Tom Carew, Dublin, Ireland writes …
US and Russia are believed to have 12,000 weapons each, but Israel gets the all the attention. Even if broadly true, that alleged 150 IDF weapons would be only 1 IDF warhead for every 4,242 sq miles in Iran, which equals a radius of 65.1 miles per target. In Aug, 1945 in Nagasaki, where the more powerful US nuclear bomb was used, of some 21-22 KTs explosive power, total destruction [ ashes ] resulted only within 1.6 km [ = 1 m ] radius of the centre of the explosion.
The US Pentagon DIA [Defence Intel Agency] was reported to estimate in 1999 that IDF had 60-80 warheads, which would put it in roughly the same league as Pakistan, about whose undoubted nuclear weaponry very little seems to be published – in contrast to the attention, and hostile criticism, always targeted against democratic and permanently-besieged Israel.
Given that any nuclear weapons stockpile, in any state, will include weapons of widely varying weapon-loads, from a very low-yield tactical level [as in a 150 mm Medium Artillery tube, or a 205 mm Heavy Artillery tube ] upwards, that would be very far from an overwhelming Israeli capacity.
And even if dispersed across the very many nuclear and other offensive targets in Iran, including rocket launch sites, nuclear and missile research centers, uranium enriching and mining sites, plutonium plants, air bases, etc, many of which are now very heavily hardened, including some being sited inside deep mountains, or tunnels, or within very heavily hardened sites, even up to 150 possible warheads of widely varying capacity, would seem very far from decisive - not least given that other genocidal enemies may also emerge, sooner or later, and no Israeli Government could ever afford to exhaust all their defensive capacity in confronting just one genocidal threat.An MIT study estimated that IDF [which had destroyed Saddam’s Osirak Nuclear facility with 8 F-16s in 1981, each deploying Mk 84 2,000 lb bombs, plus 6 F-15s in escort role ] could destroy the 3 main Iranian targets with some 25 Fighter Bombers, as follows.
12 F-15s [with either 2 BLU-113 bombs each, or else with 1 BLU-113 plus 4 BLU-109s] could destroy the crucial Natanz Uranium Enrichment Facility, 200 km South of Tehran, which is deeply buried [ 9-23 m ] and has 50,000 underground Gas Centrifuges.
The Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility [ near that city of 4.5 m ] could be neutralized by 6 F-16s, with 2 BLU-109s each.
Arak Heavy Water Plant and nearby Plutonium construction site, some 150 km South-West of Tehran, could be neutralized by 5 F-16s.
The precision possible for the IDF would depend not only on modern Precision Guided Munitions, and Israeli Satellite Recon, but possibly also on Sayeret Shaldag Unit 5101 [ for Laser Target Designation ], and Unit 5707 [for Bomb Damage Assessment].
The IDF could deploy maybe 50 F-16D for SEAD [ suppression of enemy air defence] and 40 F-15 for air-to-air escort, along with a Ground Attack strike force of 25 Ra’am F-15I Strike Eagle [ 1,700 km combat radius ], with perhaps 4 x 2,000 bombs each, plus 25-50 Soufa F-16I [1500-2100 km combat radius ], with perhaps 2 x 2,000 bombs each.
This option totally excludes both the main Uranium mine at Saghand in Yazd, and the smaller Uranium mine at Gchine near Bandar Abbas, and research cnetres, as well as all missile development or launch or control sites, or air bases, as well as the Bushehr site.
And if USA really had 12,000 warheads, for 300 million population, Israel pro rata should have about 290, or twice this estimate of 150.
USA also no longer faces any serious nuclear or even conventional, threat – unlike Israel.
On a Russian scale, with 142m people, Israel would be justified in maintaining about 608 warheads – or 4 times this alleged IDF total pro-rata.
Or once again, could it be that only one people on earth are being subjected to a totally different standard – and also they are the only people being again seriously threatened with extermination – by Ahmadinejad?
Tom Carew.
I do admire Tom Carew’s frequent and generally well argued defenses of Israel. Although I have had some disagreements with his specific policy recommendations, he does understand clearly the need for the US and Western democracies to defend the existence of the Israeli state.
In this case, I do not take issue with his thoughts on the need for an Israeli nuclear deterrent, just his ways of measuring the need and its suficiency.
Deterrence theory was something I studied in college, which shows both my age and that of the nuclear-armed world. During the nuclear arms race of the 1960s and 1970s, both the Soviet Union and the US manufactured enough weapons to destroy each other many times over, not to say risking the extinction of mankind. We have dialed back our numbers somewhat since those days, mostly because of the strategic arms limitation treaties we negotiated prior to theSoviet Union’s demise and the lack of a subsequent hostile nuclear power, but Tom’s figure of 12,000 nuclear weapons still represents a redundant capability for the destruction of any and all potential adversaries.
In fact, even John McCain and Barack Obama, sparring just today over nuclear arms policy, appeared to agreed that somewhere between 1,700 and 2,200 nukes are an adequate deterrent and offensive capability in case of a confrontation.
So where does that leave Israel? Whether they have 60 or 150 nuclear weapons, the question is not whether it is enough to turn every square foot of Middle Eastern soil into molten glass. The real question is whether the weapons, depending on their configuration, represent an adequate deterrent to the use of nuclear or conventional force against them in an effort to destroy the Israeli state.
The entire theory of deterence is based on the presumption that the possession of nuclear weapons by adversaries guarantees that they will not be used. The idea is that rational actors, knowing that the use of nuclear weapons on an adversary will guarantee their own destruction, will not employ them. The doctrine was variously known as mutually assured destruction (MAD) or massive retaliation. Regardless of its Dr. Strangelove qualities, the theory worked. After the US used nukes against Japan to end World War II, no power has used nuclear weapons since.
The variable we confront today is a key one to deterrence theory: rational and irrational actors. We assumed that Soviet leaders were rational, understood that use of nuclear weapons would unleash unspeakable horrors and, therefore, they would not use them. But at a time when we face terrorist threats, radical states and failed states, can we still presume that we are dealing with rational people whose use of nuclear weapons will be deterred by the prospect of massive retaliation against them?
The answer is that, past a certain point, it doesn’t matter. Once Israel or a similar state has sufficient weapons (or alliances with powers that do) to deter rational actors because of their capacity to decimate their adversaries’ cities and key military installations, they have achieved deterrence. Given the military weakness of those hostile states and potential adversaries arrayed against Israel, their current capability is probably sufficient.
But what about irrational actors? There are certainly plenty of them in the world today, although Ahmadenijad is probably a bad example. Although his rationality is certainly questionable, he holds no real power in Iran except the ability to shoot off his mouth. The real power in that state is held by the clerical council of mullahs, whose own hold on power is not well understood in the West.
A more likely irrational actor would be a terrorist group that obtains a nuclear weapon, either through the black market or other means. They will not be deterred from using the weapon if they have an axe to grind. Deterrence breaks down. And for that very reason, there is no number of warheads that will deter them. Israel can have 60 nukes or 60,000, it doesn’t really matter. It is not deterrence that will stop a covert terrorist attack, it is good intelligence, strong alliances with friendly nations who share intelligence, an active effort to prevent loose nukes from falling into the wrong hands and, yes, good police work.
Even a well-planned, well-prosecuted war on terrorism will not stop a small group of fanatics dedicated to inflicting damage on a nation. Just as law enforcement agencies have long recognized there is little defense against an assassin prepared to die in the attempt, there is little defense against suicide bombers or nuclear terrorists.
That’s why I respectfully disagree with Tom’s metrics when it comes to nuclear deterrence, whether we measure their capacity by the square mile, by population or any other measure. Once they have enough to achieve a nuclear deterrent against rational actors, they have enough.
Ken:
Admiration for Tom Crew and his knowledge of the plight of Israel is recognized here as well.
You don’t think that 150 nukes are enough for deterrence? I too was raised in the era you mention. And, in comparison, the nuclear device that devastated Hiroshima was minute in comparison to today’s nuclear devices. So, for arguments sake, let’s say that the present nuclear weapons are five times the power of the 1945 “A” bomb. This is by far enough for any deterrence and, as you mentioned, turning the major cities of the Middle East into radioactive glass. In fact there are weapons of mass destruction that will kill life, but not structure; however, I do not think that Israel has this particular device. However, there is an element today in this scenario that wasn’t present in 1945, 1950, and 1960. It is called Islamic extremism. In that scenario, the odds change. We all know that their tactics is primarily suicide bombing, and the object is to take as many with that suicide bomber as possible. With this thought in mind, this may not be a deterrence even if Israel had 1,500 nuclear weapons.
So, as you clearly state – “Can we still presume that we are dealing with rational people whose use of nuclear weapons will be deterred by the prospect of massive retaliation against them?” This is a legitimate question.
In the past, Israel knocked out nuclear capabilities before it reached the level of a threat. But in the case of Iran, this point has become moot. And Ahmadinejad is not a “bad example”. He has threatened consistently the destruction of Israel, the United States and Great Britain on more than one occasion. I think we would be making a mistake to not take him seriously. I cannot argue that good intelligence is paramount in such a defense, and America truly needs to clean up its act concerning that arena.
So, the final question would be: How much is enough for Israel to provide the level of deterrence required? And, would the United Nations interfere?
I guess it is the reason why “negotiations” have continued, despite useless rhetoric and false promises coming from the opposite side. But as the course of this goes on, soon it will be realized that talking is useless. Then what? Who is to strike first? Most likely it will be, as you state, an element of a small group, acting on its own and radical enough to trigger the results. I know in other periods of history this has been stated before, but we truly are “living in dangerous times”. Quite unfortunate after all we went through during the Cold War and keeping military actions limited and only as a last resort. I don’t really think Iran, like North Korea will give us those options, however. And then there is the threat factor that has arisen in South America to add to the witch’s brew.
Tom Carew omits to mention that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Iran is. Furthermore, the US NIE and the IAEA have both stated that there is no evidence that Iran is engaged in any nuclear activities for military purposes (which would violate the NPT).
I do find Tom’s description of how many of each type of weapon would “neutralise” Iran’s legal nuclear program offensive.
A nuclear weapon free Middle East would do much to enhance the security of all whilst allowing Israel to remain the most powerful army in the Middle East.
Mark W:
A nuclear weapon free Middle East is not possible – and where did you read or hear that Iran doesn’t have nukes for military. Didn’t you read about the intercontinental ballistic missile test firing? I guess you were on vacation.
Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.