Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Vet67to82 (< 20)

Concern about an Isreali strike against Iran's Nuclear facilities

Recs

91

June 24, 2008 – Comments (6) | RELATED TICKERS: USO , DHT , SKF

Many people are showing concern about an Isreali strike against Iran's Nuclear facilities. 

  There's a couple of things that make it likely it won't happen. First the Isreali Air Force fighter bombers (FBs), even with drop tanks, don't have the range to strike Iran and get back. They would either need to be re-fueled in the air ... or it's a one way trip, and Isreal doesn't have re-fueling capability, that we know of, at this time. So, the Isreali FBs would have to be re-fueled by someone who does have re-fueling capability and is already in the area of the operation (hint: USAF).     So, the Isreali operation, puportedly a dry run attack scenario, was probably a re-fueling familiarization scenario. 

   Second, crossing someone elses' airspace (Syria backed Iran in the Iraq-Iran War) would risk providing an early warning to Iran,  burning up more fuel and losing FBs to air defenses if those countries strongly object to Isreal crossing their airspace.

  The kicker in all of this is that, many Arab countries have reasonable fears that a nuclear armed Iran will use those weapons on Isreal and that Isreal would certainly retaliate. As few as 6 nuclear blasts in the atmosphere, could put enough material into the atmosphere to spread around the globe by the jet stream, would cause a nuclear winter. You'd still be able to see the sun, but with 5.7 billion people on this planet, I would not want to be the guy telling people we can't grow food and we only have enough food to feed 1 to 1.5 billion people.  So, the Arab countries may, in  secret, allow Isreal to cross their airspace while publically ranting and railing the Isrealis did; in effect, the lesser of two evils choice. 

  So, we really all need to think of what our differences are, work our differences out without conflict, be a little more respectful, a little more tolerant, and try to get along.  Do we always want our final choice to be the "lesser of two evils" choice?

6 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 24, 2008 at 1:10 PM, TDRH (99.64) wrote:

Was not aware that Isreal did not have the refueling capacity.   Seems a little strange.   If the USAF does assist though I shudder to think of the consequences.   

Wish we could all just get along.

Report this comment
#2) On June 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM, joeykid13 wrote:

You would think that by now we would have all grown out of this childish barbarism.  What a waste of time, energy, and life.  On the tanker issue, make no question about it...Israel has full and unadulterated access to the entire US arsenal...as it should be...now and always.

Report this comment
#3) On June 24, 2008 at 3:44 PM, mandrake66 (86.32) wrote:

The first step to growing out of this childish barbarism would be for the US not to subjugate its entire foreign policy to the interests of a small, selfish, unimportant Middle Eastern state that considers itself beyond the rule of law or any other form of restraint.

The second step would be for the US to withdraw from the 1000 or so overseas military bases it operates beyond its borders and stop outspending militarily the rest of the world combined by a large margin.

Once we quash those two sources of childish barbarism, the world will be a much better place.

Report this comment
#4) On June 24, 2008 at 3:46 PM, GNUBEE (25.08) wrote:

Israel just last week flew a "round and round" mission refueling in air, to tune of a distance equal to an Iranian strike. So they can, and last week did a drill showing they could. Flew about 900 miles, or the same distance to Natanz (where the facility is). Israel as of 2006 had three Boeing 707 air-refueling aircraft and three KC-130 tankers. All were purchased in the 1970s.

So US will not be refueling them...they'll do it themselves.

Report this comment
#5) On June 24, 2008 at 6:40 PM, garyb52 (< 20) wrote:

Israel is fully capable of initiating an attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities, or anything else in Iran for that matter. They'll also have whatever help they need from the U.S.

If it happens, oil will go to $200 in the blink of an eye. 

Report this comment
#6) On June 24, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Vet67to82 (< 20) wrote:

  Iran split up its research and technology over multiple sites, with its centrifuge purportedly deep underground where even the USA "bunker buster bombs" can't get to it. However the flaw in that theory is no place to run and I think Iran failed to consider the possibility of a staggered wave attack on target.  The first wave drops on target to dig a crater.  The next wave drops into the crater to blast deeper, as does the next wave.  Sooner or later you've taken out their elevator shafts and maybe buried the cenrtifuges for a very long time.     

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement