Because the IAF is *really *good, and has demonstrable experience in successfully carrying out surprise raids on foreign nuclear reactors 
Aren’t you people the ones who always claimed that you need the 2nd Amendment to defend the 1st? So Iran’s doing in your preferred order
Oh you’re no fun at all 
And like it or not, having nukes would allow them to deter, if not repel, a US attack. We can’t always have a sensible, non-insane president like Obama.
And the Iranians know that and have spent years preparing for it.
Yeah, but with what? Shitty ass Russian made weaponry? The Israelis use very modern, advanced (mostly American-made) military equipment. And since we are talking about an airstrike here, not a ground invasion, the planes the Israelis would use are head and shoulders above any surface to air missle systems and air detection systems that the Iranians have.
If Israel were to attack from the air with say, 40 warplanes and support planes, I bet they don’t even lose five aircraft.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
Aren’t you people the ones who always claimed that you need the 2nd Amendment to defend the 1st? So Iran’s doing in your preferred order
[/QUOTE]
‘You people’?? I’ll take all of the above as completely tongue in cheek and that you aren’t seriously asserting this as a real argument.
It will repel exactly the same number of tiger attacks as US attacks against Iran since the revolution, in fact. Like it or not.
-XT
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And the Iranians know that and have spent years preparing for it.
[/QUOTE]
You’d think that would be the case, but sadly (for them) it really isn’t. Not only are their troops not trained to exactly the highest standards, but their equipment (both the home grown and foreign purchased stuff) is pretty sucky, especially compared with what the Israelis have…and I think the hardening of their nuclear facilities into impregnable fortresses of doom is vastly overstated. Israel probably would lose some planes getting through Iranian defenses, and some of their facilities might be hardened (or hidden) enough to survive, but I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it and be there when the Israelis come calling. YMMV, but I think the old adage of ‘if you can see it you can hit it…and if you can hit it, it’s dead meat’ would be one to think about with some caution before placing any large bets on survival.
-XT
Well, Iran does have a couple dozen MiG-29s. Very modern, advanced shitty ass Russian-made weaponry. They also have American F-14s (though how many of 'em still fly is anyone’s guess since AFAIK the US stopped sending them maintenance parts aeons ago)
But that’s not the big issue. The big issue is that, just like Iraq in the 80s, Iran doesn’t have any AWACS, only ground-based radars. If the raid is small enough & low enough it can just slip in, blow shit up and be halfway home before anyone’s the wiser. Which is what they did in the 80s : Israel didn’t launch a massive WW2 style air raid on Ossiraq - it launched a total of 14 planes, in the middle of an active warzone on high alert. Never had to fire a shot.
It’s just that hard to prevent jetplanes from doing what they do when they do it without warning and only have to do it once.
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Well, Iran does have a couple dozen MiG-29s. Very modern, advanced shitty ass Russian-made weaponry. They also have American F-14s (though how many of 'em still fly is anyone’s guess since AFAIK the US stopped sending them maintenance parts aeons ago)
[/QUOTE]
It’s not just having the air frame, it’s having the avionics AND advanced weapons…plus the training.
That’s an excellent point. And Israel DOES have AWACS (I believe we were actually finalizing the selling of some new ones to them as well). More speculative, I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel didn’t have some stealth tech out there too. Plus we were going to or have already sold them some of our bunker buster munitions…and, again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t developing their own tech along those lines as well simply because of the touted Iranian bunker defenses around their nuclear research facilities.
-XT
And what makes you think Israel or anyone else can “see it”. Israel could probably do some damage to known facilities like Natanz though that would already stretch its capabilities to the limit. However when it comes to secret facilities built deep underground or under mountains, Israel will be able to do little even if it knows where they are.
My guess is that if Israel attacks, Iran’s policy will harden considerably, it will leave the NPT, throw out all inspectors and move full-speed ahead on weaponization (something it’s probably not doing now). It’s quite likely that an attack would actually speed the day Iran acquires nuclear weapons.
[QUOTE=Lantern]
And what makes you think Israel or anyone else can “see it”. Israel could probably do some damage to known facilities like Natanz though that would already stretch its capabilities to the limit. However when it comes to secret facilities built deep underground or under mountains, Israel will be able to do little even if it knows where they are.
[/QUOTE]
Well, obviously the IAEA THINKS they know where at least some of this activity is taking place. Thus their reports. Besides that, I’m sure Israel has access through various means to US or other satellite surveillance. Then there is always human intelligence assets (a.k.a. ‘spies’).
The thing about ‘secret facilities built deep underground’ is that you have to BUILD the things…which can leave evidence behind that they have been built. Also, unless you have them set up to be entirely self sufficient with all of the folks there working locked in forever, there are going to be tell-tale tracks that give clues that something he going on there. I’m not claiming that this will be 100%…I acknowledged that there might be some facilities that escape detection or are hardened enough to survive an attack (though I wouldn’t bet MY life on either being the case until after the fact). ANY attack, however, is going to get something, and cause a setback in Iran getting nuclear weapons. That’s why things depend on what the ‘desired effect’ is, as to whether or how successful a mission would be. I don’t believe anyone thinks that an attack by Israel or even the US would wipe the slate clean of all aspects of the Iranian’s purported nuclear weapons program…merely delay it, and perhaps cost so much that they eventually abandon this stupid effort as not worth the cost either in terms of politically or monetary/personnel. THAT would be the most likely goal of such an attack.
Seems to me that there is no downside to Israel attacking then. If Iran is left alone then they will develop nuclear weapons. If they are attacked then they will harden their resolve and develop weapons. What would be the point in NOT attacking them, since they are seemingly trying to develop the things?
(I think your assessment is wrong btw, but was just curious about the underlying logic here. If Israel DOES attack Iran’s nuclear program it’s going to cost the Iranians quite a bit in terms of money and resources, assuming any level of success at all…and I don’t think that Iran has unlimited amounts of either, let along political capital even at home on this subject. I think there is a good chance that an Israeli attack could halt or massively delay the Iranian program…though there are downsides as well to consider, which is why Israel hasn’t pulled the trigger on such a raid. Yet)
-XT
OK, let’s assume Israel knows the location of every single secret facility in Iran. How exactly will they destroy them if they are located under mountains?
Why do you believe that? I think it’s quite possible that Iran is seeking the capability to build weapons without quite moving beyond the threshold because it feels this provides the best trade-off of strategic capabilities and diplomatic non-isolation.
If Israel attacks, I think hardline factions within the regime will become much stronger and there will be a rally-around-the-flag effect. Furthermore there will be enormous anger at Israel and US in the Muslim world and beyond which will lessen the diplomatic pressure on Iran. The more hardline government will use the attack as a pretext to leave the NPT and move full-speed ahead on weaponization.
[QUOTE=Lantern]
OK, let’s assume Israel knows the location of every single secret facility in Iran. How exactly will they destroy them if they are located under mountains?
[/QUOTE]
First off, they all AREN’T located under mountains. Secondly, you have to support the facilities under those mountains, which means you have to have logistics to do so, which could and probably would be vulnerable. Thirdly, because it’s under a mountain doesn’t not mean it’s invulnerable.
I think that hits the high points.
I’m asking you a question there as to how your own logic holds together. You can’t seriously think that Iran is just nosing around nuclear weapons simply to see how it’s done, and not really intending to build the things…do you? And that only an attack by Israel would put them over the top to develop the things?
I think you are wrong on several counts here. First off, there ALREADY is plenty of anger at Israel (and no love lost, at least by the current regime, towards the US). A raid would certainly ramp it up, but not raiding isn’t going to dampen it down and make everything goodness and light. So, there is no upside to Israel (from their perspective) in just letting the Iranians go ahead and build the things. Secondly, I don’t believe that would be the reaction. The hardliners in Iran ALREADY control the country…they don’t need some sort of boost or attack to gain control. They have it already, which is why, despite incredible international economic and political pressure they are still developing the nasty things.
-XT
I think it’s quite likely that most of Iran’s secret facilities are built under mountains, deep underground, strongly reinforced and the like. After all they know perfectly well that there is a chance they will be attacked by air. What exactly do you mean by logisitics? Sure the underground facilities would have to be supplied. That could be done through tunnels which would themselves be hard to bomb. And for all practical purposes facilities build deep under mountains are invulnerable. How do you think they would be destroyed?
And all this is assuming that the location of these facilities is known. Think of the quality of US intelligence about Iraqi WMD and consider that Iran is a larger country with a much more coherent government. It’s not that hard for Iran to build decoy facilities either and stuff intelligence channels with false information.
Have you actually read anything about the history of nuclear weapons? For example India developed nuclear weapons capabilities long before they actually tested and deployed weapons. Basically the idea is that you have the option to go nuclear fairly quickly if the situation warrants but you don’t face the full cost, both economic and diplomatic, of going nuclear. It’s entirely possible that this is Iran’s strategy at the moment.
[QUOTE=Lantern]
I think it’s quite likely that most of Iran’s secret facilities are built under mountains, deep underground, strongly reinforced and the like. After all they know perfectly that there is a chance they will be attacked by air.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and if they have limitless funding and materials I’m sure they would love every facility to be buried in an invulnerable secret underground lair. Unfortunately this is the real world, and there are limits to funding and materials, so I highly doubt that all or even most of their facilities are deep under mountains scattered throughout Iran. The fact that the UN seems to know where some of them are and what they are doing there sort of precludes assertions that they are totally secret, or that they are in hidden mountain strongholds.
The thing is, even with Iran running at 100% it’s going to take them several years at their current pace to actually produce any weapons. Hitting even peripheral facilities would set them back some non-zero amount. And hitting their non-mountain evil lairs that aren’t 100% proof from all attacks is going to hurt them.
Or, to put this another way, Israel probably has a better idea than you and I do of approximate where and how well defended Iran’s nuclear weapons programs are. And they have a somewhat better idea of their own capabilities than you and I do as well. And, assuming you believe they are seriously contemplating such an attack, that sort of reinforces the fact that THEY think they can be successful, at least to a degree. Unless you think they are both stupid and incompetent.
Again, if you have unlimited resources and materials you could build tunnels 20 miles underground leading from all the sources of personnel and material you need to your underground lair, no doubt. You could have it guarded with frickin’ sharks with frickin’ lasers on their frickin’ heads as well. But in the real world, logistics is ALWAYS vulnerable. You simply can’t make everything in the chain completely invulnerable to any sort of attack. It’s impossible. SOMETHING is going to be vulnerable, no matter how well the Iranians think they have prepared…they just don’t have unlimited resources or materials.
Well, the US has a variety of bunker buster and thermobaric weapons (to attack those tunnels and cave openings you mentioned) that are pretty well known…and, at a guess, some that aren’t. A series of such munitions, using laser guided weapons could set up a shock wave to destroy or damage sensitive equipment, or bruit force their way through solid rock. Again, I’d guess that the US and Israel know more about these facilities and how good their defenses are than we do. They also know more about their own attack capabilities than we do. Assuming, again, that you believe they are seriously contemplating such an attack, it sort of begs the question as to how THEY think they can succeed…no?
Nope, never heard of it. There seem to be some key differences between the Indian nuclear weapons development and that being pursued by Iran, however.
-XT
If Iran has the bomb, neither the US nor Israel’s ever gonna invade. I think if I were Iran, I would think that as a very powerful motivating factor in my decision on whether or not to make the bomb
There’s no real reason Iran shouldn’t have the bomb anyway, if a person is sane and can admit that Iran would never use it. If its for protection and cuts off a choice that we can make (invasion), then I’m all for it.
What are they, Dr. Evil ?
Besides, it’s pretty hard building a nuclear reactor under a mountain. Those things need ventilation and cooling, you know.
I’d also like to know how one would go about hiding an excavation of this magnitude from spy satellites. In a desert.
Hey ! I’ll have you know that was pretty good fiction for being authored by people who’d never taken a lesson in creative writing in their life !
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
If Iran has the bomb, neither the US nor Israel’s ever gonna invade.
[/QUOTE]
And if Iran doesn’t have a bomb neither the US nor Israel is gonna invade either…in fact, I don’t believe that Israel COULD invade Iran, regardless of the circumstances and the lack of or possession of anti-tiger repellants. I seriously doubt the US could or would invade Iran either, and I doubt anyone with any understanding of what such an adventure would take believes that it’s in the realm of possibility.
If that’s what they are basing their motives on (which I doubt), then they are fools, since invasion is unlikely in the extreme.
You make a lot of assumptions here, as I’ve said previously in this thread. One, that Iran needs a bomb to repel the tigers. They don’t. Two, that they are ‘sane’ by all definitions of that term. Three, that even if that’s the case today, that they will remain so indefinitely.
You are all for a nation like Iran getting nuclear weapons (despite the fact that they have signed treaties stating they wouldn’t attempt to acquire or develop such things) for spurious reasons concerning fictional (and pretty much completely impractical, militarily, fiscally and politically) US invasions.
-XT
Bunker busters can now break through mountains? Since when? I mean you can keep waving your hands about “logistics” but seriously how much damage do you think an attack is going to do on facilities buried deep underground. Perhaps some tunnels and openings will be destroyed but do you think that is going to cripple Iran’s capabilities? Building underground facilities isn’t exactly rocket science and the Iranian military alone could supply a lot of manpower for basically free.
And actually I doubt the US knows much about these secret facilities. Again think about the quality of intelligence in Iraq. Everything I have read suggests Iran’s regime is better organized and more coherent. Even if you have genuine intel on actual sites, it’s hard to separate from all the rubbish intel that is floating around pushed by various vested interests especially on such an ideologically charged topic.
And you are very naive if you believe that an Israeli attack won’t create a massive political and diplomatic shitstorm or that Iran’s government can’t become more hardline. It will make the Gaza flotilla attack look like a tea party. There will be a massive wave of anger in the Muslim world and even governments which are worried about Iran will have to accomodate it. Countries like China and India which rely on Iranian oil will be furious. The Iranian people will rally around the government and hardliners will push strongly for Iran to leave the NPT and move forward much more aggressively on nuclear weapons.
Lives lost – on either side – obviously not a deterrent for someone like you, safe at home, big-time blowback a bit later on same & oodles more, would be be no big deal either.
Guess you’re quite correct.
Still don’t quite get were US citizens get their chevalier attitude from from behind their coaches…or perhaps that’s just the response.
[QUOTE=Lantern]
Bunker busters can now break through mountains? Since when? I mean you can keep waving your hands about “logistics” but seriously how much damage do you think an attack is going to do on facilities buried deep underground. Perhaps some tunnels and openings will be destroyed but do you think that is going to cripple Iran’s capabilities? Building underground facilities isn’t exactly rocket science and the Iranian military alone could supply a lot of manpower for basically free.
[/QUOTE]
Do you know what logistics is? Seriously…non-snarky question. Because you don’t seem to. Short answer to that part is ‘you can’t have all your supplies safely hidden in your underground lair, unless you have access to magical methods to keep your folks supplied constantly with supplies’. You have to move it from point A to point Evil Lair, and you probably aren’t going to have 80 meter thick re-enforced unobtainium walled tunnels from point A to point Evil Lair (not to mention that point A might not have said 80 meter thick unobtainium re-enforcement either).
As to the other, it would depend on how deeply said Evil Lair was buried as to what or how much damage bunker buster bombs could do. I’ve seen reports of them going through 20-30 meters of solid, re-enforced concrete…and those are the older ones that we know about. DARPA (let alone whatever the hell the Israelis have in development) has put a lot of funding and research into this very concept, since, though I’m sure it will be a shock to you, the Iranians aren’t the first to think about putting vital facilities in large (evil or otherwise) underground facilities that the US might just want to attack.
Even if that’s not the case and the Iranians actually do have an invulnerable base in their underground lair, you seem to be missing the key point, which is they can’t protect everything from every kind of attack. They will be vulnerable somewhere.
So, you think the IAEA report is full of shit then? Or that they were just speculating out of their ass? Or, perhaps that the UN has access to sooper-sekrit information that the US doesn’t? It would have to be one of those if you think that no one knows where the nuclear weapons facilities are or could be.
Well, since I never said anything about an Israeli attack not creating a ‘massive political and diplomatic shitstorm’, this doesn’t address how naive or not I really am. The Iranian government is ALREADY hardline, so I’m not seeing how an attack would make them more…or what disadvantage it would be the the Israelis one way or the other, considering the attitude of the current regime towards Israel. I’m also well aware of the international reaction from China and Russia (I doubt India would be REALLY upset by such an attack, though they might make noises for public consumption…depending on how it panned out), who are equally reluctant to support any sort of actions against Syria either. I also doubt that such an attack by Israel would have near the rallying effect of the Iranian people that you seem to think it will, considering public opinion about the program…and, again, depending on how it would pan out (i.e. Israeli attack that blows away nuclear facilities by with a minimal civilian impact, probably won’t get any but those who already hate Israel up in arms…one that hits a bunch of schools for children and orphans, plus a maternity ward would probably be a completely different matter).
-XT