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.

 

Iran changes its tune on Israel: From “should” to “Will be”

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Seriously, I'm afraid that makes not much sense, ArchAngel. Such an attack would be good only if a follow-up attack is used.
EMP is not used by itself, not in a real war. It might have terroristic applications, but that would not stop Israel, and it would only incur her righteous wrath.


Israel would need to measure their response against future repercussions.

It may be that Iran would be decimated, but much of the Arab world would survive, and they would inherit the land as the Jews went to where civilization could endure.

Imagine what would happen to your town if suddenly there was no electric power, and no chance of it being turned back on in the next few years if ever?

[edit on 11-2-2006 by ArchAngel]




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
To generate EMP effects that powerful over an area the size of Israel, the Iranians would need a large fusion weapon (megaton yield class), not a little Hiroshima-style fission bomb. Since they don't have fission weapons yet, let alone megaton-class hydrogen bombs, I don't think such a scenario is realistic.

[edit on 2/11/06 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I doubt Iran would care about the Palestinians. They would just be a "casualty" in the great war of Islam for a Caliphate. Iran's president even said his country would gladly be a casualty (the old guard of Iran says this to this day, they are considered hicks though, but the Iranian president is one of them.tough luck.)




What about their dome in Jerusalem


Well, according to the Quran and muslim hadiths, the dome of the rock is going to be destroyed and rebuilt by the Mahdi. So they wouldn't care about that either.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
To generate EMP effects that powerful over an area the size of Israel, the Iranians would need a large fusion weapon (megaton yield class), not a little Hiroshima-style fission bomb. Since they don't have fission weapons yet, let alone megaton-class hydrogen bombs, I don't think such a scenario is realistic.


A large fusion device would be needed for an area the size of America, but a less advanced fission device could easily cover most of Israel.

100 times less area with 100 times less yield at the proper altitude gives the same effect.

And Iran has been testing mid-air missle detonations.....



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
They could place it via a shahab missile on Israel's nuclear plant. No emp effect but all of Israel surrounded by a cloud of deadly radioactivity. Just as bad. If they wanted an emp effect I'm sure there are other weapons available (or sabotuers).



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Am very interested in both sides of the argument regarding the holy land, I don't fully understand what are supposed to be the "sides".

I would like to do some research on both sides if thats possible as this goes back to far in history, I think.

Any pointers on what to search for would be great!

God be with you,
Mfourl



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamie6661986
Iran's President should be assinated and i would help doingit...this guy means bussiness and so does us


The only problem with assinating Irans leaders is that we dont know who will take there place. It is possible that we end up with a bunch of clowns who are worse then the current cronies.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Iran is steering a course similar in some respects to Germany in circa 1933-38. They are testing the world's mettle and seeing what they can get away with. Iran and Syria's pact, dealings with North Korea and the step in military buildup in Iran are just some examples.

Soon I bet Iran will leave the NPT and totally kick out the IAEA and the apologists will say that we "forced" them to abandon the NPT because of our 'hostile" actions. Maybe, just maybe that is part of their master plan after all.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   


100 times less area with 100 times less yield at the proper altitude gives the same effect.


No, actually it doesn't.

Low yield warheads do not produce enough gama rays to trigger appreciable EMP effects on the ground, this came out during arguments for using nuclear-tipped ABM's. IE: detonating small nukes at high altitudes to defend yourself from incoming warheads will not create a large enough EMP effect to destroy your own hardware on the ground.

EMP effects are dependent upon getting enough gamma rays to hit the upper atmosphere to generate a high voltage electronomagnetic pulse. To get the kind of voltage necessary to generate a pulse of sufficient power to destroy equipment on the ground, you need a large weapon - in the megaton range - detonated at an altitude well above 30km. A 25kt nuke simply doesn't create a big enough pulse of gamma rays to excite the upper atmosphere to the degree necessary to create a significant (destructive) EM pulse. The visual horizon from a 30nm altitude burst is still wide enough that the energy would be spread over a very large area (notably larger than Israel BTW, everything in the region would be hit), and with a 25kt to 100kt detonation the EMP pulse energy would be insufficiently powerful to do much damage, if any, because it's still being spread over a huge area.

Yes, EMP is real. But Cold War EMP strategies involved huge weapons (9mt+) detonated at 250+km. Even at lower altitudes, weapons in the hundreds of kilotons yield range at the very least would be needed to guarantee destructive effects. Below around 30km, the atmosphere gets dense enough that the HEMP effect doesn't work, the interaction between atmospheric matter and gamma rays produces thermal energy instead of an EM pulse.

[edit on 2/11/06 by xmotex]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
While we are talking about Isreal and Iran, I was curious as to any recommendations for a book regarding the history of the Middle East? Before I go spouting off opinions and theories, I would like to educate myself more on the history of the region, as what is happening today is a by-product of history. I'm sure there are plenty of books on the subject, I would just like a few recommendations.
Thanks in advance...



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I don't believe this source, how come it didn't show up on CNN or BBC?, skippy just had to go to some unkown website for news source and post here about a opinion of some guy, i betthis is just the beginning for him
.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Bozorgh]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
This screams of WW3......was there not some prophecy about the rise of someone of power in the middle east who will usher in WW3 ??

I remember it from a tv show awhile back.......scary !!



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


No, actually it doesn't.

Low yield warheads do not produce enough gama rays to trigger appreciable EMP effects on the ground, this came out during arguments for using nuclear-tipped ABM's. IE: detonating small nukes at high altitudes to defend yourself from incoming warheads will not create a large enough EMP effect to destroy your own hardware on the ground.




Can the gamma rays be enhanced on a smaller warhead much like its done with a neutron warhead - or is it strictly dependent on the yield?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
From what I understand, building an enhanced radiation weapon pretty much means building a fusion device.

And frankly I think the usefulness of EMP as a weapon is exaggerated.

If you can build fusion bombs, are you going to use them to destroy your enemy or simply incapacitate him? Especially when said enemy is likely to retaliate against a nuclear EMP attack just as if it was a direct nuclear attack?

You think the Israelis or the US would hesitate to retaliate against a successful EMP attack with direct nuclear strikes on the attacker? I don't.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   
i am i the only one that is getting a deja vu. this is the same thing they said about iraq and how it would launch a checmical/biological attack in under 45 mintues at us andkill us all and now iran is going to attack us with EMP and Nukes with there ballistic missiles if we dont attack them first


fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
From what I understand, building an enhanced radiation weapon pretty much means building a fusion device.






Changes in the design of thermonuclear weapons could also substantially increase the energy accounted for by prompt gamma rays. One possibility is to encase the weapon with an isotope that, when it is bombarded with neutrons, emits gamma rays. In this way excess fission or fusion neutrons escaping from the weapon's core could induce the emission of gamma rays, nearly half of which would leave the expanding explosion debris. (The other half would radiate inward and be absorbed by the debris material.)

If a nuclear explosive is detonated above the atmosphere but within the earth's magnetic field, the plasma expanding in directions more or less perpendicular to the magnetic field lines will distort the field. When this happens, a large fraction of the kinetic energy in the weapon debris is converted into electromagnetic energy, resulting in the emission of a sudden burst of radiation with a broad range of wavelengths --from a few meters to hundreds of kilometers or more. Such an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) can represent a substantial fraction of the total energy of the explosion and can propagate with little attenuation through the atmosphere to the earth's surface.

Nuclear explosions in space or in the high-altitude regions of the atmosphere can produce another type of EMP. In this case gamma or high-energy X rays striking the upper part of the atmosphere cause electrons to be ejected from air molecules. Such a sudden cascade of electrons is equivalent to a huge surge of electric current. Since the current would not be spherically symmetrical (it would flow predominantly in the direction of higher air density, namely downward) and would vary with time, it would generate transient magnetic fields that in turn would produce electromagnetic radiation in the form of an EMP.

As a result of the approximately exponential increase in the density of the atmosphere with decreasing altitude, much of the energy radiated downward by a nuclear explosion above the atmosphere is deposited in the atmosphere's upper reaches. Deposition of this energy can sometimes produce severe secondary effects that then propagate to the surface of the earth. X rays and weapon debris at sufficiently high fluences (total energy per unit area) can, for example, heat the atmosphere to such high temperatures that it radiates visible light and infrared radiation. Gamma rays, neutrons and X rays released by the weapon, as well as the decay products of radionuclides, can directly or indirectly generate electric currencts in the layer of the atmosphere where they deposit their energy. These currents can then generate other EMP's whose wavelengths and instantaneous power levels extend over a very wide range. Heating of the atmosphere can also initiate complex chemical reactions that affect its transmission and reflection of radio waves.



Third Generation Weapons



I read from this that gamma radiation can indeed be enhanced. Also understand that it can be done with fission, fission fusion or fusion alone - so type warhead is not such an issue here - nor apparently is size of yield as important as thought.

The subject of retaliation gets muddied if one cannot prove where exactly a weapon came from, best example would be to use isotopes from a former soviet client state for the weapon, ensure missle fuel is very common making satellite ID difficult as to country of origin and launch from freighter off coast of target.

In Israels case an EMP would just about prevent a mobilization of its armed forces to counter an invasion from a neiboring country such as Syria even though on duty and strategic forces may still operational this scenario leaves Israel almost no choice but to use the so called "Samson" option of last resort.

If Israel were pushed into using the "Samson" option then much of the world would either support or a least not complain at its destruction.

With "messianic" leaders seemingly in charge in Iran this may not be as far fetched as it appears on its face.

In regards to the US, if it were hit with even a limited EMP covering the NE states economic chaos would result from the effects of EMP. This IMO would give certain middle eastern nations a freehand for a matter of months to attack Israel or US held positions in Iraq and Afganistan and consolidate positions before facing any conventional response.

A non-conventional response by the US against a country in the face of an attack of this sort would require absolute proof or it would suffer world condemnation. An EMP attack on the US also leaves Israel with the "Samson option as its only resort in the face of invasion without US logistical support.

I'm not saying this is an ordained forgone conclusion it is one of the worst possibilities that could happen.

The respective governments of the US and Israel would be criminally negligent not to plan for such a scenario - part of that planning would involve pre-emptive action to make it not possible at all, taking whatever condemnation which may come because it is the lesser of two evils.

As I see it there may soon be no other path considering the pronouncements of the Iranian President and an almost insane desire by Iran to produce nuclear weapons if it has not already done so.

Events of late remind me very much of the years preceding the start of WWII.

I fervently hope sanity prevails - unfortunately some think that sane place is a nuclear armed Iran which is a state of sustained insantity to avoid what may have to be done.

Sticking ones head in the sand will not make this go away just as appeasement did not make WWII go away.


The only real solution is for the world to condemn any new entrants to the nuclear club and push for massive reductions moving towards elimination for those countries already in possession of nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately regional politics, prejudices and nationalism seem to be blinding people to road currently traveled.

One thing really bothers me - it seems the very same folks who say its ok for Iran to do what it will, would be the very same folks that did or would have marched against nuclear weapons in the 80's - whats up with that?

(sighs) I guess that was only a politcal stance against the US instead of a firm belief in the elimination of nuclear weapons over-all. The irony of all galls me.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
the real "fairy tale" is anyone on ATS that thinks they know for certain what Iran has in its arsenal or its future plans.....

.....Everyone can make a guess or form a opinion from current known facts but thats not even close to certain either way.


- OK, if you want to talk in 100% 'absolutes' that's fine, just not too much help here.

But we do have intelligence estimates (informed by the previous inaccuracies and failures elsewhere previously).

As recently as Aug 2005 the US intel community reckoned Iran 10yrs away from a nuclear weapon if it was true that they really are working on one and trying to get one now.


Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House.

www.washingtonpost.com...

- You can also see reputable comment and informed analysis about Iran's capacity, dated Jan 2006.

This isn't like Iraq, Iran has been open to spot inspection and 24/7 monitoring.


Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- If people are going to claim they are about to act in a particular manner then surely it is worth pointing out their capabilities?

It is undeniable that Ahmadinejad and those fundamentalists that back him are the ones benefiting from this present situation.

I'll leave Americans here to work out who in America benefits from it too and why they might be happy to engage in this unholy and informal alliance?

The Iranians have no real intent to attack anyone - otherwise why haven't they already and long ago - with the WMDs and missiles which have been at at their disposal for over 10years?
The truth is IMO that the isolation and focus of international 'pressure' merely gives them the excuse and ability to have asserted their previously waning power and to restrict and curtail the Iran people further.
IMO we really should have more sense than helping out those guys.

Without wishing to 'hijack' this thread I suggest people take a look at this and see some of what is really going on in Iran; it's a long article but worth a look -

Ahmadinejad won the rigged Iranian elections last year with a promise to stand up for the little man against the Islamic Republic's corrupt elite. Faced with a choice between sticking to his word and carrying on with despotism, he showed his true colours by allowing the most ferocious crackdown Tehran has seen since the religious authorities crushed dissident journalists and students in 1999....

.....Iran has seen all the stunts before because it has endured Islamism longer than any other country. Cheeringly, the old tricks no longer appear to be working.
The Associated Press's reporter said that about 400 people demonstrated outside the Danish embassy in Tehran last week, most of them state employees obeying orders, according to the Iranian opposition.

observer.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bozorgh
I don't believe this source,



Originally posted by Bozorgh

I don't believe this source



The provided source is German Press Agency dpa "Deutsche Presse Agentur":

What reservations do you have against 'dpa'?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   


I read from this that gamma radiation can indeed be enhanced.


Possible, though the article is a little vague. Still, it seems unlikely that Iran, a country that has yet to make a simple fission bomb, is going to be cranking out third generation weapons anytime soon, especially without being able to do any testing.

As far as yeild goes, I am not convinced that smaller weapons will do the trick. AFAIK EMP effects were only observed in testing with 1MT+ weapons detonated at very high altitudes. If smaller weapons would do it, it seems to me that Sprint/Safeguard and other nuclear armed ABM's would not have made it past the planning stage, being inherently self defeating. They also used radiation enhanced warheads BTW.



A non-conventional response by the US against a country in the face of an attack of this sort would require absolute proof or it would suffer world condemnation.


I think after such an attack, world condemnation wouldn't sway the US much. The most likely perpetrator would be made an example of. The US would have little choice.



I'm not saying this is an ordained forgone conclusion it is one of the worst possibilities that could happen.


And hence my skepticism regarding military action against Iran, who to this point have done little but mouth off. The problem with "preemptive" military action is, are you actually preempting anything? In the leadup to Iraq, we were told that we were "preempting" a WMD attack on the US by Iraq. Now it appears there was little to no threat from Iraq at all. Oops.



Events of late remind me very much of the years preceding the start of WWII.


Iran is not 1930's Germany, which while it's economy was struggling, was still an industrial and technological giant. Iran doesn't have the military or industrial capacity to start expansionist wars against it's neighbors. Iran was pushed to it's limits defending itself against Iraq, a country one not much more than a third it's size. The situations are not analogous.

Appeasers pre-WW2 were trying to appease a country that wasn't just talking, but was actually invading it's neighbors. If grandiose rhetoric alone is enough to justify a war, why haven't we attacked North Korea? After all, it appears they already have the bomb. And they have a proven track record of terrorism against the South.

The truth is, waging war against every country that might present a WMD threat means pretty much a permanent state of global warfare, from now on... no more appealing a furture to me than a world where the Iran's and North Korea's have nukes. After all, there's always Pakistan (an active nuclear proliferator), Saudi Arabia (also with a covert nuclear weapons program)... plus many countries around the world who have the technological ability to build nukes but have chosen (for now) not to. And not all of them are enemies - Israel, for instance, is a demonstrated nuclear proliferator. Ask the South Africans (the only country ever to develop nukes and then give them up) how they got their bombs. For that matter the Israelis got theirs from the French, the UK from us, etc...

[edit on 2/13/06 by xmotex]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join