Is Israel about to strike at Iran?

Thank you but it still illustrates my point of industrial/economic depth.  Isn't Saudi's population 20 million? 

Originally posted by Zagros they would pepper it with some physical damage and cause a psychological imprint much like Saddam's Scuds on bigger scale,  nothing else. Nothing else? Like not destroy Israel's fragile economy and exponentially increase its emigration problem?

that can happen anyway via the Hezb or Palistinian proxies, No-Gong's just add salt to the wounds. Isreal is still connected to the western world and can be supported via other financial means while the war is on. Outside the reach of these missiles. Economic leverage comes from controling/spoiling the Straights of Hormuz not peppering Tel Aviv

  Unless these missiles can be very accurate and relaible, and pointed by precise and informed intelligence, they have little military value. Politically they make the mullahs look strong to their domestic audiance but this is an expensive and wasteful a way to do this. Without nukes they are nothing more. I never considered their use effective in other wars, they have never been critical in any victory and I cant see Iran doing it better. Hezbollah can be much more cost and operationaly effective.

Originally posted by Zagros Does Israel have nukes? 200 of them? Everyone assumes so.  All we have is the word of an Israeli defector: Mossad's maxim is "to win wars by way of deception".   Israel wouldn't be attacked to prove reach, it would be attacked in self defense by the means possible.

well who wants to roll that dice? if they have nukes (even 20), you and i know that civilian deaths would not inhibit their use. They are quite comfortable in bludgeoning their opponents into oblivion. In their minds every war must be won at all cost, or they will be extinct as a nation. So it would be the right thing to do, completely rationalized in their reality and very dangerous for everyone else.

Originally posted by Leonidas Originally posted by Zagros And this is to mention nothing of Iran's response.   What would 100 Shahabs do to Tel Aviv? Israel is impotent they would pepper it with some physical damage and cause a psychological imprint much like Saddam's Scuds on bigger scale,  nothing else. I'm sure they would hit its military targets before Tel Aviv, the nuke plant being target number one. Those targets will hurt more than hitting their cities. i don't understand why hitting Israeli cities with scuds on steroids is seen as effective. Israel can nuke every city in the region and is getting better at defending against these things as time rolls on. Its like a college boy slapping a heavy weight boxer, just to show they aren't scared and they have reach. Its only makes a point, but doesn't win the fight. Its not going to cower Israel. Hezbollah is much more effective than these Shahabs.  The greater number of short/medium range missiles they have, used against US interest in the gulf and Afghanistan would have more of a materiel impact in any future conflict than a limited attack on Tel Aviv. Such things just rally the population for war. It didn't help either Iraq or Iran when they were lobbing scuds at each others cities, victory is secured on the battlefield.

Iraqi scuds were easy targets for Patriots, I don't think Shahabs are (since the development of three or four versions of "arrow" defense missiles has been necessary) - Shahabs can be guided by GPS (or the Russian equivalent) or gyroscopics, so the accuracy is beyond that of just hitting a large target such as a city.  Plus Shahabs can pack one ton of high explosives.

In other news, I read an article in which the US apparently confirmed Russian sale of S-400s due for delivery later this year, though nothing has come from the Russian or Iranian side.


Edited by Zagros - 15-Jul-2008 at 00:15

Originally posted by rider The number of deaths caused by a missile come from the amount of explosives that are in the warhead, not so much of it's accuracy.

True in some ways but remember during the first Gulf War one of the reason's Saddam's Scuds didn't have the effect they were intended to have was the fact that their poor systems in terms of accuracy hence pretty much made them ineffective weapons.

So accuracy does play a big part in contributing to deaths when deploying these weapons.  

Iraqi scuds were easy targets for Patriots

Originally posted by Zagros Thank you but it still illustrates my point of industrial/economic depth.  Isn't Saudi's population 20 million?

Edited by Cryptic - 16-Jul-2008 at 20:07

So it's all about the spae programme... However, why can't they just check coordinates from, say Google Earth, programme the rocket to fly there, and it will? The missile can't be so... useless that it would miss then? At least by a ton?

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Shahabs can be guided by GPS (or the Russian equivalent) or gyroscopics, so the accuracy is beyond that of just hitting a large target such as a city. Most of the satellites on the Russian system have broken down by down, effective coverage is reduced to only over Russia herself, and I wouldn't count on its reliability. In any case, you can't really guide a missile by GPS. It simply isn't accurate enough, at best you could get to within the right 10 meters, but given the speed the missiles are travelling at it would probably be more like 50m - which could easily be the difference between a munitions dump and a sports oval. Unless you can get access to military grade GPS (which me, you, or Iran can't, because the US army doesn't let anyone) it won't be very effective at guiding missiles without other systems as well.

The guidance systems are one of the key unknowns. The GPS is one way, AFAIK the gyro's are another way. They have both so GPS is not critical. The accuracy will come down to how good their gyro technology is.

also it isnt russian technology but Chinese/North korean. The chineses were busted trying to get laser gyro's off the US via a front company (IIRC the company claimed it was for their trains) . That was when Clinton was way too open and freindly. So if they get that type of technology and i have read the Iranians may already have it, the accuray will be very good. But 50M CEP is pretty good and I would conservitaly guess they are at level(if they dont have the latest gyro's). Iranians dont fire oneor two of these things anyway, so expect a salvo for one target and they dont care if some miss and hit a sports oval aslong as enough hit the target. I am assuming they wont waste them on randoms city shots, but hit the high value targets.

GPS can be used to overcome drift it seems. civilian GPS is the golden question, and in combination with what Iran has. The question the US and Israel would want to know;  do they have laser Gyro's (RLG's), are they any good.

 While researching tonight to understand some of the issues, i came across other sensor fusion techniques other than GPS. but I haven't the technical background to know if they are applicable to ballistic missiles. PDF pg 33. I also did a Google search on RLG + drifting and there are patents in the US that try to overcome it. why is that stuff public.

The other claim made which would be good to know; can they build and deploy a maneuvering warhead, the Arrow2 should be able to handle a few of these if they have a linear trajectory. I would also think the salvo method as a way of saturating and over coming the defences as well as the inherent inaccuracy.

Edited by Leonidas - 17-Jul-2008 at 14:20