What if: war between Israel and Egypt

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by yubba

One big muslim army bearing down on you, great big desert, couple of tactical nukes.

Well now, this is 2011, not 1102... I don't think anyone does "one big army" like that anymore, or else you're gonna need enough tactical nukes to make the whole region uninhabitable for ages. Consider even Israel's area. How do you even get that kind of concentration without wiping your own territory clean with some good ol' radiation?

However it's definitely a worry - Israel would use its nukes, not on the "one big muslim army", but on places like, say, Cairo...

[Krauter]

And when that happens you can bet your arse that Iran will step in to help Egypt against the "American Puppet"

[krashkart]

Most nations probably want to avoid allowing that to come to pass - we're trying to stuff everything back into Pandora's Box that was let out after Trinity. I'd think of it more as one rival bringing a live grenade to a party to kill another, and everyone else brave enough to stick around trying to cool the tensions between the two.

Nukes are serious business. Truman would not allow MacArthur to dump nukes on NK when the war turned sour for the US, no matter how much he begged.


Edit: Things would have to get really, really ugly before nukes would be used. They're not cheap to produce, nor to maintain. And why waste a nuke on Cairo when you can keep it in reserve against Tehran?

[Krauter]

True, but there is a difference between MacArthur wanting blood and wanting to use the most advanced weapon in his time. While having a semi-sensible president with the balls to say "no".

It is an entirely different matter to have a leader who openly despises the US and Israel, who spits in the faces of the IAC (sp? International Atomic Arms Control : whatever the acronym is..) and the U.S and who now has the guns to rival Israel and the U.S

Not to mention their other crazy friends in places like NK, Libya and other extremists.

Krauter

[krashkart]

Good point. I keep forgetting the ethical differences; tooth for a tooth and all that.

[Krauter]

I'm just curious to see who comes in on who's side?

If Egypt enters into a war with Israel, obviously all U.S aid will cease, but what about Syria? Jordan? Lebanese extremists? How are their feelings towards the Israelis?

Also, would the U.S actually step in? (Either as a mediator, fully on Israels side, or as a third party to keep the nukes/bio/chem weapons flying?)

[Castout]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Even if an extremist revolution were to occur, Egypt's military would lose a lot of its capability in the process, along with a supply line to the US that is crucial to keeping much of their machinery running.

It's not an extremist movement or a religious inspired one. But as always religious extremist could and would try to ride atop the movement.
But I think most Egyptians are above falling to that. They just want their rights respected, to feel mattered and secured. Egypt could play the role of being the first Arab democracy. Standing in their way is not only Mubarak but also US and Israel fear of losing their main Arab ally and Egypt as the consequence. And fear is mostly an irrational attitude but then again mankind has never been a mostly rational being even to their elites. If the movement gets quashed with severe violence or an anti religious government set foot then we will see a religious inspired social movement.

[krashkart]

I'd hope for the US to step in to try to prevent the ME from turning into a sheet of glass rather than to help that process along. Have heard the theory many times that a thorough nuking is the only path to peace in the region, and I even believed in that at one time, but it's not the answer. Just like here at home, it's not the average person earning a wage or some right to live that creates bad policies. If nukes or bios go off it won't be politicians that suffer the most from it; it will be whoever happens to be there at the time. And that could be anyone. But there are many more 'average' folks out there than policy makers.

I hope for the best, but the reality does seem pretty dismal at times.

[Growler]

When it comes to nukes, keep in mind:

Against aggressors from any Arab nation, Israel is fighting for its very existence.

That means nukes, should Israel be left no other option. Push any nuclear power to the brink of extinction, you have to at least consider someone in that nation desperate enough to pop the nuclear cork.

[Krauter]

And that's exactly my fear.

Personally I doubt that the Egyptians could push the Israelis hard enough to consider nukes.. At best I think they'd push back into the Sinai and hold the line..

My worry is that someone, through terrorism, sabotage or what have you, decides to attack Israel's nuclear assets. (or forces them, with bio/chem attacks, etc).

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Krauter

I'm just curious to see who comes in on who's side?

If Egypt enters into a war with Israel, obviously all U.S aid will cease, but what about Syria? Jordan? Lebanese extremists? How are their feelings towards the Israelis?

Also, would the U.S actually step in? (Either as a mediator, fully on Israels side, or as a third party to keep the nukes/bio/chem weapons flying?)

If other Islamic States joined the war Syria would be the major threat to Israel, its Air Force adds significant capabilities to the fray; namely their MiG-29s and Su-24s. Their Army is large but only has a few new weapons. Their Navy would not factor in much but it does have over a dozen ASW helis that would be useful.

Iran would be a threat but mostly with air attacks, although I would not rule out a sea attack; maybe even a SLCM attack. IRCG forces in Syria and Lebanon would also be a major problem. WMD use would also be a major concern from Iran.

Libya would be the last nation on my "might join in" list, their air force is very outdated and few in number. Their Army is small, and their Navy is tiny and outdated (I would not count on their Foxtrots being a factor, I doubt they are seaworthy). The only ace they got is the 400 some odd Scuds they have.

Originally Posted by Krauter

True, but there is a difference between MacArthur wanting blood and wanting to use the most advanced weapon in his time. While having a semi-sensible president with the balls to say "no".

It is an entirely different matter to have a leader who openly despises the US and Israel, who spits in the faces of the IAC (sp? International Atomic Arms Control : whatever the acronym is..) and the U.S and who now has the guns to rival Israel and the U.S

Not to mention their other crazy friends in places like NK, Libya and other extremists.

Krauter

IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency

[Krauter]

That would be it thanks for the acronym Oh king of acronyms TLAM

I'm curious, are you basing your 'might join' probability on how well the nations might fare in a conflict? After a few reads on the current Libyan clown, I doubt he cares if he wins or loses but would rather show how 'great' the Libyan military and nation is..

Do you think that, if Iran were to enter the fray, would NK (being somewhat of a 'nuclear' ally) provide help or resources? What about China?

[Castout]

Originally Posted by krashkart

I'd hope for the US to step in to try to prevent the ME from turning into a sheet of glass rather than to help that process along. Have heard the theory many times that a thorough nuking is the only path to peace in the region, and I even believed in that at one time, but it's not the answer. Just like here at home, it's not the average person earning a wage or some right to live that creates bad policies. If nukes or bios go off it won't be politicians that suffer the most from it; it will be whoever happens to be there at the time. And that could be anyone. But there are many more 'average' folks out there than policy makers.

I hope for the best, but the reality does seem pretty dismal at times.

Actually times and again it's neurotic or extreme and bad or corrupt leadership are the ones that contribute to a nation's downfall. With this in mind it's the elites who are to be blamed for every blunder of their policy and fall of their society civilization while they take credits for policies which implementation and results don't depend on them much. The clue is everybody can be a politician though not everyone can become a good politician but everybody is different and add to the fact that man is fallible then you have potentially a time bomb, major catastrophe in waiting in the form of your top leadership.

In an ideal world the safest route would be to rule by majority consent. That's the essence of democracy by the way. There's a very good reason to that too. The many average folks are not average at all and the few top elites may not be that good either or any at all. People get to power through many different ways: luck, deceit, backstabbing and plotting, violence, wealth/influence, charisma/appealing vision, or skills or combination of any of which. To know which politician is which takes wisdom. There are many different kind of dogs as there are many different kind of politician and person.

If you still disagree then I will ask this question:
What would you do and how would you do it if suddenly you have an almost unlimited resources and immunity from the law?
Certainly you would be a different man doing things differently and viewing things differently, setting up different goals and even think and feel differently. How much and how different may differ from person to person but suddenly you have it big and the rest I leave to your imagination. Do you know what would become of you if this happened to you? You'll be YOURSELF! Especially with time. Yeah that's absolutely scary! Why because most people have no plan on what kind of person they want to become.

There was this wise person who you might know who once said: if you want to know a man give him power.

[Krauter]

The only problem with implementing democracy in these countries is that:

a) This form of government has never really existed in their culture before (to my knowledge) and thus may lead them to believe they are acting against their culture

b) Same as after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the game's changed, the same people stay. Theres been so much corruption within these countries that, democracy or no, there will still be corrupt, crazies taking advantage of the system

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Castout

Actually times and again it's neurotic or extreme and bad or corrupt leadership are the ones that contribute to a nation's downfall. With this in mind it's the elites who are to be blamed for every blunder of their policy and fall of their society civilization while they take credits for policies which implementation and results don't depend on them much. The clue is everybody can be a politician though not everyone can become a good politician but everybody is different and add to the fact that man is fallible then you have potentially a time bomb, major catastrophe in waiting in the form of your top leadership.

In an ideal world the safest route would be to rule by majority consent. That's the essence of democracy by the way. There's a very good reason to that too. The many average folks are not average at all and the few top elites may not be that good either or any at all. People get to power through many different ways: luck, deceit, backstabbing and plotting, violence, wealth/influence, charisma/appealing vision, or skills or combination of any of which. To know which politician is which takes wisdom. There are many different kind of dogs as there are many different kind of politician and person.

If you still disagree then I will ask this question:
What would you do and how would you do it if suddenly you have an almost unlimited resources and immunity from the law?
Certainly you would be a different man doing things differently and viewing things differently or even think and feel differently. How much different may differ from person to person but suddenly you have it big and the rest I leave to your imagination.

Thanks. I needed that.