• Sunday, August 25, 2019

Iran and conventional counter-force

Discussion in 'Iranian Defence Forum' started by PeeD, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. PeeD

    PeeD FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    936
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3,469 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    I write this post to clear up some misunderstandings about Iran's capabilities.

    A nuclear war at superpower-scale has to key points:

    - Is your own arsenal or military capability survivable against a nuclear attack to hit back?
    - Can you neutralize or degrade enemy nuclear weapons to a degree that total annihilation is avoided? If yes, is it by a preemptiv strike or could a significant degradation be achieved by a retaliatory strike.

    So what is Irans position in this game, a country with literally 1000-times smaller defense budget than the biggest superpower. Is it even sane to think Iran could enter this game and have a notable position? A non-nuclear regional power?...

    Call it revolutionary motivation, today on the occasion of 22. Bahman, or madness, but yes, Iran is working towards this.

    For the start we will not look at the U.S but limit our scope to Irans regional adversary Israel. Once that's complete, everything can be up-scaled to U.S-level, given the sufficient timescale.

    So what are Israeli capabilities:
    - IRBM able to hit all of Iran
    - Strategic warheads (more than a megaton yield)
    - Either sufficient capability for a CEP of below 100m or this capability down to 20m and less will be achieved at some point in future.
    - Either silo launched or road mobile systems

    - AIP submarines with VLO cruise missiles that can hit Iran from the Mediterranean or will be able to hit all of Iran at some point in future
    - Strategic warheads (more than a megaton yield)
    - Point-strike precision and variable attack vector
    - AIP offers low detection probability

    - Airborne VLO platform F-35
    - VLO offers low detection probability if Irans IADS assets are degraded


    Well, back to the topics title: Conventional counter-force.
    A counter-force strike uses nuclear warheads to attack enemy nuclear weapon delivery systems. With sufficient precision and sufficient-yield nuclear weapons, taking out enemy nuclear assets such as ICBM silos becomes a option.

    Conventional counter-force is the conventional form of this:
    Conventional destructive power, range, speed and precision must be very high to make this a option to consider.
    Up to now, this was never done since it was more secure, technologically easier to simply use nuclear warheads to achieve higher PK.

    With what has been achieved by Iran in the recent years, it is moving towards a conventional counter-force capability.
    The only country that has the technological level and may has been working towards it is China.

    China is believed to have a smaller number of nuclear warheads to be used in the counter-value role. This means it retaliates with nuclear weapons in cases, where its opponent uses nuclear weapons to cause mass civilian casualties (Hiroshima scenario).
    China may follow a strategy of conventional counter-force, enabled by key technological breakthroughs.
    Russia is leading in hypersonic technology but seems to stick to its available nuclear counter-force doctrine.

    Iran and weapons like the Khorramshahr-2 have passed key technological barriers. With adequate real-time reconnaissance capabilities, robust communication capability and a CEP of 5-10m, the overall weapon system created, could enable conventional counter-force capability.

    Limited to Israel and its ~1000-1500km distance to Iran and the small size of Israel (or lack of strategic depth), conventional counter-force with this class of weapons becomes an option. Hypersonic glide vehicles make this capability even more robust and difficult to defend against, once achieved. Real time-tracking capability either by a expandable cube-sat constellation or stand-off sensor air assets such as a S-171 variant are also necessary.

    This all is half of the story: The other half is the fact that Israel is a nuclear power and will use these once degradation of its capabilities drop below a certain threshold.
    At that point nuclear counter-force attacks would be carried out.
    If Iran would still continue towards total neutralization of their capabilities, counter-value strikes would follow.

    For this part of the game, Iran needs following capabilities:
    - The conventional counter-force arsenal must be survivable to a level, beyond cold-war (and current) U.S or Soviet ICBM silos. This is primary due to the Israeli IRBM option listed above.
    - A conventional counter-value strike via mass BM attacks such as older Shahab-3 is needed, to a level that would cause heavy destruction to 50-90% of larger Israeli cities.
    Or a latent nuclear capability in form of either a clandestine nuclear arsenal or a sufficiently hardened civilian nuclear fuel program (Fordow), that could provide necessary fissile material in the timescale of days/weeks to weaponize and create a small nuclear arsenal to carry out counter-value strikes (while a one-sided nuclear war is going on).

    So where is Iran here?
    Irans "missile cities" strategy is not some kind of obsolete method.
    In fact it is the most hardened and survivable option known to mankind. ICBM Silos can't compete with them in that role.
    The U.S thought about this option in the 70's but the costs involved made them to opt for their Peacekeeper program (which was not realized either).
    Iran has the needed terrain and the IRGC the necessary workforce to give Iran this capability.
    Hence today Iran has the most survivable nuclear arsenal basing option possible for its conventional BM arsenal.
    Irans concept is a combination, the hard tunnel basing, partially with launch portals. Plus the so called "south-side basing" (Soviet main nuclear strike would come from the north). In Irans concept its the basing within deep valleys that equates to "south-side basing", degrading capability to achieve a direct hit (non-variable, or too steep attack-vector required) and deflection of shock-waves.
    The entrance to the tunnels is not of much importance: If disabled, digout egress machines will create other, new exits for the TELs at any point. Plus securely taking out launch portals in granite would require a hit by megaton yield warheads, almost directly.
    China has been also following this basing strategy and North Korea too, albeit Irans scale is larger than North Koreas.

    Here another point become important: There is no method, no yield-level nuclear weapon known that could destroy the missile arsenal within a Iranian missile city. Access may be disabled but the arsenal and the resources spend on them, remain where they are.
    Except for the warheads, the rest of the missile is not explosive up until fueling: Fuel and oxidizer are stored separately.
    Even a catastrophic event in the check-out/warhead mating area, won't destroy the seperatly stored non-explosive, empty boosters via a cascade effect.
    The arsenal and the investment in it will stay there with suitable corrosion protection and minimal maintenance of some components. The arsenal will be available to deliver any payload in future if the base gets the order.

    Even after dozens of megaton level counter-force strikes, there is always the risk that the missile city digs out, comes back into operation and re-starts retaliating until its arsenal is depleted (maybe months after the start of the war).

    ABM systems such as S-300 or future Bavar-373 would of course further degrade the percentage Israeli nuclear IRBMs would hit those bases.
    On the other hand Israeli ABM would encounter cost-effectiveness and hence numerical problems with a 400.000$ Khorramshahr delivering 3 separate (even dumb) warheads. They can't defend sufficiently in that scenario and on the other end their Jericho IRBM design is much more expensive.
    However their main problem is that they lack a as survivable BM basing option as Iran. Once their silos have been identified, single conventional or multiple strikes of heavy penetrating BM warheads would disable their silos (depending on what accuracy Iran can achieve in future).

    In other fields we see similar actions taken by Iran:

    Against AIP-submarine CM threat:
    - RPK-6/7 copy that would become a main, time critical weapon against Israeli subs
    - Submarine program and nuclear propulsion program
    - All anti-CM assets Iran has fielded over the years, up to the future OTH radar program

    Against VLO F-35:
    - Mobile high power multi-band systems
    - Mobile SAM systems such as Bavar-373 and 3rd Khordad
    - Future OTH radar
    - Passive measure: long distance necessary to fly
    - The delivery system for now would be still subsonic or Popeye-like low supersonic and hence about CM equivalent threat.



    This all is the conventional counter-force strategy Iran is moving towards and there is more which would go beyond the scope of this post.

    40 years ago, it would have been insane to think that Iran could once have this strategic-level capabilities.
    The budget made available during the Ahmadinejad era gave Iran this capability, which as explained was deemed as too expensive for the second most important strategic weapon system of the U.S (after the Trident).
    In another 40 years this capability might have been sufficiently upscaled to address the U.S nuclear option. Admittedly this sounds like a crazy statement today but the work has to start somewhere.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 12
  2. skyshadow

    skyshadow SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,456
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 5,814 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of

    با در نظر گرفتن شعاع انفجار۳۰متر دایره های کوچک و شعاع تخریب پنجاه متر دایره های بزرگ
    و اعمال نقاط اصابت موشک دزفول به تاسیسات ساخت موشک های جریکو و اررو اسرائیل
    برای غیر عملیاتی کردن این تاسیسات اصابت هفت موشک دزفول کافی است.


    Untitled3.jpg
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  3. Hack-Hook

    Hack-Hook ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,903
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 11,041 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    You didn't consider one thing ,the explosion of those Jericho and arrow missiles.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  4. skyshadow

    skyshadow SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,456
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 5,814 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    :cheers:
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  5. Hakikat ve Hikmet

    Hakikat ve Hikmet SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,730
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2015
    Ratings:
    +11 / 13,385 / -1
    Country:
    Turkey
    Location:
    United States
    No strategic forces, no ultimate deterrence....
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  6. TheImmortal

    TheImmortal FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,306
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,256 / -5
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    If Israel’s Samson Option is indeed a real strategy, then the world will never let Israel collapse due to military conflict.

    Samson Option is rumored to be a end of day scenario, where Israel nukes major world cities around the world in its final days in retaliation for major world powers allowing Israel to collapse. The option is ment to incentivize world powers to defend Israel if it ever reaches an existential point.

    If Israel collapses it can happen over time on its own (Soviet Union scenario) or it never collapses and detente/peace treaty is signed with a iran, after Palestinian cause is sufficiently rectified.

    A scenario where Iran enters military conflict with israel and achieves capitulation and control of the holy land is quite simply preposterous. If Israel collapses during war it will take Iran and the rest of the world with it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. BlueInGreen2

    BlueInGreen2 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    782
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,277 / -1
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Yeah I gotta be completely honest with you I think the Samson Option is overblown. The world will still survive even if the Israelis decide to launch BMs at capitals the world over (The efficacy of which is up for debate). At least we can have some sort of solace in knowing that Israel gets blown off the "map" as well and that piece of land is irritated, standing as a monument to mankind's zealotry and egoistical hypocrisy.

    We all are going to die someday regardless, at least we can go through hardships so that future generations learn from our mistakes.

    I'm venting obviously, my apologies.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  8. Indian Libertarian

    Indian Libertarian FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    153
    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 56 / -7
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    You don’t even need a war with Iran. In fact, they’re professional revolutionaries and protestors. If you want to destabilize Iran earn the heart of the people.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  9. Hack-Hook

    Hack-Hook ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    9,903
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Ratings:
    +2 / 11,041 / -0
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Well if world is so affride of this Samson option why not put those fantastic ABM around israel to make sure they don't behave as I have seen it seems the success rate of those system right now is about 375.48% and still improving . .
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. BlueInGreen2

    BlueInGreen2 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    782
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,277 / -1
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Hmmm...not quite sure what you're getting at I'm afraid. There are ABM systems in Europe if I'm not mistaken though. And the US has contingency plans for most scenarios including ones for their "allies", so Israel is no exception.

    Yet the likelihood of the US taking any sort of aggressive action against Israel is damn near zero in the current climate. There won't even be an honest discussion about Israels current illegal nuclear arsenal. Sucks so much to be an American nowadays... Can't really articulate enough how ashamed I am to have been born in a nation that is so reckless and arrogant.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  11. TheImmortal

    TheImmortal FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,306
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,256 / -5
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    You are underestimating the sheer unimaginable impact of losing:

    New York
    Moscow
    London
    Berlin
    Rome
    Paris
    Etc.

    Will humanity survive? Sure that is a statistical probability.

    Will current modern civilization survive? Who knows how many (hundred) of years humanity is set back.

    Thus the Samson Option should never be discarded especially if Israel develops Hypersonic weapons.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. BlueInGreen2

    BlueInGreen2 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    782
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,277 / -1
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Respectfully speaking, I don't think I am at all. Humanity will progress irregardless of Israels selfish actions in taking out other peoples capitals. Many here and the world over put too much credence that somehow if capitals get blown up then things go to shit forever or something (sincerely speaking, I think it's childish/fantastical, these "end of the world" type situations). Governments have extensive contingency plans for this EXACT type of scenario. Earth will live, Humanity will live and hell we will be better for it. Israel will have done the world a favor and shown just how shitty nuclear armaments really are. Maybe we as the sad species we are can grow up a little.

    US will Survive, Russia will survive, Italy will survive, France will Survive, Germany will survive etc...Israel goes away (presumably forever) Iran gets heavily damaged and loses some cities but Iran has 80 million people Israel has what, like 9 million? I'm pretty sure some nukes won't throw the whole world into never ending pandemonium and I'm also sure Iran can survive a nuclear attack in the long run.

    I don't discredit entirely what it is you're trying to say, I actually fully agree with your sentiment but from my perspective you make it seem a little bit bigger than it actually is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. Galactic Penguin SST

    Galactic Penguin SST FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    667
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 681 / -0
    Country:
    Hong Kong
    Location:
    Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
    Iranian Counter Nuclear Weapon


    The Samson Option is only a paper tiger. The nuclear arms era started in 1945 was already superseded by directed energy weapons in the 1947s.

    Today, the Israeli nuclear warheads pose no threats to the Iranian strategists.

    As revelad back in 2016, the joint Iranian-North Korean directed energy weapon program is already advanced enough to be publicly leaked to outside OSINT analysts.

    The neutrino-antineutrino annihilation at the Z0 pole counter nuclear weapon can not only destroy preemptively any nuclear warhead wherever is is located on earth, even at the opposite side of the planet at 12,756 km.

    But it can also engage any conventional target as well, be it humans, robots, machines, depots, factories, submarines, CVs, bombers, missiles, etc...and at the speed of light.

    Unlike the obsolete ballistic missiles, it does not travel through air and space, but the beam of particles can penetrate through the earth crust and mantle, making it indefensible.

    Hint at the North Korean-Iranian Counter Nuclear Weapon Program

    Kamal al-Din (1267–1319) was the most prominent Persian author on optics. His research in this regard was based on theoretical investigations in dioptrics conducted on the so-called Burning Sphere.

    [​IMG]
    ▲ First hint at the Iranian-DPRK Counter Nuclear Weapon Program. 주체105(2016)년 3월 4일

    [​IMG]
    https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4885/31487803767_7c98fddf26_b.jpg

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/arirangmeari/31487803767/
    ▲ DPRK Directed Energy Counter Nuclear Weapon Program. Uploaded on December 23, 2018.

    [​IMG]


    History of the Neutrino Counter Nuclear Weapon

    Destruction of Nuclear Bombs Using Ultra-High Energy Neutrino Beam

    Hirotaka Sugawara (Univ. of Hawaii), Hiroyuki Hagura (KEK), Toshiya Sanami (KEK)

    (Submitted on 7 May 2003 (v1), last revised 29 Jun 2003 (this version, v2))

    We discuss the possibility of utilizing the ultra-high energy neutrino beam (about 1000 TeV) to detect and destroy the nuclear bombs wherever they are and whoever possess them.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0305062.pdf


    Neutrino-Antineutrino Annihilation At The Z0 Pole Counter Nuclear Weapon

    Alfred Tang

    (Submitted on 26 May 2008 (v1), last revised 25 Jun 2013 (this version, v4))

    Radiations produced by neutrino-antineutrino annihilation at the Z0 pole can be used to heat up the primary stage of a thermonuclear warhead and can in principle detonate the device remotely. Neutrino-antineutrino annihilation can also be used as a tactical assault weapon to target hideouts that are unreachable by conventional means.

    I. INTRODUCTION
    Nuclear weapon is the most destructive kind among weapons of mass destruction. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are lessons in history that shall never be repeated. Since the end of World War II, world leaders had tried to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons by political means such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968. Many countries did not sign the treaty. In fact it seems that more and more countries are pursuing nuclear weapon programs nowadays. After September 11, the concern is that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. Strategically speaking the importance of a counter nuclear weapon may soon rival that of the nuclear weapon itself. The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of a neutrino counter nuclear weapon technology. The idea of using neutrinos to detonate or melt a nuclear weapon was first proposed by H. Sugawara, H. Hagura and T. Sanami [1]. Their futuristic design is based on a 1 PeV neutrino beam operating at 50 GW. It is unlikely that such an intense ultra high energy neutrino beam can be realized in the near future. Even if such a neutrino beam is made available, its radiation hazard will render it politically nonviable. Other proposals such as installing neutron detectors at the border to intercept nuclear materials had been considered. The current trend of non-proliferation policy is focused on monitoring the production of fissile fuels. Research is being conducted to use anti-neutrino detectors to this end [2]. Anti-neutrinos are produced in nuclear fission through beta decay. They are indicators of the fissile fuel composition of the nuclear reactor. Neutrino signatures of the fissile fuels cannot be tampered with by virtue of the very small reaction cross section of neutrinos at low energy. On the other hand, the small reaction probability also means small detection probability so that large detectors are needed to detect them. A sample idea is to deploy hundreds of kilo-ton liquid scintillor detectors at 1000 km distance from the reactor to monitor the reactor anti-neutrino spectrum. The challenges of using anti-neutrino to monitor reactor are that (1) a rogue nation will not voluntarily allow IAEA to build anti-neutrino detectors around its reactors, (2) the number of anti-neutrino detectors must increase 4 folds for every doubling of reactor-detector distance, and (3) reactors are not needed if a rogue nation opts for uranium instead of plutonium bombs. For these reasons, anti-neutrino detectors are probably not the ultimate solution to non-proliferation. Another possible non-proliferation strategy is to develop a technology that counters nuclear weapons.

    This paper proposes an alternative idea for a neutrino counter nuclear weapon that shares some similarities with the idea presented in Reference [1] but is technologically feasible, relatively cheap and safe. The present idea is to focus a neutrino beam and an antineutrino beam together in a small region to allow them to annihilate so that high energy radiations are released as reaction products. The radiations cause neutron spallation in the sub-critical nuclear material and initiate fission reactions. The plutonium heats up, ignites the chemical explosive around the fissile (fissionable material) in the primary stage of a thermonuclear warhead and subsequently detonates the nuclear weapon. The reason of thinking about neutrino for this application is that neutrino cannot be shielded. It can hit a target such as a nuclear submarine from the other side of the globe and can penetrate a deep underground concrete bunker and missile silo. Since neutrino can penetrate the planet to reach a nuclear weapon on the other side of the globe near the speed of light, a neutrino counter nuclear weapon is in principle untraceable and indefensible. It is suggested that a neutrino counter nuclear weapon is 100% effective [3].

    The trade-off of developing a counter weapon is the introduction of a new weapon. If the new weapon is less destructive than the original weapon, an ethical argument can be made in support of its development. If remote detonation of a nuclear weapon is made possible by a neutrino counter weapon, a nuclear weapon in the homeland becomes a liability so that there is a real strategic incentive to reduce the stockpile. In that case, there will be a much more convincing political reason to promote non-proliferation. This work aims to study the theoretical feasibility of the neutrino counter nuclear weapon as a first step in this direction. The use of neutrino as a tactical assault weapon will also be discussed.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.3991.pdf


    Reference:
    中微子武器有可能吗?国内研究现状如何?
    https://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2523440-1-1.html



    Conclusion

    As discussed above, the developmement of powerful enough Laser Wakefield Accelerator (LWA) is critical and at the core of this technology. No need to add that such laser research can not be conducted without a sufficient reserve of rare earth minerals.

    Indeed, North Korea's 216 million tonne Jongju deposit, theoretically worth trillions of dollars, would more than double the current global known resource of REE oxides which according to the US Geological Survey is pegged at 110 million tonnes.

    Five times that of China's, the current world's first rare earth minerals exporter.


    [​IMG]
    ▲ First world's reserve of Rare Earth Elements in the DPRK.

    :enjoy:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 13, 2019
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. zartosht

    zartosht FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    632
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2017
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,595 / -1
    Country:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Location:
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    i think you guys are getting the Samson option all wrong.....

    its an apocalyptic attack against an aggressor that's going to wipe Israel out... If Israel is losing an all out with their armies collapsing and some enemy army approaching their cities... something along those lines.

    id imagine they would even be extremely reluctant to go nuclear even if losing a war against an enemy that's not physically invading their borders (IE. getting steamrolled in a war with iran, with missiles destroying everything, but no Iranian army invading) . They would invite nuclear retaliation that would almost guarantee their anahilation, they would lose all international support and legitimacy, and the leadership that orderered such an attach would be universally considered criminals.....

    its beyond insane to think Israel would start randomly nuking new York, Moscow etc.etc…….

    what the hell is that going to achieve? if your a zionist leader experiencing total collapse... do you nuke the enemy attacking you? or nuke all your allies that would almost certainly be able to absorb your hits, anahilate you completely off the face of the planet, and hunt down and slaughter any zionist pig that was involved in ordering such a crime.... ???? Zionist leaders would be nuking the enemy, and looking to escape to those countries... that's what any sane human being whose intelligence level is above that of a chimpanzee would probably do under those circumstances.
     
  15. TheImmortal

    TheImmortal FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,306
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,256 / -5
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Samson Option is for the land invasion and collapse of Israel by an aggressor.

    During the Arab wars, Israel would have used nukes on Arab countries had Israel failed to hold the Arab armies outside of its border.

    Lastly never underestimate an enemy that has nothing to lose and it’s back to its wall. After all that’s what nuclear weapons are for, it is to protect a country as a last resort if it is on the brink of collapse by an invading aggressor.

    The Samson Option however unlikely cannot simply be discounted because it sounds preposterous. The Holocaust sounded proposterous and the Armenian genocide sounded proposterous, but they happened.