# Israel capable of air strike on Iran



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

Could Israel do it? Yes. Could they cause enough damage to the Iranian nuke problem to set it back for years or decades? I dont think so. Would there be lots of unforseen consequences if they did attack?......"YOU BETCHA!!!!!'

Israel capable of air strike on Iran
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
July 18, 2006


Israel is in the best position militarily in its history to mount air strikes against Iran, after a decade of buying U.S.-produced long-range aircraft, penetrating bombs and aerial refueling tankers.
Tel Aviv has ratcheted up the volume in attacking the hard-line Islamic regime as it fights the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In the past, Israeli politicians have talked openly of attacking Iranian nuclear sites to prevent the U.S.-designated terror state from building atomic warheads.
Israel has purchased 25 $84 million F-15I (I for Israel) Ra'am, a special version of the U.S. F-15E long-range interdiction bomber. It also is buying 102 of another long-range tactical jet, the $45 million F-16I Sufa. About 60 have been delivered.
The Jewish state also is buying 500 U.S. BLU-109 "bunker buster" bombs that could penetrate the concrete protection around some of Iran's underground facilities, such as the uranium enrichment site at Natanz. The final piece of the enterprise is a fleet of B-707 air-to-air refuelers that could nurse strike aircraft as they made the 900-mile-plus trip inside Iran, dropped their bombs and returned to Israel.
"They have the capability to strike Iran," said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, a former fighter pilot who has trained with Israelis. "It would be limited, though. They could do 30 to 40 'aim points' in the array. I'm not worried about them hitting the targets. They will suffer losses, but they are capable of doing it."
He said Israeli fighter pilots are "the best in the world. I've flown against them. They train better. They get more flying time."
Perhaps just as important as weapon systems is airspace.
The most direct route would be through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Two Israeli pilots showed that they could navigate both without being shot down in 1981, when they flew the 600 miles to the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dropped their bombs and returned over Jordan to an air base in southern Israel.
Today, the United States, not Saddam Hussein, controls Iraq's vast airspace. Military analysts suggest the United States might approve the mission passively by letting the jets fly both ways unencumbered.
Gen. McInerney said the United States must grant airspace rights. "They really can't do this without us," he said. "I wouldn't have them do it. We can do it much more aggressively and more decisively. We shouldn't force the Israelis to do it when we should do it."
The retired pilot called Iran's air defenses "1960s vintage" and not as good as the Iraqi defenses that Israeli pilots avoided in 1981.
Vice President **** Cheney last year revealed Bush administration suspicions that Israel may take pre-emptive action.
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked, that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," he said on the "Imus in the Morning" radio show.
In the Osirak strike, both F-16s made the round trip without aerial refueling, but targets in Iran are at least 300 miles farther away. Although the F-15Is and F-16Is have a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles, the numbers would indicate that the mission might require aerial refueling, thus complicating an already daunting operation.
However, the Web site GlobalSecurity.org says the F-15Is and F-16Is "extended flight range reportedly allows Israeli forces to attack targets well within Iran without having to refuel."
Israeli political leaders have pressed the Bush administration to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. At the same time, some have publicly stated that Israel will take unilateral action to destroy Iranian facilities if Washington fails to stop it.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 18, 2006)

Of course they can, theyve bombed Iraq before which is further away than Iran


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 18, 2006)

But they have to hit multiple targets, that are extremely hardened, and destroy them completely.

Plus some of them might be decoys.

The complexities of the matter are staggering.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2006)

possibly but if you only knew what Israel had in it's arsenal


----------



## evangilder (Jul 19, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Of course they can, theyve bombed Iraq before which is further away than Iran



What map are you looking at man? From Israel, Iran is _past _Iraq...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

Well they have F-16s so I would imagine they have an F-16 loadout


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

I'm glad someone picked up on Hussar's terrible mistake. Especially after the article said "Targets in Iran are some 300 miles farther away..." 


A little education aid, Hussars.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 19, 2006)

The Israelis will do just fine when they choose the time to strike.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 19, 2006)

Twitch said:


> The Israelis will do just fine when they choose the time to strike.



Youre being a bit optimistic arent you?

Theres lots of targets to take out, and thats assuming we know where all of them are.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I'm glad someone picked up on Hussar's terrible mistake. Especially after the article said "Targets in Iran are some 300 miles farther away..."
> 
> 
> A little education aid, Hussars.



WHERE THE HELL IS ISREAL?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

Isreal isn't on that map, I don't believe it's on any map. Israel, however, is on the Mediterranean coast.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

actually its is on that map, the words ISREAL are printed under the name Lebanon, the point of what I said previously is that Ireal is usually a ***** to find


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

Isreal isn't on the map! It's spelt ISRAEL! A before the E, you dumbsh*t. And what the hell is Ireal? Israel is pretty easy to find. I've never had any trouble. You probably have trouble because you're looking for somewhere that doesn't exist.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 19, 2006)

Im ****ing illiterate you gotta problem with that?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 19, 2006)

Yes I have. You live in Western society. You should have listened in school instead of picking your own arse, then you would have not become illiterate. And you would be able to spell your own name. And you wouldn't have to ask your mommy to write a sick note to work for you.


----------



## R988 (Jul 20, 2006)

Maybe they will just kill Irans president, easier to do and he is the nutter behind it all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

The only reason I do not wish Isreal to launch a strike agianst Iran is the simple fact that it would cause a global war and right now we are not prepared to fight a global war.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jul 20, 2006)

"The only reason I do not wish Isreal to launch a strike agianst Iran is the simple fact that it would cause a global war and right now we are not prepared to fight a global war."

I agree. Hypothetically, should this take place, I agree that Israel would be a-ok. Need I remind everyone of the preliminary airstrikes of 6-day war in 1967? Kicked some *** is what they did. They have the equipment, they have the military minds, and they have superb pilots. 

I sure hope that despite all those factors they choose not to...


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 20, 2006)

Most of Irans nuclear facilities are deep underground and whether bunker busters can get to them is a question.

Then you have to factor in which are the key plants and which are not.

Then you have to wonder if it is a key plant, is it a decoy with the real facility hidden away nearby.

Too many questions have to be answered and too many things have to go right. The only way to de-fang Iran is put troops on the ground at the facilities.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The only reason I do not wish Isreal to launch a strike agianst Iran is the simple fact that it would cause a global war and right now we are not prepared to fight a global war.


Agreed. We definitely need more time and troops before another war can happen. But if Iran posses a major threat to Israel, let those F-16s fly and no cease fires.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 29, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Agreed. We definitely need more time and troops before another war can happen. But if Iran posses a major threat to Israel, let those F-16s fly and no cease fires.



P38, do you know about WW1? How an obscure archduke was assasinated and started the process of the road to global war.

Think out the consequences of a war. Dont be gung ho.

Think what would happen if the oil is cut off and gas rises to $10 a gallon. You want that?

What if the arabs rise up en mass and go to full scale terror raids. You willing to begin killing people by the millions?

Think!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2006)

LMAO.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

He has got a point Les.

P38 you just cant to in and bomb them, no matter how much I think we should. A small drop of something into a lake makes a small ripple that eventuall spreads out over a great distance.

We have to be fully prepared and we have to make sure we are doing the right thing, otherwise it could bring chaos over the whole world.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 30, 2006)

Sure. Syscom is right. One person can change the fate of everybody. But what if Iran starts launching missiles, sending massive waves of troops? Israel cant just wait for help to come sooner or later.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 30, 2006)

Be a mighty long walk through enemy held territory for Iran to attack Israel with troops -38, dont u think???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Besides we are not talking about that kind of situation. If Iran were to do that, it would be a act of war and you blow them to hell. We are talking about preemtive strikes. Just launching your planes to go and do it for the sake of doing it.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Sure. Syscom is right. One person can change the fate of everybody. But what if Iran starts launching missiles, sending massive waves of troops? Israel cant just wait for help to come sooner or later.



Are you absolutley sure Iran wont cause trouble for the US and Israel through other means? Maybe terror attacks around the world?

Are you absolutley sure that regardless of what arab countries think of the persians (did you know Iran is NOT arab) the arab mass's wont get restive and join the jihad?

Think!!!!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Well said syscom.

Besides there is no way for Iran to send waves of troops into Israel. In order for them to do so they would have to go through Iraq, and who has 140,000 troops in Iraq right now?


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 30, 2006)

Just think if those jihad muppets join up with the narco warlords in central and south america.

The results will be bloody.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2006)

Yeap and Chavez is over there right now in Iran with his so called "Brother" as they called each other. They pledged each other mutual support.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 31, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> P38, do you know about WW1? How an obscure archduke was assasinated and started the process of the road to global war.
> 
> Think out the consequences of a war. Dont be gung ho.
> 
> ...



First off, the Middle East may have a lot of fuel, but we have plenty of fuel underground in Alaska. It only affect you California's because you guys would protest extraction of oil. 

So why dont you think about other places where we can get oil. I understand what your telling me and I'm listening. But the only reason whenever I respond you say "think" is because you get it cocky with it. Now Alder, only tells me that when I say something really wrong or extremely ridiculous, but you say it to get kicks. 

I bet you feel smug you keep telling a 14 year old who hasn't been around as long as you have to "think" or whatever. I do think. But Syscom, this 14 year doesn't stand by a let you do that.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 31, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> First off, the Middle East may have a lot of fuel, but we have plenty of fuel underground in Alaska. It only affect you California's because you guys would protest extraction of oil.



P38, the US gets a lot of fuel from the middle east and not much of it goes to the west coast. We get alaskan, mexican and venezuelan oil.

Ahd before you play loose and fast with Alaskan fuel, go look up the facts. Alaskan oil reserves while potentially high can never replace all the fuel from other countries. Plus it would take decades to exploit the Alaskan crude.

And obviously you have little understanding on how several of our allies DO get most of the fuel from there and if theyre facing a scenario of support israel or no oil, how do you think they would respond?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 31, 2006)

Well, the Middle East isnt just the only place in the world with oil. Anyone not supporting Israel are weak. Its not Israel's fault for everything and what the UN, France, and Russia are doing are more supporting the cowardly Hezbollah than stand up and say something.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 31, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Well, the Middle East isnt just the only place in the world with oil. Anyone not supporting Israel are weak. Its not Israel's fault for everything and what the UN, France, and Russia are doing are more supporting the cowardly Hezbollah than stand up and say something.


well you you import the largest amount of your oil from Canada


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 1, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> First off, the Middle East may have a lot of fuel, but we have plenty of fuel underground in Alaska. It only affect you California's because you guys would protest extraction of oil.
> 
> So why dont you think about other places where we can get oil. I understand what your telling me and I'm listening. But the only reason whenever I respond you say "think" is because you get it cocky with it. Now Alder, only tells me that when I say something really wrong or extremely ridiculous, but you say it to get kicks.
> 
> I bet you feel smug you keep telling a 14 year old who hasn't been around as long as you have to "think" or whatever. I do think. But Syscom, this 14 year doesn't stand by a let you do that.



To go and tap into other oil reserves like that would take decades. You just cant go and drill a hole in the ground and voila youve got oil. There are so many other factors including environmental, cost, and time.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

We should start a thread for P38 ..."Oil production facts and figures".


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> We should start a thread for P38 ..."Oil production facts and figures".


I should start a thread called "Syscom the jackass"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 1, 2006)

the kid's learning


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 1, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> the kid's learning


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Haha, awesome. You're right, P-38, we should. Well done.


----------



## Chief (Aug 1, 2006)

Hey I heard from a friend that someone discovered some mineral that if people taped it, it would provide about 5x the normal fuel extracted from normal drilling. I realize it would take some time and money, but if this is true then it could ultimately proove useful and benificial. I also realize my source could be completely wrong and that wouldn't be unpresedented, but it's definetly worth thinking.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 1, 2006)

Shale Oil if I remember correctly - it is all over North America would in theory forfill our enery needs for the next century. However it is very difficult to extract and so very expensive until a way is found to do it cheaply it won't be used until necessary.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> I should start a thread called "Syscom the jackass"


 

But it still doesnt cover up the fact you know little if anything about the oil industry.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2006)

Am I the only one that finds it hilariously funny that P-38 is insulting syscom???


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 1, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Am I the only one that finds it hilariously funny that P-38 is insulting syscom???



I actually got a good smile out of it.


----------



## Chief (Aug 2, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Am I the only one that finds it hilariously funny that P-38 is insulting syscom???



Hey, it's an annoying job but somebody has to.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 2, 2006)

I just found the right oppurtunity to strike back when I said that.

I was waiting in the shadows....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Am I the only one that finds it hilariously funny that P-38 is insulting syscom???





I almost fell out of my chair.


----------

