Tashah

I don't care what you said in 2001. This is 2008.

I don't care what you quoted. Powell directly stated that Iraq had WMD.

Israel isn't claiming or doing anything of the sort. Israel's official policy is to allow diplomacy every chance to succeed.

Scroll up Comedy. No one said a preemptive attack is legal. Apparently, your CD-R drive is the least of your problems.

Clean your own house before preaching to the nuclear choir.

__________________

DivineComedy

WMD is not a threat unless in the hands of idiots, it leaks, or someone is inclined to use it. Saddam had a proven history of being inclined to use WMD, was violating the final chance to fully comply with H32 of United Nations (of tyrants too) resolution 687, and Iran does not have any of that against them; Iran has no UN resolution against them that Israel can use to justify war, and regardless of what an idiot Democrat believes the laws used by Bush were not limited to disarming Saddam of WMD.

You cannot use Article 51 unless you include the Black Stone Idolater's use of terrorism in lieu of war.

There is no comparison whatsoever between the One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq! war and possible illegal Israeli aggression against Iran for possible future WMD.

WMD is not a reason to go to war with Iran.

__________________
“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

Yeah, a wall and a border patrol will protect us. {sound of laughter}

Tashah

This thread is about posturing and bluffing. I gave my opinions on the matter per Israel. Whether you like it or not Comedy, I call 'em as I see 'em.

You can bitch and moan and do that dismal Iraq-3-step to your hearts content. It won't change my mind. I don't think Israel is bluffing. History says Israel is not bluffing.

DivineComedy

I was responding only to your response to mikhail, and not to your analysis of that bluff:

"I dont think America will back them it could destroy all the progress made in Iraq." (mikhail)

Sometimes we bluff and do not know it:

We were already at war with Iraq, with endless authorization to bomb them back to the stone age at will since Public Law 102-1, and the cease-fire resolution hanging over Iraq was not limited to WMD, so letting people get away with calling Iraq "preemption" is an implementation of the Hart-Rudman bluff.

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." (President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941) President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat, Rattlesnakes of the Ocean 9-11-1941

Trying to defang a mutant rattlesnake, who can regrow the fangs, is not safely cutting off the head.

The problem here is I cannot guarantee it is not practically a bluff to claim we will stand by Israel, in the next administration(s), if all we have done with Operation Iraqi Freedom goes South because of an Israeli attack on Iran. I call that as I see it.

rathi

Doesn't that depend on what the time frame is for the strike? Iran is unlikely to develop nuclear technology for years, and Obama could completely pull out of Iraq by the beginning of 2010. That might be more time than military wants to wait, but it would solve a major hurdle without cost.

I agree that Iran is within missile range for a number of Israeli weapons. However, such missiles are expensive and not in terribly large supply. If Iran escalates conflict after a strike, Israel would not have as much of an advantage in a longer conflict.

I don't think Iran is within range on current Israeli aircraft, if flight over Iraq is prohibited. Its 600 miles to the border, and many parts of Iran are over 1500 miles miles away. Thats beyond the combat range of any Israeli aircraft, even with fuel tanks and reduced payload. Aerial refueling would increase range, but the tanker could be easily shot down by the flyover countries. Even then, aircraft might still need a 1800 mile combat range to hit their targets.

UAVs would not be an optimal choice. I'm not sure if they have they have the range, but they would have limited payload and be sitting ducks for the Iranian forces.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Tashah

Iran is already running numerous centrifuge-cascades. This process will yield weapons-grade fissile material. Since Iran already has the delivery system (Shahab 3b), the sole remaining technical hurdle would be fashioning the warhead. It has been reported that either NK or the Khan network previously supplied Iran with warhead blueprints. Left unchecked then, Iran will probably have a deliverable medium range nuclear weapon within two years.

If one is planning a high-risk adventure, monetary cost is nominally not an obstacle nor deterrant. Either one utilizes the necessary resources to succeed fully, or one should settle for diplomacy.

Assuming aircraft are used. Jericho-IV and Tomahawk cruise-missile strikes could do enough damage to disrupt proliferation operations for a significant period.

UAVs would not be an optimal strike choice. However, they would be invaluable for painting targets and doing real-time BDA.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that UAVs are “sitting ducks”. My IAF MOS is CAS/FAC/UAV-WO. In other words, I can work both ends (field/control) of UAV operations. Although it's possible, UAVs are extremely difficult to locate, track, and terminate. As far as I am aware, the IAF is the only entity to have destroyed an enemy UAV in-flight (Lebanon).

rathi

If that is Iran's time table for the weapons, it would be safe to say that waiting for American withdrawal is unlikely. However, Israel still can try to get U.S. support under Bush and try again with the new president.

I agree that Israel will not hesitate to spend what it takes to insure the removal of the Iranian nuclear program. I also agree that it is quite possible to destroy Iranian facilities with current missile stocks. However, Iran may retaliate with its own Shahab missiles, sparking a more long term conflict. Israel would certainly attempt to prevent the missile attacks, requiring significantly more missiles to disrupt Iranian industry and launch sites. Israel could probably make sacrifices to obtain the money for such weapons, but the time needed to manufacture wouldn't change. Israel could take heavy losses before it could obtain enough weapons to neutralize Iranian ability to perform missile attacks.

I know that an Predator was destroyed by an Iraqi Mig-25 and that one or more Hermes operated by Georgia were shot by Russia. A UAV has no defenses , so if spotted it is dead. I'm not sure if Iranian air defenses could spot a UAV, but its combat air patrols certainly would probably be able to find and eliminate them. I don't think anyone has operated UAVs in quantity in a hostile airspace facing decent opposition before, so I can't really stand on precedent.

Overall, I think Israel is going to make sure it can minimize damage from a possible Iranian counteract before taking any military action. They might end up making a deal to get a closer airbase or just stocknpile enough missiles to handle a longer conflict.

Tashah

As far as missile production, Israel is entirely self-sufficient. It would take quite a long war indeed to exhaust the missile inventory.

That Predator was of 2002 vintage. The Hermes is a generic UAV which is sold to, well... the Georgia's of the world.

If you say so.

Lol. The Iranian Air Force is no prize. Even the Kingdom's air force could slice and dice them without working up a sweat. IAF UAVs regularly visit all of Israel's neighbors. None have been shot down. Quite a fair portion of the havoc visited upon Lebanon was either directed by or accomplished by UAVs.

There is no way to mitigate all damage and contingencies. No plan will ever be foolproof or without hazard. Quite simply, there comes a point where you go with what you have and do the very best that you can.

rathi

Your information is better than mine on this, so I will take your word for it. Although it does beg the question, how long would such a conflict last? The last time Iran went to war, they showed rather low military capability and determination, but that was 20 years ago.

UAV technology has advanced since then. However, all the advances I have seen have been in endurance, payload and observation capability, not survivability.


UAVS can fly at 300 mph max and carry no air-to-air weapons. WW2 fighters have the capability to shoot down aircraft with that performance The only advantage UAVs have is their small size that makes them hard to detect. Iran's airforce is not something to be proud of, but they are more than capable of shooting down defenseless craft moving at 1/6 their speed.

None of those countries were flying combat air patrols in response to an airstrike on their country either. Iran would obviously respond to an attack by patrolling aircraft around nuclear sites to protect them. Furthermore, the UAVs may have been detected, but Israels neighbors didn't shoot them down to avoid conflict. The UAVs worked fine in Lebanon because Lebanon has no airforce to speak of. They literally have no fixed wing combat aircraft. Iran has more than 100 active jet fighters. They wouldn't be a match for IAF aircraft, but UAVs wouldn't be a problem.

Tashah

Iran cannot attack by land. Iran cannot attack by sea. Iran cannot attack with fighter aircraft. That leaves two remaining Iranian attack venues... Shahab-3a missiles and/or attacks by proxy forces (Hizb'Allah/Hamas).

The flight/targeting ability of the Shahab is questionable. According to accounts, one of the Iranian missiles in the latest test in which nine mixed missiles were launched misfired. The Shahab 3a can accomodate either a conventional (HE) warhead or a C/B warhead. An HE can certainly cause damage, but unless the supply is unlimited the damage is sustainable. I highly doubt that Iran would opt for a C/B warhead because that would open up the Pandora's Box of WMD in which Israel has an overwhelming edge.

War by proxy? Very possible but suicidal. I can't imagine that Lebanon wishes to reprise the last angry visit by the IAF. Hamas and Gaza simply cannot long sustain concentrated air/armored incursions.

UAVs are not designed to engage in dogfights. However, their dynamics enable both extremely low and high altitude flight. They can operate well under the ground radar ceiling. This low altitude flight ability makes targeting one from a higher altidude (fighter jet) somewhat problematic. Think about it. Another edge is the speed varience. Have you ever tried to track/target a low altidude, slow moving, and dinking UAV in a fighter jet whizzing along at Mach+ speed? Not easy at all. In addition, UAVs have a very small heat (IR) signature.

Israel may first elect to “shape the battlefield”. In this scenario, all known Iranian air bases and missile sites would be targeted in an initial wave of Jericho and Tomahawk strikes. Israel as had an orbital surveillance satellite (SURVSAT) scanning Iran for quite some time now. Thus, Iran is already virtually gridded via GPS using the military Keypad method.