My argument is and always has been the following...REALLY. Did you actually just say that? I'm flabbergasted that you don't think that geography, the condition of the targets and other important information is relevant to the feasibility of such a mission.
I'm not quite sure what to say to that. Stunningly ignorant to say the absolute least.
And yet you don't think about how that's related to the feasibility of it all?
You seem to argue that an air strike is indeed feasible. If you didn't, you wouldn't be trying to refute me.
A basic simple calculation is all you really need to do. Take their air assets, take the necessary weapons load, distance and expected defenses and compute. What is difficult is throwing in the factors of multiple methods of attack. Hence why I didn't do it because I can't compute that nor do I know what else Israel can do except for a nuclear cruise missile strike, which by the way, is probably the only feasible method to stop Iran in its tracks.
But it was a very important and central argument you made. Essentially you argued that it was one of the key tools to exploiting the vulnerabilities in Iran's relatively obsolete SAM defense network. Except that Israel likely won't be able to leverage it.
One has to wonder if you read your own post. It was a key assumption and inference in your initial post.
Neither of us can prove? Explain to me on the basis of physics how increasing the weight of a plane significently does not change its behavior in a medium. This outta be good.
By that measure, none of us can talk about a myriad of subjects. Good job, you just killed online discussion!
Did you read your own posts?
Join the club.
Indeed it does. But Israel does not have the ECM capabilities to blanket the entire country with ECM. It's questionable if the US could do it short of having air supremacy.
Except that you argued that I was wrong about the mission not being feasible and wrong on the basis of Israel's ECM capabilities. Furthermore, I specifically was talking in the context of the wide geographic regions. Saying I was wrong on the basis of ECM in that context logically concludes you think that Israel can blanket much of the country. No claims and inferences my ***.
To stop Iran's program entirely, yes.
Interesting. You fail to refute what I state, so now you hope to utilize the fallacy of poisoning the well. If you think I'm so wrong, prove it by refuting what I say, not trying to fallaciously argue that I'm wrong on the basis of who I am.
That's two fallacies you've used and poorly tried to hide.
How many more will you make in this thread?
Never implied anything my ***. You directly said I was wrong on the basis of maneuverability, decoy saturation and ECM all in the context of the geographical range of targets Israel would need to hit. No claims and inferences my ***.
So you saying that I was wrong about the problems of such an operation that Israel could in fact leverage specific traits and skills it had in such an operation to succeed in such an operation was you specifically not talking about an operation?
Are you OJ Simpson? "If I did it...."
If I'm so full of ****, why can't you disprove me?
No claims of expertise, yet you cite specific assets Israel has, coordinated attacks by various branches of its military and specifics on Iran's air defense network.
No claims of expertise or authority? Really?
Indeed. You never directly said it. You just said I was wrong on the basis of Israel's ECM capacity when I was talking about the wide geographic targets they'd need to hit. Apparently you think I'm wrong because Israel has ECM capacity to blanket the ENTIRE country something relatively few nations such as the US have the capacity to do.
Sure you never said it. You just said I was wrong on the basis of it in the context of the massive area of coverage needed.
Perhaps you should reread your posts for what you actually stated.
You cannot claim authoritatively that the Israeli Air Force lacks such capabilities because you do not possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to make statements to that effect.
Furthermore, I have never argued that they are capable of such nor have I argued they are incapable of such; I do not know and neither do you; therefore your reference to "fantasy land" will be disregarded as uninformed speculation.