Merry Christmas: Nuclear war between Iran and Israel could kill 20 million, says new study
posted at 9:46 am on December 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
And thanks to Israel’s technological superiority, the vast, vast majority of the dead would be on the Iranian side. The analysis comes from CSIS’s Anthony Cordesman, who believes Israel might conceivably survive the exchange whereas Iran would re-enter the proverbial Stone Age. Even with less powerful and precise Iranian nukes, though, isn’t Israel small enough that the fallout would render most of the country toxic?
All out nuclear war between Israel and Iran: a doomsday scenario that we all fear deeply. A new study compiled by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), headed by former Pentagon analyst Anthony H. Cordesman, explored just such a nightmare scenario, noting that it could lead to the death of between 16- 28 million Iranian civilians, and 200-800 thousand Israelis…
Given certain conditions, Israel could potentially survive such a nuclear scenario, the study found. Iran, on the other hand, would be completely and utterly obliterated. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” wrote Cordesman, who compiled this study entitled “Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War”…
The bottom line, according to this study, is that Israel quite simply has more potent and effective bombs. Israel currently has a 1megaton (mt) nuclear bomb, whereas Iran does not yet have the ability to develop a bomb with more than 100 kilotons of power. What this means, in essence, is that the Israeli bomb can lead to three times as many casualties as its Iranian counterpart (chiefly due to third-degree burns), and has an “area of extreme lethality” (the range within which a nuclear bomb is fatal) ten-times as great…
Cordseman also noted that Iran would have lower fission yields, and less accurate force into cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes, and that the Iranian side would also most likely be thwarted by Israel’s missile defense systems. Notable among these is the “Arrow 2” anti-ballistic missile which could most potentially shoot down most nuclear missiles launched by Iran.
Follow the link to find out what happens if Syria and Egypt enter the fray. Hint: 20 million more casualties and some radical terraforming of Cairo. Exit question: Is Qom, a Shiite holy city, really one of the Iranian cities on Israel’s hit list? Every Shiite in the world (i.e., Lebanon and Iraq) would have a mortal grievance with Israel after that, although I suppose that’s a minor concern after you’ve just been through nuclear war.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Just 20 million? I’d think the Israelis would be more thorough than that.
Nethicus on December 24, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Like they’re that far off?
MadisonConservative on December 24, 2007 at 9:52 AM
How long before Putin offers Iran an umbrella?
Limerick on December 24, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Allah, probably a year ago I saw a study on this and it showed weather patterns and what would happen if this scenario occured. It showed that a strike on Israel would shift fallout all over Palestine. Hence an attack on Israel would decimate the Palestinian territories.
broker1 on December 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM
No question. The Palestinians are nothing but a political tool for jihadists so I doubt Iran’s losing any sleep over it.
Allahpundit on December 24, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Israel comes out “ok”. Guess we don’t have to stop Iran getting nukes after all. Glad that’s over.
JiangxiDad on December 24, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Damn straight! Hell, only half a million Israelis? Hot damn, let’s get the Only Man Who Can Save America, he who shall be known as Two-First-Names, into office lickety split!
MadisonConservative on December 24, 2007 at 10:00 AM
The problem with an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel is the large collateral damage it would inflict on Palestine and Jordan. The winds come off the Mediterranean and would blow fallout from west to east.
Now, Iranian bombs would range from 10-30 kt if they’re using basic nuclear armaments. Their devices are fission only, so they’re not as powerful as thermonuclear weapons, which means they don’t have the capability of launching debris into the upper-level winds, which spreads the fallout. (And that causes problems as fallout from Israeli nuclear attacks on Eastern Iran would spread fallout into India, which could bring India into the fray.
The CSIS evaluation neglects something. Iranian missiles would give Israel plenty of time to respond. Iran would be better off launching short-range missiles from southern Lebanon or Syria (or the West Bank) against Israeli HVTs. We saw that Israel recognizes this threat and will respond immediately when they hit Syria a few months ago.
Also, would an attack on Iran spark retaliation from Pakistan? And would Russia stand idly by as the country it’s leaning on for energy supremacy gets hopelessly irradiated?
Nethicus on December 24, 2007 at 10:04 AM
A lot depends on the ratio of airbursts versus groundbursts. Airbursts generally produce less fallout, both locally and distanty, but produce more surface damage (at the cost of not doing as much damage to hardened targets).
Don’t the Shiites already have a mortal grievance with Israel, one they would have just attempted to “remedy with extreme prejudice” with nuclear weapons under that scenario?
steveegg on December 24, 2007 at 10:06 AM
In my opinion, and as touched upon in the article, a conventional preemptive strikes might eliminate or delay this doomsday scenario. I say do it, sooner rather than later. As for Russia, Pakistan, China, Egypt and Syria, they must weigh the risk of taking sides on their own. Personally, I think they would rather live with the aftermath of an Iran that is no more than calculate what their own damages might be.
Zorro on December 24, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Sacrifices for the greatness of allah!
From the what you see in the media, it’s like they are expecting it. Afterall, their children are taught that dying in the service of allah, especially whilst killing Jews, is the greatest honor…
hmph…Martyrs.
Swinehound on December 24, 2007 at 10:18 AM
It isn’t necessary to be precise with a nuke and powerful is a relative term. What we consider a tactical nuke today destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. As far as fallout causing more damage to Israel, it would depend on wind and weather patterns. I don’t think that most people comprehend the true scale of a nuclear exchange. With any sort of back and forth exchange it is entirely possible that the entire region would be rendered virtually uninhabitable for a couple of decades. The effects would not be limited to just the countries throwing the nukes around either. If you recall the first public alarms raised about Chernobyl was from a nuclear power plant in a Scandanavian country many miles from the scene. A nuclear exchange anywhere is a true nightmare scenario. Until recently everyone who possessed these things understood that but now not so much. We now live in a world where some governments possesing them view them as just a bigger hand grenade that they can use like any other weapon. Scary stuff. As far as delivery systems most folks think of a nuke in terms of Fat man and Little Boy. Big old things that weigh literally tons. That’s not true any longer and hasn’t been in a while. A fission nuke in the range of 15 to 20 kilotons can be quite small and easily transportable. Larger fusion devices are somewhat heavier but still nowhere big enough to pose a real transportation problem. Pretty much any vehicle on an American highway could be used to carry one without any modifications. Contrary to popular belief they would also be virtually undetectable in the proper environment. Here’s a link that has some interesting data concerning nuclear weapons.
Oldnuke on December 24, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Not really. If the fallout is there; it really only affects the top couple inches of soil. You could plow it under and get rid of that in a decade or so, probably. I believe Russia is the top country in the world in nuclear cleanup – for obvious reasons – though I don’t they’d be willing to share their thoughts with Israel.
lorien1973 on December 24, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Israel will never let Iran come close to that possibility. Iraq and Syria had the same demented idea, but Israel neutralized them in quick fashion.
pocomoco on December 24, 2007 at 10:37 AM
It doesn’t matter which “holy” city the Israelis nuke. Hatred of the Jews is hard wired in the Koran. Have you all been keeping up on Robert’s remarkable study here at HA?
The bible is quite clear that Jerusalem will be the nexus point for the end of the world. It’s also quite clear about who wins. I, for one, would not want to be in any country that’s lobbing nukes at Israel.
Mojave Mark on December 24, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Damn, they’d lose 30 maybe even 40 years of progress? ouch.
shooter on December 24, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Ain’t them mullahs sweethearts?
omnipotent on December 24, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Well, the NIE report pretty well tied U.S. hands from doing anything pre-emptively on Bush’s watch, and if the general election goes bad, nothing will ever be done. Those jerks should be hung from a yardarm.
a capella on December 24, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I don’t think you can put a whole lot of stock into a report of what Israel would do in a nuclear exchange that is not a report from Israel.
There is only so much supposition an outside organization can do. And some people may be tired of hearing this, but Israel is a Jewish state, and her politicians in charge of whether or not to fire off the nukes are Jews, raised in the traditions of the Talmud and the Torah—even the ones who aren’t very religious. That upbringing affects whether or not the Prime Minister will make the decision to retaliate against Iran. The “Samson Option” has always been there, but will Israeli politicians use it? Easy for you and me to sit here and say yes or no, but we’re not the ones making that decision.
A nuclear exchange with Iran is, indeed, the nightmare scenario. Israel will not survive it. The Jewish population of Europe did not survive the Holocaust. The Jewish sections of most European nations are no longer Jewish, and haven’t been in sixty years. Few Jews remain in Europe. In the 1930s, there were some 9.5 million. Today, there are about 1.5 million. There would be about 30-40 million more Jews in the world if the murders of the Holocaust hadn’t happened.
I don’t buy the Israeli casualty figures in this report. And I doubt that the report truly takes into account the economic blow to Israel. Who will help her in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange? The world will, as always, excoriate Israel for having brought it on herself. American and European Jews will pony up personally, but will the EU send aid? With their Muslim minority rioting in their cities, I doubt it. Will they even protect their own Jewish populations from the rioting Muslims? Odds are against that, seeing as how they’re unable to stop the “youths” from burning cars and buses now.
Any way you look at it, a nuclear attack on Israel would be the end of Israeli civilization as it is now. The fact that it might also take out Iran is no comfort whatsoever. I don’t want to wake up one day to find out that 20 million people died in a nuclear exchange.
Meryl Yourish on December 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM
The mullahs think being nuked will bring back the 12th imam, so it’s worth it to ‘em.
Tony737 on December 24, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Is that different than how the Shiites already feel about Israel?
gmoonster on December 24, 2007 at 11:54 AM
merry christmas ! nuke mecca!
zane on December 24, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Are you saying Israeli politicians might allow a nuclear attack without response, even if the attack wipes out israel? Seems like even presenting that possibility would put a smile on the face of the mullahs. I can’t believe the Israelis are that suicidal.
a capella on December 24, 2007 at 12:13 PM
Awesome! Now let’s make sure there’s a Democrat in the White House in 2009 so that middle east gets stabilized.
Can’t wait. I’ll be under my desk.
Kensington on December 24, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Not mentioned in this report (and as Tony737 mentioned) is that the Mullahs in Iran firmly believe that nuking Israel (and getting hit in return) would bring back the 12th Iman from his hiding place at the bottom of some well who will save them and establish Islamic Paradise or some such…
To them a few million dead of their fellow Iranians (you can bet the Mullahs will be cowering in remote bunkers) is a small price to pay. And dead Palestinians are no price at all.
Funny how Israel cares more about the Palestinians then their fellow Islamic nations do.
CrazyFool on December 24, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Sampson option.
doriangrey on December 24, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Screw up IRANS tracking and send those friggin things back to Putin where they came from.
johnnyU on December 24, 2007 at 12:57 PM
One vital thing you’re overlooking: the Israelis aren’t the wusses we are. They’re not busy discussing whether or not to fight back. They’re doing it every day, on their home soil. I don’t think they’d hesitate for a moment to nail every nuke coming their way, and fire back even if they’ve sustained no casualties.
MadisonConservative on December 24, 2007 at 12:59 PM
This is ridiculous–Iran has no army or navy, let alone nukes. All they have is a sickly old camel named Achmed. Ron Paul said so.
ReubenJCogburn on December 24, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Well said. What makes the Iranians’ – and North Koreans’ – nuclear weapons programs so alarming is that unlike the Soviets and Chinese, they’re comparatively immune from the restraining influence of the idea of “mutually assured destruction.” What are a few “involuntary martyrs” on their side for a shot at the two-fer of (1) wiping out the Jews, and (2) triggering the return of the Hidden Imam?
Spurius Ligustinus on December 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Contrary to popular opinion, I’m not so sure the top dogs in Iran are so eager for that 12th inman to appear. Most of them are corrupt to the core and enjoying the material wordly benefits/power that they work so hard to accumulate. If Israel rains down death and destruction on the masses, it kills more than Iranian civilians and Palestinians. it also kills the goose that lays the golden egg they deposit monthly in those Swiss bank accounts. I’ve suspected for a long time that Dinnerjacket is a propaganda tool to scare the bejesus out of the West, while the real men behind the curtain have no intention of actually using the weapons, other than as poker chips. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that theory, but accumulation of wealth is not something given up easily, and I suspect cynical exploitation of religion is not restricted to Huckabee.
a capella on December 24, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Not suicidal, no. But they are a very moral people. Israel will not use nuclear weapons, I think, until the very last, utmost need. The Samson option is meant for deterrence. It’s not meant to be used. Samson died. Israelis want to live.
I’m saying that the Israeli response would not be the total annihilation of Iran. I’m saying that Israel always has one eye on world opinion, because the world has proven itself always ready to criticize the Jewish state, and a worldwide boycott of Israel would be devastating. I’m saying that this report is pretty much bullhockey, because it isn’t using accurate information. It’s using guesswork.
I’d be far more interested in seeing the Israeli report, but that is obviously classified information that will never be revealed (we hope).
The Israelis aren’t wusses. But neither are they monsters.
Meryl Yourish on December 24, 2007 at 3:24 PM
It would be nasty business,but if I was betting,
Israel would be the survivor.
canopfor on December 24, 2007 at 3:40 PM
What did I tell ya?……
Iran/Russia defense
Limerick on December 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Yes but that might be a tad bit tempered by the simple fact that 20 million of so of their brethren have just received a one way trip straight to hell.
Side note would a small nuclear winter end global; warming????
Mojack420 on December 24, 2007 at 4:16 PM
You would think that the Goracle would want us to stop Iran from getting nukes. Just think of what impact a nuke war over there would have on global warming.
boomer on December 24, 2007 at 6:56 PM
AllahPundit,
Oddly, I cannot recall the direction of the prevailing winds in Israel — are they out to sea or in from the sea? I think it’s the latter. If the former, the problem of fallout might not be severe, as the winds would tend to carry the fallout out to sea. Recall that there was, in essence, no problem with fallout at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, as the fallout was borne out to sea by the prevailing winds. Of course, huge numbers were killed by direct radiation, either IR or ionizing.
Henry Bowman on December 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Nuclear winter > global warming
Mojack420 on December 24, 2007 at 8:03 PM
You are kidding yourself. If Israel gets hit big time in anyway WMD, the whole of the Middle-East will pay the price.
Mecca, Media, oil fields, everything. It is foolish to think that only Iran will burn. If you love all things Islamic, you should be totally against an Iran with nukes.
RobCon on December 26, 2007 at 8:16 AM
“I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed.”
– Gen. Buck Turgidson
mojo on December 26, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Comment pages: