Clearly the Iranian program is peaceful...

[Ma Deuce]

Seems like if the U.S. was going to 'cooperate' in such a strike, beyond giving Israel a route over Iraq on the way to target, we could do a lot of cat-and-mouse probing and some large feints with formations of U.S. aircraft in Iraqi airspace to confuse Iranian air defense. Israeli planes do the actual strikes, American planes never enter Iranian airspace but are all over the Iraqi sky during the strikes.

Did you miss the part about 2,000lb bombs (even 2,000lb "bunker busters" like the BLU-109, the largest Israel has) being useless against a facility as heavily hardened as Natanz? Even if Israeli strike aircraft could reach all the targets, they simply can't carry the warload necessary to take out sites like Natanz: for that, you need heavy strategic bombers like the B-2, and attacking Iran's nuclear sites isn't even worth contemplating unless you plan to take them all out in one go: Isreal doesn't have enough aircraft to do so, which leaves only the USAF, who would be the ones entirely responsible if a strike is carried out. Involving Israel accomplishes nothing and would only create more political fallout than a USAF-only strike already would...

[Chmee]

Seems like if the U.S. was going to 'cooperate' in such a strike, beyond giving Israel a route over Iraq on the way to target, we could do a lot of cat-and-mouse probing and some large feints with formations of U.S. aircraft in Iraqi airspace to confuse Iranian air defense. Israeli planes do the actual strikes, American planes never enter Iranian airspace but are all over the Iraqi sky during the strikes.

Did you miss the part about 2,000lb bombs (even 2,000lb "bunker busters" like the BLU-109, the largest Israel has) being useless against a facility as heavily hardened as Natanz? Even if Israeli strike aircraft could reach all the targets, they simply can't carry the warload necessary to take out sites like Natanz: for that, you need heavy strategic bombers like the B-2, and attacking Iran's nuclear sites isn't even worth contemplating unless you plan to take them all out in one go: Isreal doesn't have enough aircraft to do so, which leaves only the USAF, who would be the ones entirely responsible if a strike is carried out. Involving Israel accomplishes nothing and would only create more political fallout than a USAF-only strike already would...

Didn't miss it, don't necessarily agree. The Israelis wouldn't have to hit every component of the Iranian program to put it back for years, although I do think they'll try to hit everything and see what damage they can do.

Maybe you and I don't think they can do it, but then they do have a habit of surprising their enemies, don't they? According to the October '04 report in Germany's Der Spiegel, the Israeli military had been ordered to prepare a comprehensive plan to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, probably six sites simultaneously. The IAF pilot used as the source of the report called the plan 'complex, yet manageable.'

I think it's unrealistic to say that no one considers such an attack 'worth contemplating,' when the Israeli government has spent time and resources contemplating it very recently.

[Rogue 9]

Military strategists plan for every contingency. That's their job. Do you have any idea of the sheer amount of war plans that are sitting around the Pentagon and updated constantly yet will never be used? It wouldn't surprise me if we had a plan for open war with Britain, which we know will never happen again. Israel would sure as hell plan to strike at Iran, even if they'll never actually do it.

[Rogue 9]

The only real option is to drop 4,000, or far more ideally 30,000 pound bombs through the roofs and utterly smash everything.

They make 30,000 pound bombs?

[MKSheppard]

Son of MOAB. Which will be capabul of being dropped from B-2s

[Chmee]

Military strategists plan for every contingency. That's their job. Do you have any idea of the sheer amount of war plans that are sitting around the Pentagon and updated constantly yet will never be used? It wouldn't surprise me if we had a plan for open war with Britain, which we know will never happen again. Israel would sure as hell plan to strike at Iran, even if they'll never actually do it.

Although that's true, it's not remotely the same thing in this case. Israeli military figures and politicians have been publicly calling for action against the Iranian program for the last couple years .... I haven't heard anybody in Congress demanding we hit Big Ben with a JDAM recently.

The 'chatter' about an Israeli strike on Iran in the international media has really picked up in the last few months, and although this is something of a self-feeding cycle in the media (they're talking about it, we better talk about it), the level of rhetoric between Israel and Iran's governments on this issue has definitely been escalating.

[frigidmagi]

Chmee did you miss the part about the Israelis not having the necessary weaponary to make a dent here!?!

[Chmee]

Chmee did you miss the part about the Israelis not having the necessary weaponary to make a dent here!?!

No, but I guess you missed my response to the first person who made the point. Scroll up. The Israelis apparently do not agree with your definition of 'dent'.

[frigidmagi]

No, but I guess you missed my response to the first person who made the point. Scroll up. The Israelis apparently do not agree with your definition of 'dent.'

And you read Sharon's mind when?

Pony up proof.

[Chmee]

Speaking of 'capabilities', here's a question for the folk reading this thread.

The Iranians have threatened to retaliate if the Israelis hit them, by launching missiles at Israeli nuclear facilities. How legit is this threat? Are the Iranian missile assets accurate enough, and powerful enough, to damage Israeli reactors?

[Ma Deuce]

The only real option is to drop 4,000, or far more ideally 30,000 pound bombs through the roofs and utterly smash everything.

They make 30,000 pound bombs?

Actually, last I heard it'll actually be 20,000lbs, and it's offisical name is DSHTW (Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon) but yes, they do make bombs that big, and have done so for years: IIRC, during the early '50s, they built (but didn't actually deploy) a 44,000lb earth-penetrating bomb for the B-36, which was designed to detonate underground and devastate it's target with an "earthquake effect"...

[Chmee]

No, but I guess you missed my response to the first person who made the point. Scroll up. The Israelis apparently do not agree with your definition of 'dent.'

And you read Sharon's mind when?

Pony up proof.

Holy cow, read the daily papers .... the Israelis make noise about this nearly every month. But for one example:

On 18 July 2004, the Sunday Times of London reported that the Israeli Air Force had completed preparations for striking the Bushehr reactor, and would do so if Russia supplied Iran with the fuel for the facility. An Israeli defense source, who claimed that mission rehearsals had taken place, was quoted as saying, "Israel will on no account permit the Iranian reactors — especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help — to go critical. ... If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail, we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go."

Link

Read the whole section on 'Recent Developments' in the globalsecurity.org summary, you can find enough Israeli government quotes on the issue to make their feelings pretty clear. They say they won't tolerate a self-sufficient Iranian nuclear industry and they say they'll act militarily to prevent it. Maybe it's a bluff ... but these are guys who frequently follow up the talk with some walk.

Of the five or six primary targets, the only one that seems to require something as powerful as a BLU-113 is the buried facility at Natanz ... the Israeli options here are fairly wide, from attacking only the Bushehr reactor to attacking everything and doing BDA to see their results.

Once again, am I saying this is a lock? By no means. It's just a lot better odds than 'never gonna happen,' which seems to be the preconception of a few people.

[frigidmagi]

Congrats, you've proven the desire. Now all you have to do is prove the ability.

[Chmee]

Congrats, you've proven the desire. Now all you have to do is prove the ability.

Like I said, only one of the 5-6 probable targets would require ordinance not in Israeli hands. Proof of what, a guaranteed ability of the Israelis to destroy 100% of the Iranian nuclear industry? I never claimed they had that, I doubt *we* have that because it would require better intelligence on the Iranian program than I think we have. The strike, if somebody carries it out, will be about delaying and impairing the Iranian program. Could we do that better than the Israelis? I think so. Can the Israelis nonetheless delay and impair it on their own? I think so.

I'll add another point for the discussion .... do you consider it plausible for the U.S. to carry out B-2 strikes on the Natanz facility while the Israelis hit everything else, while denying U.S. involvement? Seems like the kind of secret that could never successfully be kept, to me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Congrats, you've proven the desire. Now all you have to do is prove the ability.

Like I said, only one of the 5-6 probable targets would require ordinance not in Israeli hands. Proof of what, a guaranteed ability of the Israelis to destroy 100% of the Iranian nuclear industry? I never claimed they had that, I doubt *we* have that because it would require better intelligence on the Iranian program than I think we have. The strike, if somebody carries it out, will be about delaying and impairing the Iranian program. Could we do that better than the Israelis? I think so. Can the Israelis nonetheless delay and impair it on their own? I think so.

I'll add another point for the discussion .... do you consider it plausible for the U.S. to carry out B-2 strikes on the Natanz facility while the Israelis hit everything else, while denying U.S. involvement? Seems like the kind of secret that could never successfully be kept, to me.

The focus of this discussion last time I checked, was whether Israel had the capacity to take out that particula hardened facility. Maybe you should more cleary state your position.

[Rogue 9]

Congrats, you've proven the desire. Now all you have to do is prove the ability.

Like I said, only one of the 5-6 probable targets would require ordinance not in Israeli hands. Proof of what, a guaranteed ability of the Israelis to destroy 100% of the Iranian nuclear industry? I never claimed they had that, I doubt *we* have that because it would require better intelligence on the Iranian program than I think we have. The strike, if somebody carries it out, will be about delaying and impairing the Iranian program. Could we do that better than the Israelis? I think so. Can the Israelis nonetheless delay and impair it on their own? I think so.

Yeah, they can delay the Natanz facility by all of a couple days while the Iranians dig out the bunker entrances. They can't bust the bunkers, and if that isn't done the entire operation would be for nothing.

I'll add another point for the discussion .... do you consider it plausible for the U.S. to carry out B-2 strikes on the Natanz facility while the Israelis hit everything else, while denying U.S. involvement? Seems like the kind of secret that could never successfully be kept, to me.

There wouldn't be a snowball's chance in Hell. Israel can't break those bunkers and everybody knows it, so if they're broken everyone will know it was U.S. B-2s.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh look, Chmee bluffs his way through military topics...again!

[Chmee]

Congrats, you've proven the desire. Now all you have to do is prove the ability.

Like I said, only one of the 5-6 probable targets would require ordinance not in Israeli hands. Proof of what, a guaranteed ability of the Israelis to destroy 100% of the Iranian nuclear industry? I never claimed they had that, I doubt *we* have that because it would require better intelligence on the Iranian program than I think we have. The strike, if somebody carries it out, will be about delaying and impairing the Iranian program. Could we do that better than the Israelis? I think so. Can the Israelis nonetheless delay and impair it on their own? I think so.

Yeah, they can delay the Natanz facility by all of a couple days while the Iranians dig out the bunker entrances. They can't bust the bunkers, and if that isn't done the entire operation would be for nothing.

I'll add another point for the discussion .... do you consider it plausible for the U.S. to carry out B-2 strikes on the Natanz facility while the Israelis hit everything else, while denying U.S. involvement? Seems like the kind of secret that could never successfully be kept, to me.

There wouldn't be a snowball's chance in Hell. Israel can't break those bunkers and everybody knows it, so if they're broken everyone will know it was U.S. B-2s.

Well as folks on forums are so fond of stating, knowing it and proving it are two different things, but I tend to agree it would be an obvious and blatant signature of U.S. involvement.

As for the 'entire operation would be for nothing,' again, that assumes that the point of a coordinated strike is permanently destroying the industry. I don't think anybody sees that as even a possible goal ... the goal is significant delay.

If I've helped pull the thread onto a different tangent than 'can the Israelis destroy Natanz,' sorry, it seemed like it was going off in a different direction with the help of several people, discussing the general question of whether the Israelis are reasonably likely to launch a coordinated attack on the Iranian nuclear weapons infrastructure. If somebody wants to split that off to a different topic I'll respond to it there, I completely concede that the Israeli ability to destroy Natanz is highly questioniable.

[Rogue 9]

There would be delay produced by hitting the more lightly defended facilities, but the most important stuff is bound to be in those bunkers. I don't know anything about the contents for certain, of course, but I would venture to guess that the majority of the fissile material and possibly a primary assembly line are in those bunkers. You don't build bunkers like that and then store your most important materials in warehouses somewhere.

[Chmee]

There would be delay produced by hitting the more lightly defended facilities, but the most important stuff is bound to be in those bunkers. I don't know anything about the contents for certain, of course, but I would venture to guess that the majority of the fissile material and possibly a primary assembly line are in those bunkers. You don't build bunkers like that and then store your most important materials in warehouses somewhere.

Agreed. The track record of intelligence agencies reliably spotting all the nuclear production facilities of a nascent nuclear state (Korea, Pakistan, India) doesn't exactly seem stellar.

[Sea Skimmer]

Didn't miss it, don't necessarily agree. The Israelis wouldn't have to hit every component of the Iranian program to put it back for years, although I do think they'll try to hit everything and see what damage they can do.

You want to attack Iran's nuclear program, yet leave its hardened enrichment facility intact? Its one of the most vital components of building an atomic bomb and you want to just leave it? That's just fucking stupid. You do not launch a massive and blatant attack like this while being openly unable to accomplish the mission.

Maybe you and I don't think they can do it, but then they do have a habit of surprising their enemies, don't they? According to the October '04 report in Germany's Der Spiegel, the Israeli military had been ordered to prepare a comprehensive plan to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, probably six sites simultaneously. The IAF pilot used as the source of the report called the plan 'complex, yet manageable.'

Wow, a news article you don't even have a link to is your defence. How typical.

I think it's unrealistic to say that no one considers such an attack 'worth contemplating,' when the Israeli government has spent time and resources contemplating it very recently.

Governments and espically militaries have large departments, which do nothing but generate plans for shit like this. It does not mean that a plan is actually being considered or that any preparation has been made to implement it.