I genuinely appreciate the detailed answer. I’ve read a few conflicting reports on the combat radius of the F-4E. According to Wikipedia, it is just 422 miles. I don’t know what the reality is.
Here’s an interesting article from last year about Iran’s military capabilities:
The summary: Iran’s conventional military effectiveness has been exaggerated (by both Iran and its enemies), and it is hamstrung by aging equipment inventories; it is defense-in-depth oriented. It is vastly outspent by gulf Arab states. However, military spending does not necessarily translate into military effectiveness. Iran’s weakness in conventional forces does not mean it isn’t a threat, as it maintains the ability to support Sh’ia guerilla forces in various places throughout the ME.
Like China, Iran is also hamstrung wrt it’s military by corruption. It also has a very small (comparatively speaking) military budget. On the plus side they actually have an military/industrial complex, so they don’t have to buy all their weapons from someone else (this is kind of from necessity). They also seem to have the ability to improvise, which is a plus. They have a very large (numerically) military, sort of like North Korea, and like North Korea their military is generally poorly trained and lead with aging crap for the most part for equipment. They have almost no actual combat experience or even large scale deployment experience (again, like China).
Nuclear weapons would be a game changer for them, immediately catapulting them to regional dominant power status, but they want those nukes for reasons other than to fend off the supposed threat of imminent Israeli (or US) attack.
Are we assuming that these countries are rational and just pretending to be crazy, or the other way around? Because I’ve noticed the narrative changes based on the person’s self-interest.
Yes, I did ignore that, because Israel doesn’t need nukes to maintain MAD. No Middle East country could nuke Israel without provoking a full response from the US and the UN. I believe it would be suicide for any of them to use nukes on Israel. North Korea is run by a literal crazy person and even he nor his dad have not used nuked on South Korea. So if that outcome comes about, nothing will happen to Israel, it will remain as it ever was. The nukes are there to satisfy its own sense of paranoia
Well I would love that. Nothing stops them from doing so. That it hasn’t happened means its not a realistic goal of a debate or on-topic. If we allowed that scenario, then every single debate on Israel would end with “…and then all the Middle East countries fully recognize Israel and disarm and they all hold hands and sing.”
For the same reason why any country doesn’t want others to have nukes. Its a dangerous, terrible weapon that harms not only the target, but the earth itself. Its effects randomly blow with the wind, and it contaminates the water and ground it touches. But I suspect you mean to say that they don’t want Israel to have nukes because they want to invade them. Which may be true, but still doesn’t mean that Israel is vulnerable as they’ve shown themselves capable of beating back a combined Arabic alliance. So Israel has little to worry about in that respect
And Israel hasn’t been exactly innocent even without using its arsenal of nukes. Its attacked other countries pre-emptively in the guise of self-preservation. If nukes prevent retaliation, then that is something that other countries rightly should be worried about. Just because Israel hasn’t nuked anyone doesn’t mean they aren’t a bigger threat with them
No you seem to take it personally because you’re pretty quick to name-call and insult. Which is fine if that’s your style, but I just wanted to point it out that it seems to be personal with you. Have about you simply ask for a cite like “I would like to see a cite for that” instead of “Horseshit. What do you base this fantasy on?”
You want me to offer cites that neighboring countries don’t like Israel having nukes? No country wants another one to have nukes! But of course your pre-emptive attack was only meant to lead to the following:
Why not skip the song and dance next time? Just say “Hey Yog, other surrounding countries don’t want Israel to have nukes so they can attack them”. Then we can at least move on from the pretend-drama. And by the way, I’ve already answered that.
The basis of that is no country wants another country to have nukes. Even your friends. Even your allies. Really, this needs a cite? Have you ever heard of a country who wants another to have nukes?
I have. The United States. The US supports the UK having their own nuclear deterrent, has aided the UK with material support, and is worried that things like Brexit and Scottish Independence will cause the UK to abandon their nukes.
I’m not making assumptions about what motivates these countries. I just pointed out a fact: Israel has possessed a regional nuclear monopoly for decades but hasn’t made a nuclear attack.
I assume this is your subtle way of hinting I’m Jewish. Let me be unsubtle. I’m not Jewish. I’m not an Israeli. I’ve never been to Israel and have no connection with Judaism or Israel.
Fully justified paranoia. Israel really is surrounded by countries which historically have been and currently still are openly opposed to its existence. It would be irrational for Israel not to be paranoid.
You find the idea of mutual diplomatic recognition and trade to be unrealistic. But you’re suggesting unilateral disarmament.
Only if they’re used which, as I’ve pointed out, they haven’t been.
Nice that you were able to pick up on what I meant to say from the way I explicitly said it.
XT, I believe the rest of them are yours.
Errrr, sorry? The McMahon Actmust have been something I imagined.
The US only agreed to assist French and UK nuclear programmes after they already were nuclear powers.
Ok, but you took all the good ones…mine all seem to be about perceived thin skin and name calling. 
If you think I called you names or insulted you then you should flag a mod…they have never been shy about smacking me down when I get rambunctious.
Because I’m cantankerous and old, and when someone goes over the top like you did that’s my standard response. You never did answer the question, or give me a cite, so I’ll ask nicely since it seems to have struck a nerve with you…do you have a cite or can you give me your thoughts on what you base that assertion on? Please?
You made a very specific claim…do you or do you not have a cite to back it up? If it’s just your impression on what you feel those other countries are thinking then that’s fine…I disagree that it’s a primary motivation and we can move on.
It’s funny, but you are the one dancing here. And it’s pretty obvious. I asked you for a cite, and you haven’t produced one, and instead of brought all this drama in. I don’t know nor am I going to speculate whether your drama is pretend or not, but it’s pretty clear who is bringing it.
You didn’t answer the question, btw. Nor provide a cite. That’s fine, and next time? Just say ‘Hey, XT, I don’t have a cite for that but it’s what I feel to be the case’. That way we can just move on.
Again, you made a specific claim. I have no doubt that countries don’t like presumed enemies to have stuff they don’t want them to have. But as a primary motivation, which was your claim, for trying to acquire nukes I would like to see a cite that this is so. If it’s such a no brainer then you should have no trouble getting a cite for it. As I suspect you have Googled it and found that, while they might mouth stuff about evil Israel having nukes, getting them for themselves isn’t primarily motivated by Israel having them and having to defend themselves from Israel having them. Which, of course, Israel itself hasn’t even officially acknowledged AFAIK and it’s still a question as to whether they have them, and how many they have, and how actionable they are wrt usage.
They are two unrelated figures; ‘range’ is the maximum straight line distance of flight of an aircraft flying completely clean, meaning carrying nothing but fuel and traveling at optimal cruising speed and altitude. I suspect the fighter-planes.com figure is rather optimistic as well, wiki gives a figure of 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks as ferry range of the F-4E which is more in line with other sources - 1,885 miles (3,034 km), 1,637nmi, 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks, 1,978 miles (3184km). ‘Combat radius’ which is what wiki lists as 422 miles is the range of the aircraft armed, flying at sub-optimal cruising speeds and altitude and having the fuel to return home along with a fuel reserve of ~10%. The combat radius can also vary dramatically depending on the type of combat mission - an F-4E loaded with as many 2,000lb bombs as it can carry is going to have a much shorter combat radius than the same F-4E carrying only air-to-air missiles on an escort mission or an F-4E carrying a mix of external fuel tanks and 1,000lb bombs on a long range interdiction mission.
First you’d have to have an Israeli politician officially acknowledge that Israel has nuclear weapons, which it won’t do. Israel has a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its possession of nuclear weapons.
Do you have a cite for not only the support, which I can totally understand, but that the US wants the UK to have its own nuclear weapons as opposed to nobody else having them? Because you can say it in a lot of ways to make countries support their allies having a nuke with the stipulation that its the least bad of all possibilities, but I’ve yet to hear a country actively support the development of nukes simply because we like them.
Then you shouldn’t have taken an entire post to get there. Just say that nothing will convince you, other countries want to invade Israel, therefore they need nukes, the end.
They have made conventional attacks, backed up by nukes, which makes them unassailable in terms of outright invasion.
No, you misunderstood. It has nothing to do with someone’s ethnicity. My point was that during these kinds of debates, when someone feels it would support their argument by saying these other countries are crazy, then that’s where the direction of the debate will go. Other times, people will say they are rational, calculating, and not prone to random bouts of insanity.
Let me put it this way. Do you think the leadership of countries like of Iran or Syria are rational, or crazy? Because even if Israel doesn’t have nukes, as long as the US has them, as long as many of the western nations in the UN have them, it would be absolutely insane for Iran or Syria to use nukes against anyone, let alone Israel. If I could give nukes to Iran and Syria right now, and take them away from Israel, I would bet you 1000% that neither of those countries will nuke Israel. Absolute, ironclad, no-mistake-about-it certainty. Because the result of even one missile loaded with uranium headed towards Israel means total annihilation by the US. That is why Israel having nukes is pointless for its self-defense. Its not necessary. Even if they were surrounded by nuclear nations, I would still have supreme confidence that they will not be nuked. Iran and Syria don’t want to be turned to glass. They are not crazy. They will also not give a nuke to uncontrollable 3rd parties (re: terrorist groups) because it WILL be traced back to them and they WILL suffer the consequences.
One can be paranoia and still realize having nukes is a bad idea
No, I’m just bored of an outcome anyone can see from a mile away. But sure, to placate you, we can have our own side debate. In this debate, I say the solution to Israel’s fear of its neighbors are that the other nations should fully recognize Israel. Then unilaterally disarm themselves and give their weapons to Israel so that Israel need not be paranoid about being attacked anymore. They should declare the Jewish god equal to Allah, and allocate 51% of their governmental seats to Jewish politicians. Furthermore, each country will pay a tribute to Israel and voluntarily reduce its oil output so that it is not flush with excess cash to spend on weapons. And they should all declare all of Israel, Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Sinai property of Israel and return any land they hold in dispute to Israel just in case. Do you disagree with my master plan of peace?
I’m not the type to call for a mod every time I get insulted. I prefer to insult you back and then have a mod smack us both down. I pointed it out not because I was upset, but because you expend unusual amounts of passion towards my for reasons that I’m unclear of.
There was nothing over the top about it
I didn’t give you a cite but I explained why. However, maybe you can prove it for me. I say other countries around Israel doesn’t want it to have a nuke. I’ll settle for a cite where other ME countries say they like Israel having nukes. Anything?
I don’t think I need to cite something that obvious. Maybe you can prove me wrong by finding a cite saying Israel’s neighbors like them having a nuke
So you can’t answer the question then? You can’t simply say you think other countries want to invade Israel? I’ve explained my cite, if its so clear, maybe you can easily find out to disprove me. I’ll be waiting.
Yeah no, it wasn’t a “primary” claim. I said it was obvious. And it is. I think you dragged this whole post out about cites because you have nothing of substance to add.
If I thought you would apologize and recognize your mistake, I might bother. But I don’t and I enjoy arguing.
Again I invite you to read post #32 and #34 and quote the exact language in which you claim I said that Israel’s neighbors primarily want Israel to disarm their nukes due to fears about their own safety. I said it was obvious. “Obvious”. Like how you didn’t understand my argument, its that obvious
And here you are caught changing the argument. I never said that those were the primary motivation for other countries to develop nukes.
Post #30:
If I had bloviated about like you and made wild declarations like “Iran or Iraq or Syria is only or primarily motivated by Israel’s nukes to develop their own!” then you’d have a case. But I didn’t say that. So you took something I mentioned offhand as one motivation and somehow twisted it into the primary motivation. Somebody got a C+ in reading comprehension, I bet 
Which of course, is off-topic and a pointless thing to say
So, no cite and you want me to provide citations for a strawman? To be clear, I doubt all of Israel’s neighbors are fine with them supposedly having nukes. That’s very different than them being threatened to the point that they are pursuing nukes specifically to counter the perceived Israeli threat, which is what you implied and what I actually asked you to cite. Multiple times.
Again, you are speaking to the strawman, which is obvious, and not to what I’m asking you, which isn’t. Them not liking Israel (or anyone else having them) isn’t the point. But if you don’t want to provide a cite, then don’t. I’m certainly not going to provide one for a point I’m not making and that is basically a strawman argument you are batting at.
Again with the strawmen. I can think of many reasons other countries would want to or wanted to in the past invade Israel. I can’t think of any good reason any of their neighbors are afraid Israel will use their presumed nukes on them arbitrarily or in a first strike scenario, nor any reason they would think that Israel would, unprovoked invade THEM. One of the reasons for your strawman ‘but they don’t like it that Israel has nukes’ thingy is that it’s a deterrent for them to invade Israel…not that the IDF isn’t deterrent enough, but it’s just one more thing.
(Note, I don’t think most of Israel’s neighbors is all that keen to invade Israel these days…which means they are probably less worried about Israeli nukes than, oh, say Iran having nukes)
I’m not going to do your donkey work…and not going to provide cites for a strawman argument. If you don’t want to back up your argument then that’s fine by me.
Well, let’s see what your original argument was that I was responding too:
See, this isn’t ‘doesn’t like Israel having nukes’…you are talking about them thinking it’s an ‘existential threat because they have nukes’ and ‘then it makes sense that they will go for nukes’. THAT is what I have repeatedly asked you to give citations for. And in your next post you spun the above to be ‘No because its pretty obvious Israel’s neighbors don’t like Israel having nukes’. You built a strawman argument you could easily dismiss instead of responding to what I was asking and what you claimed. And then you I suppose you figured no one would bother scrolling up to see whether ‘And here you are caught changing the argument. I never said that those were the primary motivation for other countries to develop nukes’ was true. Yet that’s pretty much what you said, though your wording was a bit different.