|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 15:05:48 GMT -5
Iran shows off upgraded military weaponry while Israel discusses possible military action to stop nuclear enrichment. Are we looking at a large scale military conflict, a surgical strike that will not make many waves throughout the region, or some 'agressive diplomacy"?
An Israeli Shas Party official said Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Shas' 92-year-old spiritual leader, met with national security adviser Yaakov Amidror last week to discuss the possibility of a strike. The official spoke Tuesday on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.
He said he did not know the rabbi's response. Israeli leaders have consulted with Yosef, who has hundreds of thousands of followers, about weighty military decisions in the past.
The meeting came at a time of concern about a possible Israeli strike against Iran to stop its nuclear program. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened military action, though officials stress no final decision has been made
At Tuesday's ceremony marking the national day of Iran's defense industry, Ahmadinejad also unveiled several other new Iranian-made weapons, such as a naval diesel engine, a mortar launcher, a monitoring military intelligence system and tactical SUVs.
Iran also announced the start of construction on an air defense site, to be built in Abadeh, about 100 miles from the country’s uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan, Reuters reported.
Read more: www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/21/iran-unveils-upgraded-missile-as-israel-further-weighs-possiblity-attack/#ixzz24DFT26eS
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 15:19:35 GMT -5
Why not? But Iran's facilities are set deep in the mountains, from what I understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 21, 2012 15:42:10 GMT -5
Jerry,
As far as I can find, the Israeli F15i and the F16i are both very long legged in the fighter form. They have both conformal fuel tanks and under wing tanks that can take them to Iran and back, about 3000 kms round trip.
They CANNOT lug a full load of 'bunker buster' type munitions to Iran and fly back. Israel has only 25 of the F15i type, and about 100 (I think) of the F16i.
Thus to take out the 20 or so targets in Iran those 150 aircraft are going to have to do maybe 4 return trips each, depending on how many bunker busters etc each target needs to do the job. Some targets, AFAIK, are deep underground and may be quite untouchable by a bunker buster. The Iranians would be fools not to!
I am not at all sure just how 'surgical' such a procession of aircraft flying back and forth would be. I assume that Iran has Russian SAMs etc, and these and their radars would have to be dealt with first. I doubt the Iranians have much in the way of fighters, the old US F14s are old and worn out now.
I have no info on UAVs the Israelis have, though they are very good at making their own designs, but a UAV that can take a bunker buster that far is a big ask. No idea on just how many 'Tomahawks' they have if any, but they are not bunker busters.
The Israeli Navy has I think 4 of the 6 conventional subs on order in operation. These are nuclear capable and I am certain are lurking in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.. It is their reason for existence.
Given the above, Israel may try to simply isolate the targets in some way, so they are no longer operational in the system.
I always get back to the conclusion that the USA is the ONLY nation capable of doing the job. No US troops on the ground, just the USN and USAF who are a bit bored about now, with not much on their plate. unlike the US Army and USMC.
JMO
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 21, 2012 15:54:36 GMT -5
PS,
Another major factor is that the Israelis have to overfly other countries to get there. Iraq primarily, but maybe Jordan and also Saudi Arabia or Kuwait.
Air to air refueling without permission would invite retaliation and to give permission may well invite peace loving muslim brothers getting upset.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2012 17:03:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 22:34:54 GMT -5
His report does not make Iran seem to be invincible. And everyone has, to this point, concentrated on the difficulty of destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. I submit that we need not do that to render them inoperative and nearly useless. Iran has many necessary, but unhardened, facilities that would be susceptible to attack. Knocking out ports, oil production facilities, electric producing facilities and ground transportation facilities would render Iran nearly unable to function, and whether or not they had centrifuges and other nuclear fuel producing capabilities would be moot, because they could not function. Iran is a long way from being self sufficient. The restive population MAY take such an opportunity to overthrow the repressive government and look to the west for support for a new regime. No? Not saying we should do it but I think we (or the Israelis) could do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 22:38:01 GMT -5
And everyone has, to this point, concentrated on the difficulty of destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. I submit that we need not do that to render them inoperative and nearly useless. Iran has many necessary, but unhardened, facilities that would be susceptible to attack. Knocking out ports, oil production facilities, electric producing facilities and ground transportation facilities would render Iran nearly unable to function, and whether or not they had centrifuges and other nuclear fuel producing capabilities would be moot, because they could not function. Iran is a long way from being self sufficient. The restive population MAY take such an opportunity to overthrow the repressive government and look to the west for support for a new regime. No? Not saying we should do it but I think we (or the Israelis) could do it. But Israel would not be able to do that; only the US could. And this would require a massive campaign not seen since WWII. |
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 22:47:14 GMT -5
And everyone has, to this point, concentrated on the difficulty of destroying Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. I submit that we need not do that to render them inoperative and nearly useless. Iran has many necessary, but unhardened, facilities that would be susceptible to attack. Knocking out ports, oil production facilities, electric producing facilities and ground transportation facilities would render Iran nearly unable to function, and whether or not they had centrifuges and other nuclear fuel producing capabilities would be moot, because they could not function. Iran is a long way from being self sufficient. The restive population MAY take such an opportunity to overthrow the repressive government and look to the west for support for a new regime. No? Not saying we should do it but I think we (or the Israelis) could do it. But Israel would not be able to do that; only the US could. And this would require a massive campaign not seen since WWII. Not too sure of that. Without access to the target list, I think crippling Iran would not take all that many missiles, airplanes and naval guns..... Wish I had access to that list to see just how much strength would be required to return Iran to the 16th century... |
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Aug 21, 2012 22:54:55 GMT -5
In my view it would be a re-run of the attack on Iraq.
Planes, cruise missiles (Tomahawks), and of course the UAVs now available. Naval bombardment off the coast would remove some important naval bases and facilities.
A week or 10 days, tops!
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 21, 2012 22:56:42 GMT -5
Iran is a large country, and, to cripple it would require massive bombardment. That said, it didn't take long to cripple Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Aug 21, 2012 22:59:54 GMT -5
Iran is a large country, and, to cripple it would require massive bombardment. That said, it didn't take long to cripple Iraq. Lots of sand and mountainous terrain....not so much infrastructure... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2012 8:47:42 GMT -5
You guys are dreamers!
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 22, 2012 9:56:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Aug 22, 2012 12:35:10 GMT -5
Since Iran has to rely on the importation of raw gasoline for the majority of its transportations, sinking a few of the seagoing gas carriers would knock Iran to its knees in no time. Israel has the equipment on hand for the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Aug 22, 2012 12:55:20 GMT -5
North Korea has been able to start a mini-nuclear program, despite sanctions, and they nearly had an explosion.
|
|
