• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

The Iranians lack a fully integrated and comprehensive air-defense system. The fact that they purchase their SAM systems from Russia says nothing of about the capabilities of those systems. Their air-defense system is vulnerable to advanced electronic counter-measures (which Israel has in spades) and fighter-jets with small radar cross-sections and high maneuverability (Israel has these as well).

The Iranian air-defense doctrine is one of point-defense and deterrence. The mainstay of the Iranian SAM system is the Russian SA-5; hardly on the cutting edge. The SA-5 system lacks a low-altitude radar system, as does the Iranian air-defense as a whole which, as previously stated, makes them vulnerable to small RCS fighter jets with high maneuverability, not to mention decoy saturation. Furthermore, the Iranian air-defense system is severely constrained by the surrounding terrain. These mountainous regions provide an easily exploitable blind spot for advanced and determined enemies.

The bottom line? The Iranian air-defense system presents numerous challenges but is hardly the impregnable missile labyrinth you and Obvious Child make it out to be. Please do some research before you make an authoritative statement on a complex subject.

It's hardly being authoritative, just realistic.

A preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is not realistic. All it is politics with the far right in Israel rallying up about there new coalition government.

Not to mention that without a go-head from Washington to fly over Iraq, none of this is even feasible.
 
It's hardly being authoritative, just realistic.

A preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is not realistic. All it is politics with the far right in Israel rallying up about there new coalition government.

Not to mention that without a go-head from Washington to fly over Iraq, none of this is even feasible.

I see you did not contest the specifics of my argument except to say that you disagree with my conclusion.
 
Last edited:
WRONG!!!!

Iran has NO RIGHT to nuclear weapons. Iran threatend to wipe Israel of the map. Moreover, Iran is the worlds LEADING STATE SPONSOR of terrorism.

Iran is an unstable Islamic theocracy run by a collection of Islam-o-facist, baby raping, child-killing zealot assbags.

You REALLY REALLY need to wake the **** up.

Very well put!
 
My sources say that the US (NSA) has been successfully hacking into the Iranian nuclear program computers since early 2007. This information remains classified and was not included or alluded to in any NIE concerning Iran. Bush and now Obama are indeed aware of the particulars.

Probably. But Iran does have a much more capable air force and air defense network then Iraq did back in the 80s. I really don't see how Israel can pull this off without nuclear strikes from its Dolphins.
 
The Iranians lack a fully integrated and comprehensive air-defense system. The fact that they purchase their SAM systems from Russia says nothing of about the capabilities of those systems. Their air-defense system is vulnerable to advanced electronic counter-measures (which Israel has in spades) and fighter-jets with small radar cross-sections and high maneuverability (Israel has these as well).

While that is true, what your argument has failed to incorporate is the terrain. First of all, high maneuverability is sacrificed when a fighter bomber is carrying an extremely heavy load, the type needed to destroy Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. Alternatively, Israel would provide escorts. However, given the number of Iran's facilities as well as their geographic spread across the country, Israel simply lacks the necessary air assets to do the job, again why I first noted, the article is suspect as it does not account for the circumstances. While Israel is indeed superior in the air, couple the long range issue with numerous Iran targets and the necessary weapons load, and the IAF just ran into a rather large problem. Israel has generally utilized its high maneuverability in defending Israel rather than launching long range attacks. Israel's attack on Egypt didn't have the range or the necessary weapons load problem that it has with Iran.

The bottom line? The Iranian air-defense system presents numerous challenges but is hardly the impregnable missile labyrinth you and Obvious Child make it out to be. Please do some research before you make an authoritative statement on a complex subject.

No one argued it was impregnable. You made that up. Interestingly enough, your hubris has essentially shot you in the foot. What you have described, specifically the vulnerabilities of Iran's defense network is not going to be the situation in an air assault by Israel. Fighter bombers loaded down with abnormally large weapons loads lose large amounts of maneuverability. Ask any fighter jock about how they feel about bombing a target when their plane's weapons load triples from its normal setup. They don't like it. The US and other nations generally get around this by simply upping the air assets. Israel does not have that luxury.

Essentially what you propose is that Israel will launch an attack with relatively few air assets, carrying abnormally large weapons loads which staggeringly reduces their capacity to maneuver and dogfight, across vast distances relying heavily upon tankers, violate Jordanian and Iraqi airspace unchallenged, and then proceed to attack Iran's hardened facilities which are located on the opposite side of the country against an air force much more competent than 1980's Iraq that is armed with large amounts of SAMS and then fly back through it all.

Really. And you accuse us of not thinking it out. :2wave:

Please do some research before you make an authoritative statement on a complex subject.
 
A preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is not realistic.

Not quite. A preemptive air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is not realistic. A preemptive missile strike from its long range missiles and Dolphin submarines is realistic and has a decent chance of success.
 
Not quite. A preemptive air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is not realistic. A preemptive missile strike from its long range missiles and Dolphin submarines is realistic and has a decent chance of success.

Interesting.

A sea strike would be effective... this is true. Of course, after the strike we would have to hit Iran's southern seat ports to prevent them from interfering with commecial oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.
 
While that is true, what your argument has failed to incorporate is the terrain.

I specifically mentioned the terrain and how it acts as a constraint on the Iranian SAM system.

First of all, high maneuverability is sacrificed when a fighter bomber is carrying an extremely heavy load

Really!? I never knew that.

the type needed to destroy Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. Alternatively, Israel would provide escorts. However, given the number of Iran's facilities as well as their geographic spread across the country, Israel simply lacks the necessary air assets to do the job, again why I first noted, the article is suspect as it does not account for the circumstances. While Israel is indeed superior in the air, couple the long range issue with numerous Iran targets and the necessary weapons load, and the IAF just ran into a rather large problem. Israel has generally utilized its high maneuverability in defending Israel rather than launching long range attacks. Israel's attack on Egypt didn't have the range or the necessary weapons load problem that it has with Iran.

I see you failed to address the specifics of Israeli ECM capabilities and the vulnerability of SA-5 systems to decoy saturation; it’s kind of hard to rebut my position when you fail to take those crucial elements into account.

No one argued it was impregnable.

You said...

"Actually making into Iranian air space, deep into their air space, avoiding interceptors and SAMs and then delivering sufficiently large weapons to to underground facilities to stop them is fantasy land."

The term "fantasy land" implies that such an operation is not feasible. It must follow logically from there that such unfeasibility is due to the impregnable nature of the Iranian air defense system.

You made that up. Interestingly enough, your hubris has essentially shot you in the foot. What you have described, specifically the vulnerabilities of Iran's defense network is not going to be the situation in an air assault by Israel. Fighter bombers loaded down with abnormally large weapons loads lose large amounts of maneuverability. Ask any fighter jock about how they feel about bombing a target when their plane's weapons load triples from its normal setup. They don't like it. The US and other nations generally get around this by simply upping the air assets. Israel does not have that luxury.

Essentially what you propose is that Israel will launch an attack with relatively few air assets, carrying abnormally large weapons loads which staggeringly reduces their capacity to maneuver and dogfight, across vast distances relying heavily upon tankers, violate Jordanian and Iraqi airspace unchallenged, and then proceed to attack Iran's hardened facilities which are located on the opposite side of the country against an air force much more competent than 1980's Iraq that is armed with large amounts of SAMS and then fly back through it all.

Really. And you accuse us of not thinking it out.

Please do some research before you make an authoritative statement on a complex subject.

Your argument fails to take several factors into account. Joint operations utilizing clandestine ground forces, sea assets, ECM capabilities, SAM mitigation techniques (decoy saturation), Iran's complete lack of a low-altitude radar system, etc. But I'm not claiming to know one way or the other, I simply lack the arrogance needed to make absolutist statements about Israel's military capabilities, especially when a great deal of those capabilities are classified.
 
I specifically mentioned the terrain and how it acts as a constraint on the Iranian SAM system.

Yet entirely failed to deal with the geographic areas of where the targets are located and the primary locations of Iran's 12 air bases.

Really!? I never knew that.

Apparently. Stressing maneuverability as the key point is rather amusing given the necessary weapons load.

I see you failed to address the specifics of Israeli ECM capabilities and the vulnerability of SA-5 systems to decoy saturation; it’s kind of hard to rebut my position when you fail to take those crucial elements into account.

The funny thing is, you act like Israel has sufficent assets of such to make a real difference given the geographical concerns. And you again failed to deal with the much higher competency as well as significently greater air assets Iran fields. It's like you think that Israel has an air force in the size similar to the US. Again,who didn't think this out? You.

You said...

"Actually making into Iranian air space, deep into their air space, avoiding interceptors and SAMs and then delivering sufficiently large weapons to to underground facilities to stop them is fantasy land."

The term "fantasy land" implies that such an operation is not feasible. It must follow logically from there that such unfeasibility is due to the impregnable nature of the Iranian air defense system.

Oh wow. That's a stretch. What I said, is that is that the factors involved ranging from the air force of Iran, to its ground based defenses, from the distance, to the targets to the necessary weapons load all make this extremely difficult if not impossible to neutralize Iran's weapons program via an air strike. Remember, you were the one who failed to deal with how increased weight reduces dog fighting maneuverability. Much of your post was how Israel's maneuverability would give it the edge yet you did not account for how significant weapons loads change that equation.

Your argument fails to take several factors into account. Joint operations utilizing clandestine ground forces, sea assets, ECM capabilities, SAM mitigation techniques (decoy saturation), Iran's complete lack of a low-altitude radar system, etc.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing this in the context of a larger operation. Last I checked, the article in the OP was discussing a purely air assault on Iran's facilities similar to an Osirak attack. Nowhere was anyone including yourself talking about a larger operation involving multiple arms of the Israeli military.

What you did was blatantly use the fallacy of raising the bar. Next time, try to hide such use of serious dishonest tactics.

You argument assumes quite a bit. That Israel can utilize its relatively small ECM capabilities and decoy saturation compared to Iran's geographical span, the significant reduction in maneuverability of any air task force and the entire Iranian air force.

But I'm not claiming to know one way or the other

Your last sentence suggests otherwise.

I simply lack the arrogance needed to make absolutist statements about Israel's military capabilities, especially when a great deal of those capabilities are classified.

I wasn't aware that Israel had air assets equal to the US's as your argument does. I wasn't aware that Israel had the capacity to completely cover all of Iran's air space with decoy saturation and ECM. I wasn't aware that the Iranian air force simply did not exist as you presume it does.
 
Interesting.

Pretty much. Looking at the mere necessary weapons load to destroy Iran's facilities from the air with conventional arms is looking pretty wishful thinking despite Etheral's view on it. There's a reason Israel has spent a great deal of time and money on miniaturizing its nuclear warheads and custom manufacturing mounts for them on their sea based cruise missiles.

A sea strike would be effective... this is true. Of course, after the strike we would have to hit Iran's southern seat ports to prevent them from interfering with commecial oil traffic in the Strait of Hormuz.

As a side effect yes.
 
Yet entirely failed to deal with the geographic areas of where the targets are located and the primary locations of Iran's 12 air bases.

I'm aware, I simply don't believe it's relevant to the feasibility of such a mission. I'm more concerned with the technological aspect of it. Anyway, I never claimed to know if such a mission were feasible or not; my only claim is that you don’t know either.

Apparently. Stressing maneuverability as the key point is rather amusing given the necessary weapons load.

It was a point, not the point. You're just choosing to isolate it because it suites your argument, but this makes little sense because I never made any assumptions or inferences in my initial post. It was merely a conveyance of the facts concerning the Iranian air defense and the Israeli Air Force. For some reason you find it necessary to argue over something neither of us are able to prove. You do not possess the requisite knowledge or expertise to make authoritative statements concerning the feasibility of specific Israeli air operations. You like to pretend that you do but to anyone with half a brain it should be apparent that this was not and never will be the case.

The funny thing is, you act like Israel has sufficent assets of such to make a real difference given the geographical concerns. And you again failed to deal with the much higher competency as well as significently greater air assets Iran fields. It's like you think that Israel has an air force in the size similar to the US. Again,who didn't think this out? You.

I'm not acting like anything. I'm simply relaying the facts. The Israeli Air Force possess very advanced ECM capabilities and the Iranian air defense system (which includes its air assets) has exploitable short-comings. I made no claims or inferences, except to say that you and Degreez lack the expertise to make authoritative statements about Israel's military capabilities.

Oh wow. That's a stretch. What I said, is that is that the factors involved ranging from the air force of Iran, to its ground based defenses, from the distance, to the targets to the necessary weapons load all make this extremely difficult if not impossible to neutralize Iran's weapons program via an air strike.

What you said was this...

"Actually making into Iranian air space, deep into their air space, avoiding interceptors and SAMs and then delivering sufficiently large weapons to underground facilities to stop them is fantasy land."

You're implying that such an operation is impossible; "fantasy" to be precise. Whatever reasons you give for such a statement are not terribly relevant since you do not possess the necessary expertise to make informed statements to that effect. Are you an Israeli Air Officer? Or perhaps an Israeli official? Oh, you're not? Then how could you possibly know what the hell you're talking about?

Remember, you were the one who failed to deal with how increased weight reduces dog fighting maneuverability. Much of your post was how Israel's maneuverability would give it the edge yet you did not account for how significant weapons loads change that equation.

I never implied anyone had an edge, in fact, I never implied anything. I merely conveyed facts concerning the known capabilities of the Israeli Air Force and contrasted them with the known capabilities of the Iranian air defense system. You're the one who's trying to masquerade as some type of an expert.

I wasn't aware that we were discussing this in the context of a larger operation. Last I checked, the article in the OP was discussing a purely air assault on Iran's facilities similar to an Osirak attack. Nowhere was anyone including yourself talking about a larger operation involving multiple arms of the Israeli military.

I never talked about any operation, ever. I just conveyed the facts. You're the one who wants to argue over nothing.

What you did was blatantly use the fallacy of raising the bar. Next time, try to hide such use of serious dishonest tactics.

You argument assumes quite a bit. That Israel can utilize its relatively small ECM capabilities and decoy saturation compared to Iran's geographical span, the significant reduction in maneuverability of any air task force and the entire Iranian air force.

I didn't assume anything except, of course, that you were full of ****.

Your last sentence suggests otherwise.

No. My last sentence would suggest the following...

"Your argument fails to take several factors into account. Joint operations utilizing clandestine ground forces, sea assets, ECM capabilities, SAM mitigation techniques (decoy saturation), Iran's complete lack of a low-altitude radar system, etc."

Nowhere did I make any claims of expertise or authority.

I wasn't aware that Israel had air assets equal to the US's as your argument does.

I never said that. Not once.

I wasn't aware that Israel had the capacity to completely cover all of Iran's air space with decoy saturation and ECM. I wasn't aware that the Iranian air force simply did not exist as you presume it does.

I presumed nothing. You, however, have presumed everything.
 
You know it's not just the technology differences, but also the doctrine and a battle tested military. The Israeli military is battle tested like no other except the US. I'd say on par with the US in experience in deploying and employing their soldier and hardware. The Iranian military on the other hand, hasn't been in a battle since the 80's. You can have all the weapons you want, but if you don't know how to use them in battle, quite frankly you ain't ****. I doubt the Iranian air force would stand an icicle's chance in hell against the Israeli air force. Whether the US has sold any of their latest bunker-buster bombs to the Israelis, I don't know. But we've been working pretty hard since the Desert Storm on them. The US leads in this area. My guess is that Iran has been the primary reason for developing these bombs.
 
That would be suicide. The nuclear weapon would immediately be tracked back to them. Moreover, they would lose nearly all of their allies and influence in the Middle East due to the effect of a nuclear blast in Israel. The fallout would spread over Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. It would make absolutely zero sense to do so.

I have some knowledge of the subject of nuclear fallout. It was my job in the military to plot fallout should there be a detonation of a nuclear weapon. There are many factors that contribute to where radiological fallout will end up. These factors include the size of the weapon used, the type of burst air, surface,or subsurface burst, atmospheric conditions such as precipitation, wind direction and speed, wind vectors at various altitudes, etc. Most of this information can be obtained from an EDF (effective downwind forecast) or a EDM (effective downwind message)

If a TNW (Tactical Nuclear Weapon) which is a small battlefield weapon where deployed it is possible to do a significant amount of damage without effecting a large area with fallout.

And besides the leaders of Iran are twelvers. The want to prepare the world for the return of the 12th Imam Mohammad al-Mahdi. Suicide is a cost that they will gladly pay. Part of there belief is that the world has to be in termoil. That includes war on a massive scale, destruction like the world has never seen. Also the the persecution of muslims. These things will bring the Madhi out of hiding where he has been for over 1000 years.
 
I'm aware, I simply don't believe it's relevant to the feasibility of such a mission.

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.

I'm more concerned with the technological aspect of it.

And yet you don't think about how that's related to the feasibility of it all?

Anyway, I never claimed to know if such a mission were feasible or not; my only claim is that you don’t know either.

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.

It was a point, not the point.

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.

You're just choosing to isolate it because it suites your argument, but this makes little sense because I never made any assumptions or inferences in my initial post.

One has to wonder if you read your own post. It was a key assumption and inference in your initial post.

It was merely a conveyance of the facts concerning the Iranian air defense and the Israeli Air Force. For some reason you find it necessary to argue over something neither of us are able to prove.

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.

You do not possess the requisite knowledge or expertise to make authoritative statements concerning the feasibility of specific Israeli air operations. You like to pretend that you do but to anyone with half a brain it should be apparent that this was not and never will be the case.

By that measure, none of us can talk about a myriad of subjects. Good job, you just killed online discussion!

I'm not acting like anything.

Did you read your own posts?

I'm simply relaying the facts.

Join the club.

The Israeli Air Force possess very advanced ECM capabilities and the Iranian air defense system (which includes its air assets) has exploitable short-comings.

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.

I made no claims or inferences

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 ***.

You're implying that such an operation is impossible; "fantasy" to be precise.

To stop Iran's program entirely, yes.

Whatever reasons you give for such a statement are not terribly relevant since you do not possess the necessary expertise to make informed statements to that effect. Are you an Israeli Air Officer? Or perhaps an Israeli official? Oh, you're not? Then how could you possibly know what the hell you're talking about?

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?

I never implied anyone had an edge, in fact, I never implied anything.
I merely conveyed facts concerning the known capabilities of the Israeli Air Force and contrasted them with the known capabilities of the Iranian air defense system. You're the one who's trying to masquerade as some type of an expert.

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 ***.

I never talked about any operation, ever.

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? :2wave:

Are you OJ Simpson? "If I did it...."

I just conveyed the facts. You're the one who wants to argue over nothing.

See above.

I didn't assume anything except, of course, that you were full of ****.

If I'm so full of ****, why can't you disprove me?

No. My last sentence would suggest the following...

"Your argument fails to take several factors into account. Joint operations utilizing clandestine ground forces, sea assets, ECM capabilities, SAM mitigation techniques (decoy saturation), Iran's complete lack of a low-altitude radar system, etc."

Nowhere did I make any claims of expertise or authority.

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? :2wave:

I never said that. Not once.

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. :2wave:

I presumed nothing. You, however, have presumed everything.

Perhaps you should reread your posts for what you actually stated.
 
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? :2wave:

Are you OJ Simpson? "If I did it...."



See above.



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? :2wave:



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. :2wave:



Perhaps you should reread your posts for what you actually stated.

My argument is and always has been the following...

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.
 
Do I think an air strike is feasable? Yes, but only with certain caveats and assumptions.

Let us suppose for the sake of illustration that such an event is given the green light. Would an air strike be feasible? Yes, but not optimal. No matter the methodology, one can be certain that Iran would counter-attack with both symmetric and asymmetric assets. If this is the certain eventuality, why initially strike in a manner that is less than optimal?

I personally would strike using drones, subs (SLCMs) and Jericho-4 strategic missiles. The question then becomes one of warhead. Bunker-buster or low yield nuclear? The former is not guaranteed to do the damage necessary, but BBs may convince the Iranian's to respond in-kind with strictly conventional weaponry. Low yield nuclear warheads would be optimal, but Iran would certainly respond with C/B Shahab-3 attacks.

I would hold the IAF in reserve to disuade any neighbors with silly ideas. Israel now has X-band radar guarding the approaches plus a squadron of AWACs. State-of-the-art Arrow and Patriot anti-missile batteries. There is also a new tactical anti-missile system intended to intercept Hizb'Allah rocketry.

Israel has stated quite clearly that she will preempt rather than allow Iran to field a nuclear arsenal. If history is any indicator, this is no mere bluff. Israel long ago positioned a SURVSAT (surveillance satellite) over Iran. The Mossad had human assets within the Syrian nuclear facility (whose photographs finally convinced Bush and US intel analysts), and I have little doubt that the Mossad has also infiltrated the Iranian nuclear universe.

The only wild-card left is the US and Iran speaking directly. But time is running out. The IAEA and western analysts now feel that the Iranian program has reached a "breakthrough" point. There are only three end-game possibilities. A) Successful diplomacy. B) A nuclear armed Iran. C) Preemption.

Both A and B are time-dependent. C is time-intolerant. Do the napkin math.
 
I fail to see why any of you even bother.
Firstly, do you truly believe Isreal will attack Iran if the US doesnt publicly promise support?
Secondly, Isreal, even with US help which Obama will NEVER give, cannot defeat Iran. NATO and the UN will not allow the United States to tear the Middle East apart with war. Though they can do little about it in terms of direct action against the US without damaging the world economy, President Obama will not risk pissing off NATO or the UN.
And finally, without US support, Israel cannot defeat Iran. You forget, Iran has allies too.
 
I apologize for repeating the point about Israel's inability to defeat Iran. My mistake.
I highly doubt that Israel has any intention of "defeating" Iran. The goals of any preemption are limited in scope and breadth.
 
um okay yeah.
if Israel strikes in a preemtive attack the U.S., U.N., and NATO will not protect you. You will have started a war. One that, granted agree needs to be started, but as long as the U.S., U.N., and NATO take a pacifist approach to dealing with Iran then any preeemptive attack would result simply in your slaughter at the hands of the militarily superior forces of Iran and likely any Middle Eastern country that disagrees with the Western influence they believe we force upon through you.
 
....then any preeemptive attack would result simply in your slaughter at the hands of the militarily superior forces of Iran and likely any Middle Eastern country that disagrees with the Western influence they believe we force upon through you.
Militarily superior forces of Iran? wtf? You live in a fantasy world. In addition, most Arab nations would applaud a preemptive strike on Iran by anyone.
 
Militarily superior forces of Iran? wtf? You live in a fantasy world. In addition, most Arab nations would applaud a preemptive strike on Iran by anyone.

The IDF maintains approximately 168,000 active troops and an additional 408,000 reservists.

Iran has about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totaling around 900,000 trained troops
Iran has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members. Up to 11 million men and women are members of the Basij who could potentially be called up for service; GlobalSecurity.org estimates Iran could mobilize "up to one million men". This would be among the largest troop mobilizations in the world

Technologically, Israel is superior, but militarily, Iran has a vast superiority in numbers that your superior technology cannot compensate for.
The only way a preemptive strike does not get you crushed and slaughtered is if you can effectively cripple the majority of the Iranian ability to deploy its vast military force. This seems unlikely.

Additionally, the Middle Eastern countries, despite their despisement of Iran, disagree more with the influence that the Western Powers (and in the case of the U.S., Western Super Power) have in their region. When it came to war they would likely support the superior force. Which, without Western Aid, is Iran.
 
The IDF maintains approximately 168,000 active troops and an additional 408,000 reservists.

Iran has about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totaling around 900,000 trained troops
Iran has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members. Up to 11 million men and women are members of the Basij who could potentially be called up for service; GlobalSecurity.org estimates Iran could mobilize "up to one million men". This would be among the largest troop mobilizations in the world

Technologically, Israel is superior, but militarily, Iran has a vast superiority in numbers that your superior technology cannot compensate for.
The only way a preemptive strike does not get you crushed and slaughtered is if you can effectively cripple the majority of the Iranian ability to deploy its vast military force. This seems unlikely.

Additionally, the Middle Eastern countries, despite their despisement of Iran, disagree more with the influence that the Western Powers (and in the case of the U.S., Western Super Power) have in their region. When it came to war they would likely support the superior force. Which, without Western Aid, is Iran.

In both the yom kippur war and the 6 day war Israel was outnumbered with troops by more than 2 to 1. They won both conflicts fairly decisively.

Your speculation of what the Arab countries would do is just that: speculation.

Additonally, the Israelis maintain the IDF which consists of approximately 3 million men and woman fit for military duty.
 
Last edited:
In both the yom kippur war and the 6 day war Israel was outnumbered with troops by more than 2 to 1. They won both conflicts fairly decisively.

Your speculation of what the Arab countries would do is just that: speculation.

Is this either of these wars?
Sadly, no. Israel is no great and powerful military country that can simply defeat a superior force. A preemptive strike by Israel would bring the wrath of Iran and the several powers which strongly support its goal of achieving nuclear power. Most notably China and Russia. And, to a lesser extent, North Korea.

With just under 600,000 soliders, Israel is outnumbered (assuming Iran mobilizes 1 million troops) 4 to 1. (If they mobilize the entire Basij then it becomes 11 million and Israel stands absolutely no chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom