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

[Zack]

Why mount Nuclear Warheads on Harpoon and fire them from an SSK?

While obviously classified it seems most likely that Israel's "Special Weapon" is Jericho 2 and 3 ICBM mounted in hardened missile silo's all over Israel - same as the US and in some cases a generation plus based purely on more recent construction.

I can take a pretty good guess at 7 such sites, dispersed from end to end of the country. An Iranian capability of successfully strike all these successfully is extremely unlikely.

- but to ask the exam question, again, to what purpose? What Iranian policy could be successfully progressed by striking Israel?

Israel reason to possess Nuclear weapons is purely as a defence against land invasion, and to deter the use of Chemical Weapons against the civilian population by another state.

Another issue constantly avoided is that Israel "may or may not" have nuclear weapons. Now everyone knows that this is a game, but if you claim not to have Nukes, you are logically bound to exclaim dismay about someone else getting them.

I agree. There is basically 0% chance that Iran will first strike Israel, doing so would essentially be tantamount to suicide. Iran would be turned into glass. The Iranians may be able to escape retaliation through "plausible deniability" with conventional weapons, but this would not be the case if they supplied a proxy with a nuclear device, they would suffer retaliation as if it were an ICBM that had been launched from Iran. I also doubt that the Iranians will fully weaponize. It seems far more likely to me that they will develop a break out capability, and leave it at that. The whole point of developing a nuclear weapon is to prevent invasion, and a break out capability will do that, in many ways, us assuming that they have/will have that has already acted as a deterrent. We need to stop freaking out about this. Nuclear deterrence will continue to work. No matter how crazy you think the IRGC & friends are, they are not about to commit mass suicide. This isn't Heaven's Gate.

[Fuchs]

An Iranian nuclear capacity would certainly have implications for Israel, but I think it would be an error to assume that Israel is the only reason why the Iranian leadership might pursue a nuclear capacity. They have other regional ambitions as well, and a nuclear capacity would provide a deterrent shield behind which other ambitions might be pursued.

That's close, but let's be honest and blunt:

Iran needs nuclear weapons as deterrent against the U.S..
Nothing else has worked against meddling, bullying, pressuring and even naval warfare directed by the U.S. against Iran for 55+ years.

I would seek the possession of nukes if I was head of government in Iran, and I would also do so if Israel and Russia wouldn't exist at all.
I would also seek such a nuclear deterrent without any ambitions in the region.

The only alternative to nukes would be a formal alliance with Russia.

[Presley Cannady]

Why mount Nuclear Warheads on Harpoon and fire them from an SSK?

While obviously classified it seems most likely that Israel's "Special Weapon" is Jericho 2 and 3 ICBM mounted in hardened missile silo's all over Israel - same as the US and in some cases a generation plus based purely on more recent construction.

We're talking about targets that can withstand on the order of 1000 psi overpressure. You can place such a target at 95 percent with a 1 kT device on a 1000 ft CEP vehicle at 100 ft, or a 1 MT device at 1000 ft. Iran's Shahab family of missiles already has a CEP under 200 ft.

I can take a pretty good guess at 7 such sites, dispersed from end to end of the country. An Iranian capability of successfully strike all these successfully is extremely unlikely.

I'd be surprised if Iran could kill half of Israel's land-based nuclear force with a robust first strike arsenal, but that's besides the point. The question is whether Iran figures it can weather a half a gigaton exchange. To put this in perspective, Glaser estimates (Table 5.7, slide 35) that you'd need ten 475 KT weapons, or just under 5 gigatons, to threaten a quarter of Iran's population. Israel may not even have 2 gigatons in her entire arsenal, and is probably more vulnerable per unit arsenal yield than even Syria.

- but to ask the exam question, again, to what purpose? What Iranian policy could be successfully progressed by striking Israel?

Setting aside whatever cultural or religious lens shapes their view of the strategic reality, striking Israel would remove of their only significant native competitor. Whether the risks posed by such a move are worth it in Iran's eyes is what I think we, and hopefully the professionals, are trying to determine.

Israel reason to possess Nuclear weapons is purely as a defence against land invasion, and to deter the use of Chemical Weapons against the civilian population by another state.

That calculation changes once Israel faces another nuclear belligerent. And while Israel needs a large force, possibly more powerful than the one she has presently, to assure destruction of Iran, the reverse is not true. Twenty or so 50 kT weapons reaching their targets would be sufficient to annihilate Israel.

Another issue constantly avoided is that Israel "may or may not" have nuclear weapons. Now everyone knows that this is a game, but if you claim not to have Nukes, you are logically bound to exclaim dismay about someone else getting them.

Can't argue with that, but one thing's for sure. Israel can build a weapon at least as quickly as North Korea can starting from scratch, and we can at least determine the upper limit on how much yield she can build into such a force.

[slapout9]

Just send Major Kong......Strategery Nukery Combat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

[William F. Owen]

I'd be surprised if Iran could kill half of Israel's land-based nuclear force with a robust first strike arsenal, but that's besides the point. The question is whether Iran figures it can weather a half a gigaton exchange.

Aha! Exactly. That's precisely my point. What Iran can never know is what it will cost, for all the obvious reasons.

To put this in perspective, Glaser estimates (Table 5.7, slide 35) that you'd need ten 475 KT weapons, or just under 5 gigatons, to threaten a quarter of Iran's population.

IIRC, hasn't the analysis on Slide 35 been widely discredited? - eg: Purely mechanistic?

Setting aside whatever cultural or religious lens shapes their view of the strategic reality, striking Israel would remove of their only significant native competitor. Whether the risks posed by such a move are worth it in Iran's eyes is what I think we, and hopefully the professionals, are trying to determine.

On what planet is Israel in strategic competition with Iran? Iran threatens Israel, for no other reason except Race and Religion, and Israel does not and has never has threaten Iran.

That calculation changes once Israel faces another nuclear belligerent.

Nothing changes. Israel was building Nuclear shelters in the 1950s on the assumption that Egypt and Syria would have nuclear and/or chemical weapons by the late 1960s or 1970s. "Should it exist" it seems extremely likely that Israel's nuclear programme was and is premised on regional peer competitor, especially Iraq - and now Iran.

[Presley Cannady]

Aha! Exactly. That's precisely my point. What Iran can never know is what it will cost, for all the obvious reasons.

I don't know if Iran can never estimate its costs, but I'm pretty sure they've tried. Why build a missile with a thousand mile range if you haven't reached some judgment--flawed as it may be--about the targets you can hit with it? Whether their judgment matches a Western view of reality and aversion to costs is another matter. Israel clearly feels Iran calculates using a different set of rules.

IIRC, hasn't the analysis on Slide 35 been widely discredited? - eg: Purely mechanistic?

Don't know, I've not done a full lit review on this particular matter. But isn't nuclear war pretty mechanistic in the first place? At least mechanistic enough that civilians can play armchair strategist and pass the laugh test. It's my understanding this is the origin of the strategic studies community.

But in all seriousness, when we're talking about releasing gigatons of energy in a matter of minutes, almost all other variables are quasi-static.

On what planet is Israel in strategic competition with Iran? Iran threatens Israel, for no other reason except Race and Religion, and Israel does not and has never has threaten Iran.

True, but then again for the same two reasons you list Iran's leadership clearly views Israel as its chief competitor native to the region. After all, it's Tehran's perception that matters here, no?

Nothing changes. Israel was building Nuclear shelters in the 1950s on the assumption that Egypt and Syria would have nuclear and/or chemical weapons by the late 1960s or 1970s. "Should it exist" it seems extremely likely that Israel's nuclear programme was and is premised on regional peer competitor, especially Iraq - and now Iran.

In the 1950s and 1960s, you had missile CEPs measured in tens of thousands of feet. Polaris, widely regarded as one of the most accurate vehicles of its time, had a 6000 ft CEP. Weapons wouldn't win the race against environmental defenses until the 1970s--by then RV accuracy fell below 3000 ft. The fracture strength of a cap of steel is about 65,000 psi (provided the cap support compression strength is the same). That's 20 kT at 100 feet.

[Fuchs]

I don't know if Iran can never estimate its costs, but I'm pretty sure they've tried. Why build a missile with a thousand mile range if you haven't reached some judgment--flawed as it may be--about the targets you can hit with it?

First some historical background; the "War of the cities" among Iraq and Iran when they were bombarding each other's cities with a kind of V-weapon/"Baby Blitz" offensive because their ground forces were too inept to achieve strategic success.
This was likely the foundation for their missile arsenal and might have coined their perception of missiles.

Another point of view would be to treat their ballistic missiles as some kind of ICBM/SLBM equivalent; tools of deterrence.
Potential aggressors are more cautious if they have to think about what a rain of BMs loaded with chem and bio weapons could do to their cities. The prospect of complications helps to deter aggression.

The interpretations of those BMs as some kind of offensive political tool (blackmail) or as a tool of genocidal plans are just possible interpretations among many possible interpretations.


There's little doubt about which interpretation hawks would choose - and we all know that hawks have a more than proportional influence on the U.S. media's reports on security policy topics (I'm not so sure about their influence in Israeli and UK reporting and Germany media is usually dominated by doves).

[Zack]

Just send Major Kong......Strategery Nukery Combat.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

Best movie ever.

[William F. Owen]

In the 1950s and 1960s, you had missile CEPs measured in tens of thousands of feet.

In the 1950s and 60s the threat to Israel was either airdropped, short-range Ballistic (FROG-7),-CEP of 2,400ft or something like AS-3 Kangaroo, one of which was launched at Tel-Aviv in 1973, but was shot down.

[Presley Cannady]

First some historical background; the "War of the cities" among Iraq and Iran when they were bombarding each other's cities with a kind of V-weapon/"Baby Blitz" offensive because their ground forces were too inept to achieve strategic success.
This was likely the foundation for their missile arsenal and might have coined their perception of missiles.

Ineptness aside, most missile arsenals exist to check strategic failure by other means. This goes for both the defender, who risks falling back behind a trip ware, and the aggressor, who risks a rout if his attack fails. Right?

Another point of view would be to treat their ballistic missiles as some kind of ICBM/SLBM equivalent; tools of deterrence.
Potential aggressors are more cautious if they have to think about what a rain of BMs loaded with chem and bio weapons could do to their cities. The prospect of complications helps to deter aggression.

The interpretations of those BMs as some kind of offensive political tool (blackmail) or as a tool of genocidal plans are just possible interpretations among many possible interpretations.

These weapons are also used to check the range of counter-attack options a particularly risk averse adversary will choose. The Soviets played this game for decades, covering their adventures around the world with the threat of superpower conflict. Not that Iran's ambitions are anywhere as lofty, but we already know she has no problem arming insurgents shooting at Israelis and Americans from Lebanon to Afghanistan.

[Presley Cannady]

In the 1950s and 60s the threat to Israel was either airdropped, short-range Ballistic (FROG-7),-CEP of 2,400ft or something like AS-3 Kangaroo, one of which was launched at Tel-Aviv in 1973, but was shot down.

You don't happen to know the export figures for the FROG-7?

[William F. Owen]

You don't happen to know the export figures for the FROG-7?

Sorry. Only non-WP countries to operate them were Egypt, Syria and Kuwait, IIRC. Quite a few Syrian FROGs impacted in the Galilee in 73, and at least one hit Ramat-Gan Air base.

[watchful1]

So there is no failure of imagination…

Several weeks after the initial Israeli air strike … a) with the Straits jammed and... b)oil pipelines sabotaged throughout the UAE and... c) the UN and NATO at impasses and … d) oil at record prices and... e) small boats continuing to lay mines and build up their numbers into the hundreds within the Straits

in a surprise move…. Russia reveals the “MR2” agreement with Iran. A pact of non aggression.

Note: Irrational actor has always been a term people use when they do not understand the opponents rationale. Maybe some insight here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/featur...er-from-tehran

[watchful1]

articles to help with the imagination...

http://politicom.moldova.org/news/ru...03328-eng.html

http://chronicle.com/article/Postmod...;utm_medium=en

[Uboat509]

Iran needs nuclear weapons as deterrent against the U.S..
Nothing else has worked against meddling, bullying, pressuring and even naval warfare directed by the U.S. against Iran for 55+ years.

I would seek the possession of nukes if I was head of government in Iran, and I would also do so if Israel and Russia wouldn't exist at all.
I would also seek such a nuclear deterrent without any ambitions in the region.

What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

[Zack]

What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

It isn't to threaten the US itself, but it would be possible to use the weapon against an invading force. That is certainly a deterrent. They don't have to achieve parity to deter an invasion, just make it seem as though it would be immensely costly to do so.

[tequila]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel, primarily, with the U.S. coming in second (not as a peer competitor deterrent a la the Soviet Union, but as security against a conventional invasion).

When they reactivated the program, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was probably first on the list.

Many have noted that all the significant actors in the Iranian security services came of age in the Iran-Iraq War, when their conventional offensives in the last years of the war were broken by Iraqi WMD. The need for an adequate security against this threat is likely deeply ingrained.

[Fuchs]

What?

How is it that Iran developing a small nuclear capability that it can in no way deliver anywhere near a US population center a deterrent to pressure from the US? I'm thinking that it will increase pressure. They will never approach anything like parity with the US in terms of military capability, and that includes nuclear capability. The most that they could hope for would be to strike at a US military base or a US ally. In return, Iranian military capability gets turned to radioactive ash, at the very least.

SFC W

You're writing about the country that went to war over a crazy idea that non-existing nukes could be given to terrorists who were at odds with the alleged potential nuke owner and could smuggle them past security measures into the U.S..

You're also writing about a country that insists on keeping floating cities in sight of the Iranian coast, a gazillion miles away from their home.

[William F. Owen]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel,

A deterrent against Israel doing what exactly? Be specific. Iran has NEVER been in strategic competition with Israel. It is not even an Arab Nation. The current Iranian regimes threats are based purely on race and religion - again, two areas where Israel cannot be a strategic competitor.

[Zack]

I'm of the opinion that the Iranians seek a deterrent against Israel, primarily, with the U.S. coming in second (not as a peer competitor deterrent a la the Soviet Union, but as security against a conventional invasion).

When they reactivated the program, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was probably first on the list.

Many have noted that all the significant actors in the Iranian security services came of age in the Iran-Iraq War, when their conventional offensives in the last years of the war were broken by Iraqi WMD. The need for an adequate security against this threat is likely deeply ingrained.

I agree about the US, but not Israel. The only scenario I can imagine that would lead to a strike against Iran by Israel is one aimed at their nuclear facilities. Israel cannot mount a conventional invasion of Iran (obviously). So how would Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons deter Israel?