posted
He's just blowing smoke. Israel Air Force Commander-in-Chief Major General Shakedi knows that the Iranian nuclear problem can't be taken care of in a quick strike like the IAF did with the unfinished Iraqi reactor 1981.
The Iranians have distributed their program to defend against a raid like happened to the Iraqis.
Former Secretary of State Baker acknowledged as much on a Sunday news show 8 days ago.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to be completely off-topic, but how on earth did you manage to find "Haaretz" in English? Wow. *impressed*
I can read Hebrew, but I'm fairly slow at it, so whenever I read Haaretz, it takes me ages. Thanks, Jay.
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, it's not about the bombs or capabilities of the IAF--it's just the number of targets, and the lack of clear intelligence about them.
The 1981 Iraq raid was done with one small group of planes on one target.
An attempt to quash Iran's nuclear program from the air would be much bigger, with more targets. And the Israelis (or us if we are foolish enough to attempt it) would have no assurance that even a major air campaign would take out all of the nuclear program, though it could damage it of course. The only assured result would be enraging the Iranians.
This is more or less the view expressed by Baker: doubtful success of an air raid to get the Iranian nuclear program.
A invasion, at least a limited one, is neccesary to miltarily deny Iran the bomb.
Since Israeli intelligence is the best on the planet, the might know where to hit. And with all those bombs and great Air Force they could probably do it all at once.
Might be a good thing
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or it could be a very bad thing, leading to another Arab-Israeli war, with massive casualties on both sides.[edit: And general destabilization of the entire region. A big downside with a questionable success probability.]
Quite a big gamble in the view of many analysts. [edit: and at least one Israeli, Raia, glad you're posting again.]
And Iran could still get the bomb, sooner or later. One raid, no matter how skillful and with whatever intelligence, will not destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions.
posted
Israeli intelligence may be excellent (I know it is, I live here), but the ability to start a war is a dubious skill to have, in my humble opinion.
(edit: Basically what Morbo said. Hi Morbo! Thanks, it's good to be back!)
posted
Basically I think the cat's out of the bag in Iran. They have the technology to do it, and a bombing raid or two will not change that. It's a different world from 1981, and a different situation.
Diplomacy is the only hope, a slender reed granted. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel is reputed to have the best intelligence organization on the planet. But reputation is a tricky thing... sometimes it's warranted... sometimes it's just a rep.
It does seem like if the Mossad was as all-knowing as it is cracked up to be, Hezbollah and Hamas might have been shut down a looong time ago.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lost Ashes, the Mossad has been considerably more effective in preventing terrorist attacks on its own soil than the CIA has been in Iraq. The security fence and the targeting of top Hamas leaders has shown almost a complete reduction in terrorist attacks in Gaza and the West Bank.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I could argue that the way Israel carried out it's "targeting" of Hamas leaders was little different from terrorist tactics in terms of indifference to civilian deaths.
quote:Government sources said the bomb deal, one of the largest weapons deals of recent years, did not face any political difficulties, despite the use Israel has made of U.S.-made F-16s in some of its assassinations in the territories. The IDF used a one-ton bomb to kill a senior Hamas officer, Salah Shehadeh, in July 2002, an assassination that also took the lives of 15 Palestinian civilians, including children. In September 2003, the air force used a smaller, quarter-ton bomb, to strike at Hamas leaders, but missed. In other cases, half-ton bombs have been used.
From Jay's bunker buster link. Using 500, 1000, and 2000 lb bombs in assassinations is crudely heavy-handed, and in the long run doesn't further Israel's cause. If they killed Hamas or Hezbolla leaders with snipers you could debate the human rights of that, but at least everyone nearby wouldn't be taken out as well.
Morbo
[ February 21, 2005, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: the Professor ]
Posts: 111 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can say it doesn't further Israel's causes, but mass murderers are dead and I have seen a sharp decline in attacks by Hamas despite them vowing to go to extreme measure to avenge the assasinations. What exactly are Israel's causes if not the reduction of terrorism?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They don't reduce terrorism by commiting it themselves. Yes, you could say mass murderers of Israeli citizens are dead. I won't even say alleged murderers because AFAIK they gave public and logistical support to suicide bombers.
But they don't need to kill 15 people to get 1 leader, or how are they any different?
Posts: 111 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that I am a frequent critic of my own government's policies. I know the intifadah pushed the Israelis and their government to the wall, and they have reacted. I just think the long-term prospects for peace could have been focused on more, and that should be Israel's cause. A short-term reduction in sucicide bombings could only be the quiet before the storm.
posted
Which is better, Morbo? A smaller bomb which misses the target (resulting, one would assume, in another attempt), or a larger one which takes out more other people? (Oh, and I'd point out that the terrorist leaders deliberately surround themselves with innocents -- they admit as much.)
If Israel could get snipers in a position to get at them, that would be a viable option. However, that's not actually the case.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Israel took out Hamas two top leaders, Ahmed Yassin and then his successor Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi the only casualties were the two leaders, their bodyguards, and the latter's brother. That is the typical attack, not the one instance of the bombing of the home with civilians.
You can claim that the reduction is the calm before the storm, but the evidence doesn't support it and instead of rising tensions a new wave of peace talks has arisen and even Hamas has agreed to a truce. In the past days Israel has both agreed to release 500 prisoners and to withdraw from Gaza and several West Bank settlements. I believe this has only happened because Arafat is dead and with the reduction in Israeli deaths, the government is more willing to talk peace.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, the casualties (injuries and deaths) from dropping one of these bombs in a moderately concentrated civilian population would be hundreds and possibly thousands. Better to let these men go free for a while longer by far, even at the typical rate of death in Israel due to all of them at once Israel would be responsible for far more murders (yes, dropping large bombs on civilians when there are other, safer options is murder) than by dropping a couple of those bombs than these people would be for in the months it might take to set up a more reasonable attack.
posted
Fugu, Israel doesn't drop them in places where the casualties could be in the hundreds or thousands. The one time a large bomb was used wasa against a house. The reason why there were "bystander" deaths is because there were "bystanders" in the house. In the most crowded civilian situations that Israel still think justifies an attack they use Hellfire missiles which have been successful in doing relatively little damage to non-targets.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I still have problems with Israel's tactics at points, I generally agree that what Israel does is not as bad as what I described. However, rivka was describing something Israel does not do, and it was that I was strongly disagreeing with.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
better then what the states does and invades a country that had NOTHING to do with the attack.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course, I could argue that the way Israel carried out it's "targeting" of Hamas leaders was little different from terrorist tactics in terms of indifference to civilian deaths.
Without condoning or condemning Israel's methods, killing civilians when hitting a military target doesn't seem morally equivalent to intentionally targeting a 13-year-old you sit down next to on a bus. "Indifferent" is an assumption you are making, and perhaps you are right, but it feels like you are stretching to make these things morally equivalent.
Posts: 159 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka was responding to Morbo's post -- I took his word for the bomb sizes, but see now he got the info from a previous post, and was posing a hypothetical. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, Pendragon. There is a distinction. Maybe "morally similar" is a better term than "morally equivalent", though I used neither term, just said "But they [IDF] don't need to kill 15 people to get 1 leader, or how are they any different?" [from the suicide bombers]
If the IDF uses a 2,000 lb bomb in a populated area, I don't think it's a stretch to say they have indifference to civilian deaths.
Rivka, the article has "ALUF BENN Ha'aretz, 21 September 2004" as a tagline. I've never heard of Haaretz, but according to their website "Haaretz was founded in Jerusalem in 1919 by a group of Zionist immigrants, mainly from Russia." Presumably, they don't take pro-Palestinian positions, so I presume the article is true when it said
quote: In September 2003, the air force used a smaller, quarter-ton bomb, to strike at Hamas leaders, but missed. In other cases, half-ton bombs have been used.
And they used a 1 ton bomb to kill Salah Shehadeh. The only hypothetical I posed was whether the IDF could have used snipers (or any other more selective means) to assasinate their enemies, instead of 1 ton bombs.
posted
To clarify: I got the quote from: http://fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1421 , which Jay posted as "Israel to buy 500 'bunker-buster' bombs from US". So, from the name of the webpage, it's a pro-Palestinian website, but the article quoted was from a Jewish newspaper, Ha'aretz.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, Haaretz means "the country" -- it's like the New York Times, it's THE newspaper, in Israel. So in case you were doubting its credibility, there's no need. Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I think you're overestimating the force of a one ton bomb. It was used in a "populated" area and destroyed only what it was meant to, the building that Salah Shehadeh was in. If you don't think that was justified are you willing to say it wouldn't be justified for the United States to bomb a house with Osama bin Laden in it just because there would bin Laden's family also inside the building.
When the terrorists blow up a bus, they aren't even targeting a leader, they're targeting civilians. Furthermore, Israel can't get just get a sniper to take out whoever they want, its not that easy.
Rivka, unfortunately I doubt an earthquake that killed a few hundred people will change anything when an earthquake that killed 30,000 didn't.
I second that. As one who's learning espionage, and has been in touch with people with and affiliated with the Israeli intelligence entities - I can tell you that it truly is the best in the world (if you consider population and span as factors).
JH
[ February 23, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that both the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence are both the most efficient in the world. However, a country of six million will relatively limited resources can only do so much compared Russia, China, the United States, or even the UK.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know that biblical prophecy speaks about an Russian led Muslim invasion of Israel?
If you make another thread on this so as not to disrupt this one, I would be interested to hear what you have to say and what others have to say in response to it. We have many biblical scholars on this forum.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should also remember one of the main tasks of intelligence agencies is to throw disinformation about, both to "fish" and to confuse: often enough to confuse even themselves. Witness the non-existent "Niger uranium blackmarket" bandied about as excuse to invade Iraq. A deep problem with intelligence gathering is that the necessary compartmentalization of operations can lead to the righthand not knowing what the lefthand is doing, and visa versa. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1) Bunker busters are pretty inefficient as assassination tools against typical non-governmental individuals. The point of increasing weight isn't in explosive payload: though that canalso be larger. It's to penetrate armor plate, concrete&rebar, etc without squashing/disabling or triggering the payload prematurely.
pre-posting Edit/deletion: I started to explain how explosives and explosive demolition works, then realized that it was too close to a how-to manual. And those of you who've gotten your "knowlege" from watching action flicks and TV are gonna object to a few of the following statements. And no, I ain't gonna explain why you're wrong. And to those who do know enough to explain away the objections: PLEASE DO NOT EXPLAIN. There is a VAST difference between having a discussion and enabling homicide to "win" an argument. Anything dangerous, and I will ask the moderators to delete this thread; which I have never done before.
An explosive detonation by itself on an open surface doesn't do much except make noise. As example, you've probably seen demonstrations of "Dynamite Men/Women" detonating a stick on top of a plywood sheet/etc covering themselves, and walking away perfectly unharmed except for being slightly hard-of-hearing. Same with the "inside the exploding coffin/outhouse" stunt. They ain't super-powered, just well informed and safety-first-minded. Do not try this at home: what you don't know can kill or cause extremely disabling injuries.
So let's just posit that the function of bunker busters is to penetrate armoring before detonation. Now ya toss an aluminum can of soda as hard as ya can into a stucco wall, and odds are the only thing that'll happen is some paint gets rubbed off while the can breaks open and spills its contents. Toss a steel can of soup at the same speed, and odds are you'll chip a little of the concrete off as the can breaks and the contents are spilled. Toss a sledge hammerhead of the same dimensions at the same speed against the stucco wall, and it'll go through. So whatcha wanna do to get some soup or soda to your friend behind the stucco wall is strap the can against the backend of a hammerhead. Same with getting explosives through the armoring to the target.
Back later with 2) in why bunker busters ain't a very good choice against typical non-governmental targets.
posted
"I started to explain how explosives and explosive demolition works, then realized that it was too close to a how-to manual."
I honestly can't understand why you'd consider this a bad thing. Basic demolitions info is easily available elsewhere, and the kind of people who'd be building bombs already have this info available to them. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I didn't receive an email (or else I did and didn't recognize it as non-spam). Can you resend, please?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still thinking about this issue, but aspectre, efficiency is not the only concern.
I suspect that it's very effective psychologically. If I was in Hamas, and my enemies dropped a 1 ton bomb on the head of the previous leader, I wouldn't join the scramble to become the next leader, even if I was devoted to the cause. And so it narrows the field of leaders.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Raia, glad you're posting again.]![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
rivka was responding to Morbo's post -- I took his word for the bomb sizes, but see now he got the info from a previous post, and was posing a hypothetical. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
