Strike on Iranian nukes getting closer?

[farmall]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/808677.html

There is no conventional way for Israel (or the US, without massive strikes over time) to conventionally take out Iran's nukes.

Ground penetrators followed by small nukes could destroy bunkered facilities or make them unusable, and another benefit would be the object lesson that the Islamic threat is understood and will be dealt with.

A strike while Bush is in office would be a better bet than when a Democrat successor takes power. The likelihood of a Democratic Administration fully aiding Israel against Iran is IMO much less.

[Lazarus]

I agree 100 percent that the US should take out Iran before it's too late. However, Bush has already spent all of his political capitol with Iraq. It would not only be political suicide for Bush to attack Iran but would also open him up to impeachment for sure. Unless Iran makes some kind of aggressive move against Israel or another country, the US isn't going to do anything.

[golani]

I agree 100 percent that the US should take out Iran before it's too late. However, Bush has already spent all of his political capitol with Iraq. It would not only be political suicide for Bush to attack Iran but would also open him up to impeachment for sure. Unless Iran makes some kind of aggressive move against Israel or another country, the US isn't going to do anything.

Correct,about time US strikes
I do hope that the different battle groups bound for gulf area will not stay actionless

[Mediocrates]

Iran imports 80% of their gasoline. Put a clamp on those imports and see what happens.

[Cellis]

Iran imports 80% of their gasoline. Put a clamp on those imports and see what happens.

they did cut gasoline to Turkiye about a week. and they said "we have no enough gas for Iran"

[Justcurious]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/808677.html

There is no conventional way for Israel (or the US, without massive strikes over time) to conventionally take out Iran's nukes.

Oh, I heard on TV yesterday that it was Israel which had nukes. The unofficial figure was given as 150-200. Has anyone got a more exact figure? Or even an estimate?

[farmall]

It does, note I mentioned "conventional" method. Even penetrating conventional explosives are insufficient hence the need for a tactical nuke to ruin underground facilities.
To kill the crews and, most importanly, destroy the equipment, the blast and heat of a small nuke is optimal.
Not conventional bomb is equivalent to a kiloton of TNT.

[Mediocrates]

This reminds me of the old arguments about EMP. You can't really harden anything more than a projected level of radiation so that's what you build to. Of course if the enemy uses a warhead just a few hundred thousand eV higher then it's all for nothing. At some point even nuclear bunker busters become a waste of time. We had for decades Cheyenne Mt. which was at least theoretically built for a direct hit in the high multi kT low mT range. This assumed the Soviets wouldn't 'cheat' and lob 10 10mT bombs into the mountain. If Iran has tunnels deep enough then no nuclear bunker buster is going to wreck them.

[Elin]

Which one is the biggest threat to Jews (think the future),Iran or Hamas?

[1.5 million]

This reminds me of the old arguments about EMP. You can't really harden anything more than a projected level of radiation so that's what you build to. Of course if the enemy uses a warhead just a few hundred thousand eV higher then it's all for nothing. At some point even nuclear bunker busters become a waste of time. We had for decades Cheyenne Mt. which was at least theoretically built for a direct hit in the high multi kT low mT range. This assumed the Soviets wouldn't 'cheat' and lob 10 10mT bombs into the mountain. If Iran has tunnels deep enough then no nuclear bunker buster is going to wreck them.

Bombs make craters...enough bombs make bigger/deaper craters...and there are other (easier) ways to disable/destroy these type of facilities (and/or the people in them)...or at least prevent access and/or use of them. Nothing is invulnerable....and deep tunneling is expensive and very time consuming. Offense can almost always overcome defense (in this day and age). Nuclear attacks are generally not an (acceptable) option (politically)...nor are they (ussually ever) necessary. Many other options exsist.

[1.5 million]

It does, note I mentioned "conventional" method. Even penetrating conventional explosives are insufficient hence the need for a tactical nuke to ruin underground facilities.
To kill the crews and, most importanly, destroy the equipment, the blast and heat of a small nuke is optimal.
Not conventional bomb is equivalent to a kiloton of TNT.

You obviously are not familiar with the latest and greatest conventional (deep earth penetrating) weaponry...you might just be suprised how vulnerable some of these facilities might be...its not like they are miles underground or anything...

[psyops]

Oh, I heard on TV yesterday that it was Israel which had nukes. The unofficial figure was given as 150-200. Has anyone got a more exact figure? Or even an estimate?

It could be more, but not missile-borne. The Israelis probably have a stockpile of low-yield laser guided nuclear bombs like bunker busters. Vanunu claimed that Israel produces 30 kg of weapons-grade plutonium per year, and that 4 kg are required for an intermediate yield thermonuclear warhead. Israel has been processing weapons-grade plutonium since the mid 60's. Do the math.

[Mediocrates]

The whole approach is dumb. Don't threaten Iran by saying you'll surgically strike some specific underground high tech sites. Threaten them by telling them you'll take out 45% of Tehran, all their power generation and all of their ports. Eyin Tachat Eyin.

The urban center of Tehran is 255 sq mi and holds about 7.3 million people. 1 well placed air burst in the 200-250 kT range would have an effective radius of near complete destruction either through blast, heat or +2-5 psi overpressure out to approx >5 miles at the 3900 ft elevation over flat terrain, unobstructed.

Many models would put the death rate at near 75-85% or higher in that area within 1 week. If we figure that city center has a population density during the day of ~20,000/sq mi and the coverage area, averaged is half that density, is 75 sq mi x 10,000/sq mi @ 80% death immediately that's 600,000. Figure in another 1-3 million homeless and another 500-600,000 dead in 90 days from residual effects, exposure, hunger, disease and general breakdown in infrastructure plus non fatal injuries 2-3x the death rate or roughly another 3.6 million injured + >3 million displaced in the first 3 months plus a complete eradication of a functioning government or economy. In my mind that's damned close to 1.2 + 3.6 + 3 or 11% of the country's population dead, starving, homeless, in the dark and cold. And that's in the first 90 days. 18 months out, things really start to look grim; maybe mass exodus out of the country, radiation sickness and disease from lack of health care is rampant, a return to the dark ages, evaporation of all civil order, biblical plagues, black death, un reclaimable urban centers.

If I were Israel that's what I would tell them.

[farmall]

"If Iran has tunnels deep enough then no nuclear bunker buster is going to wreck them."

They could have gone to extreme depth, but a nuke at each tunnel to the surface would also be disruptive. Buried and dead is good enough.
I don't presume to know how much intel Israel and the US have on any digging, but concealing the movement of thousands of tons of earth would take some care.

"You obviously are not familiar with the latest and greatest conventional (deep earth penetrating) weaponry"

I've been following that since the first howitzer-barrel bunker busters.
No conventional bomb yields a THOUSAND TONS TNT equivalent of explosive power, and a 1KT nuke is a little one.

The possible Israeli delivery vehicles are missiles (light payload) and F-15s, maybe F-16s with tanker support. I know what the aircraft can carry and have worked on them (F-16s) and around them (F-15s) for many years. Their specs and payload are all over the internet and common knowledge. Given those limits, one may deduce the maximum weight of even specialty munitions.

"The whole approach is dumb. Don't threaten Iran by saying you'll surgically strike some specific underground high tech sites. Threaten them by telling them you'll take out 45% of Tehran, all their power generation and all of their ports. Eyin Tachat Eyin."

That would have to go backchannel to leadership, or it would be instantly exploited for propaganda and oblige the Iranians to build the weapons anyway.

I would not bother with the power generation (waste of very limited aircraft sorties) but attack water (dams and irrigation) instead, and of course their oil and transportation infrastructure. Since the Iranian government has a declared intention to destroy Israel, it becomes perfectly reasonable to contemplate destroying Iran.

Sufficient nukes would need to be retained to deal with Israels neighbors, and should be the response to any conventional attack made while Israel was engaged in Iran. This is a struggle for Western civilization, and the requirement for its survival erases any considerations that would restrain a conflict with an entity not bent on extermination of our culture.

[Mediocrates]

I'm 47 I've lived with one government or another telling me they're going to wipe out my way of life that whole time. To me it's about doctrine and expectations. As a matter of doctrine it may be useful to call Iran's bluff. If they say they can absorb a devastating attack then make that the centerpiece of Israeli strategy. I'm not sure the Iranian people will like being in the official strategic gunsites of a nuclear armed state willing to go all-in. At any rate it's a good gambit.