Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes

Debmey

By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 13, 2007

Barring a "catastrophic development," Middle East Newsline reports, George Bush has decided not to attack Iran. An administration source explains that Washington deems Iran's cooperation "needed for a withdrawal [of U.S. forces] from Iraq."

If correct, this implies the Jewish state stands alone against a regime that threatens to "wipe Israel off the map" and is building the nuclear weapons to do so. Israeli leaders are hinting that their patience is running out; Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz just warned that "diplomatic efforts should bear results by the end of 2007."

Can the Israel Defense Forces in fact disrupt Iran's nuclear program?

Top secret analyses from intelligence agencies normally reply to such a question. But talented outsiders, using open sources, can also try their hand. Whitney Raas and Austin Long studied this problem at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published their impressive analysis, "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities," in the journal International Security.

Raas and Long focus exclusively on feasibility, not political desirability or strategic ramifications: Were the Israeli national command to decide to damage the Iranian infrastructure, could its forces accomplish this mission? The authors consider five components of a successful strike:

       

The Natanz uranium enrichment facility.
       
Intelligence: To impede the production of fissile material requires incapacitating only three facilities of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In ascending order of importance, these are: the heavy water plant and plutonium production reactors under construction at Arak, a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan, and a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. Destroying the Natanz facility in particular, they note, "is critical to impeding Iran's progress toward nuclearization."

Ordnance: To damage all three facilities with reasonable confidence requires

Debmey

another option is to nuke iran to ensure a total success.
I believe the americans and israelis have the ability to strike deep anywhere into iran, even if the underground nuke facilities are 200 to 300m deep with the use of tactical nukes.
The nuke fallout would be manageable and limit collateral damage to a minimum in order to ensure the peace and stability of middle east. I am sure the iraqis would agree to this arrangement too in order to teach their naughty neighbours a lesson.

SONofODIN

Only you would agree to such a stupid idea.

Debmey

I think a pre-emptive strike on Iran is a great idea!
I don't like the idea dof a nuke war but I seriously think it will happen because Iran is begging for it with their stupid actions.

kiuros

US/Israel attack Iran = pre-emptive strike
Iran attack US/Israel = terrorism?????

[ Last edited by  kiuros at 15-6-2007 12:02 PM ]

Debmey

It all depends on who was targeted, strategic facilties or civilians. Those who target civilians are terrorists.

kiuros

hmmm... interesting... what about this then?

http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and subsequent weapons testing
Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 29
May 2004

The Effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombs

The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of some 600 metres above the ground, very little of the fission products were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kilometres to the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west and north-west of Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the explosion itself.

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and another 17 000 within four months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.

It is impossible to estimate the proportion of these 103 000 deaths, or of the further deaths in military personnel, which were due to radiation exposure rather than to the very high temperatures and blast pressures caused by the explosions. From the estimated radiation levels, however, it is apparent that radiation alone would not have been enough cause death in most of those exposed beyond a kilometre of the ground zero below the bombs. Most deaths appear to have been from the explosion rather than the radiation. Beyond 1.5 km the risk would have been much reduced (and 24 Australian prisoners of war about 1.5 km from the Nagasaki ground zero survived and many lived to a healthy old age.)

To the 103 000 deaths from the blast or acute radiation exposure have since been added those due to radiation induced cancers and leukaemia, which amounted to some 400 within 30 years, and which may ultimately reach about 550. (Some 93,000 exposed survivors are still being monitored.)

Teratogenic effects on foetuses was severe among those heavily exposed, resulting in birth deformities and stillbirths over the next 9 months. Beyond this, no genetic damage has been detected in survivors' children, despite careful and continuing investigation by a joint Japanese-US Foundation.

The major source of exposure in both cities was from the penetrating gamma radiations, and to a lesser extent from the neutrons (mostly at Hiroshima), emitted during and shortly after fission. There were two further, and smaller, sources of exposure. One, already mentioned, was due to the 'black rain' which fell in some areas, carrying down radioactive materials from within the rising cloud of fission products. The exposures due to these depositions are in general estimated to have been small, but some increased activity from the fission product radionuclide caesium-137 remained detectable for many years in soil and farm products in the Nishiyama district east of Nagasaki.

The second additional form of exposure resulted from the effect of neutrons in inducing radioactivity in various stable chemical elements such as in iron or concrete structures or roofing tiles. The total absorbed doses of radiation from these activities are estimated to be less than one per cent of that from the neutrons which induced them. They could however have caused a significant exposure of people who entered the city within a few days of the explosions.

IceMallet

Its not terrorism if the US/Israel attacks resulting in civilians death, it just 'collateral damage'..isnt that rite mr Dubuk?

Debmey

Of course the bombing of Hiro and Naga isn't terrorism, they are strategic bombings to stop a war from killing millions more and to liberate us from Hirohito and Tojo. Otherwise you would all be speaking Japanese and bowing to Tokyo instead of Mecca today.

Similarly, the nuking of Iran will prevent the deaths of millions more and bring peace to the middle east. Besides, the target was never and will not be civilians.

kiuros

Originally posted by Debmey at 16-6-2007 12:12 AM
Of course the bombing of Hiro and Naga isn't terrorism, they are strategic bombings to stop a war from killing millions more and to liberate us from Hirohito and Tojo. Otherwise you would all be  ...

I was merely comparing your defination of terrorism with my reply
If it irritates you so much, we can't have an intellectual discussion here.
You don't seem to appreciate the cause of those beyond English speaking nations
So, here we are discussing in English rather than Japanese... who are we bowing to now?  get my point?

One more thing here... do not drag race and religion here with your insinuating statement of "...bowing to Mecca"  
You prejudiced those here who don't share your opinions.  For a start, you don't
even know if I'm white, black, brown or yellow.... or if I'm Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Toaist, Hindu, etc.
So, please be more focused on the topic rather than personal attacks

Debmey

I am only telling you the truth my fren. Iran needs to be stopped or millions will die. If they need to be stopped by tactical nukes, i will fully support it and it will not be terrorism.

Race and religion does have a lot to do with wars my fren whether you realise it or not. The Japs fought for religion and race, get that into your head my fren. similiarly, the Iranians are doing what they do because of religion.

polisdin

Really?How bout thousands civillians who died in Vietnam, Iraq and Palestine?? Who killed them? Who killed innocent children and refugees in Sabra and Shatila camp?But as always, we already know ur answer dubuk, its to stop terrorist, muslims, communist...bla..bla..bla....

Who should be stop??Iran? Israel? or US?

powerwoot

Korang rajin melayan si duboq seko ni

supergripen

oh man... i'm speechless.

takyah layan la mamat ni,kang jadi biol macam dia gak.

US cant attack Iran for at least a year. Their too tied down and strecthed. Plus, the President ad SecDef are facing huge opposition from the Generals. Notice the removal of Gen. Pace. A  lot of strategic debacles already.

Iran is a no..no.

For those of you who wants to argue about acts of terror, dont waste your time.

Debmey

Originally posted by polisdin at 16-6-2007 05:40 PM
Really?How bout thousands civillians who died in Vietnam, Iraq and Palestine?? Who killed them?  

Most of the civilians were killed by communists.
Most innocent people killed it iraq were killed by Islamic terrorists!
Most Palestinians were killed by fellow Arabs.  

Who killed innocent children and refugees in Sabra and Shatila camp?

Fellow arabs themselves.
Did you know that the Palestinians killed hundreds of thousands of Christians in Lebanon? Why didn't you complain?

But as always, we already know ur answer dubuk, its to stop terrorist, muslims, communist...bla..bla..bla....

Who should be stop??Iran? Israel? or US?

As usual you muslims will always belame others for your killin.

Debmey

Originally posted by handell008 at 16-6-2007 09:42 PM
US cant attack Iran for at least a year. Their too tied down and strecthed. Plus, the President ad SecDef are facing huge opposition from the Generals. Notice the removal of Gen. Pace. A  lot of  ...

They don't need to invae iran, they only need to bomb the nukes.

Even if the US want a regime change, all they need to do is to bomb the revolutionary guards and arm the Iranian people to free themselves from those murderous mullahs.

What tied down are you talkking about?

supergripen

kan aku dah kata jangan layan..

tengok apa dah jadi,habis2 orang Islam gak yg jahat.

bangsat..

razhar

sapa yg gatal tangan nak jwb ....:@

gede-bab

Originally posted by supergripen at 16-6-2007 10:17 PM
kan aku dah kata jangan layan..

tengok apa dah jadi,habis2 orang Islam gak yg jahat.

bangsat..

tak pelah nanti dia tau juga kebenarannya di akhirat....