In the last Gulf War when Saddam attacked Israel with Scud missiles, Powell and Bush Uno wisely told Israel not to rise to Saddam’s bait, which thankfully, they did not. The US was able to fight a war without losing their Arab allies and appearing to free the Kuwaitis from Saddam’s evil occupation.
Now, the Israelis have elected a leader as equally genocidal and egomanical as Saddam himself. Powell is a persona non grata in Bush Dos’ administration. Our Arab allies are not on our side. If Iraq attacks Israel with another Scud missle and Israel (out of self-defense and lack of restraint by the US) decides to drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq, thus turning a war that’s supposed to bring democracy to the Arab world into a war between us and the Arab world (so much for democracy).
Has this scenario occurred to anyone in Bush Dos’ administration?
Why isn’t anyone else worried about the possibility of a worldwide nuclear holocaust if we going into war with Iraq this time around? This is really beginning to keep my husband and I up at night!!! HELP!!!
Other people probably are worried, I for one am worried that if/when the US goes for SH, in a last desperate attempt to get Israel he will launch chem/bio weapons on his Scuds. I think this is a real concern. But, “Worldwide nuclear holocaust”? I think not. The only powers capable of launching such a thing would be the US and Russia, I don’t see them going at it over Iraq.
Oh, and welcome to SDMB, and I am sure this is off to GD!
So far, this is fairly accurate. Israel is something of a wildcard in the Middle East, and a large-scale Israeli mobilization is provocative in itself. But then you start wandering into uncharted waters:
Sharon is as genocidal as Saddam? Funny, I must have missed those news reports about Palestinian cities being attacked with poison gas. As for egomaniacal, every piece of footage of any Iraqi city shows dozens (if not hundreds) of public portraits and statues of Saddam. As far as I know, Sharon’s mug is on a handful of official portraits in government offices, much like the U.S President’s is.
Powell is persona non grata? When did that happen? There will always be times when a President will choose the advice of one official over another (Newsweek ran an interesting article last week about the “Hawks” and “Doves” in Bush’s inner circle) but if Powell was really on the outs, Bush would have asked for his resignation by now.
As for Arab allies not being on the side of the U.S, I have to agree that as allies go, they’re a fairly unreliable lot.
If the deployment of a few Scuds on Israel during the gulf War didn’t get the Israelis all panicked, why woujld it happen again? Israel has had nukes for some decades now, and I find it incredibly unlikely that a conventional attack of any but the most massive kind (i.e. a full-scale invasion) would make them push the button. Unless those Scuds are equipped with poison gas warheads (a possibility) or a primitive nuclear warhead (preventing this is one of the reasons for the U.S action), why would Israel go nuclear?
Smarter people than you or I have thought about this at length, and if anything the choice may be to deal with it now or deal with it later, and dealing with it later gives Saddam more time to build up his arsenal.
Meantime, you can stock up on canned food, or just use the leftovers from your Y2K supply.
I would say that Israel would only nuke Iraq if they were attacked with NBC weapons - if they were attacked I would expect them to do whatever is needed to protect their state from further attack (even if it means nuking every sq mi of their country). This is also a point that I think it is very important to make very clear to SH. Israels policy has always been hit harder back then it was hit (somewhat restrained by US policy) and it is a key component to their survival and what has kept them alive all this time.
Does Israel have nuclear arms capable of reaching Iraq? I thought their weaponry was more on the scale of “Let’s drop this on the approaching army.”
Assuming they do, I would be worried about Israel’s arab neighbors screaming, “OH MY GOD they just nuked four million innocent arabs! Ethnic cleansing! Get 'em boys!” Thus touching off a pile-on of everybody vs Israel. Of course, by default, it would probably become everybody vs Israel and the US. It wouldn’t necessarily go nuclear after Israel’s initial strike, but it wouldn’t be fun for anyone.
OK, that’s enough doomsday scenarios. I have to go restock my bomb shelter.
Israel, through its Jericho II missles and F-15I fighter-bombers, can hit any North African or Middle Eastern nation it needs to. Also, they may developed a nuclear variant of the Harpoon II, which is launched from their submarines.
Heck, they raided Tunisia back in the 80’s with F-15C’s. Fairly simple matter to just replace the iron bombs with nukes, and have at.
The Federation of American Scientists has a good write-up on the nuclear capabilities of Israel. Some estimates put her arsenal at 200-300 devices. More then plenty should the need arise.
The General Questions forum is for questions with factual answers. There doesn’t seem to be such a question. Since I don’t know what you’re after, I’ll close this thread rather than move it. If you want to rant about the short-sightedness of the administration, you can repost in the BBQ Pit. If you want a reasoned debate, try Great Debates. If you want to know what other members think, try IMHO.
