It’s been a while since I read about Stuxnet, but IIRC, the enrichment equipment was supposed to have been on an airgapped network. So the speculation has been that the malware was delivered by USB stick or some other kind of removable media, possibly with the assistance* of an insider. But I haven’t kept up with the story for a while, so I’m not sure if that’s still the prevailing theory.
*meaning that someone could have been tricked as you suggest; coerced (“so, Engineer So-and-so, we have learned that you’re having an affair. Just do this one thing for us…”); or perhaps a willing mole.
One of the users at my place of employment carries a zip lock bag of a dozen flash drives with her so that she may more easily spread viruses like Johnny Appleseed.
I am saying that Israel is too small to absorb a “hit” from a nuke, and then bounce back as a nation.
If the US was hit with a nuke, terrible, terrible loss of life, and property, would result. But there would be a functional America the next day.
Not so, Israel.
They got to block the nuke every time, or die as a nation with the first successful strike.
I’ve been reading 1948, and the sheer irrationality of the initial invasion of Israel sticks with me.
To survive, Israel must take different views on defense.
There are no anti-missile satellites. The U.S. doesn’t have them, and neither does anyone else. The technology does not exist at this time.
I actually do think Israel has enough redundancy to take one major hit. If Tel Aviv goes, there’s enough structure left in Jerusalem to maintain the country as a working nation. If Jerusalem gets hit, Tel Aviv can carry the ball.
I don’t know if that could be made to work fast enough, though. You’d have to computerize the whole arrangement, without any human intervention in the process.
Also, counter-missiles aren’t that good yet. Iron Dome and others are nice, and the Patriot system had its day in the sun, but even against cheap-ass SCUDs, a good many will get through.
(Of course, accidentally launching a bunch of counter-missiles is certainly a lot less doomful than accidentally launching a major retaliatory counter-strike.)
to be frank, IDK why they haven’t. It would be one thing if Israel went alone, but if Israel and Saudi Arabia (obvious covertly) did it together, is the WH gonna stop it or ditch either?
Ah, I see, I did mis-intepret your original comments. My apologies, albeit i stand by my (not your) conclusions in my previous post.
I have visited Israel, and while it is a small country, I think one nuke would not be the end of the nation-State; especially as W. Europe/USA would forget about any prior political issues and rush to its support, IMHO.
Multiple hits…true.
Again, the question is not if the Muslim world will get the bomb (Pakistan has had it for awhile), but is the policy of Israel trying to ‘take out’ potential bomb-making sites (or countries) more or less dangerous to the polity? It is a debate, for sure, and one that depends on so many variables that it is hard to preduict.
Since Isreal could turn Iran into a radioactive parking lot, of course they have the power to destory Iran’s nuclear program right along with everything else.
I skimmed over that bit initially, but now I’m curious. OP, why do you think Saudi Arabia allowing or disallowing an Israeli nuclear strike is a consideration? I’m sure no one would “allow” it. Not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, USA, the UN, etc, but none of that matters. I don’t think any of those groups have the capability to stop the IDF from doing it if they wanted. I also don’t know how many of them would risk a military retaliation against Israel, so I’m not sure it would “set off a huge war”.
Looking at the map, Israel has limited options to get an airstrike to Iran. It looks as if any other route than over SA would require permission my multiple other countries.
Going through Jordan would also mean going through Syria or SA AND Iraq. Syria’s not going to grant anything. Going through Lebanon means going through the same countries, or flying more north and going through Turkey. Going down the Red Sea and around the Saudi peninsula probably requires both Egypt and SA to allow it, and I don’t know if the IAF have sufficient tanker assests to get a whole strike force all that extra distance.
Israel got to IRaq just fine and Iraq has no meaningful air defenses anymore. PLus they are kinda busy and the same military that won’t fight ISIS isn’t going to stand up to Israel.
THe question isn’t whether they can get to Iran. It’s whether they can do it more than once. Destroying Iran’s capabilities requires a sustained campaign.
Iraq was one single strike. amd IIRC the IAF was near their range limit at the time. Of course, that was 30 years ago and I presume they have more capability now, but the Iranian bases will be hundreds of miles farther.
Also, going through Iraq means passing though US controlled airspace as well. I don’t think the US would fire on them, but if they’re doing this while the treaty is still being debated, the IAF won’t get permission. It may also not be possible without US tanker support, which they also won’t get, at least for now.
Syria’s not a problem. The Israelis routinely overflew Syria and sometimes struck targets in Syria, and some of that was even before ISIS took over most of the country. Hell, the last time they stopped a country from acquiring nuclear weapons through air strikes was in Syria in 2007.
Turkey is probably a no-go zone, and the political cost for crossing Iraq against US wishes is probably too high, even if we stood down militarily and let it happen.
If Israel ever strikes Iran, it will be with through/over Saudi Arabia. Saudis will protest afterwards, of course, with a strongly written letter. I am sure the letter will be written in advance of the strike.
