'Easily'? Such a task is never easy even for a far stronger attacking force against a far weaker defending one. I don't know if the Iranians have a significant cruise missile capability (or indeed a cruise missile capability at all); that might do the trick - but the Iranian airforce is third rate compared with the Israelis, and even if a few planes get past defending fighters there's the ground based missiles to worry about.
All that aside, what would be the result of such a strike? The Israelis would still have the bombs. After such an attack they wouldn't have any trouble getting their hands on US supplied enriched uranium, either. The only effective difference is that they would both be mad enough, and have an excuse, to use them. First target, the Iranian nuclear facilities. Second target? Who knows.
Following that logic I assume you would have no objections to an Israeli 'proactive' strike on Iranian nuclear facilities for exactly the same reasons? Or don't you view Ahmenajeds' comments regarding the destruction of the State of Israel as 'provocative'? The trouble with following such nonsensical reasoning is that sooner or later an awful lot of people end up dead.
The Israelis haven't actually 'threatened' anything, BTW. This was an unsourced newspaper not an IDF press release. The target would be the Iranian nuclear facilities (with bombs exploding underground) not 'civilians', although by their very nature nukes aren't that selective.
Salaam,
well as they say one strike is all you need.
that why nuclear weapon is so feared,and is used as ad etterent.
So like i say before,a weapon is of no use to anyone till it has detonated,and the important thing is that you need to ensure the location it is detonated.
As you have pointed outmwhat would such a strike do?
well let see,what would a Isrealis strike do on Iran and the world?
Should Iran keep quite? or should it attack back?
And i would say the purpose of attacking first on Israel is to teach them that their weapons do as much damage to themselves as it does to others.
Would you send a bomb knowing the affects...that is why coutnries that have gone thru war would never want to relive it,,but human memeory fades and men seek wealth and greed or are impassioned by their own needs.
And if Iran attack it would be with weapon ,conventional weapon,Iran has abided by the laws even wehn the US supplied WMD to Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war.
Also we need to reflect on the 1 million cluster bombs dropped by the ISrealis and supplied by the US unto lebanon.
Such power trully are depraved to use banned weapon ont he populace.
Adn Israel have siad nuclear weapon is an option,as did the US,while Ahmednijad has said that Isral is illegal and what not i do not think i have read where he will attack using bombs and what not.
As of now,the aggresors are clear,the US/Israel,if Iran takes a stand and detonate it bombs,especially it news dispersion bomb on Israel and on US forces in Iraq/Iran...i would say it is justified.
I would say,that in man history,peace only comes when both sides have lost much,perhaps it is time to teach the aggresors of the cost of war.
