MIT eggheads plan Israeli airstrike on Iran nuke factories

[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.

Was that an anti-semitic remark ?

Which flavour of Semitic? Israelis and Arabs are both Semitic peoples.

The main point, the US nor Israel will tolerate a nuclear power in the middle east(besides Israel) and honestly after a few tours in Iraq, I don't want them to...when was the last time you saw an American strap a bomb to himself and blow up a bus...or fly a plane into a building...and no an umbrella against missile defense will not protect the entirety of US assets, but good help the region that uses a nuclear weapon on us...it would be bad.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.

Was that an anti-semitic remark ?

Which flavour of Semitic? Israelis and Arabs are both Semitic peoples.

Haha you know exactly whut I'm talkin' 'bout, Willis...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

Your 'eggheads' do more than release assessments...

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.

Your 'eggheads' do more than release assessments...

What does the 9-11 terror attack have to do with the concept of "taking out nuclear weapons facilities" ? Answer: absolutely nuthin.

Terrorists are not "my" eggheads, jackass. So take your ridiculous attempts to smear me with the "terror" label and stuff them right up your azz.

By the way, posting a lame response twice just makes it twice as lame.

You kiss your mom with that mouth? I do believe you violated the TOS with that personal attack. I'm open to receiving an apology.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh man. TOS, SHMOS. Now e-wok is gonna come and e-lock my e-thread.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

You kiss your mom with that mouth? I do believe you violated the TOS with that personal attack. I'm open to receiving an apology.

Trying to associate me with terrorists is just about as low as you can stoop. And now you're upset about being called a jackass for acting like a.... well.... jackass ? Bug off.

Oh man. TOS, SHMOS. Now e-wok is gonna come and e-lock my e-thread.

Naah I don't think so.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh man. TOS, SHMOS. Now e-wok is gonna come and e-lock my e-thread.

Naah I don't think so.

Say "TOS" three times to evoke the evil spirit of e-Wok and fry the thread.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You kiss your mom with that mouth? I do believe you violated the TOS with that personal attack. I'm open to receiving an apology.

Trying to associate me with terrorists is just about as low as you can stoop. And now you're upset about being called a jackass for acting like a.... well.... jackass ? Bug off.

That's what I get for expecting an apology from the likes of you.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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

Aren't these the same "eggheads" who claimed around 1984 (the claim was debunked in 1985) that Indira Gandhi had called off a strike against Kahuta/PINSTECH due to the possibility of a counterstrike against Madras with F-16's?

The distances alone make a considerable difference.

The Osirak bombing (a run of 1,060 km from the Israeli airbases) involved much complex planning (Arabic-knowing pilots for the "just-in-case detected by non-Iraq Arab radar"--this happened over Jordan; tanker masqueraded as Aer-Lingus freighter flying around Jordan-Iraq border to refuel the air-strike units; almost NO reserve for combat ops such as dogfights). The "fooling" of Jordanians occured due to Arabic being the main language of Jordan PLUS Jordan's actually having similar (F-16/F-15) equipment in service.

Several factors now enter the equation:

• Due to geographic size of Iraq PLUS part of Iran, the distance EASILY becomes 2,200 km (of which at least 950 is over Iran)
  
• The pool of pilots who can speak Farsi will be far lower than that of Arabic speakers (and reduced even further when you want pilots who can speak both)--to fool Iranian defence personnel will certainly require good Farsi
  
• most of Iran's defence equipment is DISSIMILAR (which could prompt Iranians to "shoot-first-ask-later")