How do you think a Pre-emptive strike on the reactors play out?

**Druze** · 28 Apr 07, 04:30

Well Israel I am sure as well as you probably are has planned a number of pre-emptive strikes on Iran's reactors.

Personally I would think that it would have to involve the largest Airborne operation since Market Garden.

Israeli Cargo planes would take to the air carrying thousands of paratroopers and various special ops forces including light vehicles, portable jamming equipment, portable Surface to Air missile launcher, and much more equipment.

As there are many sites to target the forces would probably go after the four biggest nuclear sites. Sending in a large commando force to blow it up from the inside is the only way to guarantee its done right. A small detachment would be sent across Iraq into Iran initailly to slip in at night and disrupt their air defense by either jamming it or destroying it.

An operation like this takes massive planning and then re-planning and you keep changing it until 5 minutes before go time.

How do the Special forces get out you ask? Well they can drive East to Afghanistan or West to Iraq, Either way American controlled territory is within reach and Israeli forces could get to these borders a hell of alot quicker then the Iranians could mobilize their forces to stop them.

Air Route? I am sure Saudi Arabia would secretly give Israel flyover rights and then after the attack act with outrage at such violation of their airspace as part of the plan, all pre-planned with Israel.

The US if it involves itself would either have to give Israel flyover rights over Iraq or ignore the airspace violation. Even if the US said no, Israel could say "well our planes are already in the air so you'll have to shoot down 35 C130's" which the AMericans of course won't do.

Now if the US does give Israel flyover rights then Israel has a massively expanded field of operation as it can refuel its entire airforce over Iraq and actually provide total cover for its forces as well as take out Iran's entire air defense umbrella.

If this mission is planned with the US which is also of course possible and the likely scenario then the US can provide additional air cover and also use massive jamming of Iranian radar systems from its two carrier Task force groups currently operating in the Persian Gulf.

Is it a risky move? Wow do you bet, but like in Iraq the alternative in Israel's eye is the same as it is much worse.

A plan like this would incorporate initial stages of sabotage. For a couple of weeks or even a month prior you would have mysterious blackouts that would plague Iran's electrical grid. It wouldn't be hard for the Mossad to buy men working at power plants who simply have to push the wrong button accidentally. This would leave Iran open for an Airborn operation.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 05:03

Alot of things wrong with this plan.

1st, the Iranians would most certainly be expecting an attack of some form. At the very least I would be expecting a battalion guarding those sites with a brigade near by.

2nd, what's the point? These are cascades. They're relatively cheap to build and the Iranians know how to build them. Now, if you went after the refined uranium, that might be one thing ... but they don't have that yet.

3rd, what about the Iranian armoured corps? Airborne troops against armour? Even as bad as Iranian armour is, I don't give light infantry much of a chance in a stand up fight.

4th, what about fire support? The Iranians got tons, including artillery. Light infantry out in the open against artillery and armour? Can we say suicide?

5th, just how much explosives are you going to carry? These are concrete bunkers designed to contain radioactivity. More than likely, these are hardened and multi-layered since they're expecting trouble. Commandos are going to carry enough C4 to do the job? I don't think so.

**Druze** · 28 Apr 07, 07:49

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Alot of things wrong with this plan.

1st, the Iranians would most certainly be expecting an attack of some form. At the very least I would be expecting a battalion guarding those sites with a brigade near by.

2nd, what's the point? These are cascades. They're relatively cheap to build and the Iranians know how to build them. Now, if you went after the refined uranium, that might be one thing ... but they don't have that yet.

3rd, what about the Iranian armoured corps? Airborne troops against armour? Even as bad as Iranian armour is, I don't give light infantry much of a chance in a stand up fight.

4th, what about fire support? The Iranians got tons, including artillery. Light infantry out in the open against artillery and armour? Can we say suicide?

5th, just how much explosives are you going to carry? These are concrete bunkers designed to contain radioactivity. More than likely, these are hardened and multi-layered since they're expecting trouble. Commandos are going to carry enough C4 to do the job? I don't think so.

There are many ways around such number superiority. Quickness and ferocity by numerous small forces can create chaos among Iranian forces. A night time attack can do just that. Numerous diversions can be created to make Iranians think Israelis are going after a target that they aren't really going after to divert those forces there.

Field artillery won't do any good for the IRanians against mobile light vehicle special ops units who by the time they are discovered would be very close to Iranian nuclear sites and could very well be inside and or mixed with light Iranian units. Also just in case the Israeli's can drop a larger dummy force and make sure its seen so if Iranian FAO's are looking for a target they could concentrate their fire on the dummy force.

In regards to how reinforced these concrete facilities are, that is against aerial attack, the more enclosed they are, the more damage specialized explosives can cause. Its just the equipment that Israel needs to destroy. Commandos can even carry timed 2 kiloton nuclear explosives that would destroy everything inside and cause no radioactive fallout which would have the added affect of making the facility to radioactive to repair. This radioactive leak could be blamed on the facility itself rather then the explosives used to cause it.

IN regards to armour I don't have to much faith in the Iranian armoured corps to put it mildly. I don't think they could respond in time. Also Israel has many citizens who are completely fluent in Farsi and can act to divert forces by tapping into frequencies. Israel can even send a unit to seize some tanks and lead their columns with disinformation.

All I stated above is without air cover. If there is air cover then the Iranians may want to do the smart thing and pull back their armour as it would be easily targeted by anti-tank missiles. Anti-Tank infantry with the element of suprise especially if it is an elite unit can lay waste to entire tank columns. And when Iranian or Arab forces start seeing lots of casualties on their side they have a history of displaying everyting but bravery.

Mind you I am not a general or an expert. but if you put 5 experts together along with intelligence that you or I simply don't have access to it is a scenario I would at least bet on is being considered. For every flaw in the plan there is also an answer to be found.

But if the Israeli or US aircover is provided then I think you won't see the Iranian forces committ other then shooting off rounds and shells in confusion and chaos. There would also be no communication between Tehran and the Iranian commanders at the sites as that would certainly be jammed/and or used against them by Israeli disinformation.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 08:09

Again,

What are you going to accomplish? Destroying a few cascades that would take a few months to rebuild?

BTW, you've just increased the logistical demands on your force. Sorry, 35 C130s just ain't going to cut it. The SBCT requires 200+ C17 flights and you're going to go with a motor brigade with just 35 C130s? And that's just one insertion. You're speaking of multiple insertions.

The lack of communications is not a fault for the Iranians. It's a plus. They don't know what's going on so that means that they won't move. In other words, you have to dislodge the force that is already there; meaning an entrenched force most likely fortified; willing to fight to the death (Hezbollah anyone?).

And as good as the Israelis are, they cannot overcome the Iranians recee by death (as soon as they lose contact with their own units, they know something big enough and nasty enough to kill that unit is in the area and react accordingly, meaning within 24-48 hours, you will have at least a mech infantry brigade coming down).

And again, what's the point, even if you win? Cascades are cheap. It's refining uranium that is hard.

It seems a just a too heavy of an effort for no practical return. The Iranians can just rebuild within a year and the effort is not stopped.

**Garry** · 28 Apr 07, 09:45

Very risky plan. I can also see following concerns:

1) What if things fail and you have almost HUNDRED prisonned guys in Iranian hads? How to get them out? and Iranians will make HUGE PR action to expoit them properly

2) Look - Iran has Tor-M1 + some Tomcats and it would love to shoot down some transports.... so you need to knock them down before.... and this takes time and discloses your intention.

3) if your guys get stuck there you would have problems to supply them with even bullets.... they are doomed if they don't get out within few hours after getting in.

4) I think that you need to occupy the country to make sure that nothing is REBUILT.

**Blademaster** · 28 Apr 07, 10:47

Druze, why are you going after the equipments and the facilities that require extensive military operations when you can go after the one type of target that does not require extensive military operations?

I will give you one chance to define my target. Here's a clue: In order to operate the machinery and refine and build the necessary components of a nuclear device, you need ..........?

**entropy** · 28 Apr 07, 13:35

Are the Iranians better fighters than the Arabs?

**lazybastard** · 28 Apr 07, 17:22

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

And as good as the Israelis are, they cannot overcome the Iranians recee by death (as soon as they lose contact with their own units, they know something big enough and nasty enough to kill that unit is in the area and react accordingly, meaning within 24-48 hours, you will have at least a mech infantry brigade coming down).

Sir, this "recon by death" thing sounds a little too clean cut. I mean, losing contact to an unit could mean a lot of things. Dead battery, broke down radio, jamming from Israeli planes; or maybe the CO got too chatty on the airwaves and ended up on the wrong end of an airstrike; or perhaps that CO spilled hot coffee on his crotch and had to be sent to the burn ward

. How would a commander know if he should send all his reserves down that way unless the lost unit sent back a contact report right before going off air?

Blademaster's got a great point. Any nuclear facility destroyed can be rebuilt in a few years. Might as well really f*ck them up by hitting them in the pocketbooks. Iran's government depends on oil exports for some 60% of their revenues. Iran also got really limited refining facilities that can't even satisfy domestic gasoline needs.

Edit: Doh! I was way off wasn't I Blademaster. You were talking about assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists weren't you? Once again - Doh!!

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 17:43

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Sir, this "recon by death" thing sounds a little too clean cut.

What do you think a meeting engagement is?

**lazybastard** · 28 Apr 07, 18:10

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

What do you think a meeting engagement is?

I see. From my limited amount of readings on Afghanistan '79 and Panama '88. It would appear that the defender's command and control were sufficiently disrupted and as a result were unable to properly react. This was the case in Panama even when the US failed to achieve complete surprise.

Sir, in your opinion, what would prevent the Israelis from doing something similar? Would it be because Israel can't conduct on-site recon prior to the attack, like the US and Soviet did? Or because they Israelis can't bring in enough mechanized forces to set up blocking positions?

**Blademaster** · 28 Apr 07, 18:27

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Blademaster's got a great point. Any nuclear facility destroyed can be rebuilt in a few years. Might as well really f*ck them up by hitting them in the pocketbooks. Iran's government depends on oil exports for some 60% of their revenues. Iran also got really limited refining facilities that can't even satisfy domestic gasoline needs.

There's a cost to doing that: skyrocketing oil prices which would wreck the world economy way worst than a dirty nuke could ever do.

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Edit: Doh! I was way off wasn't I Blademaster. You were talking about assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists weren't you? Once again - Doh!!

Yes I was. Much more effective and less resource intensive. Bribes also work too.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 18:57

Originally Posted by lazybastard

Sir, in your opinion, what would prevent the Israelis from doing something similar?

Namely, the size of the operation. Both the USArmy and the Soviet Army simply overwhelm the opposition. Too many things happening at too many places, all at the same time. There was an airborne assault followed by a mechanized assault.

What Druze has proposed here is nowhere near that scope and 35 C130s might be able to bring in one motor battle group but it would not be anywhere near enough to withstand an Iranian brigade that is a day or two away.

**lazybastard** · 28 Apr 07, 19:02

Originally Posted by Blademaster

There's a cost to doing that: skyrocketing oil prices which would wreck the world economy way worst than a dirty nuke could ever do.

Still, beats targeting Iran's sites with nukes.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Yes I was. Much more effective and less resource intensive. Bribes also work too.

Putting aside the super-human abilities contributed to Mossad by conspiracy theorist, this is too much like expecting to win the lottery for it to constitute Israel's Plan A.

**Druze** · 28 Apr 07, 19:59

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Druze, why are you going after the equipments and the facilities that require extensive military operations when you can go after the one type of target that does not require extensive military operations?

I will give you one chance to define my target. Here's a clue: In order to operate the machinery and refine and build the necessary components of a nuclear device, you need ..........?

That can't even be an option. Once the military has done its job, the diplomats have a major job to do in dealing with the immediate international backlash. If Israel delibarately sent oil prices through the roof then it could cause a chain reaction. Hitting their sole refinery is enough to destroy their economy which would make them desperate.

Also the number I gave of 25 transports was just a random number. I'm not exactly planning an attack myself from my computer so I don't have an FOP map in front of me or updated asset lists. Also I forgot to take into account transport and attack helicopters that could be used in the assault to aid certain elements of the prongs should the need arise.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 07, 20:07

Well, Druze,

You have on this board Senior and Staff level Officers who had moved everything from single companies to whole battle groups to entire divisions across mountains, desert, and oceans. In order to give your post the legitimacy you seek, you will have to do the homework yourself instead of presenting us with numbers and operational procedures that are clearly out of whack with reality.

Thread: How do you think a Pre-emptive strike on the reactors play out?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

How do you think a Pre-emptive strike on the reactors play out?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Favorite Naval Book(s)

Stennis Strike Group

Muslims ask French to cancel 1741 play by Voltaire

Israel Pre emptive strike vs Iran

Israel Pre emptive strike vs Iran

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions