How Long Before A Nuke War????????????

B

beemerb

Moderator
This is a scary piece of information.



ISRAEL, SYRIA COULD BE HEADING FOR WAR
By Steve Rodan
JERUSALEM [MENL]


For the first time in a decade, Israel has raised the prospect of a
regional war with the Arab world.

Israeli diplomatic and military sources said
the most likely
prospect is a Hizbullah attack on the northern
Israeli border.
Israel would then react by retaliating against
Syrian military
installations in Lebanon. This, in turn, would
result in Iraqi and
Iranian intervention.

Already, Syria has moved troops from the
Beirut area to the
Bekaa valley near the Syrian border. The area
is regarded as the
most likely Israeli invasion route to Syria.

"If the deterioration in the north continues,
it will be inevitable
that Syrian and Lebanese power centers will be
struck," Israeli
National Security Adviser Maj. Gen. Uzi Dayan
said.

Such a prospect could take place imminently or
be delayed for
months, the sources said. They said this was
the strongest
threat of a regional war in more than a decade
and comes amid a
political vacuum in both Jerusalem and
Washington as well as
concern in Israel over an erosion of U.S.
support.

The sources said Israel and the United States
have relayed
messages to Syria to stop Hizbullah attacks
along the border.
Syria has up to 30,000 troops in Lebanon and
controls the
Hizbullah.

Syria, however, has so far rejected the
warnings. Instead,
President Bashar Assad has formed new links
with Iraq that
include military cooperation. The sources said
the cooperation
could include Iraqi intervention in case of
Israeli attacks on Syria.

A senior Israeli military source said Iraq is
ready to launch missile
attacks on the Jewish state to either help
Syria or the
Palestinians. These missiles, they said, could
be tipped with
nonconventional warheads.

"The Iraqis would love to participate in
either conflict," the senior
source said. "Hafez Assad [Syria's late
president] was not
interested in cooperating with Iraq. Bashar is
interested and
wants to cooperate."

An Israeli war with Syria, Lebanon and Iraq
could drag such U.S.
Arab allies as Egypt and Jordan, the source
said.

For its part, both Lebanon and Syria -- both
of which have also
formed links to Palestinian Islamic groups
such as Hamas and
Islamic Jihad -- have rejected the Israeli and
U.S. warnings.
Lebanese Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said
the Israeli threats
are connected to the election campaign.

At the same time, Lebanese security sources
said Syria appears
to have abandoned any intention to redeploy
its troops from
Lebanon amid the current tension with Israel.
They denied reports
that Syria was moving troops from central
Lebanon to the Bekaa
valley.

--
**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and
educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
 
LONG LONG time, most likely will never happen, all sides know there are NO winners in a "nuke war".
 
If one is fighting on the side of God, even death is not a loss; for in that death one has been elevated in the eyes of one's God.

Some of those folks don't go by our rules. And our leaders have for a long time insured that they are armed.
 
When Iraq speaks of non-conventional warheads, they refer to bio-warfare. They have used them before on their own people, and no one objected, so I guess they will feel free to use them again.
 
No Nukes?

Is it not possible that Iraq has bought some number of nuke warheads out of the former U.S.S.R? They've had sufficient cash for a while, since oil sales resumed....
 
We give warhead and guidence technology to the Chinese government, they in turn sell to North Korea and Arab states.
 
King of the North
Click to expand...

That's Jesse Ventura, right? ;)

LONG LONG time, most likely will never happen, all sides know there are NO winners in a "nuke war".
Click to expand...

Actually, in the one nuclear war that's already been fought (World War II), there was a clear winner -- the United States.

The Israelis might decide that if Iran and the Arab states are eventually going to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction, they might as well strike first while they still have an advantage.
 
Sorry, folks, but a nuclear war is EXTREMELY likely, at least in Asia. Standard Soviet doctrine stated that a limited nuclear exchange was survivable. The Chinese still believe this (with good reason since even if they took 1:1 casualties, they would still outnumber any other nation and the industrial capacity is so limited now, that rebuilding it would not be as difficult as other nations).

In all likelihood, China will use nukes to one extent or another when it tries to retake Taiwan in the next few years. Will they hit the U.S.? Probably not. But they'll probably use a limited nuke on Taiwanese defenses, as a show of force and resolve.

As for the Middle East, a nuclear war is a bit less likely, at least until Iran can utilize the information China stole (bought)from us and build neutron weapons. The Muslims want to retake Jerusalem as well as kill jews. They aren't likely to start a major dust-up unless they have the ability to neutralize the Israeli counterforce without losing it all. If they used bio or chem weapons, the Israelis could still launch a retaliatory strike.

[Edited by buzz_knox on 12-05-2000 at 03:44 PM]
 
Not exactly surprising since the Arab summit conviened and declared that Isreal not be recognized.

The Isrealies are pretty upset and looking for new leadership. Not only in their country but the allies (USA) as well.
 
What newspaper was this from? It carries the author's byline but nothing else. Is it AP or Reuters? I mean, it's obviously U.S. but which paper? Those of us who give different levels of credance to unnamed sources depending on if we trust the paper want to know.
 
analysis

Something often overlooked in the uproar over Chinese acquisition of US nuclear information is this: They don't have the tools to make the tools to make use of the information they received. Will they get it? Yes, one day.
Oh, yeah. The Taiwan thingey...until we see some sign the Chinese are building a significant amphibious force there really isn't much point in worrying.


Israel struck at Iraq's budding nuclear capability back in the eighties with conventional weapons and destroyed the plant...they're kinda hard to hide or disguise.

Pakistan vs. India is much more likely as a scenario for a regional nuclear exchange and I don't think those guys were listening when someone said,"No one wins a nuclear war."

After decades in the shadow of nuclear obliteration between the thousands of warheads of the US and the USSR, the people who become so alarmed by the Communist Chinese having 20 or so ICBM's seem rather strange to me.
 
Nuclear war is indeed possible, and a race against time is on. Will the Ikwhan al-Mooslimeen and attendent factions (jamaats) be able place fanatics in positions of authority before the West wises up and embargoes the islamic bloc? Let us hope we don't find out. The possibility that Pakistan would provide the weapon to nuke Isreal is remote, but it could happen. Sheikh Israr Ahmed publicly describes the atom bomb as a blessing from Allah to use against the Jews. How strong is his following midst the Pakistani military? How long will it be before a bomb is supplied from Pakistan to Iraq or Saudi Arabia? How alert is the CIA, KGB, or other agencies that hopefully are acting to prevent mass destruction? In the hadeeth of Muhummed the final battle requires the extermination of the Jews. The US embassy in Pakistan was attacked once already. Four engineers were shot dead in retaliation for the conviction of Ramzi Yousef (I think it was him). In the current edition of SOF Palestinian teens are training with automatic weapons. The evidence of future aggression is clear.

No winners in a nuclear war? Are there any winners in a kamikazee attack? A suicide bombing on a ship? If the idea of winning is gaining paradise through mass-destruction (self-included) of "The Other" there is no way to stop the fanatic but through the harshest means possible.

I do not think China is a real threat. Too many single-son families. The problem is a society with too many people and too many idle young men in particular.
 
Buzz_knox is exactly right. A nuclear war is completely plausible. Soviet doctrine was that a nuclear war _was_ winnable, albeit at very high cost. The notion that "nobody wins a nuclear war" is far from universally accepted.

I'd also point out that the first nuclear attack took place in 1945, when the USA used nuclear weapons against Japan. And every single nuclear warhead in both nation's inventories was used! (Only two existed...but that's not the point.)

There's never been a truly useful weapon of war invented which was ever successfully suppressed. Nuclear weapons _have_ been used and certainly _will_ be used in the future. If we're _lucky_, nuclear attacks in the future will resemble those of WWII: limited strikes to make a point, rather than all-out volleys intended to annihilate an entire enemy nation.

I tend to worry more about chemical/biological weapons, myself. If you're not near ground zero, you're fairly safe from nukes. Bio-weapons are more likely to present a worldwide threat, especially if the agent is infectious, either by design or by mistake.
 
Yes, Communist China does have the tooling, machines, software and talant to make modern WOMDs. Our leader waived the export restrictions on such items so that the Communist Chinese could modernize their defensive systems.

He even went so far as to allow U.S. experts to help iron out problems the Commies were having with launch failures.

Even tho this treason was exposed in Senate investigations, the substance of the reports was classified and then slowly leaked through the media in a manner so as to nearly negate the impact of the reports.
 
Spartacus

The reason people are more concerned now than ever is because they have far more reason to be concerned. There was never a real possibility that the US and Soviet Union would engage in a nuclear conflict, barring some accident (which nearly occurred on a couple of occasions). Whenever the US had a nulcear advantage, we had no desire to engage in war. When things were moderately balanced, neither side had sufficient reason for war. The Sovs and the US both understood that the conflict between them could only be settled through proxies, because neither would survive a direct confrontation. No Soviet leader would launch a strike which would end up with the Rodina decimated. And no American leader would launch an attack with the full and clear certainaty that the majority of the US would become a smoking crater.

The current crop of nuclear powers (China, Iran, North Korea) have no such restraints. They are motivated by ideology, religion, the millenia old belief that they are the only true power in the universe (Chinese Middle Kindgom syndrome) or the fact that, with North Korea, they've got nothing to lose.

As for toolings, how hard do you think nukes are to make? I grew up beside Oak Ridge, TN, home of the bomb, where nuclear weapons were built using 1940s technology. The hard part of making modern nukes is the design phase and getting tolerances right. Well, the Chinese stole our designs and have obtained the necessary dual-use computer aided tools from us and our allies (thanks to Clinton's damned security waivers and our European and Japanese allies stupidity). Can they build and deploy these weapons right now? Yes. They are doing just that. The new Chinese mobile ICBM apparently mounts a warhead copied from the stolen (purchased?) W-88 design.

As for the invasion of Taiwan, you missed the point. They nuke a major Taiwanese base, causing Taiwan to surrender and Taiwan's once in a while ally (the US) to back down. Garrison troops, reeducation camp counselors and zampolits then head over at their leisure. You don't need an invasion fleet if you can exterminate the populace in seconds and have demonstrated the will to do so. And do you think the US will do ANYTHING if Gore is in office?
 
Every weapons technology that has ever been developed is eventually used in war. Nuclear technology is no different. The US and USSR never got around to using it because the cost to both sides would be too high. Hitler never used poison gas because the US had the technology and made it clear Germany would pay a high price for introduction. During the Desert Storm the Iraqi's never used gas because the US made it clear the cost would be nuclear in currency.

The possibility of an nuclear exchange goes up when one party can not respond in like manner. Can third world countries develop nuclear capabilities???? It can be purchased for the former USSA or it can be produced one fuel is available. How easy? Read Tom Claney's "The Sum of All Fears."
 
Some intellectuals of early Renaissance thought that cannon made wars obsolete

After all, no fortress can withstand those...

I do think we'll see nukes used, most likely in a "limited" exchange which gets out of hand (shades of WW1/WW2).
 
As for the invasion of Taiwan, you missed the point. They nuke a major Taiwanese base, causing Taiwan to surrender and Taiwan's once in a while ally (the US) to back down. Garrison troops, reeducation camp counselors and zampolits then head over at their leisure. You don't need an invasion fleet if you can exterminate the populace in seconds and have demonstrated the will to do so.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... Taiwan's military leaders must have considered such a scenario. I wonder if they have a nuke or two of their own.
 
Taiwan with nukes? Possible. Even likely, given their ability to pay for stolen Sov nukes. But one or two nukes wouldn't do much against China. Even if you hit Beijing, the government would survive in the form of the PLA. Kill 100 million Chinese and the nation will survive. In all honesty, overpopulation is one of their major problems, and the major impetus for future wars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top