Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

Israel - Nuclear Weapons, with links to premier sources

I dont see how that conclusion can possibly be deduced from my argument. Especially when there is plenty of documentary evidence that Israel does indeed possess nuclear weapons and that Britain supplied much of the material for Israel to build them in the first place.

You don't see that conclusion? Huh. Been to an eye-doctor lately?

It's not just the US making this claim. Add Germany, France and England to the list of countries that doubt Iran's peaceful intentions.



LINK

Well I think we are going round in circles. I dont trust the mad mullahs as far as I could through a couple of kilos of enriched uranium but as of now there is not one iota of proof or evidence that they are actually in breech of the npt. Does the doubt justify a strike against Iran? I say emphatically no.

throw

Wait a sec ... are you saying "through" is not the way you proper English blokes spell "throw"?

you got me there tico. After the cricket and a bottle of not especially good Aussie wine doubt I can do much more than through up. Ask Walter, I always do. He knows everything. Especially about proper English bloke speak.

What he said.

It all looks pretty ominous to me. Striking against Iran's nuclear industry will not stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Neither will it produce a coup d'etat and the overthrow of Ahmadinejad...so whats the point?

The Iranians are clever, hard working, patient, control the West's oil supply and moreover have God on their side, which is always an advantage.

Israel, of course, has refused to become signatory to the NPT because 1) they desire no external determination of their programs and stockpiles and 2) because they were not in need of help in establishing their technology as the US provided that assistance.

What does this have to do with Iran's refusal to allow inspections? They DID sign the NPT.

McGentrix- I am sure you are acquainted with the mind set of the Soviets and the USA during the "COLD WAR". Both had massive Nuclear Missles aimed at each other ( and may still have some in that posture) but the prospect of MAD( mutual assured destruction ) and the fact that they could not feed their people and keep up with the US in an arms race, caused the Soviets to implode.

BUT BOTH COUNTRIES WERE RUN BY SANE PEOPLE.

Now, we have a madman frothing at the mouth, backed by a fanatic set of VERY RADICAL IMAMS IN IRAN who, actually believes in the Twelfth Imam--He believes that the Twelfth Imam will return( proabably after an Apocalypse--Nuclear?) and restore the world under the rule of ISLAM!!!--THE WHOLE WORLD!!!


I would not be concerned if I knew the Iranians were not led by religious fanatics who are willing to unleash nuclear holocaust on the Israelis and perhaps the rest of the world, but I do know what the motto of the Mossad is-------------N E V E R A G A I N.

and given the information below, it will not happen again unless Iran wishes to see Tehran look like Nagasaki( as a response,of course, to the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv---I don' t need to tell you, McGentriz, that the Iranian leadership is so fanatical that they would also wipe out tens of thousands of Arabs living in Israel if they struck at Israel with nuclear weapons.

But if there is just ONE non fanatic among the Iranian leadership, he may point out the following:

one analyst concludes that "the Israeli nuclear arsenal contains as many as 400 deliverable nuclear and thermonuclear weapons." Harold Hough, "Could Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive A First Strike?" Jane's Intelligence Review, 9/97, p. 410. Israel's nuclear capability is by most accounts quite sophisticated, and may include "intercontinental-range, fractional-orbit-delivered thermonuclear weapons; thermonuclear or boosted nuclear-armed, two-stage, solid-fuel, intermediate-range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,000km; older, less accurate, nuclear-armed, theatre-range, solid-fuel ballistic missiles; air-deliverable, variable-yield, boosted nuclear bombs; artillery-delivered, enhanced-radiation, tactical weapons; and small nuclear demolition charges."

Unfortunately, it has much to do with Iran's refusal.

Treaties gain whatever force they have from the general notion that nations, once they agree with other nations to the terms of some treaty, will then abide by those terms. It is essentially an honor system theoretically working for the good of all.

But what happens to that honor system when a nation or nations retract or go back on a treaty to which they are signatory?

Iran, and everyone else, is quite aware for example that the US itself has acted in violation of signed treaties. It knows, as does everyone else, that the US has refused to sign treaties which would be beneficial in terms of the general good but which the US perceives to be damaging to its own interests. Iran knows that Israel (like Pakistan and India) refused to sign the NPT in order to have free reign as regards nuclear technology. Iran knows as well that Israel remains in violation of a number of UN resolutions.

Thus Iran may well see little reason, either legal, moral or strategic to abide by the NPT or UN resolutions/mandates when its perceived opponents have themselves operated in violation of treaties and resolutions in order to forward their own perceived advantage.

McGentrix-I hope that it never happens but Israel has enough fire power to blow Iran back to the Stone Age. Israel may be able to fulfill the fondest wish of the Ayatollah by blowing him to kingdom come so he can enjoy his "virgins"

Note___

Israeli Weapons

Land-Based Strategic Weapons

Jericho1 (Luz YA-1) SRBM
Jericho-2 (Luz YA-3) MRBM

Air-Based Strategic Weapons

F-4E-2000 Phantom
F-16 Falcon

Other Weapons



Land-Based Strategic Weapons

Jericho-1 (Luz YA-1) SRBM



Year Deployed: 1973
Dimensions: 10.0 meters length
Weight: 4,500 kilograms
Propulsion: Single-stage
Throw-weight: 500 kilograms
Range: 500 kilometers
Guidance: Inertial
Circular Error Probable: Unknown
Warhead: Single
Yield: Conventional, chemical, or nuclear possible
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: 50-100 missiles
Primary Contractor: IAI

The Jericho I short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) was developed in the 1960s, reportedly with French assistance. Such aid was concurrent with French nuclear aid, in the form of the Dimona nuclear reactor. This reactor produced the plutonium that was used in Israel's nuclear arsenal.

The Jericho I was based on the French Dassault MD-600 design, and has the Israeli name of "Luz." The missile is reported as having a 500 kilogram high-explosive warhead, but could be fitted with nuclear warheads as well. It is unknown whether they are allocated to this role. The Jericho is carried on a wheeled transporter erector vehicle (TEL) or on railroad car launchers. It is believed that approximately a total of 100 Jericho I and II missiles in the arsenal. Israel is reportedly trying to obtain technology to improve the accuracy of the Jericho, as it currently lacks the components necessary for precision gyroscopes and sensors.

It should be noted that none of the warheads for Israel's purported nuclear weapons delivery systems may actually be deployed. In fact, many analysts believe that Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal that is stored but not armed, requiring some preparation before use. This allows for the oft-repeated mantra that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region." The semantic rationalization is that the bomb components are not actually assembled "weapons." There is also the fact that the U.S. Navy deployed nuclear weapons in the region for years with the Sixth Fleet. Despite the Israeli arsenal's likely unassembled status, as Professor Martin van Creveld of Hebrew University stated, "An A-bomb that is, or is believed to be 'only a screw-driver away,' is nearly as effective a deterrent as one openly brandished."



Jericho-2 (Luz YA-3) MRBM



Year Deployed: 1990
Dimensions: 12.0 meters length, 1.2 meters width
Weight: 6,500 kilograms
Propulsion: Two stage solid propellant
Throw-weight: 1,000 kilograms
Range: 1,500kilometers
Guidance: Inertial
Circular Error Probable: Unknown
Warhead: Single
Yield: Conventional, chemical, or nuclear possible
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: ~50 missiles
Primary Contractor: Indian Defense Research and Development Laboratory

The Jericho II improved greatly upon the performance of its predecessor. It was developed in the mid-1970s to early 1980s, with the first test flight in 1986. Unlike the single-stage Jericho I, the Jericho II has two stages, which allow for a greatly increased range of 1,500 kilometers as compared to the 500 kilometer range of the earlier model. Like its predecessor, the Jericho II is road mobile. In addition to inertial guidance, it may have some sort of terminal guidance as well to increase accuracy -- details are unknown. There also appears to be a South African connection. Unconfirmed reports suggest that there was significant South African funding for the Jericho II, and that the South Africans may even possess modified Jericho IIs under the designation "Arniston."

The payload is reportedly double that of the Jericho I, at 1,000 kilograms, more than enough to carry a nuclear weapon. It is not conclusively known whether the Israelis have allocated nuclear weapons to the Jericho II, but it is extremely likely, given the great range, payload, and capability of the system.

The Jericho II brings a dramatic increase in prompt delivery capability for the Israelis with its long range. It is capable of hitting the entire panoply of targets in the Middle East (particularly Iran), as well as southwestern Russia. There is an even greater incipient capability in Israel's space launch program. The Jericho II and the Shavit (Comet) space launch rocket are very similar. The Shavit launched the first Israeli satellite (Ofeq-1) into orbit in September 1988. The Shavit could conceivably be modified and used to deliver a nuclear weapon. Its mere existence means Israel is be capable of building an ICBM, though there appears to be no strategic imperative or political desire to do so.



Air-Based Strategic Weapons

F-4E-2000 Phantom



Year Deployed: Unknown
Dimensions: 17.76 meters length, 4.69 meters height, 11,70 meters wingspan
Weight: maximum takeoff - 24,765 kilograms
Propulsion: Two J79-GE-8 turbojets
Range: 1,600 kilometers
Speed: Mach 2+
Maximum Loadout: Four ground-attack munition hardpoints
Weapon Load: 7,200 kilograms
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: 50 aircraft, plus 20 older F-4E models
Primary Contractor: McDonnell Douglas

The Phantom (officially the Phantom II) was originally designed as a two-seat, two-engine, long-range all-weather attack fighter for American carriers. Initial development began in 1954, although its role was soon changed to that of a missile fighter. The Phantom has had a long and distinguished history since the first F-4A flew in 1958, going through various upgrades and variations and serving with several U.S. allies.

The Israelis have the F-4E version, which was designed as a multi-role fighter capable of air superiority, close air support, and interdiction missions. This version also has an additional fuselage fuel cell for increased range, as well as the leading edge slats developed for the F-4F, which give the aircraft more maneuverability. More recently they have entered an upgrade for 50 F-4Es - and possibly the entire fleet -- known as Phantom 2000, which will extend the life of the aircraft beyond the year 2000. The first aircraft completed modifications in 1989, which include reinforced skin and fuel cells, complete rewiring, and improved avionics, electronic countermeasures, and cockpit enhancements.

Though aging, the Phantoms remain capable aircraft. There is reason to believe they were once allocated to the nuclear role, and may still be. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israeli forces were being driven back across the Sinai by the Egyptians, and were in jeopardy of losing the Golan to the Syrians, Israel's nuclear forces were reportedly put on heightened alert. This allegedly included placing a squadron of F-4Es on continuous alert, manned by Israel's most elite pilots, ready to strike with the country's nascent nuclear arsenal. Another report in Time magazine credits Prime Minister Golda Meir with ordering the nuclear weapons armed in preparation for a strike, though "Before any triggers were set, however, the battle on both fronts turned in Israel's favor. The 13 bombs were sent [back] to their desert arsenals." These actions were partially taken to convince the United States of the seriousness of the situation, and to intervene, but it does seem that the Middle East came quite close to nuclear conflict in 1973.

Today, despite the Phantom 2000 modernization program, these aircraft are aging. The nuclear bomb delivery role is more likely allocated to the more modern F-16s. However, given the F-4E's past nuclear mission, and the possibility of a continued role, they are listed here.




F-16 Falcon



Year Deployed: 1980
Dimensions: 15.03 meters length, 5.09 meters height, 9.45 meters wingspan
Weight: empty - 8,273 kilograms, maximum takeoff - 19,187 kilograms
Propulsion: F-16A-10 - F100PW200, F-16C-30 - F110GE100A, F-16C-40 - F110GE100
Range: (hi-lo-lo-hi) 630 kilometers
Speed: Mach 2+
Maximum Loadout: 1 fuselage hardpoint, 6 wing hardpoints, two wingtip air-to-air missile mounts ?- carries various munitions, including nuclear gravity bombs
Weapon Load: 5,400 kilograms
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: 205 F-16 aircraft
Primary Contractor: Lockheed (General Dynamics)

The F-16 Fighting Falcon has been a very successful American fighter, produced in great numbers (approximately 4,000 aircraft) and widely exported. The design goal was to produce a capable but inexpensive multi-role fighter. The A and C versions are single seat, while the B and D versions have two seats. The F-16 is a capable and flexible design, capable of high performance in both the air superiority and ground attack roles, depending on munitions. The flight controls are digital computer-controlled fly-by-wire, complemented by advanced navigation and avionics systems.

Israeli F-16s have been extensively modified with Israeli equipment, as well as optional U.S. equipment, particularly enhanced jamming and electronic countermeasures equipment. Israel began accepting deliveries of the A-model starting in 1980, with deliveries of the block 40 C-model starting in 1992. Israel also received an additional 50 older F-16s A/Bs in 1994 from U.S. surpluses. Israel has been the biggest export recipient of the F-16. Given that the Falcon is probably the most capable Israeli attack aircraft, it would likely be tasked with the delivery of nuclear munitions.




Other Weapons

Some experts allege that Israel's nuclear artillery infrastructure is particularly large. During the Yom Kippur War there were allegedly three nuclear capable artillery battalions, containing self-propelled 175 mm guns. Later 203 mm nuclear artillery shells were reportedly developed.

There were also allegations that a flash in the southern Indian Ocean on Sept. 22, 1979, detected by a VELA satellite, was a joint Israeli/South African nuclear test. The test may have involved a nuclear artillery shell detonated on a barge. Nearby South African and Israeli naval forces lend credence to the allegations, as does the fact that South Africa reportedly completed its first nuclear device a short time afterwards. The covert test allegations are still officially denied today.

In 2000, there were reports that Israel had completed its nuclear triad by gaining the ability to arm its Dolphin class submarines with nuclear-armed Popeye cruise missiles. These reports are unconfirmed and refuted in several quarters.

It was the revelations of nuclear weapons worker Mordechai Vanunu that revealed Israeli's nuclear secrets. He published pictures and detailed descriptions of the secret Dimona reactor and weapon facility in the Oct. 6, 1986, London Sunday Times. He estimated Israel's arsenal at 200 weapons, including sophisticated types such as enhanced-radiation (neutron) and even hydrogen bombs. It appears Israel bypassed the first generation of fission weapons all together and went to boosted fission weapons, whereby deuterium and tritium are inserted into the plutonium warhead at the moment of explosion, flooding it with neutrons and "jump starting" the reaction.

There was a real shift in Israel's nuclear posture during the Gulf War, when oblique references to a nuclear attack became common in response to Saddam Hussein's threats to use chemical weapons against Israel. Indeed, American spy satellites reportedly photographed Israel flexing its nuclear muscles in a way it had not since the Yom Kippur War of 1973 (see the Phantom entry for description of that incident.) Israel had gone on full nuclear alert and deployed nuclear launchers facing Iraq ?- a move probably as much to impress watching Americans about the seriousness of the situation as to threaten Iraq.

In 2002, Israel considers Iran and Iraq to be its primary threats. Some speculate that an American attack on Iraq could provoke Hussein to launch a WMD attack on Israel, although his capability to do so is questioned. Such an attack could provoke a nuclear response. Additionally, Iran's progress towards nuclear capability alarms many Israelis and there are rumblings of a conventional preemptive strike, similar to the strike on Iraq in 1981.

Yes.





Well, they probably tested a stolen design for a US nuclear artillery shell over the Indian Ocean in the late 1970s.





They mainly acquired the technology from France. They built the weapons themselves.

They were conducting their enrichment-related activities in secret from the world for many years.

I consider that to be proof of an illegal weapons program.

We provided very little (if any) of that assistance.

However, I propose that we change that stance by withdrawing from the NPT and openly sharing our nuclear weapons technology with Israel.

The fact that Iran did sign the NPT means that they quite clearly have a legal reason to abide by the NPT.

I don't see how our refusal to join certain treaties justifies their violation of a treaty they have joined.

What treaties have we violated?