The moment of truth, on this, hurtles towards them
On the one hand, Iran has sworn to annihilate Israel: so no way can the Jewish State allow Iran to get nukes
On the other hand, do they have much choice, if the USA is unwilling to assist in wiping out Iran's nuclear programme? And continue to do so, as the Iranians try again and again?
This may come down to a terrible decision for Bibi.
1 Accept Iran with nukes, which will always mean an existential threat always hangs over Israel, probably rendering Israel unviable = Iranian victory and total defeat for Israel
2 Launch a nuclear attack on Iran, in some desperate attempt to wipe out their nuclear capablity for the foreseeable
3 Attempt regime change by killing every single Iranian leader, and fuck what Trump says
If I was Bibi, I'd go for 3
Israel almost certainly has its own nukes, so Tehran would risk its own destruction if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons even if it developed them
Israel is so tiny and vulnerable a first strike, destroying the entire country, would be quite feasible
Iran - being ruled by anti-Semitic freakaloid Islamofascist monks - might consider the ensuing deaths of, say, 20m Iranians, a fair price to pay for that outcome. No more Israel
Of course it is madness, but Jews know well that Germany, ostensibly one of the most civilised nations on earth, madly tried to eradicate all Jews in the world a few decades ago
Israel may be tiny but almost certainly has enough nukes to wipe out all Iran, even if it wasn't able to the US would almost certainly nuke Iran to bits if it wiped out Israel
I doubt that very much
If Iran wiped out Israel and Israel, in its dying moments, flung all it nukes at Tehran - a la Samson Doctrine - I imagine the USA would sigh and say Oh well, that's sad. As would China and Russia and the European powers, including us
What does any outside power gain from pouring in more nukes, after that tragic debacle? Nothing
If any of Iran remained standing in that scenario, the evangelical and Jewish lobby in the US would demand Washington finished the job
Which is why Israel has so many nukes - its policy is to utterly destroy, if defeated, all counties it is at war with. So if a country is doing the performative “Death to Israel, but we don’t actually do anything…” - doesn’t help them.
This is why Egypt was first in the peace queue. The Aswan dam was bomb proofed - for conventional munitions. One nuke on the dam face would create a tidal wave that would wipe out the inhabited parts of Egypt. And coat the place in radioactive mud.
Added to which, have we any indication Israel have thermo~nukes or just standard boring fission nukes? Iran lacks any viable delivery mechanism, increasingly so considering Israel is taking out their launch vehicles. Any attack by them would therefore have to be a “ back of a van” job and if so the US wouldn’t take too kindly to nukes being delivered by UPS.
Most believe that Israel achieved fission devices in the late 60s.
The largest pure fission plutonium bomb ever fired was French, at 225Kt I believe.
With access to 90% enriched uranium, the Americans fired Ivy King at 500Kt, the U.K. Orange Herald at 720Kt.
It’s worth noting that strategic weapons are now smaller than these yields - many modern strategic warheads are about the size of the French fission bomb above.
There are many indications (mainly tritium production) that Israel started building thermonuclear weapons. They would be lighter, cheaper and less vulnerable to predestination.
It is possible that they developed multistage *fission* weapons - the U.K. looked at this, when they were struggling with the H bomb. Essentially, an A bomb sets off another A bomb. Why? Well, the first bomb is used to compress the second. The first bomb is compressed by a few tens of kilos of explosive. The second by kilotons of nuclear energy. Which creates incredible efficiencies.
In any event, every expert thinks that Isreal has hundreds of weapons, in the 100Kt+ range. Probably thermonuclear.
Thank you Sir. You certainly know your onions!
Incidentally, Orange Herald was a classic airburst-
It’s counterintuitive and obviously horrific to say but there is an undeniable beauty in an atomic explosion such as the one you post. Can’t quite put it properly into words. A morbid fascination or is it just a beautiful but terrifying thing?
It is beautiful. It’s born from the concentric symmetry of the device itself. The metals named after the Kings of Hell. The elegance of the physics. Of storms of neutrons denser than rock. Of X-rays that heat the air and push it to the opacity of lead…
In the heart of the largest devices, the energies exceed those in supernova. The Tsar Bomba rang the bell for hundred light years for those with eyes to see. On alien worlds, maybe, they know we are here. Already.
There is no arguing with, or appeal from that fearful symmetry. No lawyers writ or politicians lies can do anything against the absoluteness of Teller-Ulam.
The Last Argument Of Kings.
That's very poetic.
Or as Joe Abercrombie might put it:
That was the terrible justice, the awful beauty of it. They had awakened the Bomb. And, the Bomb has no favourites, the Bomb does not discriminate. It deals death, without favour or partiality. All the world is its lawful prey.
From Half the World etc? Quite liked that trilogy, but really disliked the final ending.
It's pretty downbeat. Brand was killed: Yarvi, revealed as a conniving shit. And Skara told the boyfriend who'd saved her life to take a hike.
The ending felt, to me, like it was unearned. She's the smartest ever. Except she fluked into secret knowledge rather than earning it. Humbug to that.
Minutes of MPC refer to a “material further loosening in labour market conditions.”
Or an increase in unemployment for those not as immune to such things. Another appalling euphemism from those who don’t feel the pain.
Once again the Bank is too slow in cutting interest rates making growth harder. Add in the malign policies of Reeves and we are struggling to get any growth at all.
Or they are clearing out the detritus of companies that should have gone long ago but are propped up by taxpayer subsidy. Think of it as Corporate Assisted Dying. Odd that people are in favour of humans being exited but will still pay through the nose for companies that should have gone long ago.
Universal Credit says 38% of the 6.3mn UC claimants have jobs. That's a lot of subsidised employment.
Which would those be? There may have been many in the 1970s, there haven't been since Thatcher, Major and Cameron privatised most nationalised industry and even the bailed out banks have largely returned to the private sector.
Better getting people some work, even if subsidised, than have them sitting at home all day on benefits if of working age
Very Victorian - how about investing to increase skills and output so there are decent wages? Other countries have done it. We are wedded to the Victorian idea of people should be grateful for a job, combined with using other peoples' money to pay for it. Lazy UK management again while the rest of the world gets on with building a future.
You will find with a few exceptions like Germany and Japan the UK offers better apprenticeships than most of the world does. The UK also now has one of the highest minimum wages in the developed world
Would someone of your calibre get out of bed for £12.21 an hour?
When they get more free for lying in their beds many will not. If they were not living free at other people's expense they may think differently.
The moment of truth, on this, hurtles towards them
On the one hand, Iran has sworn to annihilate Israel: so no way can the Jewish State allow Iran to get nukes
On the other hand, do they have much choice, if the USA is unwilling to assist in wiping out Iran's nuclear programme? And continue to do so, as the Iranians try again and again?
This may come down to a terrible decision for Bibi.
1 Accept Iran with nukes, which will always mean an existential threat always hangs over Israel, probably rendering Israel unviable = Iranian victory and total defeat for Israel
2 Launch a nuclear attack on Iran, in some desperate attempt to wipe out their nuclear capablity for the foreseeable
3 Attempt regime change by killing every single Iranian leader, and fuck what Trump says
If I was Bibi, I'd go for 3
Israel almost certainly has its own nukes, so Tehran would risk its own destruction if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons even if it developed them
Israel is so tiny and vulnerable a first strike, destroying the entire country, would be quite feasible
Iran - being ruled by anti-Semitic freakaloid Islamofascist monks - might consider the ensuing deaths of, say, 20m Iranians, a fair price to pay for that outcome. No more Israel
Of course it is madness, but Jews know well that Germany, ostensibly one of the most civilised nations on earth, madly tried to eradicate all Jews in the world a few decades ago
Israel may be tiny but almost certainly has enough nukes to wipe out all Iran, even if it wasn't able to the US would almost certainly nuke Iran to bits if it wiped out Israel
I doubt that very much
If Iran wiped out Israel and Israel, in its dying moments, flung all it nukes at Tehran - a la Samson Doctrine - I imagine the USA would sigh and say Oh well, that's sad. As would China and Russia and the European powers, including us
What does any outside power gain from pouring in more nukes, after that tragic debacle? Nothing
If any of Iran remained standing in that scenario, the evangelical and Jewish lobby in the US would demand Washington finished the job
And they would be ignored
It's one thing defending Israel with great vigour - America is keen on that. It's quite another risking WW3 and the end of the world when Israel is already a smoking heap of ruins and Iran has been laid waste by Israeli nukes in revenge, with 15 million dead Iranians. Cui bono?
It would be a case of everyone tutting and sighing and tip-toeing away from outright global apocalypse
Iran doesn't have the nukes to wipe out all the Middle East let alone the world.
Only 2 nations have the number of nukes required to effectively wipe out the entire global population, the USA and Russia
I'm not sure I see the point of your comment
My hypothesis was a first strike by Iran on Israel, in an attempt to end the Jewish state forever. Given the tiny size of Israel, I fear this is quite do-able for a nuclear-armed Iran led by insane theocratic Islamonazis consumed by loathing of Jews. And that is what Israel faces
So let's say Iran gets nukes and it puts them on enough missiles that it successfully hits Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Eilat. That in effect is the end of Israel, as the whole country will be irradiated and uninhabitable for decades
What next? Israel, as it dies, will follow the Samson Option, it will pull down the temple, and launch all its nukes on Iran. I'm not sure it has enough to destroy all of Iran but it certainly has enough to demolish Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, and kills millions if not tens of millions of Iranians
What's next? At that point, with Israel dead and Iran a smoking ruin, will America launch MORE nukes to "punish" Iran further? Of course not
I would be very surprised if Israel didn't have enough nuclear weapons to destroy all of Iran, and several other Middle East countries at the same time.
It quite likely has a larger nuclear arsenal than Britain.
Without a Union Jack sticker on it - it's basically useless though, right?
I thought we put Scottish saltires on our nukes, since they are based in Scotland, and the ScotNats are really touchy about flags.
Little Englander roars, stick to your Butcher's apron waving
Comments
Anyway, in good F1 news, Williams have secured Vowles' as team boss for the long term: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/williams-team-principal-james-vowles-signs-new-long-term-contract.tlw4pS12ZCoZdyA4UHwUK
NEW THREAD