You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Israel to Syria: Use chem weapons & we'll wipe you off map
2007-09-23
Israeli officials vowed to wipe Syria off the map if it is attacked with chemical weapons like one that reportedly exploded in July at a secret Syrian base staffed with Iranian engineers.

Politicians in Israel said yesterday they were not picking a fight with their neighbor, but pledged to forcefully retaliate if chemical warheads come screaming across its shared border. "We will not attack them first. But if they ever use these weapons against Israel, then we must be clear — it will be the end of this evil and brutal dictatorship," Yuval Steinitz, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, told the Daily News yesterday.
A little concerning that Israel has to say this -- everyone knows the Israelis would, and that's been true for thirty years. That Israel has to say it now shows how weak Olmert is.
Sparking shock waves across the Middle East was a report in Jane's Defence Weekly about an accidental explosion at a top secret Syrian base in July. Citing Syrian intelligence sources, the report claimed a team of Iranian and Syrian engineers were killed July 26 while trying to arm a Scud-C missile with a mustard gas warhead.
Posted by:Steve White

#29  Good to see you in this thread Joseph, makes for contiuity.
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-09-23 22:58  

#28  Excalibur - re Russia...
I wouldn't bet on it. I hope you are right but remember the freighter to Egypt in the 74 war. Kissinger went on and on about it and its contents.
Posted by: 3dc   2007-09-23 22:40  

#27  The reported Syrian-Iran-NK "alliance" in dev WMDS and LR missles illustrates that GLOBAL PROLIFERATION goes on - short of perm pre-emption. mil conquest, and inducing democratic "regime change" [by force? iff need be], how then can the World stop "rogue nations" = Terror groups from getting WMDS??? SAME ISSUE/QUESTION AS BEFORE 9-11 WHEN THE FOCII WAS SADDAM ONLY. *OWG > LIMITED DEMOCRACY VS FULL, LIMITED TOTALITARIANISM-GOVTISM VS FULL, ...@etc?
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-23 20:02  

#26  Zenster: Excuse me but there is no "win-win" with the Samson Option as it would be the consequence of Israeli retaliation. Unless we are suggesting this is Israeli pre-emption in which case I am all for it. So long as they remember to nuke Mecca. I want see that smoking crater from space.

SMN: If you think the Russians would deploy nuclear weapons on behalf of the Arabs you are mistaken. They will sell the tech to just about anyone but - being old fashioned racial supremacists - they are no more likely to stick their necks out than the French.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-09-23 18:59  

#25  What's the downside

That was my first reaction as well, Barbara. The answer being that it requires demolition of the Middle East's oil patch and a global conomic depression to trigger it. Otherwise, it's one helluva win-win.

Bearing with Shieldwolf's ultimate scenario, we would be well-advised to expedite defeat of the shared enemies that America and Israel have in the Middle East. The kid glove treatment that they currently enjoy serves no other agenda but their own terrorist aims.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-23 17:16  

#24  "possibility that Russia and China would be involved in a thermonuclear battle over the Russian Far East and all its resources"

What's the downside, SW?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2007-09-23 16:27  

#23  Good point, Mike, I should have been more discerning as to source.. Wikipedia has the same list with references to the sources.
Posted by: GK   2007-09-23 15:59  

#22  From what I have read over the years, the Sampson Option entails the complete and total destruction of ALL major Arab capitals and population centers within the maximum time frame of the IRBM's flight - about 15 minutes. Adding cobalt to a fission warhead guarantees fusion-type fallout from the explosion - dead zones for 300-5000 years, depending on the number of warheads used, the strike pattern, the wind patterns, and whether there are airbursts or groundbursts involved (groundbursts tend toward the heavier, longer lived isotopes).
Of course the Israelis could be nice to the West and use radiation-enhanced warheads which would simply kill the locals and leave the oil and infrastructure relatively intact and usable. Neutron warheads are within the scope of the Israeli nuclear program, and would allow the world's economy to survive such an exchange. The first year would be horrible but survivable if neutron warheads are used; if enhanced fallout warheads are used, write off 60% of the world's known oil supply, for a couple of decades at least.
The second scenario is the worst for several reasons : a worldwide depression on the scale and duration of the Great Depression, 5-7 mid-scale wars between countries scrambling for resources, and the possibility that Russia and China would be involved in a thermonuclear battle over the Russian Far East and all its resources.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2007-09-23 15:34  

#21  Darth - keep in mind it won't be "a" nuke over Iran.

True, I was making the point that there are a lot more people per sq/KM in a smaller physical area in Israel than Iran. More bang for the buck so to speak.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-09-23 15:20  

#20  I wouldn't put much faith in the antiwar.com
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-09-23 13:41  

#19   #12, Dan go here and scroll down to
Exhibit 1: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal (Source: USAF Counterproliferation Center, Air War College citations). God Bless Google.
Posted by: GK   2007-09-23 12:50  

#18  the civilized world and Canada? Isn't that a tad premature, SteveS?
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-23 12:48  

#17  In most of the wporld prevailing winds are west to east

Actually, the direction of the prevailing winds depends on lattitude.
here is a picture
Of course, if by 'most of the world', you mean the civilised world and Canada...
Posted by: SteveS   2007-09-23 11:16  

#16  In this context 'nuclear arms control' means 'hitting what you aim at.' Iran might be able to hit Israel; Israel can hit an address in Qom.

I doubt Israel has fusion nukes. No point - you can get plenty of yield from enhanced fission warheads with a whole lot less complexity and maintenance issues.
Posted by: Glenmore   2007-09-23 10:14  

#15  Darth - keep in mind it won't be "a" nuke over Iran.
Posted by: Thrinesing Prince of the Welsh6043   2007-09-23 09:58  

#14  re: packed. A little over 7 million people in 8500 sq miles, some of it desert.
Posted by: lotp   2007-09-23 08:25  

#13  1. Dunno Dan. It is so classified that no non-Israeli has a good idea. Maybe OldSpook would know. I would bet that the large portion of them are fission and small yield for tactical strikes while only a few are larger payloads (Fusion) for taking out capital cities.

2. Very, very, very, very, very, very, very effective. As effective as the Patriot III.

3. Iran has the ballistic missiles to deliver one. It wouldn't be huge, but it doesn't have to be. Israel is a pretty packed place and a small nuke will kill a lot more people than a nuke over Iran.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-09-23 08:21  

#12  a few questions for those who have such information:

1. Are Israel's nukes of the WWII vintage (i.e., fission) or are they the more potent hydrogen variety (fusion)? As I understand it, NorK's and Iran's are the former.

2. I know it's untried as of yet in real life (and I hope it never has to be tried!) but how effective is Israel's missile defense system?

3. If an enemy state can produce a nuclear weapon, would it be so cumbersome as to necessarily have to be delivered by missile, vs. smuggled in?
Posted by: PlanetDan   2007-09-23 08:00  

#11  France shall consider itself fortunate if it is spared from the Samson Option.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-23 06:21  

#10  #8 I agree Trailing Wife, but in the brinkmanship game of nuclear M.A.D.,

Excellent predictive analysis SMN. I would love to hear your take on other potential players, such as the French and Great Britain.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-09-23 06:17  

#9  A while back an Israeli blogger posted a claim that Gaza would be destroyed if a missile destroyed Israel's Ashkelon power generation plant. The country would have lost a quarter of its power supply, and face the task of rebuilding. And there would be no point in rebuilding, if missiles can destroy it again. There are numerous flash points where escalation could result.

In their haste, posters sometimes call for launching nukes. Frankly, it could happen.
Posted by: McZoid   2007-09-23 06:11  

#8  I agree Trailing Wife, but in the brinkmanship game of nuclear M.A.D., The Jewish race and their survivability will be determined by reactions and decisions beyond their counterstrike pervue. Russia would almost certainly not retaliate for their Iranian 'friends' because the Russians could not guarantee all of Israel's launchers would be immobilized especially the nuclear subs; and thus Israel ,although massively destroyed in there geographical territory (Initial Use It Or Lose It scenario by Iran + Russia's declaration), would only need to hit 4 locations in Russia to disestablish the hegemony enough for the US or India to counter strike to the advantage. The Chicoms would 'hold back' understanding but ultimately realizing that huge sections of territory would be up for grabs in the ensuing decades of geo-political wrangling therefrom, although highly contaminated by fallout which would affect their peoples also. The agreements by the Security Council Nuclear Clubs within the first 24 hours of Israel's counterstrike will determine the course of the entire world!!
Posted by: smn   2007-09-23 05:40  

#7  I'd rather Israel didn't exercise the Samson option in administering such a sharp lesson to the region.

Which is why I have increasingly agitated for America to take some pages from Israel's playbook. The most significant one is targetted killings. Whether it be a group decapitation—such as Iran's entire majlis—or some onesey-twosey nailing of Nasrallah and Meshaal, both modes would go a long way towards obviating the need for far more catastrophic countermeasures like the Samson Option.

America has sufficient stores of conventional weapons to achieve much of the Samson Option's results. Israel's overall goals are in striking alignment to our own: Namely, the elimination of extremist Arab and Islamic leaders along with their war machines. To hell with Muslim cries of how Zionists steer American foreign policy. More like, it is the universal predation of Islam that induces an overarching similarity in the response of all surviving cultures.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-23 05:23  

#6  Merci beaucoup, JFM. You are a font of information, as always. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-23 05:22  

#5  In most of the wporld prevailing winds are west to east. Ie towards Syria
Posted by: JFM   2007-09-23 05:18  

#4  Which way do the prevailing winds go, in that part of the world? I'd rather Israel didn't exercise the Samson option in administering such a sharp lesson to the region.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-09-23 05:02  

#3  No one knows outside of Israel, how many of their 200+ nuclear warheads, would be utilized in the 'gloves off' retaliatory strike against Iran. Assuming that some would be kept in the 'kitty' for the unknown reaction of the Arab nations or Russia; 20 of those "Light Of GOD" missiles would be the minimum needed for surface emasculation with perhaps 50% targeting the underground nuclear, chemical and biological sites and their surrounding areas and personnel. Although history has shown the Jewish people to be a forgiving nation, it's wrath whether backed and or sponsored by God himself has shown to be merciless, which leads me to believe the strike would preclude any nation building considerations, or population density statistics by Israel and with an anticipatory likehood of an Islamic rebirth that would be administered by the world(UN). The pattern of the Islamic democracy will be nurtured by the UN, with perhaps a shaping in the line of Egypt that would appeal to the Israelis and surrounding nations.
Posted by: smn   2007-09-23 03:10  

#2  Their language, OUR resolve.
Posted by: newc   2007-09-23 02:49  

#1  A little concerning that Israel has to say this -- everyone knows the Israelis would, and that's been true for thirty years. That Israel has to say it now shows how weak Olmert is.

Yes and no. While Olmert is quite the jellyfish, an open anouncement like this meets a huge need. Despite their own endemic cognitive dissonance, high context Muslim cultures place a lot of stock in what is openly stated. Ergo, why Ahmadinejad's constant torrent of total fabrications is so effective in maintaining his popularity. Same goes for Nasrallah and his crowing about Hezbollah's imaginary "victory" against Israel last year.

Israel making such a forceful statement in a wholly public fashion helps to counter all the Islamic bluster and saber-rattling going on around them. Even if only in a small way, it attaches a price tag to the usual tissue of horseshit emanating from Syria and Iran. If this gives Israel's enemies the least pause, it does some definite good. America would do well to take copious notes from Israel's playbook.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-23 00:23  

00:00