Israel and Iran playing nucelar chicken

[alienlovechild 75]

Am I wrong? In Opera the F16 was pushed to the very limits of its operational range. Its got to fly a lot further to get to Iran. And that 747 sized UAV that Israel has is just a nice fat target for any SAM.

Drones

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/world/mi.../22mideast.html

"The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I [officially I is for Israel, not Iran, though some take a different view] Ra’am (Thunder) aircraft, the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, in January 1998, and as of early 2004 had an inventory of 25 aircraft. According to the Israeli Air Force, this aircraft has a range of 4,450 km, which equates to a combat radius of 2,225 km. Deliveries of the F-16I Sufa (Storm) began in early 2004. This heavily modified aircraft, with massive conformal fuel tanks, has a reported combat radius of 2,100 km. Probable strike targets such as Bushehr and Esfahan lie about 1,500 km from Israel.

The 2,060-km strike on the Palestine Liberation Organization's headquarters in Tunis in October 1985, in retaliation for the murder of three Israelis on a yacht in Cyprus, was the IAF's furthest attack from home to date. The F-16s which bombed the Iraqi reactor in 1981 were not refueled and returned home on their last drops of fuel.

On 21 September 2004 Israel acknowledged that it was buying 500 BLU-109 bunker-buster bombs, which could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The bombs, which can penetrate more than 7 feet of reinforced concrete, are part of a $319 million package of air-launched bombs being sold to Israel under America's military aid program."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1290331.ece

In August 2003, the Israeli Air Force demonstrated the strategic capability to strike far-off targets such as Iran by flying three F-15 jets to Poland, 1,600 nautical miles away. Israel can launch and refuel two to three full squadrons of combat aircraft for a single set of strikes against Iran, and provide suitable refueling. Israel could also provide fighter escorts and has considerable electronic-warfare capability to suppress Iran's aging air defenses. It might take losses to Iran's fighters and surface-to-air missiles, but such losses would probably be limited.

It is not clear that Israel can win this kind of "shell game." It is doubtful that even the U.S. knows all the potential targets, and even more doubtful that any outside power can know what each detected Iranian facility currently does—and the extent to which each can hold dispersed centrifuge facilities that Iran could use instead of Natanz to produce weapons-grade uranium. As for the other elements of Iran's nuclear programs, it has scattered throughout the country the technical and industrial facilities it could use to make the rest of fission nuclear weapons. The facilities can now be in too many places for an Israeli strike to destroy Iran's capabilities.

Israel also faces limits on its military capabilities. Strong as Israeli forces are, they lack the scale, range and other capabilities to carry out the kind of massive strike the U.S. could launch. Israel does not have the density and quality of intelligence assets necessary to reliably assess the damage done to a wide range of small and disperse targets and to detect new Iranian efforts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...3806271306.html

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

One of the key differences now is that I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let Israel fly into Saudi airspace without a confrontation (or more importantly without Iran being alerted). They would likely have to skirt around and come up near the Persian Gulf...I think they need a carrier to get the job done.

[mawilson 2,133]

One of the key differences now is that I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let Israel fly into Saudi airspace

What are they going to do? Chase them on camels?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

lol....well don't forget they have US aircraft too. Israeli pilots are likely better but would they risk an incident with Saudi Arabia?

Also all that hitting the material would cause would be a few years set back if the facilities to make it are left intact. And apparently it would take multiple precise hits with multiple bunker busting bombs.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Sousuke

[mawilson 2,133]

lol....well don't forget they have US aircraft too. Israeli pilots are likely better but would they risk an incident with Saudi Arabia?

I don't think Saudi A would risk an incident with Israel.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I don't think Saudi A would risk an incident with Israel.

All it would take is a simple alert.

[scandal 951]

I posted this article almost a year ago. I think it's still a relevant discussion of Israel's realistic strike options against Iran. In short: not very likely.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=197196

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I posted this article almost a year ago. I think it's still a relevant discussion of Israel's realistic strike options against Iran. In short: not very likely.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=197196

The Jericho's mentioned could probably get the job done. Though I wonder about the environmental impact of nuclear material being blasted all over the place....

I saw Operation Opera as one of the greatest air strikes in the history of the world, on the same level as the Doolittle Raid, but a lot could have gone wrong and I wonder if people will be fooled twice.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Sousuke

[alienlovechild 75]

One of the key differences now is that I doubt Saudi Arabia is going to let Israel fly into Saudi airspace without a confrontation (or more importantly without Iran being alerted). They would likely have to skirt around and come up near the Persian Gulf...I think they need a carrier to get the job done.

Saudi Arabia isn't an ally of Iran and Saudi Arabia backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. Iranian revolutionaries would love to overthrow another monarchy, control Mecca and get a whole lot more oil under their thumbs.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Saudi Arabia isn't an ally of Iran and Saudi Arabia backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War. Iranian revolutionaries would love to overthrow another monarchy, control Mecca and get a whole lot more oil under their thumbs.

That may be but sovereign airspace is a different issue. In my opinion an airstrike isn't really an option until the 25 F35's are delivered in 4 years.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

An air strike by Israel or even the USA is a stopgap measure, only a land invasion and take over would stop Iran's government unless they elect to stop themselves.

[Pooky 3,844]

That may be but sovereign airspace is a different issue. In my opinion an airstrike isn't really an option until the 25 F35's are delivered in 4 years.

Keep dreaming there. The F-35 is a pig.

The F-15I is a better strike platform, with more range, a greater weapon load-out and better survivability, as it is twin-engined. The F-35 isn't likely to be available in 4 years, as the program is slipping faster than a greasy poo down a children's slide, it's overweight, the Israelis can't get their electronics onto the airframe as Lockheed-Martin won't let them (and the USA are keeping the top-line sensors and software to themselves) and it doesn't have anywhere near the capability of the F-15.

Thing is, the world can't wait until the Iranians have an operational nuclear device, as they may just be mad enough to use it, or back themselves into a corner where they will lose face too much if they don't. Then we're all f***ed. Because if one WMD detonates on Israeli soil, Tehran will disappear in a burst of instant sunshine. And that would be bad news. Very bad news.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thing is, the world can't wait until the Iranians have an operational nuclear device, as they may just be mad enough to use it, or back themselves into a corner where they will lose face too much if they don't. Then we're all f***ed. Because if one WMD detonates on Israeli soil, Tehran will disappear in a burst of instant sunshine. And that would be bad news. Very bad news.

But, it will be interesting.

[scandal 951]

But, it will be interesting.

Go F yourself Bill. Have a cracker, take it to bed, and go F yourself.

I realize you're kidding and all, and this is just the VJ way of kibbitzing about.

When you think it's just good fun to talk about nuking the Sacramento delta, I'll "appreciate" your sense of humor.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Go F yourself Bill. Have a cracker, take it to bed, and go F yourself.

I realize you're kidding and all, and this is just the VJ way of kibbitzing about.

When you think it's just good fun to talk about nuking the Sacramento delta, I'll "appreciate" your sense of humor.

Time for a realistic evaluation of the situation, Ron. That is not a very friendly part of the world, never has been, and probably never will be. That a group of people you have an affinity with decided to live there, is not to going to change that at all. History has a way of repeating itself, and the weapons are more lethal, and more destructive than ever. Figure it out for yourself.