Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Haaretz

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms. Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response." Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

According to the same source, the nuclear guarantee would be backed by a new and improved Israeli anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration took the first step by deploying an early-warning radar system in the Negev, which hones the ability to detect Iranian ballistic missiles.

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Read more: http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

[wtmusic]

1. Ahmadinejad would never be so stupid

as to strike Israel with a missile.

A nuke will be smuggled in. And then we will be left with the conundrum of how to retaliate against an attack of uncertain provenance.

[The Stranger]

2. It really is an absurd assumption -- that Iran would immediately launch whatever minuscule fission

bomb it could somehow piece together. Bullshit. They would hold on to it for dear life for its SYMBOLISM and SYMBOLIC VALUE. To risk launch failure -- or even using it in any way -- would destroy their DETERRENCE. They would also make motherfucking sure no terrorists got a hold of it because, first, they would end up paying the price for whatever happens, and, two, they would give away the deterrence they have fought so hard to achieve.

[Sherman A1]

5. Precisely

This is what I have always thought to be among the first steps in the nuclear-terrorism issue. Simply explain to the Iranians & North Koreans (and whoever else might be in on the proliferation chain), that if a nuke goes off, they go away. Game, Set, Match. It's harkens back to the M.A.D. theory of the Cold War, but it worked pretty well during that time frame and I believe can work again. Terrorists have their agendas certainly, however a Nation-State has theirs as well and the primary one is to continue to exist, without which the other agenda points are moot. It then becomes in the best interest of the particular Nation-State to help in combating the potential for nuclear terrorism.

[Oak2004]

26. Absolutely -- Nukes are not used as functional weapons, but as chits in the game of geopolitics

Iranian leaders are not suicidal, and they're entirely capable of the simple calculus that tells them "throw one nuke (which may or may not work), get back 100 nukes".

It's deterrence and symbolism. Just like our offer of a nuclear shield to Israel.

Now the one part of the world that has nukes and could well use them (India and Pakistan), well, that's a whole 'nother, far more disturbing, story than the possibility of Iranian nukes.

[Fumesucker]

8. The provenance of an atomic weapon has an isotope "fingerprint"

It wouldn't take long to decipher from whence the radionuclides in a bomb came.

[wtmusic]

9. The ability to decipher that fingerprint is not foolproof

and a decision to kill hundreds of thousands would have to be.

[Fumesucker]

11. About as foolproof as deciphering actual fingerprints..

Or DNA analysis..

I'm not advocating mass killings, just pointing out that it wouldn't be necessary to nuke all the so called "Axis of Evil" states in order to be sure of getting the right one.

I'm wondering how Obama's statement substantively differs from Hillary's pledge to "obliterate Iran"?

[wtmusic]

14. Nope

"Each sample of nuclear material has a unique elemental fingerprint that can theoretically determine its source. However, current efforts to trace materials are often incomplete because the technology is still in development and information on foreign reactors and stockpiles is not available."

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/29366

Not certain enough to greenlight a nuclear attack on any country.

[Oak2004]

15. The CIA has been very busy collecting samples from Iranian reactors

(a bit about how they collected the samples is now public knowledge).

If there is no match, then yes, there'd be a problem (just as there's a problem whenm a DNA sample has no match). But if there is, the match is certain, and I'm certain the CIA has quite a few samples from Iran.

[wtmusic]

18. Can Nuclear Forensics Trace a Detonated Nuclear Weapon to its Source?

"For a policy of holding a country accountable for leakage of nuclear material or weapons to work, it is necessary to have the technical capability to trace a detonated nuclear weapon to its source. The United States has launched a research program using nuclear forensic methods to try to develop this capability. There are complex challenges in analyzing nuclear bomb debris and determining to a high degree of confidence where the nuclear material originated.

<>

"Nine countries are known to have nuclear weapons programs, but more than 40 countries have weapons-usable nuclear material. Because the United States and Russia supplied many countries in the latter group with nuclear material for civilian research reactors and related facilities, it might not be possible to trace the material leaked from these countries
to the actual source of the leak just by analyzing the bomb debris."

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/1/5/5/pages151550/p151550-1.php

How are you certain that the CIA has quite a few samples from Iran? :shrug:

[Oak2004]

21. As I mention above, information about the collection effort has leaked out.

The stuff out there in public is that agents had been out there collecting dirt samples outside of nuclear facilities (including undeclared facilities) under various ruses, using various concealed dirt-collecting devices. Obviously not every dirt sample would give them something to look at, but no nuclear facility is 100% leakproof.

(excuse any typos I've missed: I haven't yet put my finger splints on... better do that now or I'll spend all day baxckspacing).

[wtmusic]

22. Do you have a link?

I can't find anything on Google. Thanks.

[Oak2004]

27. I don't -- I'm not sure if this is on the net

it appeared in passing in an account of nuclear espionage activities I've read.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. It's pretty amazing how they were able to

determine North Korea's enrichment process from an air sample, taken during an IEA tour of a supposedly closed facility.

On the other hand, the simple fact that that knowledge leaked makes NK and other even more cagey about their nuclear programs, which doesn't help with some of the recent diplomatic carrot/stick efforts.

I honestly do not believe Iran will be stuid enough to launch anything at Iran, or even sneak it in, but it adds concerns about the stability of the Iranian government, just like Pakistan, as well as the worry that we are witnessing the beginning of a new arms race that will probably last the rest of our lives.

[jpak]

38. If they test a weapon - even underground - any off-site atmospheric release of radionuclides

could be sampled downwind by surveillance aircraft.

That's how they determined North Korea's test was a (failed) nuke - and we (CIA) have the isotopic signature.

It would be highly doubtful that any country with nuclear ambitions would attack another nuclear capable country with a nuke they haven't tested.

[wtmusic]

40. As another poster noted

it would be easy to "salt" their test with a particular isotopic signature and replace it with another. Close, but no ceegar when it comes to retaliation.

[jpak]

41. It's the isotopic signature of the noble gases they look for

It's very hard to "salt" those isotopes...

[wtmusic]

44. The concentration of tritium

can help determine whether a detonation occurred, but it is useless for identifying the source of the bombmaking material.

[jpak]

48. Tritium is not a noble gas - it's the xenon (and krypton) isotopes that are sampled

and their ratios are characteristic of the device that produced them.

That's the fingerprint.

[wtmusic]

49. Do you have a link?

I didn't know it was possible to trace the type of nuke that way.

Thanks.

[jpak]

54. Here's a couple

xenon

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_11/tech

http://scicom.ucsc.edu/scinotes/9701/text/features/bombtxt.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12819-telltale-gas-confirms-korean-nuclear-test.html

krypton from reprocessng for plutonium

http://www.inesap.org/bulletin27/art02.htm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3960-krypton-clue-to-north-korean-nuclear-progress.html

[wtmusic]

64. All your sources prove is that the state of the art

allows us to determine somewhat definitively whether the blast was the result of a plutonium or uranium weapon. Good enough to retaliate with? Hardly.

[Zhade]

52. Yeah, and there's NO WAY the CIA could just manufacture evidence against Iran.

Not OUR CIA.

:sarcasm:

[Fumesucker]

17. Refusal to provide samples after a nuclear attack would be fairly decent proof of guilt..

Samples don't have to be take before an attack, they could easily be taken after, in fact any innocent party would be falling over themselves to provide such samples.

Any nation with the technology to build a bomb will have scientists capable of explaining the need for providing samples to the leaders.

Once again, I'm not in favor of nuking anyone, it's rather like using a howitzer to kill a mosquito, the people responsible for a nuke attack in the first place are few amongst myriads who are innocent.

[wtmusic]

20. Don't know for sure, but I would think

it would be fairly easy to "game" submitted samples to show a different isotope mix.

As you say, it's like using a howitzer to kill a mosquito. Destroying Iran's nuclear capability and retaliating against the state would involve a lot less collateral damage and civilian deaths if we used a conventional response to a nuclear attack.

[Fumesucker]

24. Not if the samples were collected by an independent agency..

It would certainly be much more difficult to game the samples in such a scenario.

[Zhade]

53. Um, it's "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until you prove you're innocent".

NT!

[Psephos]

62. No such stricture exists in international relations - history shows exactly the opposite. n/t

[jpak]

37. There would be a satellite-detected IR launch signature, tracking from Israeli Arrow ABM radars

and tracking from US Aegis equipped (ABM capable) destroyers in the region.

Not much uncertainty in that department.

[wtmusic]

42. We're talking about smuggled nukes

read the post :eyes:

[jpak]

45. That's not what I responded to - and all nukes need to be tested

and when they are, the noble gases and any other radionuclides from the test site will be released into the environment - and reveal their signature.

It's also highly unlikely that Iran could even build a device that could be "smuggled" - a first generation device would weigh several tons (the Little Boy uranium bomb weighed 4000 kg). Even a second-generation follow-on missile-delivered warhead would weigh 500-1000 kg - too big to "smuggle".

Finally, all nuclear weapons emit radiation that can be detected from a considerable distance - and any attempt to shield these devices would render them "unsmuggleble" due to their size and weight.

Suitcase nukes are the stuff of fantasy...

[wtmusic]

51. 51 lbs light enough for you?

"The bare warhead package took the form of an 11"x16" cylinder that weighed only 51 lbs (23 kg). It was, however, easily small enough to fit in a footlocker-sized container. Declassified Russian sources indicate the smallest Soviet miniaturized nuclear weapon was of a similar size, being compared to a "small refrigerator" in dimensions; following the breakup of the Soviet Union, these were the type of devices Alexander Lebed claimed had been issued to the GRU and then subsequently lost. Lebed, a general who worked with Yeltsin, presented to US Congress the idea that 'suitcase bombs' were created by the Russians, and that in 1997 132 KGB produced suitcase bombs could not be accounted for."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bombs

Some fantasy.

onedit: untested nukes can be very effective - the design of Little Boy was untested when it was dropped.

[jpak]

55. The Mk-54 had a maximum yield of 500 tons of TNT and was a plutonium device

It was not a "city buster"

Iran is enriching uranium - and uranium weapons like Little Boy and the South African uranium bombs weighed *tons*.

Furthermore, there is no evidence from Kr-85 sampling that Iran is reprocessing Pu or even producing Pu (there would by a large tritium signature from this as well).

The Russian "suitcase bomb" was the size of small refigerator.

Again - uranium suitcase bomb = fantasy

[wtmusic]

63. The Mk-54 had a maximum yield of 1KT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

What effect do you think exploding 1,000 tons of TNT - with radioactive fallout - would have on downtown Tel Aviv?

Back to uranium - according to Robert Oppenheimer only 220 lbs of impure U235 are sufficient for a 15KT yield. Fine, a small refrigerator if you will. Carried in the back of a pickup truck? A rail car? A tractor/trailer? There is no technical reason why uranium fission devices would have to weigh "thousands of pounds".

Fantasy = wishful thinking.

[Tesha]

30. You can "salt" your weapon to conceal its isotopic fingerprint. (NT)

[Oak2004]

13. It would not be all that uncertain for long

Every reactor leaves an isotopic "fingerprint" on the fissionable material it cooks up. We'd know who made the stuff for the bomb certainly within days, probably within hours.

[and-justice-for-all]

46. Ahmadinejad does not have the authority to do that...

the Ayatollah however, makes those decisions and not Ahmadinejad.

It would also not be in Iran's best interest to do so and I think it is just rhetoric from Ahmadinejad.

[Fearless]

3. It's just a political stunt. No reason to be concerned...

It was likely already true anyways.

[Muttocracy]

4. there's a fine line between anonymous source and made-up rumor. nt

[mopinko]

50. and there are plenty about what president obama will do.

:eyes:

[razorman]

6. Why would Israel need our nuclear "umbrella", anyway?

If Iran launches a missile against them, the Israelis could nuke Tehran themselves.

[Soylent Brice]

7. excellent point

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. That is assuming that Israel still has the capability to do so after a first strike

[robertpaulsen]

33. Considering Israel has 75-200 nuclear warheads, that's a fairly safe assumption.

Just curious, how many warheads do you think Iran has?

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. I have no idea how many warheads either of them has

All estimates are just than, estimates.

[razorman]

43. They would not have to wait for the first strike to land

before retaliating massively. I would bet they are already on a hair-trigger alert.

[wuushew]

58. Israel may have the ability to launch a strike via submarine

An article published by the Los Angeles Times in mid-October 2003, indicated that Israel had successfully modified American-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles for use with nuclear warheads on its submarines. The process would have involved reducing the size of the warheads to fit inside the missiles as well as altering the guidance systems so as to be able to hit land-based targets, but would enable Israel to deliver nuclear weapons from the sea virtually unimpedded. The claim was however disputed by Israeli and others who questioned the ability of the Harpoon missile to carry a nuclear payload.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

[and-justice-for-all]

47. Yup, they sure could...

They have at least 5 nukes, a gift from the US Government nonetheless.

[bertman]

10. This is such a crock of shit it is hard to overstate how bad it is. Israel does not need our

help to protect them from a nuclear attack. They have their own nuclear arsenal that some experts say may contain as many as 200 warheads. No doubt they are quite capable of delivering them if the need arises.

It's very disappointing that this type of rhetoric is coming out of the Obama camp. Maybe it's just for "dramatic effect" to let Iran and any other nuclear weapon wannabees that he won't play around, but it seems like drastic overkill (bad pun) to me.

My thinking is that the danger of nuclear attack is most likely from independent actors such as al Qaeda or some other terrorist fringe group who might obtain the bomb from Pakistan or Russia or even the U.S. (we've been known to lose a few).

It's hard to imagine that any nation would be so suicidal as to risk being annihilated because they were reckless enough to nuke another nation, especially Israel.

[Captain Hilts]

12. It's a long-standing US policy. HillaryC got fried for re-iterating this. nt

[hunter]

16. That war would be over while the mushroom clouds were still rising.

President Obama's problem would be cleaning up the mess. Israel and Iran would no longer exist as nations.

If we are going to be offering Israel imaginary defenses like "atomic umbrellas" can't we be a little more creative about it, like maybe the angels of death from Raiders of the Lost Ark?

"Shut your eyes, Marion, and don't look at it, no matter what happens!"

[robcon]

19. This is nothing new - U.S. policy for decades.

MAD is the only way to keep that madman from bombing Israel, IMO. (mutually assured destruction)

[happyslug]

65. Khamenei "Mad"????

Remember the President of Iran is NOT the commander in Chief of the Army, the "Supreme Leader" of Iran is the commander in Chief. i.e. Khamenei. The President is the person who runs the country day to day, collect the taxes, make sure the garbage is picked up etc. Any comments of the President of Iran is like the US Secretary of the Interior saying something about foreign policy, it might be nice to know, but that is NOT his area of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

[Romulox]

23. More Status Quo from Mr. Change... nt

[shadowknows69]

25. Why can't we let Israel incinerate Iran herself if this happens?

Why do we have to be the ones to slay millions for what amounts to a revenge strike at that point? What if one fringe bozo gets a small nuke into Tel Aviv. Do we still punish an entire people instantly or do we wait for the facts?

[wuushew]

57. It would also be a profound strategic and environmental mistake

Fallout does not magically stop at national borders. Are the Russians and Pakistanis going to welcome even more radiation from the friendly United States?

[balantz]

29. Just the use of one nuke would be horribly devastating.

What the hell is "umbrella" supposed to mean? Is that supposed to sound like something safe? How freaking ridiculous.

Thw citizens of the planet are held hostage by the superpowers and their nuclear weapons. If politicians want to gain my trust they will be talking loudly and aggressively about a plan to rid humankind of nuclear weapons.

We're also held hostage by having to trust the murdering and elite controlled CIA to accurately assess these situations.

[bunnies]

31. Why are we Israels babysitter? huh?

They have their own nukes ffs.

OTOH - I have an idea:

Dear Israel,

If you want the United States to continue to hold your hand - give the Palestinians back some of that land you took - and let the people live in PEACE.

Problem solved.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

36. I thought that was already a given?

Is this news?

I'm not attempting to assess the merit of this policy in this post, I'm just saying I thought it was already completely certain that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons of Israel was nuked.

[martymar64]

39. It should be on the condition that Israel doesn't attack Iran first

Because if they do, then we would be rewarding crimes against humanity and all protection should be withdrawn in that event.
I want no part of Israel pulling a Pearl Harbour on Iran.
It should also be conditioned upon Israel signing the Non Proliferation Treaty and making its own nuke program transparent to UN inspectors. Otherwise we're providing cover for a rogue state.

[pork medley]

56. The A-Bomb is a paper tiger

America is a paper tiger

Israel is a paper tiger

[PFunk]

59. How about if either Russia and/or China offered a nuclear unbrella to Iran.

incase of a isreali nuclear attack. With the vast oil resources Iran has which a lot of countries want I wouldn't put it off the table either. And since I don't see Iran giving up it's nuke program (and other mid-east states starting their own). And other mid-east counties (which the US rep is already 'shit' with most of them) will look badly on the US for aditional sanctions against Iran if it does this. Get ready for MAD-part 2 folks.

[IndianaGreen]

60. Will the US nuke Israel if it nukes Iran first?

What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

[lovuian]

61. Its pretty obvious that Obama isn't changing our Foreign policy

and Military policies

WWIII is coming