Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 133

Thread: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

  1. #81
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Degreez View Post
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by creativedreams View Post
    Very well put!
    Thanks.


  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.

  4. #84
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    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; itís 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.

  5. #85
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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; itís 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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #86
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    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.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    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 donít 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.

  8. #88
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    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.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #89
    Ayatollah of Rock n Rolla
    SgtRock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 08:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,006

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    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.
    When America is strong the world is calm, When America is weak tyrants and terrorist slaughter the meek. ~ SgtRock

  10. #90
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    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 donít 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?

    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?

    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.

    I presumed nothing. You, however, have presumed everything.
    Perhaps you should reread your posts for what you actually stated.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •