Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The missiles of David
Israel may have an offensive ballistic missile capability:
Ballistic missiles could be Israel's weapon of choice against Iranian nuclear facilities if it decides on a pre-emptive attack and deems air strikes too risky, according to a report by a Washington think-tank.
Israel is widely assumed to have Jericho missiles capable of hitting Iran with an accuracy of a few dozen meters (yards) from target. Such a capability would be free of warplanes' main drawbacks -- limits on fuel and ordnance, and perils to pilots.
Extrapolating from analyst assessments that the most advanced Jerichos carry 750 kg (1,650 lb) conventional warheads, Abdullah Toukan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said 42 missiles would be enough to "severely damage or demolish" Iran's core nuclear sites at Natanz, Esfahan and Arak.
Supposing this story is as accurate as a Jericho missile, the question is whether the fact of Israel's ballistic missile capability is stabilizing or destabilizing. On the one hand, it ought to give the Iranians pause even if they delude themselves into thinking that Israel's air force could not retaliate effectively to an attack. That is stabilizing. On the other hand, insofar as a missile attack would be more likely to be launched and succeed than one by manned jets, the Iranians might worry that their nuclear capability, should they develop it, ought to be used before it is destroyed. That is destabilizing.
We live in dangerous times.
11 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 17, 02:18:00 PM:
Missiles are useless against highly portable nuclear bombs.
The smart Iranian use of nukes anyway is to deter the US and Israel from trying to overthrow the regime. Actually using the nukes destroys the deterrent at the same time as forcing US and Israel to attack.
(posting problems - trying one more time)
By , at
Tue Mar 17, 02:34:00 PM:
The Iranains don't have "highly portable nukes", so far as I've read. They have hardened facilities by the boatload, and in that instance wouldn't the usefulness of missles depend entirely on the payload delivered? Details aside, though, I would point out that Israel firing missles without provocation could easily start World War 3. This must be brought to a head before Israel takes action. This needs the attention of the President most immediately.
By , at
Tue Mar 17, 03:39:00 PM:
We live in dangerous times indeed if a Western-style democracy's efforts to defend itself against willful apocalypse can be characterized as dangerous.
By , at
Tue Mar 17, 04:13:00 PM:
Nobody is suggesting Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself against apocalypse. My point is that they don't presently have a casus belli. The Iranians would be transformed overnight into the wronged party.
By 
Escort81, at
Tue Mar 17, 05:33:00 PM:
Stabilizing vs. destabilizing?
Some of this is a recapitulation of the Cold War arguments about particular weapons systems, and academic debates about logic and rationale (i.e., the Pershings that Reagan wanted to put in Europe were inherently destabilizing because it shortened the trigger response time, setting aside that that move was among the final ones that led to checkmate for the USSR).
The analogy breaks down because the Russian leadership of the USSR had pretty much of a Western mindset, and wasn't willing to launch a first strike knowing that it would almost certainly be game over for them as well (so MAD worked). We don't really know much about the mindset of Iran's leadership, but it is not apparently "Western."
Maybe this is the "guns don't kill people" argument, but perhaps it is the Iranian regime that is destabilizing, not the WMDs it has. South Africa, as objectionable as it was as a structure of government and society during Apartheid, was a nuclear power that nobody seriously worried about in terms of initiating an attack on another nuclear power. The Iranians perhaps want to be seen as destabilizing, particularly with the addition or possible addition of nukes, because it gets them what they want without actually having to use the weapons. They either become by default the most important regional power, or they tempt Israel into making a pre-emptive move that will generate much sympathy for the Iranians (remember that even the Reagan Administration at least publicly criticized the Osirik raid against Saddam's facility) and further harm internal Israeli politics as it relates to national defense and security.
The Iranian leadership has always seen itself as revolutionary since 1979; revolutions are by definition destabilizing, whether it is political or technological (did anybody think that they'd be spending time blogging 10 years ago?).
By Ray, at
Tue Mar 17, 06:09:00 PM:
I'm no expert, but you're going to try to hit a hardened bunker with a ballistic missile that might be off by a city block or two? With conventional explosives? Good luck with that.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Mar 17, 06:30:00 PM:
What, you think they keep their secret military facilities surrounded by missiles and garrisoned by IRGC troops in residential neighborhoods?
By , at
Tue Mar 17, 06:46:00 PM:
A major limitation to serious game theory is when the other side is not rational.
Iran, in an apocalyptic frenzy, may feel an Israeli attack is the best possible outcome, hastening the advent of the twelfth imam...
From a rational perspective, a prophylatic strike need only disrupt centrifuges and jam launch doors to be successful.
When you cannot reason or appease, there is only one alternative.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Tue Mar 17, 09:21:00 PM:
If Israel were to decide to do something about Iran before Iran does what it has repeatedly said it intends to do to Israel ... then it would not make sense to fire the missiles at hardened plants laboriously making nuclear explosives.
People kill people, not nuclear weapons. If Israel acts, it will almost certainly be to decapitate & incapacitate the regime -- a much softer target, with more room for targeting errors.
Then when the "world" (as we now call unrepresentative extremists) has finished expressing its outrage at Israel, the "world" can go into the ruins of Iran and switch off the centrifuges.
By , at
Wed Mar 18, 01:33:00 AM:
Well, I'm gonna tell you folks a story.
(Recommended reading: "The Hunt for Red October: by Tom Clancy.
A "Boomer" is vernacular for a submarine that is equipted to launch nuclear ballistic missiles.)
A couple of months ago, through complicated circumstances, I chanced to be in a local book store and encountered a US submariner who obviously knew his stuff. We got around to talking about the Middle East. So I asked him: "So how many Boomers does Israel have?"
He said: "At least two".
I said: "With twenty missles each?:
He said: "Twenty Four, and each has multiple GPS guided warheads" (conventional and nuclear).
You finish the story. They can sit on the ocean floor for months at a time. One in the Persian Gulf, another in the Gulf of Oman or the eastern Mediterranean.
Take the story for what it's worth; I hope that it's true, and I hope that they have the stones to use them...
By , at
Wed Mar 18, 03:32:00 PM:
With all their freelance ambassadors, advisors, tsars and policy wonks, it is too bad the Obamanation couldn't find room for Zalmay Khalilzad, who recently distinguished himself under difficult circumstances in several assignments.
"The nuclear bomb will have a huge impact. The region is already very combustible, and if you add the nuclear dimension to it, how will the Egyptians, the Turks react? You get more nervous than you might if it was a different Iran, than this one, talking about destroying a sovereign state, Iran with links to the problem of extremism and terror. It's one of the biggest challenges facing the world."
