ISRAELS NUKES

Y

yurry

Active member
I know this is higly unlikely in recent times but lets say that Israel is invaded by the Arab League. At wich point do you think they would resort to the Ultimate Wapon and what would the targets be?

They officialy deny that they have the Bombs but I think that there is a more than likely chance they do. :rambo:

I presonaly think that such a scenario is almost impossible (Israel kickes but 8) ) but lets say that the invadors have learned from past erors and they fight a longer, atritional war. Israel's weak point is that hey can't keep their army mobilised for to long. And after a few weaks things get more interesting :D
 
Well, there are tactical nukes and strategic nukes. Essentially, the difference is in yield.

If there is a repeat of past invasions (very unlikely, in my opinion, precisely because Israel has a nuclear arsenal), an attack from all directions, I think the Israelis would deploy tactical nukes.

What would be the target? Classic doctrine dictates you use a high value assets is only used on a high value target. To put it in US military terms, we had an unwritten doctrine of using a tactical nuke on the ITB (Independent Tank Battalion) of Soviet Divisions. This was part of the Fulda Gap defense. The ITB is a tank heavy unit. I think it had 40 tanks assigned to it. Other tactical targets include Army level headquarters, significant POL sites, etc.

Regarding the strategic use of nukes, I think Israel would use their high yield nukes as a method to deny the enemy certain areas. As most probably know, the use of chems or bio weapons are tricky in the Middle East. The relative lack of humidity in the air, intense heat, and UV rays all work to greatly reduce their effectiveness as land area denyers.

However, radiological aftermath would persist longer and force the attacking armies to MOPP, expose their troops to significant radiation prior to a fight, or they would have to maneuver around the area. So, Israel may have likely mapped out key Lines of Communication (major roads that allow heavy troop movement) for the strikes.

I think the last guesstimate put Israel with 50-100 nukes. I never read any briefing breaking down how many are tactical and how many are strategic.

EDIT: Of course, this is just my guess. I never dealt with nuke planning.
 
Hmmm....Well, Israel wouldent use nukes before the situation gets very harsh. The problem here is that it would be diffecult for any Arab forces to get Israel to that point. Right now there are 4 Arab countrys that have a land border with Israel- Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Lebanese army is small, and will play no major role. The Syrians will probably be one of the major players, but their armed forces are deteriorationg since the collaps of the USSR. The Syrians will have a hard time against the forces assighned to the Northern comman, because those include the best armored and infantry brigades in the IDF. I cant see the the Syrians punching through. The Jordanians are a good army, but they have a peace agreemant with Israel and nothing to gain from another war. Even so, they are the best trained arab army, and a force that can cause much trouble. Egypt is the biggest and strongest neighbor. Their army is armed with some modern weapons. Still tohugh, to invade they would have to get the bulk of their army into Sinai. The Israeli Air-Force is likely to cause horrible casualties before they get to the border. So, Israel should never be in a horrible situation where the only way to stop the enemy is use of nukes.

However, I see two main reasonsfor Israel to use nukes:

1-All I wrote up there turns out to be BS, and we cannot stop the Arabs, and it is givven that in a day or so they will be in Tel-Aviv(Unlikely)

2-If the Arabs use WMDs against Israel, I am pretey sure that Israel will use its WMDs.

But again these are all assumptions, as I dont really know.
 
2-If the Arabs use WMDs against Israel, I am pretey sure that Israel will use its WMDs.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you first resorte to CB weapons and then to nukes :)

And in 1973 I belive that something like 12 countries went in against Israel. What if this time the forces the'd send would be bigger :rambo:
 
Well, you must remember, that in 1973, the world was much diffrent. Israel was not as strong as it is now. The tech advantage is bigger now than ever. Israel has satellites monitering Arab activaties, and other EW systems that are very useful. Also, even though in 1973 12 arab countrys were envolved, the main players were Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. Out of those 4, 2 have a peace agreemant with Israel and 1 has no military power thanks to our dear American friends. One of the main reasons for the relative arab sucses in 1973 was that they achived Stratigic and Tactical surprise. That will be almost impossible today, because Israel spent alot of time thinking how badly we were surprised and measures were taken to make sure it dosent happen(sorry guys, i really cant say more than that ;) )....So like I said, I doubtr we will see the day.
 
It's difficult to see which coalition of Arab states would be sufficiently strong to force Israel to resort to nuclear weapons. If it could defeat an invasion in 1973 solely through conventional means, it is much more likely to do so now or in the foreseeable future. There is no more USSR that provided all the weapons its ME clients could use for free.
 
Luckily for Israel they don't need to resort to Nukes, a conventional war will already lead Israel again to big victory and gain more territory.

IN CASE nukes must be used to resist invasion (simply not possible), use the Neutron mini-nukes, quite effective to kill large groups of enemy troops.
 
yurry said:
2-If the Arabs use WMDs against Israel, I am pretey sure that Israel will use its WMDs.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you first resorte to CB weapons and then to nukes :)

And in 1973 I belive that something like 12 countries went in against Israel. What if this time the forces the'd send would be bigger :rambo:
Click to expand...

I'm figuring that if you can't do anything with 12 countries, you're not gonna be successful with any more. Not while the US supplies the goods to the good guys!
 
silent driller said:
I'm figuring that if you can't do anything with 12 countries, you're not gonna be successful with any more. Not while the US supplies the goods to the good guys!
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that more countries attacked but just they send more forces than in 1973 when some sent as few as a batalion and some only sent support troops.

As for the equipment - if this were an attack supported by THE ENTIRE Arab League Saudi Arabia has all the weapons Israel has (apart from those made in Israel) and I've just read an article that the Saudis may purchase 100 Eurofighters.
 
There is a reason that the Arabic nations have not tried ganging Israel recently. In the past, they figured they had numerical superiority, and in some instances they had technological superiority as well. They figured they couldn't possibly lose. The results? The Arabs always lose and have never gained anything for their efforts. There is a reason their intelligence is so good and their military is so fine tuned. It HAS TO BE.
 
FlyingFrog said:
Luckily for Israel they don't need to resort to Nukes, a conventional war will already lead Israel again to big victory and gain more territory.
Click to expand...

I doubt Israel wants any more territory populated by Arabs. They were not very successful holding on to South Lebanon.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
There is a reason that the Arabic nations have not tried ganging Israel recently. In the past, they figured they had numerical superiority, and in some instances they had technological superiority as well. They figured they couldn't possibly lose. The results? The Arabs always lose and have never gained anything for their efforts. There is a reason their intelligence is so good and their military is so fine tuned. It HAS TO BE.
Click to expand...

If tis not he guns, it has to be the man who carries them :rambo:
 
Good video. It's only based on one source, so it doesn't proof anything, but it's believable, I think....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top