LONDON, Jan. 7, 2006
Report: Israel Has Plan For Nuclear Strike
Sunday Times Reports Israel Has Plans To Hit Iranian Nuclear Facilities With Low-Yield Nukes
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Nuclear Armed World The world's nuclear weapons powers, missile defense and a history of the nuclear weapons age.
-
Timeline Nuclear Power Pendulum Some key events in the history of nuclear power.
-
Fast Facts Israel Learn about the people, economy and history.
Citing multiple unidentified Israeli military sources, The Sunday Times said the proposals involved using so-called "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons to attack nuclear facilities at three sites south of the Iranian capital.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the claim. "We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.
Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.
But Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev denied the report and said, "The focus of the Israeli activity today is to give full support to diplomatic actions and the expeditious and full implementation of Security Council resolution 1737. If diplomacy succeeds, the problem can be solved peaceably."
The United States and its allies accuse Tehran of secretly trying to produce atomic weapons, but Iran claims its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes, including generating electricity.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has condemned as invalid and illegal a United Nations Security Council resolution that imposes sanctions against the Islamic Republic for refusing to halt enrichment.
Though Olmert has not explicitly ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, he has repeatedly said the issue should be dealt with diplomatically.
Olmert has said that because an Iranian nuclear bomb would affect the entire world, not just Israel, the problem must be solved by the international community.
The Sunday Times reported that the Israeli military officials believed Iran could produce enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons within two years.
It reported that Israeli pilots had made flights to the British colony of Gibraltar to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets.
Asked by The Associated Press on Sunday whether the Israeli air force was training for an attack against Iranian nuclear facility, the Israeli army declined comment.
"I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran," Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP in Israel on Sunday. "It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say: 'Someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"
Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and formerly a senior army intelligence officer also dismissed the report.
"No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times," Kam said.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From World
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 CommentsI always found it ironic the "rules" of war - that there are acceptable and non-acceptable ways to kill your enemy. It's like having rules of conduct in a bar fight.
By your comments I assume that you believe that the Palestinians enjoy having their children and women murdered by the Israelis.........
I will also offer the definition of terror:
"violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands"
If you feel the definition does not apply to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so be it. But I certainly do.
Would you please be kind enough to cite a reliable, independent reference justifying your statement that Iran plans to nuke Israel?
I can give you one stating that Israel plans to nuke Iran.
Nice to know that you find that, in one instance anyway, wikipedia got something right.
I have been to Heiwa Koi in Hiroshima and have seen the generational defects caused by our own act of terrorism. I am sure that many will bristle at that reference but consider the definition of terrorism:
"the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
We obviously murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese non-combatants as a means of coercing Japan to surrender. If you choose not to see that as terrorism, feel free.
I am not arguing that it was not effective, only that our hands are not so clean so as to enable us to condemn others for employing terrorism for coercion purposes as we have.
Even if the Japanese surrendered soon, say October, you still would have had a few hundred American casualties. If Truman had told the families they had a weapon that could have ended the war earlier, but decided not to use it due to consideration of Japanese lives, Americans would have hung Truman in the White House.
In 2007, dropping the bomb was a bad decision. But in 1945, it was the only decision they could have made. Besides, I honestly believe that a future nuclear war with the Soviet Union was avoided because of the bombings. It's easy to talk about how terrible a nuke would be. But you truely don't see the impact of what nuclear war truely means unless you see the consequences with your own eyes. I have to believe that Kennedy and Khrushchev had those horrible burn victims in the back of theor minds as they maneuvered during the Cuban missile crisis. Who knows, Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved the world.
Not to hijack this thread and go off topic, but take the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Obviously, you let us know your position. But for me personally, I cannot condemn them because I look at it from the point of people living in 1945, not 2007. We have the perspective and hindsight of 60 years of history to know the bombings may not have been needed (though there is still considerable debate on both sides whether Japan was going to surrender anyway).
But in 1945, things were different. No one knew the Japannese intentions. Plans for a November invasion of Japan were finalized and there was little belief that they wouldn't be needed. Estimates of a million casualties weren't exagerations either based on the Okinawa invasion. The world was at war. Fighting on China was still heavy. The crimes of the Nazis were known. Thousands of Americans were already dead. The brutality of WWII was numbing. It's not so easy to dismiss a new superweapon that could end the war early considering what people knew (or didn't know) in 1945.
---continued
"All those arab countries tried that before and all they ended up with was their assses kicked."
Posted by rharrin1 at 02:21 PM : Jan 07, 2007
If true, why did Palestine need to be given back to the Israelis in 1947?
Because you employ a "whatever Israel does is justified" mentality, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is also as blind.
I also find it rather humorous that you give kudos to wikipedia after my using it on various occassions to disprove your propaganda. Cute.
It is very plain you haven't paid much attention to history. All those arab countries tried that before and all they ended up with was their assses kicked.
also most palestinian "ISRAELI CITIZENS" ?? at least wikipedia got it right....
Thanks for the chat
but the "palestinians who are trying to steal Israel,and almost 50 years of arab propaganda has convinced most that of the oppisite.
Well stated and agreed. I have often mused at the irony of condemning Al Qaeda as being barbaric for taking down two buildings full of non-combatants by a country who used nukes to obliterate two entire Japanese cities of non combatants.
But if Israel uses them, they may be playing right into Arab hands. What better way to justify their own nuclear weapons programs if they are victims of a nuke attack themselves? It strengthens Iran's argument that they need nuclear weapons to prevent countries from doing what Israel is planning to do to them. Plus, the political damage from using nukes is always going to be far greater than any objective you may achieve. As a former command of SAC once remarked, nuclear weapons are basically useless weapons. Their use will always put you in a worse position than you were without them.
I can see why you failed history. Facts and truth just don't square with your perceptions. Obviously a conflict that you've never resolved. I give up.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- next
See all 85 Comments