Israel Too Small to Last Even One Week of War

[MichaelW]

Neither do you, and you haven't even grown up yet.

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.

So you have no formal education or personal experience with the military at all. So it's just as I said. You know nothing more than the average person here can easily acquire on their own. You might be more interested to pursue information. That doesn't make you an expert. Try joining the service or majoring in aerospace engineering.

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.

There's nothing relevant here that you've specialized in. You're a high school kid who hasn't grown up yet. You have a lot to learn because you will continue to learn the rest of your life if you live right.

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.

B-52s are what I'm talking about. I've already mentioned Israel's lack of strategic bombers.

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

The number of planes that Israeli tankers can handle on this fantasy mission you can't stop believing in makes the idea even more impotent if that were even possible.

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 proved they have no ability to accomplish the mission. They don't have weapons capable of destroying facilities under mountains. They can't even deliver 2,000lb bombs which would be ridiculous to rely upon to do meaningful damage.

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?

Israel needs the US because it can't attack Iran by itself and accomplish anything but blowback on the US and itself. These sites are underground. Israeli drones over Iran that can find underground facilities. Is there anything your wild imagination can't fantasize concerning Israel?

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.

Of course my opinion does. I'm the one paying for that world police force. You're an advocate for spending my money who can't put his own skin in the game because you're not fit for service, whatever that means. I didn't assume you were an American, you misunderstand almost everything.

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.

Unfortunately fighting on fumes isn't possible. Countermeasures can't stop bullets and Israeli aircraft that can't maneuver, use afterburners, or persist over enemy airspace and dogfight because they don't have the fuel are at a terrible disadvantage. If you want to bet on the Zionists I'll be on the other side of that bet for what would be obvious reasons if you were capable of strategic thinking on military tactics.

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.

None of that puts fuel in the tank. Changes of subject don't make dreams come true.

Actually, some of it can.

Israel is capable of destroying one target in Iran if it uses airborne refueling.

And here you are claiming that it can't.

Listening to you hanging onto a dream, it's becoming a laughable Zionist fantasy fooling the dupes who can't understand the difficulties of the mission not to believe it. Israel doesn't want to appear impotent when they're war mongering against Iran because if they did, getting the help from the US that they need would be far less likely to happen. If they had the capability to strike Iran and do meaningful damage, they would have done so already judging by the doomsday rhetoric coming out of their bureaucrats' mouths.

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.

That doesn't put fuel in the tank either. You have to change the subject in order to keep flapping.

Better fuel management systems do.

I didn't call you a neocon. I wouldn't expect anyone in New Zealand to be a neocon. But you can sure swallow their BS easily enough when it comes to asinine Zionist propaganda from Israel. I'd love to hear what book you read or what TV show you think you watched that told you that Iranian aircraft and air defenses aren't capable of shooting down your magical Israeli jets with their fantasy payloads.

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

[+and-then]

They've had the need to attack Iran for years and they haven't done it because they can't do it in a worthwhile way.

Exactly. Someone tell the clueless Israeli bureaucrats that. Iran will be obliterated if it attacks Israel. People hear the Zionist lies in the media and from the bureaucrats and they morph into cowards over it. If someone in the US is scared of Iran they need to get a life. If someone is scared for their favorite little welfare recipient Israel they should write their own check or put their helmet on and go fight for Israel with their own blood, time, and money.

Don't twist my words. I was speaking of Iran when I said "why risk that?" As to Israel being able to obliterate Iran, I did not think you believed that they had nukes. Regardless, it will be cold comfort to the one or two million who could be killed,wounded or displaced by an Iranian nuke someday. But then the possibility of a few million less Jews isn't such a primary motivator for some in the world. If your comments about fear are aimed at myself I can tell you I'm not in the least concerned about death Yam, other than hoping the transition won't be too painful or slow. I'm no overly brave soul, but when life gets to suck bad enough then you start looking forward to what comes next.

I believe the next war in the ME won't include Iran except as a sponsor of Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and the Arab stepchildren. JMO of course.

[odas]

Cinderella was a stepchild too and we know how she was treated and how her ugly, ignorant and abusive stepfamily ended up.

You mentioned the arabs a few times now as stepchildren in a deragotary and demeaning way. This is an insult for those children who had or have to grow up without the real mother or father.

[+and-then]

Cinderella was a stepchild too and we know how she was treated and how her ugly, ignorant and abusive stepfamily ended up.

You mentioned the arabs a few times now as stepchildren in a deragotary and demeaning way. This is an insult for those children who had or have to grow up without the real mother or father.

Actually I only mentioned a specific group of Arabs as stepchildren. With respect, allow me to explain. I call the Palestinians "Arab stepchildren" because of the way they are treated by their Arab brethren. They are not allowed citizenship in most Arab countries. They aren't allowed to work in professional areas and are generally treated as second class citizens. For all the rhetoric about supporting the struggle of the Palestinians, the truth is they are kept in bondage by their own brothers to be a goad to Israel. I have compassion for orphans - I adopted one - and I love my daughter dearly. That's the difference. the Palestinians are not held in any esteem by their Arab brethren. They are simply used as pawns. If that truth offends you then so be it.

[odas]

Actualy it does not because I think abut this issue the same way. It does not give however anyone the right to take advantage of the palestinians because of that. They are pawns in the hand of both, the arabs and the israelie. Sad.

[ninjadude]

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

An act of war by the US. Not approved by Congress. And Iran would feel justified in attacking US interests.

[MichaelW]

An act of war by the US. Not approved by Congress. And Iran would feel justified in attacking US interests.

Emphasis on the hypthetical part of my post. I knew one of you people would skew it.

[+and-then]

An act of war by the US. Not approved by Congress. And Iran would feel justified in attacking US interests.

If Israel attacks of course we will be seen as complicit. So? What? Will Iran want to kill us sooner instead of later? 'Dude you don't accept anything about this situation being a valid reason to help Israel. Why can't you accept that some people can rationally disagree with you and it doesn't necessarily make them Islamophobic or crazy? People who cannot be convinced to even consider an opposing view can be rightfully called zealots or extremist. Isn't that what you think Christian Zionists are?

spellingggg!

Edited March 28, 2012 by and then

[ninjadude]

If Israel attacks of course we will be seen as complicit. So? What? Will Iran want to kill us sooner instead of later?

yes. exactly. Some leaders in Iran would want to kill us sooner.

'Dude you don't accept anything about this situation being a valid reason to help Israel. Why can't you accept that some people can rationally disagree with you and it doesn't necessarily make them Islamophobic or crazy?

Sure I do. If Iran or some other nation were to actually attack Israel, then yes we should come to it's aid. As per treaty. Helping Israel start a war? No, there is no valid reason.

And I accept that you can rationally disagree. But I seriously question your motivations for that disagreement.

[Parsip]

Iran has been attacking US interests for decades. I don't believe they'd sit still after an attack on their nuclear facilities. They have a reputation as a major power, a defender of Shiite Muslims, and (in the Middle East) the alternative to the [relatively] secular, pro-Western Arab dictators. They have already threatened, many times, to make the US/Israel regret an attack on Iran. If, after all this talk, they do nothing, it will destroy them and validate people's perception of Iran as a paper tiger.

I think they would retaliate against Israel, the US, and their Arab and Western allies, through terrorism at least. What Iran would want, is "plausible deniability." They wish to cause a few very damaging terrorist attacks, and have the world know it was they who did it without actually being able to prove it. If they go too far, they risk provoking the US and other countries into going to war with Iran and turn Ali Khamanei into another Saddam Hussein, which would put a damper on their plan to export the Islamic Revolution and eventually dominate the region.

[ships-cat]

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.

[+and-then]

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.

I actually thought of that also but there are a couple involved with this discussion that would be so apoplectic over that assertion that I think they just might go into mental decline It would be quite the stretch of the imagination to infiltrate such a place. My guess is that they'll just close off the known entrances and make life miserable for the poor bas%$#ds who were at work when the raid happened. Funny thing though... I don't really put ANYTHING past Israel's ability when they are properly motivated.

Edited March 28, 2012 by and then

[wittyusernamefailed]

Well Israel would not necessarily need to be the ones doing it themselves. They have been working very closely with the MEK (more or less the Sinn Fein of the Irani resistance)in the last few years assassination of scientist and generals, and sabotage of missile bases. So it is not entirely out of the question that they would put together an op uses those resources. Of course even if a commando type raid would succeed, it would still be naive to expect that there would be no fallout in the form of the Irani gov lashing out. So while the nuke may be out of play for 1-2 more years, the war would still come.

[Yamato]

Don't twist my words. I was speaking of Iran when I said "why risk that?" As to Israel being able to obliterate Iran, I did not think you believed that they had nukes. Regardless, it will be cold comfort to the one or two million who could be killed,wounded or displaced by an Iranian nuke someday. But then the possibility of a few million less Jews isn't such a primary motivator for some in the world. If your comments about fear are aimed at myself I can tell you I'm not in the least concerned about death Yam, other than hoping the transition won't be too painful or slow. I'm no overly brave soul, but when life gets to suck bad enough then you start looking forward to what comes next.

I believe the next war in the ME won't include Iran except as a sponsor of Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and the Arab stepchildren. JMO of course.

Of course you were referring to Iran. But I'm not sure where I was referring to Israel. Let's not allow for misunderstanding here. My meaning is, Iran would be obliterated by the US if it nuked Israel.

Having questions and doubts isn't disbelief. I question how many nukes Israel actually has. I question everything about their nuclear arsenal, really.

I think a war you're speaking of will cause so much instability it will spread across borders far more remote to Israel than just the region's. We've got major powers in the world empathetic to Iran and to endanger our trade relationships with major partners like China over this conspiratorial Zionist nuttery would be beyond regrettable. Though from knowing of our politicians and wannabe politicians these days, even the worst results are possible.

[+and-then]

Of course you were referring to Iran. But I'm not sure where I was referring to Israel. Let's not allow for misunderstanding here. My meaning is, Iran would be obliterated by the US if it nuked Israel.

Having questions and doubts isn't disbelief. I question how many nukes Israel actually has. I question everything about their nuclear arsenal, really.

I think a war you're speaking of will cause so much instability it will spread across borders far more remote to Israel than just the region's. We've got major powers in the world empathetic to Iran and to endanger our trade relationships with major partners like China over this conspiratorial Zionist nuttery would be beyond regrettable. Though from knowing of our politicians and wannabe politicians these days, even the worst results are possible.

I agree that there is the potential for any war to unfold in totally unforseen ways. In fact it's almost guaranteed to happen. But China still relies on the waning economic might of the US too much to seriously bite the hand so to speak. The Russians will probably try to make our lives miserable in other ways but as far as actively intervening in the conflict I just don't see it. They can accomplish their goals without such risk.

As you know, I'm totally predictable regarding my world view in this matter. My faith tells me that what the Bible predicts to eventually happen is what is going to unfold there.

If someone you trusted gave you an investment tip that xyz corp. stock was going go through the roof as soon as a few conditions were in place and then you saw those very conditions falling into place, you'd probably buy the stock. The book of Psalms (83) talks about God punishing a group of nations whose ancestors are named as the people groups of that time. It describes them as wanting to erase the nation of Israel so that not even the name will be remembered. Those five nations along with the ancestors of the people of Hamas, Hizballah and the modern Palestinians are all mentioned. All those groups of people share physical borders with Israel.

I don't expect you to actually believe it but when it happens maybe you should consider that there are other things that book predicts that will come true as well? Just a thought.

[Shiloh17]

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.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003641701_webmop30.html

[+and-then]

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.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003641701_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]

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.

[AdealJustice]

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 April 19, 2012 by seller2006

[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]

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.informationclearinghouse.info/article30840.htm

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

Edited April 19, 2012 by TheLastLazyGun

[Yamato]

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.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003641701_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]

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]

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 April 26, 2012 by and then