Clearly the Iranian program is peaceful...

[MKSheppard]

Note the huge, massively expensive underground bunkers...

Linka

Yes, clearly they need all this hardening, plus heavy SAM defenses
and megabunkers of doom to do peaceful atomic research.

[Melchior]

Ok, let's admit that Iran is going to have atomic weapons.
What do you suggest to do?
Invade them? Nuke'em from orbit?
There isn't a solution that is not unplaesant.

[Aaron]

Ok, let's admit that Iran is going to have atomic weapons.
What do you suggest to do?
Invade them? Nuke'em from orbit?
There isn't a solution that is not unplaesant.

At this point aerial strikes are probably the only real option. Unless the USA can incite some sort of rebellion to force out the Mullahs.

[Melchior]

At this point aerial strikes are probably the only real option. Unless the USA can incite some sort of rebellion to force out the Mullahs.

USA's record in "inciting rebellions" isn't exactly reassuring.
But it is obvious that a secular governament would be better.
Another thing that could happen is that the newly elected democratic governaments in the middle east, after 15 year of war, decide that they want nukes anyway.

[Aaron]

USA's record in "inciting rebellions" isn't exactly reassuring.
But it is obvious that a secular governament would be better.
Another thing that could happen is that the newly elected democratic governaments in the middle east, after 15 year of war, decide that they want nukes anyway.

That is possible. India and Pakistan both persued nuclear weapons as a deterrent against each other.

[J]

Note the huge, massively expensive underground bunkers...
Linka
Yes, clearly they need all this hardening, plus heavy SAM defenses
and megabunkers of doom to do peaceful atomic research.

You can never be to safe these days, I hear that Allah is somewhat displeased with them and may decide to do some smiting with a meteor.

[Chmee]

I don't know what dream world some political theorists live in, to think you can stop nations like Iran from pursuing weapons that their neighbors and enemies already possess. Good luck with that finger in the dike.

[Rogue 9]

Can't stop them from pursuing, but can stop them from catching.

Damn, that's one hell of a SAM belt. I wouldn't fancy going in there. Good luck to whoever has to go take that place out, if anyone's sent. Jeez...

[Chmee]

Can't stop them from pursuing, but can stop them from catching.

Damn, that's one hell of a SAM belt. I wouldn't fancy going in there. Good luck to whoever has to go take that place out, if anyone's sent. Jeez...

You can only slow them down, it's only physics & engineering ... and in the process of slowing them down, you piss them off and make them more ready than ever to use the mofo's once they have 'em.

[MKSheppard]

I don't know what dream world some political theorists live in, to think you can stop nations like Iran from pursuing weapons that their neighbors and enemies already possess. Good luck with that finger in the dike.

You can do that courtesy of the sequel to MOAB that's under development..

Probably would take six to shut this place down.

[MKSheppard]

You can only slow them down, it's only physics & engineering ... and in the process of slowing them down, you piss them off and make them more ready than ever to use the mofo's once they have 'em.

Cooking up a nuclear device is not something you can do in your backyard
undetected. It requires massive industrial investment, as well as lots of
construction work to produce the plant to make the fissile material. These
sites are easily found and bombed.

[The_Last_Rebel]

If we don't or can't take care of it, Israel will like they did in 1981 with Iraq.

[Sea Skimmer]

If we don't or can't take care of it, Israel will like they did in 1981 with Iraq.

No they won't. It would be immensely hard just for Israel to stage a raid to destroy Iran's nuclear plant, espically without absurdly blatant support in the tune of the US and Jordan at the minimal, probably also Saudi Arabia, support that would make it pointless that the US just didn't attack on its own.

This facility however is different, and just as important to destroy since Iran can get nuclear material to feed into it fairly easily, far more spent reactor fuel is around waiting to be stolen/sold and reprocessed to extract U-235 then there is of actual weapons grade material. And that sort of stuff while generally well looked after isn't guarded to the same degree by anyone. Having a large industrial facility like this gives Iran a lot of options a group of say terrorist don't.

But anyway, it's located deep inside Iran, making attacking very difficult and requiring that an attack force be quite large. Then we have the very nature of the target. Big bunkers like this are very expensive, but they also offer very good protection. These have 75 feet of earth piled on top of the roof slabs, that's enough to make any weapon less then a 4,000-pound penitrating bomb useless. Israel doesn't have any 4,000-pound penitrating bombs, and no cruise missile (which would remove the need to fly halfway into Iran and directly over fly the target) has a heavy enough warhead or strikes hard enough to work reliably (the Russians have some huge ones which might, emphasis on might, manage it, but they have a CEP against land targets that's 1-1.5 miles, making them useless for the job). Israel has none of those anyway.

The only way an attack on this can really go off is if the US decides to act and sends B-2's, or a good sized aerial armada of lesser aircraft to bomb the shit out of each bunker, and everything on the surface. Also a whole bunch of other known Iranian nuclear sites need to be taken out at the same time, which is another reason why the IAF couldn't do it, they simply don't have that many long range fighter bombers. Though as it is, even there best model F-16I's with huge additional fuel tanks and they're F-15E's are well short of the range required. And while they do have tankers, they don't have many and even those 'good' aircraft from a range standpoint would still need to fuel at least once coming and going. Probably more like two or three times each way with a heavy load out of bombs and missiles.

So basically, unless Israel just decides to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, they aren't in the picture for Natanz. And since they can't knock this place out, its pretty unlikely they'll try to strike against even the targets they can sort of reach and attack effectively. Partial efforts would gain them a worse political hellstorm then an effort with is at least complete and thus actually removes the threat.

[Chmee]

If we don't or can't take care of it, Israel will like they did in 1981 with Iraq.

No they won't. It would be immensely hard just for Israel to stage a raid to destroy Iran's nuclear plant, espically without absurdly blatant support in the tune of the US and Jordan at the minimal, probably also Saudi Arabia, support that would make it pointless that the US just didn't attack on its own.

This facility however is different, and just as important to destroy since Iran can get nuclear material to feed into it fairly easily, far more spent reactor fuel is around waiting to be stolen/sold and reprocessed to extract U-235 then there is of actual weapons grade material. And that sort of stuff while generally well looked after isn't guarded to the same degree by anyone. Having a large industrial facility like this gives Iran a lot of options a group of say terrorist don't.

But anyway, it's located deep inside Iran, making attacking very difficult and requiring that an attack force be quite large. Then we have the very nature of the target. Big bunkers like this are very expensive, but they also offer very good protection. These have 75 feet of earth piled on top of the roof slabs, that's enough to make any weapon less then a 4,000-pound penitrating bomb useless. Israel doesn't have any 4,000-pound penitrating bombs, and no cruise missile (which would remove the need to fly halfway into Iran and directly over fly the target) has a heavy enough warhead or strikes hard enough to work reliably (the Russians have some huge ones which might, emphasis on might, manage it, but they have a CEP against land targets that's 1-1.5 miles, making them useless for the job). Israel has none of those anyway.

The only way an attack on this can really go off is if the US decides to act and sends B-2's, or a good sized aerial armada of lesser aircraft to bomb the shit out of each bunker, and everything on the surface. Also a whole bunch of other known Iranian nuclear sites need to be taken out at the same time, which is another reason why the IAF couldn't do it, they simply don't have that many long range fighter bombers. Though as it is, even there best model F-16I's with huge additional fuel tanks and they're F-15E's are well short of the range required. And while they do have tankers, they don't have many and even those 'good' aircraft from a range standpoint would still need to fuel at least once coming and going. Probably more like two or three times each way with a heavy load out of bombs and missiles.

So basically, unless Israel just decides to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, they aren't in the picture for Natanz. And since they can't knock this place out, its pretty unlikely they'll try to strike against even the targets they can sort of reach and attack effectively. Partial efforts would gain them a worse political hellstorm then an effort with is at least complete and thus actually removes the threat.

If I was a betting man ... oh wait, I am ... my money would be on an Israeli strike, passing over Iraq on the way with U.S. wink-and-nod cooperation. Will it be as effective as a U.S. strike? Probably not. But it will set the Iranian program back and the U.S. sees the political fallout as less damaging if the Israelis do it. The primary Iranian targets at Bushehr and Esfahan would require aircraft with approximately 1500km of combat radius ... that seems to be within the combat radius of both Israeli F-16's and F-15's. The 1981 Israeli strike on PLO HQ in Tunis required 2000km combat radius. Israel started purchasing 500 BLU-109 bunker-busters in '04, as well as JDAM guided munitions. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

[Vympel]

If the Iranians sortie aircraft to stop them (and we can safely assume they will) then the Israeli combat radius gets cut significantly if they have to enter aerial combat. They might even force the bombers (we can assume they'll be F-15I Ra'ams, or perhaps the new F-16I Sufas) to drop their payload. That would be an international fiasco. They'd have to refuel from American tankers over Iraq.

And where does it mention a SAM belt? It says defensive positions, but it doesn't say SAM belt- I can't make out anything that looks like missiles or radars from those pictures. If so, what kind of SAMs also needs to be taken into consideration.

[Aaron]

The Israeli's do have the Popeye Turbo cruise missile that could be launched from their subs if they were in the Persian Gulf.

[kheegster]

The Israeli's do have the Popeye Turbo cruise missile that could be launched from their subs if they were in the Persian Gulf.

Persian Gulf? You mean that shallow-water channel between Iran and the Arabian peninsula? Does the phrase 'shooting fish in a barrel' mean anything?

[kheegster]

If the Iranians sortie aircraft to stop them (and we can safely assume they will) then the Israeli combat radius gets cut significantly if they have to enter aerial combat. They might even force the bombers (we can assume they'll be F-15I Ra'ams, or perhaps the new F-16I Sufas) to drop their payload. That would be an international fiasco. They'd have to refuel from American tankers over Iraq.

And where does it mention a SAM belt? It says defensive positions, but it doesn't say SAM belt- I can't make out anything that looks like missiles or radars from those pictures. If so, what kind of SAMs also needs to be taken into consideration.

The Osirak strike force managed to penetrate into Iraq because the IAF F-16s were flying in tight formation to mimic an airliner, IIRC. There are plenty of airliner routes that overfly Iran....I've personally overflown Iran plenty of times in a 747. IAF might have to train a few pilots to speak in an Indian or Chinese accent, and they need to time this perfectly to hit all the sites at once, but I don't see why they can't use the same tactic. They'll still need to fight their way out though, but it'll be mission accomplished.

[Aaron]

Persian Gulf? You mean that shallow-water channel between Iran and the Arabian peninsula? Does the phrase 'shooting fish in a barrel' mean anything?

Didn't the USA fire Tomahawks from subs in that very body of water?

[Sea Skimmer]

If I was a betting man ... oh wait, I am ... my money would be on an Israeli strike, passing over Iraq on the way with U.S. wink-and-nod cooperation. Will it be as effective as a U.S. strike? Probably not. But it will set the Iranian program back and the U.S. sees the political fallout as less damaging if the Israelis do it. The primary Iranian targets at Bushehr and Esfahan would require aircraft with approximately 1500km of combat radius ... that seems to be within the combat radius of both Israeli F-16's and F-15's.

It's not with any form of external warload. Just bombing Iraq's reactor required multiple in-flight refuelings

The 1981 Israeli strike on PLO HQ in Tunis required 2000km combat radius.

And they had open international waters all the way from Isreal to the target over which to fly and refuel, not to mention the total lack of SAM or fighter opposition.

Israel started purchasing 500 BLU-109 bunker-busters in '04, as well as JDAM guided munitions. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Yeah it is, and Isreal already had both the BLU-109 and JDAM kits in its inventory before that. If you'd read my post you'd know that 2000 pound bombs, which is what a BLU-109 is, are useless against bunkers this heavy.

[Sea Skimmer]

Persian Gulf? You mean that shallow-water channel between Iran and the Arabian peninsula? Does the phrase 'shooting fish in a barrel' mean anything?

Didn't the USA fire Tomahawks from subs in that very body of water?

That has occurred once or twice. However it doesn't matter, as Popeye is useless against a target this hard. The very worst it could do is collapse the entrances to the complex. The Iranians could dig them out in a matter of hours or days, there's also no telling what other secret entrances they might have created by tunneling. The only real option is to drop 4,000, or far more ideally 30,000 pound bombs through the roofs and utterly smash everything.

[Sea Skimmer]

The Osirak strike force managed to penetrate into Iraq because the IAF F-16s were flying in tight formation to mimic an airliner, IIRC.

No, they managed to penetrate into Iraq because they where flying in from the west across empty desert at 500 feet while the entire Iraqi air defence system was looking east for Iranian threats. The Iraqi air defences where also simply incompetent at the same. That is not true of Iran.

There are plenty of airliner routes that overfly Iran....I've personally overflown Iran plenty of times in a 747.

Yeah, I'm sure Iran will happily let an unknown airliner fly into its territory

IAF might have to train a few pilots to speak in an Indian or Chinese accent, and they need to time this perfectly to hit all the sites at once, but I don't see why they can't use the same tactic. They'll still need to fight their way out though, but it'll be mission accomplished.

They can't use the same tactic because they didn't use it in the first place and it would not work. Such a trick might confuse long range air search radars for a while, it will not standup once higher resolution fighter and SAM radars begin tracking, and they will begin to detect the incoming raid when it is still far out over the Gulf or Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

[Chmee]

If I was a betting man ... oh wait, I am ... my money would be on an Israeli strike, passing over Iraq on the way with U.S. wink-and-nod cooperation. Will it be as effective as a U.S. strike? Probably not. But it will set the Iranian program back and the U.S. sees the political fallout as less damaging if the Israelis do it. The primary Iranian targets at Bushehr and Esfahan would require aircraft with approximately 1500km of combat radius ... that seems to be within the combat radius of both Israeli F-16's and F-15's.

It's not with any form of external warload. Just bombing Iraq's reactor required multiple in-flight refuelings

Can you find me a source on that? The only sources I've found say the '81 strike on the Iraqi reactor was carried out without inflight refueling. That was with 1981 technology ... wasn't part of the purpose of acquiring F-15I's and F-16I's to expand combat radius? The claimed combat radius of both aircraft is in excess of 2000km.

[Wicked Pilot]

Yeah, I'm sure Iran will happily let an unknown airliner fly into its territory

I might add that even if they could somehow get a formation in country and disguise the entire tanker, strike, and excort package as one jet, it would still be of limited use unless the published Jet Routes happened to cross the nuclear sights. If they leave the jet routes they'll be SAMs and fighters on them like stink on shit. Even if the group starts descending or slowing down they'll be picked up as hostile. The entire Iranian Air Force will know where they are and where they're going.

[Chmee]

Yeah, I'm sure Iran will happily let an unknown airliner fly into its territory

I might add that even if they could somehow get a formation in country and disguise the entire tanker, strike, and excort package as one jet, it would still be of limited use unless the published Jet Routes happened to cross the nuclear sights. If they leave the jet routes they'll be SAMs and fighters on them like stink on shit. Even if the group starts descending or slowing down they'll be picked up as hostile. The entire Iranian Air Force will know where they are and where they're going.

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.

That's just a scenario, btw, not a prediction ... I still think it's a coin toss whether Bush will use American air and naval assets to strike the Iranians directly instead of proxying with the Israelis.

Or ... are we already doing that?