View Poll Results: Who Will Win? That is, in possession of the land?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Israel

    3 30.00%
  • The Palestinians

    1 10.00%
  • Two States

    4 40.00%
  • Neither, some other State or people rule.

    0 0%
  • Neither, mutual destruction.

    1 10.00%
  • One State, two peoples

    1 10.00%
  • One State, one people (intermarriage)

    0 0%
Page 19 of 27 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 535

Thread: War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

  1. #361
    Council Member Kevin23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Oxford Research Group based in Britain has also came out with it's own report and analysis of the Iran situation, and what potential military action against the country and it's nuclear program could entail as well as mean for the region. However, I' partially taking it with a grain of salt as it seems biased against Israel at times in my reading of the report so far.

    http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ct_and_effects

  2. #362
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
    Puzzled that this subject has come up again, nevertheless Professor Paul Rogers has written this comment and points at a new UK think tank report.

    Opens with:

    An Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure and personnel would be far more extensive than many realise. The prospect that it will happen in the next few months is increasing....The voices in Washington calling for a military strike on Iranian nuclear plants are growing in number and strength.
    Paul Rogers has been saying almost exactly that, in almost exactly those words, for many years. Used to read his stuff for the "a little left of center/left" perspective, haven't bothered for a while.

  3. #363
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Paul Rogers has been saying almost exactly that, in almost exactly those words, for many years. Used to read his stuff for the "a little left of center/left" perspective, haven't bothered for a while.
    The report seems to understate a few important dynamics in an Israeli strike:

    1) Israel has a limited long-range strike capability, and in many cases would be up against hardened targets that would require multiple strike assets committed to each to assure a high probability of destruction. This wouldn't leave a lot of assets free for secondary and tertiary targets.

    2) The larger the target list and the more it stretches into softer semi-civilian targets or those in urban areas, the higher the collateral and diplomatic costs of the raid. Moreover, Israel retains tighter control of the escalatory ladder if it keeps any (initial) strike fairly narrowly focused. (Balanced against this, I'll admit, is the "we only get one kick at the cat, so lets kick hard" argument). Certainly both the US and the GCC states would much prefer that if there were an Israeli strike, it be kept as short and narrow as possible.

    3) Hizbullah retaliation is not, in my view, automatic. It might be very limited indeed to a single, tightly focused attack on Iran. The broader the attack, and the more extensive the collateral damage, the greater Iranian pressure on Hizbullah to "do something" will be. How one assesses this part of the picture depends on whether you think Israel wants to also fight a major war in Lebanon (more akin to 1978 or 1982 than 2006).
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  4. #364
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    I just read about some US legislation in Congress that is particularly interesting. It authorizes Israel with the authority to strike Iran with military force. More can be found here.

  5. #365
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Words are important.

    It isn't legislation in the normal sense and the US cannot in any way 'authorize' Israel to do anything. It is a sovereign nation with full authority to make its own decisions.

    The PROPOSED effort in Congress is merely a RESOLUTION that says the sense of Congress (or those there that agree with the resolution) is that such a strike would be in Israels' -- and possibly the US' -- interest. Perhaps. We don't know what it says and as it has little chance of passing and is merely political theater, I don't propose to waste time trying to find it and read it.

    It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...

  6. #366
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...
    Ken, I'm frankly shocked that you can say that about the institution that gave us the brilliant September 2007 "let's support the partition of Iraq (without asking the Iraqis)" resolution.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  7. #367
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default huskerguy7,

    A bit of free advice which you are also free to ignore. You need to get more background into things legal (including apparently, the US legislative process) before shooting at targets.

    I'm not saying never shoot; just do your background learning before pulling the trigger - or confusing yourself with someone else.

    Regards

    Mike

  8. #368
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    A bit of free advice which you are also free to ignore. You need to get more background into things legal (including apparently, the US legislative process) before shooting at targets.

    I'm not saying never shoot; just do your background learning before pulling the trigger - or confusing yourself with someone else.
    I agree and messed up. I should've paid more attention to the wording and given it some thought...a little trigger happy sometimes

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    The report seems to understate a few important dynamics in an Israeli strike:

    1) Israel has a limited long-range strike capability, and in many cases would be up against hardened targets that would require multiple strike assets committed to each to assure a high probability of destruction. This wouldn't leave a lot of assets free for secondary and tertiary targets.
    I agree with you and believe that you are correct. Some of these reports tend to misunderstand Israel's capabilities. Israel has the capacity to strike Iran, but it has a limited amount of assets. The depth of the strike is also limited; Israel could strike 2-4 targets. Is that all the targets that need to be neutralized?

    An Israeli strike on Iran would be complicated for practically any military. The amount of variables that could go wrong along with the tiny margin of error make this very difficult. Israel could achieve it, but only with a limited amount of targets.

    Also, if I'm correct, the point of the strike is to eliminate Iran's complete nuclear capability. As mentioned above, different reports say that different plants need to be attacked; there could possibly be facilities that Israel doesn't know about. So, is it worth taking the risk and knocking out some of Iran's nuclear capabilty?

    Another point. Iran clearly understands this threat. I am curious if any of these simulations predict Iran's defense capabilities. I'm sure that Iran has taken steps to specifically strengthen it's nuclear facilities. Even with the latest technology and aircraft, some 2nd and 3rd gen IR missiles could put up a serious fight if emplaced properly.

  9. #369
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerguy7 View Post
    The depth of the strike is also limited; Israel could strike 2-4 targets. Is that all the targets that need to be neutralized?
    Probably not.

    Quote Originally Posted by huskerguy7 View Post
    Also, if I'm correct, the point of the strike is to eliminate Iran's complete nuclear capability.
    Is it? Certainly that’s the narrative in the media – which makes it highly suspect, imo. I get the hunch that it has more to do with who is the strongest tribe in the region, than any Iranian nuclear program and an existential threat to Israel, real or perceived.

  10. #370
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Ken, I'm frankly shocked that you can say that about the institution that gave us the brilliant September 2007 "let's support the partition of Iraq (without asking the Iraqis)" resolution.
    "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." - Pat Buchanan

  11. #371
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    "Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." - Pat Buchanan

    Which, in this case, had nothing to do with Biden's decentralization/partition plan.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  12. #372
    Council Member bourbon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    903

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Which, in this case, had nothing to do with Biden's decentralization/partition plan.
    The partition of Iraq wouldn’t have been to Israel’s strategic benefit?

  13. #373
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Not an easy project ....

    taking out hardened, underground facilities.

    There have been lots of bytes spilled on this issue (and on the Iranian facilities); and I've downloaded a lot of them to my computer for future reference. My interest in this area is nuclear containment and limitation (I Law stuff), and not targeting.

    A 2000 article, Eric M. Sepp (LTC USAF), Deeply Buried Facilities - Implications for Military Operations (Occasional Paper No. 14, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base), points up some of the technical issues and problems in destroying underground facilities - if deep-penetrating nuclear weapons are not used.

    Much more in the 48-page article, but here is the bottom technical and political lines (pp. 37 & 9-10):

    [JMM: technical problem]

    The immediate problem is that, short of the use of nuclear weapons, the current generation of technologies for locating and neutralizing these types of facilities are not sufficient for holding deeply buried facilities at risk. This means that the United States should direct its research and development organizations to develop weapons that will allow U.S. forces to locate, characterize, and neutralize underground facilities. One must also consider that a military response to these facilities may involve more than brute force attacks against the facility or its contents.

    The use of advanced conventional penetrating weapons may not be sufficient to ensure complete success because if a weapon misses an underground facility by a mere 50 feet, the facility may survive. Furthermore, if it is desirable to preserve the contents of the facility or if collateral damage is politically unacceptable, the use of overwhelming force simply may not be a realistic military option. The implication is that alternative means of neutralizing deeply buried facilities must be vigorously pursued so that the United States and its allies will have the widest range of capabilities and options for destroying these facilities.
    .....
    [JMM: political problem]

    While one military plan for defeating deeply buried targets was to use nuclear weapons delivered by B-2 bombers,[5] the Clinton administration overturned this policy and banned the use of nuclear weapons to defeat such targets. The reason behind this decision is the concern that the use of nuclear weapons would have grave political consequences, especially in an era when nuclear weapons are less central to defense planning.[6] While the use of nuclear weapons is a militarily practical way to destroy targets that may be hundreds of meters below the surface, their use involves political and environmental risks that increase when one considers that the location, configuration, and contents of underground targets are often unknown.

    5. Susanne M. Schafer,"B-2s are Combat Ready, "Air Force Times, April 14, 1997, Vol 57, Issue 37, p 16.

    6. Patrick J. Sloyan, "A Policy Change Undone; U.S., Says Nuclear Threat Not Needed" Newsday, February 26, 1998.
    .......
    The political repercussions of employing nuclear weapon may be greater than the United States would want to contemplate, and the environmental consequences of potentially spreading a warehouse full of potentially deadly biological or chemical agents would be unacceptable. The reality is that the use of nuclear weapons is not a practical option for dealing with underground targets in most circumstances.

    The problem with using conventional weapons against such targets is that the depth and hardness of the targets can exceed the physical ability of the weapon to survive passing through tens of meters of rock and rubble. Some experts estimate that new materials will need to be developed to penetrate modern concrete structures.

    The result is that the U S military strategy and operational capabilities for holding hardened and deeply buried targets at risk will be deficient until the appropriate technologies and tactics are developed that will allow the United States to put such targets at risk. ....
    A tricky, sticky wicket for thems what wants to penetrate the briars.

    Regards

    Mike

  14. #374
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bourbon View Post
    The partition of Iraq wouldn’t have been to Israel’s strategic benefit?
    Not especially, no.

    A stable, united, and generally pro-Western Iraq that wasn't a client of Iran would be more of an Israeli prefence, I should think.

    Now, back to the Iran topic of the thread...
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  15. #375
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    A 2000 article, Eric M. Sepp (LTC USAF), Deeply Buried Facilities - Implications for Military Operations (Occasional Paper No. 14, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base), points up some of the technical issues and problems in destroying underground facilities - if deep-penetrating nuclear weapons are not used.
    This is a very informative paper that points out several interesting points. In addition to the ones you mentioned, I think determining the structure of the facility is essential for success. Several quotes from the paper support this assertion.

    Underground facilities are difficult to find, are resistant to revealing the physical details that are critical to effective targeting, and in many cases are fundamentally beyond the reach of most conventional weapons.
    ...The tunnel has significant implications for the survivability of the facility, principally because a smaller diameter tunnel is less detectable than a larger diameter tunnel. Tunnel entrances can also be designed to collapse at predetermined lengths in order to attenuate the blast, shock, and overpressure of an explosion...Another advantage of tunnels is to increase the uncertainty about the location of the underground facility.
    If Israel, or the US conducts a strike on Iran, knowing the layout of the facility is very important. It's not only imperative to understand the deepness of the facility for determining how the necessary amount of warheads, but it's also essential to understand where your target is in the facility. There could be a 100 meter tunnel that leads away from the main base to WMDs. If you target the main base, the blast may not destroy the WMDs. Obtaining this intelligence is very trick. The paper described some scientific ways of doing it, but human intelligence is extremely important. This makes me wander what specific questions were asked to that "kidnapped" Iranian scientist...

    With its capabilities, the US may be able to obtain solid intel. However, I don't think that Israel could do it by itself.

  16. #376
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Yup,

    you got the technical targeting issues right - basically a civil engineering project, using cute little devices like this:

    b61-losalamosmuseum1.jpg

    A B-61 museum piece from Los Alamos, first produced in 1966 and becoming something of a family affair. A much updated version became the B61-11 earth-penetrating weapon.



    A quick look at the effects of nuclear weapons can be found in Alexander Glaser, Effects of Nuclear Weapons (WWS556d, Princeton University, February 12, 2007). Here is a brief, general overview of Earth-Penetrating Weapons (Google will provide many hits).

    See also this thread, Israel strikes Iran...., which meanders along dealing with other Israeli-Iranian points, until some targeting diiscussion is found starting on page 3, post #57, which continues through page 4 and ends on page 5, post #94.

    I wouldn't sell the Israelis short on intel about their own neighborhood (HUMINT to SATINT); but I've no idea what they know or what we know, for that matter.

    Cheers

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 07-31-2010 at 05:42 AM.

  17. #377
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    It isn't legislation in the normal sense and the US cannot in any way 'authorize' Israel to do anything. It is a sovereign nation with full authority to make its own decisions.

    The PROPOSED effort in Congress is merely a RESOLUTION that says the sense of Congress (or those there that agree with the resolution) is that such a strike would be in Israels' -- and possibly the US' -- interest. Perhaps. We don't know what it says and as it has little chance of passing and is merely political theater, I don't propose to waste time trying to find it and read it.

    It's a dumb idea but that's what happens when you get 535 people under one roof -- a few are bound to be flaky. Make no mistake, that Resolution is flaky...
    Ken, with respect what is flaky is that Israel has waited so long to neutralise this threat to their very existence.

  18. #378
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Ken, with respect what is flaky is that Israel has waited so long to neutralise this threat to their very existence.
    You're assuming that they're capable of of neutralizing that threat. That's far from clear, in several ways:

    1) Do they actually know enough about the Iranian programme to effectively target it?

    2) If they do know enough, can they actually destroy the targets?

    3) At the moment, Iran's nuclear programme consumes a very small portion of Iran's national resources, and it is not at all clear that Tehran plans to build a weapon (as opposed to develop the capacity to build a weapon). It certainly isn't an Iranian "Manhattan project" by a long shot. What happens if bombing Iran convinces them they actually should build a weapon for deterrent purposes, and they increase 10-fold or more the national resources devoted to this?

    Given all of those questions, it is not surprising that the Israelis are hoping that sanctions will do the job for them.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  19. #379
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    You're assuming that they're capable of of neutralizing that threat. That's far from clear, in several ways:

    1) Do they actually know enough about the Iranian programme to effectively target it?

    2) If they do know enough, can they actually destroy the targets?

    3) At the moment, Iran's nuclear programme consumes a very small portion of Iran's national resources, and it is not at all clear that Tehran plans to build a weapon (as opposed to develop the capacity to build a weapon). It certainly isn't an Iranian "Manhattan project" by a long shot. What happens if bombing Iran convinces them they actually should build a weapon for deterrent purposes, and they increase 10-fold or more the national resources devoted to this?

    Given all of those questions, it is not surprising that the Israelis are hoping that sanctions will do the job for them.
    Thanks for putting what is probably the standard western approach. Its that sort of cowardice allows such matters to be escalated in the first place.

    Go back to the time when India and Pakistan were competing to build a bomb. Had the (leading nations of the) world had the balls to say that there were enough nations with the bomb and there would be no more we would have been in a better position now, yes?

    Now we have the potential problem of renegade Pakistan scientists helping North Korea and Iran build a bomb of their own.

    This cowardice is making the world a more unstable and dangerous place.

  20. #380
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Thanks for putting what is probably the standard western approach. Its that sort of cowardice allows such matters to be escalated in the first place.
    It is very easy to hurl accusations of cowardice around, but it really doesn't resolve any of the challenges I identified earlier. I do hope it made you feel good, though.

    Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology. It is rather difficult to prevent a determined country from developing them.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 03-21-2014, 01:56 PM
  2. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM
  3. Gurkha beheads Taliban...
    By Rifleman in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-30-2010, 02:00 AM
  4. War is War
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 10-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  5. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •