What would happen? Israel would send us a very, very nasty letter.
Seriously, though, I don’t think Iran would nuke Israel. The purpose of having nukes is to prevent others from attacking you, not to use the nukes as a way of getting pay back. It raises your prestige in the world, even if much of the world is pissed off.
Tested the day I turned 1.
Not exactly proof. It’s another piece of publicly known information that shows the possibility that Israel has nuclear weapons without being conclusive. The volume of such evidence and the motivation for the US and other countries to keep certain information secret causes people to assume it is true.
And we do know they’ve had the resources to produce nuclear weapons for a long time, so if they don’t have any, all their efforts have been kind of a waste.
In addition to the Vela detonation in 1979 that Finn noted, the wiki site also has
Footnote 42 is from Time magazine, which I personally don’t consider to be the most credible source, but notes 2 and 57 are from FAS and the USAF Counterproliferation Center which I have a great deal more faith in than Time. While a live test is certainly an important milestone, strictly speaking it isn’t needed. Assuming the 1979 detonation was the first live test, estimates over the years have been around from before than, again from wiki:
[ul]
[li]1967 (Six Day War)- 2 bombs;[77] 13 bombs[78][/li][li] 1969– 5–6 bombs of 19 kilotons yield each[79][/li][li] 1973 (Yom Kippur War)- 13 bombs;[42] 20 nuclear missiles plus developed a suitcase bomb[80][/li][li] 1974– 3 capable artillery battalions each with 12 175 mm tubes and a total of 108 warheads;[81] 10 bombs[82][/li][li] 1976– 10–20 nuclear weapons[83][/li][li] 1980– 100–200 bombs[84][85][/li][li] 1984– 12–31 atomic bombs;[86] 31 plutonium bombs and 10 uranium bombs[87][/li][li] 1985– at least 100 nuclear bombs[88][/li][li] 1986– 100 to 200 fission bombs and a number of fusion bombs[89][/li][li] 1991– 50–60 to 200–300[90][/li][li] 1992– more than 200 bombs[91][/li][li] 1994– 64–112 bombs (5 kg/warhead);[92] 50 nuclear tipped Jericho missiles, 200 total[93][/li][li] 1995– 66–116 bombs (at 5 kg/warhead);[92] 70–80 bombs;[94] “A complete Repertoire” (neutron bombs, nuclear mines, suitcase bombs, submarine-borne)[95][/li][li] 1996– 60–80 plutonium weapons, maybe more than 100 assembled, ER variants, varitable yields[96][/li][li] 1997– More than 400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons [53][/li][li] 2002– Between 75 and 200 weapons[97][/li][li] 2004– 82[98][/li][li] 2006– Federation of American Scientists believes that Israel “could have produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons”.[99][/li][li] 2008– 150 or more nuclear weapons.[100][/li][li] 2008– 80 intact warheads, of which 50 are re-entry vehicles for delivery by ballistic missiles and the rest bombs for delivery by aircraft. Total military plutonium stockpile 340–560 kg.[101][/li][li] 2009– Estimates of weapon numbers differ sharply with plausible estimates varying from 60 to 400.[102][/li][li] 2010– According to Jane’s Defense Weekly Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads, most of them are probably being kept in unassembled mode but can become fully functional “in a matter of days”.[103][/li][li] 2010– “[M]ore than 100 weapons, mainly two-stage thermonuclear devices, capable of being delivered by missile, fighter-bomber, or submarine”[11][/li][/ul]
Do a search on “Mordechai Vanunu” (a former Israeli nuclear weapon materials technician who was abducted by the Mossad and convicvted of espionage to the tune of 18 years in prison of releasing details of the Iseali nuclear weapon progrAm to British news sources) and certification of the details of his testimony. Israel doesn’t officially acknowledge having nuclear weapons because it would upset the local Arab and Persian neighbors, but it is clear that they not only possess an arsenal with quantities of several hundred, but that they also jave boosted fission on quite likely compact multistage fusion weapons, or at least the capability to fabricate such weapons.
Stranger
I doubt it. That is not what states use nuclear weapons for. Pakistan and Pakistan were bitter enemies when India nuclearized and there was no nuclear holocaust, it simply propelled Pakistan to become nuclear. The same will happen here. Once Iran tests a nuke, Israel will follow suit, and then every other middle east nation will pusue nukes and it will raidate out from there.
Yeah I sincerely believe that Iran would not fire a nuke at Israel as soon as they got them. If they wanted to kamikaze their nation to destroy Israel, they could do that without nukes.
Doesn’t matter. Religious or not, North Korea is run by fanatics as well. North Korea hates Japan with the heat of a million suns and they have not nuked Japan.
Might makes right in these cases.
And how was Europe and Asia doing during this same time period?
Which is why we are ignoring the cries to suppress democracy in the arab spring where democracy seems to be turning to Islamic Brotherhood types.
Korea was reputed top be near a nuclear weapon when the South Korean President was assassinated by the head of the Korean CIA and the successor to power was recognized by the USA on the condition that Korea abandon its nuclear project. The conspiracy theory is that the assassin was acting on the orders of the US CIA to prevent nuclearization in the area.
I doubt you are correct.
I was talking about Iran (although when you think of it, the leadership of North Korea has been pretty efficient at staying in power and getting what it wanted in the face of universal disaproving. They even managed to sink ships/bombard islands without any retaliation. So maybe they have an excellent grasp of reality, after all.)
Anyway, trying to build nuclear weapons seems a very sensible move for Iran. They’re sanctionned, might be embargoed, but…they’re still building them and once they’ll get them, their position will be vastly improved. I can’t see how that could count as being out of touch with reality.
As for closing the straights, they didn’t actually try to do it, did they? Random threats don’t cost much.
There is a non-insignificant difference between funding a terrorist group and nuking a country.
That’s just *the opposite *of “stable”. :dubious:
Well, they do cause others to think you’re a bit of a mad dog. Which is counter-productive when you’re trying to make people tacitly approve of you getting yourself a bigger gun next.
Other than that, I agree with you. Getting their nuke on is a sensible move for Iran, particularly considering the hostile rhetoric levied against them these days (notably by the US, the country that incidentally just got caught spying on them).
As for the “they’re gonna nuke Israel !!1!!” crowd: Israel is seriously tiny. If Iran wanted to rain firey death upon its entire surface (then immediately get knocked out by the US/UN) it could have done so twice over already, using conventional assets. Using nukes aggressively, especially in that specific case, would only make even more nations join the subsequent dogpile. The same is more or less true of every last one of Israel’s antagonistic neighbours, BTW. It’s not the genocide of Israel that’s their problem. It’s getting away with it. No matter what they say, few people *really *want to be martyrs for god, especially people with temporal power over a whole country. Funny how that works.
Depends. I mean, America got burned before on the WMD stuff, maybe this time they really wanna be sure.
US: Here. Gift for y’all.
Iran: What ?.. I don’t really want those. Really, I’m good. But thanks.
US: Pick up the nukes.
Iran: But mister, Israel is going to get all riled up and…
US: Pick up the nukes.
Iran: Please, America, I don’t want any problems…
US: Pick. Up. The. Nukes.
Iran: … all right, all right, fine. deep breath OK, I picked them up, now wh
ZeeeeeeonBOOOOOOM
US: You all saw him. He had nukes. Had to protect meself.
I’m reasonably certain that they’ve just now gained that capacity. And while Israel is about the size of Rhode Island, taking out the whole country would require quite a lot of ordinance, something that Iran may or may not actually have to spend. There’s also the fact that Israel is hardened territory when it comes to rocket/missile attacks, and it’d generally take WMD’s to do the kind of damage you’re talking about.
They could simply launch a massive air raid across Iraqi airspace. Not like there’s much of an Iraqi Air Force left to slow them down.
Sure, the planes would in all likelihood not make it back. But then again the country wouldn’t be there any more for them to come back to, so that’s OK 
Yeah, I forgot that “conventional assets” doesn’t include gas and similar. So make that “using WMDs they already own”.
Still, the point stands: if Iran had a hard on for obliterating Israel, it could, or at least cause a horrific bloodbath. But it doesn’t. Why would nukes change that ?
Well, sure. But the point was counter to what you were saying about “what would be the point in Iran nuking Israel?” if Iran had nuclear weapons. The Iranian leadership has made no secret of its hatred for “The Zionists” (despite the argument over the whole “Did he or didn’t he say ‘wipe the Zionists off the face of the Earth’?” or whatever that nonsense was.
If Iran, with Hizbullah being one of its proxies (along with Syria) would stop fucking with Israel, things in that region would be a lot calmer. So in other words, I asked “why do they sponsor terrorist groups that attack Israel and kidnap their soldiers?”
The answer is because they hate them. The question is now “do they hate them enough to nuke them if they had nukes”.
This is all hypothetical obviously. I do not endorse any nuclear activity on either side and have pretty mixed views about Israel.
Would the Iranian planes even make it there? Israel, AFAICT not only has a super well-trained and equipped air force (USA warplanes) that kicks ass, but also highly advanced anti-aircraft systems in place on the ground along with early warning systems. So the answer to the other question of “would nukes change that” I’d answer yes in a hypothetical sense…the surety of utterly destroying Israel is orders of magnitude higher with nuclear weapons and…its easier.
Of course, there’d be a huge price to pay in either scenario really, and not just from Israel.
Quantity has a quality all its own. Even the most advanced hooah warfighter can only shoot as many missiles as it’s got on board at the time, and many of those are going to miss. The entirety of the IAF isn’t armed, fueled and ready to launch all of the time, either.
If Iran Zerg rushed with everyone in coordination out of the blue, and the Mossad didn’t give an early warning days in advance, I doubt Israel could get ready to shoot enough planes down fast enough to prevent at least *some *ground pounder from reaching their destination. And if they carry WMDs a couple would be quite enough.
I seriously over-estimated Israel’s size. :smack: Iran could’ve taken them out with ICBMs already.
Iran does not have Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles.
Unless I’m misremembering, they just obtained missiles which can strike Israel. And I just cited that, too. I also mentioned the fact that simple conventional attacks would do damage, but most likely not enough to eliminate Israel since Israeli housing is specifically hardened against just such attacks.
Sorry! :smack: I just used the acronym as a catch-all for non-nuclear missiles.