Apparently I was not the only person to consider the use of nuclear weapons. J.D. Longstreet writes at the Canada Free Press:
Without backup from the US, Israel must now decide between a nuclear or non-nuclear attack on Iran. A non-nuclear attack will mean loss of Israeli aircraft and men, and, we are assured, only setback Iran’s nuclear program two, maybe three, years.
On the other hand, a single nuclear-tipped Israeli Jericho-3 missile exploding high in Iran’s atmosphere emitting an electro-magnetic pulse, is capable of setting back Iran’s nuclear program for DECADES with virtually no loss of Israeli lives, or aircraft, leaving the IAF at home—ready and able—to defend the people of Israel and deal with Iran’s proxy armies to Israel’s north and south.
Yes, there is a problem of collateral damage from an EMP blast over Iran. My guess is that the armada of allied warships standing off Iran’s shore would be dead in the water, at least until all their electronics were replaced.
Which option would you choose?
The point is—there are no easy solutions. And as tough as it is today—it will only get worse as Iran closes in on the bomb.
Netanyahu served notice to the world, Thursday, at the UN that, as difficult as it may be, Israel is going to do whatever it has to do to survive.
The world should expect no less.
No comments:
Post a Comment