http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

Israel is preparing the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons with their own if they cannot find any other option. I was afraid that it would come to this - by leaking this to the press, not only will it absolutely enrage the Iranians but it forces our hand. We have to respond to this, and if Israel is prepared to go through with this, then we don't have much of a choice if we want to prevent the loss of a major source of oil and threats against all of our allies in the region. At the same time, we don't have the resources to enter a large-scale war with them without significant help, and God knows that the UN won't do much that is useful.

Any way you slice it, this is just not a good situation and this development makes it even worse. Thoughts?

To think it has come to this... if military action must be taken, even as a last resort, I assume, as the article stated, no matter the outcome that continued degeneration of Islamic relations would be present. From this what would happen? The end would justify the means, better to have a Allie that possesses nuclear arms than to have another radical leader coming upon completion of nuclear arms. Regardless of the consequence it appears that Israel is once again prepared to write history.

This is why action should have been taken sooner, and simply listening to the idiocrats in Europe led to this.

I say, as always, we support Israel. Firstly: I doubt Israel will do it without the United States's green light. We are there most important military supplier, let's not forget that. However, if the UN and EU in their naivety and utopian ideals decides to restrict the U.S. from military action, I think Israel, as a sovereign nation, has all right to defend itself from a leader who has countless times called for Israel's destruction and is nearer and nearer to nuclear technology.

Secondly: If Israel went through with this, no doubt the political callout would be astoundingly terrible from the EU. This would put the U.S. at a bad situation: Israel or Europe. Personally, with Europe's current plight, Israel is the way to go. At least they are willing to defend themselves, their culture, and their beliefs.

Maybe the UN but the EU is called the "European" Union for a reason. They have no say in what wars we enter, especially when its not even in Europe.

Yes, we do have diminished resources, but perhaps with Bush's want for a surge of troops, this came at the best time. Secondly, I believe Israel will go to war when it wants to. There little Lebanon war a while back was not supported by the US. Yes, we were probably the ones who influenced its end, since Israel was ready to wipe them out.

Like I have said, I think this could not have come at a better time. It was inevitable and with the US presence in the area anyway with a new surge a troops coming, it is like killing two birds with one stone.

Yeah, we did already put another carrier in the Middle East should something like this were to happen, I guess we made the right move, it's ironic really I remember a couple months ago there were people that said instead of going to war with Iraq we should have invaded Iran.

I always figured that Israel wouldn't let Iran come anywhere near actual nuclear weapons, but I'm really surprised that they'd be willing to use nukes of any sort themselves, considering the storm that would stir up.

I'm not. Israel has a history of defending itself very vigorously, and in this case, mini-nukes are probably the only thing that will be able to completely obliterate the Iranian program. They have had too much time to build up their defenses against conventional weapons, especially since Ahmadinejad came to power and started ruffling feathers internationally. Since that mental case has stated on many occasions that he would like to see Israel (and the United States, just for good measure) wiped off the map, I for one am willing to take him at his word that he will be more than happy to use nuclear weapons if he had them.

Of course, if he used them first, certainly Israel would respond in kind with the full blessing of the world. The problem would be that in order to get the nutjobs at the UN to agree to such a use of weapons, the Iranians would have to use them first - and God knows that they won't just be aiming to disarm Israel. No, they will hit hard and fast with everything they have to cause as much death and destruction as possible. This proposed Israeli strike, on the other hand, is purposely designed to limit radiation and fallout by using VERY small tactical nukes seven stories underground; callous though it may be to anyone living in the immediate area, there will be MUCH less death and humanitarian crisis in the case of a preemptive Israeli strike than if Iran lets loose with an arsenal of its own. Therefore, if push comes to shove and there is no other option besides the destruction of Israel, I will wholeheartedly support the Israelis in their plan to remove the atomic teeth of their most virulent enemy, even it means a limited use of nuclear weapons.

Amen to that, Dimmick. Even Israel has a right to defend themselves. The world has no right to tell it it can't stop a country that calls for Isreael's destruction from having Nukes.

I am all for Israel taking out the whole Middle East if they wanted after all the threats and attacks they have gotten over the year. Israel easily has the strongest army there, but although Dimmick makes a good point about having to use nukes because of Iran's defense against standard weaponry, is that realy a possibilty considering the American presence right next door?

Yes, it certainly is. The nuclear weapons that they are talking about using are tactical nukes, not strategic ones, meaning that they are purposely designed to be used in a real-world battlefield scenario (tactics) as opposed to achieving goals that are non-military, but still helpful to the war effort on some level (like attacking the enemy's capital city, or strategic). Tactical nukes are thus much smaller than strategic nukes, because they lose their value if they destroy an area that is too big or spread contamination over an area that needs to be taken for the war effort.

The Israeli tac-nukes that are being discussed are relatively tiny - I think that the article gave the statistic that they will be one fifteenth as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. Even that bomb was relatively weak by nuclear weapon standards - it was only as effective as it was due to the fact that Hiroshima was contained in a valley that trapped the shockwave and funneled the destructive power right through the city.