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.

 

'Three-day blitz' plan for Iran

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
All that I've posted so far indicates that I believe America could win a war against Iran, keep the repercussions to a minimum, and not incur the military wrath of nations that actually have powerful armies. This is provided that the intention was merely to give them a good beat-down and not actually take over their country.

The final point I'd like to address is whether or not we should, and to this, the answer is no. Many people say Israel plans on attacking Iran if we don't. Let them. I frankly don't give a crap what happens to Israel or the Middle East, so long as Americans aren't involved.

And that last sentence is the key. I don't think Americans should be involved in any of it. I don't think we should be in Iraq. I think we should have been much more surgical and diplomatic in our military operations in Afghanistan, instead of annihilating an entire country with a knee-jerk reaction. I think we should leave Iran alone, if not attempt to forge a new alliance with them. I could care less if they aren't a nice white democratic country. Democracy is not for one country to build in another, it is for the people of a country to claim for themselves.

Instead of spending all this money to control the world's oil, we should be spending it to break free of it. How dependant on oil would we still be if all the money for the "war on terror" had been spent on developing a better way to power our lives? What if we had a president who, when the oil companies pull his puppet strings, cut those lines and became a real boy? Would we one day be able to sit back and laugh with a clean, renewable energy supply as our old rivals claw at each other for the black blood of the earth?




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Nazis never had the largest Navy or Air force, what they had was excellent quality


Russia, French, British and tanks and planes were superior or equal in most respects and it can not be said that Germany won it's earlier victories due to some kind of 'qualitative edge'; it really was simply strategy, logistics and leadership.


and leadership, even with that fool of a commander, Hitler, making military decisions...


Hitler made too many great strategic decisions to be called a 'fool' and it think it might be more logical to consider the possibility that he was deliberately sabotaging German efforts to prevent overwhelming victories; it's a pet theory of mine so you may treat it as such.




Iran went to war with Iraq for nearly a decade and could not defeat it,


That's true but it's hard to organize such victories when your enemy has access to the type of satellite information that exposes you each and every strategic buildup...


even thought it had more forces, it suffered an estimated 500K casualties. The US decimated the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War under 43 days and within 48 hours of the ground campaign.


Iraq did not have 'more' forces and what it had was not upgraded to modern standards or operated in the way or type of conditions they were designed to.


In 2003 we defeated their military, invaded the country and took control of it withing two weeks. Both accomplishments are astounding.


I think the lack of achievement on Iraq's side is what is astounding; to fail so entirely is not something that i believe can happen by accident. Some statistics indicates that more American soldiers would have been killed in the traffic accidents had they stayed home and did not serve in gulf in 1991....


Even with an occupation (one of the most difficult things to do military speaking) lasting five years we have not suffered that may casualties, in context. So no, not anyone could have done that to Iraq.


That depends on which numbers you believe and as far as i am concerned the US death toll in Iraq is now probably around 8- 10 000 with a additional thirty thousand seriously wounded.


In an air and naval war, the type of war likely with Iran, it would stand no chance against the US military and the result is therefore not in question.


I am sure some in the US government will allow the war against Iran to go any better than the war in Iraq went or those in Vietnam and Korea. I am more than sure that the Iranian conventional forces will be smashed if a invasion is launched but i am less sure if the type of victory that is required will be allowed.


Any losses would be minimal, acceptable and could be absorbed, the same cannot be said for Iran.


They will seem minimal and acceptable at first but daily operations is what really saps the strength of any armed force; if the US keeps up it's current deployment rates on the back of the disaster that was the first gulf war things are going to downhill ever faster for the US army.

The following is related to the cost to the US army of simply keeping a war going irrespective of actual fighting and sustaining casualties

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.slate.com...

www.atimes.com...

www.opportunity08.org/Files/FD.ashx?guid=8a57c0a1-820d-4b52-bfff-cfd22b6f949a

www.defense-aerospace.com...

www.americanprogress.org...

www.americanprogress.org...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.heritage.org...

The following shows the strain the men are under and what sort of effect this is having on homeland security and the capacity of the US to fight another war this decade.

www.strategypage.com...

observer.guardian.co.uk...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.hstoday.us...

And it's hard to say what state the rather well funded Iraqi security forces are in at this time.

www.gao.gov...

www....__._/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq_(2007)

So in closing i think the casualties are in fact much higher but that those may more easily made good than the equipment attrition being imposed on reserve and operational units.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde
I would say that a 3 day air campaign would greatly reduce the military strenght of Iran, without question. But then what?


If only somone would have asked that wuestion about Iraq??

Oh yeah and isn't OBL wanted Dead or Alive, what ever happened to him being public enemy #1??



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Sky watcher
 


Well that's likely but not a definate. If the warheads were launched from Syria there would be no stopping them. Even from Iran it's 50/50 that they would be taken out. Let's face it, Iran has some very good friends to aquire hightech weapons from.

The time for rhetoric is slowely running out and Iran would be fools not to be ready for action. Believe me, you don't to prepare for a fight without preparing to win.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
First off Mr. Manzoor, America, is not just any ordinary country.


A century ago it was quite ordinary ( a capitalist hell hole) and given some time to complete their plans America's current rulers will get you all back there real soon.


America is the new "Rome". Make not mistake about that Mr.manzoor.
It is an Empire. and like every great empire, they get there nose into everyone elses business,


America is not the new Rome and it's empire is not NEARLY as strong because very few in fact realise who they are being exploited by. Back in the day everyone knew who their master was but these days few do and the US have never had, but probably could have, the capacity to actually fight and control the world as Rome did.


with everyone else completely powerless to stop them.


That was not true in Rome's day and it is not true today. Rome fought many enemies and sometimes lost entire armies only to rebuild and continue the struggle; this is not something America has experience with and as evident by both world wars and other struggles not something the people have interest in doing.


Every conflict is different. Trying to compare conflict between israel and hezbollah (gorilla warfare) compared to conventional warfare is apples to oranges mr.manzoor.


I can tell you that large Israeli formations have been halted by equally large and well organized Hezbollah groupings and that the lines between conventional warfare and gorilla warfare were sometimes quite irrelevant... Obviously it's not comparable to what happened in Iraq but had Iraqi forces defended their cities with the same vigour Lebanese have defended theirs the US army would be in much worse shape today...


The US wants to take out Irans capabilities to project a conventional war. This is where America stands alone (no one comes close to projecting and orchestrating a conventional war, better then america)


Russia have quite adequate experience with conducting large scale maneuvers and the fact that the US armed forces managed to lose to North Koreans and almost entirely unsupported Chinese soldiers gives me a good idea of who would prevail in the European war between the US and Russia.


And, if a war does break out, do not expect to see Irans conventional forces to last long. They will be squashed rather quickly.


As they rightly should be i wonder what will happen if Iran fights with the same conviction as it did against Iraq, As long as the attack is coming from the air and the Iranians do no disperse and hide to await a invasion they will get beaten and probably badly but if they simply accept their relatively inevitable fate and simply focus on attrition over time the consequences for the US armed forces will be dire.

I just don't see a invasion of Iran happening very soon and if it does happen my worse fears about the current US adminstration will have been validated.




Originally posted by West Coast
Im curious as to how you think that that was directed to you Mr.X?


I am curious why you do not rather address the response?


And that has been the prototypical wars of our time, hasnt it Mr.X. But, could it work? Could an aerial attack alone be enough for the set task at hand in disarming the Iranian military?


If all avenues of modern technology is exploited i am quite confident that wars can be won from the air ( if not from low earth orbit or by intercontinental deployed BM with GPS guided 'seeker' warheads) and that peace may be enforced without ever putting feet on the ground. I think the US air force could probably manage such a feat against Iran but the cost will be high and it mightily leave the US air force even more vulnerable for the rest of the decade.


The emphasis in aerial combat, has always been noted as the 'backbone' of every military.


It has not in fact as air superiority is in itself not worth the effort if it can not be employed to interdict enemy infrastructure of ground formations.


With the USAF of today, that emphasis is even greater. I think if anything, that goes to show how superior the USAF really is.


Superiority at shooting down enemy aircraft is clearly very important when your fighting a third world war but since China and Russia are supposedly not threat to anyone fighters are largely wasted airframes which could have been devoted to ensuring that enemy concentrations did not stay concentrated in any effective form.


One only needs to see pictures from the "high way of death" bombardment to really see the benefits of air superiority.


There were never a question as to the US ability to gain air superiority over Iraq and the question really was if it could be sustained long enough to deplete Iraq's air defenses or destroy sufficient amounts of infrastructure and enemy formations. The highway of death resulted because the Iraqi's kept by far the majority of their air defenses to protect Iraq and were in fact retreating along that highway with no real intent to continue the fight.


Take the "highway of death" in Iraq GW1 and then multiply that by 1000x. That could be an accurate portrayal of what would become of irans conventional forces If a fight were to break out.


That is a rather unrealistic view in my opinion and i doubt if the Iranians would be beaten so easily or so quickly. Knowing the disparity of forces Iran not not win but it's another question if the current US policy makers will allow the US armed forces to 'win' the war or the peace...


No tanks needed, no US personnel put in harms way etc.


Ideally yes but it's going to be hard to convince the generals who might very well be out of jobs.



As if the US was the only ones to support the Iraqis mr.x?


The US provided the funds that enabled the Iraqi's to acquire weapons...


The US provided sat intel on Iranian military positions. that was the most significant contribution the US made during the whole 8 year war with Iran.


If you believe that you should go back and study that period of history more closely.


I think you will find more russian made equipment than american equipment that was in the Iraqis hands at the time.


It's far easier to move money than weapons and the US government are past professional at providing the funds and allowing their pet dictators to buy from whoever is willing to sell. Iran contra?


And why were the Iraqis in full retreat Mr.X? Air superiority.


Because SH never intended to fight and may very well have believed that he could get concessions without having to fight anyone. If you can find me evidence that SH thought he would be up against the world for invading Kuwait you should present it as no one has been able so far.


Do not underestimate the United States ability to wage war.


I do not underestimate the will of the American public to defend themselves, or make available the funds for pentagon spending, but i can prove that the American public have been had and that they are not nearly as well defended as they believe they are or i think they should be.


And what was it exactly, that the serbs proved Mr.x. Perhaps there is a battle where the Serbs 'won'? Dont be bashful, do feel free elaborate a bit more.


It depends entirely on who's account of the war you believe and since Serbia should have never stood a chance it's interesting that their armed forces marched out of Kosovo with barely a scratch after wresting with the bear that is the "NATO" air force. Their exited with their air force large intact and with most airfields in operation and they quit the war simply because their elected president no longer had the support of the people who's infrastructure and factories were being terror bombed into oblivion. Serbia never had the capacity to defend against that type of assault and when NATO realised that they were not succeeding by attacking the armed forces directly the simply switched targets to electricity plants, and factories that allowed the Serbians a fair standard of living.


touché

I look forward to it!


Be careful what you wish for.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


www.navy.mil...

Well here it comes, Note the Kitty Hawk and Nimitz. No doubt they are headed to Iran and support the Enterprise.
Yes us Americans are well protected. We all have guns and could make Iraq look like disney land if we were attacked by any counrty. Oh and we have allot of nukes that we can deliver free of charge.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
...it really was simply strategy, logistics and leadership.


No doubt that also played a major role, it's really a combination of things but Germany did lead in several military and scientific fields during the war. And they did develop several systems which were superior to anything the allies had.


Originally posted by StellarX
...it's a pet theory of mine so you may treat it as such.


And a recurring one at that... Hitler also made several disastrous strategic decisions and at the tactical level he was even worse. He should have paid more attention to the advice given by his military commanders. His unwillingness to do so eventually degraded the German top command and as a result greatly reduce the effectiveness of the German forces. This was very evident on the Easter-Russian front during the latter stages of that particular battle.


Originally posted by StellarX
...it's hard to organize such victories when your enemy has access to the type of satellite information that exposes you each and every strategic buildup...


Yes we did provide Iraq with such intelligence and support however that cannot fully excuse the performance of the Iranian forces. Especially over such a long period of time, and I am not too comfortable in assuming Iran did not also receive similar support from other parties.


Originally posted by StellarX
Iraq did not have 'more' forces... or operated in the way or type of conditions they were designed to.


In terms of land based forces it did indeed. And the way they performed in reality as oppose to in theory has just as much to do with our efforts as it has to do with theirs.


Originally posted by StellarX
I think the lack of achievement on Iraq's side is what is astounding; to fail so entirely is not something that i believe can happen by accident.


It did not happen by accident, Iraq's soldiers may have been battle hardened with Iran but they were not prepared for the overwhelming force demonstrated by the coalition. They were outmatched in almost every category, this in combination with other factors caused them not only to surrender en mass but also be inefficient.


Originally posted by StellarX
That depends on which numbers you believe...


I'll believe the official numbers unless other numbers I've seen develop more credibility.


Originally posted by StellarX
They will seem minimal and acceptable at first but daily operations is what really saps the strength of any armed force;


I agree but only if this is an invasion, change of regime, occupation type strategy. If we just want to destroy some of their capability via quick air and naval strikes (not prolonged) in preparation for an invasion a decade later (i.e. Iraq) we can do so and sustain such an effort.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

I can tell you that large Israeli formations have been halted by equally large and well organized Hezbollah groupings and that the lines between conventional warfare and gorilla warfare were sometimes quite irrelevant... Obviously it's not comparable to what happened in Iraq but had Iraqi forces defended their cities with the same vigour Lebanese have defended theirs the US army would be in much worse shape today...


Do you really believe that? Do you think that maybe Israel is trying to hold defensive posture? Hezbollah is no match for them if it was an all out war, but Israel is just trying to contain them while protecting their own people. Israel is the strongest military wise country in the region that is why adding nukes to the mix would change all that.



Russia have quite adequate experience with conducting large scale maneuvers and the fact that the US armed forces managed to lose to North Koreans and almost entirely unsupported Chinese soldiers gives me a good idea of who would prevail in the European war between the US and Russia.


Korea was a lot like Vietnam where China was backing both and in both wars the US was defensive and had to stay defensive or China would had jump into the battle too, and that would had turned a regional war into a world war...good thing we kept it defensive.

The problem with a defensive war is you cannot win it for you can only try and make the offensive country stop fighting.

I would also like to know how you can even compare the US military might that we have today against other countries to our military match-ups during the Korea or Vietnam wars. If we fought either of those wars today in an offensive mode they would end rather quickly too.



I just don't see a invasion of Iran happening very soon and if it does happen my worse fears about the current US adminstration will have been validated.


Neither do I, but for different reasons.




If all avenues of modern technology is exploited i am quite confident that wars can be won from the air ( if not from low earth orbit or by intercontinental deployed BM with GPS guided 'seeker' warheads) and that peace may be enforced without ever putting feet on the ground. I think the US air force could probably manage such a feat against Iran but the cost will be high and it mightily leave the US air force even more vulnerable for the rest of the decade.


Once you own the skies you can do anything you want. That is what the US Air Force is all about, and that is our part. It is not about a dog fight of fighters it is utter dominance in the air. What ever and who ever we would own the skies.

An asymmetrical ground war is another matter for unless we are willing to go all Genghis Khan on them that type of war would go on for a decade or more.



It has not in fact as air superiority is in itself not worth the effort if it can not be employed to interdict enemy infrastructure of ground formations.



What it does is but them on defensive and a country that has no power, transportation, C2, clean water or food cannot fight very well. It all depends on what we would want to do with the country. In Iraq we are trying to get out while building them up to they can run their own country. This makes it very easy for the extremist to do their thing until we do like the surge and push very hard militarily.



Superiority at shooting down enemy aircraft is clearly very important when your fighting a third world war but since China and Russia are supposedly not threat to anyone fighters are largely wasted airframes which could have been devoted to ensuring that enemy concentrations did not stay concentrated in any effective form.


As I said it is not about shooting down their aircraft, hell they only have 266 fighters if they could get them all working. It is about owning the air space, and to do that you also wipe their communication, C2, radar and anything else related out. Their fighters are almost useless and most would not even get off the ground. They would be down to shoulder rockets and other very portable weapons.

Picture this...once we own the air EVERY military vehicle that moves in the country is destroyed. Think of 100s of Apaches, A-10s, and other air to ground attack aircraft littering the roads with 1000s of destroyed vehicles with little threat to them.




There were never a question as to the US ability to gain air superiority over Iraq and the question really was if it could be sustained long enough to deplete Iraq's air defenses or destroy sufficient amounts of infrastructure and enemy formations. The highway of death resulted because the Iraqi's kept by far the majority of their air defenses to protect Iraq and were in fact retreating along that highway with no real intent to continue the fight.


About 3 days to destroy their infrastructure to bring the country to a complete halt after that it is a turkey shoot much like The Highway of Death that was quoted. The bad part for them is our abilities are much better now than then with vastly better equipment and tactics.

The big question is what then? That is why we would not attack them unless they attacked first and then we would only destroy their military and infrastructure from the air and then sit back and let them make the next move.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No doubt that also played a major role, it's really a combination of things but Germany did lead in several military and scientific fields during the war.


And i used to believe that too but when i tried to look for the type of obvious implemented technological leads i came up short and certainly not with something that could have resulted in the type of victories they were achieving. If you want to introduce the examples you are aware of we can compare notes...


And they did develop several systems which were superior to anything the allies had.


as the war went on they certainly implemented revolutionary technologies ( rockets, jets, Electric submarines, very integrated air defenses and various other things but those all came after events had turned against Germany. I am simply referring to the advantages the Germany army had in operational systems during their initial aggressive invasions of most of Europe and the Soviet Union.


Originally posted by StellarX
And a recurring one at that... Hitler also made several disastrous strategic decisions and at the tactical level he was even worse.


Hitler also made several brilliant strategic( Massively expanding his industrial base without firing a shot) and tactical decisions so it becomes a question of when and where and how we believe he could both be so 'brilliant' and 'stupid' at the same time.


He should have paid more attention to the advice given by his military commanders.


His military commanders in 1939 were mostly plotting on how to overthrow him and a very large number of them were put to death for their efforts. As to the 'brilliance' of his commanders there were as many conservatives as revolutionaries ( but they were on average far better than their allied counterparts) and Hitler did in my opinion for the most part manage to get the right type in the right places.


His unwillingness to do so eventually degraded the German top command and as a result greatly reduce the effectiveness of the German forces.


Had he listened to the Generals there would never have been a world war II; at least not one started by Germany.


This was very evident on the Easter-Russian front during the latter stages of that particular battle.


Sure but by that time there were a good number of others reason why the Germans were losing beside whatever Hitler did or did not do.


Originally posted by StellarX
Yes we did provide Iraq with such intelligence and support however that cannot fully excuse the performance of the Iranian forces.


I think we for the most part can as the Iranians were doing quite well until the US resources started pouring in...


Especially over such a long period of time, and I am not too comfortable in assuming Iran did not also receive similar support from other parties.


They did ( Iran-Contra) but not as much as Iraq did and this makes sense considering the apparent primary aim of most financial backers to keep this war going as long as it did. The Iranians had a consistent numerical advantage in men but their tanks/IFV/aircraft and SP artillery were being destroyed or written off away without sufficient replacements over the course of the war so that Iraq entered peace up with about the same equipment numbers they had at the start. The same can not be said for Iran which had to basically rebuild it's armed forces from scratch in 1988.


Originally posted by StellarX
In terms of land based forces it did indeed.


If you are willing to bring sources to show that feel free but i know you will find that the data is not there and that Us forces significantly outnumbered the Iraqi forces in Kuwait and elsewhere.


And the way they performed in reality as oppose to in theory has just as much to do with our efforts as it has to do with theirs.


You can not force a enemy to place massive armored formations in wide open deserts where they are subject to prompt destruction and had such forces been deployed to turn cities into fortresses air power would not have been nearly as effective resulting in significantly more casualties to he forces that had to clear cities.


Originally posted by StellarX
It did not happen by accident, Iraq's soldiers may have been battle hardened with Iran but they were not prepared for the overwhelming force demonstrated by the coalition.


Neither were the polish or Russians but they fought and inflicted relatively great casualties while losing; i don't think one should assume a revolution in warfare because the Iraqi's managed to lose so inexplicably badly.


They were outmatched in almost every category, this in combination with other factors caused them not only to surrender en mass but also be inefficient.


That is surely so but history shows plenty of examples of outnumbered and supposedly outgunned forces finding ways to inflict great casualties non the less. I think the it's terribly presumptuous to consider the gulf wars as evidence of a new 'norm' and most conventional wars have stayed as bloody as they ever were before.


Originally posted by StellarX
I'll believe the official numbers unless other numbers I've seen develop more credibility.


Which assumes the official numbers are somehow credible and that we should suddenly start believing the people who have consistently lied to us. I could post very many sources that disputes the official count but i have no stake in proving such as i believe the toxic vaccines will make my statements accurate in either the short or long run.


Originally posted by StellarX
I agree but only if this is an invasion, change of regime, occupation type strategy. If we just want to destroy some of their capability via quick air and naval strikes (not prolonged) in preparation for an invasion a decade later (i.e. Iraq) we can do so and sustain such an effort.


And that should be doable but i have my doubts about whether it will be allowed by the people around Bush who seem hell bent on destroying the US army...

Stellar

[edit on 7-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by keops
 


i dont think its funny to put lol at the end when ever bush goes to war many civilians die and face the consequences so its not funny.

an attack on iran that would meen syria to get involed we seen there tensions mount aswel and syria and iran have a treaty to deffend each other if attacked.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
as has been said before

www.abovetopsecret.com...

air power alone won`t smash the military.

and steller - until the end of WW2 the german Tiger tanks were nearly unstopable - they bounced allied shells and the 88mm blew through anything it hit - the brits learnt this lesson and since then have mounted the heaviest armour and biggest gun they could (the Centurion was the start of this design ethos in 1945) - Shermans were especially known to `brew up` when hit.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
air power alone won`t smash the military.


Iran's or more generally?


and steller - until the end of WW2 the german Tiger tanks were nearly unstopable -


The Russians consistently deployed tanks that were a match for German one's and at the start of the war Russia, France and Britain all deployed better in almost all respects. All of the allies could have built their own version of the Tigers or Panthers ( and the Russians did) and the fact that they did not should not be employed as argument the the German industries and arms were somehow more technological advanced.


they bounced allied shells and the 88mm blew through anything it hit


The Brits had a 90mm gun right from the start of the war as well but they never matched it to a well armored hull or employed it in any role but AA; that is a doctrinal/ organizational issue and not one of technology. The Tiger did bounce shots of it's frontal armor but there are many ways to lose tanks without them ever being fired on by the enemy. Once the war of maneuver in the East really started, were lightly or seriously damaged tigers could not be retrieved after advances, their strategic and tactical effectiveness quickly declined.


- the brits learnt this lesson and since then have mounted the heaviest armour and biggest gun they could (the Centurion was the start of this design ethos in 1945) -


Well the tanks still moved around so they did not in fact employ the biggest gun or heaviest armor they could.
Tank design is all about compromises and that is unlikely to change any time soon... As to your claim about what they learnt i'm not sure NATO learnt anything when they decided to go with the 'less is more' approach when it failed the Germans so very badly.


Shermans were especially known to `brew up` when hit.


Which was quickly and easily fixed once they figured out that the ammunition were cooking off...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by itguysrule
How many operating nuclear power plants does Iran have that need uranium fuel?

Answer - NONE

The only plant near completion is being built by Russia and they are going to provide the nuclear fuel.

So if Iran has no operating nuclear power plants and the fuel for the only one almost completed wil come from Russia - why is Iran in such a hurry to enrich uranium?

Let me think about this - this is a difficult question. As far as I know enriched uranium has only two uses - nuclear power reactors or nuclear weapons.

What do you think?


Well to also add that the world would help them with light water nuclear power that can not produce nukes, but they turned it down. Who knows maybe they are like NK and after yelling like a crazy person for a few years they get 10 of billions in aid and free reactors.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Blitz all of middle-east for all I care. Most Americans don't know what Islam and Muslim are about. I grew up in Indonesia and being a non-muslim in a Islamic country, let me tell you, they are NO ANGELS. They want you dead, your mom and sister raped while you watch. After that, pillage your stuffs, hey, it's how their prophet lives in the ancient times. Remember, they don't think there is anything wrong with killing non-muslims/ infedels. (sorry for strong languange but reality is harsh and has no censorship)

Sadly no one knows how dangerous they are, you all have a hint of it with the beheading tapes (with dull knifes no less) and yet chose to forget and overlook it.

Let's face it people, THEY WANT YOU DEAD. You, your "freedom ideologies" your little careers, your favorite blue jeans, your kayaks, and your vegi gardens, all of it, they want all of it DEAD.

So bomb bomb bomb Iran.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 




air power alone cannot win wars in general;

the problem with the british tanks (at least) at the start of the war was the role they ahd to fulfill - they had either light `cruiser` tanks or heavy `infantry` tanks - the heavy tanks lacked slopping armour but it was thick whereas the cruiser tanks lacked armour and the weapon but had mobility and speed , when coming across the german `general purpose` tanks the churchill could take hits but couldn`t reply well.
the main gun was the 2 pounder (40mm) then the 6 pounder (76mm) - neither really had the fire power to answer the 88mm - they even lacked HE shells!

BUT at the end of WW2 the cruiser tanks had nearly the same armour as the infantry tanks yet had the mobility - the Centurion is spot on here as , originally fielded it had a 20 pounder (84mm) which was the forefather to the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm used around many countries even today.

but were dragging this off topic and i apologise

[edit on 8/9/07 by Harlequin]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
air power alone cannot win wars in general;


Please do not quote popular nonsensical stuff for my benefit as i read all the same books ( i'm presuming you read books
) that you did and used to believe exactly as you did! Why do you think it is so impossible to win a war entirely from the air and please present some 'unique' reasons as i am quite aware of the 'common' excuses for generals to insist that young men be sent to their deaths. Would you by the way classify cruise missiles and ICBMs as 'air power'?


the problem with the british tanks (at least) at the start of the war was the role they ahd to fulfill - they had either light `cruiser` tanks or heavy `infantry` tanks - the heavy tanks lacked slopping armour but it was thick whereas the cruiser tanks lacked armour and the weapon but had mobility and speed , when coming across the german `general purpose` tanks the churchill could take hits but couldn`t reply well.


All these tanks had the capacity to easily destroy German tanks at average combat ranges.


the main gun was the 2 pounder (40mm) then the 6 pounder (76mm) - neither really had the fire power to answer the 88mm - they even lacked HE shells!


The Germans did not start world war two with tiger tanks ( 88 mm) and the British also had 90 mm guns that would have been as devastating as the German 88's had they used them in the anti tank role. Remember that the 88's were ANTI AIRCRAFT guns and that they were solely employed against tanks because the Germans were not so stupidly bound to doctrine and that they found their tank guns to sometimes be quite ineffective against British and French tanks.


BUT at the end of WW2 the cruiser tanks had nearly the same armour as the infantry tanks yet had the mobility - the Centurion is spot on here as , originally fielded it had a 20 pounder (84mm) which was the forefather to the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm used around many countries even today.


Right...


but were dragging this off topic and i apologise


You never have to apologise ( everything is related after all) as long as your confident that your information is as accurate as you can make it.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
If true, then all bets are off, war imminent.


Why?


It is time to remove this threat once an for all,


Threat to who? Israel has 200 or more nuclear warheads to defend itself with?


before the world witnesses the spectre of a "terrorist nuke", it could be to late to prevent radiological bombs.


Oh come on? Do you believe any of that?


Iran will not be "easy" for the U.S. military, but they will fall, and it seems as if they are begging for it.


Sure Iran will fall but how are Iranians 'begging' for this? Please explain how the bellicose American national security states actions against Iran should lead the Iranian president from making very different statements? Why is it that when Iran is threatened by the relatively overwhelming might of the US armed forces they ten to respond making threatening noises of their own and is that so unexpected or evidence of anything extraordinary?


Maybe the world should give Ahmadinejad the war he desires and a quick path to the eternal life, virgins included?


Maybe ATS deserves the type of moderators that does not encourage violence and bloodshed?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe ATS deserves the type of moderators that does not encourage violence and bloodshed?
Stellar


Please discuss the topic and not other members. The fact that a mod happens to disagree with you is not relevant to this subject- your views have equal merit and are equally welcome regardless of position, as long as they are expressed with T&C. ATS doesn't sanction any one view or require staffers to accept any particular ideology, and that's a good thing.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by chickeneater
 


you have to be the rudist and sad person i heard sorry for the language but i am a muslim are you calling me a killer? you say bomb iran and you dont care about the mid east wel let me tell you i have family there and they would never hurt a single person so go on spreading your hate against muslims but many are not stupid to beleave you i have loads of white friends and they are happy to have me as a friend and they know i would never kill a man they like my religion and respect it as i do to theres


[edit on 8-9-2007 by manzoor]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I think it bears mentioning that we need to focus on the reality of this situation.
This is not nor will it be a war between cultures or religions.
If it does happen it will be a war between governments.
There is a major power struggle between governments in this insane world government set-up, and just because the war propaganda has started doesn't mean the "enemy" is an enemy for the stated reasons.
We have no idea what the actual reasons are for this looming conflict.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join