Will Israel Take Out Iran's Reactor?

[Warren Dew]

I question whether Israel could pull it off. Iran is a lot farther away than Iraq was.

[Ian]

I question whether Israel could pull it off. Iran is a lot farther away than Iraq was.

I doubt they can pull off anything significant without American assistance, which is one reason why an airstrike similar to the 1981 raid is very unlikely.

But that isn't to say that, if and when Israel feels it has run out of time waiting on the latest sanctions and run out of patience waiting for the US to help it out, Israel doesn't have other options besides an airstrike. They could use in-country assets to attack key personnel, or... there are certain nuclear options. Obviously neither of these are preferrable to israel, and the international repercussions would be awful.

But then again, while attacking Iran any time soon would be a colossally counterproductive option, it would also be the most aggressive and reckless, hence Gawd sees it as something which could happen any time now...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt they can pull off anything significant without American assistance, which is one reason why an airstrike similar to the 1981 raid is very unlikely.

Good thing nobody can cruise at 50 ft while doing 600 knots.

[Ian]

I doubt they can pull off anything significant without American assistance, which is one reason why an airstrike similar to the 1981 raid is very unlikely.

Good thing nobody can cruise at 50 ft while doing 600 knots.

Hehe... Israeli pilots are some of the best on Earth. Maybe the best, to hear some of my aviator friends talk about them. They can get in Iran alright - they just don't have the means to attack underground/hardened targets very well.

[Ian]

Hey, look what just came across the New York Times...

U.S. Is Said to Assure Israel a Nuclear Iran Isn’t Imminent
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, citing evidence of continued troubles inside Iran’s nuclear program, has persuaded Israel that it would take roughly a year — and perhaps longer — for Iran to complete what one senior official called a “dash” for a nuclear weapon, according to American officials.

White House officials said they believe the assessment has dimmed the prospect that Israel would pre-emptively strike against the country’s nuclear facilities within the next year, as Israeli officials have suggested in thinly veiled threats.

For years, Israeli and American officials have debated whether Iran is on an inexorable drive toward a nuclear bomb and, if so, how long it would take to produce one. A critical question has been the time it would take Tehran to convert existing stocks of low-enriched uranium into weapons-grade material, a process commonly known as “breakout.”

Israeli intelligence officials had argued that Iran could complete such a race for the bomb in months, while American intelligence agencies have come to believe in the past year that the timeline is longer.

“We think that they have roughly a year dash time,” said Gary Samore, President Obama’s top adviser on nuclear issues, referring to how long it would take the Iranians to convert nuclear material into a working weapon. “A year is a very long period of time.”

Mr. Samore said the United States believed international inspectors would detect an Iranian move toward breakout within weeks, leaving a considerable amount of time for the United States and Israel to consider military strikes.

The American assessments are based on intelligence collected over the past year, as well as reports from international inspectors. It is unclear whether the problems that Iran has had enriching uranium are the result of poor centrifuge design, difficulty obtaining components or accelerated Western efforts to sabotage the nuclear program.

American officials said new intelligence information was being fed into a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program.

Now, American and Israeli officials believe breakout is unlikely anytime soon, according to administration officials. For one thing, Iran, which claims it is interested in enriching uranium only for peaceful purposes, would be forced to build nuclear bombs from a limited supply of nuclear material, currently enough for two weapons. Second, such a decision would require kicking out international weapons inspectors, eliminating any ambiguity about Iran’s nuclear plans.

Even if Iran were to choose this path, American officials said it would probably take Iran some time to reconfigure its nuclear facilities to produce weapons-grade uranium and ramp up work on designing a nuclear warhead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/world ... ml?_r=1&hp

[Toontown]

The Iranian regime will make it's move, because they haven't thought it through. The whole thing has clearly become an obsession and a fixation. They will continue to build underground enrichment facilities until they believe they can successfully make their "breakout" run even in the face of air strikes.

When they are ready to make their run, the regime will expel the IAEA and go for it. They will already have rockets and warheads ready. Or maybe a suicide submarine and crew. If they get clean away with it, we will see nuclear blackmail on an unprecedented scale. At least. That's assuming they're not involved in some crazy death-cult syndrome.

So here's how I would explain things to the Iranian Islamofascists:

The near-term occurrence or probability of a nuclear Iran is likely to lead to the she-bear Palin taking the White House in 2 to 6 years. Palin would be your worst nightmare if you had sense enough to foresee the likely consequences of your present course. Like I said. You haven't thought it through.

To be pushed around and then destroyed by a woman would be unspeakably humiliating for you. But surely Allah would not allow it!

Would He?

Come to think of it, The Merciful One has allowed a great number of unspeakable humiliations to befall the faithful...but surely the faithful will prevail in the end...

Won't they?

Well...maybe it depends on how you define "prevail". To disappear from physical existence, presumably to take spiritual possession of an ephemeral mansion full of virgins in heaven...Yeah. That would be one way to define it. If you are hopelessly narcissistic, arrogant, and don't deal well with reality.

The last thing I would want to be is a puffed-up Islamofascist in a nuclear slugging match against a nuclear hyperpower. The spectre of utter destruction of you Islamofascists would destroy your faith, and with it your false courage. You would finally be forced to stare into the Nothingness you have spent your lives avoiding. And you would be completely unaccustomed to what you would be looking at, you would not understand, and you would be horrified. That's the trouble with delusion. A point comes where you just can't maintain the delusion any longer. And then, whatever it was you were hiding from is right in your face.

So who's with me? Who wants to take that longshot gamble, and head on down to Fire Lake? How about you, Ahmadinejad? Want to get this over with? Be advised. If you lose, that means you put your money on the wrong god. And the trouble is, there is no way in monkey hell you win a straight up nuclear slugging match.

So. Wanna go?

See, there's your problem right there. You can't go unless you're nuts and committing ethnically motivated murder-suicide. You would have no chance, and you would be trying it for crazed reasons. In which case Palin would probably want to do you...in. Ha. You thought I was going to say "do you", didn't you. You should be so lucky. No, it's "do you in". Subtle difference there. One way, you get "off". The other way, you get "offed".

These are the harsh realities. Being a nuclear threat doesn't mean we talk nice to you, or be nice to you, or anything. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It only means we have a sufficient number of nukes targeted on you to lift you into the stratosphere, but no higher. There is no heaven, and thus no mansions in heaven for you. Sorry. The stratosphere is as close to heaven as we can get you. And only in the form of radioactive dust. But only temporarily. Your dust would filter back down. Gravity, you know.

However, many of the harsh realities associated with the insanity of hostile, aggressive Islamofascism can be avoided. One need only disavow the entire loony ideology and set about creating peaceful, happy lives for yourselves. Don't worry. No one would bother you if you were to begin to practice what you so deceptively preach.

That's how I would talk to them, in the hope that the unpleasantness of being spoken to so bluntly might partially shake them from their stupor. A forlorn hope, of course. A lifelong stupor is hard to shake.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt they can pull off anything significant without American assistance, which is one reason why an airstrike similar to the 1981 raid is very unlikely.

Good thing nobody can cruise at 50 ft while doing 600 knots.

Hehe... Israeli pilots are some of the best on Earth. Maybe the best, to hear some of my aviator friends talk about them. They can get in Iran alright - they just don't have the means to attack underground/hardened targets very well.

Who said anything about pilots?

[Warren Dew]

But that isn't to say that, if and when Israel feels it has run out of time waiting on the latest sanctions and run out of patience waiting for the US to help it out, Israel doesn't have other options besides an airstrike. They could use in-country assets to attack key personnel, or... there are certain nuclear options. Obviously neither of these are preferrable to israel, and the international repercussions would be awful.

And of course, there's no deadline on those options. Assassinations don't produce nuclear fallout, and while a production reactor produces much more nuclear fallout than a nuclear weapon, the political fallout would be similar whether the nuclear weapon was used before or after the start of reactor operations.