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

[Fuchs]

The current Iranian regimes threats are based purely on race and religion - again, two areas where Israel cannot be a strategic competitor.

Excuse me - "race"? That's the first time I hear or read about this. I'm not aware of any indicators that support this assertion.

I would have added ideology to the list, that's for sure. Both Zionism and theocracy are ideologies in my opinion, and unfriendly ones (unless united in one country).

[jmm99]

1 gigaton = 1,000 megatons = 1,000,000 kilotons.

ten 475 KT weapons = ten 0.475 MT weapons = total 4.75 MT yield (in theory).

A 5-7 gigaton attack would require 5,000-7,000 1MT warheads, or 10,000-14000 0.5MT warheads - beyond the present capabilities of the US and Russia combined.

Based on the Glaser link, a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

Turning Israel into glass would take much less - one can infer they (IDF) would launch on a verified launch from Iran and not wait to see whether the incoming was nuclear or non-nuclear. MAD, indeed, but what alternative would their missile officers have.

[tequila]

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.

From a purely rational strategic standpoint, I completely agree. Israel and Iran are not genuine strategic competitors as Israel poses no reasonable threat to Iran.

However, I submit that the Iranian regime's calculus is not one of pure strategic competition with Israel. Iran seeks strategic dominance in the Muslim Middle East. Its prime competitors are Turkey and Sunni Arab regimes, and it is handicapped by its clerical Shiite and Persian identity. Iran uses its opposition to Israel for diplomatic and IO leverage in the Arab world, as well as for domestic legitimacy (though this latter appears to be fading in effectiveness overall, but nonetheless still is a key motivator for the regime's increasingly narrow political base). Because its opposition is primarily terroristic in nature, Iran naturally expects that Israel, based on its own theory of strategic deterrence, may strike at Iranian targets sooner or later.

We know that Israel's nuclear deterrent would likely never be used in a first-strike capacity. The Iranian regime, OTOH, does not necessarily believe this.

I stress that I don't think Israel would hit Iran in a first strike, nor that Iran's opposition to Israel is at all rational. It's not. But if you live by Iran's non-rational, paranoid strategic calculus, then a deterrent to Israel's nuclear arsenal is a good idea.

[Ken White]

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.

Not even the Iraqis bought that line.

Have you read this (LINK)? I don't agree with him on much and I don't agree with his recommendation here but at least he's figured part of it out and doesn't repeat that foolishness you did. That was a palliative for the masses, no more.

[Fuchs]

Based on the Glaser link, a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

That's completely unrealistic.
Iran is too huge.

That presentation uses the Bravo test (15 Mt) as an example, which covered a much smaller area with lethal radiation.
I gotta admit that said test was a poor test, though. It was done over an atoll and therefore not able to maximize radiation output because of limited contact of the fireball with the ground.

Nevertheless; Iran is too large.

Even a large quantity of small nuclear weapons amounting to a total of 20 Mt would not even approach 100% lethality.


By the way; the use of nuclear weapons in the Near/Mid East by any regional power would probably lead to its extermination.
The French, British, Pakistani and Indians could very well decide that the survival of no such state with a proven readiness of using nukes against cities (=genocide) could be tolerated.
An immediate domestic overthrow of the government might be the only chance of survival.

[Presley Cannady]

That's completely unrealistic.
Iran is too huge.

Population density. Iran has urbanized two-thirds, nearly 15 million in Tehran province alone and almost 8 million in the city proper.

Even a large quantity of small nuclear weapons amounting to a total of 20 Mt would not even approach 100% lethality.

Probably not. You'd need a few dozen gigatons to achieve that, and that sort of firepower is only found in superpower arsenals.

By the way; the use of nuclear weapons in the Near/Mid East by any regional power would probably lead to its extermination.
The French, British, Pakistani and Indians could very well decide that the survival of no such state with a proven readiness of using nukes against cities (=genocide) could be tolerated.
An immediate domestic overthrow of the government might be the only chance of survival.

The existence of such a state would definitely change world affairs, but I don't know if we can predict how just yet. I imagine other nuclear powers would take into account their relationships with both the aggressors and victims before formulating a response, but multilaterally assured reprisal is hardly an international norm today.

[Presley Cannady]

Based on the Glaser link, a 20 MT attack (in theory) would take out 100% of Iran's population - and much more, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the attack.

The relationship between firepower and casualties isn't linear because population densities aren't linearly distributed. 25 percent of the Iranian population is at risk from a 5 gigaton strike because 67 percent of them live in cities and almost a third live in one province alone.

Turning Israel into glass would take much less - one can infer they (IDF) would launch on a verified launch from Iran and not wait to see whether the incoming was nuclear or non-nuclear. MAD, indeed, but what alternative would their missile officers have.

Less than ten to wipe out the entire urban population--91 percent of the total population.

[jmm99]

in practice. No, I did not.

Attack by 40 475 KT warheads would logically be targeted on the two dozen or so urban centers, mostly in western Iran in a roughly N-S strip along the Zagros chain. A favorable westerly wind and other weather conditions would also impact the rest of the country. Actual casualties - I haven't the foggiest idea - nor does anyone else, because we do not have a good test case.[*]

BTW: How many gigatons of nuclear capability do you think the US has ? And how many 1 MT warheads does 5 gigatons equal ?

----------------------------
[*] In theory, a 1 MT warhead, airburst at 2000m, has roughly a 7km destructive radius (~ 150+ sq km) - and its Equivalent MegaTonnage (EMT) = 1 EMT. A larger warhead has a relatively smaller EMT - e.g., a 9 MT warhead has an EMT between 4 and 5. A smaller warhead has a relatively larger EMT - e.g, a 475 KT warhead would have an EMT greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0. These are population destroying concepts. For hardened targets, accuracy is the important factor + ground penetration cabability (if available).

[Presley Cannady]

in practice. No, I did not.

Attack by 40 475 KT warheads would logically be targeted on the two dozen or so urban centers, mostly in western Iran in a roughly N-S strip along the Zagros chain. A favorable westerly wind and other weather conditions would also impact the rest of the country. Actual casualties - I haven't the foggiest idea - nor does anyone else, because we do not have a good test case.[*]

That's the beauty, or ugliness, of nuclear weapons. We don't really need a fairly good test case. Given the scale of energy, physical size of the target area, and the mass of bodies associated with nuclear strike problems, error is almost always negligible. Put another way, a missile strike anywhere in the world takes on the order of minutes from order to completion. A 1 kT device will annihilate anything within a quarter of a klick of detonation at optimum burst height and torch anything flammable within a third of a mile. Put enough firepower on target and you can extend that zone of certainty arbitrarily; and there's no physical limit to the destruction you can put on target.

The entire exercise is disgustingly academic.

BTW: How many gigatons of nuclear capability do you think the US has ? And how many 1 MT warheads does 5 gigatons equal ?

FAS estimates 2330 MT (1430 MT deployed) as of 2007, with a peak 40-50 years ago at 20 gigatons. I remember reading that the total global stockpile exceeded 60 gigatons.

[*] In theory, a 1 MT warhead, airburst at 2000m, has roughly a 7km destructive radius (~ 150+ sq km) - and its Equivalent MegaTonnage (EMT) = 1 EMT.

A larger warhead has a relatively smaller EMT - e.g., a 9 MT warhead has an EMT between 4 and 5. A smaller warhead has a relatively larger EMT - e.g, a 475 KT warhead would have an EMT greater than 0.5 and less than 1.0. These are population destroying concepts. For hardened targets, accuracy is the important factor + ground penetration cabability (if available).

If I remember correctly, planners calibrated their slide-rules with somewhere north of 10 psi as the minimum overpressure of widespread destruction. Some power law will describe dissipation of overpressure as distance from point of detonation grows. Just remember, >10 psi will rip apart a human body and blow away reinforced concrete buildings. >1000 psi will fracture cast iron and >5000 psi will fracture steel.

[jmm99]

Yup, we're now on the same page as to current capabilities. Per FAS, US had 2007 deployed 1430 MT or 1.430 gigatons. Total EMT depends on sizes of warheads; FAS places 2007 deployed at 2060 EMT - US has mostly fractional 1 MT warheads - 3700 warheads deployed.

The power law for human and soft building destruction (which I'm sure someone can find) yielded a rule of thumb, where EMT ~ the 2/3 root of raw MT. So, 1 MT = 1 EMT (since all powers of 1 are 1). A fractional MT would have more bang for the buck - 475 KT (.475 MT) ~ 0.60 EMT. Big devices run the other way. 15 MT ~ 6 EMT; 50 MT ~ 14 EMT. So, there are some finite limits on the destructive power that can be put on a target. One could put 14 1 MTs on one target and ~ the effect of a 50 MT - except for "missile fratricide" (the first airburst will screw up the target environment for later arriving missiles).

A 60 gigaton total (60,000 MT) at height of Cold War is quite possible (FAS has ~ 20,000+ MT for US) because the USSR had some very large warheads (in MT, but lower in EMT).

As you say, all of this is an academic exercise, unless someone decides to turn the missile keys first.

[Surferbeetle]

If I remember correctly, planners calibrated their slide-rules with somewhere north of 10 psi as the minimum overpressure of widespread destruction. Some power law will describe dissipation of overpressure as distance from point of detonation grows. Just remember, >10 psi will rip apart a human body and blow away reinforced concrete buildings. >1000 psi will fracture cast iron and >5000 psi will fracture steel.

Overpressure (rocket or mortar) is no fun. Nukes are something beyond...

Gauge pressure or absolute pressure? 1 atm = 760 mm Hg = 14.7 psi, Dynamic pressure?

Lets think about steel metrics for a moment; what type, what condition, what thickness, what shape, what temp, how long has it been irradiated, and what was the dose?

A36 Structural Carbon Steel, anticipated tensile strength 400-550 ksi (k=kip=1,000 lbs)

A514 High-Yield strength Quenched & Tempered Alloy Steel, anticipated tensile strength 690-895 ksi

The Charpy V Notch Test (ASTM E23) is a reproducible way to characterize the amount of energy needed to fracture a material...the result is typically reported in ft-lbs.

Cast iron is more likely to shatter than steel, particularly in the instances discussed, but keep in mind that it is stronger than steel in certain instances and applications...

A study on pilots and overpressure

[Valin]

...Israeli aircraft have made their way to Iran and taken out their targets.

What happens next...?

(A bit off topic)
Why do people assume it would/will be an airstrike?

[William F. Owen]

Excuse me - "race"? That's the first time I hear or read about this. I'm not aware of any indicators that support this assertion.

....and your definition of Jews (both an ethnic group and a religion) being distinct from Israelis begins where? Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier. That position is logically against Jews, not just Israelis - and yes, I know some "Jews" deny the holocaust.

[Zack]

(A bit off topic)
Why do people assume it would/will be an airstrike?

How else could they do it? Missiles are too inaccurate without going nuclear, and land forces are certainly not able to hit it. The centrifuges at Natanz are under something like 25ft of soil and concrete, so cruise missiles and such are out. The only thing that could work would be sequenced penetrators carried by a pretty big strike package. It isn't an assumption, there isn't any other way it could be carried out really.

[Fuchs]

....and your definition of Jews (both an ethnic group and a religion) being distinct from Israelis begins where? Ahmadinejad is a holocaust denier. That position is logically against Jews, not just Israelis - and yes, I know some "Jews" deny the holocaust.

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.
It's stupid, but IF he had success with it he would cut some of the special relationships Israel enjoys today. To cut the lifelines of Israel to Europe and Northern American is a necessary grand strategic move for everyone who wants to get rid of the state of Israel.
I fail to see anything racial in it.

[William F. Owen]

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

You may not, but they do! All the Jews on the planet come from the same small 3,000 (+) year old gene pool - it's a central tenet of Jewish identity. 12 tribes ring any bells?

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.

It's not knee jerk. It's part of very carefully constructed set of anti-Semitic arguments used to inform modern political Islam that also has strong resonance with a significant proportion of Europeans.
Israel exists BECAUSE ( and yet in spite of ) of the Holocaust. Basic assumption being, no nation will provide a safe home for the Jews and that victimising Jews in inherent to Christian and Muslims - now you may want to dispute that, but that is how the world is viewed from here.

If you want to argue the distinction between Jews, Zionists and Israelis, I suggest we do it someplace else.

[UrsaMaior]

anti semitism does not equal criticism towards Israel. Anti semitism is rascism, and hatred while a critique (put politely, with argumentation etc.) is a critique.

Edit this is OT here.

[William F. Owen]

anti semitism does not equal criticism towards Israel. Anti semitism is rascism, and hatred while a critique (put politely, with argumentation etc.) is a critique.

Absolutely agree. Israel's Government can and must never be immune from criticism - same as the US.
IMO, where criticism of Israel does become anti-Semitic is where:

a.) Israel is held to a unique, differing and/or higher contemporary or historical standards of conduct than other nations - such as the US.

or b.) Israel's right to exist is considered illegitimate, by virtue of it being a/the Jewish state. - thus a state existing in the same time and place, but being Christian and/or Muslim (eg: Lebanon) would be considered legitimate.

... and not OT, IMO, since it is highly relevant to the nature of the Iran's foreign policy, the source of the problem.

[Presley Cannady]

Overpressure (rocket or mortar) is no fun. Nukes are something beyond...

Amen to that.

Gauge pressure or absolute pressure? 1 atm = 760 mm Hg = 14.7 psi, Dynamic pressure?

Gauge.

Lets think about steel metrics for a moment; what type, what condition, what thickness, what shape, what temp, how long has it been irradiated, and what was the dose?

Plastic deformations will start much earlier than at the ultimate tensile strength. For most of these structural steels, we're talking about some double digit percentage on either side of 50,000 psi. Afterwards, we start talking about the dimensionless strain on the material.

Good points all, but notice that for the high yield strength steels we're talking about a good amount of carbon doping.

Which decreases their fracture points significantly. For load-bearing supports, they perform pretty well--this is why you have an intuitive notion of the skeleton of a well built building surviving a nuclear blast. But as cover, not so much.

[Presley Cannady]

I don't see the Israelis as an ethnic group.
They're not even all of the same race (Caucasians) - look at those from Ethiopia.

Genetic drift between the major Jewish communities has significant, and Sephardic Jewry is more closely related to some northern Levantine, Transcaucusian and Mesopotamian populations. Still, there is enough variation to identify a closer relationship between European and Oriental Jewry than between either group and Arabs, Persians or other ethnic groups.

Ahmadinejads holocaust questioning is in my opinion a knee-jerk reaction to the use of the holocaust as a rationale for exceptional claims (solidarity of Westerners mostly) of Israel.

It may be inconsistent, politically motivated and thoroughly unprincipled, but it's hardly knee-jerk. And it's not a mere personal quirk. Iran's leadership en banq has embraced anti-Semitism in general and with this administration Holocaust-denial in particular as state policy.