Article

2009-03-18 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Israel could use ballistic missiles against Iran-report

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-03-18 00:17|| || Front Page|| [12 views ] Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 00:33|| Front Page Top

#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">trailing wife 2009-03-18 01:41|| 2009-03-18 01:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 01:59|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 02:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 02:42|| Front Page Top

#6 ION RIAN > RUSSIA'S MEDVEDEV CLAIMS NATO IS EXPANDING TO RUSSIA'S BORDERS.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2009-03-18 02:43|| 2009-03-18 02:43|| Front Page Top

#7 Israel could use Kabbalah against Iran.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-03-18 04:38|| 2009-03-18 04:38|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 06:18|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 06:19|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 06:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 07:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 08:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 08:51|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 09:03|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 09:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 10:21|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 11:18|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 14:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 16:09|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 16:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 19:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-03-18 21:45|| Front Page Top

#23 brilliant! What's another "peace rocket" or 47?

Posted by Frank G 2009-03-18 21:52|| 2009-03-18 21:52|| Front Page Top

23:49 JohnQC
23:37 HammerHead
23:33 HammerHead
23:23 Bright Pebbles the flatulent
23:00 DMFD
22:58 DMFD
22:50 DMFD
22:48 DMFD
22:37 JosephMendiola
22:35 rammer
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:24 Pappy
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:22 rwv
22:20 Verlaine
22:18 Verlaine
22:14 JosephMendiola
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:10 Broadhead6
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:08 Broadhead6
22:06 Ming the Merciless
21:53 Verlaine
21:52 Frank G