Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Israeli alternative strike against Iran
Pambas    3/23/2010 6:07:52 PM
Looks like Iran is going at steady pace toward a bomb and the US is not interested in helping the Israeli in not turning into nuclear ashes. They did so by denying them a shipment of bunker buster bombs ... be we now that the IDF is not run by idiots, so they surely have some stock pile. But the US is also unwilling to provide green passage over US airspace i.e. Iraqi airspace, so will we can expect the Saudi give the Israeli passage in an act of unholy alliance, what are Israeli alternative to take out Iranian nuclear facilities ? Will I don't believe that Iran would normally be a threat to Israel, the true is that they are fanatics and they could lunch a nuclear strike against Israel even at the cost of 4 million palestinian death ... after all we are in the 21 century and we need some Jihadi Nuclear martyrs in some sort of twisted freak progress My Idea is that Israel since Israel can't get bomber there, they could instead lunch a series of Ballistic missiles to crush the reactor. The first ones would have a 2 ton lead warhead made, the idea is that the free fall energy from the sub-orbital fly would be enough to crack open the reactor .. 2 or 3 missiles with conventional war heads could finish it So in the second time in Israeli history the basic act of throwing a stone will save them ... the first time was when David defeated Goliath If any of the IDF is reading this ... please forward to the highest level of command ... I just want a souvenir from the Givati brigade :D
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Mikko       3/27/2010 6:59:27 AM
There are multiple factors that make this a diplomacy-heavy but at the same time a rather black/white issue. First of all, were are not talking about a build-up of conventional forces or conventional warfare; on the contrary, a tricky regime is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
 
Nukes make stakes high. Nukes rule out many ways two countrys could have a polite exchange of military hostilities. It is not a relaxed show-off situaton where a couple hundred lives are lost and a ship there and plane there. Countries don't want to risk useless escalation, rather put all emphasis on one decisive blow. All parties included.
 
Why? Because of wanting to maintain diplomatic maneuvering space and wait for a "white" outcome. Something that doesn't end up in hostilities at all; mainly speaking of a regime change or policy change in Iran.
 
And what is the decisive blow between nuclear capable countries? Whatever it is, it's not pretty. In a situation like this you just have to roll the odds with diplomacy and if all fails, then probably go all out.  A failed, limited, effort to solve things militarily only ends up leaving no other options than an all-out fight.
 
So what's wrong with an all-out fight? It's necessarily a global issue and has uncontrollable concequences in virtually all global relations. US, EU, Russia, within EU, China, Arab countries, Israel, India, Pakistan. The international domino-effect is probably what is most feared here. It is feared that someone, some big nuclear player, loses nerve and breaks formation. Hence, Iran can be dealed with but dealing with a dispersed and wide enrichement program takes massive diplomatic preparations.
 
Everyone knows that with American backing Iran's program can be militarily halted, and also that Israel can go all Samson on Iran all by itself too.  That is always an option that awaits ready and ripe. But as long as there is a slimmest chance to get Russians and maybe the Chinese to play along, they try to.

Maybe I don't make any sense here, I just drank too much coffee, but what I'm trying to say here is that it is a superbly complicated issue that requires innovation in the field of international diplomacy, not militarily. Failed diplomatic solution, followed by a truly effective military campaign, risks global escalation and hundreds of millions of civilian casualties.
 
Quote    Reply

battar    Not just us   3/28/2010 2:06:37 PM
I think the biggest mistake made in the US and Europe is assuming that Israel will be the first, and only, target for Iranian nuclear weapons, whether in the form of actual bombs or just a blast of radioactive dust to contaminate large areas of population. In fact, such weapons are more likely to be delivered by proxy via international terrorist groups  with no return address. They will find it easier to smuggle such a weapon into San-Diego than to Tel-Aviv.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       3/29/2010 5:52:05 AM
What just occured to me is that the Iranian nuke program is indeed working like a charm. It has created a diplomatic swamp around itself; it makes friends become alienated from each other, it rises tensions all around Iran.
 
So far no western power has shown any innovation or resolute on the issue; west is merely appearing weak and divided. Maybe it - the Iranian bomb - is never expected to be tested or used. Maybe it is doing right now what it is intended to; make the international power bases grow additional friction with each other so Iran can remain relatively at peace in the middle.
 
It is a diplomatic innovation par excellence! Militarily, as everyone very well knows, there's nothing to gain to the Iranians. People who are addicted to power seem to never be keen on dying themselves. Valuing once's mighty life and career rules out self-sacrifice - the image in the mirror has replaced god and faith they so forcefully claim to follow.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       3/29/2010 4:39:37 PM
Of course, you are aware that Iran's Nuclear program began in the mid 70's under the US backed Shah???
 
Quote    Reply

Pambas       3/30/2010 3:18:24 AM
The US have a nasty tradition of creating its own monsters :
1- WW1, treaty of Paris and collapse of German Society/economy : Welcome Hitler !
2- Iranian coup : The US reinstalle the Sha and ... open the door for the crazy Mullhas !
3- Afganistan : For the sake of humiliating the URSS, the US grown and financed the guys who did 9/11
4- Irak : US arm Saddam ... Saddam try to get Iran ... then get all crazy and attack Koweit .. the US bomb Saddam and kill some nearly a million of Iraqi civilians in a period of 10 years
5 Pretty much 70% of all the dictators of the bananas republic of the world were at one instance financed by the US, then the US try to change ... then there is a civil war ... then the US support support the next bastard 

If anyone can make sense of US foreign policy, please help us understand why we are supposed to believe the defence department is manned by humans ... 
 
Quote    Reply

aidan110       3/31/2010 2:00:18 AM

The US have a nasty tradition of creating its own monsters :

1- WW1, treaty of Paris and collapse of German Society/economy : Welcome Hitler !

2- Iranian coup : The US reinstalle the Sha and ... open the door for the crazy Mullhas !

3- Afganistan : For the sake of humiliating the URSS, the US grown and financed the guys who did 9/11

4- Irak : US arm Saddam ... Saddam try to get Iran ... then get all crazy and attack Koweit .. the US bomb Saddam and kill some nearly a million of Iraqi civilians in a period of 10 years

5 Pretty much 70% of all the dictators of the bananas republic of the world were at one instance financed by the US, then the US try to change ... then there is a civil war ... then the US support support the next bastard 




If anyone can make sense of US foreign policy, please help us understand why we are supposed to believe the defence department is manned by humans ... 

Its not as if we only tend to support the crazy folks out there. We give money to any and everbody. As I recall it we give Egypt a couple million (or was it billion?) anually just to get a photo of them making kissy face with Isreal. Personnally I want to to see the US suddenly stop with all the hand outs and see how much we save. I bet it would be a good chunk of change and we would get to watch half the world implode.  Good television if you ask me. God I'm a cynic.
 
Quote    Reply

Pambas       4/1/2010 4:46:08 PM
Its not as if we only tend to support the crazy folks out there. We give money to any and everbody. As I recall it we give Egypt a couple million (or was it billion?) anually just to get a photo of them making kissy face with Isreal. Personnally I want to to see the US suddenly stop with all the hand outs and see how much we save. I bet it would be a good chunk of change and we would get to watch half the world implode.  Good television if you ask me. God I'm a cynic.

Some of the idiots you subsidized will likely have their arse kicked ... but otherwise it will be better for everyone else, since each will have to take care of its responsabilities ... like defending it self and settling their internal disputes

It will take some years, but after everyone will forget that you guys exist lol


The biggest cassualty in this equation is Israel ... but I suspect they would be better off by inflicting a complete defeat on the next arab nation ... instead of having the US babisitting them

Europe should also get serious about their defence ... they can more than handle Russia ... same for South Korea, they can Handle North Korea pretty well ... Looking at US troops fighting and dying helplessly, without purpose ... is good television too ... and all paid by US tax payers 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/1/2010 5:08:12 PM
Obviously the article below comes from a Christian "biased" viewpoint, and the last few paragraphs are not really directed toward the actual events surrounding Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit.  My hope is not to discuss that part, but to discuss the purported characterization of the events of the Israeli Prime Minister's visit, how he was snubbed by The Obamination and how he presented the (current) Israeli government positions.  I'm concerned that the author's natural pro-Israel "bias" due to being a Christian may be skewing his impressions of the situation.  I would love to get the take of our many Israeli and/or Jewish posters in particular.  Israel-bashers need not apply.
 
-------
 

 

Netanyahu Stood His Ground with Obama

By Joel C. Rosenberg
JoelRosenberg.com

What in the world was going on behind the scenes of the Obama-Netanyahu meetings? Why were the talks so tense, and so shrouded in secrecy? Wednesday night, I was able to gain some clues. It's not good.

The Obama administration has been applying intense and unprecedented pressure on the Netanyahu government to make huge unilateral concessions to the Palestinians even before direct peace talks begin. One advisor who has been briefed on the talks told me:

 

"President Obama is insisting that Israel sign a document that specifies Israel's commitment to a peace deal with the Palestinians that will be based on 1967 lines. This means no building in Jerusalem, and a time table to address other core issues, like the 'right of return.'"

 

The source, one that I trust a great deal, also noted that President Obama spoke by phone in the last 24 hours with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to make sure each of them are on board with pressuring the Israelis to make such unprecedented unilateral concessions. The White House apparently wants the document to become the blueprint for final status negotiations, even though the Palestinians refuse even to come to the table and sit down face-to-face with Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu.

The Netanyahu team delayed their departure out of Washington Wednesday afternoon to continue meeting almost non-stop together at the Israeli Embassy. Several key officials also met with special Mideast envoy George Mitchell and other key administration officials. The team finally left for Israel late Wednesday night. Thus far, a virtual news blackout has been imposed on President Obama's meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

 

The good news: Netanyahu had a very good week. He looked strong and principled. He was gracious and diplomatic. And he stood his ground. He did not cave in to the intense pressure from the White House and State Department. He refused to divide Jerusalem. In a masterful AIPAC speech, he calmly and clearly explained why Israel would never give up the right to build homes in her capital. He sent the U.S. and the world a straightforward and sobering message that if they don't move quickly and decisively to stop Iran from getting the Bomb, then Israel will do it herself. He didn't threaten. He didn't swagger. He simply stated the facts, in their historic context, and nobody does it better than Netanyahu. What's more, he did all this with Defense Minister Ehud Barak standing in solidarity at his side, which was important because it sent the White House - and his critics back in Israel, and enemies back in

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/3/2010 4:33:33 AM

This idea isn't new. A space-based kinetic attack concept aptly nicknamed "Rods from God" was enunciated about six years ago, and the technological challenges of launching, maintaining and targeting such a system are still unsurmountable AFAIK.


It was called Project Thor, and it was proposed by Jerry Pournelle over 50 years ago.  There have been numerous studies and several problems have been identified in translating theory into reality.  Besides the targeting problem, there appears to be a maximum depth of effective penetration, beyond that depth hydrodynamics produces a 'choked flow', causing the material being vaporized by the impact of the rod to pile-up in front of the rod instead of escaping around it, and the energy dissipates laterally instead of punching through.

While it is proven that Israel has developed semi-workable space launchers, short-range ballistic and para-ballistic missiles, none of these are currently in service with the IDF, and the SRBM's offered by Israeli industries are still to find any customers. There are rumors -what is called here "foreign sources"- of Israeli "Jericho 2/3" ballistic missiles hidden somewhere under the hills where I like to go for 'shrooms and herbs, but if they were real I'd certainly know somebody whose neighbor's cousin has met the son of a plumber whose sister-in-law used to go out with an Air Force officer from a top-secret strategic missile unit, or something of that ilk. I don't, and this is a small country, really one big family in which everybody's nose is in everybody else's business. It is safe to assume that the Israeli strategic arsenal is the cheapest deterrent money can buy, a purely notional one.

The Israeli nuclear tipped SRBM and MRBM are an open secret -- Everyone knows they have them (but not how many), but Israel refuses to confirm or deny their existence.  Their accuracy is questionable, but certainly sufficient for the task of delivering a nuclear warhead to every major city between Libya and Pakistan, inclusive.  They are perceived as a 'final strike' weapon, so that if Israel falls the entire Middle East goes with them, like Samson in the temple.
 
Unfortunately, 'Twelvers' like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may view results as a 'good thing' because it would fulfill the prophesies leading to the reemergence of the '12th Imam'.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       4/3/2010 6:35:43 AM

The US have a nasty tradition of creating its own monsters :
1- WW1, treaty of Paris and collapse of German Society/economy : Welcome Hitler !
2- Iranian coup : The US reinstalle the Sha and ... open the door for the crazy Mullhas !
3- Afganistan : For the sake of humiliating the URSS, the US grown and financed the guys who did 9/11
4- Irak : US arm Saddam ... Saddam try to get Iran ... then get all crazy and attack Koweit .. the US bomb Saddam and kill some nearly a million of Iraqi civilians in a period of 10 years
5 Pretty much 70% of all the dictators of the bananas republic of the world were at one instance financed by the US, then the US try to change ... then there is a civil war ... then the US support support the next bastard 
 
If anyone can make sense of US foreign policy, please help us understand why we are supposed to believe the defence department is manned by humans ... 

You can make a similar list for ANY major power in ANY period of history. 
 
The simple fact is that alliances are not forever, and things always change.
 
The US fought 2 ways with the British, and regarded them are as the main enemy from the birth of the nation until after the start of WW1.  Before the war started it was a close call as to which side of that war the US would favor, and most felt that the US should get involved at all.  But, since then the US and UK have been not always close allies.
 
As for your points:
 
1 -- The worst provisions of Treaty of Paris were objected to by both the US and UK for exactly the reasons noted, but over ruled by France.  At the time France was considered the most powerful nation in the world, followed by the UK, with the US in 3rd place.  The US tried to promote peace by creating the League of Nations, but without the threat of nuclear war to prop it up, that became a lamented failure.
 
You fail to mention WW2, where the US gave major support for the USSR, who immediately became an enemy at the end of the war.  Italy was also an enemy in WW2, after being an ally in WW1 (Though the British are rumored to have commented on occasion that "That's only fair.  We had to take them last time.").
 
2 -- The Iranian Coup I do not know enough about to comment on.  I have a hard time believing that the CIA is competent enough to pull it off, but maybe the Iranians were bad enough to make them look good.
 
3 -- The US supported various factions in Afghanistan because they were worried about the USSR moving farther south.  Several personages involved in the creation of the Taliban and later al-Qaeda were part of that, but those organizations came long after the relationship had ended.
 
4 -- When Saddam attacked Iran the US was still pissed at Iran, so they did nothing.  Then when the Iranians booted Saddam's army back across the border the US gave him just enough aid to keep the Iranians from winning.  In the end both sides lost, which was probably the desired outcome.
 
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was due to the US State Department trying to be polite when they needed to be blunt.  After that 'Desert Storm' was inevitable.  The claim that the US "kill some nearly a million of Iraqi civilians in a period of 10 years" only holds up if you assume that the US was responsible for EVERY death in that period, it is pure hyperbole.
 
5 -- "Pretty much 70% of all the dictators of the bananas republic of the world were at one instance financed by the US, ... then the US supports the next bastard "  Only if you count non-military aid as well as military aid.  Actually it is closer to 100%, and everyone else does it, not just the US government.  It's called international  politics.  'Banana republics' control most of the worlds critical natural resources, so you have to be nice to their leaders.  Which is a polite way of saying 'bribe them to not make too much trouble'.
 
You are also probably referring to loans from the banking industry (which is centered in the US since WW2) and the WMF, but the US government does not directly control those.  The best that can be done is to deny some countries access, but that is a very blunt hammer.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics