If Israel and the US attack Iran, and then Iran sinks an aircraft carrier, what happens next?

[FarCenter]

First Israel and the US (either playing a direct role or supporting role) attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

Then Iran attacks the nearest aircraft carrier, gets lucky, and sinks it.

What happens next?

Admittedly, the ability of Iran to do so is not very great, but war is uncertain, and sometimes the enemy gets lucky or we get unlucky. Even if it is a low probability scenario, it has to be considered as one of the eventualities.

[teddy51]

1. We then have one hell of allot of needless deaths with probably many more to come.

I still wonder if this would draw both China and Russia into this conflict, and that would be devastating.

[chelsea0011]

2. The US is going to attack Iran? Or are just assuming that an Israeli

strike has to have US involvement? The US will not be involved in a strike and an Iran sinking of a US carrier will be met with bad results. Iran will never do it.

[Fumesucker]

3. Does Israel have the assets necessary to attack Iran?

Is Saudi or Iraq going to let Israel overfly on the way to an attack on Iran?

[chelsea0011]

5. I don't think Iraq could stop a fly over and besides, I don't think Israel will

ask for permission from anyone.

[DevonRex]

14. You're assuming Israel doesn't have

long range missile capability. And of course they DO have it.

[Fumesucker]

15. Enough missile capability to loft enough conventional explosives to do the job?

Iran is not a little country, I suspect there are multiple targets that will take multiple strikes each..

[FarCenter]

20. Sixteen aircraft were involved in the attack on the Iraqi Osirak reactor

Hundreds of sorties would be needed to attack a large number of Iranian sites, as well as to suppress air defenses. It may last multiple days.

Conceivably Israel could take out the Iranian nuclear facilities using missiles and low-yield, radiation-enhanced (neutron) bombs. That would be a different, but fairly entertaining scenario to analyse.

[DevonRex]

29. We are way past conventional

weapons at this point. Which makes their long range capabilities much greater. Lighter payload, greater accuracy.

[Fumesucker]

37. It will not end well for Israel if they go first use nuclear..

That would be nuts even for Bibi..

[DevonRex]

40. And that's why it won't happen yet.

It's gonna have to be apparent that Iran does have nukes before Israel can strike first. And after Bush, the evidence will have to be indisputable or they lose all their allies.

[Fumesucker]

50. So you're saying that a nuclear first strike is a good idea?

As long as it's Israel nuking Iran and not vice versa?

[DevonRex]

59. Absolutely NOT.

In a graduate level class called Conflict in the Nuclear Age, I learned about game theory. It's simply a method of figuring out the most likely moves different countries (in this case) will make.

The premise is that in a major conflict, the actors (assuming rationality) will act in a way to avoid the worst possible outcome (for them). It has nothing to do with right and wrong. One such game is Prisoner's Dilemma. Two partners in crime are interrogated separately. They will ALWAYS make a deal and talk, just to avoid the longest jail term or the death penalty (or whatever the worst penalty is).

Here's some reading that you'll find interesting. The first is the Cuban Missile Crisis. The second is a very, very concise overview of GT.

http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue13/features/brams/index

http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/block4/4.4_-_Game_Theory.pdf

Anyway, it's a dispassionate way of figuring out what entities will do in certain circumstances. And of course, you have to be dispassionate when the outcome could be totally horrendous.

One other thing. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a game of Blind Man's Bluff. They call it chicken in the link I provided. But I hate that name.

[backscatter712]

64. Israel would have to have evidence that Iran was about to have nukes...

but that it didn't have operational nukes yet.

And yes, that evidence would have to be iron-clad, especially after Bush lied about Iraq, and especially if Israel wants to use first-strike nukes.

Once Iran has operational nukes, the game switches to Mutually Assured Destruction, and nobody makes a first strike. That is if everyone's rational and plays according to game theory.

[DevonRex]

71. Whew!

Thank you. Someone else understands game theory. I know MAD isn't really popular but it did work. Since we can't put the genie back in the bottle, it may be the best we will ever get.

It also could explain Iran's desire to develop nukes. Maybe not, if they aren't rational. But maybe so if they are.

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. First strike nukes are a war-crime.

The policy on first strike nukes was always that any country doing that would be signing the death warrant of its entire people -- itself a war crime, but a crime so over the top that no nation would consider such a thing.

[Hugabear]

72. The Saudis could very well look the other way

There is absolutely no love lost between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[FarCenter]

4. At a minimum the Israelis would be using US made bunker buster bombs

We've already supplied them with such, and there have been noises in Congress about supplying them with even bigger ones. But it is questionable whether Israel could put enough planes over Iran to credibly destroy the greater part of their several nuclear sites in a surgical air strike. They may, at minimum, also need US AWACS and tanker aircraft to refuel them.

So the US is complicit in any Israeli air strike, although it is not clear at what level an Iranian counterattack would be triggered.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. They make some very effective runway busters of their own as well

[L0oniX]

6. More people go to work making another carrier.

[L0oniX]

7. McCain's "Bomb Bomb Iran" tune hits the top 100 charts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Iran would cease to be a functioning nation

Firing on a carrier would get them slapped hard in military areas.

Doing serious damage/sinking would result in the US laying waste to their national command structure and infrastructure, returning them to the Middle Ages, which may be fine with some of their leadership. It would happen so quickly that China and Russia would be sidelined.

[WCGreen]

10. What would China and Russia do...

Nuke us?

They aren't going to do anything. China's economy would implode and Russia would be left with nothing more to do.

Now if we invaded, that would be a whole different scenerio.

[teddy51]

12. China and Russia might be sidelined temporarily, but don't count them out of launching

an attack either on Israel and/or the US.

[MidwestTransplant]

22. There is not a chance in hell that Russia or China would attack the US over Iran

[teddy51]

25. You don't know that for certain, nor does anyone else that makes that statement!

An attack on Iran could very well lead to WW3, and who knows what would come of that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Your are asserting that a possible outcome is the probable one

An attack on Iran could very well lead to WW3

Many consider it improbable and in this area *nothing* is certain

[stevenleser]

70. Sure we do. There is zero chance of that happening. Your suggestion is ridiculous.

Russia and China are not about to end the human race because the US or Israel attack Iran.

First of all, whatever else they seem to be saying or doing, Russia is pretty suspicious of Muslim fundamentalists. They have their own issues with them in Chechnya and their argument has been that we should be sympathetic to the Russians and their actions in Chechnya because we share a common issue with Muslim fundamentalists. So the idea that they would commit to war against the US to defend Iran is insane.

Both Russia and China are in what I call mercantile mode, not military conquest mode. Russia is fundamentally controlled by oligarchs who want to enjoy the good life, not end all life to defend a country they all think is run by crazy people. China thinks it will soon control the world's economy and as a result it doesnt need to engage militarily and they might be right.

[DevonRex]

34. The goal would be control of the oil

and pipelines and ports. We would be protecting those countries who have them. Russia would be trying to get them. It's in her interests that this conflict catches us flatfooted.

[MidwestTransplant]

48. First of all, Russia produces it's own oil. Second, this isn't about taking resources,

it's about permitting the flow of them around the world. Remember, Oil is fungible. Also, a nuclear Iran is not in Russia's interest nor in China's interest. No nuclear power is benefited when another state developed nukes. They are just trying to cause trouble for us as always. Regardless, they will not go to war over Iran.

[DevonRex]

49. You're not getting it. It's not because they need it.

It's because we need it and the ME supplies it to us. If Russia controlled the ME and its oil then they control other countries as well.

[backscatter712]

61. They'd probably do the same thing they did in Vietnam and Korea.

Give military aid to Iran in the form of warplanes, surface-to-air missiles, other tech, maybe even pilots.

They'd probably also help them rebuild infrastructure.

So we'd be back to fighting Cold-War-style proxy-wars.

[FarCenter]

18. So step 3 is an all-out US air attack on Iran's air defenses, missiles, navy, nuclear facilities

What are good Russian and Chinese counters?

Terminate transport into northern Afghanistan? (Note that Pakistan is now most likely in full chaos as well and on its way to being the radical Islamic nuclear state.)

Russia takes the opportunity to solve some issues in the Caucasus, such as taking out Georgia and the pipeline. Russia also shuts off pipelines to Europe?

China supplies Pakistan with additional nuclear support.

[DevonRex]

31. See my post below.

And oh boy, the Caucasus has been a thorn in Russia's side for soong that I think it might be her greatest weakness in all this.

If Russia were to allow herself to get distracted and bogged down from Georgia over to Turkmenistan, it could ruin her chances of becoming a superpower again.

[DevonRex]

27. Exactly, bringing about their worst possible outcome.

They will avoid that at all costs. Which means they won't strike Israel either. The game theory for this is rather amusing since all roads lead to peace except for Israel striking Iran first.

Their worst case scenario is that Iran strikes first with a nuclear weapon. Iran doesn't have such capability yet. So there's no need for a preemptive strike at this time.

Their more immediate worst case outcome is not having the US as an ally to act as a deterrent. We are there now, showing that we are allies. So that one isn't happening either.

Our worst case would be to be dragged into this conflict surprised and unprepared, by either country. Because when it goes, all hell will break loose. Just think of our oil supply, which is needed to fight a war.

Now we have to game theory Russia. They have been working to leverage some good will in the ME. Solely to take control of oil and ports. That is the ONE thing that would grant them superpower status. Not taking advantage of, and even encouraging, this war would be their worst case scenario. After all nobody wants to attack them at the moment.

China? She would be our ally because she needs to sell shit to us. At least until Russia got control of all the oil and ports. Then she would ally with Russia.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. Disagree with some of what you postulate

Your paragraph 1 disagrees with paragraph 2...unless you consider it a "peaceful outcome"

No knowledgeable person believes that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful in intent

Iran has the tools today to build dirty bombs, and may be willing to use them if they think the rest of their nuclear program is in serious jeopardy.

[DevonRex]

46. I'm simply talking about the immediate future

Re Iran. I don't think their long term intent is peaceful at all. I wonder about the most effective method of delivery for them. Since you've thought about this scenario, what is your opinion on delivery? And how effective are dirty bombs themselves? They would have to be effective enough to be worth the risk of retaliation by Israel and the US. Which would be a certainty.

IMO Israel would have to strike first if they believed any kind of attack was imminent. That would mean that Iran's dirty bomb material would be dispersed on its own population since there is no way Israel could leave it intact.

[Leopolds Ghost]

94. What do you think Iran intends to secretly bomb?

And why. Keeping in mind that Iran is not a single-leader dictatorship but has an elected parliament and an elected president and a right-wing religious superstructure that desires to maintain stability in the face of democratizing forces from said parliament.

[DevonRex]

100. I don't think Iran is

necessarily worse than any other country with nuclear weapons, or that is trying to obtain them.

To me, it's like having a gun for protection. You don't buy one without being willing to use it. Most people have no idea how very close we came to nuclear war with Cuba and Russia. It took a good bit of luck and a lot of smart people to prevent it. Yes, I said luck since the whole thing was a game of Blind Man's Bluff (or chicken if you prefer).

It turned out that even tho neither side really wanted nuclear war, at least one of the actors HAD to somehow save face in order to NOT take the conflict that far. And in my view, all of the actors had to save face.

So you see, I'm not really choosing one side over the other in talking about Iran and Israel. I know that it is inherently a more dangerous planet for anyone to have nuclear weapons. I also understand that if one power has them and he other doesn't, the one without will obtain them.

Some say that possessing them ensures peace, as in MAD which did work. Others say that you cannot foster peace by preparing for war. My opinion is as I stated above about possessing a gun for self protection.

As to Iran itself, IMO the people are more liberal than its leaders. And I find Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial to be very troubling. I also think that Israelis have made some real blunders in foreign policy. I don't know as much about Iran's foreign policy, other than the holocaust denial speeches he has given.

[ronnie624]

67. The NPT deals in physical realities, not beliefs or perceived intent,

and the fact of the matter is, no charges have been leveled against Iran that can be supported by evidence; no hardware and no diversion of uranium for the purpose of producing nuclear weapons. So says the NIE, the IAEA and even the Mossad.

]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/06/06/110606fa_fact_hersh

The entire concept of a "dirty bomb" is a canard, and has no legal basis for denying Iran its sovereign right, as signatory to the NPT, to process uranium and operate reactors without coercive interference from other states.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. The NPT has little to do with reality, and perceptions rule here

If enough people in the right nations believe Iran is building nukes, the NPT really does not matter. Iran is actively aiding that belief.

[ronnie624]

77. International law matters.

It's just that to some of us, it matters only when it's convenient. They will cite it enthusiastically when it suits their agenda.

You and I both know that Western involvement in the Middle East has been all about controlling energy ever since crude oil became the primary source for modern human civilization. Nothing is more important to those with ambitions of global power. Nothing offers greater economic and strategic advantage.

That is the main reason why Iran will be denied nuclear power; to make sure they do not become a deterrent to the ambitions of U.S. policy makers.

I understand the fear of a theocratic Iran having nuclear technology. I don't care much for the idea myself, but I think the sort of aggression being threatened against Iran has the potential to become something far worse.

International law matters to me in all cases. I would feel hypocritical if I applied it selectively based on unfounded and possibly irrational fears or geo-strategic ambitions. How could I demand others to respect it if I didn't?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. IMO, in the real world International Law is treated as guidance at best

and nations will do what they think they have to or think they can get away with. Not saying that its right or wrong, but does seem to be what happens in the real world.

[ronnie624]

82. Yes, it does indeed seem that way in the "real" world. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. So what do you think is right in this case?

After all, that's the only sound basis for us sitting here and pontificating, since none of us have real power in the current system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

95. Many are worried about Iran & Libya for treaty/rights violation. What about Syria?

Iran needs to wait in line.

[ronnie624]

99. If by "treaty violation", you're referring to the NPT,

I don't believe that is correct.

We know Iran has no nuclear weapons now, and after years of intensive high tech surveillance from aircraft, satellites and covert operations within Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had ceased attempts at development in 2003, and according to the latest IAEA report, those attempts consisted of no more than computer models and physics calculations, which as far as I can tell, is technically not a violation of the NPT (and I can't really blame them for trying, anyway, considering what Iran has been through at the hands of Western Imperialists). The report said there was currently no evidence of nuclear weapons development and no diversion of uranium.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, and I can't say I'm opposed to sabotage through computer viruses, but I have to draw the line at violence. Bombings, assassinations, torture and military attacks are simply not what I am about. Not only are they WRONG, they have the potential for inflaming tensions even further in the Middle East, making the world even less secure than it is now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. I'm opposed to it too.

The surest way for any politician to be elected in Iran is to run on a pro-nuke campaign... even though most of the population want peace with the US. It's a nationalism issue because they are surrounded by US bases. In fact, the nationalists and hard liners are a different faction from the theocrats and don't get along... the theocrats want less liberty at home and stability abroad. The left wing clerics are the ones who were in power in 2001 and made overtures to a grand peace with the US and assistance in Afghanistan, which Bush rejected, dooming us to the current conflict (and dooming Khatami's reelection prospects, much like Gorbachev, since he was a glasnost figure)... The nationalists are populists who rile up the electorate over foreign policy like Bush did, while pushing for social programs... a guns-and-butter campaign. Ahmedinejad is basically the Persian GW Bush. Minus the social programs in the latter case. Complete with a disputed reelection... In fact the theocrats consider Ahmedinejad's camp to be heretical because they are Messianic Shi'ites who believe in the return of Jesus, Mohammed, the 12th Imam etc. None of which suggests to me that they would launch any sort of weapon on the holy city of Jerusalem (which is effectively a suburb of Tel Aviv). In fact, the beliefs of messianic Shi'ites are not much different from messianic evangelicals... they think some evil superpower will use Israel as a foothold to launch an attack on Jerusalem and the holy cities, which Christians/Muslims will be forced to defend, thereby giving Christians/Muslims Jerusalem again... which is why they do nothing to help Arab Christians stay in, well, Jerusalem where they already are. It's kind of a victimization hypothesis.

[Leopolds Ghost]

107. Ah, I see what you wrote downthread

I wrote "Is the US nuclear program peaceful in intent?

What about our "ally", Pakistan's?" But as you noted the issue is proliferation, and all the existing nuclear powers have a disturbing willingness to contemplate actually using them.

Of course, the idea of preemptive bombing to prevent nuclear proliferation is a perverse incentive for nations to join the nuclear club, since we only bomb non-nuclear nations. The early bird gets the worm and all that.

[David__77]

38. Doubtful.

It's an odd scenario in the first place. But the US would unity the region against the US for many years to come. If the US initiates hostilities, the targeting of an aircraft carrier is perfectly legitimate. Attacking civilian infrastructure is not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. It is odd in the assumption that US support would be obvious initially for the reasons you cite

However, if attacked by anyone, Iran may lash out at the "Great Satan" regardless of what they know at the time. That would be a major mistake.

Assuming it is thwarted, the primary US targets would be Iranian offensive military capabilities, though the defense systems like SAMs would be taken out too.

Serious damage/sinking of a USN capital ship would result on strategic strikes against the government and infrastructure to insure that it can not order an attack again. The anti-military strikes would be more thorough against both the professional military and the Pasdaran and include command and control sites, HQs etc.

[David__77]

58. That's a bit different than "cease to be a functioning nation."

Someone mentioned nuclear attacks here. I simply do not think that this would happen - that is, massive US attacks against civilians. I hope I am not wrong.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Not really

Attacks sufficient to disrupt C&C and all military functions would cripple enough of the government, infrastructure, and flow of goods that Iran would cease to function, at least for a while. There would be one helluva mess and putting it back together would take years. For example, there would not be a single runway intact.

[Leopolds Ghost]

79. Iran is five times the size of Iraq, three times size of Afghanistan, mountainous, with large cities

People assume that we automatically have the power to "bomb them back to the stone age" because we assume that they are living on the edge of the stone age already.

The correct term would be "bomb them like we bombed Germany or Japan". I.e. a serious war, bigger than Iraq which was an occupation where we drove in unopposed and the regime collapsed before we reached the capitol.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Iran is heavily urbanized with poorly maintained infrastructure

If the US decides to go after the government in retaliation for sinking a carrier (the thesis of this thread), the associated infrastructure damage would be crippling.

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. I'm just saying it would be a serious war. Of course 10 times more would die on their side

As seems to be the norm as we have gotten exceedingly efficient at killing people in other countries.

But it would not be the Johnny Comes Marching Home Again situation some envision.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Just 10X? I would expect it nearer to 100X

Again this is in a scenario that has a very low likelihood (sinking of a carrier).

A more realistic one is that they would shoot at one, and might damage an escort at best. There would still be a lot of follow on pyrotechnics but not crippling of their government or infrastructure. Depending on the kind of strike, there might not be a serviceable runaway

[Leopolds Ghost]

104. Attacking a carrier in defense of an unprovoked military attack is an act of war, though

Most Americans would probably be angered if we supported Israel in a preemptive strike on Iran, embroiling us in a major conflict with a functioning state for the first time since Vietnam (or simply killing off the Iranian population with airstrikes, leaving an embittered country united around its current government, which they did elect themselves, after all).

I don't think most people would support firebombing Iran in response to a Guns of August scenario. If nothing else, the hundreds of US servicemen who died would be considered an unacceptable loss of life. Even at the height of WWII some people spoke up against the civilian loss of life from firebombing cities... The Bomb was actually viewed as a way to prevent further loss of life. I don't think it's a fair argument for dropping a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, but as McNamara said in his documentary, what they did with firebombing was much worse... he said it was a war crime at the time and is now considered a legitimate military tactic. And of course Curtis LeMay was MacNamara's boss during WWII, right?

[renie408]

11. Isn't that an awful lot of 'ifs'?? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Having trouble finishing your novel?

If you've written most of it, wouldn't it be better for you to come up with the climax, rather than getting us to do it?

[MineralMan]

16. I hadn't heard that the US was planning to attack Iran

from any reliable source. Now, if Iran manages to sink a US Navy vessel, I wouldn't give ten cents for their naval bases, but that would be an act of war on Iran's part.

I'm pretty certain that Israel is quite capable of attacking Iran on its own. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened at some point, but I don't believe the US is planning an attack on Iran at this point.

[DevonRex]

32. MM it is time to brush up on your Russian now.

We are going to be back in business.

[RZM]

17. Your alarm clock goes off n/t

[madrchsod]

19. the rapture

[hunter]

56. Best answer.

[Moondog]

21. Iran's population is largely urbanized and thus, vulnerable.

In the scenario you describe, the largest half dozen or so urban centers in Iran would suddenly become seas of glass. Large segments of America, recalling President Carter's travails with Iran in the late 70s, would rejoice.

The Arab Islamic world, always suspicious of Persian, non-Arab Iran, would rail about Islamic solidarity, and would then do nothing other than privately heave collective sighs of relief.

Russia and China would wring their hands, indulge in a lot of rhetoric, and honor thus preserved, would then ... do nothing.

North Korea would be very unhappy, but could do very little in response.

The price of crude would skyrocket. And then return to the status quo ante.

And life would go on.

[FarCenter]

23. So you think the US would use nuclear weapons for a strike against a non-nuclear nation?

I'm sure there would be a clamor for it, but the US would become a pariah state overnight.

Not going to happen.

[Moondog]

24. Perhaps.

But I think you're wrong.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. You seem very sanguine about the prospect.

[riderinthestorm]

30. I think it will be Israel to use the nukes. They are already a pariah state. They know it

Some parts of the Israeli leadership embrace it.

I think they'll try the bunker buster bombs we provide them, but if that doesn't work it's on to the big stuff. I don't believe the Sunni nations will object (beyond pro-forma outrage). They HATE Shia Iran and their meddling/rising ascendancy. They'd love to see a stake driven into the heart of Shia Islam

[riderinthestorm]

28. Unfortunately, sadly, I think you are right. Shia Iran is an outcast

by virtue of their religion and their international geopolitical position. Most Sunni states want Iran GONE. Since those states include the major oil producers who are allied with us, I presume that any nuking of Iran would be fine with them.

Americans minimize the Sunni/Shia split at their peril. Destroying the heart of Shia Islam would warm the cockles of billions of Muslims....

[Dreamer Tatum]

60. Sounds like your fantasy world to me. nt

[Codeine]

66. Oh good lord.

We're not going to nuke Iran.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Not for the millions of people who died.

> and life would go on.

The old statistical morality: if we said that about an individual person it'd get alerted on as insensitive, but it's OK to say it about an entire nation of people. (On edit: I'm not one for calling people on such things)

[amandabeech]

103. Literal fallout might disrupt nations east of Iran,

like Pakistan and India.

Both have the bomb, of course.

However, I think that they would condemn us and scream for aid, particularly food aid. I'm not sure if the world's reserves would be enough to feed Pakistan and India if their crops were contaminated by nuclear fallout. And that would be just the beginning of the contamination problems there, and possibly further east.

[Karmadillo]

26. We try the leaders of Israel and the US for war crimes?

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. from Haaretz: The futility of attacking Iran By Reuven Pedatzur

Senior American defense officials told The Wall Street Journal that even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum. This is where the problem lies. Some of the nuclear facilities in Iran, especially those that are critical for the continuation of its nuclear program activities, are located deep below the surface and protected by reinforced concrete fortifications. This makes the task of destroying them almost completely impossible. In Israel, those involved have ignored the limitations of these bombs that are supposed to annihilate the nuclear sites; but ignoring this will not solve the operational problem that those planning the attack will have to deal with.

If Israeli Air Force planes succeed in reaching the targets and in dropping bombs on them with great accuracy, but they are nevertheless not destroyed, this would pose questions about the justification of a military operation. If those critical sites are not annihilated, the Iranian nuclear program will be postponed only for a relatively short period.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840

[Proud Liberal Dem]

52. It seems to me

that we are all in or not at all

Short of regime change, we will never be able to ensure thorough destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities nor prevent severe retaliatory measures from Iran. The situation is even worse if we just bomb the facilities and we realize later that they were telling us the truth-that they're not developing nuclear weapons. This is serious business and way too many people (not here but elsewhere) seem to be chomping at the bit to attack Iran though none of them have much of an idea about the outcome of such an attack. An attack, of course, would be the "easy" part. It's the fallout, political and otherwise, that would be difficult to predict and, likely, much more problematic. The development of nuclear weapons by a country we don't like should IMHO never be a prima facie justification for attacking said country anyway unless they are verifiably and imminently threatening somebody. And I'm not talking about some vague "existential threat" either. Technically, North Korea is a very serious "existential threat" to everybody but we're not talking about invading them.

[cherokeeprogressive]

35. It took the US 4 weeks to sink an aircraft carrier commissioned in 1965. It's not easy.

The USS America (CV-66). The largest warship ever sunk. I spent 15 months and 18 days at sea with her.

"The Navy battered America with explosives, both underwater and above the surface, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel. These explosions were designed to simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a small boat suicide attack like the one that damaged the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000."

An aircraft carrier is comprised of thousands of water-tight compartments both above, and below the waterline. In times of combat/emergency, all those compartments are closed tight. Those "sunburn" missiles everyone seems to be so confident in strike above the waterline, as do all missiles. Torpedoes? I doubt anyone gets close enough to hit a carrier with a torpedo. If you know anything about how battle groups operate, you'd know what I mean.

All aircraft carriers are also equipped with Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS).

I would imagine that between the time the first missile hits and the time the carrier disappears beneath the waves, the Iranians would be given a pretty close haircut and be begging for peace at the UN.

Of course, that's just one man's opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(CV-66)#Post_decommissioning_service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Not sure the intentional sinking of the America is comparable

If a magazine or aviation fuel detonate, the ship will be doomed and go down fairly quickly with great loss of life.

How the Iran would cause that to happen is up to considerable debate. Sunburns are a joke at this point, but the small boat threat, not so much.

[Douglas Carpenter]

53. probably not - but the whole point of an Israeli or American attack is unachievable by air power

"even the largest bomb in the hands of the American military, the one known as the "bunker buster", is not able to penetrate and destroy those of the Iranian nuclear installations that are buried deep underground. Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-futility-of-attacking-iran-1.411840

Sinking an aircraft carrier would probably be unlikely - but they certainly do have the means of creating enough havoc on the gulf to send oil prices so much into the stratosphere and greatly imperiling the global economy while keeping their nuclear program essentially intact.

Panetta admitted that the Americans do not possess the means of penetrating facilities like the underground uranium enrichment plant at Fordow, near Qum

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Not directly by what is being said publicly

The assumption is that they are buried deep enough and properly constructed. However there options not being discussed:

- The bunkers were not built adequately or as advertised
- There are more accessible weak points that would render them useless
- It is possible to seal them without destroying them.

All of those issues are most certainly being looked at by any military considering strike options. The Israeli military is well known for improvising...

[Lurks Often]

57. The magazines and aviation fuel are buried deep within

the hull, below the waterline and in between machinery spaces and other compartments in the center of the hull. I probably stand a better chance of winning Lotto then the Iranians do of penetrating a Nimitz hull and getting either the aviation fuel or magazines to explode.

We've been building carriers for 70+ years and the designers know all the ways to protect and design a carrier to prevent weapons from exploding in magazine and aviation fuel spaces.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. I tend to agree, which is I qualified the way I did

I reference it since the OP assumed it would happen. I consider it doubtful myself though the Cole took a lot of damage from one small boat.

[backscatter712]

63. Maybe - if you hit an ammo/bomb/missile magazine. But carriers have survived bad fuel fires.

There was a huge fire on the USS Forrestal, and another one on the Enterprise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire

The Forrestal fire was one of the worst fires at sea on a U.S. aircraft carrier, perhaps since WWII.

Killed a whole bunch of people, there was a huge fuel fire, a lot of munitions cooked off, and the ship was heavily damaged.

But she survived, put back to port, was repaired and went back on duty.

So I suspect if Iran tried slugging our carriers with Sunburns, maybe one or some of them would hit. And it would probably do damage, kill some of our servicemembers, maybe force the carrier to stop air operations. But the retaliatory air strikes would bomb Iran back to the Stone Age.

But US Navy ships are well prepared. Every sailor is a firefighter, they know how to keep their ships afloat.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. You are aware that the USN used to use Sunburns as targets?

[Leopolds Ghost]

90. I keep hearing all this "bomb Iran back to the stone age" rhetoric.

Methinks people want it to happen, or think it would be that easy.

We "bombed Iraq back to the stone age". And Vietnam.

[Selatius]

80. Were they using Sunburn anti-ship missiles or an equivalent on the USS America?

Sunburn anti-ship missiles are problematic even for the Phalanx system for the fact that it tends to achieve terminal velocity somewhere north of Mach 2 before impact and incorporates several counter-measures against point-defense systems, such as changing trajectory randomly before making a final turn into the target. Early detection is key to defeating this kind of threat because it is typically fired from aircraft. Multiple missiles fired at the same carrier could mean more than one or two missiles get through.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. The USS America had 37 feet of draft.

If someone were trying to sink Her, their missiles would have to destroy hundreds of watertight compartments BELOW the waterline. Missiles, last I heard, don't dive into the water and suddenly become torpedoes just before impact.

The USS America, and I'm sure ALL OTHER aircraft carriers in the fleet have water-washdown systems to be used in the event of a nuclear attack... NUCLEAR. Think about that the next time you suppose a "sunburn" missile or a two might actually make impact.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. You think a carrier can survive a nuclear attack n/t

[stevenleser]

101. Sure it can, assuming it is several miles away. What we would call a direct hit? No way.

The reality is, the survivability of an aircraft carrier in a nuclear war is irrelevant. Anyone shooting nukes at one of our carriers would unleash a situation where whether the carrier survives is the least of our concerns.

[cherokeeprogressive]

102. You think it's not possible?

Look up Operation Crossroads. Then read about Test Able.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. Sunburn threat has been debunked

The USN bought some as targets, and after shooting them down, decided they were not challenging enough and have gone with a more versatile target that can do all the Sunburn can do and more.

If someone were to launch enough of anything, indeed some might get through...but the Sunburns are not the carriers killers they are made out to be by some.

[joshcryer]

36. Russia and China step back and the US obliterates Iran from the air.

[unkachuck]

39. "What happens next?"

....$10 a gallon gas, renewed unemployment and a new puke president in January....

[Ter]

45. Impossible

They're sink-proof, at least to Iran.

[aquart]

47. Ooh, anti-semitic war-mongering hysteria.

What could be more impressive?

[Crunchy Frog]

85. And if they actually do it, will you be willing to eat a crow?

[zoechen]

51. I think alot of folks...

Forget about advanced capabilities that the US and Israelies possess.

It is believed that when Israel attacked a Syrian reactor they used a "network attack system" very similar the the US "Suter" system.

"Sneak in, break things, sneak out"


On Edit: Here is a link...
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/how-israel-spoo/

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. So in other words, Israel first strike on Iran as a US proxy using US proprietary technology?

Since we only share such technology with nations that are our proxies or full allies and acting in coordination with us.

Of course, what this tells us is that it's all bluffing and (immoral) saber-rattling a la the warm-up to WWI. We're probably asking Israel to threaten Iran with a bombing strike as a negotiating tactic to postpone them developing a nuclear deterrent.

[raouldukelives]

54. A few hundred thousand civilians will be killed in air strikes

And a bunch of medals for bravery will be handed out.

[KamaAina]

62. The Mayans say, "I hate to say 'I told you so', but..."

[sarcasmo]

65. 20 dollar a gallon gas and a Planet that will be more chaotic than it already has become.

[stevenleser]

68. The only Aircraft Carrier that Iran could sink is made by Revell and comes disassembled in a box

In other words, there is no point to your scenario.

[Arkana]

69. Then canaries grow teeth and roosters lay eggs.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. GOP wants its next Iraq (they are desperate for a war)

[roamer65]

106. World War III.

[DWornock]

108. For their self-interest Iran needs nuclear bombs

If Iran has a couple hundred nuclear bombs neither the USA nor Israel would dare attack them. The USA only attacks countries that don't have nuclear bombs.