Skip to comments.Israel says Iran nuclear plant immune to conventional strike
Posted on 12/31/2009 9:33:32 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Monday that Iran's recently diclosed second uranium enrichment plant is "immune" to conventional bombing. "The new site near Qom is meant for enrichment. What was revealed by the Iranians had been built over years and is located in bunkers that cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack," Barak told parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee.
Iran notified the UN nuclear watchdog in September that it was building a second enrichment plant near the central shrine city of Qom, after Washington accused it of covertly evading its notification responsibilities under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Confirmation of the construction work drew criticism not only from Western governments but also from the United Nations.
Enriched uranium can make the fuel for nuclear power plants but in highly extended form can also produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb.
Along with Western governments, Israel suspects Iran of seeking to develop a weapons capability under the guise of a civil nuclear programme, an accusation Tehran denies.
Along with its US ally, Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear power, has refused to rule out a resort to military action to prevent Iran developing a bomb.
Barak said he feared Iran could develop a weapon by 2011.
"I believe that by early 2010 Iran will hold threshold technology (for building a bomb). That means that if it wanted, it could develop nuclear weapons within a year from obtaining threshold technology," a senior official quoted him as telling the parliamentary committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at spacewar.com ...
We should try that theory out with a bunker buster some time and see how it goes IMO.
I would prefer one with a nuclear warhead to permanently put it out of commission
yep. old news. they are too far underground
The CIC-0bama is in charge of the weapons-good luck!
Neutron Bomb instead maybe?
Is Israel telling us that a nuclear strike is the only option?
all you need is a couple of kilotons(Robust Nuclear Bunker Buster)
Um...is he saying Israel might use a nuke to destroy it?
Yes. Maybe a big one.
nuke them, nuke them
Wonder what 3 of those bad boys would do if spaced at 5 second apart intervals. Me thinks they would do a little deep digging.
Just nuke the damn place, damn it.
We’re screwed! Maybe.
B-61 Mod 11 could attack targets with much lower yield could do the job
YUP there are multiple things out there that can put a quick screwage to us.
Don’t bring a bunker to a nuc party.
Usually, deep bunkers make good tombs.
Judging by past (Wrong!) intelligence estimates, I would guess they have 3-5 A-Bombs by now, well on their way to thermonuclear ones.
It's the only way to be sure.
They are already on their way to minitiurizing the bomb which will allow them to MIRV and work on a hydrogen bomb.
At least we might find Jimmy Hoffa?
It depends what side you are on. When the $hit hits the fan the results will be of biblical proportions right down to divine intervention.
Rest assured in those prophecies.
And choose your path accordingly!
Who? The Iranians?
If that’s a MIRV strike depiction, what’s that rocket in the background doin a U turn for???
Its not beyond any of the upcoming nuclear powers. All you need is a supercomputer to design one and time.It did not take the United States and the Soviet Union to have a MIRV capable rocket a long time.
May not look like much now, but they have come a long way quickly.
They have solid fuel rockets which makes them more dangerous. Our missiles are solid fuelled rockets and they are designed to launch on warning.
Missfire? Nothing is 100%. 9 0ut of 10 is acceptable in these cases.
The last Iranian missile test was a solid fuelled rocket. Solid fuel rockets are very stable and durable. My rockets are solid fuel. Liquid propellant is very unstable and takes time to prepare. That is not including all the precautions.
Reminds me of my USAF days (tactical, not strategic).
Drop a bunker buster on top of it to open a channel and then drop a nuke into the hole. The technology exists.
They (Israel) don’t need a bunker-buster. Just tactical nukes with high-yield uranium.. The sites may not be destroyed but they will be hot for the next 100 or so years.
IMO the first one explodes, the other two will evaporate before they are close enough to the target. Perhaps three strikes with, say, 5 minutes between them might work... even that depends on how the machinery of those bombs works under extreme radiation.
However any nuclear strike option, on part of either Israel or the USA, is politically impossible. Iran is not at war with anyone. The country that dropped the bomb and killed, say, 100,000 people and caused widespread contamination of half of the Europe and Asia would certainly be punished - by a mandatory, worldwide trade embargo, for example. The General Assembly of the UN will gladly vote for that, overruling the [stalemate in the] Security Council.
I think the statement of Ehud Barak is crafted to explain, primarily to Israelis, why there will be no strike. I personally believe that impossibility of taking the Qom site out is just one facet of the problem. Much bigger problem is that Iran can inflict an unacceptable damage to Israel in return, just using its existing, conventional weapons. Iran's missiles may be poorly built, but they have plenty of them, on mobile launchers in mountains. By the time Iran is out of missiles there will be nothing left standing in Israel.
I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the Iranians would be so inconsiderate as to place a weapons creation facility such that it would not be vulnerable to conventional airstrikes.
Don't count Israel out. I've read the back of the book, and they win!
Thank you very much. I really enjoy Cold War stuff.
Israel has a multi layered air defense network that uses the combination of PAC-3 and their Arrow missile. Cobra-Juniper.
The higher yield nuke would produce a very high overpressure.
I would guess conventional deep penetrator bunker busters (by the nature of what they do) are pretty harden and designed to take a lot of G-forces and temperature before going boom. I think the follow ups would zoom right through the loose debris easier than the primary zoomed through a couple hundred feet of solid rock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.