Israel vs. Iran ... A real nuke issue

Vlad Plasmius said:

We could, but I don't think we will be able to the way we are setting things up. I don't think that a strike now, with the assets we have in theater would ever be effective. The problem is, if we start setting up for what we'd need, Iran would know for sure it was coming and be able to prepare.



Sometimes people are too proud of our technology and forget easily how a few using simple tactics can overcome that gap. One moment of carelessness can also swing a battle in the wrong direction.

Click to expand...

Prepare? How does one prepare to get kicked in the gut while chained to a wall, other then aknowledging it's going to hurt?? Iran's options would be limited. You can bet that the first things to go would be anything that looks like a SAM launcher. Iran can try to hide the SAMS, and create dummies and so on. They would be well advised to bury as much of their production as possible, which they have already done. While you claim that the force package in place is insufficient to the task, then you would need to define what the task is that you deny can be accomplished. Two carrier wings, their complementary surface combatants (with an awful lot of Tomahawks and SLAM/Harpoon missiles), the B-1 bombers that are forward deployed at Diego Garcia, the B-2 bombers that fly anywhere directly from their home base, the copius US air force tactical air assets already in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan, however many submarines that are there...

You get the picture. The goal will not be to totally destroy the nuke program, if it comes to blows. The goal will be to DEGRADE the program significantly, and the force package is in place NOW to do that.

I was also curious about your parable-like admonotion regarding technology. certainly, our potential foes are aware of out superiortity in that realm, and would wish to fight against our weaknesses rather then our strength. If we kept any conflict limited to mainly an air campaign, then we also limit the Iranians from being able to engage in assymetric warfare directly against us. Now, they can try to use proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, but they are doing that already. That card has been played, and we have largly taken it's measure.

Well this idea sort of just came to me but if the United States really wanted to totally destroy the Iranian nuke program another option would be to target the Iranian Air Defence network, (meaning fighters, radars and SAMs) which would take what, days? as well as striking the nuclear complexes from the air. With air defence removed or driven underground it should be possible to send in Army Rangers or some other elite force by helicopter to land at the sites and physically go into underground areas and destroy them.

Of course the holes in that plan are that critical components could easily be moved, there is no garuntee of how long degrading Iranian air defence would take, MANPADs around the nuke sites would be a major problem, and not all nuke sites would be within range of a helicopter strike force.

Oh well, its just a thought.

celtic-dragon said:

The goal will not be to totally destroy the nuke program, if it comes to blows. The goal will be to DEGRADE the program significantly, and the force package is in place NOW to do that.

I was also curious about your parable-like admonotion regarding technology. certainly, our potential foes are aware of out superiortity in that realm, and would wish to fight against our weaknesses rather then our strength. If we kept any conflict limited to mainly an air campaign, then we also limit the Iranians from being able to engage in assymetric warfare directly against us. Now, they can try to use proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, but they are doing that already. That card has been played, and we have largly taken it's measure.

Click to expand...

The are also considering forward deploying a few B-2s, in fact, bases have already been selected: Royal Air Force Fairford in the United Kingdom; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Diego Garcia. Besides these, the Air Force is looking at one other forward operating location somewhere in the Middle East, a location that the Air Force will not identify publicly but which Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, said "we're looking at."

Anyhow, I agree with your analysis. I believe we have placed many assetts in the region from the getgo against this possibility and it should be no surprise. Bush, like him or not, named Iran early on, and as an exporter of terror, it should not be too surprising. The WMD issue and the mounting evidence of involvement in Iraq are just all adding to that.

Now with two carrier groups in the region, enough fire power is available to seriously degrade both the nuclear research and Iranian military naval and air power as well.

I pray it can be avoided...but if it comes to blows, it will be hard for the Iranians to hurt the US militarily. I think that their avenue of attack will be to use what military assetts they can to hurt us economically and I believe, in the short term, that they will be able to shut down the straits and accomplish some of that goal...as well as continue to use their proxies in Iran particularly to pick at us.

Jeff Head said:

The are also considering forward deploying a few B-2s, in fact, bases have already been selected: Royal Air Force Fairford in the United Kingdom; Andersen AFB, Guam; and Diego Garcia. Besides these, the Air Force is looking at one other forward operating location somewhere in the Middle East, a location that the Air Force will not identify publicly but which Gen. Michael Ryan, the Air Force chief of staff, said "we're looking at."

Anyhow, I agree with your analysis. I believe we have placed many assetts in the region from the getgo against this possibility and it should be no surprise. Bush, like him or not, named Iran early on, and as an exporter of terror, it should not be too surprising. The WMD issue and the mounting evidence of involvement in Iraq are just all adding to that.

Now with two carrier groups in the region, enough fire power is available to seriously degrade both the nuclear research and Iranian military naval and air power as well.

I pray it can be avoided...but if it comes to blows, it will be hard for the Iranians to hurt the US militarily. I think that their avenue of attack will be to use what military assetts they can to hurt us economically and I believe, in the short term, that they will be able to shut down the straits and accomplish some of that goal...as well as continue to use their proxies in Iran particularly to pick at us.

Click to expand...

I think you are right as well, and I also hope to God that this can be avoided. We need another war like we need an Ebola epidemic.

I think you guys are under estimating Iran's capabilities greatly. Though no one will deny that if push comes to shove, the strikes will be successfull. On the other hand, you can not deny that all sites will not be destroyed.

What is the purpose to attack ? To stop them from going nuclear. They will simply walk out of NPT and instead of a few known locations will start their program with more determination at countless locations through out Iran. and Unlike most of Middle East, Iran is quite mountaneous. They know how to manufacture their own centrifuges. They have also mastered the art of enrichment.

Unless and unless, the objective is change of regime, nothing will stop Iran from going Nuclear. and for that USA must launch several landings if not a full scale ground invasion.

Plus the shias have been relatively quiet in Iraq. and there is no guarantee that weopons through Iran are not continiously being channelled into Iraq through secret tunnels or routes for the day which we all hope to avoid.

Iran's leaders already said it that they will strike at all US interestes throughout the world.

Unless and Unless the ruling regime is decimitated in the initial phase before they get the chance to strike back, USA will find herself in a very very uncomfortable position.

It is pretty much obvious that most of the planning by the USA is pretty much completed only waiting to recieve the sigal to execute. There are no certainties what Iran has been doing. Since we should all agree that they are also preparing ?

Unlike Iraq where USA went in without a proper exit strategy in place, Iran will simply become USA's Afghanistan they do repeat the same mistake again.

*Plus the shias have been relatively quiet in Iraq. and there is no guarantee that weopons through Iran are not continiously being channelled into Iraq through secret tunnels or routes for the day which we all hope to avoid.*


Uh, they have??!! Maybe I've been watching the wrong news channels and reading the wrong news mags

*Iran's leaders already said it that they will strike at all US interestes throughout the world. *

Well, it isn't like we were friends anyway.


*Unless and Unless the ruling regime is decimitated in the initial phase before they get the chance to strike back, USA will find herself in a very very uncomfortable position.*

Like what? I actually know the answer to that. I merely want to see if you do, so please elaborate.

*Unlike Iraq where USA went in without a proper exit strategy in place, Iran will simply become USA's Afghanistan they do repeat the same mistake again.*

There is no sign anywhere that the US is planning to invade anyone else right now. If the draft were revived, then maybe. The previous SecDef was incredibly hostile to the notion (and insulted a lot of WW II, Korea and 'Nam vets in his statements about the draft) and wanted to actually cut manpower in the army and marines even further. The US has no capacity to actually enter into another ground campaign, so you can leave that idea alone. It isn't gonna happen.

Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is a hopeless cause.

Right now the tor-M1s might not be a significant threat as they are not in large numbers. Iran only purchased 29, I believe. They can fire 2 missiles at one time and I think only have about 8 stored on them. That makes for a totally possible 290 intercepts before needing a reload. The Tor-M1 has fire on the move capability and can drive around for hours. Iran has radars positioned all along the coast and Iraqi border. If we want to take them by surprise, possibly giving us the ability to strike their Tor-M1s when they'd be incapable of moving away or intercepting, we'd have to launch over Pakistan and move over Afghanistan, finally moving out to Iran or launch from Central Asian bases. However, there is also a possibility that if we used F-22s we could fly right over radar sites and take out the Tor-M1s.

Taking those out is crucial, IMO, to defeating Iran. Those weapons are perfect for Iran to exercise a non-conventional guerilla-style air defense. Iranians have proven their ability to multi-task by using F-14s as AWACS, air superiority, and air defense fighters. They've also used them on strike missions. No doubt they'll realize the Tor-M1s provide them both an exceptional mobile air defense system, but also an exceptional mobile air defense radar. Their detection range is around 25 kilometers and positioned maybe two or three around a city would provide reliable and constant early warning for bombing missions. It gives at least a minute of warning they might otherwise not have. Also these would be fully mobile and capable of moving around and impossible to track minute-by-minute.

The Iranians may also makes use of those drones they're talking about and have F-14s equipped with Iranian-made Phoenix missiles flying CAP over major cities and other important military or civillian installations. They have F-14s based near Bushehr, for instance. Taking out that would be equally crucial as with it still in tact Iran would have little to no difficulty building up a weapons program. The attack may even embolden the Russians to seriously offer Iran five more reactors.

This is not even discounting the other possible dangers. One possibility is Iranian Su-24s or F-4s, operating from Syrian bases and being refueled mid-flight, attacking U.S. military bases in Europe. Two bases, one in Bulgaria and another in Romania, are likely to be involved in the Iranian strike. These would be substantial targets for Iran and quite accessible from Syrian bases.

Also Iranian Kilos could move within range of an American carrier group and launch a strike with Klub missiles, possibly simultaneously with an anti-ship mission by F-4s or Su-24s with F-14 escorts.

Iraq nor Serbia had access to the kind of technology Iran does. Their technology is perfect for hit-and-run attacks in every branch of the military.

Uh, they have??!! Maybe I've been watching the wrong news channels and reading the wrong news mags

Click to expand...

Do you know that most of the fighting so far is being done by the handfull of Sunnis that makeup less then 20% of Iraq's total population. Now compare the Shias with Sunnis and repeat your statement. You will get your answer.

Well, it isn't like we were friends anyway.

Click to expand...

The are not at war either. My friend, only people who want war are the ones who have not been in a war.

Like what? I actually know the answer to that. I merely want to see if you do, so please elaborate.

Click to expand...

There is no sign anywhere that the US is planning to invade anyone else right now. If the draft were revived, then maybe. The previous SecDef was incredibly hostile to the notion (and insulted a lot of WW II, Korea and 'Nam vets in his statements about the draft) and wanted to actually cut manpower in the army and marines even further. The US has no capacity to actually enter into another ground campaign, so you can leave that idea alone. It isn't gonna happen.

Click to expand...

Your analysis are flawed that there will not be a ground invasion. Control of skies is not enough. Maybe you need to read more on Hezbullah/Israel war. If the war do pick up pace, USA will find itself in a gulf of enemy. You know why USA was reluctant to engage North Korea? Becasue of their so called 40,000 troops in South Korea. USA have 140,000 troops in Iraq.

Aliph Ahmed said:

Do you know that most of the fighting so far is being done by the handfull of Sunnis that makeup less then 20% of Iraq's total population. Now compare the Shias with Sunnis and repeat your statement. You will get your answer.



The are not at war either. My friend, only people who want war are the ones who have not been in a war.


Your analysis are flawed that there will not be a ground invasion. Control of skies is not enough. Maybe you need to read more on Hezbullah/Israel war. If the war do pick up pace, USA will find itself in a gulf of enemy. You know why USA was reluctant to engage North Korea? Becasue of their so called 40,000 troops in South Korea. USA have 140,000 troops in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Aliph:

Honestly, speculating about people coming home in body bags is not whay I had in mind, and is actually rather offensive and outside the spirit of this forum as I understand it. I do not wish to see ANYONE harmed, nor do I care to speculate about gruesome and unnessary subjects such as how many Iranians would be killed. I would never wish such tragedy to be visited on anyone's family, and I will not entertain this topic here.

Best wishes.

celtic-dragon said:

Aliph:

Honestly, speculating about people coming home in body bags is not whay I had in mind, and is actually rather offensive and outside the spirit of this forum as I understand it. I do not wish to see ANYONE harmed, nor do I care to speculate about gruesome and unnessary subjects such as how many Iranians would be killed. I would never wish such trdgedy to be visited on anyone's family, and I will not entertain this topic here.

Best wishes.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am trying to tell you. Dont think that USA will simply launch air strikes and get away without any loss. Besides, you asked me about it and what I said was realistic. and No neither do I hope that it ever come to this.