Here is a question that I would like to hear an answer: Do you think Israel will let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

My opinion is no way, because a country that has fought through the millenia to finally have a place to call home isn't going to take that risk. And don't think Israel doesn't have the capability of doing it quickly. Just look at June 5, 1967. Superior weaponry and, even more importantly, superior strategy wins out. And don't think other countries would cone to Iran's aid: Arabs have no love for Persians.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Here is a question that I would like to hear an answer: Do you think Israel will let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

My opinion is no way, because a country that has fought through the millenia to finally have a place to call home isn't going to take that risk. And don't think Israel doesn't have the capability of doing it quickly. Just look at June 5, 1967. Superior weaponry and, even more importantly, superior strategy wins out. And don't think other countries would cone to Iran's aid: Arabs have no love for Persians.

This in my opinion is a major reason why Obama has created the current distant relationship with Israel. He did not want his position with Iran to be compromised.
Talk about having one's priorities reversed.
There is no doubt, as they have in the past, when put in a position to defend their country, the Israelis will take action. And Obama will find out about it with the rest of us when he views it in the media.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Here is a question that I would like to hear an answer: Do you think Israel will let Iran develop nuclear weapons?

My opinion is no way, because a country that has fought through the millenia to finally have a place to call home isn't going to take that risk. And don't think Israel doesn't have the capability of doing it quickly. Just look at June 5, 1967. Superior weaponry and, even more importantly, superior strategy wins out. And don't think other countries would cone to Iran's aid: Arabs have no love for Persians.

Yes. Israel lacks the capability.

Iran has diversified its nuclear program to multiple locations and the most important facilities are hundreds of feet below ground. Last I read, even our most current version of the 20,000 lb "Daisy Cutter" would be ineffective. Use of tactical nukes to destroy these facilities is out of the question. Even a protracted multi-month conventional attack opens up a huge can of worms. All Iranian air defenses would have to be destroyed, all potential missile launch facilities destroyed, etc... The attack would most certainly invite protracted counter-attacks using unconventional means (i.e., terrorist attacks on "soft" US targets: shopping malls, sports stadiums, theaters, anywhere that large groups of unarmed civilians gather.)

In the end, unless the US intends to permanently occupy the territory, the attack merely delays the eventuality and puts the US in the crosshairs when they do become nuclear. There are numerous ways to place nukes in US cities without using ICBM's - thousands of cargo ships unloading in ports each year, cross border trucking, international air traffic, etc...

There is no "easy" military solution today. There was years ago. Economic strangulation through MUCH tougher sanctions and embargo should be immediately enacted. If the strangulation is tight and complete, Iran's economy will collapse, the people will revolt and another opportunity for regime change may present itself. I think this is perhaps the wisest, least destructive/deadly, and most durable solution to a difficult predicament. (Recall Obama had an opportunity to support a recent Iranian revolt but chose to not provide aid to those attempting an overthrow. Obama is not a leader, much less a decisive leader, so the future becomes increasingly dangerous through inept and ineffective negotiations while Iran speeds towards nuclear capability.)

Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Guest

Yes. Israel lacks the capability.

Iran has diversified its nuclear program to multiple locations and the most important facilities are hundreds of feet below ground. Last I read, even our most current version of the 20,000 lb "Daisy Cutter" would be ineffective. Use of tactical nukes to destroy these facilities is out of the question. Even a protracted multi-month conventional attack opens up a huge can of worms. All Iranian air defenses would have to be destroyed, all potential missile launch facilities destroyed, etc... The attack would most certainly invite protracted counter-attacks using unconventional means (i.e., terrorist attacks on "soft" US targets: shopping malls, sports stadiums, theaters, anywhere that large groups of unarmed civilians gather.)

In the end, unless the US intends to permanently occupy the territory, the attack merely delays the eventuality and puts the US in the crosshairs when they do become nuclear. There are numerous ways to place nukes in US cities without using ICBM's - thousands of cargo ships unloading in ports each year, cross border trucking, international air traffic, etc...

There is no "easy" military solution today. There was years ago. Economic strangulation through MUCH tougher sanctions and embargo should be immediately enacted. If the strangulation is tight and complete, Iran's economy will collapse, the people will revolt and another opportunity for regime change may present itself. I think this is perhaps the wisest, least destructive/deadly, and most durable solution to a difficult predicament. (Recall Obama had an opportunity to support a recent Iranian revolt but chose to not provide aid to those attempting an overthrow. Obama is not a leader, much less a decisive leader, so the future becomes increasingly dangerous through inept and ineffective negotiations while Iran speeds towards nuclear capability.)

Just my opinion.

Excellent and most informative post ... and from someone who actually knows what they're talking about for a change regarding Iran and nukes ... thanks

Do not underestimate Israel's capability. They're weaponry is second only to ours, and they're resolve may be second to none.

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Do not underestimate Israel's capability. They're weaponry is second only to ours, and they're resolve may be second to none.

I understand your uninformed bravado, but you should probably also understand it is just that - uninformed bravado. If the US is incapable of destroying these deeply buried targets without going nuclear, I'm absolutely certain Israel is. I'm pretty sure I'm more up on the weaponry required for this operation than you, but I'm always open to being educated. Which weapon do you think would be most appropriate for this mission?

Originally Posted by Guest

EXACTLY!

I really don't expect an answer. The poster rarely is able to form more than a sentence or two opinion.

Originally Posted by Guest

I understand your uninformed bravado, but you should probably also understand it is just that - uninformed bravado. If the US is incapable of destroying these deeply buried targets without going nuclear, I'm absolutely certain Israel is. I'm pretty sure I'm more up on the weaponry required for this operation than you, but I'm always open to being educated. Which weapon do you think would be most appropriate for this mission?

Here is the education you requested:

http://defense-update.com/20130504_m...or-fordow.html

The US has enhanced its biggest bunker buster bomb specifically to enable the destruction of Iran’s underground*Fordow uranium enrichment plant*near the city of Qom. 20 such bombs – the biggest and heaviest bomb in the US arsenal, will be delivered this year, following the completion of upgrades and testing.*The redesigned Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)*GBU-57A-B is now adapted for operations in heavily contested environment, where it will require to operate against Iran’s most protected nuclear sites.

Open the link above for instructions

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

Here is the education you requested:

USAF Readies Massive Ordnance Penetrator for Showdown in Iran | Defense Update:

The US has enhanced its biggest bunker buster bomb specifically to enable the destruction of Iran’s underground*Fordow uranium enrichment plant*near the city of Qom. 20 such bombs – the biggest and heaviest bomb in the US arsenal, will be delivered this year, following the completion of upgrades and testing.*The redesigned Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)*GBU-57A-B is now adapted for operations in heavily contested environment, where it will require to operate against Iran’s most protected nuclear sites.

Open the link above for instructions

Impressive capability and impressive answer from another who has added to and enhanced the discussion ... thanks and I look forward to the previous posters reply to Chi-town

Originally Posted by Guest

Here is the education you requested:

USAF Readies Massive Ordnance Penetrator for Showdown in Iran | Defense Update:

The US has enhanced its biggest bunker buster bomb specifically to enable the destruction of Iran’s underground*Fordow uranium enrichment plant*near the city of Qom. 20 such bombs – the biggest and heaviest bomb in the US arsenal, will be delivered this year, following the completion of upgrades and testing.*The redesigned Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)*GBU-57A-B is now adapted for operations in heavily contested environment, where it will require to operate against Iran’s most protected nuclear sites.

Open the link above for instructions

I'm familiar with the enhanced version of this weapon. If you're going to threaten an enemy with attack, the threat must be credible. I believe this weapon fills that narrow purpose of appearing credible.

The bottom line is that I (and many other experts) do not believe it is capable of penetrating deep enough to destroy Fordow. Apparently the Iranians do not believe the threat is credible either as they continue to speed their development of a weapon.

Until it is used against Fordow, we won't know if it's capability matches its VERY PUBLIC advertisement.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm familiar with the enhanced version of this weapon. If you're going to threaten an enemy with attack, the threat must be credible. I believe this weapon fills that narrow purpose of appearing credible.

The bottom line is that I (and many other experts) do not believe it is capable of penetrating deep enough to destroy Fordow. Apparently the Iranians do not believe the threat is credible either as they continue to speed their development of a weapon.

Until it is used against Fordow, we won't know if it's capability matches its VERY PUBLIC advertisement.

I am far from an expert on this bomb however I suspect two or three more down the throat after the first one will vreate some amount of increased damage.
Surely the experts must know if one is good, could two more be better?

Originally Posted by Guest

I am far from an expert on this bomb however I suspect two or three more down the throat after the first one will vreate some amount of increased damage.
Surely the experts must know if one is good, could two more be better?

When formulating a strike plan, the planners assess the likelihood of success. This strike has been "war-gamed" numerous times. The worst scenario is one where an attack occurs, but the outcome is unsuccessful. Now, open hostilities (war) exists between countries, counter-attacks are certain, and the nuclear sites remain functioning. Additionally, all the leverage of a possible destructive attack has been lost. (This is similar to Carter's failed hostage rescue attempt, minus open hostilities with weapons as it was not an attack, per se.)

Now the US is in a bad spot. Do you attack Fordow and the other sites again now using tactical nuclear weapons? The use of nukes is a HUGE escalation, and one the world will condemn regardless of motives and justification. You've also invited a nuclear counter-attack upon the US homeland.

This is a very difficult strike using only conventional weapons due to the depth of these nuclear facilities. This is precisely why they are located deep underground.

Obama has met a red line he hasn't moved. USA should walk away and reinstate stricter sanctions until Iran pulls back on their nuke program and from the middle east

Originally Posted by Guest

When formulating a strike plan, the planners assess the likelihood of success. This strike has been "war-gamed" numerous times. The worst scenario is one where an attack occurs, but the outcome is unsuccessful. Now, open hostilities (war) exists between countries, counter-attacks are certain, and the nuclear sites remain functioning. Additionally, all the leverage of a possible destructive attack has been lost. (This is similar to Carter's failed hostage rescue attempt, minus open hostilities with weapons as it was not an attack, per se.)

Now the US is in a bad spot. Do you attack Fordow and the other sites again now using tactical nuclear weapons? The use of nukes is a HUGE escalation, and one the world will condemn regardless of motives and justification. You've also invited a nuclear counter-attack upon the US homeland.

This is a very difficult strike using only conventional weapons due to the depth of these nuclear facilities. This is precisely why they are located deep underground.

And of course we and others who have turned timid in recent years have allowed this progress by the Iranians to get hardened as it is.
The days of doing what needed to be done to PREVENT the enemy from gaining momentum and protection.
Today's approach to the bad guys is definitely in favor of the bad guys.

Does anybody....ANYBODY.....doubt nuclear capability from Iran will find it's way to a nuclear involved attack of some kind on USA's home land?

The USA is too fast approaching wimp status. Not because we lack ability and capability. But because our leadership has been emasculated.

Once upon a time the rest of the world knew what they were in for if they tread upon us.

And now we are in the same position. They have learned we are no longer to be feared. Too busy being nice nice to those who would slaughter us at the drop of a hat (or less).