Iran

[philcandless]

I am not familar with the term 'countervalue'; could you fill me in?

 

aguy2

 

Counterforce = hit their nukes with our nukes.

Countervalue = hit their cities with our nukes.

 

As you craft your deterence' date=' the yield distribution of your arsenal and the accuracy distribution of your delivery systems will shape your options one way or the other. The US and USSR had highly refined counterforce nuclear forces, and the Soviets actually led the United States for a decade until we deployed Peacekeepers to Europe and MX back home. At least a third of Israel's estimated arsenal goes on Jericho I and II IRBMs. They're of limited value when it comes to knocking out the enemy's hardened targets due to their high CEP. Israel has only 11 miles of strategic depth at its narrowest point, so battlefield nuclear strikes aren't terribly likely. We do have rumblings from Seymour Hersh, author of [i']The Samson Option[/i], indicating a part of the Israeli nuclear OPLAN includes attacking the political leadership of the enemy. That makes sense, the Jericho II are probably (the the -I IRBMs definitely) useless against anything else but a city or large enemy formation in their depth. Either way, you're talking about a predominantly countervalue strategy as armies over there tend to coalesce around major population centers.

[john5746]

That probably is a good thing. Stalemate works if both sides get mutal destruction. If one side can destroy the nuclear capability of the other while attacking, that would make the attack more likely. Right?

[philcandless]

That probably is a good thing. Stalemate works if both sides get mutal destruction. If one side can destroy the nuclear capability of the other while attacking, that would make the attack more likely. Right?

 

Except in this case Israel doesn't has no nuclear adversary. That's probably the most significant piece of evidence that her arsenal is primarily countervalue; the enemy has no nuclear force to speak of.

[john5746]

Except in this case Israel doesn't has no nuclear adversary. That's probably the most significant piece of evidence that her arsenal is primarily countervalue; the enemy has no nuclear force to speak of.

 

As was the case with America in WWII, but we wanted to make sure we were first. They are surrounded by enemies, and so felt they needed to have them. I think it was a mistake, but I understand why they did it. I also understand why Iran is doing it. I don't think they will run out and shoot the thing, I think they want the political capital that comes with it. But, their support of terrorism and their leader worries many, understandably.

[aguy2]

Counterforce = hit their nukes with our nukes.

Countervalue = hit their cities with our nukes.

 

Could there be such a thing as 'Counter-Armies' or better yet' date=' 'Counter-Tactical' Such as keeping a reserve for strategic deterence and the rest for tactical.

At least a third of Israel's estimated arsenal goes on Jericho I and II IRBMs. They're of limited value

 

Do you have 'missiles on the mind', or aren't their fighter/bomber pilots still capable of 3 meter accuracy?

 

aguy2

[aguy2]

I don't think they will run out and shoot the thing, I think they want the political capital that comes with it.

 

I don't think we would want to just 'roll over', but short of all out war there is not much we can do about it. Iran has a youth oriented demagraphic lump that reminds me of pre-Beatle America. They have been decently fed and decently educated, and I think that there is a reasonable expectation they are becoming decent young men and women. We may yet need all the allies we can to counter these 'death cult' Wahabis.

 

aguy2

[Soonerborn]

That's a statement I can't take seriously without a source.

 

Yep' date=' you were right to question it. I was wrong. It was some military history professor at some Israeli college named Martin Crevel that said this

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force.....Our armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under.

 

But several Israeli defense officials have alluded that Russian cities are targets since they believe that no attack on Israel would happen without Russian approval or backing. I think that this is much more credible than the above since alot of the Pollard spying revolved around US nuclear targeting strategies against Russia. Global Security has a good breakdown on Israeli doctrine and capability. They have more nukes than I remember.

 

Iran got the equipment and designs they needed from A.Q. Khan' date=' the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb (who stole it from Europe in the '60s). They got the ICBM technology from North Korea.[/quote']

 

 

They got the technology and some material from those sources but most of the material comes from Russia I think. not sure though, maybe China too.

 

 

Well' date=' there's a lot of practical implecations of nuking Israel too. First, there's the Palestinian population, and second, Jerusalem, which is also a Muslim holy city. They'd be using a uranium core fission bomb, which means it'd be only Hiroshima sized, or larger, so they'd probably just nuke one primarily Jewish city which is not Jerusalem.

 

One would hope such an attack would no be responded to with a MAD policy.[/quote']

 

Hmm theres nothing practical about the way Iranian mullah think. I dont think they give a crap about the Palestinians, they kill plenty of muslims already. Your right that they wouldnt nuke Jerusalem. They would nuke Tel Aviv at noon on a weekday. That would permanently cripple Israel and kill a couple million Jews. Secondary targets would be Haifa or Beersheba but neither would cause the damage that Tel Aviv would.

 

I feel certain that if attacked with a nuclear weapon Israel will respond with many nukes and at the very least take down most of the Middle East with it.

[flyboy]

and who knows what will happen when they nuke every damn country in the middle east and asia

 

another WW3

[philcandless]

\Could there be such a thing as 'Counter-Armies' or better yet, 'Counter-Tactical' Such as keeping a reserve for strategic deterence and the rest for tactical.

 

Counterforce and countervalue are the canonical terms in strategic studies.

 

Do you have 'missiles on the mind', or aren't their fighter/bomber pilots still capable of 3 meter accuracy?

 

A precision guided nuclear bomb doesn't exist yet, largely because most nuclear forces didn't need them. The "mini nuke" debate in Washington revolves around precision nuclear penetrators. But yes, you're right. The Israelis probably can deliver half to three fifths of their stockpile by aircraft, and these would probably form a key component of their counterforce capability, if and when the enemy develops sufficient forces to merit such targeting.

[aguy2]

Philcandless,

If identifing your adversaries 'center of gravity' and then 'striking hard and striking deep' is a valid operational doctrine, and the adversary is identified as the Wahabis 'death cult', wouldn't their center of gravity be identified as Mecca/Medina? If this is the case and we don't have what it takes to impliment the doctrine, shouldn't we completely rethink our operational doctrine or see if we can get good terms?

 

aguy2

[philcandless]

Philcandless' date='

If identifing your adversaries 'center of gravity' and then 'striking hard and striking deep' is a valid operational doctrine, and the adversary is identified as the Wahabis 'death cult', wouldn't their center of gravity be identified as Mecca/Medina? If this is the case and we don't have what it takes to impliment the doctrine, shouldn't we completely rethink our operational doctrine or see if we can get good terms?

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

"Center of gravity" is a concept in effects-based warfare. I don't pretend to have evaluated the strategic consequences of attacking Mecca and Medina, but neither city is near any remotely important target from a military perspective. I can't think of any reason to attack the holy places except out of spite, and why tale an unevaluated risk when there are other options?

[aguy2]

I don't pretend to have evaluated the strategic consequences of attacking Mecca and Medina

 

I was thinking more in terms of a temporary occupation of the sites, rather than a 'raid', and did so in the context of the difficulty in finding the adversaries center of gravity and the possiblitity that Bush and his 'neo-cons' may have had something like this concept of a 'center of gravity' in mind as one of their rationals for the occupation of Iraq.

 

why tale an unevaluated risk

 

I am having no problem seeing what you mean by the term 'tale', but can't find an appropriate definition in my dictionary. Is the term idiomatic?

 

aguy2

[5614]

Yep, you were right to question it. I was wrong. It was some military history professor at some Israeli college named Martin Crevel that said this

OK, you still haven't given a respectable source. Also I can say that the UK has nukes pointed at NY or something, but it's crap, and whoever this Martin guy is it sounds like crap.

 

But several Israeli defense officials have alluded that Russian cities are targets

Don't say things like that without backing it up.

 

They got the technology and some material from those sources but most of the material comes from Russia I think. not sure though, maybe China too.

Yeah, you "think"... it's crap and you're just making it up.

 

I feel certain that if attacked with a nuclear weapon Israel will respond with many nukes and at the very least take down most of the Middle East with it.

I disagree. If Israel was nuked it would attack the source of the nuke. As we are talking about Iranian nukes Israel would attack Iran, no where else.

 

A lot of what you said, all the "quotes", what you think, how you feel, it doesn't help this kind of debate... get some real quotes, from credible people and give a credible source.

[Soonerborn]

OK' date=' you still haven't given a respectable source. Also I can say that the UK has nukes pointed at NY or something, but it's crap, and whoever this Martin guy is it sounds like crap.

 

 

Don't say things like that without backing it up.

[/quote']

 

Its a fact that he said it. I read the interview some years ago and got the person confused, when that was pointed out I corrected it. I myself do not put much stock in claims made by people, such as this man, who arent in a position to have first hand knowledge.

 

I pointed to Global Security. Another source is the book "The Sampson Option" by Hersh.

 

Yeah' date=' you "think"... it's crap and you're just making it up.

[/quote']

Obviously you need to study this but I guess its much easier to just say its crap and make me do the work for you. Just do some modest research and you will find that China and Russia both have supplied the bulk of the components to Iran. Pakistan sold critical technology and possibly a few components particularly centrifuges. Libya did say that some of the components they bought came from Pakistan so it is likely that the same Iranian components came from there also. I do not recall and cannot find a source that shows this though. Again I am not claiming that they didnt come from Pakistan but instead that a large portion of components came from Russia and China.

 

To build a bomb you either need a reactor or have a source for enriched fuel. The reactors Iran has are built by China and Russia. A large chunk of the research and parts needed for Iran to build a bomb came from there. They refused some key components and technology that would be directly used in making a bomb. Pakistan provided that missing part. All are responsible.

 

 

I disagree. If Israel was nuked it would attack the source of the nuke. As we are talking about Iranian nukes Israel would attack Iran' date=' no where else.

 

A lot of what you said, all the "quotes", what you think, how you feel, it doesn't help this kind of debate... get some real quotes, from credible people and give a credible source.[/quote']

 

I stated an opinion based on what I have read over long period of time. It might be wrong or it might be correct. If you disagree thats your right. If you want proof then kudos to you for thinking for yourself but dont expect me to do hours of searching and linking to prove my point because I am not trying to persuade anyone with those claims. If you want to look into it fine, if you dont fine but that has no bearing on me "feeling" or "thinking" whatever I damn well please.

 

Cheers

[aguy2]

I would think that even people who agree with anihilating Israel would be on the side of any action preventing Iran from gaining nuclear capability. Israel will respond and it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them.

 

You seem to equating 'gaining' nuclear capability with 'using' nuclear capability, as in your subsequent statement,"it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them."

 

aguy2

[Soonerborn]

The only way I am equating "gaining" with "using" is when talking about Iran. They have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and they support several terrorist groups aimed at the destruction of Israel. It is an assumption on my part that they will use their nukes as soon as they get them either through a terrorist network or directly.

[aguy2]

It is an assumption on my part that they will use their nukes as soon as they get them either through a terrorist network or directly.

 

I think the above assumption is wrong, but nonetheless the fact remains that short of indefinitely occupying the Iranian Plateau with a multiple million man army, if they insist there isn't much we can do about it.

 

aguy2

 

Ps. You do remember the Turks won't let us use their territory to even invade Iraq?

[doG]

I think the above assumption is wrong

That position is a gamble. Now ask yourself, what do you gain if you're right vs what you lose if you're wrong to assess the risk with that gamble.

 

If you're right, Iran gets nukes and everyone lives on the edge of their seat wondering if they're going to use them but Iran gets to produce their own nuclear fuel as opposed to having to get it from Russia whom has already agreed to provide all the fuel Iran could ever need, i.e. stress for everyone except Iran, but no one dies.

 

If you're wrong, Iran gets nukes and uses them to start a new World War.

 

Now is the gain from winning your gamble worth the risk of being wrong? Honestly now?

[pcs]

You seem to equating 'gaining' nuclear capability with 'using' nuclear capability' date=' as in your subsequent statement,"it will be far more devastating than initial strike on them."

 

aguy2[/quote']

 

Or, he's making a judgement about the risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The possibility that Iran may choose a path of restraint may not necessarily warrant taking the risk that she won't.

[pcs]

I think the above assumption is wrong, but nonetheless the fact remains that short of indefinitely occupying the Iranian Plateau with a multiple million man army[/b'], if they insist there isn't much we can do about it.

 

Where did you get that idea?

 

Ps. You do remember the Turks won't let us use their territory to even invade Iraq?

 

Which proved not terribly important in the final calculus. Besides, why would we need Turkey in an attack against Iran? We have force--battle hardened force--already in place in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[aguy2]

Where did you get that idea?

 

Once they have acquired a stockpile of weapons grade material, occupation would be the only way to stop them from assembling functional weapons.

 

Which proved not terribly important in the final calculus. Besides, why would we need Turkey in an attack against Iran? We have force--battle hardened force--already in place in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Turkey is a functional democratic/republic. We were precluded from using Turkish territory by a parlimentary majority. This majority might not stand idle if we invaded yet another neighboring Muslim nation.

 

aguy2

[pcs]

Once they have acquired a stockpile of weapons grade material, occupation would be the only way to stop them from assembling functional weapons.

 

That just restates what you've already said. I'm asking where did you get the idea for that operational sketch? It's a subtle hint to try and justify it.

 

Turkey is a functional democratic/republic. We were precluded from using Turkish territory by a parlimentary majority. This majority might not stand idle if we invaded yet another neighboring Muslim nation.

 

So your hypothesis is that Turkey will initiate hostilities with the US if Americans cross into Iran? Why do they tolerate an invasion and continued occupation of Iraq? And what could Turkey possibly do to oppose an American attack on Iran?

[aguy2]

That just restates what you've already said. I'm asking where did you get the idea for that operational sketch? It's a subtle hint to try and justify it.

 

I've made some tactical contacts in regards to adding 'military' and the other 'social (soft!) sciences' to sfn, so I guess I asked for this:

 

The majority of Iranians are of military age and they represent an abnormaly large demographic 'bump'. They have been decently fed and decently educated, and although I rather think they would rather 'bump and grind', if they accept 'conscription' and try to be good soldiers any 'adventurism' on the part of the US could get in real trouble.

 

So your hypothesis is that Turkey will initiate hostilities with the US if Americans cross into Iran?

 

We have no idea what a 51% majority of their parliament would decide. It would be a good bet that they wouldn't be 'happy campers'.

 

 

Why do they tolerate an invasion and continued occupation of Iraq?

 

I bet they think they made a good decision when they didn't get involved.

 

 

And what could Turkey possibly do to oppose an American attack on Iran?

 

I rather suspect their armed forces would do their duty.

 

aguy2

[pcs]

The majority of Iranians are of military age and they represent an abnormaly large demographic 'bump'. They have been decently fed and decently educated, and although I rather think they would rather 'bump and grind', if they accept 'conscription' and try to be good soldiers any 'adventurism' on the part of the US could get in real trouble.

 

I'm not sure if you actually said something here. Could you try rephrasing it?

 

 

We have no idea what a 51% majority of their parliament would decide. It would be a good bet that they wouldn't be 'happy campers'.

 

Then we also have no idea whether Belgium will choose to wage war against Britain next month. Why is that risk less substantial than the possibility Turkey might go to war with the United States?

 

I bet they think they made a good decision when they didn't get involved.

 

I'm sure they did, for a myriad of reasons which only highlights the success of OIF. After all, their most stated fear--of a flood of Kurdish refugees a la 1991--never occurred.

 

I rather suspect their armed forces would do their duty.

 

And you base this on what historical view of Turkish civil-military relations?

[FreeThinker]

hmmm..... All this talk about nuclear bombs. What about leading by example? Shouldn't America, China and Russia talks about destroying their nukes before telling other to do so?