When the nukes start dropping...

[lovuian]

Run time: 02:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSCZNjgHNbI   Posted on YouTube: June 09, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 09, 2008 By DU Member: lovuian Views on DU: 790

 
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF05Ak02.html

he 77-page report is formatted in the US Pentagon's current dominant lingua franca, the ubiquitous Microsoft Powerpoint - my goodness, you'd almost think that it was destined to be shown there! How foolish it was for Osama bin Laden to think he could take down the entire US military with just one plane, or even a dozen, slamming into the Pentagon; a virus or bug that disabled all the Powerpoint software the US Department of Defense runs would have brought the world's most powerful military to its knees. In slide after slide, the report catalogs the weaponry, tactics, targets, contingencies, most importantly the results, that would occur should everybody in the Middle East with a button, perhaps simultaneously, perhaps in sequence, push it.

The first and core scenario of the report involves a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, some time between 2010 and 2020. It is speculated that during this period, the Iranians would have about 50, mostly minimum-yield, nuclear weapons at their disposal. Thirty would be in the form of missile warheads to be emplaced on their Shahab 3 and 4 intermediate range ballistic missiles, 20 in the form of bombs that would be carried on the now antique F-14 Tomcats bought from the US by the Shah of Iran in the 1970s, along with a few on the old Russian SU-24s, and the more modern SU-37s, that Iran has recently purchased during shopping trips to the world's global arms swap meet.

Israel has been a nuclear-capable power since at least the mid 1960s; it is speculated in the report that by 2010 it will have over 200, higher-yielding nuclear warheads in its arsenal, deliverable by both Jericho 3 ballistic missiles and American-supplied F-16 and F-15 fighter bombers.

The differing technological capabilities of the two countries would dictate their respective strategies once the missiles and bombs started flying. Israel has access to America's super-sophisticated satellite reconnaissance and targeting technology. Besides knowing just where to point their nukes, Israel also possesses the technology that assures that its weapons will fall where desired.

Thus, if Israel decides to commence the war with a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear research and production facilities, shown in the report as lying in a northwest/southeast axis from Lashkar A'bad on the southwestern shores of the Caspian Sea to Gachin, just west of the Strait of Hormuz, it could do so without inflicting the massive casualties of a nuclear strike on Teheran.
more....

If you want to know whats in the 77 page study
a report authored by respected military analyst Anthony H Cordesman of the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think-tank, entitled "Iran, Israel and Nuclear War" <1>.
I have to say to the Pentagon Don't DO IT!!!
Cheney is definitely been busy

[gateley]

1. I don't want to play, either, lovuian.

Thank you - very well done. And it gets the point across.

[lovuian]

2. this is why gas just keeps going up and up folks

its this Cheney threat that is out there

[bananas]

3. The report pdf can be downloaded here

The pdf link is on this webpage:
http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=4172

Iran, Israel and Nuclear War: An Illustrative Scenario Analysis

Author: Anthony H. Cordesman
Date of Publication: November 19, 2007
Associated Programs: Burke Chair in Strategy
Related Research Focus: Middle East & North Africa
International Security
Proliferation Prevention
Experts : Anthony H. Cordesman

Synopsis:

The latest IAEA report on Iran again illustrates the risks of nuclear war in the Middle East.

The attached briefing provides the material used in a scenario analysis and interactive game that looks at some of the consequences of a future nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran, and the possible impact of its expansion to cover targets in Syria, Egypt, and the Gulf.

There is no way to predict the forces each side will have in the future, or how they might target those forces and use them in war. It does seem clear, however, that both sides would probably be forced to target the other's population centers in any scenario that escalated beyond an initial demonstrative strike.

It also seems likely that such a conflict would quickly become existential in the sense that both sides would seek to inflict the maximum possible casualties on its opponent, and to destroy its ability to recover as a nation.

The analysis indicates that Israeli might have the near to mid-term advantage in such a struggle, at least in terms of the ability to inflict more damage on the Persian ethnic population and economy of Iran. Iran is much larger than Israel, but its population is heavily urbanized and extremely vulnerable to boosted and thermonuclear weapons.

This advantage seems likely to continue until Iran obtained boosted or thermonuclear weapons. The outcome would be so costly to both sides, however, any such advantage would little or no practical value. It is unclear that either nation could reconstitute itself on anything like a prewar basis, if at all.

[lovuian]

4. Isn't that one scary freaky report

I see no way how anybody wins here

[AtheistCrusader]

5. No one will win.

No one can.

This kind of war would be horrific on an undreamed-of scale. Population centers in the middle east are clustered around scarce and valuable water resources. 'Perfect targets'. The death toll would be unimaginable, and the refugees will die, with nowhere to go.

When I get some spare time, I'll overlay nighttime satellite photography that shows population centers, over 'green' areas of the ME that contains water, and then add in prevailing winds to illustrate fallout. You pretty much don't get a worse scenario.



Side-notes: Some of the imagery in that you tube video doesn't make sense to me. No involved side would have access to a B-2, nor would they really be needed, nighttime anti-aircraft gun imagery from Baghdad doesn't make sense in a nuclear exchange, nor does stock footage of the BLU-82 conventional bomb.

Anyone ever read Arthur C. Clarke and Mike McQuay's 'Richter 10'? One of the plot devices is the 'Masada Option', which sounds a lot like what this could shape up to be. Life imitating art?