Title: Unforseen bonus?
Description: of the election...
Inspector - November 10, 2006 02:07 PM (GMT)
Perhaps Israel will realize they are on their own, and deal with the problem
In other news, looks like a few people are backing away from certain labels
. What I find hopeful is that they seem to realize that the results of the election have been influenced by "protest votes." Now, if they could only figure out what we were protesting... (i.e. becoming a theocratic, big-government, altruistic not-war party)
Also, it seems there are some other people
who are speculating on why the vote went the way it did.
And of course, given the slightest taste of power, what do the Democrats do? Why, they do what they always do
, of course. I just love this gem:
|"You cannot solve this nation's fiscal problems without increased [tax] revenue,'' Rubin told members of the Economic Club of Washington late yesterday. The former Treasury chief said he is telling Democrats seeking his advice to work with|
President George W. Bush to control the budget deficit and longer-term challenges such as Social Security and Medicare.
Um, yes you can. Did you ever consider not spending so much? Oh, right. You didn't. And you never will.
Kriegsgefahrzustand - November 11, 2006 02:37 AM (GMT)
| Perhaps Israel will realize they are on their own, and deal with the problem.|
Well, that would be welcome, however there is more to it than meets the eye. It would be very challanging to say the least, and once that hornet's nest was stirred up I can't imagine what the IAF would do for a second act.
From what I hear about IAF capabilities, they would have enough strike craft and tankers for maybe four to six targets. It would pretty much be a one off.
Maybe in a couple years, once they procure some more F-16I's or retrofit more F-16s with new conformal tanks. Although I don't have an exact figure for those... As for their fleet of F-15I's, I don't know that they plan to get many more than they have now.
Relying on mid-air refueling would be hard enough, but with their limited fleet, as it is now... I don't know, I'm not a general, but it seems unlikely.
Inspector - November 11, 2006 05:56 AM (GMT)
Rats. Well, there's a fly in the ointment.
Kriegsgefahrzustand - November 11, 2006 11:22 PM (GMT)
Plus I think Israel is worried about provoking retailiation at this point. They're in a tough spot right now because Iran could hurt them, and pretty badly too.
I think they'll wait to explore their options a bit more, and perhaps work on other possible solutions (like missile strikes and the like). To see what we do too.
An Israeli attack could possibly trigger an Iranian attack in the Persian Gulf against the Americans or against the merchant fleets in the area. Iran does tend to treat us as a single entity, and they have threatened Israel if we attack them, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that works both ways. They have also threatened to close down the Gulf if anyone attacks them.
All things considered, Israel wouldn't go down without a fight, if it came down to it, I think they'd use their nuclear arsenal. I doubt they'd dally if they believed they were in immediate danger.
Inspector - November 12, 2006 12:01 AM (GMT)
So you're saying that they'll act, but not until their back is totally up against the wall?
Kriegsgefahrzustand - November 12, 2006 12:42 AM (GMT)
I don't know if they'd wait that long. However its going to be awhile. A year or two minimum, but a lot depends on us. They'd act sooner I'm sure if we'd support it, but they won't wait forever if they think they're in danger.
Cunctator - November 16, 2006 09:40 PM (GMT)
The Israeli position is very precarious here. From what I know of the developement sites in Iran, I am skeptical that Israel could plausibly deal with it on its own without going nuclear themselves. Since many sites are near inhabitted areas, this would probably antagonize other Islamic countries to the point that Israel might face a conventional war that it couldn't win.
Pound for pound, the Israeli military is more than a match for any of its neighbors, but it could not stand against a pan-Middle Eastern coalition without US support. The one thing that Israel has known since the begining is that they only have to lose once.
If they believed that Iran was on the verge of having deployable nuclear weapons, they might have to risk it. The Iranian government has said flat out that they want to destroy Israel, and I would bet that Israel is too small to have a credible second strike capability. It wouldn't take many bombs to wipe them out completely.
Without us, Israel really doesn't have any good options.
Inspector - November 16, 2006 11:39 PM (GMT)
|QUOTE (Cunctator @ Nov 16 2006, 03:40 PM)|
| The Iranian government has said flat out that they want to destroy Israel, and I would bet that Israel is too small to have a credible second strike capability. It wouldn't take many bombs to wipe them out completely. |
Well, it is murmured that they have submarine-launched ballistic missile capabilities
Small comfort against a suicidal enemy, I know.