posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 05:17 PM
I'm sure Iran's air defense can handle itself well. The problem I see for them is that it's very hard to defend a fixed/obvious target like a
reactor site. It's not like you have to go Scud/Tank hunting. Second, I'd expect any air attack to include thorough wild weasel support. Not
that jamming is perfect or anything like that, but SAMs do seem to respect a target when it can and does fire back. SAM's seem to be more effective
at ambushing aircraft when EW support is not so concentrated. Even if half of the attacking force is downed by SAMs (exagerated), US/Israel would
claim success if the reactor goes boom.
Aside from political gambles, if the US/Israel sneak attack Iran and the attack isn't effective, or requires follow-up attacks--then what? If you
back off--you look silly. If you don't back off-you have to convince everyone to support further attacks even though you've already failed to some
I think the attacking force would have trouble with the Iranian air force as well. Not that they couldn't be dealt with, but if you have to engage
50 fighters on the way to the target--well that just slows everything down. Every minute over the battlefield is hell from the SAMs. They could just
liter the airfields with tomahawk bomblets, but now you've raised the whole scope of things. Iran just might decide to fire conventional missles at
Israel in return. Then do you now attack the missle sites?
Regardless of who's right and who's wrong, this could get ugly fast. . .