Israeli attack on Iran might lead to nuclear conflict

[Kshasty]

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned Israel against a military attack on Iran, saying it might lead to nuclear war and global disaster.

The United States and Israel have refused to rule out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute over Tehran's nuclear program.

In an interview with the ABC News, the Russian leader said an attack on Iran would be "the worst possible scenario" in the Middle East, because "everyone is so close over there that nobody would be unaffected."
"And if conflict of that kind happens, and a strike is performed, then you can expect anything, including use of nuclear weapons. And nuclear strikes in the Middle East, this means a global catastrophe. Many deaths," Medvedev said.

He added that he was uncertain on whether Israel would decide to carry out an airstrike against Iran.
"The Israelis are directing their own policy. I do have a good relationship with the president and prime minister of Israel. But those are independent people. And I would say that on many questions they are defending stubborn positions. Very tough," he said.

"The US has seen the proof of that lately," he added, in a reference to the issue of the Israeli settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100412/158540307.html

[Statistical]

1. What is Russia saying?

Iran has no bomb at least not yet. So the conflict wouldn't go nuclear because of Iran response (biological or chemical maybe). Israel is unlikely to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack so it wouldn't go nuclear there either.

It seems hard to believe it is a veiled threat that Russia would get involved with nuclear response to an attack on Iran? Russia is an ally of Iran but not that good of an ally. It is unlikely they would release the third ever nuclear weapon in combat in the history of mankind for anything less than their own self interests.

[LakeSamish706]

2. I've been saying for some time now that if Israel attacks Iran you can

bet that Russia will step in. I suspect that China might also enter a conflict like that.

[Statistical]

5. Step in is one thing. Step in with a nuclear strike.

Seems nearly impossible.

[ixion]

3. "Israel is unlikely to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack"

:rofl:

Yeah, because they're so civil, and stuff. :eyes:

[Statistical]

6. No they just have a very effective conventional military.

They have had nuclear weapons for 50 or so years and "restrained" themselves in various conflicts so far. They can be very destructive and brutal without resorting to a nuclear weapons. For example they have a substantial number of US made MLRS artillery (multiple launch rocket system). MLRS can saturate a square kilometer with antipersonel bomblets. That combined with stand off weapons like JDAMS gives them the ability to cause a massive amount of conventional damage.

I am not relying on their "mercy" in my opinion. I just think they are smart enough to know that a nuclear release is not good for their own self interest. From a purely selfish standpoint they won't use nuclear weapons.

[ixion]

8. I hope you're right...

I really do.

When Bush was in office, there was (ridiculous) talk of "tactical" nukes, and I remember Israel expressing interest. I agree with you that they are probably not going to initiate an full-on nuclear strike. I am concerned, though, about such "tactical" nukes.

[kayecy]

4. What Russia could be saying is.......

1. The West was mistaken on Iraq, it could be mistaken on Iran, and they do in fact have nukes. (Why else is Iran provoking Israel to attack?)

2. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will have every justification to retaliate with missiles form itself and Hesbollah/Syria. How many Israelis would have to be killed in an Iranian conventional retaliation before Israel resorts to nukes?

[Statistical]

7. Possible.

Just doesn't seem likely.

Iran hasn't tested a nuclear weapon. They aren't impossible to build but they do require some testing. You can't hide a nuclear detonation. Above ground, under ground, under water it leaves behind a shockwave that can be detected around the world. Enriching uranium doesn't mean having a bomb.

While Irael could respond with nuclear weapons it just seems unlikely. That is their massive unplayed trump card. You can't undo that.
Israel in recent conflicts has only used a tiny fraction of their conventional military strength. If they don't care about casualties at all they could pound rocket sites flat from the air with standoff weapons.

To jump from rocket attacks to the 3rd use of nuclear weapons in history of mankind is kinda a leap.

Nothing is impossible it just seems extremely remote. Maybe a 100m wide asteroid (Tunguska class) will strike the middle east and wipe it all out. The likelihood of a strike that sized is about 5% per century. I think that is slightly more than a conventional war going nuclear over rocket fire.

[shaayecanaan]

9. Not entirely correct...

You don't need to test bombs using enriched uranium. The Little Boy bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima had never previously been tested - all of the Manhattan project tests involved implosion-triggered plutonium bombs, similar to the one dropped on Nagasaki.

Once you have enriched uranium, a basic rack-type atomic bomb is very easy and simple to build. It is very inefficient (as the Hiroshima bomb was) but it will get the job done. The only problem is that it is potentially bulky and therefore more difficult to fit in a warhead.

[aranthus]

10. Reminds me of when I was in high school debate.

Whatever one side argued, the other side claimed that it would lead to nuclear war. Please. The consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran are dire enough without the hyperbole.