Niall, I am a great admirer of your work - both the rigorousness of your research and the thinking that springs from it. And I broadly agree with your conclusions here. But it must be said, my understanding is that the success of US air power at destroying Fordow remains a hypothesis, not a forgone conclusion. That the GBU-57 is sufficient to penetrate deeply and precisely enough, even with repeated strikes is not, at this stage, a known-known.
For one, there has not been an acknowledged use in combat, certainly not on a target as hardened or unique as this one. Second, the ability to strike with great precision so deeply inside a target is more challenging, as I understand it, than is popularly imagined. Not only must the weapon penetrate very deeply and through any reinforcements, but it must also penetrate fairly close to what it’s trying to destroy ~30 to 40 meters close.
There is clearly and certainly no hope for Israel’s weapons to penetrate, but the MOP is being discussed in the press as if it is simple fact that the U.S. possesses the air power to destroy Fordow.
If H.R. has high confidence, that’s good enough for me. But even there, given the implications, high probability and certitude are different matters. I think it’s important, at this stage, to provide such a caveat in any analysis and debate, if indeed such a lack of professional certitude exists.
Given the strategic implications of any failure of this weapon, both in this conflict and crucially for the deterrence and planning of adversaries in future conflicts, a more circumspect analysis with the inclusion and reference of any qualified technical doubts may be appropriate - certainly for key decision makers, but also in a democracy, for the public and its representatives to reflect on as well.
Does Israel and its intelligence forces have a sense of whether , if the religious front of Iran's regime falls , the army will fill the vacuum like they did elsewhere in the Middle East or is there a civilian infrastructure that would allow for a true change in power ? I suppose I am asking whether we we looking at something more like Poland 1989 in or Iraq 2003?
this is the unanswerable question that will mark the success or failure of what they do...seems like the answer is neither one exactly but more likely Iraq in '02
An interesting argument that views conflict in outdated terms of a military engagement on a well-defined battlefield. Factors such as Russia's interest in seeing a steady supply of Iranian drones, the extent to which Iranian hackers have pierced U.S. cyber infrastructure, and the likelihood of an Iran-backed terror attack somewhere in the world all weigh on the decision to drop a single spectacular bomb.
Those are all, in the words of a recent U.S. defense secretary, "known unknowns," but they must be acknowledged. This ain't a simple "big bang, back home."
Please explain why a completed bomb located underground could not be easily contained there with no B2s. Israeli jets could keep rail lines and roads on the surface wrecked, and electricity supply shut down too. Also nuclear bombs need to be tested before first use (e.g. N. Korea) so there is no need for rushing the U.S. into the Iran snake pit. If a weapon is tested, the US can detect, & pivot quickly!
Niall, I am a great admirer of your work - both the rigorousness of your research and the thinking that springs from it. And I broadly agree with your conclusions here. But it must be said, my understanding is that the success of US air power at destroying Fordow remains a hypothesis, not a forgone conclusion. That the GBU-57 is sufficient to penetrate deeply and precisely enough, even with repeated strikes is not, at this stage, a known-known.
For one, there has not been an acknowledged use in combat, certainly not on a target as hardened or unique as this one. Second, the ability to strike with great precision so deeply inside a target is more challenging, as I understand it, than is popularly imagined. Not only must the weapon penetrate very deeply and through any reinforcements, but it must also penetrate fairly close to what it’s trying to destroy ~30 to 40 meters close.
There is clearly and certainly no hope for Israel’s weapons to penetrate, but the MOP is being discussed in the press as if it is simple fact that the U.S. possesses the air power to destroy Fordow.
If H.R. has high confidence, that’s good enough for me. But even there, given the implications, high probability and certitude are different matters. I think it’s important, at this stage, to provide such a caveat in any analysis and debate, if indeed such a lack of professional certitude exists.
Given the strategic implications of any failure of this weapon, both in this conflict and crucially for the deterrence and planning of adversaries in future conflicts, a more circumspect analysis with the inclusion and reference of any qualified technical doubts may be appropriate - certainly for key decision makers, but also in a democracy, for the public and its representatives to reflect on as well.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/options-targeting-irans-fordow-nuclear-facility
Does Israel and its intelligence forces have a sense of whether , if the religious front of Iran's regime falls , the army will fill the vacuum like they did elsewhere in the Middle East or is there a civilian infrastructure that would allow for a true change in power ? I suppose I am asking whether we we looking at something more like Poland 1989 in or Iraq 2003?
this is the unanswerable question that will mark the success or failure of what they do...seems like the answer is neither one exactly but more likely Iraq in '02
An interesting argument that views conflict in outdated terms of a military engagement on a well-defined battlefield. Factors such as Russia's interest in seeing a steady supply of Iranian drones, the extent to which Iranian hackers have pierced U.S. cyber infrastructure, and the likelihood of an Iran-backed terror attack somewhere in the world all weigh on the decision to drop a single spectacular bomb.
Those are all, in the words of a recent U.S. defense secretary, "known unknowns," but they must be acknowledged. This ain't a simple "big bang, back home."
Please explain why a completed bomb located underground could not be easily contained there with no B2s. Israeli jets could keep rail lines and roads on the surface wrecked, and electricity supply shut down too. Also nuclear bombs need to be tested before first use (e.g. N. Korea) so there is no need for rushing the U.S. into the Iran snake pit. If a weapon is tested, the US can detect, & pivot quickly!