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, 591 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 13630 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, 221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13587 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, 7651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 13557 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 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 13491 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 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13314 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 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13262 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 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13140 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 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13128 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, 1580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12921 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 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12866 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 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 12810 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, 2147 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12781 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, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12728 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 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12666 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, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12659 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, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 12620 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 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12591 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, 2197 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12589 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, 7746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12555 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, 6952 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12549 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, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 12508 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, 6952 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 12380 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, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12028 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 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11672 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, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 11585 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
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11863 times:

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 do diplomatically. Israel has every right to do whatever they can to remove Iran's nuclear capability. If Iran had a modern military and intellectual might, they would have tried to invade Israel a long time ago. Thankfully, it is the good guys with all the weaponry.

User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11843 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 24):
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.

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 (or will have soon) to build one if it chooses so AND has a government that is hostile to Israel/US. This is an unacceptable combination for the latest two, regardless what those "inspections" actually find. In fact the US would never accept an IAEA report that clears Iran, just as it never accepted one for Saddam's Iraq (anybody still remembers that the WMDs were the main reasons for Iraq War II?)


User currently offlineChimborazo From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 11550 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 19):
Blast vents anyone?
Just look at NORAD...

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 Iranian agents reading this thread. Loose lips sink ships...  
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 25):
If Iran had a modern military and intellectual might

With the right military maybe they would maybe have invaded, if they had intellectual might they certainly wouldn't. Doesn't matter how advanced a tank or plane is it can't pick up a nuke and throw it back like a fizzing grenade.


User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 11244 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 26):
The problem for Israel and the US is that it has the knowledge (or will have soon) to build one if it chooses so AND has a government that is hostile to Israel/US.

  

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 Falklands in 1982. You can't tell if it's there or not (could have been patrolling the northern sea for all they knew) but you can't afford to ignore it.



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 10926 times:

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 just along for the ride whether they liked it or not. In the current case of Israel and Iran the situation is simply one of assured destruction. If Israel were to be attacked with some small number of atomic weapons they have both the capability to stop at least some of them and to retaliate in such a manner that Iran would cease to be a functioning country for several generations. It will be a very long time before Iran could be in a position to "destroy" Israel. Do damage and kill many people yes but not destroy the nation. Israel on the other hand probably could destroy Iran. What would be the collateral damage to other states in the Persian Gulf if such an "exchange" took place. I personally think a nuclear Iran is a much a threat to Saudi Arabia as it is to Israel. Why would the Saudis tolerate the nuclear knife at their throat? Would then not also develop the bomb as a shield for themselves and allies and do it much faster? What sanctions could be applied to the Saudis to discourage such action if it is in response to a proven nuclear Iran? Does the rest of the world want to see the MAD policy applied to the Persian Gulf?

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 30, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10824 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 29):
Israel on the other hand probably could destroy Iran.

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 is the spectre of nuclear winter, even with a regional conflict. Article on this in Scientific American a few years ago.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 31, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10819 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
Israel is usually thought to have around 200 nuclear weapons,

Israel doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran militarily.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 32, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10738 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 31):
Israel doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran militarily.

If they want to take out the underground infrastructure, probably they would. Just a little one, like 50-75kt or so.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3424 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10628 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 32):
If they want to take out the underground infrastructure, probably they would. Just a little one, like 50-75kt or so.

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 at the right places and word put in the right ears and the plans for the various US designed bunkerbusters could mistakenly get put on someone's thumb drive. Then said thumbdrive of "vacation photos" ends up in Israel's hands. Biggest issue is delivery systems, but I'm sure they can make it work.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 34, posted (2 years 9 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 10620 times:

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 learned to live with each others' nuclear arsenal, and there's no shortage of enmity there. I actually don't see why Israel and Iran can't either. Ahmedinajad won't be there forever. In fact he might not make the end of the year. Khamenei wants him out big time.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 35, posted (2 years 9 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10194 times:

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 to start conflict - Director of US Defense Intelligence Agency

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence agencies predict that Iran will respond if attacked but is unlikely to start a conflict, and they believe that Israel has not taken a decision to strike Iranian nuclear sites, a top U.S. intelligence official said on Thursday.

http://www.canada.com/news/Iran+unli...nflict+official/6164047/story.html


Iran Unlikely to Strike First, U.S. Intelligence Official Says

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The Iranian military is unlikely to intentionally provoke a conflict with the West, the top U.S. military intelligence official said today.
Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said Iran probably has the ability to “temporarily close the Strait of Hormuz with its naval forces,” as some Iranian officials have threatened to do if attacked or in response to sanctions on its oil exports by the U.S. and European Union.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-s-intelligence-official-says.html


While Israel...

Public U.S. objections to military attack serve Iran's interests

Israel has protested to the United States over recent comments by senior American officials critical of any Israeli attack on Iran, saying this criticism "served Iran's interests."
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and other senior officials made their displeasure known to Tom Donilon, U.S. national security adviser who has been in Israel this week.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...erests-1.413845#.T0MOFxWMs3w.gmail


October (2006) in a speech at the University of Alabama Gen. Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.

DOD: 'We're Taking Down Seven Countries in Five Years'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-oUsYlIoDA&feature=related

 Wow!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5477 posts, RR: 30
Reply 36, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 9779 times:

Anyone who believes Iran is militarily powerless is hopelessly naive. Iran has been planning for this very type of attack for30 years. They have geared all their defenses, which are significant, towards this goal and have very sophisticated retaliatory weapons.

They have state of the art SAM batteries, supersonic anti ship missiles, supercavitating torpedoes, (both of which can be launched from a number of vehicles and neither of which can be close to 100% defended against). They have hundreds of missiles capable of reaching any target in the middle east from Iran and tens of thousands of missiles in Lebanon and Syria...which would eventually overwhelm the Iron dome and other missile defenses.

Iran has taken a stand much like the US did during the missile crisis; any attack launched by Israel on Iran will be seen as an attack by the USA on Iran. As such, any US asset will be seen as a legitimate retaliatory target.

A good lesson on this kind of an attack is the aftermath of the Millenium Challenge 2002 war games, the most expensive and extensive war games ever. Day one of the attack, (set in the Persian Gulf), had 16 US ships sunk in the first day, by small boats, prop planes and exocet missiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middl...a-s-superior-military/%28page%29/2

http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/

The Gulf is a big lake...no room to manouver...and not nearly enough reaction time to defend all military ships, much less civilian ones, from attack. They would only have to hit one tanker to shut down traffic...insurance would be instantly pulled, for one thing.

As soon as the first bomb dropped, Iran would retaliate. They don't need runways...their airforce isn't the front lines for defense or retaliation. They would target Israel, including their nuke stations, US warships, Saudi oil installations and maybe even US bases throughout the region.

The bottom line, no attack on Iran will be easy, quick, simple...and most importantly, bloodless for either side. Iraq and Afghanistan were nearly defenseless when they were invaded and after 10 years, all the dead and wounded as well as the trillions spent were completely wasted. Iraqi leaders are being arrested for setting up death squads and the US is in official peace talks with the Taliban...the group they were trying to overthrow with their invasion.

And fools think Iran, which is orders of magnitude better defended, will just lie back and take it.

Just looking at nothing but the current track record in the middle east, any sane person will see through the illusions of those calling for war.

Israel cannot hope to accomplish their goals alone...unless they use nukes...and even they might not do it. Some Iranian facilities are 300 feet below ground. Nothing short of a nuke can hope to touch them. Israel is counting on the US either doing the first strike or attacking with Israel.

Ironically, the only ones calling for war on Iran are those who will be safe at home when the shooting starts. The US intelligence services and the military are not calling for war.

Remember 'Mission accomplished"? That didn't work out so well. An attack on Iran would not be even that successful.

[Edited 2012-02-24 12:58:27]


What the...?
User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day ago) and read 9614 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 36):
either side. Iraq and Afghanistan were nearly defenseless when they were invaded and after 10 years, all the dead and wounded as well as the trillions spent were completely wasted. Iraqi leaders

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" then yes it was, but that was obvious from the start IMHO. However, if you think about it as supporting the US defense industry then it was a "success". Where do you think those trillions went? Feeding iraqis? C'mon, the majority of that sum ended up in the pocket of people in the US. In essence, it was a "well-fare" program for an industry that lost its "reason to exist" after the cold war was over.


User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9296 times:

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 around. It is a massive operation. You need several aircraft on each strike package plus the same number of fighters plus tanker and AWAC support. To carry out one massive strike hitting everything you’d need 100+ planes, and the US Navy is the only force in the region capable of pulling this off on its own. The Israelis don’t have enough tankers, the Saudis and Qataris don’t have the really big deep-penetrator guided bombs needed, so it has to be a joint effort. The sites are well-defended and casualties might well be considerable. As soon as the Americans can put together a force of Arab states willing to participate, they’ll green light the strike. I doubt very much we’ll have to wait much longer – maybe as soon as the Summer. The strike will have to be overwhelming and even with that much firepower, it will not stop Iran’s nuclear programme, just knock it back a few years, a decade at most.

Strike profile is an interesting topic. Would assume Kuwait won’t want to get involved. Likewise Iraq, even if it could. Wonder if India would want to get involved as well? Would the Royal Air Force get involved? This is exactly the sort of high speed, high precision, low level strike missions we’re very good at, even with older Tonka equipment. Can our Typhoons carry GBU-28s?

Strikes are likely to be Saudi and USAF Strike Eagles and Qatari/Emirati Ridgeback F16s slinging 5,000lb deep penetrator GBU-28s, Saudi Typhoons and Emirati/Qatari F16s doing the escorting. USN bugs doing CAPs across the Gulf and covering the tankering zones and jamming aircraft tracks. Growlers up with Hawkeyes monitoring SAM radars over the coast and popping them if they engage the fighter screen etc. I think they’d end up building a “basket” to stage the strike packages out, timed well so that the packages go in together or with a minimum delay, tankering under the cover of heavy AWAC, fighter and jamming cover, staying out of range of long-distance SAMs, or taking them out before the mission proper.

Saudi Tonkas, USAF F16s and maybe USN Growlers going in with the strike, doing the defence suppression and jamming, mixture of Saudi and USAF tanker support, Saudi and USAF AWACs.

Strike packages need to tanker over the Gulf and enter Iranian airspace fast and hard as they can with such big ordnance under the wings – there are enough advanced SAM radars and missile sites around to mean it would likely have to be done at low-level. Triple A likely to be the main worry. Surprise hard to obtain but they’ll have to try – so assume it would happen at night.

I guess the issue keeping war planners up at night is whether the much-vaunted deep penetrator GBUs can penetrate far enough into the rock in the shielded targets, and if so, will they do enough damage? We may well find out soon enough.

Regardless of what ends up coming off the wings, accuracy will be vital. I wonder whether there might be special forces assets in theatre to light up the correct targets to improve accuracy, and possibly give an accurate sitrep re SAMs and AAA around each site. One wonders whether C&C and comms assets elsewhere might be targeted by cruise missiles as well to reduce enemy cohesion and increase response time.

What role might drones play? Could we see a stealthy drone deployed over each target and loitering, waiting to react with a snap Hellfire salvo from very close by as soon as the SAM radars or AAA sites/vehicles come online, a sort of Wild Weasel drone mission? Or stealth drones fitted with jamming pods perhaps, only turning them on right at the last minute to maximize shock surprise and confusion. Certainly there would be recce drones over every target to ascertain damage and strike effectiveness.

I think the worry is that a quick, surgical strike starts to take on the feeling and unwieldiness of a sledgehammer because of the amount of hardware and facets to the mission profile. But anyone who thinks the Israeli lightning attack on the Iraqi reactors in the early 80s is a blueprint for this one is mistaken because this is far larger and a lot more ordnance needs to be expended to have the desired result. Damaging the programme won’t be enough – they have to destroy it utterly and in such a fashion that it will take decades to get back to where they were.

Another question is, will the strikes lead to all-out war? Are the regime likely to respond?

I don’t mean by sending up fighters etc, as these are effectively suicide missions as they will get swept aside very easily from long-range, but more like retaliatory strikes against US and Arab League states using long-range missiles and air strikes, and also at sea using gunboats and anti-shipping missiles, mines etc? I don’t see them not-responding.

A war with Iran would, IF US military planners are correct, be over very quickly. Air dominance obtained in the first six hours, then unrelenting cruise missile and air strikes until the command and control and communication function does not work. The naval task groups will be the ones in peril – do they stay forward and protect the minesweeper assets clearing a path for the merchant ships, and cut reaction time drastically thus making them very vulnerable to shore-based supersonic ASM attacks, or do they stand off, allow the straits to be mined, stay out of range of all but the longest ranged ASMs, and go after the launchers and bases? If the latter, how long will this take? How long can world trade be crippled like this? What is clear is that Iran would gladly trade five frigates for one American warship, twenty planes for one American plane and all of its submarines for one of the American boats. The regime knows it cannot maintain such attrition rates for long but then it does not have to. US public opinion and the media spotlight means the sinking of an American destroyer – or God forbid a carrier – would be a devastating blow and potential game changer in terms of the US stomach for the fight. Sniping at the US/allied fleet from long range with state-of-the-art supersonic ASMs and the latest Anti-shipping torpedoes suits the regime just fine and it is well-equipped for this mission. The US/allied fleet is well equipped but can it handle these much feared saturation attacks? Or can those “carrier killer” supersonic cruise missiles really do what the Russians say they can? It promises to be a grisly and nervewracking stand-off.

Drones will play a vital role – blanket surveillance around the clock will be key, and if a land-based launcher, speedboat, skiff or air asset unmasks from camouflage, either the drone engages it with Hellfire or a GBU, or an airstrike is called in – quickly.

Might we see useage of the rumoured orbital satellite weapons that have been surmised to be at the disposal of the Americans? Even if there was, would we know?

Once the allies have control of the air, and the bombardment starts to have an effect, things will get easier. Cohesion fades and if open ground operations are conducted then they will be done quickly and decisively. The Iranians will then head into the cities and organize mujahideen militia and carry out low-intensity warfare, IEDs, carbombs, snipers etc as the Taliban do in Afghanistan.

Does the US/allied forces have the manpower and appetite to go FIBUA like they did in Baghdad and Mosul, Falujah etc, but on a much greater scale?

My feeling is the regime know the US wont and cant. Or can they?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 39):
Wonder if India would want to get involved as well?

Answer: No they wont. This govt will not, whatever be the personal opinions of Indian members on this forum.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9021 times:

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 foreign nation - not talking about province but nation.

If Israel feels threatened, shouldn't they be the ones to take care of the problem without having to ask any other countries to carry attacks on their behalf?

Who will pay for a new war started by the U.S. in the name of Israel to the risk of having the whole Middle-East on fire?

Do you really think Russia will say to anyone who attacks Iran "I hear you, go ahead and bomb them, feel free to do as you please"?

How can non-existing Iranian nuclear weapons be a threat to any nation near or far?



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 42, posted (2 years 8 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8923 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
How is Iran a direct threat to the U.S.?

Via Hamas and terrorist acts. Hamas has been active in Mexico and Iran attempted to bomb the Saudi embassy in Washington, DC

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
Do they have ICBMs that can reach Chicago, L.A., Boston or Dallas?

Not directly but once the ones they do have set the Saudi oil fields on fire the impact will most definitely be felt in Chicago, L.A., Boston or Dallas

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
When was the last time Iran attacked a foreign nation - not talking about province but nation.

Iran prefers to fight wars via proxy forces such as Hamas. The war between Hamas in Lebanon and Israel was the last proxy war Iran was involved in



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
Who will pay for a new war started by the U.S. in the name of Israel to the risk of having the whole Middle-East on fire?

The same group that would pay when Iran follows through on the threat it made to "Remove Israel from the map" - the entire would will pay.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
Do you really think Russia will say to anyone who attacks Iran "I hear you, go ahead and bomb them, feel free to do as you please"?

There is a difference between what Russia says publicly and behind closed doors.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
How can non-existing Iranian nuclear weapons be a threat to any nation near or far?

A non-existing Iranian nuclear weapon by definition is not a threat but when it becomes an existing Iranian nuclear weapon it is too late.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8683 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
How is Iran a direct threat to the U.S.?

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 itself, more so the proliferation of the nuclear weapons they could potentially produce. There are numerous ways to deliver a nuclear weapon, many of them not via normal military means. For example, they could ship it up through Mexico and detonate it in a major US city, they could put it in a shipping container onboard a ship bound for a major American city and detonate it off the coast, etc.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
Do they have ICBMs that can reach Chicago, L.A., Boston or Dallas?

No, but the point is to not wait until they do. The majority of those ICBMs could reach Israel and other US allies in the Middle East.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
When was the last time Iran attacked a foreign nation - not talking about province but nation.

Again, they're a state sponsor of terrorism. You know those IEDs that killed countless coalition soldiers in Iraq? Yeah, the parts for a lot of those weapons were sourced directly from Iran. They've been fighting a proxy war against the US and Israel for years.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
If Israel feels threatened, shouldn't they be the ones to take care of the problem without having to ask any other countries to carry attacks on their behalf?

Meanwhile, Iran has also been threatening the US Navy in the Arabian Sea. Iran is a threat to much of the western world, not just Israel.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
Do you really think Russia will say to anyone who attacks Iran "I hear you, go ahead and bomb them, feel free to do as you please"?

Russia isn't going to stop anyone on Iran's behalf let alone undertake a military action for such an effort.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 41):
How can non-existing Iranian nuclear weapons be a threat to any nation near or far?

Again, the point is to not wait until they do have the weapons to do something about it. Should we just go ahead and wait until Iran kills a few million people in Tel Aviv with a nuclear weapon before we do something about it? Yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense. That's the same laissez-faire logic that let Hitler commit the Holocaust back in the early 40s.

Stick to bragging about flying airplanes for the first time, you're a bit out of your league in the realm for foreign policy.



PHX based
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2197 posts, RR: 24
Reply 44, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8536 times:

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 would be the end of Iran if they ever did. Even the mullahs aren't that suicidal.

But, what a nuke gives Iran is protection. The US will never actually attack a country with nukes. That's the lesson of the Iraq war. Next lesson? Nukes buy you immunity for all your nefarious activities. Iran is a global headache, second only to Pakistan. And look at what that country has done with nuclear weapons. They have used it to render the Indians limp-wristed while they launch attack after attack in India. Anybody who thinks Iran won't do the same is dreaming. A few dead soliders in Iraq with IEDs? Forget that. Iran will actively start bolstering every insurgent group in the Middle East. It will support any friendly regime that crushes a democratic movement. It will become even more active in the Americas. And it will seek to destroy Israel...not with nukes, but with their proxies.

I agree with JoeCanuck. It would be a messy war. This is why I said earlier. There is no way to do this without aiming at an economically crippling strike at Iran too. The war wouldn't just be bad for Iran. The spike in oil prices, particularly if an Gulf oil installations got hit or if a tanker was sunk, would probably spark another global recession. Other than Israel, how many countries want to risk that? Would Obama want to risk another US recession, along with the highest gas prices in history (albeit for a few weeks or months only), as he heads into the election?

Where I disagree with Joe is on Iran's military strength. Iran may have some good systems. And they can undoubtedly inflict damage on any attacker. But I think you give them too much credit. I doubt their early warning systems (based on intelligence usually) is that good to alert the facilities defences well enough in advance. I dobut they have an fully integrated nationwide air defence system, that's redundant against Wild Weasel attacks. And for all their show about targetting US vessels and close the strait, we should keep in mind that USN and other area navies have been preparing for just such an incident for years. And actually following through might cost them their last few friends (like India).

It's a very high stakes game. This is a part of the reason why Israel has not struck. If they could have done it without US support, they would have by now. If they could have done it without becoming a global pariah beyond what they already are (a certain outcome if their strike proves crippling to the global economy), they probably would have done it. Instead we've seen a few assassinations and a computer virus/worm attack.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8501 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 44):
. The US will never actually attack a country with nukes.

Tell that to the Japanese...



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8406 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 45):
Tell that to the Japanese...

He meant that the US would never attack a county that HAD nukes....  


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8388 times:

Quoting RTFM (Reply 46):
He meant that the US would never attack a county that HAD nukes....

Pakistan would disagree....



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 8330 times:

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 would try to decapitate the Iranian regime by attacking their leadership? Are there any time they are all together like the US State of the Union address?

User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8307 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 48):
the posibility that Isreal would try to decapitate the Iranian regime by attacking their leadership?

What would be the point? Successors would certainly be even more hostile towards Israel as a result...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8313 times:

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 48):
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 would try to decapitate the Iranian regime by attacking their leadership? Are there any time they are all together like the US State of the Union address?


I think this suggestion is particularly stupid. I believe neither Ahmedinejad nor Khamenei is irreplaceable. And if you want to piss off the iranians without causing them significant damage then this is the way to go!


User currently offlineRTFM From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 47):
Pakistan would disagree....

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 might be irritating on some levels to some people within Pakistan but it is not the same as attacking Pakistan itself....


User currently offlinezanl188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8202 times:

Quoting RTFM (Reply 51):
he US is not attacking Pakistan (i.e. the state); it is attacking non-state elements within Pakistan's borders. Now that might be irritating on some levels to some people within Pakistan but it is not the same as attacking Pakistan itself...

Again, I suspect Pakistan would disagree. Certainly there have been deaths amongst their armed forces...

Some in the US may disagree with the definition of "non-state elements"

Either way, I'm sure there was considerable angst in the administration prior to the decision to send forces in to Pakistan without informing Pakistan. To launch military operations in another nuke capable state was unprecedented.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8198 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 50):
I think this suggestion is particularly stupid. I believe neither Ahmedinejad nor Khamenei is irreplaceable. And if you want to piss off the iranians without causing them significant damage then this is the way to go!

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 Iranian leaders. I was talking about doing what Colin Powel did in Iraq - “Our strategy in going after this army is very simple. First we are going to cut it off, and then we are going to kill it.”. I was implying they could physically take the leadership out or logically, by isolating them. As for this pissing off the Iranians without doing significant damage, I don’t think the goal is to do significant damage to the country, just to stop their leadership from developing the bomb and even if we only attacked an umbrella vendor on the beach they are going to be pissed.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

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 military action against Iran is likely?

I do. The United States made a huge mistake in Iraq by crying wolf, and now the world is suspicious if it does so again. We are faced with a very bad situation, and I don't see any way out. Iran will seek more and more diplomatic efforts as stalling tactics as the drums of war beat louder. The ultimate outcome, not good at all for any country, any region, or the human race.

It is interesting in that the primary distinction between the three main parties to a potentional conflict are drawn along religious lines. Make no mistake, greed and energy are more fuel for the fire. The world looks the other way in Syria and much of Africa because there is less to exploit there.

Back to the timing of military action, just look for the new moon every month and hope that it doesn't start....

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 55, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8115 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 54):
I do. The United States made a huge mistake in Iraq by crying wolf, and now the world is suspicious if it does so again. We are faced with a very bad situation, and I don't see any way out. Iran will seek more and more diplomatic efforts as stalling tactics as the drums of war beat louder. The ultimate outcome, not good at all for any country, any region, or the human race.

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 decides. Here's the fox among the chickens: what would the American response be if Canada developed nuclear weapons ? We certainly have the know how and infrastructure, as well as the raw materials. Yes, Canada and the USA have long-standing relations on a fairly even keel, but that is not guaranteed in the future.

America learned to co-exist with a nuclear USSR, and then a nuclear China. India learned to co-exist with a nuclear Pakistan. Yes, Mr A has made a lot of inflammatory statements about Israel, but he must be quite sure that if Iran ever did anything overt towards Israel, even short of something nuclear, the response would be devastating.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8074 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
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 decides.

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 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has little or no value? Do you not worry that the more countries that have the bomb the more likely they are to be used. Nuclear bombs are different than most in that they are mostly strategic weapons that, when used, kill non-combatants as well as soldiers. Iran is different than most other nuclear powers in that they openly support groups that act against civilians.

I do worry that Iran might use weapons against civilians or provide them to others that might.

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8018 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 56):
Does that also mean that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has little or no value? Do you not worry that the more countries that have the bomb the more likely they are to be used. Nuclear

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 elimination of nuclear weapons" when they signed the NPT. After 30 some years, cold war ended, they are not really succeeding. One can argue that they are in breach of their obligations in the NPT. Should they be sanctioned?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 58, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 56):
Does that also mean that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has little or no value? Do you not worry that the more countries that have the bomb the more likely they are to be used. Nuclear bombs are different than most in that they are mostly strategic weapons that, when used, kill non-combatants as well as soldiers. Iran is different than most other nuclear powers in that they openly support groups that act against civilians.

I do worry that Iran might use weapons against civilians or provide them to others that might.

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 separate argument from Iran's right to develop these things.

The NPT is pretty much outdated now. You actually don't even have to test a device to have confidence that it will work. Computer simulations are generally good enough. South Africa developed them (I think they built either seven or eight), then disassembled them. There is no doubt in my mind that both Saudi Arabia and Turkey have at least pilot programs in this area. Egypt possibly.

Quoting magyar (Reply 57):
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 elimination of nuclear weapons" when they signed the NPT. After 30 some years, cold war ended, they are not really succeeding. One can argue that they are in breach of their obligations in the NPT. Should they be sanctioned?

Yes, actually I am against Israel having the bomb - and lots of them (rumoured to be around 200). It has led to a) denial of the need to realistically address the Palestinian issue, and b) endless 'asymmetric warfare' in the region. Hezbollah and Hamas know they can never defeat Israel so they keep bearding the lion. Hoping that a disproportionate response by Israel (like recently in Gaza) makes Israel seem more and more like a pariah and boosts the stature of H&H.

If Israel was a non-nuclear state it would still be more than robust enough to defeat anyone in the region, but might actually have to deal with the Palestinians realistically. Of course Netanyahu still would have to go. IMHO he's as big a problem as Mr A in Iran.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7902 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 57):
Are you also against Israel having the bomb? Using the logic above you should be!

Actually, I should amplify my earlier statement about being against Israel having the bomb. I'm against anyone having the bomb.

Possession simply makes the end game more terrifying, especially if you're losing. The global consequences of even a limited regional nuclear war are too severe to contemplate. Recent studies indicate that a 'limited' exchange between India and Pakistan would most likely lead to a nuclear winter scenario.

The USA and Russia have 'built down' their respective arsenal, but each still has 10,000 or so devices, Russia probably somewhat more. That's going in the right direction but still too many for a good night's sleep. It's likely fantasy but I would like to live in a nuclear warhead-free world.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 60, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7881 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
Actually, I should amplify my earlier statement about being against Israel having the bomb. I'm against anyone having the bomb.

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 have been devasting for both sides. Likewise, use of the bomb today would likely have a huge, world impacting human and economic toll.

A world without the bomb is not one we live in, and will likely not in our lifetime.

In this thread we have seen three or four different scenarios envisioned. Sadly, it seems some version Is likely to happen. There seems to be almost no one that thinks diplomacy and economic sanctions will work, other than perhaps the President of the United States.

Cheers!

SLCPilot

Ps. The poll is still open! Is military action against Iran likely?



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 61, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7882 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 60):
There seems to be almost no one that thinks diplomacy and economic sanctions will work, other than perhaps the President of the United States.

Who would have access to much better intel than anyone on this thread ...  



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinewoodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1050 posts, RR: 7
Reply 62, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7877 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 61):
Who would have access to much better intel than anyone on this thread ...  

We hope. 



Bonus animus sit, ab experientia. Quod salvatum fuerit de malis usu venit judicium.
User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 60):
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 have been devasting for both sides. Likewise, use of the bomb today would likely have a huge, world impacting human and economic toll.

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 disagree with you on this, but for staying on-topic I will not go into it.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 60):
Ps. The poll is still open! Is military action against Iran likely?

There should be 2 polls. 1, Is military action by US and Israel/allies likely? 2, Is unilateral action by Israel likely?

My answer is unfortunately yes for 1, and probably not for 2.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 64, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7789 times:

Quoting magyar (Reply 63):
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 disagree with you on this, but for staying on-topic I will not go into it.

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.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3424 posts, RR: 4
Reply 65, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7784 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
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 decides

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 current efforts to stop Iran from developing the bomb are that we could in fact have removed thier desire (and excuse) for enriching uranium at any point by allowing them to aquire civilian reactors that don't require enriched uranium to operate. You know like they asked for for something like 4 decades now so they could reduce thier domestic dependance on oil and export more?

More to the point, Iran and other nations have discovered that they get ignored if they keep thier head down, play nice, and in general be a good nation. However start saber rattling, threatening the US, etc and people notice you. They make you a player on the world stage. Bush Jr made this even worse with the policy of you are either our lapdog or our enemy. There was no middle ground in his foreign policy. So there was no way to approch Iran on a "we don't like each other, but lets work it out so that we don't have to go to war". Also under that mindset there was no way to enlist the help of Russia or China in moderating the misbehaving nations. I'm fairly sure thats two nations that would put out some effort and money to ensure an Iran that is stable and sensable without nuclear weapons. Bonus points if Iran still hates the USA more than them too.


User currently offlineSLCPilot From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 591 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 7752 times:

This article does address some of the aviation aspects of how a battle might take place. It furthermore mentions some possible economic outcomes, such as the possible doubling of gas costs to the consumer...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=15848522&sid=3029941

Any doubling of fuel costs would almost mean certain Chapter 7 for American, Frontier, Pinnicle, and other weaker carriers.

I suspect any US involvement would be largely dependent on air power from the four major branches of the military, with little to no ground forces being involved. I can't help but wonder if forces are already being mobilized "just in case".

It kind of feels like the days leading up to the Cuban Missle Crisis, but the average American is much more concerned with Lindsey Lohan on SNL, Dancing with the Stars, and the iPad3.

SLCPilot



I don't like to be fueled by anger, I don't like to be fooled by lust...
User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3531 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 7565 times:

Does this whole scenario remind anyone else of the plot for Iron Eagle II?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Eagle_II



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2843 posts, RR: 12
Reply 68, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7543 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 39):
The Israelis don’t have enough tankers, the Saudis and Qataris don’t have the really big deep-penetrator guided bombs needed, so it has to be a joint effort.

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 Penetrator (30,000lb) bomb program the US developed was specifically developed with this kind of scenario in mind. If that's the case, then there's only a handful of aircraft in the world that could deliver the payload. None of those aircraft are in service with Isreal, Saudi Arabia or any of the other players other than the US.

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 42):
Iran prefers to fight wars via proxy forces such as Hamas. The war between Hamas in Lebanon and Israel was the last proxy war Iran was involved in

There's a wealth of evidence that the Iranian government assisted Shiite militants in Iraq. Iran began manufacturing and shipping to Iraq Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) as early as 2005. When Moqtada al-Sadr was in danger where did he go? Iran.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 55):
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 decides.

Honest question. Do you feel the same way about N. Korea? I subscribe more to the concept of collective security. There are always going to be countries that develop weapons or engage in other threats to international security. Is the sovereign right that you think Iran has to develop nuclear weapons limited? or, do you think this right also applies to the development of biological and chemical weapons as well? I'm not saying that force is necessary at this point, but it should be on the table to protect all the other countries in the region.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineindia1 From India, joined Aug 2011, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[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" or "warranted"? You, coz you guys are the US and are the world's sole superpower? The UN or some other world body? Or...? There will always be as many opinions as there are countries on this planet. Sitting here in India, we have 1.2 billion people shouting themselves hoarse about Pakistan's weapons and you chose to keep silent at the time. They are, as we perceive, as much a threat to us as Iran is to Israel or N Korea is to the South. Why would, say, Brazil be "acceptable" to you and not Venezuela? Or S Africa but not another African country?

Frankly, I can live with N Korea for the moment - but I cannot with my neigbours - because 1) they're too far away and 2) there's no real beef we have them. Yes, I know the rulers are a bit off, but so are so many others.

That said, I am against proliferation, for sure. I would'nt trust a madman with a gun. Sad truth is there are enough madmen with guns already, so what do we do?

Very tough call this, IMO. But let me ask, will this -if it happens- set a precedent? Will the threshold of the world powers be transparently defined and cast in stone for ALL nations, or will they be subjective and convenient as they have?


User currently offlineChrisba777er From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 70, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7321 times:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 68):
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 39):
The Israelis don’t have enough tankers, the Saudis and Qataris don’t have the really big deep-penetrator guided bombs needed, so it has to be a joint effort.

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 Penetrator (30,000lb) bomb program the US developed was specifically developed with this kind of scenario in mind. If that's the case, then there's only a handful of aircraft in the world that could deliver the payload. None of those aircraft are in service with Isreal, Saudi Arabia or any of the other players other than the US.

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 take it on with lots of smaller 5k laser targeted super accurate strikes at noted weak points?

Contentious one this, but I'll go there.

I think there are some instances where use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon might well be justified. I actually believe (strongly) that some super accurate, deep penetrator GBU28s-type bombs but with a smallish, say 80 KIloton nuclear tipped warhead are absolutely the right tool for the job. Warhead penetrates 30m of rock and then goes off. No air blast, EMP effects much minimised. Fallout very limited.

The colateral damage would be minimal as none of the sites are within ten miles of population centres (that I know of) and the defences, technicians, scientists etc would presumably all die in a conventional attack - i doubt the casualty rate would me that much higher. Low yield warheads with cleaer blasts etc to minimise fallout. Fact is, the only way to 100% ensure the target is completely destroyed and will remain so, including all the infrastructure and logistics etc - a nuke tipped strike is the only way. Conventional weapons may well do the job but "may" isnt good enough, for me at least.

The US would have a major PR problem on its hands but I think most people would understand that it was the only way to be sure that Iran's ruling loons cannot and will not get the bomb.

Anyone else agree with me?



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinemagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7279 times:

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 70):
I think there are some instances where use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon might well be justified. I actually believe (strongly) that some super accurate, deep penetrator GBU28s-type bombs but with a smallish, say 80 KIloton nuclear tipped warhead are absolutely the right tool for the job. Warhead penetrates 30m of rock and then goes off. No air blast, EMP effects much minimised. Fallout very limited.

The colateral damage would be minimal as none of the sites are within ten miles of population centres (that I know of) and the defences, technicians, scientists etc would presumably all die in a conventional attack - i doubt the casualty rate would me that much higher. Low yield warheads with cleaer blasts etc to minimise fallout. Fact is, the only way to 100% ensure the target is completely destroyed and will remain so, including all the infrastructure and logistics etc - a nuke tipped strike is the only way. Conventional weapons may well do the job but "may" isnt good enough, for me at least.

I am worried that this is exactly the scenario that the israelis are planning to do!

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 70):
The US would have a major PR problem on its hands but I think most people would understand that it was the only way to be sure that Iran's ruling loons cannot and will not get the bomb.

A major PR problem? A bit of understatement. This would be the moment when the US, or any country who does such thing, would lose any moral legitimacy to represent "the civilized world". Nuking a (yet) non-nuclear country in the name of non-proliferation?! You would just put a big equal sign between yourself and those who supposedly "not responsible enough" to posses nuclear weapons.


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7077 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 39):
Wonder if India would want to get involved as well?

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 because we run some of the biggest refineries in the world. Now they're also happy to accept payment in Rupees and gold, which suits us even better.

All this Iran stuff is just a problem between Iran, US and Israel. We've good relations with all three, and will continue to place importance of maintain that with each of them.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6615 times:

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 the poll, I'm guessing that there will be an Israel attack upon Iran before the end of the year in which the American military (namely Navy) is in full cooperation.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 39):

It could be a US-Saudi coalition, but US-Israel is much more likely.
I also disagree with the War of Attrition theory. If the war is short, which it almost certainly will be, and we lose a few planes or even a destroyer, the American population will be more inclined to support the war, not less. There's a big difference in fighting an prolonged insurgency and fighting a uniformed military of an enemy state.

I also doubt any nuke, tactical or not, would be used. That would just spell PR disaster.

In short, I hope that if a war occurs, it will be a short war that ends with an unstable, nonnuclear Iranian government and minimal casualties on both sides. If that happens, the world will arguably be a better place. Just my two cents.



You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 74, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6609 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 65):
My problem with the current efforts to stop Iran from developing the bomb are that we could in fact have removed thier desire (and excuse) for enriching uranium at any point by allowing them to aquire civilian reactors that don't require enriched uranium to operate. You know like they asked for for something like 4 decades now so they could reduce thier domestic dependance on oil and export more?

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% level. And, the Iranians have a civilian power reactor already in service at Bushehr on the Gulf cost. 2nd unit in early commissioning stages.

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 70):
I think there are some instances where use of tactical nuclear weapons as a first strike weapon might well be justified. I actually believe (strongly) that some super accurate,

If it'[s an exchange betweeen two nuclear armed states the temptation to 'ratchet up' would be hard to stop. Not the case, as far as we know, with Iran.

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 70):
Warhead penetrates 30m of rock and then goes off. No air blast, EMP effects much minimised. Fallout very limited.

Many are of the opinion that the Iranians have gone 100m down. You'd need a city buster then.

Quoting magyar (Reply 71):
I am worried that this is exactly the scenario that the israelis are planning to do!

Unfortunately, I tend to agree.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineChrisba777er From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 75, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6543 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 74):
Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 70):
Warhead penetrates 30m of rock and then goes off. No air blast, EMP effects much minimised. Fallout very limited.

Many are of the opinion that the Iranians have gone 100m down. You'd need a city buster then.

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 take care of business in person.

Scary thought.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 76, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6547 times:

Quoting Chrisba777er (Reply 75):
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 take care of business in person.

Scary thought.

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 the mix with quartz and some synthetic belts. Results in a concrete that will actually flex and resists blast effects 4-5 times better than 'normal' concrete.

Might need more than a tac nuke.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 77, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6563 times:

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-news/1816872/posts



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3337 posts, RR: 2
Reply 78, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

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 things Iran will probably do,if not before, is to lay mines in the Straits of Hormuz very quickly.
This will have the effect of sending the oil price through the roof as Europe and North America head into winter.
Probably a series of random bomb attacks in capitals around the world will follow.
Possible that a couple of countries in the EuroZone could be pushed closer to default by rising fuel costs.

Quoting planespotting (Reply 67):
Does this whole scenario remind anyone else of the plot for Iron Eagle II?

I was wondering where I had heard this before.  



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinePvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

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 and would probably eat rest of the small sympathy that most of the world has left towards Israel in Middle Eastern conflict.

I do not believe that even Iran with a nuclear weapon would be that dangerous, Ahmadinejad is not mad. He surely knows very well that use of nuclear weapon against Israel would be paid back many times worse. Really not most dangerous man on Earth in my opinion, rather talks much instead of actually going step forward and taking actions against Israel.

Really I cant see why Iran should not have right to own nuclear weapon when both USA and Israel have loads of them? Which gives right for only certain countries to own such weapons?



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 80, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6319 times:

Quoting Pvjin (Reply 79):
I do not believe that even Iran with a nuclear weapon would be that dangerous, Ahmadinejad is not mad. He surely knows very well that use of nuclear weapon against Israel would be paid back many times worse. Really not most dangerous man on Earth in my opinion, rather talks much instead of actually going step forward and taking actions against Israel.

Really I cant see why Iran should not have right to own nuclear weapon when both USA and Israel have loads of them? Which gives right for only certain countries to own such weapons?

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 reasons, tactical nukes might not work.
2nd, Mr A will be gone for good within a year, if not before, particularly after his 'testimony' to the Majlis earlier this week - he mocked many of the members. I think he is fully aware his time is almost up. And I have said before, I believe as a sovereign right, Iran can develop weapons just as other countries have as you pointed out.

The USA learned to coexist with a nuclear USSR, then a nuclear China. India learned to coexist with a nuclear Pakistan. The Iranian clerics are very conservative and I believe they fully realise what would ensue if they tried to launch a weapon towards Israel. In fact the Iranian weapon may not be so much about Israel as Saudi Arabia. The old Shiite - Sunni thing. Nothing better than a split within a religion to make people insane.

The real danger is that this in all likelihood will spark a regional nuclear arms race that will include, at a minimum, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. I would be shocked if they did not already have pilot programs going right now.

And then of course there is Brazil, which already has a small enrichment facility, and Argentina.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10917 posts, RR: 37
Reply 81, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6321 times:

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 drones

A previous article about the theoretical Israeli strike on Iran with the rendering of an F-15I dropping bombs on Tehran got a lot of attention and sparked debate. Someone criticized it for not being enough realistic, even if I had explained that the image had to be taken as such even if contained one (or more) wrong details. It was not supposed to be accurate that’s why I didn’t ask Al Clark, who designed it, to correct some elements of artist freedom.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/03/16...t-israeli-or-u-s-planes-or-drones/

It is always good to look at things from different sides.

  



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6292 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 80):
The USA learned to coexist with a nuclear USSR, then a nuclear China. India learned to coexist with a nuclear Pakistan.

India learned to coexist with China, you mean ?



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 83, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6273 times:

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 82):

India learned to coexist with China, you mean ?

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 learned to live with it.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2248 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6255 times:

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 extra dependency link in the chain, which I just added:

US -> USSR -> PRC -> India -> Pakistan

UK and France could essentially be viewed as being subsumed by US in the above. PRC developed in response to US + USSR. India hemmed and hawed through the 1950s and finally went ahead after Lop Nor 1964.

Israel developed theirs independently of the above domino chain. Iran's program could be viewed as one that addresses having nuclear powers both to its east (effectively a Sunni bomb bankrolled by Saudi Arabia) and in the hands of the first unfriendly power to its west, effectively a new chain:

Israel -> Iran
Pakistan -> Iran

[Edited 2012-03-16 16:28:58]


India, cricket junior and senior world champions
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