I well remember when an Israeli agent posing as a cop murdered a Houston investigator looking into theft of American nuke cores by Israel. George Bush senior was appalled but because his CIA was compromised he did nothing. Of course Israel has plenty of nukes, a snitch at Dimona revealed that and was punished.
After 9/11 we flew helicopters around searching for radioactivity - the Israelis couldn't shield against neutron emissions - and we knew about Israeli nuclear blackmail of US cities. And we knew about the nukes in the subbasements of the Twin Towers...
Where are they hosted. Don't answer a hypothetical. Israel is tiny. It could host a few but not of any major significance. Unless it's cohosting or has them located somewhere else. How many warheads. Like numbers on that landmass. Then that problem becomes they could be beaten by conventional armament. Unless it preempts. So it also needs another location or joint security. Or it's cohosting like Europe? It probably isn't, but then the number becomes less correct to keep it secret.
Blackmail nukes. Hahahaha. It sounds like the Europe's. Europe hosts a number of American nukes. Part of the MAD doctrine. They've all got them. Not quite.
Conspiracies there are far more than claimed. A lot more not claimed today. But these nations tend to have warheads and not the facility to enrich and produce.
Of course nukes can be smaller now. But then any damage scales and so does any supposed fallout and detonation.
This topic has gotten insane. Blow up New York. Freaking dumbasses. It wins nothing. Except the sky's blotted out by them
I don't trust wiki's projecting a program that doesn't supposedly exist. Israeli population cannot get hit. Under 10 million. It projects. It could preempt overwhelming odds. Or launch to even the odds. But that number and silo and delivery scale to what kind of figures?
Aside is this why Israel have been so determined to halt hostile attacks. Obviously they cannot get hit. A smaller population and landmass.
Nukes aren't real in the sense that they have tremendous explosive power, they don't. What they do is create heat, millions of degrees at the center of the explosion and after 50 meters the temperature is the same as conventional explosives. What they don't do very effectively is produce pressure thermobaric bombs do that much better than nukes. Also precision guided munitions have eliminated the need for large area explosions.
The real problem in Israel is that Israel will probably lose if they try to invade Gaza, just like they lost when they invaded Lebanon. If they just stand off and bombard Gaza, they will lose in the eyes of the world.
What is the saying? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We don't know what they are. We haven't seen them in a long time. But simple science suggests bombs, explosives, munitions have gotten far more destructive on a scale of a huge area. Simple science. I don't know what a nuke is. I don't want to find out
However make no mistake there is something there.
This is why the USA have entered here. Because Israel won't get hit. That size and population will return any fire on a scale of collateral to even those odds. Unless they have a security partnership. Like the USA entering. Yes? Otherwise the potential for a nuke increases, or a lot more collateral.
So in a case of the likes of Iran, a huge national surface area, in comparison, and 10x that population number, potentially more conventional fire power. How does it even those odds? The nuke. Or alliances.
I know what nukes are, they aren't an effective weapon. . . A hypersonic guided missile is a much better weapon.
What do you mean "Israel won't get hit"? I know they have the Iron dome and laser defenses, but those systems can be overwhelmed. The Nuke threat is no longer a deterrent because too many people know the truth about them now.
Both the US and Israeli's militaries are somewhat archaic, current warfare is drones and missiles, not tanks and planes. Yes the US has good ISR capabilities, but that won't protect our ships from hypersonic missiles and our opponents generally don't have any high value targets to hit.
Can you use your head. I explained it already. Literally explained it. All of sudden it's the autism. Read my last reply.
The iron dome cannot stop every missile aimed at it.
It can stop a significant number. If one breaks through, it still needs a deterrent. It is an even larger payload.
The USA is rushing to add more defensive systems like Thaad etc. But there is still offense. It is returning any fire and stopping it firing.
In the case of Iran. What probability do you assume, if it fires directly at Israel?
In fact at the current rate of probability it makes no difference. Iran are attacking indirectly regardless. I am not suggesting the aforementioned odds. I am suggesting any conflict is becoming problematic. Whether the USA is dragged into striking them to prevent Israel causing that response, or if Iran attacks directly.
It isn't just Iran and the Hezbollah, it is Turkey, Syria, and possibly Egypt, Jordan, China and Russia. They will all support Iran if it is attacked.
If Israel has nukes they are a liability, because Russia and China will use theirs first against Israel at the first hint of Israel using nukes ( if nukes are real).
Israel lost their last war with Hezbollah and they are afraid of a pyrrhic victory over Gaza and committing genocide.
No. Not in a proxy war. Iran launch on a nuclear power. It nukes. Does everybody get involved? No, because everybody is involved.
There is zero point in speculating that. Because it's bullshit. There is no doctrine there.
What would happen is somebody else decides to use that logic and repeats it again somewhere else. Then it keeps reacting.
But I'd take that gamble. Because as I said the risk for Israel is more. Iran launches a figure of missile of various warheads, and they start beating defense. It hits a nuclear power station. It hits silos. Israel is potentially fucked by conventional means. So it launches nukes at Iran, and launches as Iran launches.
Sure there are Iranian allies. On the premises of war against it. Not on fucking idiotic martyrs.
Or I'd almost hedge surgical strikes disabling it. They talk bigger. However another flank will spill. Those allies of it will decide they'll attack somewhere else.
But Iranian shipping is fucked, anyway. It won't sail anywhere without another escort. And Gaza is gone regardless. At this rate it could also mean the Iranian coast. Hezbollah are also gone at this rate.
Iran might try to beat Isreal with Hezbollah that could be some bullshit. But there goes their nations. Collateral say this word. It is when a bigger force attacks a smaller nuclear power. What does it do. Collateral.
But according to you it's because a handful of Palestinian terrorists are worth tell me your logic?
I honestly don't know what would occur that's up to anybody making decisions and making a strategy. They've been so craven. Trump probably had his nuts squeezed, and now it's back there anyway. This time it's problematic. Again it's bigger talk, and dumber rats. But it needs something. Like Damascus gone. Hahaha.
However I am attempting a statistical analysis. Instead of listening to cravens and martyrs.
I am under the absolute impression you give an inch they take a mile. They're advancing on that notion. Whatever happens it will without these dumb words.
Let's run this without nukes. It means larger war. It draws everybody in. Nukes might. Or they could halt it. In a scenario they don't use nukes allies get involved.
Who knows who cares except it's getting real tedious this constant nuance. Collapse at this rate will cause a lot of shit and could lead to war anyway. Collapse occurs as oil soars. Oil will soar more whatever happens. As it happens it empowers extremists. War occurs. It is. It simply get bigger. In that collapse where food becomes scarcer and oil gets pricer. It brings conflict.
Can someone tell me if blood thinners due to the clot shot is the reason for so much pink blood? Being that Halloween is in a week, I'm sure fake blood is better then turning pink.
OK, Izzys; now that the Nuclear cat's out of the bag I'll be expecting a 'yuge' refund of all that "aid" the US has been throwing down your shit-hole 'Homeland'. Because every dime spent by the US for Israel is illegal, and has been since Jimmy Carter was President.
I well remember when an Israeli agent posing as a cop murdered a Houston investigator looking into theft of American nuke cores by Israel. George Bush senior was appalled but because his CIA was compromised he did nothing. Of course Israel has plenty of nukes, a snitch at Dimona revealed that and was punished.
After 9/11 we flew helicopters around searching for radioactivity - the Israelis couldn't shield against neutron emissions - and we knew about Israeli nuclear blackmail of US cities. And we knew about the nukes in the subbasements of the Twin Towers...
That's fucking bullshit. Complete gibberish.
Where are they hosted. Don't answer a hypothetical. Israel is tiny. It could host a few but not of any major significance. Unless it's cohosting or has them located somewhere else. How many warheads. Like numbers on that landmass. Then that problem becomes they could be beaten by conventional armament. Unless it preempts. So it also needs another location or joint security. Or it's cohosting like Europe? It probably isn't, but then the number becomes less correct to keep it secret.
Blackmail nukes. Hahahaha. It sounds like the Europe's. Europe hosts a number of American nukes. Part of the MAD doctrine. They've all got them. Not quite.
Conspiracies there are far more than claimed. A lot more not claimed today. But these nations tend to have warheads and not the facility to enrich and produce.
Of course nukes can be smaller now. But then any damage scales and so does any supposed fallout and detonation.
This topic has gotten insane. Blow up New York. Freaking dumbasses. It wins nothing. Except the sky's blotted out by them
I don't trust wiki's projecting a program that doesn't supposedly exist. Israeli population cannot get hit. Under 10 million. It projects. It could preempt overwhelming odds. Or launch to even the odds. But that number and silo and delivery scale to what kind of figures?
Aside is this why Israel have been so determined to halt hostile attacks. Obviously they cannot get hit. A smaller population and landmass.
Insane is the right word.
Nukes aren't real in the sense that they have tremendous explosive power, they don't. What they do is create heat, millions of degrees at the center of the explosion and after 50 meters the temperature is the same as conventional explosives. What they don't do very effectively is produce pressure thermobaric bombs do that much better than nukes. Also precision guided munitions have eliminated the need for large area explosions.
The real problem in Israel is that Israel will probably lose if they try to invade Gaza, just like they lost when they invaded Lebanon. If they just stand off and bombard Gaza, they will lose in the eyes of the world.
What is the saying? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
We don't know what they are. We haven't seen them in a long time. But simple science suggests bombs, explosives, munitions have gotten far more destructive on a scale of a huge area. Simple science. I don't know what a nuke is. I don't want to find out
However make no mistake there is something there.
This is why the USA have entered here. Because Israel won't get hit. That size and population will return any fire on a scale of collateral to even those odds. Unless they have a security partnership. Like the USA entering. Yes? Otherwise the potential for a nuke increases, or a lot more collateral.
So in a case of the likes of Iran, a huge national surface area, in comparison, and 10x that population number, potentially more conventional fire power. How does it even those odds? The nuke. Or alliances.
I know what nukes are, they aren't an effective weapon. . . A hypersonic guided missile is a much better weapon.
What do you mean "Israel won't get hit"? I know they have the Iron dome and laser defenses, but those systems can be overwhelmed. The Nuke threat is no longer a deterrent because too many people know the truth about them now.
Both the US and Israeli's militaries are somewhat archaic, current warfare is drones and missiles, not tanks and planes. Yes the US has good ISR capabilities, but that won't protect our ships from hypersonic missiles and our opponents generally don't have any high value targets to hit.
Can you use your head. I explained it already. Literally explained it. All of sudden it's the autism. Read my last reply.
The iron dome cannot stop every missile aimed at it.
It can stop a significant number. If one breaks through, it still needs a deterrent. It is an even larger payload.
The USA is rushing to add more defensive systems like Thaad etc. But there is still offense. It is returning any fire and stopping it firing.
In the case of Iran. What probability do you assume, if it fires directly at Israel?
In fact at the current rate of probability it makes no difference. Iran are attacking indirectly regardless. I am not suggesting the aforementioned odds. I am suggesting any conflict is becoming problematic. Whether the USA is dragged into striking them to prevent Israel causing that response, or if Iran attacks directly.
It isn't just Iran and the Hezbollah, it is Turkey, Syria, and possibly Egypt, Jordan, China and Russia. They will all support Iran if it is attacked.
If Israel has nukes they are a liability, because Russia and China will use theirs first against Israel at the first hint of Israel using nukes ( if nukes are real).
Israel lost their last war with Hezbollah and they are afraid of a pyrrhic victory over Gaza and committing genocide.
No. Not in a proxy war. Iran launch on a nuclear power. It nukes. Does everybody get involved? No, because everybody is involved.
There is zero point in speculating that. Because it's bullshit. There is no doctrine there.
What would happen is somebody else decides to use that logic and repeats it again somewhere else. Then it keeps reacting.
But I'd take that gamble. Because as I said the risk for Israel is more. Iran launches a figure of missile of various warheads, and they start beating defense. It hits a nuclear power station. It hits silos. Israel is potentially fucked by conventional means. So it launches nukes at Iran, and launches as Iran launches.
Sure there are Iranian allies. On the premises of war against it. Not on fucking idiotic martyrs.
Or I'd almost hedge surgical strikes disabling it. They talk bigger. However another flank will spill. Those allies of it will decide they'll attack somewhere else.
But Iranian shipping is fucked, anyway. It won't sail anywhere without another escort. And Gaza is gone regardless. At this rate it could also mean the Iranian coast. Hezbollah are also gone at this rate.
Iran might try to beat Isreal with Hezbollah that could be some bullshit. But there goes their nations. Collateral say this word. It is when a bigger force attacks a smaller nuclear power. What does it do. Collateral.
But according to you it's because a handful of Palestinian terrorists are worth tell me your logic?
I honestly don't know what would occur that's up to anybody making decisions and making a strategy. They've been so craven. Trump probably had his nuts squeezed, and now it's back there anyway. This time it's problematic. Again it's bigger talk, and dumber rats. But it needs something. Like Damascus gone. Hahaha.
However I am attempting a statistical analysis. Instead of listening to cravens and martyrs.
I am under the absolute impression you give an inch they take a mile. They're advancing on that notion. Whatever happens it will without these dumb words.
Let's run this without nukes. It means larger war. It draws everybody in. Nukes might. Or they could halt it. In a scenario they don't use nukes allies get involved.
Who knows who cares except it's getting real tedious this constant nuance. Collapse at this rate will cause a lot of shit and could lead to war anyway. Collapse occurs as oil soars. Oil will soar more whatever happens. As it happens it empowers extremists. War occurs. It is. It simply get bigger. In that collapse where food becomes scarcer and oil gets pricer. It brings conflict.
Can someone tell me if blood thinners due to the clot shot is the reason for so much pink blood? Being that Halloween is in a week, I'm sure fake blood is better then turning pink.
OK, Izzys; now that the Nuclear cat's out of the bag I'll be expecting a 'yuge' refund of all that "aid" the US has been throwing down your shit-hole 'Homeland'. Because every dime spent by the US for Israel is illegal, and has been since Jimmy Carter was President.