty do to their military weakness and historic guilt from past colonial policies.

This being said, it is irrelevant that Iraq does not have the capabilities to launch an ICBM at the U.S. Should Saddam's ppl purchase or otherwise come into posession of fissionable nuclear material... such material could be used for a conventional nuclear or 'dirty' bomb; and as consistant w/ his past practice, such weapon would not be delivered via a missle, but rather given to 3rd party Islamic terrorist groups to be imported into America. Even the apologists to Arab-backed terror in the state department have confirmed the very real risk of this senario.

74 posted on 08/15/2002 1:25:18 PM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1bigdictator
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.

Is this on the ballot this year?

75 posted on 08/15/2002 1:28:53 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: kdoxxx
< "I'll admit that it's somewhat disconcerting to see so many of them posting on this site, but hey, what sort of people would have nothing better to do with their lives than to spend it 24/7 posting on a computer bullitin board?"

Mr. Pot, err... kdoxxx, you callin' us kettles black? The scorecard shows kdoxxx leading the way in responses to this post... seems like your spending an awful amount of time on this "bullitin board". The personal attacks on the posters here does not help your credibility... it weakens your position.

77 posted on 08/15/2002 1:38:51 PM PDT by 1bigdictator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: kdoxxx
So you think that we should be the world's policeman?

By default, we have to be the World's policeman. We did not want it, but we are the only major power standing after both world wars, and the cold war. So the whole world looks up to us, and we have to stay involved, or else $hit will happen as it did on 9/11.

It's nice to be isolated, but this is the global age that we live in, everyone wants to take out America, period. We must kill those scum who dare to mess with Uncle Sam.

I'll tell you how weak the world is compared to U.S., Israel has the world's second best air force, only because of American technology and wealth. That's pathetic that the rest of the world can't even compete with us. Heck, Israel own the Arab World if they really want to.

78 posted on 08/15/2002 1:49:33 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kdoxxx
So you think that we should be the world's policeman?

By default, we have to be the World's policeman. We did not want it, but we are the only major power standing after both world wars, and the cold war. So the whole world looks up to us, and we have to stay involved, or else $hit will happen as it did on 9/11.

It's nice to be isolated, but this is the global age that we live in, everyone wants to take out America, period. We must kill those scum who dare to mess with Uncle Sam.

I'll tell you how weak the world is compared to U.S., Israel has the world's second best air force, only because of American technology and wealth. That's pathetic that the rest of the world can't even compete with us. Heck, Israel own the Arab World if they really want to.

79 posted on 08/15/2002 1:49:33 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
Sorry about double post.

Happens every once a while, no biggie.

80 posted on 08/15/2002 1:50:08 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-143 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson