PDA

View Full Version : What if



BudW
23 Dec 08,, 03:21
I.D.F. made a massive nuke strike on Iran, how and what would other countries do?

BudW
23 Dec 08,, 03:22
Did this topic get moved or did I not get it posted last time I tried?

payeng
23 Dec 08,, 06:52
IDF will be isolated from the rest of the world facing dire consequences.

Officer of Engineers
23 Dec 08,, 06:53
Israel doesn't have the nukes for a 1st strike.

TopHatter
23 Dec 08,, 07:38
Did this topic get moved or did I not get it posted last time I tried?
No and Yes, respectively.

Ironduke
23 Dec 08,, 08:45
Israel doesn't have the nukes for a 1st strike.
I think it can properly be summed up in two words: Samson Option.

zraver
24 Dec 08,, 06:06
Israel doesn't have the nukes for a 1st strike.

Oh... it seems to me that nuclear armed pop-eye turbo cruise missiles fired from a 209 sub could do a first strike very effectively. Although if they want Tehran or the nuclear facilities they need to get the sub into the Gulf. If they just want to wipe Qeshem Island off the map its doable.

The Jericho II can reach Tehran, and the Jericho III can get anywhere in Iran. Iran would never see it coming, even Russia could not make the call fast enough.

Inst
25 Dec 08,, 07:55
I'm wondering if Israel would have to nuke Pakistan afterwards, because it would consequently provoke huge amounts of Muslim ire, and someone with the ISI would conveniently "lose" a nuke somewhere.

Officer of Engineers
25 Dec 08,, 12:57
Oh... it seems to me that nuclear armed pop-eye turbo cruise missiles fired from a 209 sub could do a first strike very effectively. Although if they want Tehran or the nuclear facilities they need to get the sub into the Gulf. If they just want to wipe Qeshem Island off the map its doable.

The Jericho II can reach Tehran, and the Jericho III can get anywhere in Iran. Iran would never see it coming, even Russia could not make the call fast enough.For a knock out blow? At 200 nukes, that's only some 84 targets. Not enough to wipe out Iranian retallitory capabilities.

BudW
25 Dec 08,, 21:19
For a knock out blow? At 200 nukes, that's only some 84 targets. Not enough to wipe out Iranian retallitory capabilities.


I would think the aftermath of a 200 nuke strike on Iran would leave little ability left of the Iranian military to mount any significant military action toward anyone, the casualties alone would tie up whats left of the Iranian military,putting a side the blast and radiation effects the electromagnetic pulse from the weapons would fry the electrical grid,electronics.

Loyal Royal
25 Dec 08,, 21:21
Hezbollah might launch their homemade rockets(no biggie) at Israel and maybe Syria would also send some chemical scuds.

risky!!

Deltacamelately
09 Jan 09,, 09:38
For a knock out blow? At 200 nukes, that's only some 84 targets. Not enough to wipe out Iranian retallitory capabilities.
Sir,
A 200 nuke strike will turn every electronic system necessary for retaliation into cabbage. Further, with most of the command & control and top decission makers and commanders gone, the ensuing chaos will render the Iranian military or whatever is left of it, incapable and dazed to mount any serious offensive, which at most will be BMs, effectively neutralized by Israel's ABM shield.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 09,, 13:33
Gentlemen, at 3 nukes per target, that's only 84 targets for a country the size of Iran.

astralis
09 Jan 09,, 14:32
col yu,

84 targets might not be enough if it were the soviets in charge over there, but the iranians? they certainly wouldn't be able to respond conventionally, their only option would be to go nuclear (if they actually have the capability when that happens), perhaps thru a chem/bio attack propagated by their favorite terrorist means.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 09,, 14:35
But that's their one and only strike. The Israelis are not going to cross Iraq to stop the Iranians from rebuilding and they be bingo bombs long before they can destroy the Iranian capability to rebuild themselves and let's face it, all their missiles would still be around. At 84 targets, you're not going to waste 3 nukes on a firecracker.

astralis
09 Jan 09,, 15:54
i'm not sure the iranian political system or society could survive the destruction of 84 targets. in the case the israelis really go samson and put them on cities as opposed to military installations, you'd probably be looking at the collapse of iran as a recognizable state. could the iranians rebuild their cities before israel rebuilds its nuclear capabilities?

Oscar
09 Jan 09,, 16:09
And why nuke them in the first place?

I could only see this as a retaliatory means. Just too difficult to justify a nuclear war for a little country no matter what the threat to its existence. And since Iran will never do it whatever the incendiary rethoric, (Iranians ready for a holocaust for the sake of....sunni Arabs??) this thread rightly deserves to be in the sci fi section.

astralis
09 Jan 09,, 16:31
oscar,


And why nuke them in the first place?

I could only see this as a retaliatory means. Just too difficult to justify a nuclear war for a little country no matter what the threat to its existence. And since Iran will never do it whatever the incendiary rethoric, (Iranians ready for a holocaust for the sake of....sunni Arabs??) this thread rightly deserves to be in the sci fi section.

i agree the chances of this happening are low, but then again so are most war plans held by militaries of all nations. this is just a theoretical exercise.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 09,, 18:31
could the iranians rebuild their cities before israel rebuilds its nuclear capabilities?The Republican Guard commanders would still be around.

Deltacamelately
10 Jan 09,, 11:39
Gentlemen, at 3 nukes per target, that's only 84 targets for a country the size of Iran.
Sir,
Thats still doesn't counters my arguments. The Iranian military won't have means or will to retaliate.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jan 09,, 15:27
350-600 missiles that can be armed with mustard gas. Those would not have been targetted with so few nukes available,

metric
10 Jan 09,, 18:33
Kinda off topic, but it has to do with the 3 nukes per target:

"Missiles are not terribly reliable and a lot can go wrong. A Rectal Extraction figure suggests that only about 60 percent of them will work when the blue touchpaper is ignited. -Slade

Why are nukes only 60% reliable? Is this comparable to conventional weapons?

Tarek Morgen
10 Jan 09,, 19:04
Kinda off topic, but it has to do with the 3 nukes per target:

"Missiles are not terribly reliable and a lot can go wrong. A Rectal Extraction figure suggests that only about 60 percent of them will work when the blue touchpaper is ignited. -Slade

Why are nukes only 60% reliable? Is this comparable to conventional weapons?

how easy is it to test a conventional weapon, and how "easy" is it with a nuclear one?

BudW
10 Jan 09,, 22:06
A first strike by the IDF with 200 nukes would have the Iranian military in such a disorganized state, not to mention their hands full with the after effect on the population casualties, utter destruction of communications what little ability Iran had left to strike back would be nil,also there would be no reason to use 3 nukes per target that would be wasteful over kill,finally the IDF more than likely have more nukes than they admit to and would certainly produce more before the strike to take care of any other potential needs.The IDF would be able to follow up with conventional strikes to kill any remaining threat.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jan 09,, 22:13
also there would be no reason to use 3 nukes per target that would be wasteful over kill,The 3 nukes per target has been standard practice of all 5 nuclear powers to ensure a kill. There is no way Israel's nuclear weapons are better than either the US or Russia's, especially when it had no tests whatsoever.


finally the IDF more than likely have more nukes than they admit to and would certainly produce more before the strike to take care of any other potential needs.They didn't admit a thing but the 200 is the most reasonable estimate given the materials that they had to work with.

Deltacamelately
11 Jan 09,, 07:44
350-600 missiles that can be armed with mustard gas. Those would not have been targetted with so few nukes available,
Sir,
Minus the commanders and the c&c, the republican guards won't be able to fire even a baloon. Further, considering their probable 60% accuracy and the CEP factor, the complete electric/electronic breakdown would remove any chances of a hit, leave aside an accurate one. One also can not keep aside the Barak systems and the probable volley of conventional warheads from the IDF.

lwarmonger
11 Jan 09,, 09:04
Also if I recall correctly doesn't Israel have a sophisticated missile defense system build around "Arrows" and Patriot missile batteries?

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 09,, 11:46
At 350-600 missiles, the Israeli system would be overwhelmed. With a mustard gas attack, you're not looking for accuracy, you're looking for saturation on one single target and I can think of one - Tel Avi.

entropy
11 Jan 09,, 12:13
What is the maximum amount of damage Israel could inflict?

I mean, without considering nuking cities, can it

-destroy the command structure of the army and making a retaliation impossible due to everyone running around shouting what happened?

-destroy airfields/launch sites and a part of the command infrastructue?


Israel has nothing to fear from Iranian ground troops. I mean, how are they supposed to get there?

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 09,, 15:48
We couldn't do that to the Iraqis with 2000 sorties a day for 30 days. The Israelis have less chance against Iran.

BudW
11 Jan 09,, 17:06
[QUOTE=Officer of Engineers;600366]At 350-600 missiles, the Israeli system would be overwhelmed. With a mustard gas attack, you're not looking for accuracy, you're looking for saturation on one single target and I can think of one - Tel Avi.[/QUO

Why do you assume all those missiles survive the attack? how would you launch them given the resulting emp from a massive strike?

Yusuf
11 Jan 09,, 17:24
Why would Israel spend all its nukes of Iran, when it has other enemies around as well. What would the immediate provocation be for it to do so? If its Irans nuke program, then it will launch a mission a la Orsirak. That will not involve the use of nuclear weapons i think.

I am with OoE, Even if an Israeli first strike manages to take out some of the missile sites in Iran, even if a third of it survives then that means around 200 missiles filled with chemical and biological weapons on Tel Aviv.

Officer of Engineers
11 Jan 09,, 17:53
Why do you assume all those missiles survive the attack?How many SCUDs did we get during the Kuwait War?


how would you launch them given the resulting emp from a massive strike?They're 3rd World military. If they're not in use, they're unplugged.

Skywatcher
12 Jan 09,, 13:36
Wouldn't Sarin (or some other nerve agent), if the Iranians had them, be more effective than mustard gas?

Officer of Engineers
12 Jan 09,, 13:37
Mustard gas hugs the earth much better.

bugs
12 Jan 09,, 14:59
Wouldn't Sarin (or some other nerve agent), if the Iranians had them, be more effective than mustard gas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weap ons

Iran has experienced chemical warfare (CW) on the battlefield, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, in chemical attacks during the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War. As a result, Iran has promulgated a very public stance against the use of chemical weapons, making numerous vitriolic comments against Iraq's use of such weapons in international forums. Iran did not resort to using chemical weapons in retaliation for Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran–Iraq War, though it would have been legally entitled to do so under the then-existing international treaties on the use of chemical weapons which only prohibited the first use of such weapons. Following its experiences during the Iran–Iraq War, Iran signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993 and ratified it on November 3, 1997.

A U.S. Central Intelligence Agency report dated January 2001 speculated that Iran had manufactured and stockpiled chemical weapons - including blister, blood, choking, and probably nerve agents, and the bombs and artillery shells to deliver them. It further claimed that during the first half of 2001, Iran continued to seek production technology, training, expertise, equipment, and chemicals from entities in Russia and China that could be used to help Iran reach its goal of having indigenous nerve agent production capability.[137] However the certainty of this assessment declined and in 2007 the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency limited its public assessment to just noting that "Iran has a large and growing commercial chemical industry that could be used to support a chemical agent mobilization capability."[138]

Iran is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical weapons, delivery systems, and production facilities. Iran has not made any declaration of a weapons stockpile under the treaty.