Israel Too Small to Last Even One Week of War

[keithisco]

Have you read any of the info on the Jews against Zionism site? Very interesting and VERY disturbing. True Judasim has nothing to do with what is happening in Israel today. I was very shocked to read where Zion sprung from and how. AGAINST ZIONISM

I have just read the LINK... very disturbing

[+and-then]

Sorry, guys for going off topic.

So, on topic, I agree that Israel wouldn't last one week, no actually five minutes. The world of the ME is a far different place then in the 70's. I do not belive Iran or any other country would Nuke Israel. IMO, they would be far more interested in attacking US bases surrounding Iran. Israel without US backing would enable an invasion of Israel or at least make Israel think twice about attacking anyone. I really do belive Israel wants and is going to try and pull uSA into a war with Iran.

If USA does not appear to be behind Israel then it definitely would result in faction groups attacking Israel. USA has put itself in a no win situation, IMO. The tiger is too angry to let it's tail go.

Iran will not overtly attack anyone. If they fire on US bases they invite a full, weeks long counterstrike by the US which they would have no power to defend after the first few days. If they send huge barrage at Israel, same thing happens. They'll use Hizbullah in the north and maybe Hamas in the south if those cowards think they can get a free shot during the chaos. You're right Sam the ME ISN'T the same place...

and .AKUMA., I wouldn't be cheering for Israel's defeat just yet

[ninjadude]

Iran will not overtly attack anyone. If they fire on US bases they invite a full, weeks long counterstrike by the US which they would have no power to defend after the first few days. If they send huge barrage at Israel, same thing happens. They'll use Hizbullah in the north and maybe Hamas in the south if those cowards think they can get a free shot during the chaos. You're right Sam the ME ISN'T the same place...

And then let's consider the other way around, Israel will overtly attack Iran. If so, Iran will massively counterstrike all western targets any in the world both overtly and thru terrorism. And send their terrorist groups to attack Israel in other more massive ways. Alliances will form and Israel will be fighting a many front war. The world will condemn Israel for being stupid. Israel will start to get desperate and lob a nuke. Devolves from there....

Edited March 21, 2012 by ninjadude

[+and-then]

And then let's consider the other way around, Israel will overtly attack Iran. If so, Iran will massively counterstrike all western targets any in the world both overtly and thru terrorism. And send their terrorist groups to attack Israel in other more massive ways. Alliances will form and Israel will be fighting a many front war. The world will condemn Israel for being stupid. Israel will start to get desperate and lob a nuke. Devolves from there....

As you can imagine, with my background, I read everything I can find on this and what I say here is distilled from the info I gather. Doesn't make me fool proof for sure. But the consensus out there is that Iran benefits more from absorbing the strike and playing the victim. Sanctions get dropped, Israel demonized et cetera. But if Iran launches a massive counterstrike against Israel then the US gets involved. No matter the bluster you hear from Iran they have NO military force to truly challenge the US. Yes they can make things miserable for us - especially economically - for awhile but the Ayatollahs will not risk having their military so degraded that they lose their Preatorian. They are more afraid of their own than they are us. With cruise missiles and bombing alone we can turn their military bases and supply depots, communication nodes and fuel storage facilities even water and sewer if we wanted...into rubble in a couple of days. They will avoid this. But they will probably be p***ed enough to set Hizballah and Syria on Israel and THAT could lead to the use of a nuke. But not on Iran...just Damascus. Which would suck if you happen to be in Damascus as the leadership of Hizballah and Syria are....

[Yamato]

It's also a joke that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities. After all of these years of media embarrassments, it still amazes me how long such BS can be spread around in the media and repeated ad nauseum till it's taken seriously by the politicians, punditry, and people who don't have a clue what they're talking about as usual.

Israel will need to takeoff and land in Iraq if they want to strike Iran, and if the IDF wants to do meaningful damage to Iran's nuclear facilities they'll need to rent the B-52 bombers they're not trained to operate. And good luck surviving Iran's air defenses flying B-52s deep into their airspace. Face it. Israel attacking Iran is kool aid. It is nonsense. It is par for the course that the ignorant masses chew. Only the US is capable of damaging Iran's nuclear facilities and since we all bow down to lick the dirty feet of Israel it won't surprise me one bit if our shills actually do.

[+and-then]

It's also a joke that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities. After all of these years of media embarrassments, it still amazes me how long such BS can be spread around in the media and repeated ad nauseum till it's taken seriously by the politicians, punditry, and people who don't have a clue what they're talking about as usual.

Israel will need to takeoff and land in Iraq if they want to strike Iran, and if the IDF wants to do meaningful damage to Iran's nuclear facilities they'll need to rent the B-52 bombers they're not trained to operate. And good luck surviving Iran's air defenses flying B-52s deep into their airspace. Face it. Israel attacking Iran is kool aid. It is nonsense. It is par for the course that the ignorant masses chew. Only the US is capable of damaging Iran's nuclear facilities and since we all bow down to lick the dirty feet of Israel it won't surprise me one bit if our shills actually do.

The Iranians seem to be less sure of that than the all wise and seeing among us here at UM. They're yelling at everyone who'll listen that they'll close the strights and bomb Israel and America if we dare attack. Somethings got them a trifle worried and I certainly don't think it's OBY's bluster.

[+DieChecker]

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

[+and-then]

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

Not sure with Yam. I think sometimes he argues just to argue...whatever. But, yes, the Israeli's have already staged a couple of such missions with over one hundred aircraft involved and in flight tanking...no landings required. As an aside, B-2s fly from a base in Missouri to the Europe or the ME for missions. Tank on the way and back routinely.

[Yamato]

I remember back in the Reagan days when the US bombed Libya. The fighter-bombers had to fly down around Spain from England and return the same way.

I think perhaps Yamato does not know the attack range of the Israeli fighter-bombers?

I've seen articles that said the Israeli's have upgraded some of their planes (with external tanks?) to have a 1500 mile range. And certainly they could use Tankers and even if the IAF does not have tankers, the US would certainly loan them some.

I think the problem is that I do know their combat radii, but the elephant in the room nobody's addressing is they're supposed to be carrying what armament? What are they going to strike the nuclear facilities protected by mountains and accomplish, other than kicking some dirt around, rallying the entire nation of Iran against them (if not the entire Muslim world) and potentially starting World War III? The day they strap a 30,000 lb bunker buster onto the centerline of an F-15 is the day pigs fly. Dream on.

As for those 1500 mi. articles, let's see them.

[Yamato]

Not sure with Yam. I think sometimes he argues just to argue...whatever. But, yes, the Israeli's have already staged a couple of such missions with over one hundred aircraft involved and in flight tanking...no landings required. As an aside, B-2s fly from a base in Missouri to the Europe or the ME for missions. Tank on the way and back routinely.

Even granted airborne refueling which someone is going to have to provide present-day evidence for them even having, if they think they're going to attack Iran in serial sorties in onesies and twosies so to tank on the way in and out, they'll be blown out of the sky with that kind of time requirement, lack of surprise, not to mention being massively outnumbered by Iran's air defenses over enemy airspace. That's just patently stupid and the IDF won't be dumb enough to even entertain such a mission. I'd give the mission a near zero percent chance of success and that's not even taking into account they don't have any weapons capable of doing diddly squat. The optimism doth spilleth over I'm afraid.

[Yamato]

The Iranians seem to be less sure of that than the all wise and seeing among us here at UM. They're yelling at everyone who'll listen that they'll close the strights and bomb Israel and America if we dare attack. Somethings got them a trifle worried and I certainly don't think it's OBY's bluster.

Well they're actually being threatened with acts of war, unlike Israel and all of its kool aid believers.

[Parsip]

Iran's program can be delayed by at least 1-2 years simply by destroying the facilities at Esfahan, Natanz, Arak, and Tehran, all of which are in Northern/Central Iran. If Israel enters Iran from the north they should be able to reach all the facilities easily. Iran's air defense system is actually pretty outdated, but their SAMs and fighter aircraft would still be quite a challenge, but Israel's air force should be able to defeat them. Israel's main worries are probably the political consequences of an attack, and Iranian retaliation.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Parsip

[Yamato]

Iran's program can be delayed by at least 1-2 years simply by destroying the facilities at Esfahan, Natanz, Arak, and Tehran, all of which are in Northern/Central Iran. If Israel enters Iran from the north they should be able to reach all the facilities easily. Iran's air defense system is actually pretty outdated, but their SAMs and fighter aircraft would still be quite a challenge, but Israel's air force should be able to defeat them. Israel's main worries are probably the political consequences of an attack, and Iranian retaliation.

LOL

And what magical weapon from the planet Kolob are they going to use to destroy those facilities, pray tell?

Bottom line: They need the US no matter how that rotten cake gets cut. They need the USAF to refuel, unless they've practiced their carrier landings which they haven't. Unless Iraq allows them use of their airfields, nevermind letting Israeli jets fly over Iraqi airspace in the first place (LOL).

Please cite your evidence that Iran's air defense system is outdated when compared to Israeli aircraft. Of course their air defenses are going to provide not just a challenge but an unacceptable risk. Hauling magical mystery weapons to the target with no fuel for combat maneuvering, no afterburner, no dogfighting, no air to air loadout. What's Iraq going to do, protect Israeli jets when Iran is hard after them and blowing their tails off? If Israel wants to start a world war and suffer 25-50% losses doing mouse-fart damage that isn't going to "destroy" anything, I say bombs away! Otherwise, let's pass the kool aid to the lip-stained masses who believe the nonsense the establishment tells them.

Israel can't do diddly squat to Iran and it knows it. That's why the US's biggest enemy in the world, Israel, is going to do everything in its power to once again drag the US into another bloody war of nonsense in the Middle East on its behalf. Just watch the news. There's more fear mongering BS being spread about Iran today than ever.

[+and-then]

Even granted airborne refueling which someone is going to have to provide present-day evidence for them even having, if they think they're going to attack Iran in serial sorties in onesies and twosies so to tank on the way in and out, they'll be blown out of the sky with that kind of time requirement, lack of surprise, not to mention being massively outnumbered by Iran's air defenses over enemy airspace. That's just patently stupid and the IDF won't be dumb enough to even entertain such a mission. I'd give the mission a near zero percent chance of success and that's not even taking into account they don't have any weapons capable of doing diddly squat. The optimism doth spilleth over I'm afraid.

Hell, Yam, you may be right. But I don't think so. The Israeli's, with the exception of the last two dances with the Hamas and Hizballah, have done some pretty inventive and unsusupected things in their conflicts. From what little info leaked out I recall that the Syrians never even knew they were being attacked until it was too late. They had roughly the same air defense doctrine and equipment from the Russians as Iran now does. Their "secret" reactor was a smoking hole before their radars even told them there was a problem. Iran does have better systems but I wouldn't rely too much on those. Unfortunately their almost certainly be Israeli losses if they have to attack. But Parsip is correct about the amount of damage that can be inflicted. And Iran will NOT massively retaliate. They just won't do it. If they do they invite an American response that destabilizes their regime. But they still could come out smelling of roses politically. Once they can cry victimhood they get the sanctions dropped and start to rebuild... It's a damned mess and only gets worse if Iran decides to actually assemble a weapon. It's foolishness to assume at this point that that is not their goal.

Iran will probably not be able to resist some terror strikes in the region but they won't want to leave obvious fingerprints.

I STILL think Syria will be the spark that sets the region on fire though.

The Israelis have a history of optimism. Remember '47,'56,'67',73,'82?

Edited March 22, 2012 by and then

[Parsip]

LOL

And what magical weapon from the planet Kolob are they going to use to destroy those facilities, pray tell?

Bottom line: They need the US no matter how that rotten cake gets cut. They need the USAF to refuel, unless they've practiced their carrier landings which they haven't. Unless Iraq allows them use of their airfields, nevermind letting Israeli jets fly over Iraqi airspace in the first place (LOL).

Please cite your evidence that Iran's air defense system is outdated when compared to Israeli aircraft. Of course their air defenses are going to provide not just a challenge but an unacceptable risk. Hauling magical mystery weapons to the target with no fuel for combat maneuvering, no afterburner, no dogfighting, no air to air loadout. What's Iraq going to do, protect Israeli jets when Iran is hard after them and blowing their tails off? If Israel wants to start a world war and suffer 25-50% losses doing mouse-fart damage that isn't going to "destroy" anything, I say bombs away! Otherwise, let's pass the kool aid to the lip-stained masses who believe the nonsense the establishment tells them.

Israel can't do diddly squat to Iran and it knows it. That's why the US's biggest enemy in the world, Israel, is going to do everything in its power to once again drag the US into another bloody war of nonsense in the Middle East on its behalf. Just watch the news. There's more fear mongering BS being spread about Iran today than ever.

I don't know what Israel would use; that's their decision. All we know is what they, and Iran, have. That information is freely available on the internet. Why ask me? You're free to do your own Google searches of what types of aircraft, bombs, SAMs, radar systems that any country possesses. I'll help you a bit: Israel may use F-15s and F-16s, and Iran may use their SA-5s! You can look up the rest.

[MichaelW]

It's also a joke that Israel can attack Iran's nuclear facilities. After all of these years of media embarrassments, it still amazes me how long such BS can be spread around in the media and repeated ad nauseum till it's taken seriously by the politicians, punditry, and people who don't have a clue what they're talking about as usual.

Israel will need to takeoff and land in Iraq if they want to strike Iran, and if the IDF wants to do meaningful damage to Iran's nuclear facilities they'll need to rent the B-52 bombers they're not trained to operate. And good luck surviving Iran's air defenses flying B-52s deep into their airspace. Face it. Israel attacking Iran is kool aid. It is nonsense. It is par for the course that the ignorant masses chew. Only the US is capable of damaging Iran's nuclear facilities and since we all bow down to lick the dirty feet of Israel it won't surprise me one bit if our shills actually do.

This is why people should do a little research before making statements like this. Firstly, Israel doesn't have B-52's and no aircraft of the type are based in the Middle East. Secondly, Iran's AA defences are in serious need of a refurbishment and could easily be defeated with precision airstrikes and up-to-date electronic countermeasures and jamming devices. Yes, they do field more modern systems but these are too few in number and too precious for the Iranians to deploy to protect anything less than the most vital and important sites which could be targets. Thirdly, Israel doesn't need to attack Iran from the air. It has plenty of bunkerbusting and ballistic missiles in its sumbarine fleet, all of which can slip in and out of the Arabian Gulf before the Iranians can retaliate.

So, once again Yamato, leave the military talk to people who know what they are talking about.

[DarkHunter]

It always does help to do a bit of research before one post on military matters.

This is a video I found of a bunker buster Israel developed http://freebeacon.com/israel-military-improves-new-bunker-buster-missile/

This website seems to go into more detail about the bunker buster but I don't have the time to read it all http://www.agile-news.com/news-1097571-Israel-will-equip-light-bunker-killer.html

As for Iran's AA abilities and aircraft, it seems to be rather lacking. The vast majority of their AA abilities seems rather dated at best, it appears most of the SAMs are from 1970 technology or just upgraded verisons of 1970 SAMs with a few exceptions of more recent designs. Iran's air force also appears to be lacking compared to Israel, Israel got F-15s (193 when all variances are added together)and F-16s (203 when are variances are added together), while Iran has for air-superiority F-14s (25), Mirage F1 (10), MiG 29s (25), for interceptors they got F-7M Airguard (20). When it comes to air superiority it appears Israel has a decisive advantage.

Then you get the reports of Israel trying or getting depending on the source bunker busters from the US along with refueling aircraft.

This is all assuming Israel would not use drones or their navy to strike at Iran if they decide to pursue that course of action.

[Yamato]

I don't know what Israel would use; that's their decision. All we know is what they, and Iran, have. That information is freely available on the internet. Why ask me? You're free to do your own Google searches of what types of aircraft, bombs, SAMs, radar systems that any country possesses. I'll help you a bit: Israel may use F-15s and F-16s, and Iran may use their SA-5s! You can look up the rest.

I see absolutely no evidence that suggests F-16s or F-15s are invulnerable to Iranian air power or air defenses. If you think they're limited to SA-5s you need to do homework.

And you don't know what Israel would use nor does anyone else. But they don't think about that, they just think right over it because they're too intellectually lazy not to believe the nonsense they're told 500 times on TV.

[Yamato]

It always does help to do a bit of research before one post on military matters.

This is a video I found of a bunker buster Israel developed http://freebeacon.com/israel-military-improves-new-bunker-buster-missile/

This website seems to go into more detail about the bunker buster but I don't have the time to read it all http://www.agile-news.com/news-1097571-Israel-will-equip-light-bunker-killer.html

As for Iran's AA abilities and aircraft, it seems to be rather lacking. The vast majority of their AA abilities seems rather dated at best, it appears most of the SAMs are from 1970 technology or just upgraded verisons of 1970 SAMs with a few exceptions of more recent designs. Iran's air force also appears to be lacking compared to Israel, Israel got F-15s (193 when all variances are added together)and F-16s (203 when are variances are added together), while Iran has for air-superiority F-14s (25), Mirage F1 (10), MiG 29s (25), for interceptors they got F-7M Airguard (20). When it comes to air superiority it appears Israel has a decisive advantage.

Then you get the reports of Israel trying or getting depending on the source bunker busters from the US along with refueling aircraft.

This is all assuming Israel would not use drones or their navy to strike at Iran if they decide to pursue that course of action.

Israel needs the US; that's the point. It needs the US politically, militarily, and logistically.

Israeli jets are 1970s technology. An F-4E Phantom is perfectly capable of running down and destroying an F-15 or F-16L especially when they don't have fuel to fight. Hauling fantasy payloads across fantasy ranges and ignoring every glaringly obvious obstacle to having any manner of success makes these missions impossible. If Israel is imprudent and wants to threaten their own people to no good effect, actually striking Iran would be a good way to do it. Otherwise the usual saber rattling and war mongering trying to get the US involved is smart politics when you're an Israeli bureaucrat. Israel can defend itself but what it can't do is strike Iran and expect the resulting hardening of Iran's resolve to play out in its favor. If Israel strikes Iran, Iran probably will develop the bomb eventually.

If Israel expands its tanker fleet of elderly 707s, if it produces large numbers of 500lb bunker busters and carries a disproportionate amount of external fuel to the target and back, if it gets clearance to fly over Iraqi airspace, if it is capable of attacking with surprise, and if, if and if...then a small amount of damage to Iranian nuclear facilities could hypothetically be done. Unfortunately for the kool aid drinkers it does not have these capabilities at this time so fantasize faster with that right hand. If anyone's happy with a temporary delay in Iran's legal nuclear program it has the right to pursue together with a long term buttressing and acceleration of it, then Israel won't repeat these strikes again, and again, and again, and again to be any manner of meaningful over time.

[Yamato]

This is why people should do a little research before making statements like this. Firstly, Israel doesn't have B-52's and no aircraft of the type are based in the Middle East. Secondly, Iran's AA defences are in serious need of a refurbishment and could easily be defeated with precision airstrikes and up-to-date electronic countermeasures and jamming devices. Yes, they do field more modern systems but these are too few in number and too precious for the Iranians to deploy to protect anything less than the most vital and important sites which could be targets. Thirdly, Israel doesn't need to attack Iran from the air. It has plenty of bunkerbusting and ballistic missiles in its sumbarine fleet, all of which can slip in and out of the Arabian Gulf before the Iranians can retaliate.

So, once again Yamato, leave the military talk to people who know what they are talking about.

LOL you're dreaming the amazing dream. I've never seen you as one to know about military issues. Are you even serving? You're the perfect age to do so.

Firstly, Israel needing to rent B-52s obviously implied they don't have any, so why are you telling me that?

Secondly, they're striking Iranian SAM sites with airstrikes too? Now you're really getting kool aid stained. You're going to have so many targets to hit and so many bombs required to hit them with there won't be much left to carry out the fantasy mission of destroying the out-of-range nuclear sites with the magic weapons Israel doesn't even have. The element of surprise will be gone with the wind too, and having Iranian interceptors in your face a thousand miles from home with no fuel to fight is so laughable and ludicrous only the unschooled naive who believe what they hear on TV would believe it.

If the most important sites are protected with modern systems then that makes my point for me as well. The strikes are meaningless when the valuable targets are protected. And the valuable targets are protected by so many layers of protection, it's a kool aid picnic hearing you self-proclaimed military experts yammer on about how easy it is.

As for your claims about the quantity and quality of Iranian air defenses, provide the source you have that verifies what you claim. As for your claims about Israeli submarines and what they will or would do to Iran, provide your source please.

[Yamato]

Hell, Yam, you may be right. But I don't think so. The Israeli's, with the exception of the last two dances with the Hamas and Hizballah, have done some pretty inventive and unsusupected things in their conflicts. From what little info leaked out I recall that the Syrians never even knew they were being attacked until it was too late. They had roughly the same air defense doctrine and equipment from the Russians as Iran now does. Their "secret" reactor was a smoking hole before their radars even told them there was a problem. Iran does have better systems but I wouldn't rely too much on those. Unfortunately their almost certainly be Israeli losses if they have to attack. But Parsip is correct about the amount of damage that can be inflicted. And Iran will NOT massively retaliate. They just won't do it. If they do they invite an American response that destabilizes their regime. But they still could come out smelling of roses politically. Once they can cry victimhood they get the sanctions dropped and start to rebuild... It's a damned mess and only gets worse if Iran decides to actually assemble a weapon. It's foolishness to assume at this point that that is not their goal.

Iran will probably not be able to resist some terror strikes in the region but they won't want to leave obvious fingerprints.

I STILL think Syria will be the spark that sets the region on fire though.

The Israelis have a history of optimism. Remember '47,'56,'67',73,'82?

The Middle East is always a mess, that's why many of us need to figure out what Reagan really thought about it and emulate him instead of listening to these neocon Republicans who can't stop making up lies about Reagan citing a fantasy President that never existed.

I see no good reason why Iran would have ever stopped building or how their facilities aren't spread out over many locations we don't even know about.

Syria should be at war with Israel right now due to Israel starting a war on them. By our standards and what we'd do to any country that bombed us, Syria is unpatriotic, pacifist, cowardly, and treasonous not to counterattack Israel for its aggression. A surprise attack on one site in Syria has nothing in common with these fantasy strikes on Iran which would let us ignore the difficulties I've laid out on this thread. Unless we're all for Israel being foolish. Right now I'm sure Israel is calculating the probability of the US defending its sorry rear after it foolishly escalated the threat against itself with these lustful attacks on Iran.

[+and-then]

Israel needs the US; that's the point. It needs the US politically, militarily, and logistically.

Israeli jets are 1970s technology. An F-4E Phantom is perfectly capable of running down and destroying an F-15 or F-16L especially when they don't have fuel to fight. Hauling fantasy payloads across fantasy ranges and ignoring every glaringly obvious obstacle to having any manner of success makes these missions impossible. If Israel is imprudent and wants to threaten their own people to no good effect, actually striking Iran would be a good way to do it. Otherwise the usual saber rattling and war mongering trying to get the US involved is smart politics when you're an Israeli bureaucrat. Israel can defend itself but what it can't do is strike Iran and expect the resulting hardening of Iran's resolve to play out in its favor. If Israel strikes Iran, Iran probably will develop the bomb eventually.

If Israel expands its tanker fleet of elderly 707s, if it produces large numbers of 500lb bunker busters and carries a disproportionate amount of external fuel to the target and back, if it gets clearance to fly over Iraqi airspace, if it is capable of attacking with surprise, and if, if and if...then a small amount of damage to Iranian nuclear facilities could hypothetically be done. Unfortunately for the kool aid drinkers it does not have these capabilities at this time so fantasize faster with that right hand. If anyone's happy with a temporary delay in Iran's legal nuclear program it has the right to pursue together with a long term buttressing and acceleration of it, then Israel won't repeat these strikes again, and again, and again, and again to be any manner of meaningful over time.

Iraq has no air defense and at best could hinder the strike by informing Iran a few minutes before the bombs started falling. If Israel is bluffing on this strike then so be it. The fact is that they don't NEED to be able to finish the job. Once it begins all of Uncle Sam's toys will come into play with the exception of the really big ones. These strikes would take days. Maybe weeks. At the end of that time the only infrastructure Iran would have would be what we chose to leave them. Fortunately for the US and Israel people like you don't yet have ascendency. What will happen, will happen. Syria is the place to watch. Iran will not attack Israel except in small mean ways like murdering school children or families on holiday. But when they send their proxies in... Israel may just shake up the game.

[MichaelW]

LOL you're dreaming the amazing dream. I've never seen you as one to know about military issues. Are you even serving? You're the perfect age to do so.

I did consider it actually. But I'm not fit enough for active service, although I am quite the sharpshooter. Both my brother, my cousin and one of my friends also want to or have considered serving in the Navy and Army (the RNZAF has nothing going for it) and my father has served in the Territorials, so, not forntline service. And even if I did, the chances of serving in Afghanistan would be slim, seeing as we're beginning the handover process in Bamiyan Province. I'd probably end up in the Solomons or East Timor.

Firstly, Israel needing to rent B-52s obviously implied they don't have any, so why are you telling me that?

I assumed that you assumed they had them.

Secondly, they're striking Iranian SAM sites with airstrikes too?

It was a suggestion. Although with the type of missiles the Israelis, these would be irrelevant.

You're going to have so many targets to hit and so many bombs required to hit them with there won't be much left to carry out the fantasy mission of destroying the out-of-range nuclear sites with the magic weapons Israel doesn't even have.

Not with electronic countermeasures.

The element of surprise will be gone with the wind too, and having Iranian interceptors in your face a thousand miles from home with no fuel to fight is so laughable and ludicrous only the unschooled naive who believe what they hear on TV would believe it.

Please. Any aircraft the IRIAF is outdated and verging on the edge of obsolecence. Hell, even the Emirati Air Force or the RSAF would have the same chances of penetrating Iranian

If the most important sites are protected with modern systems then that makes my point for me as well. The strikes are meaningless when the valuable targets are protected. And the valuable targets are protected by so many layers of protection, it's a kool aid picnic hearing you self-proclaimed military experts yammer on about how easy it is.

The systems, however, are few in number. That was my point.

As for your claims about the quantity and quality of Iranian air defenses, provide the source you have that verifies what you claim. As for your claims about Israeli submarines and what they will or would do to Iran, provide your source please.

As you wish. The IRIAF uses the following aircraft as air superiority fighters:

• Grumman F-14A "Tomcat": 79 aircraft received in 1976. The F-14A is the basic first model which the Iranians have not uprgaded.
  
• Dassault Mirage F1: Probably the most competent aircraft in the air superiority role the Iranians have. However, these are ex-Iraqi aircraft which were export variants.
  
• Mikoyan-Gruevich MiG-29C/UB: Probably one of the training models used in the IRIAF, which as no radar.
  

Then they have the following for fighter aircraft:

• McDonnell-Douglas F4D/E Phantom II: Basic versions which entered service in the 1960's. Not upgraded.
  
• Northrop F-5A/B/E Tiger: A mix of variants here with some trainers and some original aircraft from the 1960's. Some may have been upgraded to have radar or more modern radar systems.
  
• HESA Saeqeh: Developed from Northrop F-5 Tiger. Iran claims it is like the F/A-18 Hornet, although this claim is dubious simply due to the size and constraints of the original F-5 Tiger.
  

And those are the fighters. Iran also posesses a few outdated interceptor aircraft from China.

And now for the anti-air systems:

• MIM-23 Hawk: Basic missile MIM-23A variant operated by Iranian air defences. Not upgraded.
  
• SA-15 "Tor-M1": One of the more competent systems the Iranian air defence network fields. 29 launchers in service.
  
• SA-5/S-200: Variants operated not known. May be more basic versions.
  
• SA-2/HQ-2: Fairly basic and outdated system in use. Easily countered by more modern electronic countermeasures.
  
• SA-6: Reports of eight systems transferred in the late 1990's. Status is unknown.
  
• HQ-7: Probably capable Chinese SAM system.
  
• RBS-70: Swedish MANPADS system.
  
• SA-7: Soviet MANPADS system.
  
• SA-18: Soviet MANPADS system.
  

That's pretty much it. Now for the Israeli Navy, which operates three Dolphin-class submarines which are equipped with variants of the Rafael Popeye missile, which the USAF uses to equip its B-52H heavy bombers. The Popeye is also compatible with fighter bombers, making it suitable for air missions flown by the aircraft in service with the IAF.

[Yamato]

Iraq has no air defense and at best could hinder the strike by informing Iran a few minutes before the bombs started falling. If Israel is bluffing on this strike then so be it. The fact is that they don't NEED to be able to finish the job. Once it begins all of Uncle Sam's toys will come into play with the exception of the really big ones. These strikes would take days. Maybe weeks. At the end of that time the only infrastructure Iran would have would be what we chose to leave them. Fortunately for the US and Israel people like you don't yet have ascendency. What will happen, will happen. Syria is the place to watch. Iran will not attack Israel except in small mean ways like murdering school children or families on holiday. But when they send their proxies in... Israel may just shake up the game.

Air defense is what would allow Iraq to inform Iran in the first place. Your cart blanch acceptance of the US getting dragged into another Zionist bloodbath is disgusting. Israel is abject impotent to act on its own. If it didn't have the US to come to its rescue after it kicks up a hornets nest of anger against it across the region its mistake will be even bigger than I said it is. If Israel wants war without end that dumba$$ Americans who support it will wind up having to pay and bleed for, this kind of baseless idiocy on display in this reply would accomplish that.

[+and-then]

Air defense is what would allow Iraq to inform Iran in the first place. Your cart blanch acceptance of the US getting dragged into another Zionist bloodbath is disgusting. Israel is abject impotent to act on its own. If it didn't have the US to come to its rescue after it kicks up a hornets nest of anger against it across the region its mistake will be even bigger than I said it is. If Israel wants war without end that dumba$$ Americans who support it will wind up having to pay and bleed for, this kind of baseless idiocy on display in this reply would accomplish that.

No, Yam, actually RADAR would inform them, if it isn't being passively jammed somehow. While radar is a vital component of air defense it hardly is the totality of it.

Roughly more than half would support helping Israel in such a scenario. I'm sure they all fall into your definition of mouth breathing, one eyebrow types but fortunately you don't get to decide. Don't you have some RP sites to visit? Have a cool drink and relax, Yam. The good news is that the world doesn't end if Iran gets mouth punched by us or Israel. Not sure the same could be said if RP actually got elected