Another possible answer to my impertinent question

A few posts back , rather impertinently, I asked you what you would do about the Iranian problem. Without even waiting for your answers I suggested, in my usual aggressive fashion, that we zap them quick before they were in a position to zap us.  However, acording to Breitbart, those ever-intelligent Israelis appear to be offering an alternative - an 'Iron Dome'!

The Israeli military will on Monday deploy a battery of rocket interceptors from its "Iron Dome" system in the Tel Aviv region, a military spokesman said on Sunday. [...]

The first of its kind in the world and still at the experimental stage, it is not yet able to provide complete protection, but it has successfully brought down several rockets fired from Gaza.

Designed to intercept rockets and artillery shells fired from a range of between four and 70 kilometres (three and 45 miles), Iron Dome is part of an ambitious multi-layered defence programme to protect Israeli towns and cities.

Of course, that is their answer to the very specific problem they face with short-range missiles.  However:

Two other systems make up the programme -- the Arrow long-range ballistic missile defence system and the so-called David's Sling, or Magic Wand, system, intended to counter medium-range missiles. [My emphasis]

So perhaps our strategic counter move should be to buy a similar long-range missile defence system from our American allies, or if they pull their usual trick of over-charging, perhaps we can do a deal with the Israelis.  All the Jewish traders I ever dealt with were always willing to bargain, so perhaps, 10 missiles for the price of 9, my life already!

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

"...buy a similar long-range missile defence system from our American allies, or if they pull their usual trick of over-charging, perhaps we can do a deal with the Israelis."

The French are always keen on a sale, and can provide testimonials from satisfied Argentinian customers.

[dearieme]

Surface fleets are very vulnerable. It's only the threat of a nuclear flattening of its foes that (I guess) keeps the US Navy afloat.

[Dom]

An Iron Dome! Don't you just love the Israelis? Remember when they released a computer virus that affected only the CPUs used in Iran? How smart is that?

The problem, though, is the bomb that is simply carried into Israel, the so called suitcase bomb. At least, that's what worries us.

[David Duff]

'W', the problem with French missiles is that they always have a default setting for Britain!

It depends what you chuck at it, DM. Anti-missile technology is very sophisticated these days.

Dom, I seem to remember reading that the idea of a 'suitcase' bomb is far from realistic - which is not to say that it is impossible! You would, I gather, have to smuggle in various elements and you would require some high-powered technology swots to put it together. Anyway, why bother when an exploding suitcase full of white powder left near the NY stock exchange wiil cause huge panic and damage?

[dearieme]

"Anti-missile technology is very sophisticated these days." But not beyond saturation, I'll bet. Plus torpedoes and mines. Whether the US really would nuke a country that used conventional weapons to maul one of its fleets I don't know. The US hads better pray that its foes don't know either.

[JK]

There are (it would seem) quite a number of USN Aegis class BMD assets loitering in the area. Even so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

[David Duff]

Assuming naval competence I don't think it will be at all easy for attackers with missiles or ships to get through to a US aircraft carrier, nor do I think the Americans would nuke a country following a conventional attack. The real question is, are the Americans prepared to help the Israelis in their attack. As I indicated before, with Obama in charge the answer will be 'no'!

[JK]

" As I indicated before, with Obama in charge the answer will be 'no'!"

David. Those GBU-28s arrived in Israel in 2010. That delivery had to have been authorized by somebody. Those carriers in the Gulf - think the Boy Scouts of America issued the deployment orders?

Now do I think the Prez is keen on the idea of another war - nope. And yet, and yet, somebody is authorizing weapons transfers and ship movements. Ron Paul maybe?

[David Duff]

Exactly, JK, he is happy to supply the tools to do the job but will do anything to avoid using his own. The carrier in the Gulf was simply a warning to the Iranians not to attempt to close an international waterway. The main question remains, will he order his military to combine with the Israeli military to plan and execute an 'unprovoked' attack? You can put the answer on the back of a postage stamp!

[JK]

While I am relatively confident is stating I agree with you David, I'm more confident with what happens when missiles begin overflying CTFs (carrier task forces). And I'm confident should there be an Israeli pre-emption the Iranians will almost certainly attempt a response. Don't know that you saw the footage of the Iranian fighters taking part in those exercises a month or so ago - but those were American built Viet Nam vintage F-4s, if anything far more range limited than anything in the region.

That means Iran's sole response option (in a military sense) will be the Shahaab 3 - in other words, missiles. The carrier Air Wing can be depended on to defend. Not sure whether the USN's fighters would join in attacking anything purportedly nuclear - but they would take down missile launchers and any SAM site that dares "paint" an attacker.

[David Duff]

As I said above, "assuming naval competence", I don't think the Iranians would lay a glove on the CTF. However, it would be handy if they tried after the Israelis have attacked because that would give the Americans all the excuse they need to follow up and finish the job completely - assuming that the Israelis don't quite manage it which some experts think they will (see the ADDITIONAL on my earlier post).