114 replies to this topic

[Realm]

ships-cat, on 28 March 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

I think the Iranian Foreign Ministers comments are just typical Iranian bluster.

Mind you... I'd agree with many in this thread that Israel would surely be struggling to attack Iran's "nuclear facilities". Apart from anything else, there are a LOT of "nuclear facilities" to attack !

On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out them pulling off some sort of "Entebbe on Steroids" commando-raid-type mission. After all, a nuclear facility under a mountain blows up just FINE if you plant the bombs INSIDE it.

With this bomb, all they have to do is drop it. It will penetrate 200 feet of 5,000 psi concrete before exploding. MOP.

http://seattletimes....1_webmop30.html

[and then]

Realm, on 08 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

With this bomb, all they have to do is drop it. It will penetrate 200 feet of 5,000 psi concrete before exploding. MOP.

http://seattletimes....1_webmop30.html

The problem with this one is that only the US has the capability to employ it.  It takes either a B-2 or a B-52 to carry the 15 ton weapon to a drop point.  But it's very existence helps deter Iran from countering against US forces in the region should Israel go alone.  Iran will want to avoid bringing "big brother" into the fray.

[Uncle Sam]

Is stability in the Middle East the best possible outcome for everyone at the table? This will never be achieved if nations like Iran is backed by major powers like Russia and China. The more time nations like Iran has time to spread hatred and use their proxies to incite violence, the more it descends into chaos that could lead to slaughter of millions of innocents under the name of Allah. In contrary to the popular belief that U.S. is in the middle east for oil, they are not there because of the oil but to remove radicals who threaten our interests in that region, U.S. interests involve allies and their interests in that region which could bring stability to that region. We don't exclusively ally with Israel, we allied ourselves with Egypt and other Muslim Nations based off common goals.

The goal is to bring stability to the middle east, which is basically a powder keg waiting to go off. Israel threatening to use airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities isn't going to help. Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map or attack U.S. interests in the region only brings more resolve to Israel to go ahead and carry out those airstrikes. It is not in U.S. best interests to attack Iran because it is backed by China and Russia who want nothing more to catch U.S. with its pants down.

Iran is basically blowing hot air and stirring up the pot even more by saying they Israel is going to be easy to take down because it is a small nation. Israel can and will remove Iran's government if there is a provocation on Iran's part, which would lead to the downfall of Iran.

[and then]

Uncle Sam, on 10 April 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Is stability in the Middle East the best possible outcome for everyone at the table? This will never be achieved if nations like Iran is backed by major powers like Russia and China. The more time nations like Iran has time to spread hatred and use their proxies to incite violence, the more it descends into chaos that could lead to slaughter of millions of innocents under the name of Allah. In contrary to the popular belief that U.S. is in the middle east for oil, they are not there because of the oil but to remove radicals who threaten our interests in that region, U.S. interests involve allies and their interests in that region which could bring stability to that region. We don't exclusively ally with Israel, we allied ourselves with Egypt and other Muslim Nations based off common goals.

The goal is to bring stability to the middle east, which is basically a powder keg waiting to go off. Israel threatening to use airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities isn't going to help. Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map or attack U.S. interests in the region only brings more resolve to Israel to go ahead and carry out those airstrikes. It is not in U.S. best interests to attack Iran because it is backed by China and Russia who want nothing more to catch U.S. with its pants down.

Iran is basically blowing hot air and stirring up the pot even more by saying they Israel is going to be easy to take down because it is a small nation. Israel can and will remove Iran's government if there is a provocation on Iran's part, which would lead to the downfall of Iran.

Uncle Sam I believe that mideast war is inevitable.  Too many divergent interests, too much wealth and power on the table and too much greed to have any other outcome.  I think that when Israel acquired the bomb it all but assured the outcome we are seeing now.  Let's face it, without nukes Israel could not survive short of true divine intervention.  With nukes, Israel is a thorn in the side of all the nations who so virulently hate her and use her for a scapegoat for all their political problems.  At some point they will come together and try one more time to eradicate this small nation.  I believe they will fail utterly and the world will see another mushroom cloud in the process...then peace, for a short while.

[seller2006]

I like how people we brainwashed into thinking your anti semetic if your anti Israeli. Nah. Not at all. I am pro people so i will take Palesteniens side, never would i take a racist zionist approache. Israel was founded on terrorism .... and now if behaves this way and we are surprised . Why does ALL media in the west promote Israel, all schools ,etc ,etc. Much money is involved ... im not saying Jews control the world, but ZIONISTS ( bankers ,etc ,etc )have a ton of money .

Edited by seller2006, 19 April 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[SolarPlexus]

I wouldn't agree with the thread title. Israel is perhaps small but remember the six-day war of '67. Israel vs. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and a dozen expeditionary forces including Iraq, SA, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia etc. and came out a winner capturing the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Pretty impressive if you ask me.

[TheLastLazyGun]

bouncer, on 17 March 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

“What is Israel? It is such a small entity that it cannot withstand one week of real war; not one week,” he emphasized

http://www.informati...rticle30840.htm

Is that the same small entity which defeated three aggressive and belligerent Arab states in just six days in 1967?

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 19 April 2012 - 05:28 PM.

[Yamato]

Realm, on 08 April 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

With this bomb, all they have to do is drop it. It will penetrate 200 feet of 5,000 psi concrete before exploding. MOP.

http://seattletimes....1_webmop30.html

With this bomb, they also have to make something to drop it from.  Alas, it's fun to brag about the impossible...don't let me ruin your fun.   It's also too bad that all of Iran's facilities aren't sitting on top of each other in the same spot like I'm sure it's also fun to imagine.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 27 March 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

Your wrong both ways. One, I am considered an adult. Two, I do know about things to do with the military. Three, you haven't proven otherwise or disproven anything yet.  




Since when have you been the arbitrator of what counts as "qualified" to discuss something. There are plenty of people online who call themselves "armchair generals"- me included.

Oh, wait. I see what this is. Sorry to burst your little bubble Yam but you're going to have to accept that some people actually do know more about something than you do.  



Here you go again, talking about people. Seeing as you don't know me, how about refraining from talking about people? That would be nice, seeing as this isn't about me.  




In some cases, you don't need strategic bombers to accomplish things.



Which is why I suggested SLBM's earlier. No need for complicated aerial missions when a submarine can do the job just as effectively and without risking pilots or aircraft.




You're assuming the Iranians have stuck every single nuclear plant underneath a mountain or something like a Bond villian. Also, have you considered that there are other targets Israel could easily destroy?




Care to provide sources for these sites being underground? Also, you're forgetting Israeli SLBM's on its submarines and of course the Jericho ICBM's which have enough range to reach Iran.



So are 300 million or so other people. What makes your's so special compared to theirs? Also, again you show you don't know anything concerning about the military. Being unfit for military service means that you have something either physical or mental or health related which might put yourself or others in danger when on active duty. For instance, my cousin was refused entry into the Army on the basis he has severe allergic reactions to peanuts.  




Who says Israeli aircraft would be fighting on fumes? Again, your lack of knoweldge has fallen short.

Here's how a hypothetical attack scenario would pan out:

Israeli fighter-bombers and fighters would leave their respective bases in Israel.

Said aircraft would rendezvous over Saudi Arabia or the Gulf with Israeli and American aerial refuelling tankers, take on fuel and continue flying.

Israeli fighter and fighter bombers would deal with their respective roles of dealing with Iranian aircraft and air defences whilst the fighter bombers would drop their payloads over the targets.

The remaining aircraft will rendezvous again with the aerial refuelling tankers.

The remaining aircraft will return to base.

Simple.  




Actually, some of it can.  




And here you are claiming that it can't.




But they aren't impotent. They have the means to retaliate, be it aerial, marine or in missile form. They don't want to do so because they know they will be attacked as retaliation. From whom remains to be seen, as the only Iran-friendly nation is Syria.




Better fuel management systems do.




It's called the "Book of Reality". Unfortunately, it's clear you're not a daily subscriber.

Iran is out of range thus Israel, acting alone, is impotent.  How you grovel with reality is your problem.  
Your made-up scenario is reliant on US help, which is what I've said is necessary from the very beginning.  Quit wasting so many minutes of your life trying so hard to disagree with me when you go full circle and painfully describe scenarios which outline what I've already said.

[and then]

Yamato, on 26 April 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

With this bomb, they also have to make something to drop it from.  Alas, it's fun to brag about the impossible...don't let me ruin your fun.   It's also too bad that all of Iran's facilities aren't sitting on top of each other in the same spot like I'm sure it's also fun to imagine.

You are correct that a MOP requires heavy lift capacity, either a B2 or a B52, neither of which Israel possesses.  But concerning air defense capabilities that would limit their overall effectiveness I would remind you that in the run up to the Iraq war people were doomsaying that their AD net was nearly invincible as well.  It was rendered ineffective before it ever fired a shot or missile.  Viruses and jammers are wonderful tools.  If they have some S200 and S300 batteries hidden then Israel will lose aircraft and pilots but it will hardly mean mission failure.  Tragic as it will be, people die in combat and if it is in a cause such as this then it's worth it for the survival of a nation.  Personally I am less and less inclined to believe that Israel means to strike Iran.  At least not in the near term.  Their army chief said yesterday 4/26 that Iran had not decided to build the bomb just yet.  Maybe it's misinformation to confuse Iran after Oby's gift to them a few weeks ago but I think Israel has decided to wait. But if they do attack and Iran is as fierce as everyone thinks, then the US will have to enter the war to help Israel anyway and suddenly they no longer have the heavy lifting to do....  I hope Netanyahu waits until October so he can either get the most support from Oby or cause the most damage to his campaign

Edited by and then, 26 April 2012 - 09:04 AM.

[MichaelW]

Yamato, on 26 April 2012 - 02:53 AM, said:

Iran is out of range thus Israel, acting alone, is impotent.  How you grovel with reality is your problem.  
Your made-up scenario is reliant on US help, which is what I've said is necessary from the very beginning.  Quit wasting so many minutes of your life trying so hard to disagree with me when you go full circle and painfully describe scenarios which outline what I've already said.

That's if they use the air force. You still haven't ruled out SLBM's and the ballistic missiles that Israel has, both of which are capable of reaching Iran and with the necessary payloads to do damage even if they are hidden under volcano's like Bond baddies.

Look, it's been fun teaching you but for both our sakes, how about we just leave it at that.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 26 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

That's if they use the air force. You still haven't ruled out SLBM's and the ballistic missiles that Israel has, both of which are capable of reaching Iran and with the necessary payloads to do damage even if they are hidden under volcano's like Bond baddies.

Look, it's been fun teaching you but for both our sakes, how about we just leave it at that.

and then, on 26 April 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

You are correct that a MOP requires heavy lift capacity, either a B2 or a B52, neither of which Israel possesses.  But concerning air defense capabilities that would limit their overall effectiveness I would remind you that in the run up to the Iraq war people were doomsaying that their AD net was nearly invincible as well.  It was rendered ineffective before it ever fired a shot or missile.  Viruses and jammers are wonderful tools.  If they have some S200 and S300 batteries hidden then Israel will lose aircraft and pilots but it will hardly mean mission failure.  Tragic as it will be, people die in combat and if it is in a cause such as this then it's worth it for the survival of a nation.  Personally I am less and less inclined to believe that Israel means to strike Iran.  At least not in the near term.  Their army chief said yesterday 4/26 that Iran had not decided to build the bomb just yet.  Maybe it's misinformation to confuse Iran after Oby's gift to them a few weeks ago but I think Israel has decided to wait. But if they do attack and Iran is as fierce as everyone thinks, then the US will have to enter the war to help Israel anyway and suddenly they no longer have the heavy lifting to do....  I hope Netanyahu waits until October so he can either get the most support from Oby or cause the most damage to his campaign

It would be a senseless waste of IDF pilots. Because it makes no sense tactically or strategically it'll never happen, and you're correct to change your thinking accordingly.

But since the premise of attacking Israel is fabricated BS as Iran has no plans to attack Israel, the real premise Israel can't stand is that Iran gets the bomb.  Then Iran could nuke Israel, just like Israel can nuke Iran.  Mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent available, as proven by the Cold War and other standoffs demonstrated by nuclear powers.   I'll let the know-it-alls (neophytes) entertain fantastic nonsense like Israel attacking Iran with ballistic missiles and pretend the blowback from such aggression won't be the biggest political mistake of Israel's miserable history.

Whichever regime launches the missiles and starts the war should be the regime that loses the war.  *GASP!*

[MichaelW]

So you acknowledge that Israel has the potential to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Good.

[and then]

Yamato, on 15 May 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

It would be a senseless waste of IDF pilots. Because it makes no sense tactically or strategically it'll never happen, and you're correct to change your thinking accordingly.

But since the premise of attacking Israel is fabricated BS as Iran has no plans to attack Israel, the real premise Israel can't stand is that Iran gets the bomb.  Then Iran could nuke Israel, just like Israel can nuke Iran.  Mutually assured destruction is the best deterrent available, as proven by the Cold War and other standoffs demonstrated by nuclear powers.   I'll let the know-it-alls (neophytes) entertain fantastic nonsense like Israel attacking Iran with ballistic missiles and pretend the blowback from such aggression won't be the biggest political mistake of Israel's miserable history.

Whichever regime launches the missiles and starts the war should be the regime that loses the war.  *GASP!*

You do realize that Israel might just do the unthinkable anyway?  Now that Netanyahu has solidified his government he might well decide to strike in October.  Oby would never dare refuse to back his play at that critical juncture.  Oby may be an arrogant SOB but he is above all a political survivor.  The negotiations (stalling maneuvers) going on in Istanbul will tell the tale pretty soon I think.  If any sanctions are lifted or if anything less than a total cessation of enrichment occurs then Israel will be forced into action - IF - they actually do intend to deal with this problem.

[Yamato]

MichaelW, on 15 May 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

So you acknowledge that Israel has the potential to attack Iranian nuclear sites. Good.

Israel only has a potential to make a very big mistake for itself.  But I don't think they're that stupid and you do.