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 has modified the Sahab-3 to carry nukes – But they only want nukes for peace

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Mehran
well the truth is they cant and is the aftermath of that that they are scared off even Bush knows what will happen when an air strike does happen and how iraq and afghanistan wont be the same no more. USA cant handle Iran,Iraq and Afghanistan and thats why all the talk about air strikes is to scare us.

In your continued boasting and skewed 'truth', consider this:

It took Iran 8 years to "handle" Iraq.
It took the US less than two months to "handle" Iraq.
It took Russia 10 years to "handle" Afghanistan.
It took the US less than 2 months.

Airstrikes are a tool used by virtually ever advanced military in the world.
They are useful for not only accomplishing military goals and objectives but for political means. I am willing to bet that if Iran continues to defy and build their peaceful intent nuclear weapons, that you insist that they are not doing, despite all the signs that they are, airstrikes will eventually be placed among the equation of possible actions.






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]


US is losing in Iraq war which is taking 6 years now
US is losing the war on Afghanistan
US is all talk and no action
US will end in failure if it touches iran
US was suppose to do an air strike on iran last month but they chickened out knowing the consenquences.

Seekerof say whatever you want but you know aswell that US touches iran than its game over and we will bring an shia uprising in middle east and in iraq against american forces, we will give them all of our weaponry and everything we got. we will enrich uranium and theres nothing you or the worlds super power can do about it. an air strike on iran will be end of your occupation of iran and Afghanistan. you guys are all talks and just trying to scare us. and just to let you know we iranians all around the world laugh you guys when an air strike never happend .






posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
US is losing in Iraq war which is taking 6 years now

"Losing" is subjective, whereas, on a military scale, I presented fact.




US is losing the war on Afghanistan

Same as above.




US is all talk and no action

So Saddam thought, you had better pray that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahs do not make the same mistake.




US will end in failure if it touches iran

Continued unsubstantiated boasting and empty threats.




US was suppose to do an air strike on iran last month but they chickened out knowing the consenquences.

No, the US was not.
You listen and read too much prediction and prophecy stuff. There have been a number of individual people who have thought they had the gift for prophecy and making predictions, only to be proven wrong.





Seekerof say whatever you want

Just as you will?




but you know aswell that US touches iran than its game over

Hardly.
I am sure of a couple of things here, as well: Iran knows that if it touches the US, and US interests, including Israel, its "game over" for Iran.





and we will bring an shia uprising in middle east and in iraq against american forces

Continued empty threats and promises.




we will give them all of our weaponry and everything we got.

Just as "we" will give the same support and aid to those anti-Iran and mullah factions within and around Iran.




we will enrich uranium and theres nothing you or the worlds super power can do about it.

You mean like Iran is doing now?




an air strike on iran will be end of your occupation of iran and Afghanistan.

Hardly, but what it will do is put a serious dent in Iran's acquisition of 'home built' nuclear weapons.




you guys are all talks and just trying to scare us.

As I said, just as Saddam found out, huh?





and just to let you know we iranians all around the world laugh you guys when an air strike never happend.

Your day dreaming, cause here in the US, the vast majority of Iranian populace wants a democratically free, mullah free Iran. So your imagined "Iranians around the world" myth is simply that: a myth.





seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Yes but i'm sure a certain 'blitzkrieg' tactic will be used and i'm almost certain the US has already devised lists of strategic sites to be targetted. For example Government buildings, SAM sites, Military bases, Communication sites.

It is extremely easy to say supplies will be given and these regimes will be funded but IF war is declared, when it is 'announced' within minutes bombs will rain from the skies. Something which Iran has very little protection against.

Like Iraq however, I feel that Iran's military capabilites will cease to exist almost straight away. Guerilla tactics will not. The US will substain heavy losses in street to street fighting.

Both sides will lose. Is it reaqlly worth developing a nuclear weapon and risk sacrificing every person/ animal/ plant on this planet in the process?



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
i dont need to argue against two forumers who they know they got embarrased lots of times by iran and they are still going at it. i actually think all this air strike talk is good because it actually lets people post or talk on whatever they want but to me its all a laugh and a hoax to scare us. iran gets touched than you leave both iraq and afghanistan and thats why nothing has happend even tho we are enriching uranium all we want right now. you guys know the truth that nothing wont happen but you dont want to admit it which is fine, yall have that soft feeling to keep secret and i agree with that
. anyways im off to weaponry forum to talk about something unlike you people who just sit on your computer chairs wiating for something to be popped out of CNN.

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Mehran]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
i dont need to argue against two forumers who they know they got embarrased lots of times by iran and they are still going at it.


Your rhetoric is and has always been cheap.




anyways im off to weaponry forum to talk about something unlike you people who just sit on your computer chairs wiating for something to be popped out of CNN.

One, I do not watch CNN, you do.
Two, you are among those you have just described us as being.
Your rhetorical point served nothing in this discussion, just as your continued boasting, empty threats and promises.
If I was you, in alleged 'embarressment,' I would move on, just as your suggesting.







seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary quote of entire preceeding post]

how could my rhetoric be cheap when everything you say ends up being flase and a lie?. I think your embarrased because other wise you wouldn't go hard on me all of a sudden. i just got to remember those threads like "2 weeks to war in iran or a nuclear strike on iran
. all that makes me laugh, by the way why havent you answered me yet on your countrys air strike to Iran that was "suppose" to happen last month?

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Mehran]

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Specifically:

Quote the post immediately before yours: This doesn't make much sense, but if you must quote the post before yours, please quote just a small portion.

Quoting an entire post: Size doesn't matter unless the post is already small, less than 3 sentences. You will receive a warning if you quote an entire post that exceeds four or more sentences.

Compound quoting: If you quote someone quoting someone, this will result in a penalty.



[edit on 4/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
And how do you know that Iran is going at it? Are you part of this 'supreme council'?? Of course you aren't you are just another [Mod Edit: removed unnecessary comment directed at another member]

And secondly you talk as if you are already producing nuclear weapons. I was always under the impression that you hadn't even started mining Uranium ore. You have the capabilities but the mining hasn't even started yet.





Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
how could my rhetoric be cheap when everything you say ends up being flase and a lie?.

I am going to show you how right now by asking you to provide counter proofs to what I have asserted falsely, mistakeningly, or in error, or as you have said--was a "lie." In not doing so, my "lies" are vindicated, your asserting that I "lie" was you doing the actual lying, and that your talk is in fact: cheap and rhetorical.





I think your embarrased because other wise you wouldn't go hard on me all of a sudden.

Embarressed by what? You? Hardly.





i just got to remember those threads like "2 weeks to war in iran or a nuclear strike on iran
.

And in reviewing those threads, be sure that you remember that it was individuals asserting that the US was going to do something, not the US government itself, k?






all that makes me laugh, by the way why havent you answered me yet on your countrys air strike to Iran.

I do not make predicitions, in regards to airstrikes on Iran, etc, which in the threads you have indicated, there were individuals making those predicitions. When or if an airstrike does come for the US, it will be unannounced. And that, Mehran, is not a prediction, but a fact. Hello?!






seekerof

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Excellent post skippy. But I think what they are trying to do is provide free nuclear energy to the region by delivering it via missle. I mean, recently they have been demonstrating all of their technically advanced technologies so we can see how smart they are. So clearly, they've figured out the nuclear-energy-via-missle conundrum as well. Yay for them.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by jtma508]

what are you? nuts?! theyre making all these advances to quickly build a bomb that can reach the eastern seaboard, and knock out washington, and start another [Mod Edit: Removed circumvention of censors] war


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Specifically:

Circumventing the censors to provide a misspelled simulation of a curse word is simply not allowed.


[edit on 4/8/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
[So then why Iran does not have the right to have military and nuclear potential to defend herself???

Oh, I know... Because they are MUSLIMS and not on the side of America and Israel!

[edit on 7/4/06 by Echtelion]


No...... 1st off, Iran is a signed on member of the NPT, that alone means that they should not be pursusing nuclear weapons.

Here you go: NPT Treaty



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yes but I was under the impression they pulled out of the treaty just recently?? This is what caused the tensions.. i'm sure i read that somewhere.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
No, Iran has threatened to pull out of the NPT but has not.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Skippy,

They are only trying to protect themselves from us.

Can you blame them?

We'd like to think we can rule the world, but we cannot.


Theres a huge flaw to that theory. We dont go around dropping nukes on people we dislike. Rarely have we used them on our enemy. Our mission isn't to seek and destroy people for being a certain way/relegion.

We like russia and other nations have nukes to protect ourselves from each other. Neither of us has a mission to DESTROY each other off the face of the earth. Iran on the other hand does.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
america doesnt have the the power to occupy iran. look having the best tanks in the world is great but whats not great is being hit by a modern anti tank missile especially one with a tandem warhead and iran is loaded with tandem warhead missiles. whats arguble is if the missile will destory the tank in a single hit but what is not arguble is that we all know the tank will be mobilty killed in a single hit and infact could become worthless altough not completly destroyed.


iran manufactures :

raad-t (AT-3c with SACLOS guidence and tandem warhead):
warfare.ru...

konkurs at-5 with 800mm armour penatration :
www.aeronautics.ru...

toophan and toophan-2:
www.janes.com...


also note the purchase/import of weopons :
www.nti.org...

take a look at the end of 1992 iran imported over 800 SCUD missiles and the hundreds and hundreds they imported before. they imported over 1500 SCUD missiles including SCUD-A, SCUD-B,SCUD-C and the new and improved SCUD-D missiles. the scud D is more accurate then then any other version of the SCUD missiles and has better CEP.

iran can target and destory 100% of all american camps, fuel silo's,barracks,bases,navy ports,air-bases and command centres in the middle east and still have enough ballistic missiles to rain hell on anything they feel like. iran imported over 150 SCUD-D ballistic missiles wich have impressive CEP compared to saddams SCUD-B and SCUD-A which had 1km CEP so they missed there target and we all rember how much of a hard time america had dealing with 100 missiles iraq fired at saudi arabia ad israel and now imagin dealing with 1500+ ballistic missiles and 150 SCUD-D missiles even if the pac-3 is improved over the previous version how can you deal with such a large quantity of missiles. please dont bring up the old "our B2 bombers will take care of them" becuase we all know thats rubbish it cant deal with every threat iran poses.

iran has enough anti tank missiles to stop a complete armoured invasion into there country. secondly they have purchased enough missiles and make enogh to wipe out all american bases in the region and destroy them.

also with the way the terrain of iran is america will need to use alot of helicopters in the region and this is a fact and if you look at iraq american helicopters are being brought down with 1960's vintage sa-7 how will they be able to handle misagh-2 all-aspect SAM's with improved seekers and improved resistance to counter measures.


iran has also imported the following :


12 x kh-55 2500km range cruise missiles :
news.bbc.co.uk...


18 x north korean BM-25 2500km ballistic missiles :
www.janes.com...

also they have an estimated 100+ shahab-3 ballistic missiles with ranges over 2000km.

iran can destory anything within a 2500km radius and has hundreds of missiles to do so in its arsenal and thosands of missiles with ranges upto 700km like the SCUDS america has bases in afghanistan and iraq. america has not attacked iran becuase iran would blast americans back into the stone age. america might have a B2 bomber but you guys arnt invincible to 1000+ ballistic missiles and considering iran manufactures its own ballistic missiles and cruise missiles ranging from 90km solid fuel all the way upto 2500km its safe to assume iran has thousands and thousands of ballistic missiles in its arsenal. america is a sitting duck becuase iran has enoug missiles to destory all americas tanks, helicopters and command centres in the region combined with the fact iran has the upper hand over america this is why america hasent layed a finger on iran becuase america would recive a beating on the level that it has never faced before.


iranian millitary equipment :
www.network54.com...


also check out other stuff iran has below and please check my signiture for other missiles that iran has

as you can see iran is better armed then any country ameirca has ever faced in modern times.






.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
america doesnt have the the power to occupy iran.

Question: Just which US official has stated that the ultimate goal of the US is to invade and/or occupy Iran or aspects thereof?

The notion of "power" is relative.
How so?
Because you open your commentary by asserting that the US does not have the "power" to occupy iran, and yet, attempt to demonstrate that Iran has the "power" to deny a US attempt at that alleged goal of occupying Iran.

Again, "power" is relative.





seekerof



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Similar to Mehran, instead of a structured argument it just turns into a rant.

Nobody har ruled out a nuclear strike on Iran, George Bush even mentioned it's a possibility.. I for one feel that every concievable force will be used to block Iran's nuclear programme. Using nuclear weapons i'm sure will be last, but it is still a possibility.

Iran does not have nuclear capabilities yet.. they have the factories but still the technology and mining of Uranium is not up to scratch.

As for the so called massacre on Iran's soil.. this will not happen. SAS, SBS, crack American hit squads will most likely infiltrate many of the Scud sights and then they will be hit by aircraft. Iran will not know of a war until they have been hit.

Target will already have been picked and they will all be hit immidiately. Communication/ TV/Armed bases/Aircraft/Navy/MIssle /SAMs will all be hit. Iraq had the biggest bombing campaign in such a short time than most recent wars.. I'm sure IF Iran was more of a match this would increase further. A land assault will not happen until the latter stages of the bombing campaign.

I for one do not think Iran will stand a chance.. and even if they do i'm sure Uncle Sam would give a demonstration on how nasty nuclear energy really is



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Question: Just which US official has stated that the ultimate goal of the US is to invade and/or occupy Iran or aspects thereof?

The notion of "power" is relative.
How so?
Because you open your commentary by asserting that the US does not have the "power" to occupy iran, and yet, attempt to demonstrate that Iran has the "power" to deny a US attempt at that alleged goal of occupying Iran.

Again, "power" is relative.





seekerof


in this situation the power is in irans hands. america doesnt need to invade iran. if it attacks iran then the iranians can actually fire missiles of at the bases and send commandos and guerillas into surrounding countries where americans are based with .50bmg sniper rifles that they make and the styer .50 rifles that they purchased combined with the anti-tank missiles and man portable artillary rockets like 122mm rockets and 130mm portable rockets with armour peiercing cluster warheads this would rain havoc on americans. what alot of people fail to realise is they always assume america would invade and they iranians would stay in iran and america would then be the aggressor infact looking at the situation with america in afghanistan and iraq,saudi arabia,oman,qatar,jordan,egypt it is safe to assume the iranians would storm out of there countries in guerilla groups and commando groups and attack americans in there bases and looking at the situation it is safe to assume the hunted would become the hunter and the iranians would become the aggressor and america would then be put of the defensive.

iran is most likely to push out of iran and bring the war to america.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
So now many of these 'crack' and 'elite' Iranians are leaving the country to push the offensive onto the Americans, who is going to attack invading forces in Iran with said crack squads leaving?

I know I will sound and obviously am biased but the war will and can't be own by Iran. Fair enough the US may recieve heavy casualties but the war will be won.

And who says the US will be the only country who will strike Iran? I know for one that China, Russia, US are all against Iran gaining nuclear weapons as is the rest of Europe.. So if the worst did come to the worst and other countries got involved then what? A war against 6? 7? 8 countries?
I somehow don't think so.

The moment Iran goes ahead and create a nuclear warhead (breaking nuclear treatys) the wheels of war will definitely be put into motion.

I personally think Iran will back down. They are still signed up to the treaty declaring they will not follow through with nuclear weapons. The moment they do who knows??

As the saying goes when you are standing on a razors edge.. don't look down. Feeding it's people and the media stories of hi-tech weaponary which will destroy invaders is one thing.. putting them into practise is another.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Knights
Similar to Mehran, instead of a structured argument it just turns into a rant.

Nobody har ruled out a nuclear strike on Iran, George Bush even mentioned it's a possibility.. I for one feel that every concievable force will be used to block Iran's nuclear programme. Using nuclear weapons i'm sure will be last, but it is still a possibility.

Iran does not have nuclear capabilities yet.. they have the factories but still the technology and mining of Uranium is not up to scratch.

As for the so called massacre on Iran's soil.. this will not happen. SAS, SBS, crack American hit squads will most likely infiltrate many of the Scud sights and then they will be hit by aircraft. Iran will not know of a war until they have been hit.

Target will already have been picked and they will all be hit immidiately. Communication/ TV/Armed bases/Aircraft/Navy/MIssle /SAMs will all be hit. Iraq had the biggest bombing campaign in such a short time than most recent wars.. I'm sure IF Iran was more of a match this would increase further. A land assault will not happen until the latter stages of the bombing campaign.

I for one do not think Iran will stand a chance.. and even if they do i'm sure Uncle Sam would give a demonstration on how nasty nuclear energy really is


you fail to realise iraqs air defence was limited even in the first gulf war it was based mostly around anti air artillery and what ever defence they had was like SA-2 and SA-3 and almost non-existant supply of infra red SAM and also they had not shoulder launched SAM's. iran on the other hand manufactures Misagh-1 and misagh-2, Rapiers and the RBS-70 laser riding SAM. they have man portable infra red surafce to air defence altough it has limited range its still better then what iraq had. iran has many weopons that we havent even seen.

also altough iraq did have scud sites and SAS did go in to find them the same will not be possible in iran becuase iran is first of all 3 times the size also becuase of the varied terrain compared to iraq it also would take much longer for any SCUD hunting teams to travel around. almost 1/3 of iran is made up of mountain/forest:


www.abadan.net...
www.abadan.net...
www.abadan.net...
www.worldisround.com...
forum.bodybuilding.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com...
www.worldisround.com... (snow)
www.worldisround.com...


iran cold easily take the missiles and build silos and take missiles and hide them in the forest and mountain ranges which im sure they have. i highly doubt that we would america can hunt even 1/10th of the missiles that iran has. iran has a greater capacity to hide missiles and has better terrain becuase it allows it too hide stuff in the mountain region which would make it very hard to find until fired. most people always throw out random comments like "we will send in special forces to destroy this or that" thats becuase they are unfamiliar with the terrain if they had any idea of what iran is like they would know it cant be done. iraq was a flat peice of sand while iran is alot more greener with trees and also they have mountains, and even marches and swamps. iran has hundreds and hundreds of miles of complex terrain to hide missiles.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
do we all remember the revolutionary war? hard to control a massive group of people half way around the world....even if your the super power of the time...we do remember this dont we?

im pretty sure it was knights post that pretty much said this
We must stop nuclear proliferation, even if it means using nuclear weapons against them
now i dont do this much but im going to have to use the ThatsJustWeird logo

how does that make any sense. whats the point of nonproliferation, if your just going to use them anyway?! defeats the entire point.

also i would like to give iqonx a way above top secret vote because whenever i see him he posts his sources and never fails to prove his point, with more then just an opinion. this thread is no different.

now back to my question which has not been answered, if the jewish people wanted a jewish state why didnt they take kenya? i mean obviously the land that was given to them was more important then actually having their own state, so i ask why?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join