It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US prepares for Iran war with split Nato

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by deltaboy
im sure Delta, Rangers, etc, can go deep in Iran, since smugglers seem to go deep as well.

And assualt an obviosly heavily guarded facility surounded by a hostile population?


wat makes u dink they be letting the hostile population know they are there? most of the facilities are in empty surroundings aniways to prevent possible enemies from goin near it.




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
wat makes u dink they be letting the hostile population know they are there?

The explosion from destroying the facility might attract some attention.
[qoute]
most of the facilities are in empty surroundings aniways to prevent possible enemies from goin near it.
Empty surrounding yes, near cities, no.
They will be near cities because of need for logistics, also what ever direction you turn there will be cities or towns.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The SF units would not be there for attacking anybody they would simply report on the condition of the facilities after the air strike and like I said light up targets for the bombers.

And like I said I don't think it would be easy but they can infiltrate deep into Iran. The border between Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan is long and lawless its not like there is a post every 50 feet. The only hard part might be the extraction of the SF units not their infiltration. Also our Air Force and Navy are not stretched thin, they have hardily been used.

DW look at the know nuclear facilities and their locations.

external image

Look at the location of their know missile facilities.

external image

As you can see the bulk of their nuclear/missile faculties are located near that lake in northern Iran and everything else near the border are easy targets.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

*edited pic sizes*

[edit on 15-6-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
the British government will still support the war. Most likely in small, coordinated operations with U.S. special forces.

A ground war? I don't see it coming. However, it's known fact that an Iranian air defense will not hold up against the U.S., combined with Britain.

-wD



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The SF units would not be there for attacking anybody they would simply report on the condition of the facilities after the air strike and like I said light up targets for the bombers.

Never said that, you dont think they wouldnt be searching after the attack for SF units?


And like I said I don't think it would be easy but they can infiltrate deep into Iran. The border between Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan is long and lawless its not like there is a post every 50 feet. The only hard part might be the extraction of the SF units not their infiltration. Also our Air Force and Navy are not stretched thin, they have hardily been used.

The extraction is the point though, infiltration wouldnt be too bad, extraction would be dammed near impossible.
As far as I know there isnt a stealth helicopter that can transport troops. As for walking back? look up B20.
Driveing back? Mabye, but with the iranian army comeing down on you Good luck!


DW look at the know nuclear facilities and their locations.

"Nuclear facilties" Can mean anything nuclear related, and as you can see there spread out pretty damm far.




Look at the location of their know missile facilities.



As you can see the bulk of their nuclear/missile faculties are located near that lake in northern Iran and everything else near the border are easy targets.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

Yes and you'll note they are clumped very closely together, wich would suggest there is a large base there provideing logistics and defence.
Wouldnt suprise me if a division was near there, that many bases need a hell of alot of men.
You'd need a very well co-ordinated large scale attack, takeing out 35 seperate targets, with 75 aircraft, not counting any of them not being there.

You have the bombs and the planes, I think...


Originally posted by WeBDeviL
the British government will still support the war. Most likely in small, coordinated operations with U.S. special forces.

Oh I dont think so, not after the hideing he got from the last war.


A ground war? I don't see it coming. However, it's known fact that an Iranian air defense will not hold up against the U.S., combined with Britain.

Yeah thats all fine and dandy for the guys in the sky, the poor guys on the ground have a little more than AA guns to worry about.





[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
DW 75 aircraft? One bomber or aircraft can destroy up to 3 or more targets depending on the ammunition involvement. The SF units that are deep into Iran would probably go into some remote area after the strike depending on how long it takes and get extracted by
helicopters.


Now all of this only applies if we send SF units for recon and target. Or we can choose to send in UAV’s or drones for recon and just have UAV’s doing the targeting via lasers from the air.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
DW 75 aircraft? One bomber or aircraft can destroy up to 3 or more targets depending on the ammunition involvement. The SF units that are deep into Iran would probably go into some remote area after the strike depending on how long it takes and get extracted by
helicopters.

I was listing how many stealth aircraft america has.
Also you will need more than just one paveway 2 to destroy or cripple a nuclear facility.
Now america has B-2's wich probably could do the job.

You dont relise westy that iran may be vast but once the light show starts the entire iranian arny, navy and air force will be after those teams.
For the teams attacking that large group of missile facilities they will be in the most danger, why? Because as I said a large base will most likely be near.



Now all of this only applies if we send SF units for recon and target. Or we can choose to send in UAV’s or drones for recon and just have UAV’s doing the targeting via lasers from the air.

That would be an effective startegy useing UAV's , does america have that many UAV's?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Top diplomats said that [...] US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld put in motion plans for a Britain-led Nato, excluding anti-American states like Germany, which is part of the group fronted by France, and other countries like Spain, Poland, Romania, Portugal, and the Czech Republic were brought on board.


Although the whole article seems fishy, that would be the exact type of plan one could expect from Rummy. And again, following an independent and socereign stance on any subject seems to automatically generate an aura of anti-americanness these days... I really wonder how many help US really expects from Romania and such (virtually nothing), so if these plans are true, they are not aimed at gathering more useable support for an attack, but they would be a blatant attempt to raise dissent within the EU. Shameful... and this coming from the guys that complain about being stabbed in the back by "allies" (again, IF the articles position is true). I wonder when this melodramatic black-and-white policy will come to an end.



“The idea was to keep out the Franco-German alliance, and work with other European states, who will generally accede to US plans against Iran,” said a top diplomat, and such a break in Nato will lead to further division of Europe and put the European Union in greater crisis

Diplomats said [...] a side aim was to deliver a body blow to the European Union, which was posing a challenge to the US’s hyperpower status.


And here it is, the whole thing seems to be another (although understandable on USA´s behalf) plan to prevent a more decided connection between the EU members. What I do not understand is why the repelling of the first version of the EU constitution is supposed to lead to a general break within the structure. After all, the constitution in large parts only focused together treaties that have been in effect for many years now. But thats a bit off-topic...



But before the rejection of the EU constitution set the US firmly on course against a united Europe, America was greatly upset at the election of Pope Benedict XVI, because it had not been consulted, itself preferring a Portuguese cardinal, and diplomats say Joseph Ratzinger’s case was pushed by France.


I dont get this part. Since when is the Vatican (another sovereign state BTW) supposed to consult any other nation or the USA in particular about which leader it should vote? And the remark to Ratzinger having been pushed by France is ridiculous in itself.

There is no doubt that if the Gulf War 3-opposing countries leaders come to the conclusion that Iran poses an unbearable threat, they WILL be ready for action, too. Funny thing is, the recent diplomatic efforts of the bad bad Franco-German alliance proved to be the most effective way of talking to Iran without military threats.

BTW, somehow I doubt that Israel would take an active role in such a possible conflict. They have remained remarkably silent on issues concerning the whole middle-eastern issue in the last years, probably with the goal not to be seen as even more a threat than what the mullahs describe them as of now.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
The USAF had about 50 Predators as of late 2002 and has about 65-70 as of now.
And the USAF plans to have about 51 Global Hawks by the end of O5 so they might have half that number by mid summer.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The USAF had about 50 Predators as of late 2002 and has about 65-70 as of now.
And the USAF plans to have about 51 Global Hawks by the end of O5 so they might have half that number by mid summer.

Around a hundred?
Now they'll need about 35 for the targets, you agree?
Not counting the ones needed to take out some of the defences and surounding area troops , you agree?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Deal with Afgahnistan and Iraq first before moving on to new objectives - you can`t leave an enemy to your back when you march on another front - otherwise history will repeat itself.


How complete IS the Iranian nuclear reactor? I the core IS there and its bombed - then that`ll leave a wasteland around it for thousands of years , bombing a nuclear reactor (especially a working one) is impossible to fully clean up afterwards , and is a totally different `kettle of fish` than just hitting , say a city.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Deal with Afgahnistan and Iraq first before moving on to new objectives - you can`t leave an enemy to your back when you march on another front - otherwise history will repeat itself.


How complete IS the Iranian nuclear reactor? I the core IS there and its bombed - then that`ll leave a wasteland around it for thousands of years , bombing a nuclear reactor (especially a working one) is impossible to fully clean up afterwards , and is a totally different `kettle of fish` than just hitting , say a city.

Not technically , a nuclear reactor is actually one of the safest forms of energy around.
At one hint of trouble scram the reactor and you've lost the reactor.
Be easier building a new one than repairing it.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Around a hundred?
Now they'll need about 35 for the targets, you agree?
Not counting the ones needed to take out some of the defences and surounding area troops , you agree?


No because not all of the Bombs that will be used will be laser guided most will probably be GPS. So I would say 17 not 35. Defenses would not be taken out by UAV’s probably either stealth bombers or fighter aircraft. And why do we need to hit their troops positions, their soldiers cant fly.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No because not all of the Bombs that will be used will be laser guided most will probably be GPS. So I would say 17 not 35.

You still need UAV's to give you up to date information, GPS would be one idea but exact GPS positions are probably not known.
Also 17 is far too small a number, you going to use GPS on the other 18 possible targets?




Defenses would not be taken out by UAV’s probably either stealth bombers or fighter aircraft.

No but defences would be scouted by UAV's guiding laser bombs to stealth bombers.
If you want precision fighter air craft wouldnt be the best option.


And why do we need to hit their troops positions, their soldiers cant fly.

If you use SF units you need to slow their reaction time, if just UAV's then probably not.



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

You still need UAV's to give you up to date information, GPS would be one idea but exact GPS positions are probably not known.
Also 17 is far too small a number, you going to use GPS on the other 18 possible targets?


Yes we do they are not going to move a nuclear reactor of facility over night. GPS precision now days is measures in feet. Two 5000lb or 2000lb bombs and Cruise missiles are still going to destroy that facility even if they hit 4 feet from the bulls eye.

The laser guided bombs might be used for missile sites which could potentially be moved and were you would need very good precision because they might be smaller than the nuclear facilities.


No but defences would be scouted by UAV's guiding laser bombs to stealth bombers.
If you want precision fighter air craft wouldnt be the best option.


What defense are we talking about here? Anti aircraft and radar instillations?
If were talking about those then Tomahawks and JSOW cruise missiles launched either from fighters or Naval ships will do the job.

Now as I have explained 17 UAV’s for targeting will be enough and then a add a couple of Global Hawks and Predators for intelligence and aftermath reports and were good.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes we do they are not going to move a nuclear reactor of facility over night. GPS precision now days is measures in feet. Two 5000lb or 2000lb bombs and Cruise missiles are still going to destroy that facility even if they hit 4 feet from the bulls eye.

A nuclear facility is one of the safest powerplants ever made.
Your going to need more than 2 bombs.


The laser guided bombs might be used for missile sites which could potentially be moved and were you would need very good precision because they might be smaller than the nuclear facilities.

I dont think you understand all the parts of a nuclera reactor....



What defense are we talking about here? Anti aircraft and radar instillations?
If were talking about those then Tomahawks and JSOW cruise missiles launched either from fighters or Naval ships will do the job.

Yeah that would sort them, but further inland will be difficult.


Now as I have explained 17 UAV’s for targeting will be enough and then a add a couple of Global Hawks and Predators for intelligence and aftermath reports and were good.

I'm trying to ask how are you going to know what to hit with the other 18 targets?
Satalite pictures?



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
they maybe `one fo the safeest forms of energy` but if you blast open the core , then all sorts of isotopes will spew forth - look at wormwood (chernobyl) , even now there are many areas that you just cannot go anywhere near - suit or otherwise.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
they maybe `one fo the safeest forms of energy` but if you blast open the core , then all sorts of isotopes will spew forth

The core is protected by metres of concrete, at the first sign of danger you scram the control rods and the reactor is safe.
You dont need to blast open the core, just screw up the coolant system.
Once that goes down they have to fix it or scram the reactor.



- look at wormwood (chernobyl) , even now there are many areas that you just cannot go anywhere near - suit or otherwise.

Why does everyone try and use that one?
Do you even know why chernobyl happened?
If so you would know that it has nothing do with this topic.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a normal bunker buster or the new one aka "son of moab" bye bye reactor



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
a normal bunker buster or the new one aka "son of moab" bye bye reactor

A reactor can withstand quite a large ammount of damage and frankly if you destroyed a civilian reactor then that would only prove irans inocence.

After all, nuclear reactors are not illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join