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.

 

Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Most of the underground facilities are probably so protected that even a nuclear tipped warhead would have trouble damaging them. Either deep enough or shock proofed enough.




posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
doubt Iran could stop a nuke strike even with Russian help.


I don't think Russia will interfere with the situation on this level.

And I highly doubt the US will use nukes, unless it's 100% certain Iran has some, capable of reaching US mainland. Or maybe NATO forces.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
A nuclear Iran is not a heartwarming vision.

This is an...



Underwater Response to the Iranian Nuclear Program




.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZPE StarPilot
Everything needed for WMD in part, and intent, were found in Iraq. The facilities, the paperwork, the equipment, the chemicals, and the delivery weapons.


only problems is that they were not owned by Iraq, they are owned and being used by the US forces.


seriously though I agree with you that Nuclear weapons will not be used unless Iran strike with Nukes first. Even Bush isn't stupid enough to use them.


[edit on 26-11-2005 by arnold_vosloo]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
Even Bush isn't stupid enough to use them.


I wish I had your faith in that simple statement. I do not.

My suspicion is that since we (the USA) don't have enough forces to take on another major Army, that nukes would be seen as the only choice for protecting our men in the region. I believe he will use our forces as he has in the past, this time for an excuse to attack Iran with a vengeance.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My suspicion is that since we (the USA) don't have enough forces to take on another major Army, that nukes would be seen as the only choice for protecting our men in the region. I believe he will use our forces as he has in the past, this time for an excuse to attack Iran with a vengeance.

Speaking purely militarily, the US has the means.

The US has a set of the best trained, most heavily armed and most versitile forces in the world. You name a place and the US airforce can be there probably within 24 hours. You name any sea in the world and the US navy is there.
Those are just a few exsamples.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
The US Army is sterched to its limits the air-force and navy cant fight a war by its self while the army are pinned down in Iraq/Afganistan if a war did start nuckes wouldnt be used straight away but it would come to an eventualy that the USA would use them whitch would create an interntional backlash in turn WW3



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
The US Army is sterched to its limits

In what way?
Last time I checked they had the ability to keep up the war and still have enough left to defend the country...doesnt sound like its "at its limits" to me, mabye over stretched yeah but , "to its limits"?


the air-force and navy cant fight a war by its self while the army are pinned down in Iraq/Afganistan

The navy can in a defensive war easily.
Theres only 3 ways an enemy can enter the US; land, sea and air.
Air : The USAF, on home ground, with the advantage.
Sea; The USN, second largest navy in the world (next to the merchant).
Land; I dont believe that ethier canada, russia or mexico are planning on invading the USA....correct me if I am wrong...are the mounty's ammassing?


if a war did start nuckes wouldnt be used straight away but it would come to an eventualy that the USA would use them whitch would create an interntional backlash in turn WW3

More likely the US army would pull out of iraq and afghanistan.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
The US Army is sterched to its limits

In what way?
Last time I checked they had the ability to keep up the war and still have enough left to defend the country...doesnt sound like its "at its limits" to me, mabye over stretched yeah but , "to its limits"?


the air-force and navy cant fight a war by its self while the army are pinned down in Iraq/Afganistan

The navy can in a defensive war easily.
Theres only 3 ways an enemy can enter the US; land, sea and air.
Air : The USAF, on home ground, with the advantage.
Sea; The USN, second largest navy in the world (next to the merchant).
Land; I dont believe that ethier canada, russia or mexico are planning on invading the USA....correct me if I am wrong...are the mounty's ammassing?


if a war did start nuckes wouldnt be used straight away but it would come to an eventualy that the USA would use them whitch would create an interntional backlash in turn WW3

More likely the US army would pull out of iraq and afghanistan.

I didnt mean a defending war i ment if USA were to invade Iran not the USA getting invaded themselfs

Mod Edit: Fixed Quote Tag.

[edit on 26/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Most of the underground facilities are probably so protected that even a nuclear tipped warhead would have trouble damaging them. Either deep enough or shock proofed enough.





The B61-11 can penetrate and detonate below the earth's surface, creating a massive shock wave capable of destroying underground targets. In tests the bomb penetrates only 20 feet into dry earth, even when dropped from altitudes above 40,000 feet. But even this shallow penetration before detonation allows a much higher proportion of the explosion to transferred into ground shock relative to a surface burst. It is not able to counter targets deeply buried under granite rock.

Some sources suggest that the B61-11 has a "dial-a-yield" feature, allowing its yield to range from less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. When configured to have a 10-kiloton yield and detonated 4 feet underground, the B61-11 can produce a shock wave sufficient to crush a bunker buried beneath 100 meters of layered rock.

During 1999 B61-11 alteration (ALT) 349 units were produced and delivered to the Air Force

B-61, Mod 11




Most of Irans nuclear infrastructure is not under granite and if its possible to fit a precision guidance package to the B-61-11 then it can be used at tunnel entrances - blast doors would be ineffective with a direct strike ground shockwave.

So I would surmise that it is possible to destroy Irans bunkers and facilities.


As to the question asked in the original post - in a word yes this can be prevented simply by the Iranians opening their program to full and complete inspection ensuring that it only has generating capability as they claim.

Balls in their court as far as I'm concerned.




[edit on 26-11-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
I didnt mean a defending war i ment if USA were to invade Iran not the USA getting invaded themselfs

If they where going to invade iran they would pull out of iraq or afghanistan...OR pull troops from other areas not needed and use iraq as a staging area.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I'm sorry if this has been covered, but what would the reason be for dropping nukes on Iran? To kill the population? We only have one type of nuclear bunker-buster, a limited capability one, which would probably not work in Iran:

The sole nuclear bunker buster in the U.S. arsenal, the 300-kiloton B61, can’t penetrate rock.
Link

And we scrapped plans to build more powerful ones...



US drops nuclear “bunker buster” from budget
14:03 27 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Shaoni Bhattacharya

Controversial plans to research nuclear “bunker busters” have been abandoned by the by the US in the country's 2006’s budget.

The Bush administration and the Senate have agreed with the House of Representatives to scrap the funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) in the 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

The Pentagon will instead focus on developing a conventional deep-earth penetrating bomb, said Senator Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate subcommittee dealing with the issue.
www.newscientist.com...


Mod Edit: Link Of Great Length Truncated.

[edit on 26/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]


cjf

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE
The US Army is sterched to its limits the air-force and navy cant fight a war by its self while the army are pinned down in Iraq/Afganistan if a war did start nuckes wouldnt be used straight away but it would come to an eventualy that the USA would use them whitch would create an interntional backlash in turn WW3


The US Army has 37 combat brigades/Armored Cav Regiments, 12 are/were 2005 rotated 'in', around 10-11 have returned 2005 from OIF rotation and Korea. The last I read for 2006, 9 is the deployment goal. The key here is ‘rotation’. Current rotation guides would quickly change in the event of another conflict, providing more than adequate assets from the Army alone.

The US Army also has boots on the ground inside 125+ countries around the world at given times, this would also rapidly change.

The US Navy, now, is currently a predominately used as a deterrent force (with the exception of Iraq/Afghanistan deployments e.g. Four post deployed carriers add a couple in maintenance and two in training) all fully capable of combat operations on a moments notice, saying nothing of the three active US Marine divisions, US National Guard, US Coast Guard and not mentioning the majority of the enormous US Air force is currently on the ground etc. etc.

The US Military is not stretched; the ‘media’s’ manufactured ‘appearance’ fails to mention current rotation policies; naval evolution schedules etc. all which may change on a moments notice.

I would expect if conflict with Iran is/was realized, one would recognize the operational events from GWI.--One prolonged and immensely crippling blow, capitulation, ceasefire restrictions and sanctions; all without occupation or the need to restructure via staging from Iraq.

Note: Also, perhaps in having the fortune, by possibly just adding the support the very talented British Navy to support an operation abroad or increased support in current joint operations, the event of another theatre conflict is much, much less threatening.



.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by cjf
The US Military is not stretched; the ‘media’s’ manufactured ‘appearance’ fails to mention current rotation policies; naval evolution schedules etc. all which may change on a moments notice.


cjf, I am impressed that you know so much about the numbers of brigades and so on but I also know that there has been a huge push this past year to get people to join the service and that the recruiting numbers are down. The incentives have increased as well. It sure gives one the impression that there's a shortage of troops.

As, well, some people are on their third tour in Iraq. Their stays are long. It seems to me that if we weren't stretched, there would be plenty of people to make one tour of Iraq all that was necessary.

Also, I can't help but wonder why some of these boots in 125 countries aren't helping in Iraq where they're obviously needed.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Pat Buchannan's mag claims Cheney prepearing tactical nuke strike on Iran.



Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections


WOw

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
It's just planning. This story has been reported off and on for awhile now. It's good to have plans, however while Cheney can order them to PLAN for a strike on Iran, he can't LAUNCH a strike on Iran unless Bush is gone and he takes over. Bush is the only person that can launch a nuke, and while Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, it's a long chain that he has to go through to order a preemptive nuke launch, and at any point it can be stopped. The commanders and Joint Chiefs aren't dumb about nukes, and they aren't going to let Bush wake up one day and say "I want to nuke Iran, launch a missile."


cjf

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
cjf, I am impressed that you know so much about the numbers of brigades and so on but I also know that there has been a huge push this past year to get people to join the service and that the recruiting numbers are down.


I hear the same 'press' info. as everyone else; however I have family involved at differing levels inside the military, perhaps I have a bit more concern than average and hear 'first-hand' conversations which sound nothing as like that portrayed by the media.

The ‘numbers’ are easily determinable by just about anyone if interested, just take a look at OIF rotation schedules etc. (for a beginning) concerning ground forces.

Also note the undersecretary has set a goal of 42 active duty brigades by 2007, for the US Army....which leads into the following:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The incentives have increased as well. It sure gives one the impression that there's a shortage of troops.


My brother and a few other immediate family members are career ‘military’ (most of us have served the US through generations some chose the military as a career). As for my brother specifically, his incentives have definitely increased; however, nowadays he strictly trains specialized combat personnel. (all of this after his second tour through Iraq this decade and one the previous).

I hear none of the typical press ‘complaints’ or ‘statements’ from him, actually the complete opposite and complaints about what the press chooses to cover.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As, well, some people are on their third tour in Iraq. Their stays are long. It seems to me that if we weren't stretched, there would be plenty of people to make one tour of Iraq all that was necessary.


There are many numbers of reasons some may be on a third tour, some Marines elements are on consecutive stints; but to my knowledge this had already been contemplated prior to the onset.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Also, I can't help but wonder why some of these boots in 125 countries aren't helping in Iraq where they're obviously needed.


Despite the media’s complete focus on Iraq and a little on Afghanistan, the United States military (with the help of many ‘allied’ nations) are fighting a war on terror, maintaining security in unstable regions, acting as advisors etc. in parts of the world left fully un-discussed (simple examples aside from the obvious: Philippines, Djibouti)

.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Bush is the only person that can launch a nuke, and while Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, it's a long chain that he has to go through to order a preemptive nuke launch, and at any point it can be stopped.


Well, yeah, that's fine if you think Bush is really the one with his finger on the button. I happen to believe he's a puppet and Cheney is much more in the position to be making the decisions. And then there's Cheney's handlers...

Thanks cjf.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If that were the case, it would have happened already. They wouldn't care about justification, or would have faked whatever they needed, and launched already.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I would hope not. Iran is going downa dangerous path in that part of the Middle East. It decrys it has no intention of using nuclear weapons while sitting atop some of the worlds largest petro. reserves. Sounds kinda of funny to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join