God is rolling his eyes at you right now just like this emoticon: :roll:

On display here has been some of the haughtiness for which I love religious moralists so much. And they always let you feel it, no matter whether your reject them or not. Always searching for a higher seat on the horse by saying "My God still loves you nevertheless".

:nope:

There was one opportunity in my life when somebody received a slap in the face from me for behaving like that. That finally made him falling silent and leaving me alone without any more word.

Sometimes one deed says so much more than a thousand words. :smug: :yeah:

Back to the original post subject.....

The threat sounds firm and tough out on the world stage - but it is pure saber rattling. All one must do is look at the threat, the capabilities of the Iranians, and the targets in question.

Question #1 - can Iranian Missiles reach far enough to strike Israeli nuke sites? The claim is they can. However, this is highly questionable, as the Iranians have never tested any missile to such range. In theory the missiles they have could - but theory and real world usage are very often two seperate entities. Strike one. For arguements sake, lets assume that theory and reality match, so such missiles would have the needed range.

Question #2 - Having the range to hit something is great - but you also need the ACCURACY. Thus - do Iranian missiles also posses the required ability to hit their INTENDED target vs missing by a mile and taking out civilians? *One could argue that the Iranians would want such a result - but thats a different discussion altogether* Given the tests of Iranian missiles to date, the answer is that the Iranian military lacks a delivery device with the required accuracy. Strike two. Again however - lets play along and say they can hit the intended target.

Question #3 - Does the weapon system possess the ability to damage or destroy its target? Silo's and their surrounding bunkers are hardened against everything up to - and including - a nuclear device landing on them. Iranian missile warheads possess no "bunker busting" ability - they are standard high explosive (HE) devices. It would take a specifically designed device to even have a decent shot at penetrating and destroying a site. Such warheads have not, by any nation, ever been successfully fitted to a long range, land based missile - either ballistic or cruise. Therefore, even without question 1 or 2, the facts are the Iranians may be able to strike at a target - but they lack the ability to do any actual damage to it - other than cosmetic. Thus - Strike three....

The Iranians are.... OUT!

Also note - this whole discussion even ignores the issue of whether or not the Iranians know the correct places to target......

Not to further derail the thread, but its interesting that you assigned a gender to this 'all powerful being'. Now that could open up another philosophical debate such as why would there be a male god with out a female god to reproduce with.

Oh and Haplo I suspect the Iranians are threatening to hit Israel's reactor sites such as power plants and the like which are not hardened targets. But otherwise as usual Iran is just posturing

Like most English speakers, I use masculine terms for non-gender-specific entities when the term "it" isn't apropiate.

Doubt it. The locations of the Israeli nuclear reactors are quite known (Unless there is a secret one), I've even been inside one of them, so it might be that they are threatening to target the reactors. But I doubt that Iran would know where the important stuff is being stored.

If one assumes a "deterrent" capability as suggested - then nuclear reactors are not the targets. For one, you can't get the results needed out of a deterrent threat. Second, an attack on israeli nuclear power plants will do nothing more than escalate the issue - rather than deter it. In fact, it would likely prompt a nuclear strike in response - since such an attack would release nuclear particles to affect the civilian population (though nowhere near what a true nuclear blast would).

Also do not forget that an attack that would release such radiation would not just affect Israel, but also its neighbors. Which ones would depend on the direction of wind, etc. Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria, etc - could be affected by such a release. Not to mention strikes on the Iranian nuclear program would not create such hazards - as there are no live reactors active. Thus, a strike against power reactors in Israel would result in general outrage - not only due to civilian damage - but even in the area for the damage it COULD cause to Arab neighbors.

Lastly - do not forget that your dealing with a regime that right now - is suffering from an onslaught of internal division. Not just populist, but also in its internal structure. Trying to stir the pot with an external foe will not quiet the dissent, but will create more opportunities for the balance of power to be further weakened.

If Israel takes matters into their own hands by attacking Iran's nuclear power plants capable of producing nuclear weapons grade material they have a promise that Iran will strike back.

That's cut and dried, black and white, done deal ...

#1 to your #1 is I don't think even Iran knows if the missile can reach that far, but they have some savy scientist that can compute fuel loads and flying times ... so maybe it can.

#2 to your number 2 I agree accuracy is very important for taking out the intended target, but everything is so close to each other in Israel someone is going to get hurt.

#3 to your number 3 this is a good question ... without testing and training in their own country on a suspected nuclear Israel site even Iran doesn't know what a small payload can do to a mulutary target.

But they know this ... they want to strike back and they want to inflict pain and fear against their vowed enemy of Israel.

They could in this present Palestine conflict pay suicide bombers to strike the everyday lives of the citizens of Israel.

They could send warheads on missiles with chemical attacks on military bases, but again where will they land.

or an attack by Israel could end the present administration in Iran with the people over throwing the government and calling for peace with Israel.

or (and I like this last one) they launch a barage of missiles in anger which land in nearby Jordan or even Saudi Araba causing a war to break out in the middle east with Iran being the worse off being called an unstable country that can't be trusted with nuclear weapons (we already know this)

America will have to be in there somewhere, but I don't have the mind or the ear of President Obama so I'm not sure what America will do.

Israel has said they would attack Iran if no one else will and Iran has said what will happen if they do.

That's where we stand today, but remember President Obama has given Iran till September to sort things out.

I don't know what that means, but September is just five weeks from now.

That is what some Brits call "p!ss or get off the pot time". :DL

It will indeed be interesting to see what happens after that :hmmm:

I won't be so sure. Rocket range is a function of its construction and fuel load versus payload. It can't be that hard to calculate it theoretically, then add a safety margin.

I don't know whether it is safe to assume the Iranians' lack accuracy. It is true that the finer points of advanced inertial systems is probably a challenge especially if you can't do extensive flight testing. On the other hand, thanks to GPS, you can skimp on that. If the rocket can be controlled, GPS will ensure it falls somewhere close to the target.

That's true of American and Soviet silos (and even that can only survive a CLOSE nuclear blast, not a direct strike). It is not so clear whether Israel's silos possess that degree of ultra-hardening, which is expensive. (Remember, in theory, Israel is a non-nuclear nation, and while everyone in the West is hypocritically closing their eyes to reality (why do the Muslims want to wipe them out...) there are still limits to what they can do).

As for a bunker buster, it is basically a armor-piercing bomb. They've been around for a long time...

Yes, dropped by aircraft, but a ballistic missile will need to be extremely accurate in order to be used for that task

I imagine that the mass needed to have the momentum for bunker-busting is a
problem for anything but the largest of missiles.

Bunker busting bombs are a bit more complicated that armor peircing. For one, the fuse delay is substantially longer, meaning the detonator must withstand the shock forces of deceleration for an extended period. Second you have an issue of mass. Armor piercing weapons depend on mass and speed - which a missile should have in any case. However, a missile has lightened its load tremendously via fuel expendeture. Many bunker busters were developed using the French Durandal style - as narrow a penetrator as possible to minimize resistance to penetration. Hard to build onto the nose of a guided missile.

Speaking of accuracy - to deliver a "bunker buster" requires a specific impact trajectory. When your questioning if they can even hit the target - hitting it within the required parameters is another magnitude of difficulty.

Also - accuracy is more than just strapping a GPS on the device. Even GPS artillary rounds of today are considered deadeye effective with a 10 meter impact. Now thats using the military GPS satellites that are available - not the civilian ones. Sure - civvy GPS can tell you where you are within a foot or so - but the response time for that is too slow for missile guidance. And last time I checked - Iran wasn't putting their own military GPS satellites in space - either on their own or with the help of a "lifter" country. Its also safe to say that the few countries that have military grade GPS transponders in orbit aren't going to let the Iranians use em to guide in a strike. Plus there are all the technical difficulties of matching a gps guidance system to a missile - itself not a easy task. Sorry - but that is beyond the CURRENT ability of the Iranian military. In a decade I likely won't be able to say that.

Lastly - sure you can compute range via fuel consumption and factor in a safety range. That isn't all of the equation though. You have to have a engine that can withstand the longer burn, an airframe that can handle the additional stresses, etc. Sure, you can run simulations and hope that theory matches reality - but if you NEVER TEST it - you don't know. If you don't know - and you make a threat based off laboratory thesis - your saber rattling.

Its like this - had the US told Japan in WW2 - don't mess with us because we have subs with a torpedo that with one hit can destroy any ship afloat (using the magnetic detonator) which was the THEORY at the time - it would have been a saber rattle. Why? Because the weapon didn't do what the lab folks said. The magnetic detonator was never tested before the war. Not one time in a field test. Sure they ran it in a lab. But no field tests. The WW2 skippers got to do that - on the firing line. Remember how well that turned out?

**Edit - regarding the Israeli silo's being hardened - do you think that the military built sites that were not designed to withstand direct, non-nuclear strikes? When your talking about your strongest weapon - you spare no expense in protecting it as best you can. They had the money, and it got spent on something...... I don't see any Israeli CV's cruising the med......

BAH! Nuke the entire middle east and let Hades sort them out.

He tells you? Or do you 'believe' so? And which god do you mean? There are dozens of them. ;)

Depends how attractive he is, might of attracted the love of Aphrodite. :rotfl: