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.