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.

 

Israel expected to bomb Iran, French foreign minister says

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Isreal will most likely use Nukes, not many other options

I do know however they have a bunch of Moabs, maybe as many as 100 and they do hiroshima sized damage

hard to say how many they really were given

and it's Isreal, once they have one thye can probably make thier own




posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2stepsfromtop
I think we need to institute an inspection of all of Israels weapons systems and nuclear facilities. We should use scientists from other countries who have no religious or social ties to Israel. We should also withold any further $$$$ until they have withdrawn from the West Bank and COMPLY with the previous U.S. negotiated treaties.

Or just leave them uncovered to the mid-east, screw em, I don't need them or their attitudes.


All Israel wants is a defensible border, and to be left alone. And what makes you think that IF Israel withdrew from the West Bank, their SURROUNDING enemies would embrace them as friends? By your signature, I would say that you are probably a patriot to whatever country you call home, and would give your life in defense of same, yet by your comment concerning Israel, you would deny them that same right? Or am I totally misunderstanding you?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Actually the explosive power of the MOAB is 44 tons of TNT (not even half of a 1KT weapon). Not quite the 15,000 tons of TNT that did in Hiroshima (15KT nuke), but powerful nonetheless.



Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Isreal will most likely use Nukes, not many other options

I do know however they have a bunch of Moabs, maybe as many as 100 and they do hiroshima sized damage

hard to say how many they really were given

and it's Isreal, once they have one thye can probably make thier own








posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Hrrmmm so what was all the hype during the start of the war where I read claims of Atomic level detonations in a non atomic weapon?

I believe you... I was just under the impression it was a much more powerful bomb



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Okay... just did a look up the 44 you metion was it seems a russian device, apparently from what I read the Moab is almost a 1 Kiloton Bomb,

That apparently the smallest nuclear devices in our arsenal are slightly over I kiloton, thus the media comparisson...

Still a pretty big bomb, from what i see only 1/5 larger than the old daisy cutters...



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Here ya go...this is from Globalsecurity.org. This is about the Russian FOAB which is supposedly 4 times as as powerful as the MOAB and even it is not even equal to a half kiloton nuke:

On 11 September 2007 the Russian military announced that it had tested what it called the "Father of All Bombs". Described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered munition, the Russian military claimed it was four times more powerful than the American "Mother Of All Bombs." While the Russian bomb was reported to contain 7.8 tons of "thermobaric" explosive, compared to the more than 8 tons of explosives in the American bomb, the Russian bomb was said to use more highly efficient explosive, with a yield equivalent to 44 tons of TNT. The bomb was reported to have a blast radius of 300 meters, double that of the American bomb, while the temperature at the epicenter was also reported to be twice as high.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The MOAB has a reported blast radius of 150meters. Impressive but the Hiroshima bomb had a blast radius measured in miles.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Has Israel received those bunker buster bombs from the States as of yet ?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Thats a good question. The countries of the world better hope they have because if not, that just means they may resort to nukes quicker....if not right off the bat!



Originally posted by Max_TO
Has Israel received those bunker buster bombs from the States as of yet ?





posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Dooper is a racist biggot for supporting our best allie? It's candy a%@es like you that have allowed Iran to get to this point. It's the rest of us forced to clean up this mess. I don't know if Dooper agrees with me on any topic but really, this is your attack. Finish your Math homework and tell your teacher we will clean up him/her mess.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


How's life in Iran, Syria, NK or whereever you are. Were knocking. Your just lucky are forces care about you more than the media portrays.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Why would Israel resort to nukes on a first strike. They are not big enough goegraphically. It is a counter measure. You shoot at us it's coming back. They would not fire nuke first. To many pointing at them. They would be done. Even if we got involved.



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Just how many plains does the IAF have ? Could they fly sustained sorties ? Or would it be an in and out attack ? I just don't see a sustained attack from Israel agents Iran .

But lets be honest , if Iran is attacked by Israel Iran will most definitely attack US. forces in Iraq , then Israel can focus on the Syrian troops invading from Lebanon as a result and leave the States to finish up in Iran .

This is sad . I am sorry but I see this as a no win situation .



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
The whole area is a powderkeg and everyone there is itching to light matches. Another thread just posted that Syria is back in Lebanon on the border with Isreal. Echos of Yom Kippur and all that. Is it any wonder that Israel gets real heartburn every time they look out the window????


Damn!



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DisgustedOne
 


This Syrian troop deployment , in my mind , has more to do with a counter measure incase Israel attacks Iran . It is my belief that Iran and Syria feel that if something is going to happen it will happen sooner rather then later , hence the deployment of the Syrian army .



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Though I don't specifically wish suffering on anyone, I am so tired of "Protect Israel" being used for political/religious gain here in the US. They are just as volitile a country--if not more so--than Iran.


Israel is not a state. They are an independant country--one that was established rather dubiously.

If they want to remain a country, with their current policies, they should be prepared to take the flak for their actions without running to other countries to protect them.

It may be controversial for me to say but I think the reason why the Muslim countries "hate" us is not that we are free but that we consistantly poke our nose into regional politics where we have no business.

The same people that want to protect Isreal are the ones that fear Muslim agression. Why is it so hard to understand that by protecting Israel we give them a reason to hate us?



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Israel will not attack with nukes, won't attack without us having a heavy hand in their decision, and we would support them no matter what they did, they are probably our strongest ally. Even if we don't agree with them at times, not support what is supposedly one of our two top allies, is a sure fire why to lose ALL support from all countries.

A nuclear attack is not a "good decision." Why so many folks on these boards are predisposed to attack in the most violent way possible, have the worst possible disaster hit, or have the nastiest imaginable fallout possible, just boggles my mind sometimes.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by fleabit]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Well, I've been reasind this for a bit, but I wanted to throw in a few comments:

First, Ahmadinejad has no say in anything. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has full powers over religion and military. Only he can say if he wishes for action. Due to their constitution, the President has less powers.

Thankfully, Khamenei is more docile. He isn't a fan of the US or Israel by far, but he has scuttled Ahmadinejad's want for confrontation. Though, if Ahmadinejad became Supreme Leader... *Shudders.*

Second, if Israel attacks Iran, the entire Middle East, and most likely Russia, will retaliate. Many ME countries believe Iran has the right to continue their nuclear program. So, the question is, where does the US stand?

Behind Israel, the ME, or do we stay in the background and just remain critical of what Israel did?

What a bad situation we're in right now...



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Theblunt, no doubt you can back up your statements with proofs of course. Just who are they a threat to, who have they attacked and when, or is it just a case of that you believe what you are told and cannot decide for yourself what is truth or fiction.

I have not heard of any Iran Samson option have you? And its rich, interfering in Iraq and Afganistan, oh I see what you mean, they are trying to help their neighbours from being murdered by a corrupt dictatorship who's sole object is to rape and pillage the ME. Yes I have heard of the axis of evil the UK/USA/ISRAEL and what a cheek to think that these people think that they have a right to stand up for themselves and fight the foreign invader how dare they, dont they know their place, what a joke.


Magic-stoptakingthem-Mushrooms, if you want to face off on knowledge of the Iranian leadership or "akhounds" as they are known then i'm more than able to adhere to your request. I'm extremely well versed in Iran and middle eastern history. Since the regimes inception there almost 30 years ago, they have fought a 8 year war with Iraq (remember they had only been in power just a year), such is their haste for war.

"Trying to help their neighbours", is that some sort of ignorant joke? Their support of militias has done nothing but undermine a democratic elected government in Iraq. How is their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon helping Lebanons unity government? Arming a political force, who, as recently witnessed, reign terror on Lebanon to get their own way, this time in the way of a veto in parliament. I suggest you read Hezbollahs 1985 manifesto which clearly states one of their main goals as "imposing islamic government in lebanon", please tell me how that is supporting the unity government and the peoples of Lebanon?

Hey its obvious you harbor alot of anger with regards to the Iraq war, me too. A calamitous decision, but nonetheless its ignorant to let that skew your perception of future threats. The problem is your anger renders you hypocritical when talking of Iraq, afterall wasn't it Iran that attacked Iraq for 8 years with biological and chemical weapons on mass populous.

Mushroom, you've once again proven your knowledge of contemporary middle east is next to squat. Perhaps less time on liberal blogs and a little more time with your head in some engaging and impartial literature before sounding off irrelevant and unsubstantiated bufoonism. Many thanks.

[edit on 8-10-2008 by theblunttruth]



[edit on 8-10-2008 by theblunttruth]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


Well said, Blunt! It seems many people let their preconceived notions and biases color their perception of world events, facts be damned.



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Don't try to tell me about corrupt elections, or that the Mullah's put him there or any such crap. If the elections were corrupt, it's your country, and you allow such crooked stuff. If the Mullah's put him there, it's because you have a national religion that has commandeered your nation. Still your fault.

And where does anyone get off on calling me a racist?

Killing Persians isn't racism. It's prudent practice. The Persians have gotten their asses kicked in every single military meeting against the West, and their asses were kicked with such authority each time, that you would think that every time any Iranians, or Persians, or whatever you want to call them, speak to and of the West, they take their hats off in respect.

Naw, Iran is due another significant beating, and if the West won't do it, then a little nation full of Western immigrants called Israel can truly do it.

I only hope they have neutron weapons. Maximum death, minimum residual radiation. Then hopefully, the next group that settles that land will be more tolerant of others.

I don't advocate hunting trouble, but if it's trouble you are seeking, I hate sending anyone away disappointed.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join