How Iran would retaliate if it comes to war

[HAL 9000 96]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?

Both you and I know that missiles with payload capacity can be quite easily detected. If not by us then by our friends. If we want to be gung ho about things lets have our friends in the region sponsor certain detection abilities with fast response elements. Oh... we already do don't we?

detection of launch isn't what i was questioning. it was the alleged swift interception that you spoke of.

Yes I see your point

Even interception in air can have its nasty effects- payload drops straight to the ground in a thud. From what I do know of ICBM and other missile types, nuclear detonation occurs from 100-300 feet above ground at the target site. Hence, an intercepted missile technically becomes a dud in mid air. Of course, the trigger can also be designed to detonate on impact, and that could be an issue.

Nevertheless, if Iran really was going bananas for a bomb, I am pretty sure they'd taunt it the moment they'd knew it was operational much like they flaunt their nuclear energy science on Al Jazeera.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Little doubt they would feel forced to fight like the zealotous, cowardly, and backward bullies the Iranian government is. But yes, Sadly Insane was also supposed to be very tough and obviously wasn't. Although in fairness to our troops and those of the coalition, a lot of very technically difficult operations were accomplished making defeat of the Iraqi army appear easier than it really was.

The major issue is putting enough troups on the ground to truly take over, and that, not ultimately winning a military victory over Iran would be the problem.

This is the problem we currently have in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Given the close proximity of Iran and Israel, how do we defend Israel against a nuclear attack by Iran once the missile is in the air?

Three words: Second Strike Capability. Israel has it and Iran knows that. An attack on Israel would be national suicide for Iran. We don't really need to defend Israel - they're quite capable to do that themselves.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?

Both you and I know that missiles with payload capacity can be quite easily detected. If not by us then by our friends. If we want to be gung ho about things lets have our friends in the region sponsor certain detection abilities with fast response elements. Oh... we already do don't we?

detection of launch isn't what i was questioning. it was the alleged swift interception that you spoke of.

Yes I see your point

Even interception in air can have its nasty effects- payload drops straight to the ground in a thud. From what I do know of ICBM and other missile types, nuclear detonation occurs from 100-300 feet above ground at the target site. Hence, an intercepted missile technically becomes a dud in mid air. Of course, the trigger can also be designed to detonate on impact, and that could be an issue.

Nevertheless, if Iran really was going bananas for a bomb, I am pretty sure they'd taunt it the moment they'd knew it was operational much like they flaunt their nuclear energy science on Al Jazeera.

"nuclear detonation occurs from 100-300 feet above ground at the target site."

- not necessarily. there are different types of detonation all dependant on desired effect/target. high altitude to create amp, air burst to cause blast damage and minimize radiation, and the f-u ground burst to destroy underground facilities (like their return shots) or to create fallout.

while in flight missile interception has been demonstrated against scuds, intercepting an icbm (usually reintering earth's atmosphere due to time constraints) on it's final approach won't result in consistent results, much to the dismay of those in the targeted area.

[HAL 9000 96]

Given the amount of monitoring of Iran, any missile launch could be swiftly intercepted before it became a danger to our country.

do you really believe that?

Both you and I know that missiles with payload capacity can be quite easily detected. If not by us then by our friends. If we want to be gung ho about things lets have our friends in the region sponsor certain detection abilities with fast response elements. Oh... we already do don't we?

detection of launch isn't what i was questioning. it was the alleged swift interception that you spoke of.

Yes I see your point

Even interception in air can have its nasty effects- payload drops straight to the ground in a thud. From what I do know of ICBM and other missile types, nuclear detonation occurs from 100-300 feet above ground at the target site. Hence, an intercepted missile technically becomes a dud in mid air. Of course, the trigger can also be designed to detonate on impact, and that could be an issue.

Nevertheless, if Iran really was going bananas for a bomb, I am pretty sure they'd taunt it the moment they'd knew it was operational much like they flaunt their nuclear energy science on Al Jazeera.

"nuclear detonation occurs from 100-300 feet above ground at the target site."

- not necessarily. there are different types of detonation all dependant on desired effect/target. high altitude to create amp, air burst to cause blast damage and minimize radiation, and the f-u ground burst to destroy underground facilities (like their return shots) or to create fallout.

while in flight missile interception has been demonstrated against scuds, intercepting an icbm (usually reintering earth's atmosphere due to time constraints) on it's final approach won't result in consistent results, much to the dismay of those in the targeted area.

Hence my Bill Murray Star Wars song a bit back

But yes, I am a bit rusty on my detonation designs...