Does Israel have a guaranteed second-strike capability?
The way the United States and Russia deterred each other from using nuclear weapons during the Cold War was a doctrine I have discussed on this blog called mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction - or MAD - guaranteed that each side could survive a first nuclear strike with enough firepower to inflict significant damage or worse on the other side. In an article in Saturday's editions, the Washington Post implies that Israel may now have this ability, which is also known as a second-strike capability. A recent unannounced trip by Netanyahu to Russia was thought by some Israeli analysts to be linked to the broad set of issues regarding Iran, including Russia's possible sale of advanced antiaircraft missiles to Tehran and the likelihood that Israel will strike Iran's nuclear facilities if the United States and Europe cannot find another solution.While I disagree with Rubin's calculation that Iran does not want to commit suicide, the rest of the equation - that enough Israeli firepower would survive a first strike to retaliate - seems plausible but on the optimistic side. In any event, it is something for which to strive, and it raises the prospect that all would not be lost if God forbid we don't stop Iran in time and they deploy a nuclear weapon against us.
But the steady growth of Israel's missile defenses sheds a different light on the country's military doctrine and sense of vulnerability.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week that he did not consider Iran's nuclear program an "existential issue" because "Israel is strong." Part of that strength lies in its nuclear capabilities -- never acknowledged but widely presumed to exist -- and part in the assumption that the United States would stand behind Israel if it came under attack. But it also rests in the calculation that enough of the country's air bases and other military facilities would survive a first strike to retaliate effectively.
The sort of deterrence -- guaranteed retaliation -- that the United States and then-Soviet Union once achieved by deploying nuclear warheads in submarines and keeping bombers aloft is what Israel is striving for through its antimissile systems.
Iran "is radical, but radical does not mean irrational," [Uzi] Rubin, the defense consultant, said. "They want to change the world, not commit suicide."
Read the whole thing.
The picture at the top is an Arrow II missile launch.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:43 PM
3 Comments:
MAD won't work with Iran. Deterrence could and would work if Israel could raise the costs so high for Iran's leadership that a pre-emptive attack on Israel would not bring them a reward. The problem is no one knows what Iran's leaders would consider a "red line."
That is why Israel cannot live with a nuclear Iran.
The nuclear deterrent is only a deterrent against conventional wars against Israel. It combats the vast armies surrounding her.
A second-strike capability is irrelevant in this case. Since Israel would be destroyed by a nuclear strike, being able to get back at Iran after the even is not important.
Toe, Carl and I are in agreement with you there. It matters little if Israel's enemies are destroyed once Israel ceases to exist. That's why an EMP attack on Iran is more moral than an Iranian nuclear first strike on Israel. The Iranians will survive the loss of a modern civilization. The Jewish people will effectively cease to exist once another six million Jews are wiped off the face of the earth.
Time is running out and Israel cannot wait much longer.
Post a Comment
<< Home