Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper

[Player-X]

Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran: paper


LONDON (Reuters) - Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said.
Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in Natanz using low-yield nuclear "bunker busters".
Two other sites, a heavy water plant at Arak and a uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously last month to slap sanctions on Iran to try to stop uranium enrichment that Western powers fear could lead to making bombs. Tehran insists its plans are peaceful and says it will continue enrichment.
Israel has refused to rule out pre-emptive military action against Iran along the lines of its 1981 air strike against an atomic reactor in Iraq, though many analysts believe Iran's nuclear facilities are too much for Israel to take on alone.
The newspaper said the Israeli plan envisaged conventional laser-guided bombs opening "tunnels" into the targets. Nuclear warheads would then be used fired into the plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce radioactive fallout.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000 mile round-trip to the Iranian targets, the Sunday Times said, and three possible routes to Iran have been mapped out including one over Turkey.
However it also quoted sources as saying a nuclear strike would only be used if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene. Disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, the paper added.
Washington has said military force remains an option while insisting that its priority is to reach a diplomatic solution.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, has said it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

I don't this will end well, on one side you have a guy who is really "effective" at "hiding" his nuclear weapons program, on the other side they are talking about using tactical nukes against an enemy which in all probability have not even figured out the basics of building a nuke.

Personally I think Iran isn't even close to having a nuke but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still crazy enough to attack Israel even under the threat of nuclear annihilation before they have any weapons that are even close to a small nuke.

[darth sephiroth]

jeez, planning on creating a new tsjernovbyl are they?

[shafeen]

no we dont need another war now do we
i think the whole world is going towards hell

[emwearz]

When nukes are involved the world ends up being hell.

[Player-X]

What about World War 2?

[darth sephiroth]

that was at least to end a war (my anus), not to stop someone from beeing able to supply their own country with electricity. This just increases my contempt for israel politics, i used to have it on the same line as Bush politics but now even Bush is better.

[shafeen]

Originally Posted by Player-X

What about World War 2?

yeah that was the biggest **** man has ever done .yeah boo churchil,hitler and others booo


also can u beleive that world war 2 officially ended on 4 th of jan 2007 >>yes thats 2007 << when the uk made the last payment of the money they borowed from us and canda>some 300 400million dollars<<
source :my news paper

[Player-X]

yeah that was the biggest **** man has ever done .yeah boo churchil,hitler and others booo


also can u beleive that world war 2 officially ended on 4 th of jan 2007 >>yes thats 2007 << when the uk made the last payment of the money they borowed from us and canda>some 300 400million dollars<<
source :my news paper

Internment camps, Nazi death camps, POW camps...it almost seems like everyone is camping.
On a more serious note it seems like everyone's a racist during most wars and they do irrational and stupid things such as renaming "sour kraut" to "liberty cabbage" during World War 1 or the MAD doctrine during the cold war.

Technically it is just the WW2 loan that's been paid back, the other legacies such as tensions in the middle east thanks to Lawrence of Arabia's promise to the Arabs and the way the British Empire haphazardly split the Middle East or the existence of nuclear weapons or the digital revolution is still in effect.

[shafeen]

yeah the effects of british rule will never heal, india has suffered the most i should say damm and what makes me angry we used antvoilence as a weapon to drive out british. sheesh if we would have used voilence we would have got freedom a lot early

[Player-X]

I would say non-violence is the best way to get occupiers to leave, after all in situations such as Iraq the use of violence seems to be causing Americans to want to move more troops in, if the Iraqis had used non-violent protests there will not be a reason for the US to send in more troops and would have a good reason to withdraw troops and eventually leave.
And besides if violence is used to drive occupiers out they will just return and be even more determined to occupy the territory and be more oppressive, non-violence will cause them to leave willingly which means that they have much less of a will to return.

Malaysia was also a British colony and it was returned after peaceful negotiations and so far we don;t really see any actual large scale violence there, on the other hand it may just be the native Malays being too lazy to cause any.

The British Empire they brought a lot of Chinese workers who were hoping for a better life into Malaysia but once the British left the Chinese workers found themselves unable to afford to return to China and in effectively stuck there, some of them were my ancestors.


However this is not exactly a bad thing, in fact I am thankful for that, eventually some of the Chinese worker's decedents got rich and successful so they didn't want to leave, without the British Empire I would not be sitting here telling you this.

Although in most parts of Malaysia they do not want a return to British rule or at least having a westerner be in charge in the state of Sarawak where I grew up is an exception, if anything the White Rajah is still looked upon as favorable and people from my parent's generation along with me prefer British rule rather than the current government.

edit:
To sum it up I am pro old British Empire and prefer non-violence from a practicality stand point.

[shafeen]

yeah great minds dont think alike

[emwearz]

Originally Posted by Player-X

What about World War 2?

You don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was hell? Read a book, seems pretty hell-ish to me.

[Player-X]

You don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was hell? Read a book, seems pretty hell-ish to me.

I think in the long term, it was hell while it lasted and the short term aftermath would suggest the same but look at us now, most of the things we take for granted such as commercial aviation, computers and medicine are mostly the long term legacy of World War 2.

And besides you said "the world" not "the ones on the receiving end".

[shafeen]

Originally Posted by emwearz

You don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was hell? Read a book, seems pretty hell-ish to me.

think on the positive side if ww2 wouldnt have occured aviation couldnt have developed this much also due to the nuclear race we got a source on energy which could be used for commercial purposes

[CKemu]

It's bizzare to say so, but WW2 had a significant number of benefits. Aviation, radio, modern medicine, engineering, design, womans rights etc Whilst war is oft considered mankind being at it's worst, war often brings about the best in mankind.

[S.SubZero]

Israel denies report it plans to use nukes*against Iran - CNN.com

[Player-X]

And the most important thing about the existence of Israel's plan to use nukes against Iran is that Iran will probably decide to declare war either way unless the moderates takes control of the Iranian government in their election.

[jonc2006]

Originally Posted by Player-X

I would say non-violence is the best way to get occupiers to leave, after all in situations such as Iraq the use of violence seems to be causing Americans to want to move more troops in, if the Iraqis had used non-violent protests there will not be a reason for the US to send in more troops and would have a good reason to withdraw troops and eventually leave.
And besides if violence is used to drive occupiers out they will just return and be even more determined to occupy the territory and be more oppressive, non-violence will cause them to leave willingly which means that they have much less of a will to return.

Malaysia was also a British colony and it was returned after peaceful negotiations and so far we don;t really see any actual large scale violence there, on the other hand it may just be the native Malays being too lazy to cause any.

The British Empire they brought a lot of Chinese workers who were hoping for a better life into Malaysia but once the British left the Chinese workers found themselves unable to afford to return to China and in effectively stuck there, some of them were my ancestors.


However this is not exactly a bad thing, in fact I am thankful for that, eventually some of the Chinese worker's decedents got rich and successful so they didn't want to leave, without the British Empire I would not be sitting here telling you this.

Although in most parts of Malaysia they do not want a return to British rule or at least having a westerner be in charge in the state of Sarawak where I grew up is an exception, if anything the White Rajah is still looked upon as favorable and people from my parent's generation along with me prefer British rule rather than the current government.

edit:
To sum it up I am pro old British Empire and prefer non-violence from a practicality stand point.

id use the jedi mind trick.

[Dogmaan]

In my (british) opinion some countries i.e. Zimbabwe, have become a lot worse since we pulled out

[PersianBoy]

Israel denies report it plans to use nukes*against Iran - CNN.com

Iran can destroy these zionist rats. Iran doesn't need NUKE because they had chemical/biological agents. Israel will be wiped out really if they attack us.
we can also annihilate US troops inside middle east.