Israel has plans for nuking Iran

A new story from the Times of London is sweeping the blogosphere like a wildfire. Funny thing, it's not newsworthy. Most nations have plans on the books for attacking and defending against nearly everybody. When the game is on, nobody wants to be standing around with their pants down.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

The U.S. has plans to nuke the mullahs, too. We also have battle plans for Britain and other strong allies. (Clinton, however, had lunch plans for the bad guys.)

The only real newsworthy angle in the "Israel has plans for nuking Iran" story is that there is precedent with Operation Opera, where Israel used F16s in a daring raid on Saddam Hussein's first nuclear reactor. The Military Channel replays their show detailing the raid, and I highly recommend it. The birds were flying with so much fuel they couldn't carry much in the way of defensive armaments (for weight reasons), and much of the journey was flown under enemy radar at 100 feet off the deck. It was an amazing piece of work. Even Israel's enemies must respect the country's military prowess.

Perhaps the other newsy angle is that Israel may not have much choice. When a close neighbor vows to wipe you off the map, then enriches uranium in secret for three years -- a clear violation of the NPT, waiting and watching cannot be a viable strategy. Using tactical nuclear weapons, even in an Iran scenario, would be extremely unpopular, but when you corner a tiger and then threaten it overtly, an attack is guaranteed. Bank on that.

The big question is about whether one sovereign country can deny nuclear technology and/or weapons to another sovereign country. Does anyone have that right? There are many who refuse to entertain the thought. I disagree, which is why I support the Iraq War. Respecting sovereignty should be carefully considered, and then reconsidered, when an unstable regime tries to possess a weapon that could kill millions with a single strike, and spread radiation half way around the globe, which could easily cause an environmental castastrophe.

We were lucky several times during the cold war. The USSR was unstable for much of its existence, and even the U.S. wasn't always an angel. We did well, though, to avoid direct confrontation. Can we expect that from the mullahs of Tehran, or the despot of North Korea? Do people like that have any rights to weapons of mass destruction?

No.

If Israel wipes out Iran's nuclear ambitions, I'll humbly support them with my laptop, from my recliner in Laguna Beach, California.