MIT eggheads plan Israeli airstrike on Iran nuke factories

[mawilson 2,133]

A pair of postgraduate students at MIT have produced a detailed assessment of the Israeli

Air Force's ability to destroy Iran's potential nuclear weapon manufacturing plants.

Whitney Raas and Austin Long, PhD candidates in Nuclear Engineering and Political Science

respectively, published (pdf) Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian

Nuclear Facilities last month. The title alludes to the famous Israeli air raid on Saddam

Hussein's Osirak reactor in 1981, which destroyed the facility and denied Iraq any chance to

build nuclear weapons in the 1980s.

Raas and Long suggest that a "strike package" of 50 US-made F-15 and F-16 jets - a

considerable proportion of the IAF's current strength - could potentially wreck Iran's ability

to build nukes, using conventional weapons already in the Israeli inventory.

The two eggheads believe that this could be done by destroying the uranium conversion

facility at Esfahan, the heavy-water plants at Arak, and of course the biggy - the underground,

heavily protected uranium-enrichment centrifuge bunkers at Natanz. Other targets in Iran,

such as the Bushehr reactor, are assessed as being genuinely civilian in character and of

no relevance to nuclear weaponry.

Esfahan and Arak could be dealt with comparatively easily, requiring no more than a dozen

weapons each to wreck, according to Raas and Long. But the large, hardened subterranean

centrifuge arrays of Natanz would be more difficult altogether. To have a serious chance of

drilling down through layers of earth and concrete protection, the report suggests that Israeli

jets would need to drop 12 5,000 pound BLU-113 penetrator bombs, and then another 12

exactly into the craters made by the first lot. This sort of accuracy could be achieved only

by the use of laser guidance: GPS-steered weapons would not suffice.

Raas and Long note that this technique has been considered in the past by the US Air Force,

and mentioned publicly by IAF general Eitan Ben-Elyahu, who participated in the original

Osirak raid. Even so, the Israelis probably wish they had a mega-penatrator option like the

30,000 pound whopper the Americans are currently working on.

The two authors also admit that under some of the more likely planning options, Israeli F-15I

"Ra'am" jets could each carry only a single BLU-113 to Natanz; and that the IAF possesses

only 25 of these aircraft. Only a little would need to go wrong for the Israelis here - a jet or

two going titsup, getting shot down, or being compelled to dump weapons - and the Natanz

hit might not be fully effective. If just 1,000 centrifuges of a possible 50,000 remained

serviceable, Iran could still enrich weapons-grade uranium, albeit much more slowly.

Raas and Long skate over the massive diplomatic problems that would accompany an Israeli

strike. The planes would have to fly over Turkey, Syria, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia: and/or

American-occupied Iraq. Turkey and Jordan would be extremely angry, but conceivably might

not shoot at the Israelis. Syria surely would. America probably wouldn't, and arguably would

have to be consulted in advance anyway, but all in all the Israeli airmen might have to fight

before they even reached Iraq, and perhaps again before they got home. The two authors are

surely correct to assume that Israel could never get away with more than a single lightning raid;

international outrage would surely prohibit any sustained campaign.

Some analysts have taken this report to indicate that Israel could destroy the Iranian nuclear

capability almost any time it feels like it (or any time it thinks the Yanks won't get too upset).

The authors themselves conclude that "Israeli leaders have access to the technical capability

to carry out the attack".

Alternatively, one might say that from the Israeli viewpoint the strike would need the entire

fleet of F-15I Ra'ams to be serviceable; it would need neutral or hostile governments to be

complicit or at least inactive; it would require a larger air-refuelling fleet than the IAF has - or

alternatively very little fighter cover; the Natanz bombers in particular would need to arrive

almost uninterfered with; and in the aftermath there would surely be a massive political price to pay.

That's a big accumulator bet to make, especially when one considers that even if Iran were

nuclear armed and able to attack Israel, the Israelis could still rely on their own nuclear weapons

for deterrent effect.

On the other hand, Raas and Long have seemingly ignored other options available to Tel Aviv.

Israel is nowadays believed to possess submarine-launched cruise missiles, which could easily

be launched from the Arabian Sea or the Gulf to hit Iranian targets.

The problem with that, of course, is that subsonic low-flying weapons like the Israeli "Popeye Turbo"

couldn't crack the Natanz bunkers using conventional warheads - at least not in the current state

of the technology. The submarine option would require the use of nuclear weapons, which probably

doesn't seem like a brilliant idea even to the Israelis - let alone the rest of the world.

Which is probably why the MIT guys didn't choose to open that particular can of worms.

One thing's for sure: student life seems to have changed a lot since our day. Maybe Raas and Long

need to get down to the pub a bit more. Or just join the damn Air Force, already.

Source

[slim 1,533]

What the eggheads forgot to mention was the Israelis would have a relatively easy launch from an American base in U.A.E. or Qatar.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

[Jamie76 0]

What the eggheads forgot to mention was the Israelis would have a relatively easy launch from an American base in U.A.E. or Qatar.

I don't think that would ever happen...Even though UAE and Qatar are allies with the US, they would never allow Israeli forces on their soil to launch an attack.

Refueling all those jets with no interference...not going to happen.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Jamie76

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

Those would be terrorists, of course.

What the eggheads forgot to mention was the Israelis would have a relatively easy launch from an American base in U.A.E. or Qatar.

I don't think that would ever happen...Even though UAE and Qatar are allies with the US, they would never allow Israeli forces on their soil to launch an attack.

I agree. That's not a particularly realistic scenario.

[Caladan 19]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

Those would be terrorists, of course.

You can see it whenever the media report on one of Ahmedmeenivegemin's speeches. They prove he's crazy, you see, and bent on destroying Israel; but a series of Axis of Evil speeches or McCain singing 'Bomb Iran" ? Just good ol' fun. I often wonder how those speeches sound in Tehran.

In any case, I'm pretty sure these sorts of technical assessments aren't anything new. Hasn't M.I.T. worked with DoD for a long time now?

[sereia 0]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

i think it would depend who you're asking! ask us? terrorists. ask the arab world....a dream come true!

[mawilson 2,133]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

[hmm1 0]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Eventually, that bridge will have to be crossed, when mad men are in power and hell bent on obtaining weapons, they have to be dealt with, I am not antiIslamic by any means, but I don't want to imagine such a country having a nuclear weapon either, better the Isrealis than us that is for sure.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

So, which would be a greater danger to the world, a nuclear Israel, or a nuclear Iran?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

So, which would be a greater danger to the world, a nuclear Israel, or a nuclear Iran?

That is the wrong question.

The only appropriate question is, which would be a greater danger to America?

Iran, obviously.

A nuclear Iran may actually be a net positive for other parts of the world.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I am now imagining the reaction if it happened to be an Arab or Muslim country's eggheads who released an "assessment" of any Arab or Muslim country's ability to take out Israel's *EXISTING* (not "potential") nuclear weapons facilities.

So, which would be a greater danger to the world, a nuclear Israel, or a nuclear Iran?

That is the wrong question.

The only appropriate question is, which would be a greater danger to America?

Iran, obviously.

A nuclear Iran may actually be a net positive for other parts of the world.

Ok, how about, "Which would be a greater danger to the free world, or to those who do not wish to live under the domination of Islamic extremism?"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Scott,

Iranian nukes would effectively end the possibility for an aggressive American presence in many parts of the world, not all of which is non-free or under threat from Islamic extremism.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Scott,

Iranian nukes would effectively end the possibility for an aggressive American presence in many parts of the world, not all of which is non-free or under threat from Islamic extremism.

Ok, which parts of the free world are threatened by an "aggressive American presence?"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Scott,

Iranian nukes would effectively end the possibility for an aggressive American presence in many parts of the world, not all of which is non-free or under threat from Islamic extremism.

Ok, which parts of the free world are threatened by an "aggressive American presence?"

Not the point. Notice my use of the phrase "the possibility". Iranian nukes will effectively preclude the emergence of an aggressive US stance in many parts of the world. Even when the US is 'friendly' today, things can and do change ... and that can change tomorrow. Iranian nukes effectively change the manner in which US power can be projected, not just today, but in the future.