Air Based Offensive Against Iran- Possible?

[StobieWan]

I think that politically, the taste for military adventurism is quite low - and there's still a lingering sense of betrayal over the WMD threat that never emerged from Iraq. I can't see any sensible reason to go in on the ground in Iraq at all, not given the issues with geography, access etc - and pretty much anything we do from the air or the ground will strengthen the position of the Iranian government and power structure.

Iran has a questionable delivery system for any nuclear weapon, and we've no solid indication they're even close to a working weapon.

Let's see if sanctions and negotiations produce a result.

 

[STURM]

This is why i dont see the u.s wanting to attack iran at least untill they have concret and tangable evidence that iran is building the bomb

Concrete and tangible evidence is something the U.S. will probably never get until the very day Iran actually detonates a device, which is unlikely to happen any time soon. America as you indicated, might not want to attack Iran, but Israel might force its hand. Whilst we have no way of knowing where all this will eventually lead to, what is certain is that if the Israeli's hit Iran, the Iranians will retaliate, and the Americans in turn will get militarily involved.

Let's see if sanctions and negotiations produce a result.

Sanctions, if recent history is anything to go by, are unlikely to work. If anything, it will hardened Iranian resolve against what they perceive are Western attempts, that smack of double standards, to isolate Iran and further weaken it. As for negotiations, it depends on all parties. Due to a number of factors, rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran is very unlikely at present, despite both countries having a lot of common interests. A lot off course depends on Israel, if Netanyahu launches a strike, nothing will stop Iran from retaliating. What will be interesting to see in the long run is whether Iran's position will softened in the event Assad falls, as Syria is Iran's only Arab ally and the 'loss' of Syria for Iran will be damaging.

 

[colay]

Given Iran's stated threat to block the Strait of Hormuz, what reaction could we expect if ships start running into mines? Would everyone automatically assume Iran is to blame and retaliate accordingly without conclusive proof as to their source? Once the shooting starts, escalation is a real possibility and I can envision the target list being expanded to include nuke facilities.

 

[STURM]

I can't think of anyone else that would need to lay mines or would have anything to gain from doing so, apart from Iran. Once hostilities breaks out or ships start bumping into Iranian mines, any Iranian vessel caught or suspected of laying mines would be fair game, as was the case during Operation Praying Mantis.

 

[colay]

I can't think of anyone else that would need to lay mines or would have anything to gain from doing so, apart from Iran. Once hostilities breaks out or ships start bumping into Iranian mines, any Iranian vessel caught or suspected of laying mines would be fair game, as was the case during Operation Praying Mantis.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, what if a third-party intelligence service planted mines knowing suspicion - and reprisals - would immediately focus on Iran? A Hollywood scenario perhaps..

 

[zoolander]

very hypothetical question..

What would happen if Iran nukes Israel. Israel has 200+ nukes. Would those nukes also go off? What is the science behind it? would they have to armed? would they have to be exposed in some way? i.e. not like 200 feet underground?

lets not turn this into an argument about Israel's nuke count. It is easily 100+

 

[My2Cents]

very hypothetical question..

What would happen if Iran nukes Israel. Israel has 200+ nukes. Would those nukes also go off? What is the science behind it? would they have to armed? would they have to be exposed in some way? i.e. not like 200 feet underground?

lets not turn this into an argument about Israel's nuke count. It is easily 100+

Nuclear weapons are not subject to sympathetic detonation.

• Gun type weapons (Little Boy) cannot go critical until gun is fired to assemble the critical mass. This might happen IF the firing mechanism is unshielded (fat chance). No one uses these anyway because they require more fissionable material and are very inefficient.
• Implosion type weapons, which are probably the only type in use, can only go critical if the explosive that assemble the mass are detonated in a precise manner, otherwise you just scatter the nuclear material. Worst case just results in contaminating the surrounding area.

As a final note, one of the standard plans to disable something like a suitcase nuke is to fire a shaped charge or antitank round through the center of the pit (nuclear material). This is probably the surest way to disable it immediately and bypasses any anti-tamper devices that may be present.

 

[the concerned]

Just asking how would Iran be able to strike Israel with either conventional or wmd warheads without killing more palestinians in one strike than israel has in say 10 yrs.If thats what they call friends who needs enemies.

 

[My2Cents]

Just asking how would Iran be able to strike Israel with either conventional or wmd warheads without killing more palestinians in one strike than israel has in say 10 yrs.If thats what they call friends who needs enemies.

If their targeting is good enough they can probably get a decent casualty ratio, there are areas that are exclusively Jewish. IF.

But I expect they will just adopt the attitude that either:

• Any Muslim living inside Israel but outside Jerusalem or Gaza Strip is a traitor and apostate, so good riddance.
  or
• Muslim casualties are ‘involuntary’ martyrs to the cause. (al-Qaeda and the Taliban use this one all the time).

 

[the concerned]

With Israels air defences the amount of missiles it would take to overwhelm their barrie would probably guarantee mutal distruction of most of the palestinian areas and if they didnt ,the triggers on every Israeli soldier would.

 

[STURM]

Just asking how would Iran be able to strike Israel with either conventional or wmd warheads without killing more palestinians in one strike than israel has in say 10 yrs.If thats what they call friends who needs enemies.

An Iran use of nukes on Israel [and Iran is a very, very long way off to having nukes], would not only kill Palestinans in the occupied territories but would also kill people in Syria and Lebanon, this is something that those who claim that a nuclear armed Iran would be a 'threat' or wants to 'exterminate' Israel conveniently neglect to mention to us. The question we should ask is not the kind of targets that would be possible to be hit with Iranian missiles but the number of missiles the Iranians curretly have that have the range to hit Israel and what will happen if Iran starts to run out of missiles.

 

[Haavarla]

I've been fast reading through this thread.. why do Mod allow this?
World Politics and Fiction NC holocoust and what not..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Closed pending Mod review

Re-opened. A suggestion though, be conscious of the Forum Rules and the sensitivity of the subject matter.

ie Govern emotions and "manage" the debate

 

[Bonza]

Closed pending Mod review

Re-opened. A suggestion though, be conscious of the Forum Rules and the sensitivity of the subject matter.

ie Govern emotions and "manage" the debate

In addition to what GF has said, I'd just add that the mod team has talked about the thread and is aware the subject matter is inherently political, to an extent. However given the current relevance of and interest in the topic, I think there's value in discussing it and would rather not place it off-limits for forum members.

The expectation is that the discussion remain as focused on the military aspects of the topic as possible, and when it borders on politics, that posters conduct themselves with maturity, open mindedness and a measure of objectivity, as GF has noted. If everyone follows those guidelines (and I appreciate the efforts of those who have done so of their own volition in this thread), then there shouldn't be any issues.

Edit: The other thing I want to note is that if someone starts posting inflammatory or unacceptable nonsense, don't respond to them, it's not worth your time and just derails the discussion. Just report them - they will be dealt with.

Cheers all.

 

[Haavarla]

Ok then. I will continue with this news then:

BBC News - Russia to become Iraq's second-biggest arms supplier

Earlier this week, Mr Maliki explained in a speech that he did not want Iraq to be "part of someone else's [arms export] monopoly."
"We have good relations with the United States and Iran. We do not want to live surrounded by constant conflict. We buy weapons based on the needs that we feel we have," he added.

How is this as a possible Iran fiction Conflict? I think such statements by the Iraq defence minister show a slightly different reality..

 

[My2Cents]

Looks like Israel may be backing off.
Israel abandons plans for imminent Iran attack - Telegraph
The question of course is – Is this announcement a face saving gesture, or an attempt to get the Iranians to drop their guard?
Only time will tell. :lam

 

[STURM]

The Iranians are unlikely to be thrown of their guard as they Israelis's have been threatening to strike Iran's nuke facilities for years now. It could very well be due to the fact that the Americans have made it very clear that they do not want to be dragged by Israel into a war with Iran at the moment. The last thing Obama desires is another full scale war in the region but if Israel initiates hostilities and the Iranians reciprocate, the U.S. would be left with no choice but to get involved. Another reason could be due differences of opinion with Israel itself as to the need for an immediate strike on Iran. In recent months a number of former Israeli intel officials have pubilcly stated that a strike would be a bad idea and unconfirmed reports have mentioned current serving senior IDF officials saying the same.

With things in Syria getting worse, and threatening to spill over into Turkey and Lebanon, America's Sunni Arab allies would also probably not want to get involved in trouble with Iran as the bulk of their populations might not welcome it and the rulers of various Gulf States are still very nervous about a next 'Arab Spring' erupting and becoming an 'Arab Summer' that could threaten their regimes. There is also the key question as to what European military support the U.S. can count on in the event of a war with Iran, granted the U.S. can go it alone with Israel but it would need European support, for practical and political reasons. As for the Iranian leadership, they best thing it can do at present is just to keep its mouth shut and not issue issue any statements that can be construed by ocertain other countries as 'threatening'.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...st-hiltermann-on-iraq’s-relations-with-israel

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...i-reidar-visser-on-iraq’s-relations-with-iran

 

[gf0012-aust]

The key to this is still going to be who will be the next US President - assuming that the election falls within the 2355 scenario

 

[My2Cents]

The key to this is still going to be who will be the next US President - assuming that the election falls within the 2355 scenario

What is the 2355 scenario?

 

[crest]

The key to this is still going to be who will be the next US President - assuming that the election falls within the 2355 scenario

I would disspute that regardless of what party is in power the united states will act in what is the best intrests of the united stats. At this point in time its hard to see how war with iran will serve amarican intrests do to the costs and uncertintes such a war would bring in all areas, politcs both domestic and international, economic aswell as millitarly

I agree the with strum that israel is softning its retoric as its becoming clear the us is not suportive of another war in the mideast let alone one with iran. it is possiable its just a calm before a attack from isreal but that is quite unlikly such a risk for isreal would mean they need strong evidence to act on and if they had that evidence you can be shure they would be showing it to the united states

I think a question that must be asked at this point is what are isreals chances of sucsess if they do attempt to strike iran by themselfs and more importently is isreal capable of a sustaing air campain agianst iran

I have no doubt that isreal can performe a single series of strikes and even negotiat to have usable airspace for follow up attacks. But is the irainain air defence stronge enuff to prevent isreal from a sustained campain, i have a hard time seing isreal coping with the low to moderiat attrition rates iran could inflict once the eliment of suprize is gone
Aswell once commited if the u.s decides not to engage (unlikely but it must be conciterd) how does isreal put a end to the operation if its unable to destroy the fortified facilitys and losses start to mount aswell as anger from the rest of the m.e
not to mention the rockets and morters that would be shure to follow