US officials: Israeli attack on Iran requires 100 planes

TR:

Sir, the description you provide in the air assault is the play book used quite effectively in the Desert Storm Air Campaign. To a "T". It required, as you mention, incredible air assets both in skill and number.

A mission we and our allies are familiar with and capable of doing. If I might add that the distances used for carrier (and some ground) flight missions were short and sweet. Tanker stations were placed at just about the right locations to ensure a chance at a landing or two after burning thousands of gallons on station or over target.

Given the added distance, this IMO would require longer mission flight times (pushing pilots and equipment and crews) and additionally might require a second point for refueling, and hence additional missions for security (CAP or other) for the added stations, and time spent refueling in, out, or both.

I will have to give more thought on your questions about mission statement, sir, as I am not at all familiar with the geo/political climate in Iran. I have heard that with Iran cutting off oil to Japan and the U.K. that gas prices will be going much, much higher. The Iranians have been squeezed with many years of sanctions, hardly effective in my opinion.

Here in the US, if gas prices are to continue to edge up again past $4 or even past $6 I think that might be a form of sanction imposed upon us here stateside.

I do feel I would wish to know more of Iran's military capabilities, training, equipment, numbers, readiness, morale, and so on. Kind of a Sun Tzu approach that I'm sure those closer to the situation than I are already taking into account, sir.

v/r
Sarski

[Roguish Lawyer]

Gas where I live is almost $5.

I know what you're gonna say . . .

To add, sir, one way around some of these extended flight operations might be to launch out of forward bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait...

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Sarski

To add, sir, one way around some of these extended flight operations might be to launch out of forward bases in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait...

The Israelis?

We have not signed on to this, yet, AFAIK.

TR

Originally Posted by The Reaper

The Israelis?

We have not signed on to this, yet, AFAIK.

TR

Well, sir, yes the Israelis, but I'm certain we won't be far behind. Or at least providing support/intel/runways, as always.

[Richard]

Here's the 'Big Picture'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUUBc35oA8

And as far as the IDF goes, they've been working on - among other things - their extended range capabilities for decades. They play their national defense cards close to their chests but we'll act surprised, anyway, whenever they do something we claim we knew nothing about - it's how the game is played.

In polls:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...eat-usa/252361

http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21566/

And then there's ...usw.

And so it goes...

Richard

[MR2]

Originally Posted by scooter

I may have misread or misunderstood your comment and responded harshly. If thats the case....sorry.

I would just caution against any statements (joking or not) that can further feed into the narrative of the right wing military verteran whack job out to perpetuate violence against the government. If I over-reacted, my bad.

No worry's. We hit the line and you made sure I didn't cross it. Thanks.

[MR2]

The genii is not going back into the bottle. We lived for a long time with the Soviet nuclear threat. Then the Chinese. The world has survived and we currently still have détente. But they may be ready and willing to pounce should they see opportunity. We now have Korea and Pakistan in the mix who are very unstable and dangerous. Iran is certainly looking to join that group.

The nuclear question. They don't have one yet, but they will. They don't have a delivery method, but they will.

Current methods being contemplated (diplomacy, sanctions, military strikes) can only delay the inevitable. Short term methods at best.

Several reasons for this. We cannot hurt them enough to make them stop. And many of these techniques are only going to goad those in Iran pushing for nuclear weapons even more. Sanctions have either been ineffective or goaded them into war (Japan, WW2). UW is a long term proposition and we've seen the American public and their politicians don't have the stomach for anything that "takes too long".

We need to convince them they don't need a nuclear program - like we did to Qadhafi. Or if they don't get the hint, then like Saddam.

Short term methods may buy time for longer term methods to get up to speed and employed. Someone around here is using an excellent quote: Diplomacy - the art of saying `Nice doggie' 'til you can find a stick. - Wynn Catlin.

The only method to really stop this program long term is utilization of all forms of diplomacy. A strong united diplomatic front by all superpowers and regional governments to convince them it is not worth their time (lives). Strong punishing sanctions. Credible UW efforts at regime change. The occasional military strike (the only gas refinery, oil smuggling activities, decapitation, SEAD). Failing that, then invasion.



Not an easy wicket to sticket. But like the old man says, until there is a mission statement - this is just fantasy football.

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Who says they will not give it to a suicide bomber and it gets detonated in a harbor or major city somewhere in the world including the US.

That does seem to be the current modus operandi. I'm told that it takes a few years of refinement to make nuclear weapon small enough to to be missile launchable, let alone man portable. But that does not preclude them from doing as you say. A real possibility, I agree.

I only think they will do that if there really is anything to this 12th Imam business. Otherwise they will use their nukes as bargaining chips.

Lets hope we can change their minds.

[hoepoe]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Someone want to tell me what the objective of a strike would be?

Give me a mission statement.

TR

Sir

It is not possible to stop their nuclear program. The purpose would be to at best, set i back, or at least slow it down. As MR2 stated. they will have nuclear capabilities as well as a delivery method. It's too late to stop it. This could have been stopped years ago, but as usual, the world didn't believe that was their goal.

Economic sanctions simply do not work in the ME, it's a Western approach. We've seen this in almost all the ME conflicts. The reason for this is simple: Most of the ME country leadership simply does not care about their people, only about their clinging onto power.

Iran is a perfect example: The West waved the oil sanctions flag and one day later Iran gave the West the finger and said: "we're not selling Oil to EU countries anymore and will push oil prices up so screw your sanctions." By pushing oil up they will gain the income that they will lose should sanctions be imposed in 2 or 3 months.

Should Israel or anyone attack Iran? That is another debate and i'm not certain an attack by Israel is the answer. Nor am i certain that we have the capabilities to attack, defend the home-front as well as deal will retaliation on multiple fronts without suffering major civilian casualties. Another point to consider is Israel using Nuclear weapons. Modern Israel was forged from the ashes of the holocaust but this is also a curse in a sense; Israel could never initiate a nuclear attack as in Israel's eyes, that would equate to genocide so nukes would only be used in defense - in which case half of Israel would already be a parking lot.

Are people in Israel concerned? Concerned yes, but only slightly more than usual. Worried, no, life goes on. It's not on everyone's mind 24/7 at all.

Hoepoe

[Axe]

Originally Posted by Richard

That one's always a proverbial crap shoot - and especially in that part of the world - although the 1:6 odds with craps are far better than what you're proposing. Think about it...seriously.

Richard

I do not know enough detail about the overall political picture in Iran beyond the current leadership to seriously propose anything.

I asked my question because I read about a restive Iranian population that does not necessarily support their government.

Realizing that such an attack could unify the population against the United States or Israel, I had wondered if such an attack would create a leadership vacuum that would allow the resistance groups to gain traction and perhaps allow a more moderate government to step in.

I have tried to think of something that would have a higher probability of success than attacking the hardened underground facilities, be unexpected, and accomplish more than simply serve as a stalling tactic.

I figured an attack on the Nuke facilities would likely tick off the Iranian people anyway, especially with the current Theocracy likely using it as political propaganda to whip the population up. Basically, if the US or Israelis are going to have to do something, why not go big?

You gents have made it clear that the blowback would exceed the benefit of removing the theocracy that is in place.

Thank you for the replies. I have said it before. Whatever the subject is, you guys know far more about it than I do. I always learn a lot from this site. By asking what seems like a dumb question to you, I learn.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

There are still some economic tools.

Step 1: Through some money printing and supply restriction (need some cooperation from the Saudis), run up the price of oil for a few months.

We are not going to hurt an oil producer by running the price of oil UP. In our world there s always going to be a buyer. Oil is the Oxygen of economy. Besides, the Iranians have a willing, well-heeled buyer in the Chinese; and if the western economies are hurt all the better for Pei King. The damage to the US and struggling European economies caused by prohibitive oil prices would be more devastating then the OPEC oil embargo.

Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.

Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.

[ECUPirate09]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

...
Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.

Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.

Any chance they would do the same nowadays?

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by ECUPirate09

Any chance they would do the same nowadays?

There is a chance, considering the increased demand now that Iran is not shipping oil to the EU could make up for the lost profit[1]. The side benefit would be a short to medium term economic boost in the US and EU fueled by cheap oil. It is sort of a win-win, but it comes at the expense of the Saudi oil profits, which they are probably loath to share, even if it can punish Iran, they would rather we do it militarily. That way, there is no skin off their backs, and if anything, increased demand to fuel a war machine would be a windfall for them, all while stretching the military resources of the US and Israel, which they hate anyway.


[1[]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166870499947012.html

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

We are not going to hurt an oil producer by running the price of oil UP. In our world there s always going to be a buyer. Oil is the Oxygen of economy. Besides, the Iranians have a willing, well-heeled buyer in the Chinese; and if the western economies are hurt all the better for Pei King. The damage to the US and struggling European economies caused by prohibitive oil prices would be more devastating then the OPEC oil embargo.

Want to hurt an oil producer? You have to make oil cheap.

Like the Saudi did in the 80's to punish Russia for Afghanistan.

That's step 3.
The purpose in running it up short-term is to take advantage of market volatility (pushes it down further when it goes down) and create uncertainty for Iran's would-be trading partners who choose to trade oil in currencies other than the dollar (keeps them isolated).

Keeping the dollar monopoly on the oil trade is significant.