Re: OT: Europe takes the lead on Iran

In article <znu-1F7634.13213220012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <clund-30D740.10072520012006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> C Lund <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure there would be much chaos either. If nobody
> > > > interferes, the current regime will most likely fall in a "velvet
> > > > revolution" rather than in a bloody mess.
> > > Even in a revolution where few or no shots are fired, you still
> > > probably have a situation where there's no functioning government
> > > for a while.
> > Yes, but not for a very long while. The thing about nukes is that you
> > can't just slip one into a pocket like a pack of gum. Stealing one
> > takes some planning.
> Why do you assume nobody is making such plans?

How does one plan for a situation like that? You have to have
everything in place and ready waiting for a rather narrow window of
opportunity, and for an indefinite time - anything from tomorrow to
twenty years from now.

> > > Neither. We knew they both had infrastructure. Hell, both built
> > > their first reactors with Western help (the US in India, Canada in
> > > Pakistan).
> > Yes, we knew they had the infrastructure, but we didn't know about
> > the nukes until they blasted one.
> India and Pakistan are rather bad cases to look at if you want to learn
> something about detection of secret nuclear weapons programs, because
> they weren't actually particularly secret.

Maybe not. But I remember the shocked headlines when it happened
(still can't remember which of the two was first though).

> > The US barely managed to talk the Israelis out of responding to the
> > scuds - and they did minimal damage. I believe they were described as
> > "flying trash-cans". But a missile attack that takes out the Knesset,
> > some army bases, and maybe also a synagogue or two just for the hell
> > of it is an entirely different matter. Israelis are extremely
> > vengeful people.
> The difference is, responding to the Iraqi attacks would have been an
> action with few direct consequences to the Israelis. The situation
> wasn't likely to escalate beyond a few more missile exchanges. This
> would not be the case with Iran.

I don't think the Israelis would care. A few direct hits from Iran
would drive them berserk.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
.

Relevant Pages

  • OT Heart of Gold
    ... In sentencing former top Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin to over 12 ... the top rungs of AIPAC -, a lobbying group for Israel that wields enormous ... get the U.S. to confront Iran. ... would directly benefit the Israelis - this, in the mind of Judge Ellis, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: For The Iran Lovers In This Group
    ... There aren't any "Iran Lovers" in this group. ... war propaganda machine, ... Syrian air defenses, ... Israelis attacked, and we don't know how the Syrians ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran—Or I Wi ll
    ... But the neighbouring states do care. ... just the Israelis that take military action against Iran. ... Israelis do their inevitable nuclear counterstrike. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: nbc Never again? nbc
    ... Iranian Prez as a whacko bent on acquiring nuclear weapons while using ... the Israelis or will the columns and postings be limited to Iranians only ... they're not going to invade Iran. ... Iraq, with an Islamist bent, serves ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)