Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran - thinktank

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE62O2HI.htm ^

Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott

Israel could use tactical nukes on Iran-thinktank 26 Mar 2010 11:03:37 GMT Source: Reuters

By Dan Williams

JERUSALEM, March 26 (Reuters) - Deeply concerned as it is by the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran, Israel has never even hinted at using atomic weapons to forestall the perceived threat.

But now a respected Washington think tank has said that low-radioactive yield "tactical" nuclear warheads would be one way for the Israelis to destroy Iranian uranium enrichment plants in remote, dug-in fortifications.

Despite the 65-year-old taboo against carrying out -- or, for that matter, mooting -- nuclear strikes, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) says in a new report that "some believe that nuclear weapons are the only weapons that can destroy targets deep underground or in tunnels".

But other independent experts are on record warning that such a scenario is based on the "myth" of a clean atomic attack and would be too politically hazardous to justify.

In their study titled "Options in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Program", CSIS analysts Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman envisage the possibility of Israel "using these warheads as a substitute for conventional weapons" given the difficulty its jets would face in reaching Iran for anything more than a one-off sortie.

(Excerpt) Read more at alertnet.org ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: nucleariran

Click for TeaPartyExpress.org!

Click for Free Republic threads on the Tea Party Express!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-76 next last
What was once considered "tinfoil" is now making headlines on Reuters. CSIS is a fairly reputable strategic studies think tank and Cordesman is a fairly reputable analyst . . . interesting times
1 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:53:36 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

Not surprised...

2 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:55:12 PM by Lurking in Kansas (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.

3 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:56:44 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

If nothing else, this is a reminder to all parties concerned (especially the US) that Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.

It isn’t some backwater nuke wannebe with 1st generation, dirty, gravity dropped nukes.

And, if anyone in the world would have a need for real suitcase nukes, Israel would be that anyone.

4 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

It is certainly a less risky military approach.

Deep penetrating nukes would work fine, and are well-deserved.

Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.

5 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:20 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

Not good news for the folks working in these underground facilities. I say go for it.

6 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:43 PM by umgud (I couldn't understand why the ball kept getting bigger......... then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

When it comes to self preservation, I would guess nothing is off the table.

7 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:57:45 PM by Jagdgewehr (We revolted against a king in England for much less)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
PWposter.PoPE.nonukesiran.lg.C.jpg
8 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:58:03 PM by davidlachnicht ("IF WE ARE ALL TO BE TARGETS, THEN WE ALL MUST BE SOLDIERS.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan

History has shown that going to war against Israel is a losing proposition.

9 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:31 PM by Personal Responsibility (Demcare checks in at 2700 pages: The longest suicide note in history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
With a "dial-a-yield", hardened, warhead on a Jericho III, the IDF can drop a 1-10kt nuke into a venilation shaft and go deep enough to avert anything like a mushroom cloud.

It will be like the finger of God streaking from the heavens touching the desert, a dull "whoomp", and a little dust out off the exits if deep enough.

In the words of "the one", I say..."GO FOR IT!". When the world condemns Israel, Bibi can simply say, "I travelled to the US to get its help in a conventional strike. When Obama put Iran ahead of Israel's existance, we decided that we are on our own and had to use nuclear weapons. Had Obama helped us, we would have not had to resort to low-yield, deep penetrating, special weapons". "You wanted change....you got it America".
10 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 10:59:56 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.

You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?

11 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:23 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan

I am dead serious in saying this: I wish Israel would nuke Tehran & DARE the rest of the Muzzies to do anything about it...& if they try, then nuke THEIR capital cities as well.

12 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:01:41 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: Jagdgewehr

Exactly. Israel will do what it feels it has to in order to survive, and that is exactly why our administration’s treatment of Israel lately is so destabilizing.

13 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:02:57 PM by Wildbill22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan

Iran’s Arabic neighbors wouldn’t be unhappy to see Israel take out the nuclear facilities. I don’t know where the reaction would come from. I do expect that Iran would attack any nearby US assets including naval forces.

Unless Obama gave our military the go-ahead to at least defend themselves, he would be absolute toast. The firestorm that would consume his administration would be unimaginable. Nothing he could say after wards would make a difference.

14 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:52 PM by meatloaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: xzins
Israel is a SOPHISTICATED nuclear weapons nation.

IDF tested a Jericho II last year with a CEP of 25 yards, 2000 miles away into the middle of the Med. Thats close enough for a 1-10kt sub-surface nuke. Hell, the energy flying out of the atmosphere itself will bury the warhead tens of yards underneath the desert.....right where you want it to explode.

If the IDF is worried about a "second strike" from Arabs, they have their (possibly) nuclear armed subs with Penguin cruise missle hybrids ready for an airburst over some key targets...wink wink. Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.
15 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:03:53 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]
To: Lurking in Kansas

May God guide their aim true.

16 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:21 PM by cameraeye (A happy kafar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]
To: Genoa

“You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?”

Quiet blackmail is certain. Open intervention, quite possible.

17 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:04:30 PM by brownsfan (The average American: Uninformed, and unconcerned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
Dont forget. Israel also has neutron bombs, similar to France's old Plutons, and probably sophisticated to have some SADM's available as well.

Oh my..... Please elloborate on the neutron. SADM?
18 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:37 PM by taildragger (Palin/Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

By contemporary standards, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “tactical” nukes. These hints and rumors are all part of the meta-diplomacy. The fact is, Israel is a moral nation and no moral nation will use nukes preemptively. As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike, at which point the Middle East will be changed forever. Their strategy is to make sure everyone knows just how high the price would be for such an attempted first strike.

19 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:06:43 PM by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.

Maybe the US military commanders in Iraq could ignore the order, let the IAF fly over & back home, & say @ a later date that they never got the message?
20 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:07:19 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1

25 yards at 2000 miles. That’s impressive!

21 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:09:24 PM by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

More like: Israel *will* use nukes on Iran, no matter what the jive turkey lying wussie boy Obama and the DemoBackstbbers say/threaten.

22 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

Its the President of the USA’s job to make SURE something like this does not have to happen.

The punk in the oval office is going to get one hell of allot of people killed because of his fanatic hold on his ideological ideas about justice.

All of this will be on HIS hands and will be HIS fault.

23 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:11:36 PM by R0CK3T
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = suitcase nuke (really more like backpack nuke).

Davy Crocket was an exmple of these.



I was a Redleg in the Army and we mocked up with these as late as the 1980s (even though we were told we had no such weapons in our inventory). I really don't see them being all that useful on the ground.

They do create a massive horizontal wave of devastation, though, which, IMHO, would be a really easy way to USA destroy carrier groups from a bit of a distance, especially with a supersonic cruise missle, as the wave would utterly destroy shops in its path.

If China has not developed tactical nukes to blow apart our carrier groups, my name is Barack Hussein Yourmamma.
24 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:15 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

They know, like Britain now knows, like most of the world now knows, as long as Obama and the Democrats are in charge..The U.S.of A, cannot be trusted. In either their promises, or their threats.

25 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:15:55 PM by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR

Maybe.

I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.

26 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:08 PM by TheThirdRuffian (Nothing to see here. Move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]
To: taildragger
SADM = Small Atomic Demolition Munition....misrepresented in the media as a "suitcase/backpack" nuke. W54 warhead, sub-kiloton yield.

Neutron weapons are nuclear weapons specifically designed with enhanced radiations to release more energy via radiation, rather than pure explosive (force) power. They are very small yield, no more than 5kt, that have limited (although powerful compared to conventional explositions) blast/thermo effects, but NOTHING in comparison to the damaging neutron flux.

For example. If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb behind the USSC building in Washington DC, the USSC building would sustain alot of damage, whilst the Capitol would have only broken windows.....but people would drop dead (some after several hours) all the way to the Washington Monument, with 100 percent immediate incapacitation and death within the Capitol complex due to fatal radiation doses.

In essence....it is more effective killing people than damaging buildings.

It was created during the cold war in case NATO had to use nukes in their own countri(es) in order to stop the 50,000 Soviet tanks. Kill the crews...spare the towns.

Hope that helps.
27 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:12 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott
Iranians have already proven they're incapable of self examination - a common flaw in counties that suppress women.

They'll nuke Israel when they can under the excuse that Israel is causing all the problems in the region. The truth is that Muslims are always at war with everyone - war and death are intertwined within the religion.

If Israel ceased to exist Iran would find a new group to hate and destroy - and if that group was destroyed they would find another. And another - and another...
28 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:16:55 PM by GOPJ (http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php?area=dam&lang=eng)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

If they can’t get conventional bunker busters, who knows what they would do?

29 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:31 PM by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: maquiladora; hennie pennie; SunkenCiv; 1COUNTER-MORTER-68

ping

30 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:20:34 PM by jhpigott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian

I know...just wishful thinking on my part.

31 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:23:08 PM by ChrisInAR (Alright, tighten your shorts, Pilgrim, & sing like the Duke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: ChrisInAR
I'm thinking that nuking Tehran is not necessary and would make for a very ugly situation. I would decapitate the mullahs and the other leaders and then nuke the nuke sites.
I'm not a general but I did once own General tires.
32 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:32 PM by Drill Thrawl (Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]
To: Genoa; brownsfan
And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.

You mean open intervention or quiet blackmail?

It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.

The story came out earlier this week that the US has reneged on a deal to sell Israel 367 bunker buster bombs and has diverted them to our Indian Ocean stealth bomber staging base at Diego Garcia. In addition, hundreds more bunker busters are being shipped there from the US West Coast depots.

These bunker busters can just as easily be used to destroy Israel's hardened missile silos and command and control facilities as they could have Iran's. A pre-emptive attack against Israel would be entirely logical based on the demonstrated pattern of behavior of the Obama regime.
33 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:26:43 PM by tarheelswamprat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike,

Most of Israel's (supposed) nukes are at three facilities.....x1 naval base, x1 air base, x1 Jericho missile complex.

They use TEL launchers and mostly liquid fuelled missiles. They do not have hardened (+300psi) silos like we do. They store their IRBMS in horizontal caves which they have to extract the missile, download data (based on current satellite info), and fuel the missile, which takes up to half a day to complete.

Israel cannot and can NEVER be allowed to "absorb" a first strike. Even a crude nuke on a SCUD over their airbase or naval munitions complex at Eliat will negate about 1/3-1/2 of their nuclear weapons....which would be the end of Israel. Israel has proven time and time again, that they will strike first in order to gurantee their survival. Nuclear weapons are simply big explosives with some negative residual effects.

Remember, we exploded damn near 1000 nukes in, under, and above the United States, and the two (2) cities that have acutally been "nuked" are thriving metropolises today....in fact, I've know people in my local Koi club that buy Nagasaki raised Koi with pre-1945 lineages.....and guess what....they aren't mutants!
34 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:27:10 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
As sad as may be, Israel is prepared to endure a first strike....

I don't think so. Israel is such a small nation it effectively IS a "one nuke" KZ. It would only take one nuclear weapon to effectively wipe out the majority of infrastructure and allow an easy land invasion and subsequent second Holocaust. What's their motto? "NEVER AGAIN!!! They won't take such a risk. Morals? That word and nuclear combat are mutually exclusive. As far as Israel is concerned, this fight is for their race. That means there are no options "off the table." Including a first strike with a tactical nuke. I would argue that they are fully justified in any military solution invloving Iran and if the rest of the world really wanted to forestall such an action they could have got up off the DIME and done something serious about Iran when it could have made a difference.
35 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:29:00 PM by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat
I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.

God help us if you're right.

36 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:48 PM by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

Israel is way beyond worrying about political hazard, they are in this for their existence and inaction by the US has left them with few options.

37 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:35:52 PM by pb929
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts. And given the current muslim-in-chief in the White House, the US could join the Middle East countries against Israel.

Israel is in a tough spot?

The U.S. and Israel are BOTH in a tough spot.

George W. Bush dropped the ball on many issues but the dropped ball with the most tragic future consequences may turn out to be his failure to strike Iran's nuclear program before Barack Obama was inaugurated.

Three weeks of U.S. Shock & Awe prior to Obama's inauguration and we would not now have the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear-armed ICBM's before the next Republican becomes Commander-in-Chief.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".
38 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:24 PM by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: DCBryan1
If you burst a 1kt Neutron bomb

Oops....meant 0.1 kt.

Most Neutron weapons were sub-kiloton,usually a mine, controlled demo charge, or artillery shell.
39 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:37:33 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]
To: Polybius
"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) worked fine with the evil, but rational, Soviets and ChiComs.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) does NOT work with radical Islamist fanatics who believe that "Mutually Assured Destruction" means "I am guaranteed Paradise for all Eternity with my 72 virgins while you roast in Hell".

Damn good point. Bears repeating, and why Iran MUST NEVER have a nuclear weapon.
40 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:40:46 PM by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan
Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.

I'm sure the IDF has enough nukes in their inventory to deal with those other 'fronts' if need be. Remember that while Israel's Arab neighbors will scream bloody murder if Netanyahu drops nukes on Iran, the only ones who will mean it will be Syria and their sockpuppet Lebanon. The Russians MIGHT get involved, only because it will be their client who will have smoking craters where those nuke facilities and their vaunted air defense installations used to be.

If hostilities are inevitable, it is best to strike first and trust Providence.
41 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:46:53 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: brownsfan

Israel is in a tough spot. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat. But nuking Iran could draw a military response from many fronts.

I don’t know, if I don’t have a nuke, and israel just proved it not only has them, but is willing to use them, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to pick a fight witht them.

42 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:05 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]
To: tarheelswamprat; All
It's much worse than that. I believe that Obama is already making contingency plans for the US to attack Israel directly in order to prevent them from hitting Iran.

I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.

And that is no threat, that is a statement of what will likely happen.

If the Dear Comrade is stupid enough to overreach like that, he will reap the consequences as no one has ever seen or imagined in American history.

Take that to the bank.
43 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:50:25 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill
Israel is prepared to endure a first strike

I submit that you do not know the mind of Bibi Netanyahu.
44 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:09 PM by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

I hope we’re out of Iraq before they start tossing those things.

45 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:53:12 PM by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: AustinBill

“no moral nation will use nukes preemptively”

We’ve done it, TWICE! I consider myself to be a moral man, if I believe you are a serious threat to my family, and I have no other choice. I would strike first. I would not wait until you killed a loved one to respond.

I for one would not be at all suprised if Israel struck first.

46 posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57:29 PM by Robbin (If Sarah isnÂ’t welcome, IÂ’m not welcome, itÂ’s just that simpleÂ…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian

Maybe.

I suspect, however, that they would obey the orders of the CIC. It’s what the military does.

Could you repeat that. It was garbled.

47 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:00:19 AM by unkus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]
To: TheThirdRuffian; ChrisInAR
Obama won’t let Israel fly over Iraq, so this is the best option.

The NK's reportedly zapped a South Korean frigate with a torpedo today -- potentially 100 lives lost on the SK side. If a second Korean War were to kick off then Israel has a window of opportuntity to deal with Iran.
48 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:04:51 AM by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]
To: jhpigott

If we don’t support an Israeli mission that involves conventional weapons, it will likely fail. Given the current administration’s abject hatred of Israel, that support looks less likely by the day. That sort of leaves Israel with no options except tactical nukes. They positively cannot allow Iran to get the Bomb, because Ahmadinejad will use it. He believes fervently that he has been chosen to usher in the Islamic messiah by annihilating Christians and Jews. He’s not pursuing nukes to increase Iran’s stature in the world; he’s pursing them to use them. Israel knows this.

As for the world reaction, Israel will stand totally alone, without U.S. backing for the first time since her rebirth in 1948. And I believe the result will be an attack on Israel prophesied in Psalm 83, Obadiah, and Isaiah 17. Israel will win the war and take back more of the promised land, but it will come at heavy cost. She will be weakened, alone, vulnerable. I believe this sets up the War of Gog and Magog, prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39. A massive invasion of Israel will fail when God intervenes directly.

We live in interesting, if painful, times.

MM

49 posted on Saturday, March 27, 2010 12:08:52 AM by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
To: mkjessup; All
I am here to tell you right now, that before the United States Armed Forces follow orders to attack our ally Israel, that the person giving such orders will be jerking from a light pole on the South Lawn of the White House.

You're simply, tragically, wrong. The upper levels of the US military chain of command are hopelessly politicized, and will obey whatever commands they are give. They have demonstrated, repeatedly in recent years, that their career viability is their most important priority.

At the operational level, plans and commands can be, and in fact are, compartmentalized, and the individual units will not have the big picture. Some individuals might refuse the orders, but not enough to matter.