Iran vs Israel
Trim, do you have evidence that Israel has weaponized (with nuc payloads) their sub launched ordnance?
I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...
It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.
I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...
It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.
Hello Lonewolf.
welcome to the world of deterrence. The key is uncertainty - if the other side knows what you have, and what you will do, they can plan. If not, then sense always dictates that they don't do anything to provoke a response far worse than they can tolerate.
The above assumes the other side is rational..............
welcome to the world of deterrence. The key is uncertainty - if the other side knows what you have, and what you will do, they can plan. If not, then sense always dictates that they don't do anything to provoke a response far worse than they can tolerate.
The above assumes the other side is rational..............
Hello Lonewolf.
welcome to the world of deterrence.
Actually, with your post, we are discussing two different elements of deterrence. You are referring to the risk of unknown versus the demonstrated capability as a deterrent. I was quizzing Trim about demonstrated capability (and indirectly, deterrence). A deterrent demonstrated, for example a functional ICBM system, is a different sort of deterrent issue than
"How many n-bombs do Pakistan have, and are they missile or aircraft delivered?" being mulled over in India's Defense Ministry (to offer but a single example).
The key is uncertainty - if the other side knows what you have, and what you will do, they can plan.
The risk assessment in Tehran over functional maritime tactical nuke capability (submarine launched Cruise Missile Nukes, call it a Kosher TLAM(N) if you like) can be assumed, or confirmed, without much change in general planning. What I was bothering Trim about was his appearing to convert an assumption into a fact, which requires evidence. If there is evidence of such, I'd be interested to know.
If not, then sense always dictates that they don't do anything to provoke a response far worse than they can tolerate.
I'll offer to you that the confirmation of a Kosher TLAM(N) program / capability is a far more effective deterrent than an assumption of one. As Israel are still not in the NPT, they have no political loss in their own confirmation of capability ... if that seems to them a stronger deterrent.
I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the operational puzzle of how do deploy the 212's to use a cruise missile in a nuclear strike ... which consideration may inform the Iranian acquisition of two Russian SAM systems: the infamous S300, and the TOR-M1 point defense suite previously acquired.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 15th Jun 2010 at 15:19.
Trim, do you have evidence that Israel has weaponized (with nuc payloads) their sub launched ordnance?
I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...
It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.
I'd not heard that, but I have been out of the Mil Intel loop for a few years ...
It is one thing for the Israelis to have the Bomb, which they certainly do, and quite another for them to have chosen a particular weaponization package, which they might or might not have done.
NTI: Submarine: Israel Capabilities
One would have to assume that in the past eight years they have not stood still. I would guess that they have also weaponised their biological weapons in the same delivery vehicles.
Trim:
Agreed, but we are still guessing here. I think the Israelis have sufficient tech capability to do same, in terms of quality and precision ... but there is still the problem of doing all that at the expense of something else. IMO, take it for what it's worth, using rockets (theater class ballistic missiles) is a far superior means of delivery than cruise missiles, in terms of the difficulty of defeating a ballistic missile inbound. Hell, the US has been at this, with allies that include Israel, for a couple of decades and it's a bloody tough nut to crack. Cost benefit strikes me as a lower probability dice roll. The Kosher Tomahawk approach is more likely to be countered by conventional SAMs. I'll take Jericho III as a more likely demonstrated capability.
Granted, if the Jericho program is effectively NOT weaponized, then Kosher Tomahawk offers many advantages over aircraft on a long range mission with a nuclear strike. Hear in the news today that Saudi confirmed that they'd allow Israelis to overfly on the way to Iran, but am wondering at the veracity of that announcement.
Bad guess, given that bio weapons are an utterly different kettle of fish to deploy. Waste of a Tomahawk/Harpoon missile if you ask me.
One would have to assume that in the past eight years they have not stood still.
Granted, if the Jericho program is effectively NOT weaponized, then Kosher Tomahawk offers many advantages over aircraft on a long range mission with a nuclear strike. Hear in the news today that Saudi confirmed that they'd allow Israelis to overfly on the way to Iran, but am wondering at the veracity of that announcement.
I would guess that they have also weaponised their biological weapons in the same delivery vehicles.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK/Philippines/Italy
Age: 73
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. Hear in the news today that Saudi confirmed that they'd allow Israelis to overfly on the way to Iran, but am wondering at the veracity of that announcement.
The one thing the GCC nations are sh1t scared of is the resurgent, possibly nuclear armed, Iran. Witness the Iranian interference in Iraq.
They would love nothing more thn Israel neutralising the threat, Of course, use of any Arab nation air space would need to be deniable.
Why on Earth would you wonder about that?
They would love nothing more than Israel neutralising the threat, Of course, use of any Arab nation air space would need to be deniable.
See this tidbit if for an illustration of what I'm getting at, skeptical wise ...
Saudi airspace 'not open for Iran war'
And
Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike
PMO: Report is fundamentally false; Sunday Times: Mossad chief held secret talks with Saudi officials.
This seems to be response to the Times (LOndon) story that begins thusly:
The Times // June 12, 2010
Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
Hugh Tomlinson
Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.
To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
However, I leave open the possibility that the Saudi King is in on it, for the reasons you cited, and this: of the two evils, Israel is easier to deal with than Iran, for the Saudi King.
using rockets (theater class ballistic missiles) is a far superior means of delivery than cruise missiles, in terms of the difficulty of defeating a ballistic missile inbound
Absolutely - and especially if launched from a nuclear sub. Israel's diesel-electric IAP subs are too limited to be a globally strategic weapon platform in any case.
Bad guess, given that bio weapons are an utterly different kettle of fish to deploy. Waste of a Tomahawk/Harpoon missile if you ask me
That depends on what sort of bio weapons you are deploying, and what strategic effect you wish to achieve. Conventional bio weapons (such as Anthrax) are indeed very difficult to deploy as a true WMD. But genetic hybrid weapons can be more easily deployed and very effective as a weapon of destabilisation. Deployed in a capital city, for example, they might only immediately kill a few people, but can then very quickly render the entire city uninhabitable, forcing a mass evacuation and subsequent nationwide destabilisation. Their appeal to a politically isolated but technologically advanced nation is evident - they can decapitate a rival power, but without causing substantial loss of life or damage to infrastructure, thereby allowing rapid post-victory restructuring of the rival and limiting the wider international political consequences of the attack.
Last edited by Trim Stab; 16th Jun 2010 at 09:22.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comment..
If Israel and the Kingdom are independant sovereign states (which they undoutably are) why does the US State Deprtment have to agree with anything they agree between themselves?ot
“They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
Surely they could both tell the USA to take their opinion (whatever it was) and shove it!!, after all it's a local affair
just my 2p
DM
“They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”
Surely they could both tell the USA to take their opinion (whatever it was) and shove it!!, after all it's a local affair
just my 2p
DM
One does not get much for a Tuppence these days!
As the USA is a strong supporter of both the Saudi's and the Israeli's then there is a need for each of the three to work together in situation. The UK has as much interest in the right outcome of this matter as do any of the "Local" participants.
Iran armed with Nukes is a prospect the World just does not want to see happen....as it could affect you in Somerset just as much as in Riyadh or Tel Aviv.
As the USA is a strong supporter of both the Saudi's and the Israeli's then there is a need for each of the three to work together in situation. The UK has as much interest in the right outcome of this matter as do any of the "Local" participants.
Iran armed with Nukes is a prospect the World just does not want to see happen....as it could affect you in Somerset just as much as in Riyadh or Tel Aviv.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Israel and the Kingdom are independant sovereign states (which they undoutably are) why does the US State Deprtment have to agree with anything they agree between themselves?
Direct negotiations between israel and Saudi would be somewhat problematic. Using the 'good offices' of the parent country made a lot of sense.
Using the 'good offices' of the parent country made a lot of sense.
Just how do you arrive at that viewpoint?
I thought the British were the folks who split up the Middle East all those years ago.
Was it not the UN that decreed there the Jewish homeland would be in Palestine?
Originally Posted by [SIZE=2
Trim Tab]Absolutely - and especially if launched from a nuclear sub. Israel's diesel-electric IAP subs are too limited to be a globally strategic weapon platform in any case.
[/SIZE] Israelis don't need global strategic, just theater strategic, which AIP allows but for that slight shortcoming in terms of what it can, or can't, carry.
That depends on what sort of bio weapons you are deploying ...
Not gonna derail into discussing why a sub launched cruise missile isn't how you delpoy bio weapons ... cheers.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US is very much the sponsoring parent of Israel. Be in no doubt about that.
Despite Kim Philby's father's best efforts, the House of Saud is very much an American protectorate, not a British one.
Despite Kim Philby's father's best efforts, the House of Saud is very much an American protectorate, not a British one.
Gee LF....did I not see British Troops in the Gulf Wars? It would strike me the UK has helped protect the Saudi's directly and the Israeli's indirectly. Kim Philby's best efforts were in support of the Russians and Communism as I recall.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Sasless, but Philby's Pappy, St John Philby, was a desert explorer par excellence in the Wilfred Thesiger mould (and a convert to Islam,........... go figure), and possibly would have been quite disappointed at his son's treachery ?
As for Iran, brinkmanship in the Middle East brings its own perils and regrettably the madmen running Iran do not see the immense risks their pointless, macho posturing (remind you of anyone nearby ?) and threatening behaviour entails. The Iranian people certainly do though.
As for Iran, brinkmanship in the Middle East brings its own perils and regrettably the madmen running Iran do not see the immense risks their pointless, macho posturing (remind you of anyone nearby ?) and threatening behaviour entails. The Iranian people certainly do though.
Originally Posted by LowFlier
Despite Kim Philby's father's best efforts, the House of Saud is very much an American protectorate, not a British one.
It's a bit more complicated than what you claim.
That said, without explicit US support in 1973, I have my doubts Israel would exist today.
