Report: Turkey considered an invasion of the waters of Israel

[The Accountant]

Not if Israel attack Turkey. An attack on a NATO nation is an attack on all NATO nations. At worst, US will force Israel to apologize and compensate. As much as US support Israel. US will not allow Israel to destroy NATO.

Agreed and thats why Israel will never attack Turkey but there could be a vice versa scenario ...

 

[Zibago]

I think you didn't get we were discussing the option of Turkey navy going into Israeli waters. I.e. Turkey as aggressor.
As for Turkey overrunning Israel, I think I made clear what a BS remark that was. But Israel faces the same obstacle in land war as Turkey does. Remains: naval and air warfare. In that context, the nuclear option simply isn't an option.

Besides, the flight distance from e.g. Gwadar to Eilat is 2741.56 km and to Tel Aviv 2792.65 km. To Haifais 2773.31 km.
Shaheen-III was revealed and tested on 9 March 2015 with a 2750 km (1700-mile) range. Also, try not to hit Gaza and the West Bank with your nuke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheen-III

Our nukes are meant for an eastern country only

 

[theman111]

Our nukes are meant for an eastern country only

you want to nuke country for war that isnt yours:?

well you get nuked too

 

[Zibago]

you want to nuke country for war that isnt yours:?

well you get nuked too

They act as deterrent to that eastern country only we have no intentions of nuking you unless you do it first

 

[Penguin]

Having said that Israel is a de facto member of NATO and a wider extension of western power in the region.

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) - a term first created in 1989 - is a designation given by the United States government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with U.S. Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by non-NATO countries.

Aside from Israel, the list of MNNAs includes Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, and Thailand. Finally, Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally#List_of_MNNAs

Since 2016 there is an Israeli mission to NATO, however you want to view that.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_130509.htm
http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-first-ambassador-to-nato-presents-his-credentials/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-a-de-facto-member-of-nato/5325890

It would not survive without the limitless and unconditional support of Washington especially in its earlier days.

Really?

Truman Administration (1948-1053)
14 May 1948, the United States, under Truman, became the first country to extend any form of recognition. The text of the United States recognition was as follows: This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof. The United States recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new State of Israel. With this unexpected decision [by Truman], US representative to the United Nations Warren Austin, whose team had been working on an alternative trusteeship proposal, shortly thereafter left his office at the UN and went home. Secretary of State Marshall sent a State Department official to the United Nations to prevent the entire United States delegation from resigning. De jure recognition came on 31 January 1949.
Under rapidly changing geopolitical circumstances, US policy in the Middle East was generally geared toward supporting Arab states' independence; aiding the development of oil-producing countries; preventing Soviet influence from gaining a foothold in Greece, Turkey, and Iran; and preventing an arms race and maintaining a neutral stance in the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Eisenhower Administration (1953–1961)
During these years of austerity, the United States provided Israel moderate amounts of economic aid, mostly as loans for basic foodstuffs; a far greater share of state income derived from German war reparations, which were used for domestic development. France became Israel's main arms supplier at this time and provided Israel with advanced military equipment and technology. This support was seen by Israel to counter the perceived threat from Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser with respect to the "Czech arms deal" of September 1955.
During the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Israeli Defense Forces invaded Egypt and were soon followed by French and British forces. For differing reasons, France, Israel and Britain colluded to topple Nasser by regaining control of the Suez Canal, following its nationalization, and to occupy parts of western Sinai assuring free passage of shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba.[26] In response, the US, with support from Soviet Union at the UN intervened on behalf of Egypt to force a withdrawal. Afterward, Nasser expressed a desire to establish closer relations with the United States. Eager to increase its influence in the region, and prevent Nasser from going over to the Soviet Bloc, US policy was to remain neutral and not become too closely allied with Israel. At this time, the only assistance the US provided Israel was food aid. In the early 1960s, the US would begin to sell advanced, but defensive, weapons to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, including Hawk anti-aircraft missiles.

Eisenhower's standing during the Arab–Israeli Suez Crisis convinced many Middle Eastern moderates that, if not actually lovable, the United States was at least a fair country to deal with

Kennedy and Johnson administrations (1961–1969)
During Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency, US policy shifted to a whole-hearted, but not unquestioning, support for Israel. In the lead up to the Six-Day War of 1967, while the Johnson Administration was sympathetic to Israel's need to defend itself against foreign attack, the US worried that Israel's response would be disproportionate and potentially destabilizing. During the Six-Day War, Israeli jets and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty, a US Navy intelligence ship in Egyptian waters, killing 34 and wounding 171. Israel claimed the Liberty was mistaken as the Egyptian vessel El Quseir, and it was an instance of friendly fire. The US government accepted it as such, although the incident raised much controversy, and some still believe it to be deliberate.
The view of US fairness and impartiality that characterized the Eisenhower years still prevailed during Kennedy's presidency; but during Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency America's policy took a definite turn in the pro-Israeli direction. The June war of 1967 confirmed this impression, and from 1967 on the United States emerged as the most distrusted if not actually hated country in the Middle East.

Following the war, the perception in Washington was that many Arab states (notably Egypt) had permanently drifted toward the Soviets. In 1968, with strong support from Congress, Johnson approved the sale of Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for US support for Israel's qualitative military edge over its neighbors. However, the US continued to provide military equipment to Arab states such as Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, to counter Soviet arms sales in the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_States_relations#Foreign_policy_of_US_government

Nowadays of course with the possession of nuclear weapons they will simply blow up the country that poses an existential threat to them.

Israel is believed to have begun full-scale production of nuclear weapons following the 1967 Six-Day War, although it had built its first operational nuclear weapon by December 1966.

 

[Penguin]

Tel Aviv (Israel) to Reijkjavik (Iceland) is 5235.38 km. By comparison, to Dhaka it is 5518.43 km

Jericho I short-range ballistic missile: range 500 km, CEP 1,000 m, payload 400 kg.
Jericho II long-range ballistic missile: range 7,800 km, CEP 1,000 m, payload 500-1,000 kg.
Jericho III inter-continental ballistic missile: range 11,500 km, CEP 1,000 m, payload 750-1,300 kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(missile)

 

[The Accountant]

I think you didn't get we were discussing the option of Turkey navy going into Israeli waters. I.e. Turkey as aggressor.
As for Turkey overrunning Israel, I think I made clear what a BS remark that was. But Israel faces the same obstacle in land war as Turkey does. Remains: naval and air warfare. In that context, the nuclear option simply isn't an option.

Shaheen-III was revealed and tested on 9 March 2015 with a 2750 km (1700-mile) range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheen-III

The flight distance from e.g. Gwadar to to Jerusalem is 2736.16 km (Center/East), to Eilat (South) is 2741.56 km, to Haifa (North) is 2773.31 km and to Tel Aviv (Center/West) 2792.65 km. So, from Gwadar, you could 'get' Eilat and Jerusalem. However, you would have to be launching from the very Western parts of Pakistan e.g. Jiwani or Nok Kundi in order to reach all of Israel.

Consider your missiles would have to overfly the Persian Gulf/Iran, and may come into reach of any land-based THAAD or shipborn AEGIS/BMD assets that happen to be in the area. They would then need to pass through Israel's own BMD.

Finally, you would have to try not to hit Gaza and the West Bank with your nukes ....

I think this is hypothetical scenario but i feel that the very purpose of placing THAAD in UAE is to intercept Shaheen 3 moving towards tel aviv ... do you know how much influence do american have over THAAD batteries present in UAE ... chances of interception from ship seems limited ...

As they have to be at right place at right time to intercept ...

Regarding conventional power ... how muc war reserves does israel carry in general ?

 

[dani958]

I think this is hypothetical scenario but i feel that the very purpose of placing THAAD in UAE is to intercept Shaheen 3 moving towards tel aviv ... do you know how much influence do american have over THAAD batteries present in UAE ... chances of interception from ship seems limited ...

As they have to be at right place at right time to intercept ...

Regarding conventional power ... how muc war reserves does israel carry in general ?

arrow 3 will do the job better

 

[asad71]

All these projects known as NATO, EU, EEC, etc is B/S. What turkey really faces - and all Muslims do, is the Western Christian Civilization (WCC). WCC has never reconciled with the seat of eastern Christendom becoming Istanbul. They have already desecrated al Aqsa. Baghdad is all but destroyed. So is Aleppo. Damascus is next in line. Then comes retrieving Constantinople. The Turks, the Arabs and the Muslim diaspora must never forget the identity of the true enemy, mentioned in our holy scriptures too.

 

[dani958]

All these projects known as NATO, EU, EEC, etc is B/S. What turkey really faces - and all Muslims do, is the Western Christian Civilization (WCC). WCC has never reconciled with the seat of eastern Christendom becoming Istanbul. They have already desecrated al Aqsa. Baghdad is all but destroyed. So is Aleppo. Damascus is next in line. Then comes retrieving Constantinople. The Turks, the Arabs and the Muslim diaspora must never forget the identity of the true enemy, mentioned in our holy scriptures too.

your enemy is every one that isnt muslem

 

[asad71]

your enemy is every one that isnt muslem

Yep, that's why the Inquisition caused a great blood bath in your community, it was our Caliph at Istanbul who gave you shelter. Again when WCC leaders including the Vatican Pope colluded with Hitler to unleash the holocaust, it was us who provided land to you to settle in Palestine. But every time you stabbed us from the back. That is why we had been warned not to fraternize with Kafirs.

 

[The Accountant]

arrow 3 will do the job better

For Shaheem probability is high but I still think meeting shaheen at exothermic atmosphere is difficult as Shaheem 3 is solid fuel high speed missile and given the straight flight and response time arrow 3, will meet Shaheem at terminal phase where taking out missile is really difficult ... However I am sure that it will be almost impossible to take out ababeel by arrow 3 ...

Unlike general belief there are lot of variables involves in anti missile ballistic system ... A particular system good for one time of missile might not work entirely on other type of missile or for same missile in different conditions ...

However these are hypothetical scenarios and personally I don't think Pakistan and Israel will have any confrontation at this level in present scenario ... Our real enemy is India only ...