Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Might Israel Attack Iran?  
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 583 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13394 times:

It seems that many people have resigned themselves to the likelyhood that Israel will attack Iran to cripple their nuclear interests. How might an attack take place, and what might the consequences or the results be? To keep the discussion within the guidlines of this forum, let us primarily consider the aviation aspects of such a conflict.

Given that the distance well exceeds the Israeli strike on Osirak in 1981, a simple out and back mission likely won't do the job. Here is one person's ignorant idea of how an attack might work.

An initial strike force could precisely bomb an airfield like Omidiyah Air Base, separating the hangars from the runways. Another set of bombs could also isolate the airfield from any incoming traffic and shock the barracks to where the personel stationed there would be ineffective. This could be benificial in two ways. One, the airfield is no longer an assett to Iran, and two, it could become a base for Israel to land C-130's to refuel and re-arm F-15s and F-16s for two days or so. Repeated bombings of targets within Iran could take place.

This assume to some extent that air supuriority could be attained, which is something that has happened repeatedly in the past.

The next step of the war would be much more variable. Iran would undoubtedly strike anywhere and everywhere. If they did manage any meaningful attack on Israel, i wouldn't put it past Israel to use a tactical nuclear weapon as an EMP attack against Tehran. Similiarly, if Iran managed any sort of success with a massive suicide(?) strike against a US carrier, the US would undoubtedly become an active particpant as well.

A war of this scale could EASILY double fuel prices and reset global civilian aviation worldwide imho.

This all sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, but I believe it isn't a stretch at all, and we are very close to a significant war.

SLCPilot


I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 220 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 13351 times:

Interesting idea but I think the only way you'll see a direct assault from Israel like that is if they were attacked in which case US assets (carriers) would likely be involved anyways.

Otherwise any sort of preemptive operation would likely be done covertly and likely with UAVs and special ops. Though this probably wouldn't destroy the facilities outright (as I doubt UAVs could carry let alone maintain stealth with a bunker buster) they would likely severely hamper the usefulness of the facilities and kill key people at the same time.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13321 times:

Would Israel really want to run the risk of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, I think if they do that they wioll loose what little sympathy and support they currently have.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 13255 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Thread starter):
An initial strike force could precisely bomb an airfield like Omidiyah Air Base, separating the hangars from the runways. Another set of bombs could also isolate the airfield from any incoming traffic and shock the barracks to where the personel stationed there would be ineffective. This could be benificial in two ways. One, the airfield is no longer an assett to Iran, and two, it could become a base for Israel to land C-130's to refuel and re-arm F-15s and F-16s for two days or so. Repeated bombings of targets within Iran could take place.

Notwithstanding the fact that Israel is taking delivery (or has finished taking delivery) of bunker-buster bombs from the US, I think any attack would, at least initially, be done with cruise missiles launched from submarines. Israel has 5 currently with another to come.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 2):
Would Israel really want to run the risk of a pre-emptive strike against Iran, I think if they do that they wioll loose what little sympathy and support they currently have.

   Absolutely. Almost a pariah state already.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 13078 times:

The way I see it, the Israelis will not be able destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without tacit support from an Arab nation. I don’t think Iraq, with it’s ties to Iran, would support anything but I could see the Saudi Arabia turning a blind eye, letting Israel transit it’s airspace, then staging a fake protest for deniability. Saudi Arabia is just as anxious not to see Iran get the bomb as the Israelis. Throw in some tanker support from the US and it is doable.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 13026 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 4):
Throw in some tanker support from the US and it is doable.

SA turning a blind eye is possible. I believe SA already have tanker capacity, as do the Israelis.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12904 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Notwithstanding the fact that Israel is taking delivery (or has finished taking delivery) of bunker-buster bombs from the US, I think any attack would, at least initially, be done with cruise missiles launched from submarines. Israel has 5 currently with another to come

Any form of air attack that requires outside support is a non-runner. If it failed the supporter would immediately become a target. No democracy within range of Iran is going to pop its head that far above the parapet and having watched first hand the effects of the Iran-Iraq war develop, none of the gulf states are going to help either. I think Connies suggestion is the only viable attack strategy for the Israelis. I don't know anything about Israeli sub capability but if they have 4 cruise missile capable subs and if the reactor is within range of those subs that's how the attack will take place. The only reason you would risk an air attack would be to deliver a killer precision blow but thats a high risk option against a military well versed in aerial warfare.

You don't need to take down the reactor to set them back significantly. The Iranians will have designed the facility to protect it against that type of attack anyway. The ancillary electrical systems and cooling capability would be the prime targets. Large transformers, high tension wires and pumping systems are long lead items and softer targets. If you could get the transformers at the facility and hit every single high tension line coming into the place it would cripple their cooling capacity, forcing a shut down like in Japan after the tsunami.

If Iran has strategised properly they will have spares, back ups etc. The real killer blow would then come with a repeat cruise missile attack several months later during repair works when the spare parts are due to be commisioned. You've now taken out their spares too and there are only a limited number of manufacturers worlwide for the long lead items which I'm sure mosad would be keeping an eye on.

That'd be my plan anyway, not as exciting as a dambusters raid but has every chance of meeting the same goal within zero direct risk. It would also take a while to figure out if it was a US or Israeli attack although I'm sure Iran would not be overly concerned with a reprisal against each just to make sure.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 12892 times:

Spudh ... seems like you've thought about this a lot. I tend to agree with your line of thinking.   


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12685 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
Notwithstanding the fact that Israel is taking delivery (or has finished taking delivery) of bunker-buster bombs from the US

I think the issue is how effective these strikes may be. From what I recall, critical/sensitive enrichment operations/apparatus have been relocated to underground sites buried beneath mountainous areas. Does the US have 'mountain buster' bombs besides the atomic variety?

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 12630 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 8):
I think the issue is how effective these strikes may be. From what I recall, critical/sensitive enrichment operations/apparatus have been relocated to underground sites buried beneath mountainous areas. Does the US have 'mountain buster' bombs besides the atomic variety?

Well, exactly.

An Israeli attack would at best delay the Iranian weapons program by only a few years, not end it. Unless Israeli itself used nuclear weapons, and even the Israelis know that that would be crossing a significant threshold.

I think in the end Israel will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. But will a nuclear Iran spark a nuclear race in the region ? Egypt, SA, Turkey...


Once again, this revolves to some degree around the issue of the Palestinians. The sooner this is resolved, the sooner regional tensions are lessened. It also is around the Iranians desire to be numero uno in the region - and the fact that they are largely Shia in a Sunni ocean. That part won't go away.

And, the Iranian nuclear program and the controversy it engenders provides Mr A with a convenient scapegoat in the public's eye to divert their attention from the crumbling state of the economy.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12574 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 8):
Does the US have 'mountain buster' bombs besides the atomic variety?

You don't need to take out the entire mountain; you just need to take out the entrance. With today’s weapons being able to come in almost horizontal, there is a lot of creative things you can do with overpressure from a blast once you get a little ways down the tunnel. While this may not destroy the facility, it would disable it for a period of time. I also don't know if I would want all that radioactive debris spewed into the atmosphere. Much prefer to have it sealed in a mountain.


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2078 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12545 times:

They've been doing a very effective job with their campaign against the scientists running the program. If anything, I see them expanding that program. It's likely much easier to kill the people with knowledge than to destroy the facility.

User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 12492 times:

Your crazy neighbor may be building something in his backyard he plans to use on his "enemy" 2 miles away. You being next door are probably in more danger that the "enemy" 2 miles away.
Seems to me the Saudis have more at stake here than anyone but sit on their hands. What are all those F-15Es for, airshows? The can certainly carry bunker busters and the trip across the gulf is pretty short.
It''s their neck too how about they do some of the heavy lifting for a change.


User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12430 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 11):

They've been doing a very effective job with their campaign against the scientists running the program. If anything, I see them expanding that program. It's likely much easier to kill the people with knowledge than to destroy the facility.

This. Israel is already attacking Iran by knocking off the scientists behind the nuclear program. Iran could attempt to find replacements and Israel can keep picking them off. After a while the message will hit home, hopefully sooner rather than later.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12423 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 8):
Does the US have 'mountain buster' bombs besides the atomic variety?

Yes, the Air Force just took delivery of some 30,000 lb bombs.

Usaf Gets New 30,000lbs Bunker Busting Bomb (by LAXintl Nov 16 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

Personally, I don't see Israel making any attack on Iran's program in a conventional, aircraft based strike. They've likely already been the ones behind the assassination of key members of Iran's nuclear/scientific community. If anyone is going to drop a bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility it would be the US. But, even then I don't think it's very likely.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12384 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 12):
What are all those F-15Es for, airshows?

Pretty much goes for all of the Oil rich Arab nations with high-tech air forces. They are more than capable, equipment wise, to handle Iran on their own.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12355 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 15):
Pretty much goes for all of the Oil rich Arab nations with high-tech air forces. They are more than capable, equipment wise, to handle Iran on their own.

But, collectively, have never shown much appetite for the fight. Perhaps Libya marks some sort of change of heart. Even though it really wasn't a fight, it was aerial policing.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1990 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12353 times:

I studied this issue as part of a project in the past.

I do believe the Israelis could conduct an air strike on multiple targets with multiple packages at the same time. Whether such a strike would be successful is an altogether different matter.

With tanker support, it might be possible to actually bypass Saudi and do the long leg (Red Sea - Indian Ocean - Gulf) in one direction at least. With tacit Saudi approval (let's say they pick a few days where their Air Defence radars are being "upgraded"), it's a lot easier. With Syria a mess, there's another possible ingress route.

All that said, I don't know how much could be accomplished. First of there is the dispersion of Iranian nuclear facilities. So many places to hit. Then. There is the level of precision demanded would require the Israelis to drop bombs on top of the craters of previous bombs, to penetrate. Or alternatively to at least place massive AMFO bombs at the entrances to such facilities to hopefully destroy the enrichment stacks through the blast (the cascades are very sensitive to vibration so it's not that difficult to damage them with a pressure wave). But none of this guarantees that you hit every facility. Or do enough damage that they can't recover within months.

All that means is that there's no way to pull this off with just a hit on the nuclear facilties. Israel would have to target their oil facilities as well to ensure sufficient economic penalties that Iran will have a tough time recovering. They would have to also launch a significant amount of covert attacks in conjuction with or immediately before or after, on key members of Iran's scientific and military establishment (the few they've killed so far wouldn't be enough). That would have to be combined with significant amount of cyber attacks as well. That's a lot to do in the span of a few hours or days. They'd have to do all this while facing the world's wrath for their attack (bound to be instantaneous, especially from a world dealing with a struggling global economy that does not need skyrocketing oil prices) and probably instant retaliation by Hezbollah and Hamas at home, combined with ballistic missile and cyber attacks by Iran. There's also the risk of radiation fallout. And what if any of that makes its way to the Gulf.

Is it worthwhile? Hard to say. We don't know how the Israelis are perceiving the intelligence. Are they confident on having nailed down all the locations of the Iranian nuclear program? Are they confident that they have a game plan which won't just kill the nuclear program but also inflict enough damage that Iran won't be able to retaliate immediately? Are they certain that there is significant strategic gain from killing the Iranian nuclear program or is it just bluster on their part to try and get the international community to pressure Iran into giving up nukes?

This is not Osirak. That's for sure. Osirak and the attack in Syria were tremendous opportunities for Israel. Single attacks that if successful would also kill those countries' respective nuclear ambitions. Iran is a significantly tougher challenge.

If anybody is interested in just the weaponeering, there's a good paper by some MIT doctoral candidates:

http://web.mit.edu/ssp/publications/working_papers/wp_06-1.pdf


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12319 times:

http://uk.ask.com/wiki/History_of_th...#Islamic_Republic_.28since_1979.29

IMO, these people would be in considerable danger from official or unofficial retaliation if there was a major Israeli strike.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6844 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12313 times:

It's a stretch!
To neutralize an Iranian airfield for 2 days of use or so, would attract a LOT of attention by the Iranian military.

If they are going to use an airfield for refuelling, seriously, why use it for 2 days? "Repeated Bombings"? You want Israel to strike their nuclear facility, or actually have a full war with Iran?

By the time the region knows Israel wants to "borrow" an Iranian airbase for more than a few hours, they'd just block the path for the Israeli aircraft...

It would be suicide for those who are there to occupy the airbase.

It is more effective to "borrow" the airfield for an hour or two.
Send the primary strike force to the nuclear facility, and not long after, send one to the airfield.
If by the time the primary strike force hits the target and the airfield hasn't been occupied, just go to the Gulf, and jump eject, and wait for a pre-arranged boat to pick them up. If by the airfield has been secured, go to the airfield, refuel, and immediately bug everything Israeli out of there ! Anything more than that, and it's suicide!

Anything less than that would mean going there and back, which is also very challenging. They can't go through Jordanian Airspace pretending to be lost Saudi planes on patrol, and go through Saudi Airspace pretending to be Jordanian planes lost on patrol... they did that at the Osirak raid. With billions spent on the Saudi Air Force since 1981, I don't think they can "pretend" to not be able to intercept the Israeli aircraft... their capabilities are much more than 1981... so it's going to be difficult even if Saudi Arabia wants to assist by "pretending not to know" or "turning a blind eye".

"Next step of the war..."??? I think you want a full war between Israel and Iran instead of just "neutralizing Iran's nuclear capability".

It's going to be much easier to send UAVs, strike the damn place, and dump (ie: crash) it on site or send it to the gulf or the black sea.

Missile strike from a submarine, is a heck of a lot easier than sending a manned airstrike.

Spudh's and Connies4ever's sub attack idea may be boring, but it can work, and that's still very Tom Clancy like at the same time!   

And the assasinations is probably the "most effective lowest risk" option...

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
Once again, this revolves to some degree around the issue of the Palestinians. The sooner this is resolved, the sooner regional tensions are lessened. It also is around the Iranians desire to be numero uno in the region - and the fact that they are largely Shia in a Sunni ocean. That part won't go away.

Well, even if the Palestinian issue is resolved, the Iranian desire to be numero uno & be known as crazy at the same time, means the problem may remain, and probably they start to pick rhetoric fight with the Saudis.

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 10):
you just need to take out the entrance. With today’s weapons being able to come in almost horizontal, there is a lot of creative things you can do with overpressure from a blast once you get a little ways down the tunnel.

Blast vents anyone?   
Just look at NORAD...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 12272 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 19):
Spudh's and Connies4ever's sub attack idea may be boring, but it can work, and that's still very Tom Clancy like at the same time!

What are you doing over here in Mil-Av Mandala! Did you get lost   I think the attack scenarios are all to ineffective other than a US led attack with bunker busting bombs, which I think is highly unlikely given the current administration. We procured those weapons more as a deterent to show that no matter how deep they put that facility..we could strike there with a B-2 or B-52. They have their facilities housed deep in a mountain.

You're also right about why they wouldn't take over an airfield for any extended length of time. This isn't a raid on Iraq. They have to fly a very long way to make this strike over other sovereign nations.

Which is why I think the Israeli strategy of:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 19):
And the assasinations is probably the "most effective lowest risk" option..

  



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6844 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 12144 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20):
What are you doing over here in Mil-Av Mandala! Did you get lost

Just doing my spying rounds on friendlies!   

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20):
I think the attack scenarios are all to ineffective other than a US led attack with bunker busting bombs

Even that has its limitations.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20):
You're also right about why they wouldn't take over an airfield for any extended length of time. This isn't a raid on Iraq. They have to fly a very long way to make this strike over other sovereign nations.

Submarines can play hide and seek even in shallow water... that's why this is the 2nd most likely option after assasinations... but damage effectivity is going to be mainly superficial.... and that's not counting the risk of "collateral damage" (such as GPS going haywire at a very low probability, and hitting say, a hospital).

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11792 times:

Quoting SP90 (Reply 13):
Israel is already attacking Iran by knocking off the scientists behind the nuclear program.

This is ugly. Let the UN/IAEA inspectors decide what is wrong or right and tell the world about it. Others (be it Israel or the US or anybody else) don't have a word to say as it's all speculation aside from the UN inspectors comments and recommendations on what they have witnessed in situ during inspections and talks with the appropriate Iranian authorities.

I hope whoever attacks first will get fierce retalliation in response to their attack.

Israel/Mossad could very well use a false flag "a la U.S. Liberty" and attack one of the U.S. aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf as a Iranian attack make-believe .

I can expect anything to happen at this point as it seems that "some" are really willing to kick out a gigantic mess in the whole region. It could all go haywire to insane proportions but maybe that's what "they" want or they would not be schmoozing around the Strait of Hormuz with a whole armada.

 Wow!

[Edited 2012-02-10 06:03:25]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11436 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 22):
This is ugly. Let the UN/IAEA inspectors decide what is wrong or right and tell the world about it. Others (be it Israel or the US or anybody else) don't have a word to say as it's all speculation aside from the UN inspectors comments and recommendations on what they have witnessed in situ during inspections and talks with the appropriate Iranian authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2921 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11349 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 22):
This is ugly. Let the UN/IAEA inspectors decide what is wrong or right and tell the world about it. Others (be it Israel or the US or anybody else) don't have a word to say as it's all speculation aside from the UN inspectors comments and recommendations on what they have witnessed in situ during inspections and talks with the appropriate Iranian authorities.

I hope whoever attacks first will get fierce retalliation in response to their attack.

IAEA report on Iran comes out next month. The inspectors have already been refused entry to suspected nuclear sites this past month. http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/02/ir...ying-to-visit-suspected-weapons-s/ Could be interesting.



The last of the famous international playboys
25 Powerslide : I believe any country has the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. When you have neighbours who wish your death, there is little you can
26 magyar : I do not think it is important whether Iran actually wants to build an A-bomb or not. The problem for Israel and the US is that it has the knowledge
27 Post contains images Chimborazo : Shhhhhh! Only last night Amhadinejad was banging on again about the West having all the high end technology and them not! There are bound to be Irani
28 Post contains images 757gb : I'm compelled to agree with that. Somehow this reminds me of when the British let the word out that a nuclear submarine was going to be near the Falk
29 cmb56 : Back in the day there was the informal policy of MAD, mutually assured destruction, between the US and Soviet Union. Pretty much everyone else was jus
30 Post contains links connies4ever : Israel is usually thought to have around 200 nuclear weapons, which would but them in roughly the same league as Britain and France. However, there i
31 Powerslide : Israel doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran militarily.
32 connies4ever : If they want to take out the underground infrastructure, probably they would. Just a little one, like 50-75kt or so.
33 XT6Wagon : I doubt that. I'm sure they have invested plenty of money in conventional weapons for use against these targets. If nothing else a little cash spent
34 connies4ever : Well, I don't see an attack any time soon. But I do see a number of scientists and engineers getting retired. You know, India and Pakistan have learne
35 Post contains links MadameConcorde : I ran into these two articles explaining why Iran is unlikely to attack. It seems that some of the players are in no hurry to go to war. Iran unlikely
36 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Anyone who believes Iran is militarily powerless is hopelessly naive. Iran has been planning for this very type of attack for30 years. They have geare
37 magyar : it depends on how you define "wasted". If you think in the framework of "destroying WMD-s", "fighting terrorism", and "building democracy in the ME"
38 Post contains links india1 : From the BBC... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643
39 CHRISBA777ER : I fully expect a joint-Arab and US pre-emptive surgical strike on Isfanhan, Busheyr, Natanz and Arak, along with any other tertiary sites dotted aroun
40 india1 : Answer: No they wont. This govt will not, whatever be the personal opinions of Indian members on this forum.
41 MadameConcorde : How is Iran a direct threat to the U.S.? Do they have ICBMs that can reach Chicago, L.A., Boston or Dallas? When was the last time Iran attacked a for
42 fsnuffer : Via Hamas and terrorist acts. Hamas has been active in Mexico and Iran attempted to bomb the Saudi embassy in Washington, DC Not directly but once th
43 777STL : Iran is a known state supporter of terrorism against the United States and other countries. At this point, the danger isn't from Iran's military itse
44 YTZ : Let's dial it back a little. Ahmadinejad's rambling aside, I highly doubt the Iranians would actually use a nuke against Israel or anybody else. That
45 connies4ever : Tell that to the Japanese...
46 Post contains images RTFM : He meant that the US would never attack a county that HAD nukes....
47 zanl188 : Pakistan would disagree....
48 fsnuffer : To bring things back to the original post, with the nuke facilities being so well defended what does the forum think about the posibility that Isreal
49 zanl188 : What would be the point? Successors would certainly be even more hostile towards Israel as a result...
50 magyar : I think this suggestion is particularly stupid. I believe neither Ahmedinejad nor Khamenei is irreplaceable. And if you want to piss off the iranians
51 RTFM : That's a false argument; the US is not attacking Pakistan (i.e. the state); it is attacking non-state elements within Pakistan's borders. Now that mi
52 zanl188 : Again, I suspect Pakistan would disagree. Certainly there have been deaths amongst their armed forces... Some in the US may disagree with the definit
53 fsnuffer : Thanks for your simplistic analysis but I guess I need to expand my question due to your read of it. I was not talking about plinking one or two Iran
54 Post contains images SLCPilot : Other forums have "poll" features that allow people to vote (only once ), and then comment. So here we have to do it manually. So, how many here think
55 connies4ever : As unpopular as it may be in this thread, I think Iran has a sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, if that's what the government of the day dec
56 SLCPilot : Points for not being afraid to state your position! I do respect that even if we may see the world a little differently. Does that also mean that the
57 magyar : Are you also against Israel having the bomb? Using the logic above you should be! Also, AFAIK, the five "legal" nuclear power agreed "to work on the
58 connies4ever : I am in no doubt that if Iran ever tested a weapon, then a regional nuclear arms race would ensue. And that's not a good thing. But that is a separat
59 connies4ever : Actually, I should amplify my earlier statement about being against Israel having the bomb. I'm against anyone having the bomb. Possession simply mak
60 SLCPilot : I would say the same. That being said, most will agree that the use of the bomb (to date), has been a net saving of lives. An invasion of Japan would
61 Post contains images connies4ever : Who would have access to much better intel than anyone on this thread ...
62 Post contains images woodreau : We hope.
63 magyar : Every decent human being would prefer a world without nuclear weapons. BTW, you should not have brought up the case of Japan, I for one strongly disa
64 connies4ever : Magyar, agree with you on the Japan topic, and also agree I won't go into it. Unless someone wants to start a thread in Non-Aviation.
65 XT6Wagon : I don't really agree. Yet, the world has allowed other nations that are hostile to Iran to develop nuclear weapons unhindered. My problem with the cu
66 Post contains links SLCPilot : This article does address some of the aviation aspects of how a battle might take place. It furthermore mentions some possible economic outcomes, such
67 Post contains links planespotting : Does this whole scenario remind anyone else of the plot for Iron Eagle II? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eagle_II
68 canoecarrier : From what is being reported aren't the facilities in Iran burred deep in a mountain or underground? I have to believe that the Massive Ordnance Penet
69 india1 : [quote=canoecarrier,reply=68] Honest question. Do you feel the same way about N. Korea? So who decides who is a rogue and when an attack is "justified
70 Chrisba777er : The 30k MOPS stuff would have to go on a B52 or be pushed out the back of a Herc etc. I wonder if it is accurate enough though? Might be better to ta
71 magyar : I am worried that this is exactly the scenario that the israelis are planning to do! A major PR problem? A bit of understatement. This would be the m
72 Post contains links BarfBag : What on earth for ? Iran is one of our biggest sources of crude, and the destination of a significant fraction of our refined petroleum output becaus
73 PanAm788 : IMO Ahmadinejad's rhetoric against Jews and Israel is strikingly similar to pre-WWII Hitler. I think he is the most dangerous man on the planet. For t
74 connies4ever : I have to gently correct you there XT6. all civilian power reactors use enriched fuel - except CANDU, of course.. Generally it's at the 3.5-4.5% leve
75 Chrisba777er : Well then its either a tactical nuke on the end of a deep pentrator - or even more than one, or the 101st Airborne and a Marine Corps detachment to t
76 connies4ever : There's also the issue of the quality of the concrete the Iranians are using. They are considered the world's best at super-hardened concrete, doping
77 Post contains links connies4ever : Here's a link to a discussion about super-hard concrete. Should have included it in previous post, so apologies to all. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-
78 Post contains images readytotaxi : I think it is a case of "when" not "if", the US has probably got a deal that any action will take place after the american elections. One of the first
79 Pvjin : Use of tactical nuke sounds pretty unlikely, being first country to use nuclear weapon in a war after WW2 is not exactly best kind of publicity to get
80 connies4ever : 1st off, I agree that use of a weapon (or weapons) by Israel would evaporate whatever sympathy is left for them in the world. And, for several reason
81 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : I just happened to find this very interesting article. How IRIAF F-14 Tomcats could be (effectively) used in combat against Israeli or U.S. planes or
82 BarfBag : India learned to coexist with China, you mean ?
83 connies4ever : No. China was already a nuclear power BEFORE India ever had a bomb. Pakistan was not and responded to the existential threat from India. India learne
84 BarfBag : Fine, China learned to coexist with India then, since India weaponized and continues to do so in direct response to the PRC. You're still missing an e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Might Israel Attack Iran?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Many F-4's Are Still Operational? posted Tue Jan 3 2012 01:29:27 by faro
Iran Claims To Have Shot Down US Drone ( RQ10 ) posted Sun Dec 4 2011 08:51:34 by Mortyman
How O-2s Got To Viet Nam posted Sat Oct 29 2011 11:36:15 by UTAH744
I Need To Know How Many F-35s Britan Is Getting? posted Sun Aug 7 2011 11:52:22 by B17GUNNER24
Iran Shoots Down US UAV Over Nuclear Plan posted Wed Jul 20 2011 11:59:39 by bjornstrom
Israel Considers V-22 Osprey Buy posted Sat Jun 18 2011 16:51:54 by LAXintl
How To Tell Between A MiG-29 And A Su-27? posted Sat Jun 18 2011 10:04:17 by comorin
Just How Worn Out Are KC-135s? posted Mon Jun 13 2011 18:36:43 by woodsboy
Iran Forbid Overflight Of German Air Force Airbus posted Mon May 30 2011 23:09:43 by wilco737
How Much Does It Cost To Launch A Space Shuttle? posted Tue Apr 5 2011 20:36:32 by g38

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format