Israelis Bomb Nuke Site???

[VRM]

Mike,
If your ground based radars suddenly shut down what is the first thing you are going to do? I would scramble a lot of aircraft in prep for an attack. Perhaps 10-20 Israeli aircraft did not expect to meet a bunch of Syrian fighters, including Mig 29s and 31s (the 31 can perform limited AWACS stuff).

Besides, haven't you ever looked up at a fighter going over? They are not always invisible or silent.

I don't think that Syria is going to take sides with Israel any time soon.

Steve

[rdorman]

Originally Posted by VRM

I don't think that Syria is going to take sides with Israel any time soon.

On that we can certainly agree! More Ba'thist. Just like in Lebanon, Jordon, Yemem, Sudan and of course formally, Iraq. Of course, lets not forget as-Sa'iqa among the Palestinians (who ever they are ) member organization of the PLO is the Syrian bA'th party branch.

[BeanCounter]

A high-ranking Iranian air force and intelligence delegation, led by a general, is reported by ... intelligence sources to have landed secretly in the Turkish capital a few days ago. The visitors warned that Iran would not stand by again in the event of another strike against Syria, whether by Israel or the US, or both. Next time, Iran would step in, he said, without specifying in what form. According to our military sources, the Iranian delegation returned to Tehran
empty-handed. The Turks refused to answer questions on the identity of the aircraft that struck a suspected nuclear target in Syria, their movements in Turkish airspace or their altitudes..

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the
nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28,and flew back to Russia.

Monday, Oct. 1, Syrian president Bashar Assad claimed to the BBC that Israel had struck an empty military installation on Sept. 6 and that for Syria to retaliate militarily would be playing by “Israel’s rules.” The Israeli
military thereupon lifted its month-long ban on its publication without adding any further information, in the hope of closing the books on the affair.
The reasoning behind this decision was that if Israel refrained from knocking down Assad’s version of the incident and let it stand as an Israeli intelligence
goof shared by America, Syrian honor would be satisfied and a sequel avoided. However, Assad’s decision to hold his war horses at this time is not a strategic one but forced on him for lack of choice. A stance of helpless inaction is not one he can sustain for long. Stretching it out could affect the stability of his regime.

The above from independent Israeli intelligence source.

[VRM]

Bernie,
Yep, that is also an possibility.

It seems interesting that Iran would send people to Turkey to try and get more info. It sounds to me like the Iranians thought that the strike was destined for them.

Still, it is a big poker hand that has not yet been played out, and we just dont have enough info on the cards.

Steve

[rdorman]

Originally Posted by BeanCounter

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the
nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28,and flew back to Russia.

That is very interesting... so is the timing. IAEA gets new officers 9/21, IAEA is supposed to meet in Iran over the P1-P2 Uranium enrichment issue at Bushehr on 9/24-9/25, the Russians have been complaining that Iran is behind on the cash, the Israeli air ops, diverted North Korean shipment of 'cement', Russian pulls out... all in the same month Bushehr was scheduled to go online (postponed many times). Things that make you go 'Hmmm'.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by rdorman

Light reading: https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/...04/addenda.pdf

Rdorman,
Check out the chapter titled:
"Residual Pre-1991
CBW Stocks in Iraq"

It says:
However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However, if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.

Anybody who runs around saying that Husseins chemical weapons are still effective are playing into the terrorists hands. The only way that terror can be caused by ineffectual chemical weapons is if people think they are still effective.

There is also a section saying the chemical munitions were mixed in with other munitions during the Iran/Iraq war, and that we should expect to continue finding those - even though the chemical in them is now useless goo.

Hussein learned from Gulf War 1 that anything he sent to Iran/Syria was not going to be returned, and it might possibly be used against him.

Also, the report says that Hussein viewed Iran as the bigger threat (as I've said). And while Hussein did use WMD on Iran, he did not use them on us during Gulf War 1, when they would have still been lethal. If he didn't use them on us then, why would he suddenly decide to use them on us now?

Hussein/Iraq was an annoyance, but they were hardly a real threat to us. Iran was countered quite a bit by Iraq, and we removed that counter. That ends up making Iran stronger, and that is a bad thing if the radicals in Iran ever manage to consolidate power (there is a lot of turmoil in Iran between various factions).

The one thing that I am a bit concerned about is the scientists who did work on Husseins weapons programs. Many of them have now been scattered to other countries. That might be a worse thing for us that Iraq having any sort of WMD. The enemy that you know...

It's also interesting that you mention Sada. He has stated that what is going on in Iraq right now is an internal matter, and is best solved by Iraqis, with American help only from a distance. Not that I'm trying to hijack the thread...

Steve

[chopper]

Originally Posted by VRM

I disagree with the concept of Hussein sending any weapons to Iran or Syria.Steve

According to the Guardian in a story last year:

"Because of western sanctions, ostracism and a lack of spare parts, Iran has few modern fighter aircraft, although Russia recently proposed a $1bn sale of 29 Tor-M1 missile systems for anti-aircraft defence. The air force still relies in part on Iraqi MiGs flown to Iran for safety by Saddam Hussein at the start of the Gulf war in 1991 and never returned. Michael Knights, writing in Jane's Intelligence Review, said Iran was likely to try to repel any attack though a mobile defence of "highly integrated local networks of interceptor aircraft and ground-based Sams [surface-to-air missiles]". This would provide "layered protection" for strategic locations such as the Isfahan and Bushehr facilities and Bandar Abbas at the mouth of the Gulf."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1747028,00.html

According to Global Security:

"During Operation Desert Storm the Iraqi Air Force did not seek to challenge Coalition air forces, and nearly half the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran to escape destruction. Why the IQAF fled to Iran is not precisely known, and the answer may never be fully known. In any case, Iraqi fighters and support aircraft fled for the border -- more than 120 left. Over 200 aircraft were destroyed on Iraqi airfields, and hardened laser-guided bombs devastated Iraq's hardened aircraft shelters. Eventually day-and-night air strikes destroyed or seriously damaged 375 shelters out of a total of 594."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ment-intro.htm

Originally Posted by VRM

If your ground based radars suddenly shut down what is the first thing you are going to do? I would scramble a lot of aircraft in prep for an attack. Perhaps 10-20 Israeli aircraft did not expect to meet a bunch of Syrian fighters, including Mig 29s and 31s (the 31 can perform limited AWACS stuff).

Besides, haven't you ever looked up at a fighter going over? They are not always invisible or silent.
Steve

Expert combat advice from another person who was never in the military. Or did you sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

[J. T. Toad]

From Steve's link

"Others argued that Huwaysh and other senior Iraqi
offi cials were at the heart of an institutional deception
of Saddam Husayn that convinced him he had
a much stronger weapons arsenal than actually
existed. Allegedly out of fear of Saddam’s reaction,
Huwaysh and his subordinates at MIC faked plans
and designs to show progress in programs that did not
exist. Saddam was not well informed enough to catch
them in their lies and never sought a demonstration
of the newly developed weapons. In the process, MIC
offi cials squandered or embezzled huge amounts of
Iraqi money, and Iraq was left unprotected and unprepared
for war."

so then for all intensive purposes, Saddam, in addition to others, would have believed and purported that they had weapons in their arsenal, thus, it would be perceived that they did exists, as far as they knew, and could be used by a man who had a record of using them.

as evidenced by....

"“if Iraq had these weapons, it would have used
them.”"

he thought he had them, he intended to use them, he would have used them, and they attempted to hide them, with no regard to UN sanctions which he agreed.....

thanks Steve, your defense proves the justification for action.

I have been thinking about you Steve, cause I find what you write laughable... I can only think you find us laughable at our attempts to stymie someone. I ponder if you first draft a post of what you believe and actually post the opposite to see how long of a thread you can create. I can not believe that there is any other explanation for the logic which is applied.

[VRM]

Chopper,
Didja miss something???

Originally Posted by VRM

Hussein learned from Gulf War 1 that anything he sent to Iran/Syria was not going to be returned, and it might possibly be used against him.

Steve

And their pilots may have just plain ran away.

So if your ground-based air defenses go down, what would you do? Clean your M16? Enquiring minds want to know...

[VRM]

JT,
So what do you think of Brent Scowcroft? Does he posess crazy logic as well?

Steve

[bomelia]

Originally Posted by VRM

Hussein/Iraq was an annoyance, but they were hardly a real threat to us. Iran was countered quite a bit by Iraq, and we removed that counter. That ends up making Iran stronger, and that is a bad thing if the radicals in Iran ever manage to consolidate power (there is a lot of turmoil in Iran between various factions).

Yeah, but now we have airbases on their border.

Mike

[rdorman]

Originally Posted by VRM

Rdorman,
Check out the chapter titled:
"Residual Pre-1991
CBW Stocks in Iraq"

It says:
However, ISG believes that any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat to Coalition Forces because the agent and munitions are degraded and there are not enough extant weapons to cause mass casualties. However, if placed in the hands of insurgents, the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives.

Yep, I read that and, repeating myself, aware that they degrade over time.

Originally Posted by VRM

Anybody who runs around saying that Hussein’s chemical weapons are still effective are playing into the terrorists hands. The only way that terror can be caused by ineffectual chemical weapons is if people think they are still effective.

There is also a section saying the chemical munitions were mixed in with other munitions during the Iran/Iraq war, and that we should expect to continue finding those - even though the chemical in them is now useless goo.

Tell that to the NGIC (how many times do I have to mention this document!)

"While they degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal"

http://politicscentral.com/audio/200...MDs_083106.pdf

Originally Posted by VRM

Hussein learned from Gulf War 1 that anything he sent to Iran/Syria was not going to be returned, and it might possibly be used against him.

Who said he thought he was going to get them back? Also, repeating again, much was moved without his knowledge or permission. It is a proven fact that weapons where moved out of Iraq in the days leading up to the war. Here is just one small example from the UN Security Council:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/...s-2004-435.pdf

Originally Posted by VRM

Hussein/Iraq was an annoyance, but they were hardly a real threat to us. Iran was countered quite a bit by Iraq, and we removed that counter. That ends up making Iran stronger, and that is a bad thing if the radicals in Iran ever manage to consolidate power (there is a lot of turmoil in Iran between various factions).

You will get no argument from me that Iran is a problem. Like I said before, the powers that be in Iran are scared $hitless that they are next. Recent events I consider to be a 'shot across the bow'. Iran is not dealing from a position of strength. I am not happy to be at war anywhere, at any time. However, I do understand that sometimes it is unavoidable. Was this one? Not so sure

Originally Posted by VRM

It's also interesting that you mention Sada. He has stated that what is going on in Iraq right now is an internal matter, and is best solved by Iraqis, with American help only from a distance.

Sada, Master of the Obvious. Nothing more would please me more then for Iraqis to solve their problems.

I do not believe now, nor did I then, that Iraq had 'large' caches of WMD's before the war. I would be surprised if large amounts of recent vintage even exist. But, I do know that there where some basic facts before the war:
- Iraq did have WMDs
- Iraq did have dozens of active weapons programs and was attempting to acquire the materials and technology to create more WMD’s
- Weapons and materials where 'moved' out of Iraq and into other countries

[BeanCounter]

Since you're so high on Scowcroft here's something he said:

BY BRENT SCOWCROFT
Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Our nation is presently engaged in a debate about whether to launch a war against Iraq. Leaks of various strategies for an attack on Iraq appear with regularity. The Bush administration vows regime change, but states that no decision has been made whether, much less when, to launch an invasion.

It is beyond dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace. He terrorizes and brutalizes his own people. He has launched war on two of his neighbors. He devotes enormous effort to rebuilding his military forces and equipping them with weapons of mass destruction. We will all be better off when he is gone.


Now there's something I can agree with him on. Notice even he thinks Saddam had WMD's.

[J. T. Toad]

thanks Bean. - yes. I think he has no personal accountability. He subscribes to an Gore/Clinton methodology of presenting ideals.

This all reminds me of those Farve commercial of Monday morning quarterback-ing.

back to the original posting... I still find it odd that Israel can pull off on operation with hardly a whimper of media outlet acknowledgment.

[VRM]

Bernie,
What's wrong - are you afraid to post the rest of Scowcrofts article?

Try it here: http://www.ffip.com/opeds081502.htm

I also noticed that you neglected to post the title of Scowcrofts article.
Here it is:
"Don't Attack Saddam"

What do you think he means by that?

Steve

[rdorman]

Thanks for posting a link to Brent Scowcroft's article. I found it interesting in a hind-sight sort of way. Obviously, he was right in certain respects and not in others. Too bad none of us own a crystal ball! In reading his description of Iraq, Saddam and his goals, I could not help but to think about a pre-war Japan. I would imagine that Scowcroft, today, does not approve of the invasion of Iraq but he might phrase it as a pre-emptive strike. I don't think any one has any illusions about Saddam's desire to recreate the map of the Middle East.

[chopper]

Originally Posted by VRM

Chopper,
So if your ground-based air defenses go down, what would you do? Clean your M16? Enquiring minds want to know...

When your ground based air defenses go down as theirs did, that's about all you can do. You see, you lose not only the ability to see what's coming at you, but also the ability to deploy and control your own forces because you have no radar coverage or ground-to-air communications. I don't know this for an absolute fact, but I would bet heavily that in taking down the air defense net, the Israelis also took down the secure communications links between the central authority and the air bases used to launch the aircraft. Without the communications and radar links, they couldn't communicate the launch orders, and even if they could have done that, they had no way to vector the interceptors into the Israeli threats. The Israelis would not have gone in a crow's line to the target, they would have had ingress routes planned which would include turn points specifically selected to break up the line of flight so that the enemy couldn't anticipate their target based on dead reckoning, so launching interceptors based on unreliable reports of aircraft passing overhead of camel drivers is worth than useless. That's why (at least as I understand) NO defensive aircraft were even launched, let alone were able to engage the Israelis. Also, with the radars jammed, the ground-based anti-aircraft sites are rendered pretty much useless because they cannot detect or lock on to the inbound aircraft.

FWIW, we did pretty much the same thing when we attacked Saddam in 1991. The first aircraft across the line weren't the fighters; they were a flight of Army Apache helicopters equipped with Hellfire laser-guided missiles, led by an Air Force Pave Low special ops H-53. Their targets were the radar command and control centers, and by wiping them out, we very effectively blinded all of Saddam's gee-whiz Russian anti-aircraft systems.

And, for the record, having been in pilot training courses over the years with members of numerous Middle Eastern pilot candidates, I would hazard a guess that the least capable Israeli pilot is probably a match for any 10 of them. Again, this is a guess on my part, but experience says that the Israelis probably had CAP escort to protect the attack aircraft enroute to and from the target area and attack aircraft armed with anti-radar missiles to take out any radar sites which popped up. With the radars out, the ground and air defenses were non-existent and the targets would have been wide open to the attack aircraft. The command and control structure of the Arab forces essentially eliminates any chance of individual commanders launching their defensive fleets without specific instructions from the central command structure. Under our command structure, individual commanders have the authority to conduct autonomous operations if events warrant. This authority does not exist in the Arab military forces because the command structures do not trust their subordinates, and the Israelis are well aware of this fact.

Maybe another night at the Holiday Inn Express will help, General. Perhaps you should stick to reading your GI Joe comic books.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by rdorman

Sada, Master of the Obvious. Nothing more would please me more then for Iraqis to solve their problems.

I do not believe now, nor did I then, that Iraq had 'large' caches of WMD's before the war. I would be surprised if large amounts of recent vintage even exist. But, I do know that there where some basic facts before the war:
- Iraq did have WMDs
- Iraq did have dozens of active weapons programs and was attempting to acquire the materials and technology to create more WMD’s
- Weapons and materials where 'moved' out of Iraq and into other countries

Sure, the NGIC says it could be harmful or lethal. That is standard government CYA. Insect repellent can be lethal as well, but that does not make it a WMD. Those 25 year old munitions were no longer capable of doing what defines a WMD, and they were, therefore, no threat to us.

I'm sure items were taken from Iraq unofficially, but nothing in any of those reports say that any actual WMD were taken. They do say that it is possible the WMD related items MAY have been taken. It DOES mean that we also now have to keep a close eye on other countries where these items may have ended up.

In answer to your points:
Yes, Iraq did have WMD back in the 80s and probably into the 90s. In 2001 it was useless and of no threat to us.

Yes, Iraq did have many weapons programs. Most countries do. Some of his were in violation of UN resolutions. It is a good thing to have the inspectors finding and destroying weapons systems that were in violation. As far as current WMD, there is no indication from the inspectors that he had any. He had some tools to make some elements of WMD, but was not able to put the whole package together. He could have made a dirty bomb - just about any country can if they really want to. But there was also no indication that he did that either.

Yes, some weapons and materials may have been moved out of Iraq, None of the weapons were WMD, and the WMD related material may have been moved as scrap, or even incomplete. It does make our job a bit harder to locate any of the functioning bits, or materials.

Bush Jr is probably the only President who actually didn't have to invade. Hussein would have called the bluff on just about anybody else that I can think of, and they would have been forced to go in just to prove that they would. I doubt Clinton would have even done that. This is why Bush was the perfect guy to force Hussein into UN compliance. Bush was like the rabid dog just itching to go get him, and that scared Hussein like nobody else could. That is what forced Hussein into compliance. As long as Hussein stayed scared of Bush we had no need to invade.

Steve

[VRM]

Chopper,
Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the Mig31E is capable of limited AWACS abilities?

Sure, Syrias performance would be even more degraded than normal against the Israelis, but that does not mean that they are helpless. You should never underestimate your enemy.

I would also give the Israelis a significant edge in combat, but after they (probably) defeat Syrias now limited defenses they now might have to contend with a warned and alert Iran. And they still have to fly through Iraq, giving Iran even more time to co-ordinate their defenses. Israels CAP might be low on fuel and weapons if they had to engage the Syrians.

You DO know what can happen when you lose the element of surprise, right?

Steve

[BeanCounter]

Oh no, nobody believes me except little Stevie.