| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| CSIS Study: Israel would weather nuclear war with Iran |
| 2007-12-24 |
| All out nuclear war between Israel and Iran: a doomsday scenario that we all fear deeply. A new study compiled by the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), headed by former Pentagon analyst Anthony H. Cordesman, explored just such a nightmare scenario, noting that it could lead to the death of between 16- 28 million Iranian civilians, and 200-800 thousand Israelis. This hypothetical, research-oriented study also explored other contingencies for unconventional warfare in our region, noting the tactics that various countries could potentially employ in such instances. As pertains to nuclear warfare, the study found that an Israeli nuclear scrimmage with Iran would most likely last for about three weeks. Aside from the aforementioned direct casualties, the study could not determine how many additional long-term casualties would arise from fallout and radiation in the weeks and months following such an attack. One essential requirement for nuclear confrontation in our region, according to the study, is allowing Iran’s nuclear program to develop, unhindered by a pre-emptive strike by either Israel or the United States. If US or Israeli preemption does not occur, the study found, Iran could very well have 30 nuclear warheads available for warfare between 2010-2020. Israel, by comparison, currently has 200 nuclear war heads with both air and sea launch capabilities, according to the study. Given certain conditions, Israel could potentially survive such a nuclear scenario, the study found. Iran, on the other hand, would be completely and utterly obliterated. “Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of term, though Israeli recovery is theoretically possible in population and economic terms,” wrote Cordesman, who compiled this study entitled “Iran, Israel, and Nuclear War”. The bottom line, according to this study, is that Israel quite simply has more potent and effective bombs. Israel currently has a 1 megaton (mt) nuclear bomb, whereas Iran does not yet have the ability to develop a bomb with more than 100 kilotons of power. What this means, in essence, is that the Israeli bomb can lead to three times as many casualties as its Iranian counterpart (chiefly due to third-degree burns), and has an “area of extreme lethality” (the range within which a nuclear bomb is fatal) ten-times as great. Which Israeli cities are most likely to be targeted by Iran? Tel-Aviv and central Israel (all the way down to Ashdod) are the most likely targets, as is Haifa. Israel, conversely, has more than 10 Iranian cities on its “hit list” including Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Qazvin, Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman, Qom, Ahvaz, and Kermanshah. Cordseman also noted that Iran would have lower fission yields, and less accurate force into cluster targeting on Israel’s two largest urban complexes, and that the Iranian side would also most likely be thwarted by Israel’s missile defense systems. Notable among these is the “Arrow 2” anti-ballistic missile which could most potentially shoot down most nuclear missiles launched by Iran. Furthermore, Israel could strike Iran with far grater accuracy and precision, hitting its cities with deadly aim utilizing both its own satellites, as well as those of the United States. The study also examined what would occur if Syria would join the Israeli-Iranian nuclear fray. Syria, Cordesman estimated, could kill an additional 800 thousand Israelis with missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads. The Syrian side, however, could suffer up to 18 million casualties should Israel respond with a nuclear strike. If Egypt should join its Arab neighbors in battle, the study finds, Israel would most likely respond with a nuclear strike at Cairo and other major cities, as well as by destroying the Aswan dam. CSIS is a collective of fruitcakes and wannabees, to include Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, draft-dodging Carter SecDef Harold Brown, and Richard Armitage. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #20 The 1 MT is a city killer, THats a big hammer, wiht long term consequences for the target region. Think Teheran ceasing to exist - and being contaminated for thousands of years. Or Mecca. Syria would cease to exist were it to enter such a war. As for the scenario, I find them to be implausible, mainly for the depending on a 3 week war. The mad Islamists know they have to throw everything into one shot, because the Israelis would counterforce very quickly, and their anti-missle systems give them some defense (probably overrated in a saturation attack). One thing to consider: the Israeli military, unfettered by the destruction of the civil leadership, would strike deep hard and quickly with a number of options, including nuclear. Israeli restraint (overbearing lawyers screwing with military ability to order various actions) would disappear. Never Again is a powerful motivator, be it ovens in Dachau, or thermonuclear flames. The only Islamic nations left unscathed in the region would be Lebanon, Egypt, the gulf states (who are hardly Islmic in nature nor a threat) and Iraq (thanks to the US reconstruction of that nation). Yes, I beleive the House of Saud (and the wahhabists) would be taken down as the source of the bankroll that cause the destruction of Israel (Jiddah ceases to exist). The oil fields would be unaffected (and woudl need to be secured, likely by the Gulf States supported by the US, French and Brits). The major problem that CSIS has is that they depend on the rationaility of Mullahs and madmen like Amadhi-nejad. They simply break the MAD theory of rational actors. The Russians ultimately loved their children. The Islamists wrap theirs in explosives and send them out to kill themselves and the infidels. Amplify that with Iranian Shia apocalyptic fundamentalism and a messiah fixation. That gives you a national leadership who do not mind sacrificing their entire population to bring the Madhi into being. Furthermore they would consider their dead to be "martyrs" providing them with instant salvation. I am not at liberty to really discuss a lot of the technical issues without more forethought than I am willing to apply at the moment. Sum: This article is a rather transparent attempt to play domestic politics. It is a foolish attempt, by idiots, to apply MAD to madmen. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-12-24 22:24 |
| #19 g(r)omgoru: As far as the Israelis were concerned, the US efforts were enough so that they didn't feel the need to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Saddam could have changed that by ordering chemical weapons use, but he didn't. In turn, because the Israelis did nothing, the Arabs stayed with the coalition. So in that the Scuds didn't accomplish their mission, they were neutralized. The US, however, learned how very difficult it can be to interdict missiles with air power. Hopefully we have remembered that lesson when it comes to Iran. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-24 19:27 |
| #18 as we demonstrated by neutralizing the SCUD threat in Gulf War I. It would be funny, it it wasn't so sad. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2007-12-24 19:03 |
| #17 This study barely takes into account the off-the-scale collateral damage resulting from such a nightmarish scenario. What would the areas surrounding the blast radii be like after this horrific outcome came to pass? We would see shattered economies, contagions of cholera and other diseases, criminal gangs and militias thrive on the fringes of uninhabitable areas. No. This outcome is intolerable. Iran can not be trusted to act rationally while controlling a Pandora's Box of armaments while it is led by Islamofascist maniacs. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-12-24 18:46 |
| #16 Even if Israel had a 1MT weapon, it has no missile with the throw weight to deliver it. True. But F-16Iz would do the trick. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-12-24 16:38 |
| #15 I'll second what Moose said, and add, Those Iranian dead would disproportionately ethnic Persians. Other ethnic groups like the Kurds would come out it relatively unscathed (the Israelis know who their enemy is). The Persian Empire would cease to exist. Persia would become a rump state much like Austria after WW1, although in a more dangerous neighbourhood. It would either become an international protectorate or a protectorate of more powerful neighbouring states, say an expanded Kurdistan (or Azerbaijan) and/or Iraq. Now wouldn't that be a nice historical irony? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2007-12-24 16:08 |
| #14 Israel currently has a 1 megaton (mt) nuclear bomb, whereas Iran does not yet have the ability to develop a bomb with more than 100 kilotons of power. A military analyst wrote this nonsense? Firstly, the only inside info in the public domain is from the traitor Mordecai Vanunu. His photos show a model of what appears to be a Sloika of possible yield 40kT. There is no evidence that Israel has true two stage thermonuclear weapons. And developing H-bombs isn't simple. They need to be tested. Assuming the South Atlantic Vela incident was a test, that would be a fission weapon. Even if Israel had a 1MT weapon, it has no missile with the throw weight to deliver it. And Iran with a 100 kiloton weapon? That is thermonuclear yield (if you want something deliverable).. a warhead like that carried on the British version of Trident... far beyond Iranian capabilities. Secondly, there is the 2/3 power scaling law. You don't need MT warheads (unless your missiles are Chinese and inaccurate as hell) The US replaced the single 1.2Mt warhead on the Minuteman-II missile with the Minuteman-III and its three 170kt warheads. They provided 80% as much destructive power as the single warhead. |
| Posted by: john frum 2007-12-24 15:27 |
| #13 The CSIS study may well be meant for the Mad Mullahs™. It certainly doesn't tell Rantburg readers anything new, but it does lay out one theoretical outcome of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran. I too think the Israelis would get the better of such an exchange. However, the Israelis value the lives of their 800,000 citizens far more than the Mullahs value the lives of their 20 million to be killed citizens. Therefore, while the Israelis would end up in a better strategic position, they would suffer more. That of course is the essential difference between Israel and Iran. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-12-24 14:24 |
| #12 The Rantburg Center for Strategic Studies (RCSS) is open for business. Informed opinion. Clear writing. Open documentation. Outstanding snark. Timely service. Reasonable rates. E-mail us. AoS |
| Posted by: Steve White 2007-12-24 14:21 |
| #11 Plus, I would love to see OldSpook's analysis of it. I don't know if he specializes in weapon delivery systems, but he knows about interceptions IIRC. Long story short, Iran would get pounded back into the stone age along with Syria if they tried anything like this. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-24 13:56 |
| #10 math is what you make of it...assuming these people are correct, in the wake of such a war Iran would "only" have FIFTY MILLION people left (give or take...they have 66 million now). Israel would have about 5 million...leaving them outnumbered 10:1. Plus, Israel is a VERY narrow country, and thus the whole country would likely be uninhabitable. Iran is a HUGE country...and there would be lots of places for people to still live. Imanutjob LIKES this math...and is crazy enough to opt for it! |
| Posted by: Justrand 2007-12-24 13:37 |
| #9 Skunky Elmomosh5044: To start with, I wouldn't even call this a "political" *analysis*, much less a military one. I would call it "wishful thinking" on the part of CSIS. If motivated, a dozen Rantburgers could produce a far superior tactical military analysis on this scenario, and footnote every bit of it with open source information. To start with, the US is highly motivated that Israel doesn't suffer a scratch, as we demonstrated by neutralizing the SCUD threat in Gulf War I. This is because the Israelis have made it abundantly clear they will nuke not just Iran, but much of the Muslim world, if they were forced to retaliate. And the US does not want a middle sized nuclear exchange taking place, even on the other side of the planet. And yes, we would receive substantial amounts of fallout from such an exchange, courtesy of the jet stream. For this reason and also to protect our own forces, George Bush has ordered a dense, multi-layered missile defense shield to surround Iran. Between our PAC-3, Patriot, THAAD and Israel's ARROW missile defenses, the odds of a successful penetration by Iran are small. And while all of this is already in place, we are continuing to improve these defenses with other anti-missile systems. So the entire axiom of the "study" is invalid. If a nuclear war happened at all, it would have to be conducted solely by Israel against Iran. If it remained conventional, even then Iran has only one effective weapon it could use against Israel directly, its missiles. They did consider a proxy fight with chemical weapons by Hezbollah against Israel. But the Israelis have chemical defensive equipment, whereas Hezbollah does not. And Syria would suffer nuclear retaliation if it fired chemical weapons from its territory, and it knows it. It shouldn't be startling that Rantburgers might know more about the situation that these CSIS luminaries, because Rantburgers both tend to be more objective and knowledgeable, and even when these CSIS characters were in power, they were not particularly effective in their jobs. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-24 12:46 |
| #8 Very unlikely Mr. President, not with the russky defenses alerted. Why it take a miracle and a damn good pilot. He'd have to come in way, way low, thru the passes. Yeah. Low. Way low. BRING THAT BABY BARRELING RIGHT DOWN THE PIPE. Could he make it? HELL YEAH! /Doc. Kahn mention |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2007-12-24 12:08 |
| #7 This publication was meant, not for US nor Israeli eyes, but for the Mullahcracy. |
| Posted by: doc 2007-12-24 11:48 |
| #6 How many dead Palis? You know, the folks their Muslim "brothers" are always sooooooo worried about? Like...all of them? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-12-24 11:26 |
| #5 Reminds me of the RAND studies by Herman Kahn and others in the 1960's...Strangelovian to the max..."How I Learned to Love the Bomb"... |
| Posted by: borgboy2001 2007-12-24 10:41 |
| #4 CSIS is a collective of fruitcakes and wannabees, to include Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, draft-dodging Carter SecDef Harold Brown, and Richard Armitage. All that aside, just what in the groups study and their conclusions do you dispute? |
| Posted by: Skunky Elmomosh5044 2007-12-24 10:40 |
| #3 I know that no one wins in nuclear war, but sounds like Israel would suffer a black eye and the arabs would get the living shit kicked out of them |
| Posted by: sinse 2007-12-24 10:39 |
| #2 They may be, but this looks like a pretty well thought out scenario. Although, if this view comes to pass, we can pretty much rule out letting other countries get the bomb after. Too much death and countries security is at stake. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-24 10:37 |
| #1 I suppose the authors of this study are trying to say that Iran getting a bomb does not matter. Even based on these estimates we have between 16- 29 million dead. |
| Posted by: bernardz 2007-12-24 10:36 |