| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Israel could use ballistic missiles against Iran-report |
| 2009-03-18 |
| JERUSALEM, March 17 (Reuters) - Ballistic missiles could be Israel's weapon of choice against Iranian nuclear facilities if it decides on a pre-emptive attack and deems air strikes too risky, according to a report by a Washington think-tank. Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an accuracy of a few dozen metres (yards) from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks -- limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots. Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak. "If the Jericho III is fully developed and its accuracy is quite high then this scenario could look much more feasible than using combat aircraft," he said in the March 14 report, titled "Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Development Facilities". Israel, whose jets bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and mounted a similar sortie over Syria in 2007, has hinted that it could forcibly deny Iran the means to make an atomic bomb. But many experts believe the Iranian sites are too distant, dispersed and protected for Israel's warplanes to take on alone. Israel neither confirms nor denies having Jerichos, as part of an "ambiguity" policy veiling its own assumed atomic arsenal. Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. air force colonel who runs war games for various government agencies in Washington, cast doubt on the usefulness of ballistic missiles against Iran, noting, for example, the robust fortification at Natanz. This, he said, would required that attackers "burrow" into the targets using multiple, precision-guided bombs dropped by plane: "The American conclusion is that the only way to get deep enough is to put a second warhead into the hole of the first." Loath to see further destabilisation of a combustible region, the Obama administration has championed engaging Iran diplomatically. Some U.S. officials have signalled unhappiness at the idea of Israel going it alone against its arch-foe. Toukan, whose 114-page report frowns on the prospect of unilateral Israeli action, said a Jericho salvo could draw an Iranian counter-attack with Shehab missiles. Other reprisal scenarios include Iran choking off oil exports, hitting U.S. Gulf assets, or ordering proxy attacks on Jewish targets abroad. Some Israeli experts have been dismissive of the Shehab threat, citing intelligence assessments that Iran has deployed fewer than 100 of the missiles and that, if fired, most would be destroyed in mid-flight by Israel's Arrow II interceptor. "Under such circumstances, we would expect little more than a repeat of the Gulf war," said one ex-general, referring to Iraq's firing of 40 Scud missiles at Israel during the 1991 conflict. Those attacks inflicted damage but few casualties. The Arrow II also provides some protection for Jordan, an Arab neighbour of Israel and which Toukan saw becoming "Ground Zero if a ballistic missile exchange takes place". He noted that any Jericho strikes on Iran -- which has denied seeking nuclear weapons but vowed to retaliate if attacked -- would be complicated should Tehran obtain the most sophisticated version of Russia's S-300 air-defence system, which can tackle ballistic missiles as well as invading planes. Israel could face a further difficulty in mounting a sneak Jericho attack because its strategic air bases are located near population centres. The unannounced test launch of what was believed to be a Jericho III outside Tel Aviv last year became public knowledge within minutes. But that may be the extent of Iran's forewarning. According to an Israeli defence consultant, only the United States and Russia have put up satellites capable of spotting ballistic missile launches in real time, "and it's highly unlikely that the Iranians would get access to that information". The consultant, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, played down the notion of ballistic missiles being used for conventional attacks: "You look at any major Western military, and you'll see that such strikes are the purview of manned warplanes, while ballistic missiles are reserved for nuclear-strike scenarios." That anonymous consultant, probably the barkeep at the nearest pub, is full of it. I have speculated about this possibility for quite some time. The Jericho rocket family has an interesting history, and a lengthy one. The original version goes all the way back to the "French connection" era in IDF history, before the 1967 war, when France was Israel's top arms supplier. The original Jericho was apparently based on the French SSBS-1 missile. This in turn incorporated quite a bit of licensed and highly sensitive American technology, most notably solid propellant formulations and guidance hardware. In the years since, the family has developed as an exclusively Israeli program and now includes Israel's Shavit space launcher. One crucial advantage of ballistic missiles is the warhead's potentially very high impact velocity and the resulting potential for deep penetration. Unlike the Space Shuttle or the Soyuz, missile warheads are designed to slow down as little as possible before impact or detonation. With modern aerodynamics and certain other influences, a high fraction of the warhead's maximum velocity can be retained all the way to the ground. This allows for phenomenol penetration against hardened structures if the warhead is designed to survive the impact (and some are). With the addition of GPS updating for the inertial guidance, the necessary accuracy is relatively simple. On another point, there has been a lot of speculation about how and where Israel's Jericho missiles are based. I have seen some uninformed types suggest that they are on Israel's submarines. This is quite impossible, Jericho II is a large missile, and Israeli subs are quite small by comparison with American or other SSBNs. Various experts have scoured satellite images for missile silos or similar installations in Israeli, and have yet to find any. My guess is that the Jericho is land-mobile and I have a good idea of the specific method, but it is not wise to speculate further in a public forum. |
| Posted by:Atomic Conspiracy |
| #23 brilliant! What's another "peace rocket" or 47? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-03-18 21:52 |
| #22 Maybe Israel could hit them around April 4th when the NORKs are grabbing the worlds attentions with their launch... |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2009-03-18 21:45 |
| #21 One source I read had about 40 watts/centrifuge. I think the most power hungry step is keeping the machinery and piping hot enough to keep the uranium hexaflouride gaseous (>65°C ). Iran is pursuing both enriched uranium and plutonium bomb processes. Try and claim this is for fuel production: Arak |
| Posted by: ed 2009-03-18 19:10 |
| #20 Refining Uranium is power-intensive because you are limited to using the small mass difference between isotopes to sort them. Hanford was the Plutonium fuel plant, and that process created Plutonium by nuclear reaction, and then separated it from the other reaction products by chemical processes, which are considerably 'easier' from a power use perspective. Which path is Iran following? We hear about the Uranium centrifuges (which were not an option in 1944, so I don't know their level of power use). |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-03-18 16:57 |
| #19 Refining fissile material takes a s***load of power. That's why Oak Ridge was built in TVA country and Hanford near the Columbia River dams. Power plants are a lot bigger and harder to hide and bury than weapons bunkers. No power, no bombs. Doesn't work after the bombs are finished, though. Draw your own conclusions. |
| Posted by: Nero 2009-03-18 16:09 |
| #18 Good point on the physics. You go deep enough with the right mix of materials and it just won't work even with an ICBM. The Norks and Iranians have learned to dig. Israel has good Civil Defense and ABM capabilities. They'd hold up OK to whatever Shahab's come their way. But it's all about the strategic targets. If they can take them out with 42 Jerichos it is likely to happen. If not, they won't shoot. Physics of bunker penetration and delivery of S300s are the 2 unknowns. |
| Posted by: JAB 2009-03-18 14:13 |
| #17 I think they would rather chance it with Iran striking back with a much larger conventional missile force than going ahead and letting them keeep building the nukes though. there woul;d be alot more collateral damage if a nuke hit anywhere near a city, unlike when Saddam fired his SCUDs into Israel with little effect |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2009-03-18 11:18 |
| #16 As Israel proved in Syria, any attack they do on Iran will be completely unique and will catch the world by surprise. I can't wait to see what they are cooking up. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-03-18 10:21 |
| #15 I think by now the Jericho II or IV has been MIRVed. If so, Israel might have enough to take out both the Nuke sites, the ballistic cammand site and the missile sites at the same time (assuming the Jericho are supplemented by some less fancy sub launched missiles. |
| Posted by: mhw 2009-03-18 09:22 |
| #14 The Japanese solved that problem by installing disposable biologic guidance units (kamikaze pilots) in their version of the cruise missile - a technique we might anticipate from the Iranians. Would the Iranian pilots be able to get off the ground unobserved and unharmed? I thought that was why Iraq buried their air force in the sand before the 2003 invasion. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-18 09:03 |
| #13 As for Iranian retaliation, do they have the capability to launch non-conventional warheads with their Shahab missiles? Shahab-3: 1300-2000 km range (Israel in range) Shahab-4: (NorK Taep'o-dong 1): 2000-3000 km Israel would be on the losing end of that exchange. Iran has more missiles, is much bigger with 13X the population, has fewer high value targets and can absorb more damage. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-03-18 08:51 |
| #12 turn a UAV into one big bomb and use it like a cruise missile. Germany called such a craft the V-1 back in the 1940's. They were not accurate enough but that limitation is gone now. The Japanese solved that problem by installing disposable biologic guidance units (kamikaze pilots) in their version of the cruise missile - a technique we might anticipate from the Iranians. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-03-18 08:07 |
| #11 I don't see why a warning courtesy of Russia would be "highly unlikely". Russia is after all a sponsor and diplomatic protector of the Iranian nuclear program. Likewise the Obama administration might share intelligence on Israel with Iran as a confidence building measure to open up a dialogue. Would that make a big difference for Israel militarily? As for Iranian retaliation, do they have the capability to launch non-conventional warheads with their Shahab missiles? What would the Israeli reaction be? |
| Posted by: Ulaising Lumumba1586 2009-03-18 07:26 |
| #10 Another discussion we had a while back was the feasibility of attacking deep bunkers by targetting multiple missiles at the same location. Essentially, each subsequent missile digs a deeper hole and eventually the bunker is breached. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-03-18 06:54 |
| #9 The part thats realistic from the above being that you have a "15 minute" response solution to a high priority target that needs to be taken out ASAP. Not necessarily a deep bunker however. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2009-03-18 06:19 |
| #8 No link handy but I recall debate around 2002/2003 regarding tackling the deep bunker problem with conventional deep penetration warheads on US SSBN launched missiles. I believe it was abandoned as Rumsfeldian craziness as it was potentially destablizing. Same with 'low yield' nuclear weapons. Wasn't really craziness..it actually is realisticaly feasible in engineering and physics sense. Relatively costly but not very compared to some options. The problem comes in how to figure out your SSBN is launching a conventional instead of a nuke? One idea tossed around was to have a dedicated launch facility somewhere in the US to launch only conventional warheads..still relatively a feasible idea. The part that has killed this idea however is physics, namely the fact that no matter how fast the penetrator is going you can only dig to a depth 4 times the length of the rod before sheer forces rip the rod apart. To give a comparison also for a steel rod to penetrate concrete at any depth it must be moving at least a half kilometer per second. Faster speed doesn't help either in this case because you'll simply deform any type of penetrator or even melt it upon impact. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2009-03-18 06:18 |
| #7 Israel could use Kabbalah against Iran. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-03-18 04:38 |
| #6 ION RIAN > RUSSIA'S MEDVEDEV CLAIMS NATO IS EXPANDING TO RUSSIA'S BORDERS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-03-18 02:43 |
| #5 Also there have been rumours of Israel producing a very long range UAV capable of carrying bombs. Then the missile/UAV distinction is arbitrary based on pre-unmanned thinking. There is no reason why you couldn't turn a UAV into one big bomb and use it like a cruise missile. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-03-18 02:42 |
| #4 It's highly likely that Iran will respond to an Israeli attack by disrupting oil traffic through the Gulf. This will bring the hammer down on them, because no one can afford to have their oil supplies cut off. Israel's problem then becomes making sure the USA, the Euros and the Gulf states are properly prepared. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-03-18 02:23 |
| #3 No link handy but I recall debate around 2002/2003 regarding tackling the deep bunker problem with conventional deep penetration warheads on US SSBN launched missiles. I believe it was abandoned as Rumsfeldian craziness as it was potentially destablizing. Same with 'low yield' nuclear weapons. This makes some sense if Russia or China detected a launch and assumed it was a nuke. I still think it was worthy of consideration for certain scenarios in which we could inform Russia and China in advance and use liasson officers to prevent any misunderstandings while we take out the Iranian, North Korean or Pakistani arsenal. Israel has no such constraints for a number of reasons. This scenario had not occurred to me until AC posted this. But, now that I understand it, I draw the opposite conclusion of CSIS, a leftish think tank. I do hope Israel can do it this way. The pending sale of S300s is the real point of no return with Iran. After that point a barrage of Jerichos is by far the most benign way this conflict could play out. As for Iran retailiating against US assets in the Gulf should Israel attack: they can hurt us but we know how it would end and so do they. Obama or not, there would be tremendous political pressure in the US to destroy that regime utterly if they attack our forces or disrupt our economy. If they use WMD, there will be no more Iranians but we will have to restock some warheads on boomers after all. Missiles too. If Iranians are smart they'll take to the streets to turn this year's sham election into something resembling a real one and elect a 'reformer' who should take Obama up on offer to 'talk' so they can walk back their nuke and air defense plans in exchange for some sort of fig leaf and normalization of relations with the west. If the mullarchy remains in control, there is no good way out for their country. |
| Posted by: JAB 2009-03-18 01:59 |
| #2 It'd be awfully nice if Israel didn't need to ask U.S. permission to overfly Iraq. I do hope you're right as well as logical, Atomic Conspiracy. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-18 01:41 |
| #1 "Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak." Toukan is right. With a forged steel case, the penetrator warhead could still contain a few hundred pounds of explosive. Set that off in a deeply buried facility, and Iran's nuke program is over, to say nothing of the impact effects themselves, which would be considerable. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2009-03-18 00:33 |