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.

 

Could Israel win against Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
cjf

posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
i bet even for the next 2 years the same people are going to say U.S is gonna attack us soon or isreal will attack next month etc......


There are two very dangerous and basic items for Iran to consider in regards to the US and a timeline.

1. The US congressional elections, November 7, 2006.
2. Lame duck president

Concerning the elections of November 7, 2006, I would be very attentive after this date.

.




posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
Yeah, but the United States wouldnt actually use them unless someone launched them first. In Iran there is a bunch of fundamentalists ready to kill some westerners.


they have lots of bio weapons already which is just as affective
so saying they would use nukes doesnt work

so if they were going to use nukes they would have used their bio weapons already in a first strike



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
Yeah, but the United States wouldnt actually use them unless someone launched them first. In Iran there is a bunch of fundamentalists ready to kill some westerners.


And america doesn't have its extremist?

Anyhow americans can destory more than nukes can with conventional weapons



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
But what I'm saying is that if Iran threatened the world directly. Like in an offensive way. NK at least claims that its for defense. What does Iran need protection wrong. All Iran needs nukes for is to be a bully.


No , Israel is ready to use them , so they could justify the need for them.

IMO , Iran allready have one, probably from Pakistan . And if they get the reactor working and then either the usa or israel bomb it , then there will be major trouble.



posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
But what I'm saying is that if Iran threatened the world directly. Like in an offensive way. NK at least claims that its for defense. What does Iran need protection wrong. All Iran needs nukes for is to be a bully.


I am always amazed by the amount of hostility that is always projected onto Iran. In particular the constant threat the USA sees in that country. One can have many opinions on that matter, be it pro and con, but by looking at the plain facts it seems that Iran is surely not the worst horse in the stable.

Lets see:
- Bad blood between the USA is mainly credited to the undisputably arrogant US intervention into national politics - a foreign policy experiment that has gone terribly wrong and is still carried on today (think of the disgraceful "Axis-of-Evil" brandmarking). Most later problems can be directly traced back to these events. Maybe it would help to deescalate if the USA as well as the UK finally admitted their big historical mistakes?

- Which country would not see the need for deterrance in the same position as Iran? Lets face it: Israel is in attack range. The US has a strong presence at most of their borders. It is easily accesible by sea from north and south. It cant rely on the help of countries like Turkey (orientated to the EU), Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan (both engaging in strong cooperation with US) nor the ex soviet states which most probably would walk the road Russia chosed.

- Though certainly not being an angel, all major military threats and engagements in the Middle East of the past decades have not originated from or even were directed AGAINST Iran. And lets not forget that their main enemies (Israel and Iraq) both act/acted with support from the US (and Europe in case of the first Gulf War)

The problem I see is the constant state of fear of its neighbours Iran is kept in. For most people security comes before liberty, and as long as Iranians are feeling directly threatened we wont see deescalation on Irans part nor civil development - which would be the only reliable way to erase Iran from the minefield map (something we possibly could have achieved 50 years ago if not for international intervention)


cjf

posted on Oct, 3 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
But what I'm saying is that if Iran threatened the world directly. Like in an offensive way. NK at least claims that its for defense. What does Iran need protection wrong. All Iran needs nukes for is to be a bully.



Errr...a...could it also be Iran’s flagrant historical statements. I’m sorry, wrong thread…..

….Oh yeah, the US is always evil no matter what, period…..



.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
What? First, your quote is a statement that I have not written. That was said by truttseeker on the first page. And second, where did I put any undue blame on the US? Or call it evil?

Do you deny that the USA tried and did plan and assist to overthrow a democratically elected government of Iran and helped to install an US and UK friendly monarch again? And do you deny that this among other things is a valid source of unrest?

Anyway, back to topic. Just this friday 3 top Israelian Parliament members on tour in the US threatened to take care of Iran alone if other powers didnt call Iran to step down with full determination. Which is a completely hollow threat. After all, Israel cannot "win" against Iran, and that of several reasons. First reason would be that for one side to win, there needs to be a side that is defeated. And defeat can only arise from an open war. Israel neither has the manpower, nor the equipment, nor the resources, nor the logistics for that.

It also wouldnt be possible to have a little sneaky airstrike like against Osirak. That was one unfinished reactor not far from the border. Iran has over a dozen known nuclear installations, and some of them as bunkers. AND they are scattered across a country 4 times larger than Iraq. AND they couldnt even get there: The only possible way would lead through Iraq, and anything but a Veto from the USA would be extremely stupid; because if the US did not Veto the penetration of Iraqi airspace that would automatically make them a supporter of Israels action.

And if THAT happened the ensuing chaos could be compared to the current "crisis" like a ventilator compares to "Katrina".



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Anyway, back to topic. Just this friday 3 top Israelian Parliament members on tour in the US threatened to take care of Iran alone if other powers didnt call Iran to step down with full determination. Which is a completely hollow threat. After all, Israel cannot "win" against Iran, and that of several reasons.


They didn't mean to attack and defeat Iran
They're talking about taking out nuclear related complexes. BUt if they wanted to ' obliterate ' Iran they could. They hvae between 200-600 nuclear weapons ( and these aren't the crude devices Arab countries have pursued ) and the means to deliver them to any Arab country. Their Jericho II IRBM carry a warhead of over 1 MT.



First reason would be that for one side to win, there needs to be a side that is defeated. And defeat can only arise from an open war. Israel neither has the manpower, nor the equipment, nor the resources, nor the logistics for that.


As above, use some common sense, duh.



It also wouldnt be possible to have a little sneaky airstrike like against Osirak. That was one unfinished reactor not far from the border. Iran has over a dozen known nuclear installations, and some of them as bunkers.


Hence, why the Israeli's put in a big order for bunker buster casings with the US.



AND they are scattered across a country 4 times larger than Iraq. AND they couldnt even get there: The only possible way would lead through Iraq, and anything but a Veto from the USA would be extremely stupid; because if the US did not Veto the penetration of Iraqi airspace that would automatically make them a supporter of Israels action.


Static targets make easy targets, doesn't matter how scttered they are. The ISraeli's could quite easily launch an airstrike through Turkey crossing the Iranian boarder there. After Israel and Turkey have a very close military relationship.



[edit on 4-10-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

They didn't mean to attack and defeat Iran
They're talking about taking out nuclear related complexes. BUt if they wanted to ' obliterate ' Iran they could. They hvae between 200-600 nuclear weapons ( and these aren't the crude devices Arab countries have pursued ) and the means to deliver them to any Arab country. Their Jericho II IRBM carry a warhead of over 1 MT.

[...]

Static targets make easy targets, doesn't matter how scttered they are. The ISraeli's could quite easily launch an airstrike through Turkey crossing the Iranian boarder there. After Israel and Turkey have a very close military relationship.


In case you haven´t noticed, this thread has a title. This title says "COULD ISRAEL WIN AGAINST IRAN". I was responding to that. Hence I said "Back to topic".

And what would you expect to happen if Israel launched a preemptive nuclear first strike? Do you think the other Middle Eastern nations would just stand by and watch? A nuclear attack of whatever dimension in that region would put the whole western world in turmoil, and Israel knows that as well. As one side effect the USA would also have to stop their support of Israel to protect its own interests.

And I would strongly guess that Turkey, be they buddies or not, would not allow an armada as huge as is needed for this task simply pass over their airspace. No, it wont be so easy. And yes, a static target is an easy target. But it DOES matter how scattered they are. Take a look here. It is impossible to reach most of these installations without travelling over hostile land for a prolonged time. Do you expect the Iranians to stand by and watch as soon as the first reports of an attack start to trickle in? Keep in mind that the nuclear installations are often part of larger military complexes, and these should be about the best protected places in that country.

Military intervention from whatever side is simply no alternative in case of Iran. You asked me to use common sense. I return this advice.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
In case you haven´t noticed, this thread has a title. This title says "COULD ISRAEL WIN AGAINST IRAN". I was responding to that. Hence I said "Back to topic".

And what would you expect to happen if Israel launched a preemptive nuclear first strike? Do you think the other Middle Eastern nations would just stand by and watch?


What choice would they really have except to wage war on Israel through their terrorist proxies. They wouldn't dare move on Israel with their militaries.



And I would strongly guess that Turkey, be they buddies or not, would not allow an armada as huge as is needed for this task simply pass over their airspace.


Who said anything about an armada ? How big is this armada of yours ?
The IAF would have much more success using 4-6 plane strike packages flying nap of the earth.


No, it wont be so easy. And yes, a static target is an easy target. But it DOES matter how scattered they are. Take a look here. It is impossible to reach most of these installations without travelling over hostile land for a prolonged time. Do you expect the Iranians to stand by and watch as soon as the first reports of an attack start to trickle in?


By the time the first reports come in the attack would be over. Also, you only need to hit several key targets to put Iran's nuclear ambitions on hold. If the reactor is hit, then that alon could take years to repair. Or they could use there very impressive covert ops units, after all hey blew up Saddams reactor fuel core in France for his Osirak Reactor which they later bombed.
PS. Irans airspace isn't nearly as well defended as you make it out to be, it's not as though they have radar coverage over the whole country



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1


They didn't mean to attack and defeat Iran
They're talking about taking out nuclear related complexes. BUt if they wanted to ' obliterate ' Iran they could. They hvae between 200-600 nuclear weapons ( and these aren't the crude devices Arab countries have pursued ) and the means to deliver them to any Arab country. Their Jericho II IRBM carry a warhead of over 1 MT.




[edit on 4-10-2005 by rogue1]



They HAVE a 1 MT warhead?? W/o EVER having tested ANY nuke??!!
They DO NOT have the processing power to simulate a test of that yield..
(I doubt anybody does)...You at least need to have a a >40 kiloton yield test(thermonuclear) and then you can probably extrapolate for greater yields..
All this is reqd if you have an indigenous nuke program..
That 1 MT weapon could only have come from "foreign" sources..

And we talk of NPTs and CTBTs..



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I am a Turkish who is interested in middle east power balances. If you remember US declared that "If Iran produce Nuclear Power Plant,US will strike " after few days from this declaration Russia declared that they have produced a new atomic bomb that no one can imagine and after that China declared that any strike to Iran will also danger China and China will not sit still to the situation.Because Russia,China and Iran has very much economic assets together ,and most in energy. After that US put cotas in petrol to China and declared that US will position their Pacific Gunship and Aircraft Ships fleets in Japan
Are they coinsidence? Of course not ,the main problem is economic , as always , and the lack of energy sources. Well invasion of Iran can trigger an another world war.But Israel only can bomb some plants ineffectively , any ground force strike will be eleminated by Iran Army cos , Iran Army is big as Turkish Army and also they are well trained and has many good generals who have fougth with Iraq for 8 years.And also you can not divide Iran cos they are all persian and Shii .. Iran defended their borders against Iraq but in any war condition I presume that Iran will want to invade North Iraq to eleminate Kurdish terrorists . In this matters Turkiye (2. Powerful Army in Nato after US )and Suriye (not a big force ) will not sound to this action . But US will not let Iran to stay long cos there are 2 very big oil resources in North Iraq .Nor US will take it with brute force in North or after a big war in Middle east Turkey or Iran will .Iran But in both cases Kurdish Terrorist will be wiped away forever .And Israel will not get and advance cos Iran is full of mountains and changeable weather , no one can advance in Iran as did in Iraq. But if Israel just strikes alone they can only win in air(cos Israel pilot are well trained by Turkish Air Forces and Turkish aircrafts are modernised by Israel ) , but nor Israel nor US nor Turkiye can not invade Iran . Iran will defend their borders .. But in this war Syriya can be invaded by Israel .But I dont know if will Turkiye want Israel and America near their borders cos the %80 of the most energic mineral "Bore" is in Turkiye.Turkiye will not be comfortable .... Thats why Turkiye will possibly advande in Syria and Iraq to create a dumper field ... Well these are only my imagination ,I wish nothing hanneps , no one dies. But dont run away from Turkish army ,you will just die tired
see u pals



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
But Americas agressive take overs can lead the whole world into another World War
1. and 2. World wars are because of the Germans wanted French cole energy , will 3. be middle east petrol?



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barbarossa
...1. and 2. World wars are because of the Germans wanted French cole energy , ...


Sure...

Coal is about the only major resource Germany has an abundance of.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
The problem faced is that Israel and the US really don't want Iran to have nukes. However, this war has the potential to escalate. When the US attacked Afghanistan and Iran, no other country intervened, at least not overtly.

The problem here is that an Israeli attack on Iran, will probably lead to an Iranian retaliation against both the US and Israel. The US will be forced to respond with an invasion of Iran. If that is all, Iran might be able to launch some nasty terrorist attacks against the US, but the world will probably survive.

The problem woud be if other countries decide to assist Iran. If China or Russia intervenes it could lead to World War III. Europe's oil supply would be threatened. Now, the only way Europe could remain neutral would be for Russia to remain neutral, and rely on Russian oil. However, realigning against the US would probably be made difficult by US control over NATO.

If China gets involved, I think the US might just be able to drag in Japan. You now have an Asian front, which likely involves North Korea, and all the countries in Asia will get more or less dragged into it.

If all of that happens, you have to wonder how long it will be until the nukes along with whatever along every blackops weapon starts flying around the world. Does the world survive under this scenario? I don't know.

The most dangerous thing is for countries to underestimate thier opponents. Big wars often get started when great powers line up to defend their weaker allies. That is how WW I got started. Hopefully, the world leaders won't make this mistake.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
Yeah, but the United States wouldnt actually use them unless someone launched them first.


Ok. Can u please point out exactly where japans nukes landed on mainland us?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
But what I'm saying is that if Iran threatened the world directly. Like in an offensive way. NK at least claims that its for defense. What does Iran need protection wrong. All Iran needs nukes for is to be a bully.


Not true, Iran has or has had major tensions with 3-6 states armed with nuclear and other powerful weapons. Not having the capability to retaliate in a significant way is a major problem and leaves them open for massive bullying just as the USSR was open to bullying by the USA prior to 1949.

India, Israel, Pakistan, Iraq, USA and Russia have all at some time had problems with Iran and all 6 have also had 'weapons of mass destruction' at some point. 3 of these nations have threatened Iran publicly with these weapons and 1 of these nations has used them against Iran.

This gives them 6 very good reasons to get nuclear weapons for self defence. It is very similar to the situation faced by North Korea. They are bordered by South Korea, a nation with a much more powerful economy and military that is backed by the USA. The USA considers its peace accord in the Korean war to be temporary and has stated numerous times that it wants to attack North Korea. Hence nuclear weapons for defence.

Sure nuclear weapons are a great bullying weapon but only if you're the only one with them / won't face international condemnation for using them. Iran and North Korea would both open themselves right up for invasion if they were to use said weapons. They'd basically be giving their rivals and enemies the green light and their allies the stop sign. Who would want to align themselves with North Korea after they'd just killed 10 million for no good reason? Not China or Russia, thats for sure.

As for the question raised by this thread. Its a good one and I believe the answer is no. Israel couldn't get the USA involved just as the USA couldn't get Israel involved in the UN sanctioned war against Iraq (1990/91). If the USA is seen to align itself with Israel against Muslim nations it will lose a lot of international credibilty and support from its allies (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia). So Israel would be on their own. On their own they would have a lot of troubles even in the air. But I don't have time to comment further on that unfortunately.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Sorry to interupt your thread, but I am more than a little confused.

Some of you are expounding a theory that if Iran proceeds with it's nuclear programme (as a soverign state it is perfectly entitled to do so) then Israel is going to what?

Start a war with Iran by bombing crap out of it? Invade Iran with ground forces? Nuke Iran with one of it's alledged 2 free fall nuclear bombs?

Get those stupid dumb Americans to bomb Iran
! Yeah right!

Get those stupid dumb Americans to invade Iran
! Yeah Right!

If they (Israel) do start a war with Iran and invades, the Iranians will retaliate by firing off their S-300s at them? (Do you really imagine that 10,000 odd S-300 Old SAM - 12 GAINFUL anti-aircraft missiles are going to deter a nuclear state?)

How?

Or will they use their well developed weapons of mass destruction? What weapons of mass destruction?

You guys must really stop believing what that looney Bush and his doggy Blair tell you.

Biological and chemical agents are NOT, REPEAT NOT weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Biological agents are at best, a rear echelon theatre weapon. But, given the temperature variations of the region, the lack of humidity and the average hours of brilliant sunlight, their value would almost be none existent.

Chemical agents on the other hand, provided they were of the thickened variety such as Tabun (TGD) and Soman (TGB) could be used.

However, even if thickened, they would be next to useless because, in the bright light and heat, they would evapourate too readily and only provide a short term Downwind Vapour Hazard (DVH)

I also do not believe that the Iranians have enough tubed artillery or missiles to deliver an attack concentration to a limited target area in order to achieve a reliable kill ratio.

Gases would be next to useless and would only present a danger to those who discharged the canisters. Phosgene could be used against trenches or bunkers but their effects would, in the heat of the day, be negligable.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
Sorry to interupt your thread, but I am more than a little confused.

Some of you are expounding a theory that if Iran proceeds with it's nuclear programme (as a soverign state it is perfectly entitled to do so) then Israel is going to what?

Start a war with Iran by bombing crap out of it? Invade Iran with ground forces? Nuke Iran with one of it's alledged 2 free fall nuclear bombs?

Get those stupid dumb Americans to bomb Iran
! Yeah right!

Get those stupid dumb Americans to invade Iran
! Yeah Right!

If they (Israel) do start a war with Iran and invades, the Iranians will retaliate by firing off their S-300s at them? (Do you really imagine that 10,000 odd S-300 Old SAM - 12 GAINFUL anti-aircraft missiles are going to deter a nuclear state?)

How?

Or will they use their well developed weapons of mass destruction? What weapons of mass destruction?

You guys must really stop believing what that looney Bush and his doggy Blair tell you.

Biological and chemical agents are NOT, REPEAT NOT weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction.

Biological agents are at best, a rear echelon theatre weapon. But, given the temperature variations of the region, the lack of humidity and the average hours of brilliant sunlight, their value would almost be none existent.

Chemical agents on the other hand, provided they were of the thickened variety such as Tabun (TGD) and Soman (TGB) could be used.

However, even if thickened, they would be next to useless because, in the bright light and heat, they would evapourate too readily and only provide a short term Downwind Vapour Hazard (DVH)

I also do not believe that the Iranians have enough tubed artillery or missiles to deliver an attack concentration to a limited target area in order to achieve a reliable kill ratio.

Gases would be next to useless and would only present a danger to those who discharged the canisters. Phosgene could be used against trenches or bunkers but their effects would, in the heat of the day, be negligable.



your over confidence in ruussian weaponry makes me laugh their sams would be taken out the firsr day of the war even if they do build nukes israel has tech fromthe Us to intercept nukes ever hear of THAAD and MEADS and Patriot

www.lockheedmartin.com... ......meads
thaad 2 links www.lockheedmartin.com...

www.lockheedmartin.com...

patriot

www.lockheedmartin.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...

also the US would sell israel ACM 129 cruise missiles israel has their own ICBMs and JSF's modiefied to carry AMRAAMS internally israel would be well defended and Israel has a very cpaable military and is combat proven

www.jsf.mil...
www.jsf.mil...
www.jsf.mil...

theres no plns to have it carry AMRAAM internally but it can be modified to do so

also they have THEL to intercept Artillery rockets and shells

it was developed for the US and israel and any other customer



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
The amount of missiles Iran has will overwhelm most missile defence systems.

Israel has their own JSFs and ICBMs??!!
And someone said they had a 1MT warhead..
What next? Don't tell me they've already put a man on the moon??!



[edit on 4-3-2006 by Daedalus3]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join