Monthly Archives: September 2007

Iran attack plan

Leave a Reply

Interesting stuff in The Sunday Times:

The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

The expert in question is the Nixon Center’s director of terroism and national security, Alexis Debat. The article doesn’t cite his sources, but presumably he knows a person or two within the military establishment.

If he’s supporting such a measure rather than just noting it, he’s taken a rather interesting interpretation of his institution’s “enlightened pursuit of the national interest”. But then the Center’s “specific goal… is to explore ways of enhancing American security and prosperity while taking into account the legitimate perspectives of other nations”. Note the word “legitimate”; it’s a handy escape clause in case of controversy.

This supposed strategy against Iran sounds an awful lot like the “shock and awe” tactics employed in Iraq, although that rapid dominance strategy was a lead-in to a ground invasion and occupation. There’s no indication here that the US is preparing to attempt this in Iran (it doesn’t have the manpower, anyway).

From the scant detail in the Times article, it’s impossible to say if this is more sabre rattling or prelude to an offensive. If it’s the latter, the Pentagon has done a piss-poor job of keeping its plans secret — unless it wants Iran to feel the pressure. But then you have to wonder if what Debat mentioned is the actual strategy, and not a smokescreen or case of misdirection.

The story comes shortly after George W Bush stepped up the rhetoric, saying Iran had put the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”:

Iran’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

At least his speech writer had the good sense to insert “economic sanctions” before “confront”. Bush seems to be favouring diplomacy, which would indicate that the attack plan outlined by Debat is a fall-back should the US feel Iran is close to, or has developed nuclear weapons. (We must also be aware that he was addressing a veterean’ organisation, so strong military talk should be expected.)

As a strategy, wiping out the enemy’s military in a brief time is sound. However, it depends on knowing exactly where every piece of equipment is at any given time and also that the defending forces keep their materiel in the same place over three days. Leaking the strategy only gives Iran a chance to redeploy its military. Satellites and other technology are no substitute for on the ground intelligence.

It is logical for the US to be drawing up such plans. Most militaries would have an array of strategies for any number of scenarios; it’s their job after all. Presumably Iran has a strategy in place should it be attacked.

Plans, however, are merely ideas committed to paper. They have a nasty habit of not working as intended; the Schlieffen Plan springs to mind, along with the German invasion of Russia.

I’m sure you can think of many, many more.

Next stop: the Moon

Leave a Reply

Russia plans to start building a base on the Moon by 2027. It aims to land cosmonauts in 2024 and have the facility finished and staffed by 2032.

The former superpower had suggested being part of a joint expedition with NASA, but after this was apparently rejected — although the US agency said in April that it had not received any such proposal — the decision was taken to go solo.

The first step will be finishing work on the ISS, followed by refurbishment of the Soyuz craft. How cosmonauts are going to get to the Moon has gone unmentioned. It might be using thisKliper craft, but there’s just as likely no plan in place at all.

Unless the government rows in behind the federal space agency, Roskosmos, this proposal will never get off the ground (pun, dire as it was, most certainly intended). The agency only has an annual budget of $1.3bn, compared to NASA’s $16.8bn.

In 2005, NASA estimated its coming lunar programme could cost $104bn over 13 years (Apollo cost half that over eight). There’s no reason Russia can’t come up with a way of doing it more cost-efficiently, but doing it on the current budget seems idealistic at best.

It will inevitably turn to space tourism to raise funds. Five have flown so far — each paying $20m-$25m a pop — and one Russian gentleman is set to go into orbit in 2009. It also charges NASA somewhere in the region of $20m per person per flight on its Soyuz capsules to the space station.

Roskosmos chief Anatoly Perminov has said launches of foreign satellites and other commercial services are expected to generate $800 million in sales for Russia’s national space and rocket industry in 2008. This would be useful hard cash for a lunar programme, especially with the timeframe the agency has in mind. It’s unlikely to be enough though.

Collaboration would be the easiest and most efficient avenue to take, but without NASA on board that seems dead in the water. Russia is considering developing satellites and such with several Arab countries, but it’s fair to say these do not have sufficiently developed space programmes to be technically useful in a lunar expedition. However, that doesn’t mean they can’t contribute financially.

Russia isn’t the only nation with the Moon in its sights. China — which sees a successful space programme as a major tool in establishing its international reputation and prestige — and Japan are planning lunar flights by 2022 and 2025, while India might steal a march on both with a mission by 2020.

India is to spend $1.5bn over five years developing the requisite technology, and what it can achieve in this timeframe and on this budget will indicate if Russia can achieve its goals.

Ultimately, the more resources dedicated to lunar exploration and occupation the better. Earth won’t last forever…