Israel vs. Iran ... A real nuke issue

Well, to eliminate the underground nuclear sites air strikes will be horribly insufficient. Which means the best chance is to have some amount of American troop involvement on the ground. Remember the area where they're planning to install 3,000 centrifuges that would eventually be able to create two bombs a year is at an underground facility. If that and Bushehr are able to survive an air strike the rest of the attacks will be almost completely meaningless.

Vlad Plasmius said:

Well, to eliminate the underground nuclear sites air strikes will be horribly insufficient. Which means the best chance is to have some amount of American troop involvement on the ground. Remember the area where they're planning to install 3,000 centrifuges that would eventually be able to create two bombs a year is at an underground facility. If that and Bushehr are able to survive an air strike the rest of the attacks will be almost completely meaningless.

Click to expand...

Well if Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weaponry in addition to pure power, it would take at least 54000 centrifuges, according to the IAEA. Even the largest commercially available centrifuge tubes can hold only a few grams of uranium at any given time - spinning any more at high speed is extremely dangerous - the number of centrifuges running simultaneously that would be required to produce usable quantities of weapons-grade uranium is considerably greater.

As it is a signatory to the NPT, according to international law it is open to inspection - if they are indeed enriching weapons for use it should be conspicuous enough to tell the difference.

Well if Iran is actually pursuing nuclear weaponry in addition to pure power, it would take at least 54000 centrifuges, according to the IAEA. Even the largest commercially available centrifuge tubes can hold only a few grams of uranium at any given time - spinning any more at high speed is extremely dangerous - the number of centrifuges running simultaneously that would be required to produce usable quantities of weapons-grade uranium is considerably greater.

As it is a signatory to the NPT, according to international law it is open to inspection - if they are indeed enriching weapons for use it should be conspicuous enough to tell the difference.

Click to expand...

Actually, I believe they have said 3,000 operating at their max could produce enough for two weapons a year. 54,000 is, I believe, the number of centrifuges Iran intends to install eventually. From what I understand, 54,000 is enough to make a nuke every two weeks.

Vlad Plasmius said:

Actually, I believe they have said 3,000 operating at their max could produce enough for two weapons a year. 54,000 is, I believe, the number of centrifuges Iran intends to install eventually. From what I understand, 54,000 is enough to make a nuke every two weeks.

Click to expand...

I think it take a lot more time then 2 weeks to enrich uranium to 90+%. They are by law under NPT allowed to enrich Uranium upto 5%. Smething that they are following strictly and promising to do the same in future. Thus, NOT breaking any law.

How long does it take to enrich from 5% to 95% ?

Vlad Plasmius said:

Taking out Iran's nuclear facilities is a hopeless cause.

Right now the tor-M1s might not be a significant threat as they are not in large numbers. Iran only purchased 29, I believe. They can fire 2 missiles at one time and I think only have about 8 stored on them. That makes for a totally possible 290 intercepts before needing a reload. The Tor-M1 has fire on the move capability and can drive around for hours. Iran has radars positioned all along the coast and Iraqi border. If we want to take them by surprise, possibly giving us the ability to strike their Tor-M1s when they'd be incapable of moving away or intercepting, we'd have to launch over Pakistan and move over Afghanistan, finally moving out to Iran or launch from Central Asian bases. However, there is also a possibility that if we used F-22s we could fly right over radar sites and take out the Tor-M1s.. Iranians have proven their ability to multi-task by using F-14s as AWACS, air superiority, and air defense fighters. ..the Tor-M1s provide them both an exceptional mobile air defense system, but also an exceptional mobile air defense radar. Their detection range is around 25 kilometers and positioned maybe two or three around a city would provide reliable and constant early warning for bombing missions.

Click to expand...

During the 1991 Gulf War, two

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

were kept on station over the Black Sea to observe Coalition air activities over Turkey and northern Iraq.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I also have no doubt that Russia will deploy its own AWACS over the Caspian Sea (possibly with Iranian liason personnel onboard) to detect any stray CMs, and to pass on to the Iranians the air picture to help them defend Russian- built nuclear installations.



China continues to deprive USA of its military predominance

.. China currently sells spare parts, equipment for technical servicing, missile fuel technologies and provides technical support. China’s clients in this industry can be divided into three groups: members of the ‘axis of evil’ (Iran and North Korea for instance), USA’s allies that can bring unpleasant surprises for the superpower in the future (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and Latin American countries (Argentine and Brazil).

Click to expand...

They talk a lot of the danger of Iran becoming a nuclear weapon state. Persia/Iran never fought Hebrews/Jews in the past- in fact the Cyrus the Great liberated them from the Babylonian captivity-but fought Arabs, Turks and Russians instead. Egypt and other Arabs did fight Israel. If Egypt and Saudi Arabia add nukes to their missile arsenals , how would Israelis feel then?

It seems like military conflict will not occur, based on the current news, so I have some political military questions with possible answers and reasoning.

------------
Assuming:
Iran wants to not be attacked and Israel wants Iran to not have nuclear weapons.
------------

Question:
What does Iran have to do to prevent being attacked?

Possible answers:
1) Stop developing nuclear material
REASONING - Israel will then see that Iran is not a threat to them, because they do not want or have the most powerful weapon in the world that could possibly be used again Israel directly by Iran or through another nation

2) Develop nuclear material and nuclear weapons
REASONING - Israel will never attack a nation with nukes, because then Israel could be seriously damaged in a potential conflict

3) Somewhere in between
REASONING - Not having the missiles satisfies Israel, but having enough know-how satisfies Iran's energy ministry

Opposite Question:
What does Israel have to do to stop Iran's nuclear development?

1) Nothing
REASONING - Iran does not intend to development nuclear missiles, but just nuclear power to satisfy their energy needs.

2) Attack
REASONING - Iran is a threat to Israel's population and existance, because Iran has the intention to nuke Israel or Iran has the intension to give the technology to a nation that will nuke Israel.

3) Negotiate
REASONING - Power in the region would shift to Iran with a nuclear arsenal, and Israels frends could quickly become enemies of Israel. Israel should try to then find common ground with Iran and develop a peaceful treaty and understanding in the nuclear issues and region stability.

I would like to know more alternative answers to the questions or more questions to the issue.

I think it take a lot more time then 2 weeks to enrich uranium to 90+%. They are by law under NPT allowed to enrich Uranium upto 5%. Smething that they are following strictly and promising to do the same in future. Thus, NOT breaking any law.

How long does it take to enrich from 5% to 95% ?

Click to expand...

I don't think the time-line is wrong, but it will take them a long time to get those centrifuges working to the point where they can do it that quickly.

Title : Israel denies seeking US go-ahead for Iran strike
By :
Date : 24 February 2007 1808 hrs (SST)
URL :

JERUSALEM : Israel on Saturday denied a report in a British daily that it is seeking permission from the United States to fly its bombers over Iraq to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

"There has never been such a request, it is obvious," Deputy Defence Minister Ephraim Sneh told public radio.

The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed senior Israeli defence official as saying that negotiations were taking place with the US-led coalition in Iraq to provide an "air corridor" over Iraq if the Jewish state decided on unilateral action.

"We are planning for every eventuality, and sorting out issues such as these are crucial," the official told the conservative British broadsheet in a dispatch from Tel Aviv.

"If we don't sort these issues out we could have a situation where American and Israeli war planes start shooting at each other."

Sneh put the report down to "international sources who wish to dodge dealing directly with Iran and invent reports that we allegedly want to attack Iran in order to relieve themselves from the responsibility."

Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has in the past called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

But Israel has consistently said that the Iranian nuclear question should be solved by the international community and not the Jewish state alone, even though it refuses to rule out a preemptive strike against Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report Thursday saying that Iran had not halted, and in fact had expanded, its uranium enrichment programme, defying a United Nations Security Council demand to stop by this week.

The United States, France and Britain have called for tougher Security Council sanctions on Tehran, while Germany, China and Russia have taken softer stances. Iran denies US charges that it seeks nuclear weapons.

An Israeli officer involved in the military planning told The Daily Telegraph: "One of the last issues we have to sort out is how we actually get to the targets in Iran. The only way to do this is to fly through US-controlled airspace in Iraq."

A senior Israeli security official who works on the strategic committee set up to deal with the Iran threat, chaired by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said: "The amount of effort we are putting into this single issue is unprecedented in the history of the State of Israel," the newspaper reported.

Israel is itself considered to be the sole nuclear weapons power in the Middle East. It does not officially acknowledge that it has an arsenal although Olmert appeared to do so in an apparent lapse last year.

Israeli warplanes in 1981 destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad after suspecting Iraq of aiming to build nuclear weapons. - AFP/ch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used to think Israel rather than US is more likely to carry out any strike since it's more politically convenient this way.
But given Israel's relative lack of stealth capability, cruise missile strike force and the fact that Iran's facilities are many & widely dispersed, I'm starting to doubt they can pull it off.

BLUEJACKET said:

China continues to deprive USA of its military predominance

Click to expand...

Don't quote Pravda as a source of information. Although it may have some relatively accurate reporting, generally it spins out so much rubbish it's better to avoid it completely - a bit like the Epoch Times.

I agree that Pravda's articles have spin, but sometimes they point out things that other media omit/overlook, also the naivette/sensationalism is funny to read!