USA made use of them in Iraq. Israel made use of them in Lebanon. In case you wished to ask reader to stop reading upon reaching this part of the second paragraph, you succeeded.

response to a conventional attack of equal magnitude is logical and perhaps even practical. However, it will lift the veil on our nuclear ambiguity and our enemies will demand inspection of Dimona and other such sites, regardless of our non-membership in the NNPT. That action will severly hamper our deterence capacity and will only cause more problems for us. Bad enough we can't defend ourselves without the world crying bloody murder. Imagine if we threaten to nuke our enemies in self defense.

Why has Israel adopted a policy of proportional response? If Israel really wants to maintain, or regain, its power of deterrence, countries like Iran and Syria and groups like Hezbollah need to know that any attack on Israel will result in a massive response. Israel needs to start fighting wars in a manner that will result in victory, not fighting through measured "appropriate" responses. Israel's enemies have much larger populations and span a greater geographical area. If Israel responds through proportional attacks it will die out before its enemies. Israel should not wait for a nuclear magnitude attack before responding with full force. On the question of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, Israel would have to assess whether it could assure victory through the use of conventional weapons. If Israel cannot achieve its goals through conventional warfare then the use of tactical nuclear weapons needs to be considered. Iran is developing a massive arsenal of long range missiles and I have no doubt that if they have the ability to produce nuclear weapons they will. In a war with Iran and/or Syria and/or Hezbollah civilians will unavoidably be killed. Israel's enemies will aim at her cities. Should Israel sacrifice her own citizens in order to avoid killing civilians on the other side?

this is our last chance to get them to get smarter once iran has the bomb will be in deep shit cause they r ready to give it to all arabs states in asia so dont act like fools and do it now

trust me, israel did not use them in lebanon. the world would have gone ape-sh!t.

First How do you know Iran and Syria do not have tactical Nuclear bombs? Perhaps during Shah regime a closest ally of US, USA may already provide them some Tactical nukes to make happy Shah. If not, Iran may easilly buy weapon grade uranium from Pakistan or Russia or else. They already found some traces of weapon grade uranium in Iranian facilities and interpreted it as a contamination from Pakistani equipment. Russian mafia may sell their mother for enough money. I saw they are trying to sell Russian army equipment (optic and etc.) and They are sacking Electrical installations and Russian Army depots, In Turkey I read in news many times they captured some people with Uranium, they were trying to sell. They were Mostly Russian origin. How much to obtain weapon grade uranium to make at least 10 Nukes?(2 for you and rest for US and UK!) 1 billion, 5 billion 10 billion, be sure it will be instantly paid and Iran will have it even she does not enrich it herself. Strogly Assume you may get a Nuclear reply to Nuclear attack. What is more you have a wide range of Area to hit but they have very small one, Israel. NOW SPEAK ON!

This article misses some important considerations both from ethical and military perspectives. The only useful targets for a nuclear attack are large population centers. There is no military target that requires a nuclear attack for its destruction. Deliberatly targeting civilians will make us be like them: murderers. You can't just look at kilotone equivalence. Conventional attacks can be easily detected, the population can be forewarned, and many lives can be saved as people take shelter in bomb shelters. The impact of such attacks is mainly psyhological and infrastructure destruction (Lebanon is the proof). On the other hand and unless otherwise planned, a classical nuclear attack can achieve total surprise and can result in very many civilian casualties. Finally, what would be the military benefit of a nuclear attack? Can we win a war by droping just one bomb and killing thousands of civilians? We need many conventional kilotones distributed among many military targets to win the war.

but you can't beat a nuke. radiation flagellation then annihilation. The Almy and Olmy just cogs in the grindings of gog and magog. The people need protection and politicians and bureaucrats play with their lives. A proportional response is to let the IDF keep their weapons and every citizen have some too. Locked and loaded. That is exactly how the west is won.

You have to advertise this policy when adopted. Make it very clear and very public. A decisive threat can even be more powerful than the actual deed.

I believe that this is a 'doubled edged sword'. What I ask is where will it stop, 1 nuke? 10 nukes? 100? If you give them an inch they'll take a mile. A nuclear response in my eyes is a bad move in any situation. Wars are stupid enough, we don't need indiscriminate killing of a million people at one time.

Israel should immediately order all Jews and Christians to leave Iran, Syria and South Lebanon. A declaration of intent should be enough to promote a response. If they have WMD's you will soon know about it. If they have, the chances are that you will be eradicated whenever they raise the steam to do so. That means it comes down to who draws the fastest. Now if you want to survive that's the choice you have to make. Stuff world opinion, the world is doing nothing. It is your existence not theirs. You are not dealing with Kruschev or Mao here but something much worse. They had the free world against them, you do not have the luxury of that against Iran. Egypt and Jordan learned the hard way perhaps it's time Syria and Iran learned too.

This is where you need to reach to wash the frustration from fighting hezbollah unsuccessfully, and feel relieved ? Childish reaction. Yes, israel is still the strongest, no need for a nuke attack, but speaking about it makes people like you feel better. This debate is indeed completely stupid and childish. The use of a nuclear weapon will cause another nuclear weapon atack back for sure, and is a very good start for destroying the whole region, or the planet. The US and everyone should rather abandon nukes to be credible when speaking to and threatening Iran. This would be a real responsible, adult attitude.

Since America dropped the 2 bombs in Hiro & Naga. no country has ever used it before and since then nuke tech has advanced to a stage where it is 100 times more deadly. Most nuclear countries have nuke for self-defence the same way as an armed policeman. Butt, I can't say the same for Iran. The recent Lebanon-Israel war was provoked by Iran backed Hiz. and for this we cannot and will not allow Iran to have nuclear bombs. We, communities of the world cannot give Iran the slightest benefit of the doubt nor could we afford to find out whether it's made for deterrence or provocation. To those who oppose to what I say can rot in hell

Israel has an itch to use it's "don't ask, don't tell" nuclear weapons. The "it's just easier" " approach/excuse for using nukes is some form of twisted logic indeed. And when you're trying to make an argument for using nuclear weapons against a "potential" nuclear threat you begin to look like a fool and a hypocrite.

There IS going to be a nuclear war on or before the day Iran produces it's first atomic bombs. But you say "The US and everyone should rather abandon nukes to be credible when speaking to and threatening Iran." Fact is, ONLY a nuclear deterent MIGHT stop Iran's insanity. I suggest you read this well researched article to understand why it only MIGHT (as in probably won't) http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-demons.

gonna make 'em sick, sick, sick. any weapon that is used that emits radiation is a nuclear weapon. that includes depleted uranium shells, bunker busters, and neutron bombs. Tactical means a discriminate use of the weapon but radiation has a tendency to be dispersed into the atmosphere. That is called fallout. It could backfire.

The Professor is giving a Test. Nuclear, today, is an instant, catastrophic EMP attack and is viewed as - 'Total Information Warfare'. The new Nuclear Age is upon you and YOUR 'Rules of Engagement' - do not apply. Information and the 2004 EMP Commission Report can be found here - www.missilethreat.com/news/emp.html Go here and scroll down to 'The Assasin's Mace' - www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/doctrine-overview.htm

NOW IS WELL PAST THE TIME!

We are passing the point of no return on Iran. Israel's deterrence psychologically was destroyed in this last war. Iran is going to hit Israel with nukes as soon as it has the materials. This is May 67 all over again. Existential threat. No one to help, everyone talking. Israel's destruction immenent. While olmert is not even the shadow of Truman, he must either resign or step up to the plate. The Israel public must demand Iran's potential threat be neutralized before it is too late. Had Churchill been able to act before the Battle of Britian, think of the lives that would have been saved. We have to act. History will condemn us if we do not.

Ezekiel 38, 39...

About time. Nuke is just another weapon. Are bayonet, bullets, mines, grenades, RPG's, C4, MLRS, 1,000 lbs bombs, Daisy Cutters, Bunker buster MORE HUMANE??? Need correct tool to solve each problem. Better safe then sorry. New world. New problemsw. NEW RULES. Axiomatic=PRE-EMPT for INSURANCE. Politically correct & dead is worse then ALIVE & DISLIKED.

Let me refrase the wonderfull question raised by the esteemed Prof. Kantor who obviously was staring to the computer screen too much. Here's a scenario: Lebanon is attacked, by Israel for example, with conventional weapons of equal magnitude to tactical non-conventional weapon – for example, by bombs, each weighing a ton, within a short period of time. This raises the question, of what is the appropriate response? A conventional attack with the power of a tactical nuclear attack, or perhaps a nuclear attack? For the nation claiming " HEVEINU SHALOM ALEICHEM" such kind of discussions raises the question what kind of SHALOM you bring to your neighbours, if all your talk is always about war. Obviously smart bombs are not good enough already so lets get nukes on the way and see how our arab neighbours would react. Hearing this talk any normal nation would justifiably be alarmed and start work on the getting nuclear deterrant as well. So one can hardly blame Iran for the work in this direction if Israel already in the nuke mode.

Only Neocon in USA have used nuke. A sad history in the world. and in their word "no reason to justify, knowingly killing of civilian." Such a hypocrate.

Kantor is right on one thing. Israel's enemies now think they can use massive missile barrages as a tactic. 1) Nuclear weapons are good for one thing: destroying cities with vaporizing blasts and radioactivity. 2) Using Kantor's logic, everthing that can be done by an atomic weapon can be accomplished by conventional bombs . . .so why use nuclear? 3) Iran has learned from its recent Lebanon adventure. Iran must now be considering a massive long range and mid-range missile surprise attack on Israel fom Syria and Iran. This is what must be planned for and stopped. 4) Waving around nukes will not stop massive missile attacks. Israel has to prepare a conventional response which can prevent this. Better civilian defense and radically increased missle and air forces are part of this. I don't believe that talking is going to stop the mullahs or any of the other genocidal jihadists.

#25 - sounds like Swiss thinking - & normal dougble dealing. Purpose is STAY ALIVE. THEORY IS FOR COLLEGE FRESHMAN DEBATING TEAMS. THIS IS REAL WORLD Victor. Simply kill the bad guys before they kill you. Quite simple. This is not WORLD SERIES IN WHICH BEST 4 OUT OF 7 WINS. Lose ONE WAR & 5 MILLION JEWS get THROATS SLIT BY ARABS -- simple - old math.

#26- Johua You EVER read HISTORY OF ENGLAND??? 2,000 years????? Look up hypocrate & match to situ. Royal Navy & Empire didn't grow from seeds or plantings. You blew the Empire & no 3rd rate hanger on & parasite at that. Just hope USA need not save your rear ends ONCE AGAIN..

#27 Steve, Conventional CAN'T replace nukes. Wiping out Iranian nukes-70 locations, military, military industry swolvesw problem for about 30 years downstream. Missile worthless without tips - nuke, chem, or bio -- they just transport bus.