Israel rules out pre-emptive strike against Iran

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Not to mention that Iran's facilioties are almost entirely underground. WAY underground. The Iraqi reactor was not. Also, even if Israel was to put boots on the ground in Iran, exactly what kind of weapon could they possibly hump in that could destroy these massive underground facilities... assuming they could even get into them in the first place?


Well, we know what weapon the NeoCons wanted/want to use....




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I hate to disagree with those of you who say that Isreal couldn't hit Iran with a missle other than nukes. Isreal has the Jericho 2 and Jericho 3 has been test fired. Isreal's Jericho's have been equiped both with nukes and conventional warheads. They have a range of 3500km and Iran is only a little over 2000km. Makes sense then that they could hit them easily.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
But what's the likelihood that they're accurate enough to take out a specific facility in Iran? The advantage of a nuke is that you don't need a direct hit.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Bush said weeks ago that Iran was reaching a point of no return. What does that tell you? Also, the US knows Israel needs to be kept out of this one to make what's going to go down more palatable for the rest of the ME.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The advantage of a nuke is that you don't need a direct hit.


The disadvantage is it tends to kill a lot of people, and will have fall out, both literally and politically.



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
If you want to take out an underground facility with spec-ops attack, you don't have to destroy the entire place, just blow up any sensitive/hard to replace parts, data and control systems and try to kill any scientists and technicians working there. Small arms and backpack explosives will be more than enough.

As for getting there being impossible?
If you want success you avoid airdrops, go in walking and blend with the local population (use local vehicles obtained any way you see fit) Or use enemy uniforms and papers to move close to your target. Then after the strike blend in and seek assylum in some friendly embassy/cross the nearest border. No fancy high tech toys of AF needed.

20 targets require 240-400 men (SF Battalion) to take out if the operation is a suprise. Limited air campaign against few key transport chokes would help the extrafilitation of the SF teams (if you don't inted to sacrifice you SF boys)



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by thawyze
I want to see Israel go and try to do something to Iran without US backing them up... Israel would get wiped out so fast they wouldnt even know what hit them.


Who’s going to wipe Israel out? The Arab armies Israel's been humiliating for the last 50 years? Would these Armies “wipe out” Israel without Russian backing?



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   


The disadvantage is it tends to kill a lot of people, and will have fall out, both literally and politically.


Obviously.

My point was that Israel can't really hope to do much damage to Iran's nuclear program with a few conventionally armed IRBM's. Without Pershing II style terminal guidance, they're not likely to hit much of anything. What's the Jerhico have, a 1km CEP or therabouts?

Frankly I don't think Israel can do much of anything about Iran's nuclear program without going nuclear themselves. Which is one reason they're so keen on having the US do it for them...



posted on May, 24 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The Israeli's have been stocking up on the F-16I-ran & F-15I-ran extended range aircraft for just this purpose. It would be on the edge of the plane's fuel capability for a full turn-around mission, but DOable. Throw in a refuel courtesy USA and it's a done deal.

As far as weaponry, remember those thousands of bunkerbuster's we sold Israel recently? Well, now Bush is offering Israel the BIG-BLU. Still, I think we will do a much more thorough job.







.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
As usual in this forum-US/Israeli military capabilities are exagerated and Iranian military capabilities are given no respect whatsoever.

If the allies thought this way during wwii then Germany would have won.

first of all the notion that you could insert a little commando force to take out a nuclear facility is a total joke, they will be detected and liquidated in a few minutes after breaching Iranian territory. Remember that little force America sent in to rescue the hostages in 1979, they were ALL killed before their helicopters even made it to their destination..the US lied and said the helicopers crashed in a 'sandstorm'..in fact the helicopters were detected and blown out of the sky..or whatever..little commando units deep inside enemy teritory van't do much damage before they are eliminated.

What the US is really worried about is the Iranian counter-strike..Sunburn missiles strike US warships in the Persian gulf, large sprawling US bases in Iraq are repeatedly hit with shortrage missiles which Iran has an unlimited supply of..Iraqi insurgents get equiped with more sophisticated portable SAM missiles which means US helicopters start going down ALOT. all of that makes a strike on Iran so not worth it.

The US didn't want Russia, then China, then S.Afrikka,Israel, then India,Pakistan, then N.Korea.. to get nuclear weapons either, nothing can be done to stop it, Iran will go nuclear and have a secret nuclear program.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by xmotex
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't, actually.

Alowing Israel to attack Iran would cause mayhem in the ME, doing it ourselves wouldn't create quite the same degree of uproar. Plus we would be able to do a far more thorough job of it.

Israel unilaterally attacked Iraq in the late 80's and put one of their French-built nuclear reactors out of action...i don't see why they wouldn't do it again, only with Iran this time.


Lol
Do you wanna know why? FIRSTLY look here:
1)
www.network54.com...


2) Iraq won't have lasted against Iran if
A)Iran hadn't just been through a revolution and had a dessimated military force.
B)Iran hadn't been put under economic and arms embargo
C)The rest of the world had not decided to side with Iraq( US, France and Arab states)


last not the least:
Iranian sites are disperesed and "deep" in under the ground
so good luck getting to some of the "good ones" without having to use your mini nukes
what Israel doesn't have them? OOPPPS



WAKE UP THE PROBLEM IS NOT IRAN NOR ITS NUCLEAR SITES. IT IS fundamentalism!






[edit on 27-5-2006 by zurvan]



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
As usual in this forum-US/Israeli military capabilities are exagerated and Iranian military capabilities are given no respect whatsoever.

If the allies thought this way during wwii then Germany would have won.

first of all the notion that you could insert a little commando force to take out a nuclear facility is a total joke, they will be detected and liquidated in a few minutes after breaching Iranian territory. Remember that little force America sent in to rescue the hostages in 1979, they were ALL killed before their helicopters even made it to their destination..the US lied and said the helicopers crashed in a 'sandstorm'..in fact the helicopters were detected and blown out of the sky..or whatever..little commando units deep inside enemy teritory van't do much damage before they are eliminated.



While I agree a Chuck Norris style raid is preposterous, America can drop bombs just about anywhere on earth with impunity. That's not to say that Iran doesn't have cards to play, but you can bet they won't be sinking any US Navy ships. The last time they challenged the US Navy in 87, they lost nearly their entire navy in a day.

And the reason why some think little of Islamic armies is because they've been getting their rear-ends handed to them for the last 500 years.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
In 1987 Iran was at the end of a devestating war with Iraq in which the entire world supported Iraq and Iran had no sophesticated weaponry Russia would not sell to them and China didn't really sell them anything of technology , they had no anti-ship missiles and no decent short range missiles and could hardly put a fighter plane in the air.

This is 2006 and Iran now has the very latest sunburn anti-ship missile that the US has NO defense for when launched within 100 miles, their ballistic missiles are numerous and US bases in Iraq are close enough to be pounded..also remeber when Iraq took out the USS Stark in 1987 with exocet anti-ship missiles, the UUS Stark detected the migs and watched them break off but failed to even attempt to stop the exocets..exocets devistated the British in the Falklands before Argentina ran out of them..the Sunburn is 3 times as fast as the exocet and has twice the range, you can bet that if the US attacks Iran they will lose warships and suffer many dead in Iranian retaliations.

[edit on 27-5-2006 by jajabinks]



posted on May, 28 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by El Tiante

While I agree a Chuck Norris style raid is preposterous, America can drop bombs just about anywhere on earth with impunity.


cmon, that is blasphemy right there. Chuck can take out any one using his muscle power and advanced technology and thinking that he has access to.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join