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.
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.