Comments

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.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Israel-Palestine-Jordan

Iran, Not Israel, Faces An Existential Threat

2014-05-07

Not exactly a recent article, but still pertinent, it seems to me.

[IsraelTimes] Iran, not Israel, faces an existential threat, according to a top US analyst who is considered one of the world's leading scholars on the Iranian nuclear issue.

In a research paper published last week, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that, in preparation for a nuclear Iran, Israel has been working in recent years to extend the range of its missiles, and that it now poses a real threat to all of the Islamic Theocratic Republic's major population centers.

"Israel now poses a more serious existential threat to Iran than Iran can pose to Israel in the near term," he wrote.

Cordesman, a former national security aide to Senator

John Maverick McCain
... the Senator-for-Life from Arizona, former presidential candidate and even more former foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution...
, said Iran is likely within the range of Israeli missiles carrying thermonuclear warheads, which employ hydrogen fission and are far more powerful than standard atomic warheads. He attributed the information to "a variety of media and think tank reports."

"Israel long ago extended the range of its nuclear-armed land-based missiles, probably now targets Iran with thermonuclear weapons, and is examining options for sea launched cruise missiles," he wrote.

According to the CSIS report, entitled US-Iranian competition: The Gulf Military Balance II, "A mix of several air and ground bursts in an Israeli thermonuclear or high fission yield attack on five key cities -- Tehran (capital) 7.19 million; Mashhad 2.592 million; Esfahan 1.704 million; Karaj 1.531 million; Tabriz 1.459 million -- would probably destroy Iran as a nation in anything like its current form."

According to Cordesman, Iran will not have the ability to threaten Israel with a long-range nuclear warhead for several years. Today, the Islamic Theocratic Republic can attack Israel with small bombs from the sea, or with long-range non-nuclear missiles, he noted.

Or pop them over the border on Hizb'allah rockets...

"It seems likely that Israel can already deliver an 'existential' nuclear strike on Iran, and will have far more capability to damage Iran than Iran is likely to have against Israel for the next decade," Cordesman wrote.

Israel has never admitted to maintaining a nuclear arsenal.

Iran says that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and has no military component, a claim that Israel and Western powers reject.

Posted by:trailing wife

#7 The difference is that Israel wouldn't use it unless it is very necessary. Iran would use it at the drop of a hat and Dinnerjacket has often said as much.

Posted by: CrazyFool 2014-05-07 15:50

#6 If deterrence doesn't work against the irrational people in charge of Iran, then maybe both Iran and Israel face an existential threat from Iran's government.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2014-05-07 14:03

#5 A neutron bomb or officially known as one type of Enhanced Radiation Weapon is a low yield fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon (hydrogen bomb) in which the burst of neutrons generated by a fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape the weapon, rather than being absorbed by its other components. The weapon's radiation case, usually made from relatively thick uranium, lead or steel in a standard bomb, are instead made of as thin a material as possible to facilitate the greatest escape of fusion produced neutrons. The "usual" nuclear weapon yieldexpressed as kilotons of TNT equivalentis not a measure of a neutron weapon's destructive power. It refers only to the energy released (mostly heat and blast), and does not express the lethal effect of neutron radiation on living organisms.

Compared to a pure fission bomb with an identical explosive yield, a neutron bomb would emit about ten times the amount of neutron radiation. In a fission bomb at sea level, the total radiation pulse energy which is composed of both gamma rays and neutrons is approximately 5% of the entire energy released; in the neutron bomb it would be closer to 40%. Furthermore, the neutrons emitted by a neutron bomb have a much higher average energy level, closer to (14 MeV) than those released during a fission reaction (12 MeV).[8] Technically speaking, all low yield nuclear weapons are radiation weapons, that is including the non-enhanced variant, from 0 up to about 10 kilotons in yield, all have prompt neutron radiation, as their most far reaching lethal component, after which point the lethal blast and thermal effects radius begins to out-range the lethal ionizing radiation radius. Enhanced radiation weapons also fall into this same yield range and simply enhance the intensity and range of the neutron dose for a given yield.

Posted by: Fleremble Flusort1165 2014-05-07 13:40

#4 Would somebody who knows their nukes have a go at comment 3?

Posted by: Grunter 2014-05-07 13:31

#3 The preferred Israeli weapon is the neutron bomb. Saudi Arabia has been warned that 'never again' means that Mecca and Medina could be made a radiation wasteland for one hundred years if the existence of Israel were threatened.

Posted by: Thrusotch and Tenille7340 2014-05-07 09:43

#2 Yeah, but why would the Juices use 5? Everyone knows, the science is settled, the concensus is in, that one ESM burst is all it takes. Really. You can read about it on the internets.

Posted by: Shipman 2014-05-07 08:38

#1 Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2014-05-07 03:24

00:00