Strike Iran with Nukes?

[hardov]

hi guys, i read today this in stratfor, what do u think about it?

stratfor:



Israel’s Options

It has options, although a long-range conventional airstrike against Iran is really not one of them. Carrying out a multiday or even multiweek air campaign with Israel’s available force is too likely to be insufficient and too likely to fail. Israel’s most effective option for taking out Iran’s nuclear activities is itself nuclear. Israel could strike Iran from submarines if it genuinely intended to stop Iran’s program.

so only whit nukes is possible to destroy iran nuke prog?

[milluim]

a while ago Israel carried out very long range excerises into the mediterannian to mimic a strike ( remember the secret mission that everyone knew about!!) this proved to be a sucsess as well as fine tuning any possible problems, not at the minuite there are two missile boats en route to the persian sea ( thats only a guess btw they passed through the suez canal the other day) things could get warm in the near future but definitly not nuclear. that option is only a last resort there are many many other ways to stop the nuke plant a lot of which havent even seen the light of day yet.

[air-on]

Besides, Hardov, it would be morally indefensible for Israel to employ nukes to prevent Iran to become a nuclear armed power. Remember that even in 1973, when things looked really grim, Israel did not resort to that "last resource" (well, I grant that may have been a little theatrics in this direction, but it was done to make the US come to its senses and deliver the aid we needed, in the context of the cold war), even if it could be regarded then as an extreme defensive move.
There is another, much higher moral compass governing this kind of decision: our G-d given Torah can be summed up, according to our sages, in one phrase: "Do not do to others what is abhorrent to yourself". The meaning is quite simple: do not nuke, so you will not be nuked. All in all, Israel can manage without resorting to atomic bombs.
This are my 2 cents. Be very welcome to the forum!

[hardov]

Is good to know that there is another option to stop or delay the iran nuke program.

i have another question, what is the samson option?

[betgilson]

The meaning is quite simple: do not nuke, so you will not be nuked.

what it´s worth for Israel??
this policy of deterrance no longer aplies for Israel´s security I think due for the JIHAD mentality of Israel´enemies.They say whereas Israel loves life they love death therefore, a first strike must be prevent by all means and be sure, God will not allow , not permit that a single nuke fall down over Israel´s territory(Bible prophecies show us Israel will endure forever) but chemical weapons could turn to a realistic threat.

[ralfabco]

Clearly, a tactical special response, is a waste of time. If a special option is decided upon, it should be strategic in it's depth - a massive strike. In other words, you may as well turn the country, into an area with rocks and dust and some survivors. A 10% solution is a mistake.

[milluim]

Originally Posted by hardov

Is good to know that there is another option to stop or delay the iran nuke program.

i have another question, what is the samson option?

Im not sure where that originated from but i believe that is the nickname for the Nuclear option

[ishmael]

JMB I can say from expirence, that commando raid is effective but in a situation such as this probably not an option. These facilities are not easy targets, the intended goal is too far inside the location. Surprise is what comando has, time to reach goal will reduce all surprise. Tzahal Navy best option, either missle boat or subamrine launched cruise missles. One last thing suicide is for jihadist not IDF!

[betgilson]

to infiltrate all bunker facilities and destroy them with divices transported by men!!?? almost impossible.

that´s utopia.

[joejd12]

Originally Posted by hardov

Is good to know that there is another option to stop or delay the iran nuke program.

i have another question, what is the samson option?

the "samson option" is not really an option at all, but rather israel's semi-declared doctrine of how and when it will use its nuclear ****nal...

the doctrine is based on the story of samson, a jewish boy who's strength grew proportional to his hair, but after countless exploits he fell in love with a plishtim woman (at the time the Israelites most bitter enemies) and she betrayed him and cur off his hair, essentially making him helpless...

the plishtim then kidnapped him and put him in a colosseum of sorts, tied to two pillars in the middle with a crowd pelting him with rocks and rotten vegetables...

at this Samson's captives gouged his eyes out and he was in miserable shape...

but, as the story goes, Samson summoned up every ounce of his remaining energy and collpased the two pillars that support the structure and killed the whole crowd...

its been speculated (not sure if any israeli officials commented on this, other than saying that "Israel will not be the first to introduce nukes into the middle east") that israel will only use its nuclear ****nal as the last resort, when it has exhausted all other means of stopping its enemies from over running it, and possibly even wait to use its nukes until their use will also wipe itself off the map (just as samson collapsed the structure on top of himself)

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally Posted by betgilson

to infiltrate all bunker facilities and destroy them with divices transported by men!!?? almost impossible.

that´s utopia.

Yeah, I agree whole heartedly.

Regarding the original poster's assertion, there are three points here and I would like to deal with independently:

Originally Posted by hardov

It has options, although a long-range conventional airstrike against Iran is really not one of them. Carrying out a multiday or even multiweek air campaign with Israel’s available force is too likely to be insufficient and too likely to fail.

Most assessments indicate that Israel could effectively carry out a conventional air strike. See CSIS study by Cordesman and Toukan and the International Security article by Raas and Long.

As to the length of time a successful IAF attack will set back Iran's nuclear program, that is the primary question. Two or three years seems to be the general belief, but this is somewhat unknowable.

Originally Posted by hardov

Israel’s most effective option for taking out Iran’s nuclear activities is itself nuclear.

Well, obviously true. But also with the greatest repercussions on the world stage.

Originally Posted by hardov

Israel could strike Iran from submarines if it genuinely intended to stop Iran’s program.

Presuming that this is referring to a nuclear strike by submarine launched cruise missiles, again it is true, but Israel also has nuclear Jericho IRBMS (ICBMs ?) that could fulfill this task. Submarine launched cruise missiles are probably better used either for conventional attack on air-defense sites, or as a second-strike nuclear deterrent.

My guess ? That Israel will launch a conventional air strike on Iran's strategic rocket forces, command-and-control, and air defense sites. Later conventional air strikes will attack Iran's nuclear production facilities. An attack of this nature on Iran's most precious strategic assets may well goad Iran into responding with chemical or biological weapons. If Iran does so, Israel will feel justified in responding with a nuclear strike that takes out the super-hardened facilities (Qom ?) and any other Iranian nuclear production facilities that survived the conventional attack.

At this point Israel will have accomplished its war goals. Unfortunately, terminating a war of this nature may not be so easy, and it is possible that Iranian or Hezbollah rocket forces may continue with a "ragged relation" against Israel for months afterward. This is when Arrow and other defenses will be most valuable, as they will allow Israel to begin to resume a semblance of normal life again.

[betgilson]

not forgetting that during Israel´s IAF will be in action over Iran , the IDF will be fighting in Lebanon, Gaza, Westbanks and Golan highs against Hisbullah, Hamas and the Syrian Army ( Better Egypt stay quiet on its corner, I guess it will)

it´s gonna be shocking for the whole world. It will be the most shocking war we all have ever witness.

[Familyguydude]

Originally Posted by betgilson

not forgetting that during Israel´s IAF will be in action over Iran , the IDF will be fighting in Lebanon, Gaza, Westbanks and Golan highs against Hisbullah, Hamas and the Syrian Army ( Better Egypt stay quiet on its corner, I guess it will)

it´s gonna be shocking for the whole world. It will be the most shocking war we all have ever witness.

I find it extremely unlikely that Israel's tiny air force will be able to operate in 5 conflict areas simultaneously. I believe that the bulk of Israel's air force will be focused on Iran, effectively leaving our boys on the ground to fend for themselves. I only hope they won't have too hard of a time without the heavy air support the current Israeli soldiers have become accustomed to. We all know how heavily the IDF relied on air strikes during the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. Yep, our boys have a hell of a job in front of them... However, Israel's been in some tough situations before. Yet somehow she always manages to get herself out...

Edit: Woops, sorry betgilson, I misread your post. I thought you said the IAF will be operating in Iran and Lebanon/Gaza/ext.

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally Posted by Familyguydude

I find it extremely unlikely that Israel's tiny air force will be able to operate in 5 conflict areas simultaneously. I believe that the bulk of Israel's air force will be focused on Iran, effectively leaving our boys on the ground to fend for themselves.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Yes, it is vitally important that through "diplomatic" means Israel keep Syria out of the war.

But ultimately, Israel's airforce is not "tiny". And secondly, only the 100 F-16Is and 25 F-15Is in Israel's fleet are suitable for the long trip to Iran. And putting all 125 of these into the battle against Iran may not be possible due to limitations in the number of tankers. (See the Anthony Cordesman report regarding the number of aircraft that can be refueled by Israel's tanker fleet).

This leaves roughly 250 F-16As and Cs, along with 70 F-15 A/B/C/Ds, not to mention an assortment of nearly 100 Apache and Cobra gunship helicopters available for the more regional battle. (And there are an additional 400 or so A-4 Skyhawks, F-4 Phantoms, and Kfirs in operational storage--although I'm not sure of the availability of these aircraft, or pilots and ground crew for them). For details, see the Jaffe Center's database of Middle East armed forces: http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291245235226.pdf

I agree that

Originally Posted by betgilson

it´s gonna be shocking for the whole world. It will be the most shocking war we all have ever witness.

but not necessarily due to a shortage of aircraft on Israel's part.

[Familyguydude]

Well this all depends on what type of strike we are talking about for Iran. At the end of the day, there is no definite answer to how Israel will ultimately strike Iran. If it is a small contingency of IAF manpower, than yes Israel will pilots and planes to deal with its problems closer to home. However, depending on the scale and success rate of the strike, Israel may see a big dip into its operational and logistical capabilities in the air. I did not mean to say that Israel will have no planes left for use once the strike is commenced, but it will ultimately be a very difficult feet to run such a high risk operation as well as run bombing operations in Gaza/WB/Lebanon. To add on top of this mess the possibility of Syria getting involved, it looks like to me that the IAF is going to have its hand filled. While maybe a little over dramatic, ultimately my point was that the air superiority that the IDF ground forces are accustomed to probably won't be available due to the IAF's focus on the Iranian strike and taking down Syria's air force as well.

[betgilson]

I agree totally with you all my 3 foretalkers.

Yes Familyguydude. I noticed you was talking the same I thought

IAF will be active mainly over Iran and back home nevertheless we have the IDF strong deploying the full strength on Merkavas, hitting first and hard, getting support from all attack helicopters available and the older fighters and reserve pilots the IAF has.

The best on Israel defense forces has been the hability to use resources effectively. A single bullet hits his target whereas the enemies needs 100 of them to achieve the same result.
I am even sorry for the "enemies" of Israel, honestly, who until this day didn´t realize what is up concerning Israel and the eternal city.

So we can be sure that IDF and IAF will hit hard in all fronts, deploying the maximum on hardware allready on the first round.
As long the time doesn´t come, the Iron dome will be fully operational, Arrows system enhanced to the Arrows 3, more ARROWS defense-missiles units built.

The strike over Iran will be huge with bunkerbuster bombs followed by tactical small nukes against the bunkers and deeply hidden fortified plants.
The deployment of cruise missiles will aim the SAM instalations and radars and the subs will be on alert but they are thought as last ratio strike with heavy caliber (nukes of greater strength) just for the case an Iranian missile achieves to surpass Arrows.

I can imagine Arrows intercepting Iranian Missiles which could fall down over Syria instead over Israel.

[johnboy]

the latest about Iran nuclear position ( news report )
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/101...-uranium-batch

Iran's president has announced that the Islamic republic has produced its first package of highly enriched uranium just two days after beginning the process.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday told hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians that Iran was now a "nuclear state" and had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium.
In a speech marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution, the hardline president said Iran would soon triple its daily production of low-enriched uranium (3.5 per cent).
He also said Iran was capable of enriching it to 80 per cent, but would not do so.
Enriching uranium produces fuel for a nuclear power plants but can also be used to create material for atomic weapons.
Iran announced Tuesday it was beginning the process of enriching its uranium stockpile to a higher level.
The international community has warned Iran against further enrichment activities, threatening new UN sanctions.

[betgilson]

he told that when they build a bomb, they would let the world know.

Now, he does admit Iran can do that.

Man, that´s a crazy slide without brakes.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I would like to hedge on something I said earlier.

While I still maintain that, in general, the full spectrum of Iranian nuclear facilities do not lend themselves to attack by commandos, a few facilities might.

I am thinking of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is located on the coast across the Persian Gulf from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Should Israel decide that Bushehr needs to be disabled, a commando raid is at least a possibility.

Why would I choose Bushehr for a commando raid ? Two reasons:

1. A nuclear reactor accumulates a far, far larger quantity of dangerous fission products than a nuclear bomb produces as fallout. Once Bushehr goes live, fuel rods that were once relatively harmless uranium will become contaminated with fission products, and scattering these in a classical reactor-dome-breaching air strike is not a good idea--especially since prevailing winds could carry the debris over countries other than just Iran. So while Bushehr will need to be treated with "kid gloves", this does not mean it cannot be disabled. A precision attack on the reactor's cooling system or control room, especially at a time when the reactor was not operating, could safely disable it for many years.

2. Secondly, by virtue of being on the coast, the Bushehr reactor is accessible to commandos in small boats launched from a ship or submarine in the Persian Gulf (or from across the gulf, for that matter) and these commandos could be then extricated in the same manner. No helicopters or long trek inland is required.

It is true that civilian power reactors are not optimal producers of weapons grade plutonium, and Israel may indeed choose not to attack Bushehr. Or, if it does, an air attack may be preferable to a commando raid. I'm just saying that some type of commando operation may have its place as part of a larger, overall attack that is mostly performed by strike aircraft.

[Familyguydude]

Originally Posted by SpacemanSpiff

I would like to hedge on something I said earlier.

While I still maintain that, in general, the full spectrum of Iranian nuclear facilities do not lend themselves to attack by commandos, a few facilities might.

I am thinking of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is located on the coast across the Persian Gulf from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Should Israel decide that Bushehr needs to be disabled, a commando raid is at least a possibility.

Why would I choose Bushehr for a commando raid ? Two reasons:

1. A nuclear reactor accumulates a far, far larger quantity of dangerous fission products than a nuclear bomb produces as fallout. Once Bushehr goes live, fuel rods that were once relatively harmless uranium will become contaminated with fission products, and scattering these in a classical reactor-dome-breaching air strike is not a good idea--especially since prevailing winds could carry the debris over countries other than just Iran. So while Bushehr will need to be treated with "kid gloves", this does not mean it cannot be disabled. A precision attack on the reactor's cooling system or control room, especially at a time when the reactor was not operating, could safely disable it for many years.

2. Secondly, by virtue of being on the coast, the Bushehr reactor is accessible to commandos in small boats launched from a ship or submarine in the Persian Gulf (or from across the gulf, for that matter) and these commandos could be then extricated in the same manner. No helicopters or long trek inland is required.

It is true that civilian power reactors are not optimal producers of weapons grade plutonium, and Israel may indeed choose not to attack Bushehr. Or, if it does, an air attack may be preferable to a commando raid. I'm just saying that some type of commando operation may have its place as part of a larger, overall attack that is mostly performed by strike aircraft.

Hmm, an interesting idea. I have read/heard recently that Israeli commandos are doing some various rigorous training courses in different places around the world. In preparation for a commando raid might be a possibility, but I would assume they are doing this on a regular basis anyways. Assuming that a commando raid does occur, who would be behind it? Sayeret Matkal? Or Shaytet 13?