Petraeus: Israel might attack Iran

reply to post by Harlequin

as for kinetic kill balisitc missiles - with a good enough CEP you could actually have a huge ass lump of pointed metal for a kinetic kill weapon - mach 28 from low orbit would make for a resonable bang.

Well that was a nice science-fiction short story.

Alert me when ICBM's have become accurate enough to hit targets with a CEP of 1m and Mach 28 ballistic missile is invented, then I might see the point in having ballistic missiles armed with kinetic warheads.

As an interceptor against other missiles? KE munitions make sense because they're potentially faster than current ABM's.

As a primary payload for an ICBM, it's just ridiculous.

The area of effect of a kinetic ICBM warhead would be so minute compared to nuclear warheads, it could only effectively be used to take out pinpoint targets. Something the size of a multi-story building.

No sane military in the world is going to sacrifice total-area effect damage and range for precision accuracy and less area effect damage.
It just doesn't make sound tactical sense.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Correction: PRIOR to 1980, Iraq was one of the most powerful Arab states.

After loosing 250,000 plus men and the United States cutting off all military support because of the Iran-Contra scandal, Iraq was one of the least powerful Arab states.

You know I always find it fascinating how the ignorant and the foolish boat about their ignorance while stating absurd nonsense as fact. Just like the above quote.

Obviously, anybody who have ever opened a history book in their life will know that every word written above is utterly false. Not only is it historically inaccurate but in fact it contradicts your own statements made later.

You stated "prior" to the 1980 Iraq was the strongest nation in the ME; that would be before the Iranian revolution when the US was actively showering the Iranian Shah with everything and you state Iraq was more powerful ?? Yeah, okay let us accept this for a moment. Next you state that the US cut off military aid to Iraq after the Iran Contra affair leaving them weak, which is plain false. But then, why would the US need to support the Iraqi's who YOU said were the strongest, against a weaker power like Iran?

Apparently this contradictory and plainly bizarre and irrational sequence of events is your version of history. Maybe true in loopy land not on Eerth.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
By 1991, Iraq had almost half the standing army it had just 8 years prior.

Again absolutely crazy nonsense. But that is to be expected from you.

I cant bother to pull out detailed reports and studies so I'll just link from wikipedia the numbers to demonstrate your patently fallacious and perhaps mendacious statements: Iraq before and after Iran-Iraq war

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

This he was able to do because unlike Iran, Iraq wasn't under any sanctions from the West and was even aided in countering Iran.

Where do you think he was manifesting all this military equipment and professional training from?

The United States did everything for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war save for pull the trigger.....

Thank you for stating the obvious! And you are merely extrapolating what I said in a sentence while posing banal rhetorical questions.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
1 American pilot was lost to enemy fire during the Gulf War.

One.

Your attempt to characterise Saddam as a potent threat to the combined arms force of some 32 Coalition Countries, in order to redeem the IAF's so-called "advanced capabilities" is just laughable.

As is your naivety and utter ignorance with regards to Saddam hussein's war machine. Apparently you are under some naive delusion that from 1987 to 1991, a span of 4 years, his war machine that was equipped with soviet and Western components had somehow magically turned impotent and feeble due to a drop in assistance by the West. Also, add to this the naivety in thinking the number of causalities is some gauge on the difficulty or severity of a campaign. Apparently you were unaware of the Coalition air losses and damages during the first Gulf War which number almost 75. Here is a list of all combat losses so you can educate yourself of this very basic fact. 128.121.102.226...

Also, one wonders, if Saddam's SAM and AAA were such a walk in the park, why the Coalition and the USAF choose to do so many low level sorties and use F-111 Nighthawks in such large numbers ? Maybe it was all a giant impromptu air show ? .

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Most of those search & destroy sorties you refer to were to hunt down SCUD launchers, which were a very viable threat to Coalition Forces stationed outside Iraq, and resulted in the single, largest loss of life during the entire war when an Al-Hussein missile hit the US Barracks in Dharan.

Please spare us your warped and utterly delusional version of recent history. Some of us were actually coherent and alive during the discussed period and know our facts. So spare us this BS barrage!

I was talking about Iraqi SAM network. Not Scud launchers. Even a child knows that the first thing to do in a battlefield is to establish air superiority by neutralizing the anti-air and SAM sites. This is what I am talking about. Anybody who was coherent during Desert Storm will know the thousands of sorties that were flown to take down these SAM's and AAA assets. Why dont you at least bother to read up before you spew this ignorant drivel ?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Not to mention the number of countries Saddam attacked with his Scuds ??

Two countries. Israel and Saudi Arabia. Causing a whopping total of 3 casualties in Israel and 28 in SA.

Nice attempt at spinning the story your way though.

Are you for real ?? Ever hear of Kuwait ? Do you know how many Kuwaitis died ?
As for the casualties in KSA and Israel, you make it sound as if it was all very benign with that ignorant drivel . The casualties were inspite of active warning radars and Anti-Ballistic missile defenses like the Arrow and the PAC.
This level of rank ignorance is typical of the google read and wikipedia learnt.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Iran has the largest standing army in the Middle East currently.

A standing "army" of mostly terrorists and para-military types. Little better off than Hezbullah terrorists in that some of them wear uniforms.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Not to mention operates the longest-range ballistic missiles fielded by any Middle Eastern nation and has a huge indigenous military production capacity, making it's own planes, tanks, missiles, assault rifles and even UAVs.

What nonsense !! Utter and complete nonsense and mad raving here but I cant be surprised.

Longest range Ballistic missiles ? Hello, Jerico ?

Own planes ? Which planet are you living on ?? They have a bunch of old F-14's, a few F-5 Phantoms (Vietnam Era) and some reverse engineered copies, a few F-4's and some Mirages and Migs that the Iraqi flew their way. In total they dont have the ability to put more than a 100 aircraft in the air to fight an air war. They purportedly have signed a deal with Russia for the Su-30 and with the Chinese for the J-10. Today, they wont even be able to defend themselves against the Saudi's with their Eurofighters and F-15E's forget Israel. As for Tanks, the Zulfiqar is a composite of the M-60 and the T-72 which is again few in number. The UAV's can be built by anybody. Even some of the hand held UAV's used by US Army can be made in a garage for less than $1000. Its no great military accomplishment.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Iran's airforce is second only to Israel and Turkey.

Only in your dreams. As i have explained above, the Saudi's have an advanced air force and UAE also has a decent size airforce. Both of whom dont exactly like Iran. No sane person would compare their antique airforce with the IDF or the Turks.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Forgive us for blowing Iran's almost 1 million combined soldiers "out of proportion" when comparing Israel's force of 180,000 .

Again, a totally naive and ignorant statement.

Iran's 1 million "combined" soldiers is like saying Israel's nearly 6 million "combined" soldiers, which would actually be more credible.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Former US General John Abizaid laid it out very clearly, of just what the Pentagon thinks of Iran:
www.spacewar.com...

YAWN! Nothing I didnt know except, that the Gen. is referring to the Persian Gulf not the entire Middle East or Asia or whatever the hell you imagine him to be talking about.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by IAF101]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It's one thing attack neighbouring countries only a few hundred kilometres away, that are well within your Airforce's operational range, not to mention not possessing any real SAM defences.

So Bagdad is "within a few hundred kilometers and withing their Airforce's opearational range" ???

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It's quite another to launch a massive, aerial surgical strike against targets over 1,800km away, spread across a diverse area, buried upwards of 75ft underground, with nothing but F-16's and pitifully undergunned JDAM munitions.

Did you just knuckle pound this completely asinine statement is some epileptic fit or did it have some sane consideration ?

"undergunned" JDAM

First do you know what a JDAM is ? Nobody in their right mind would use the JDAM to take out bunkers unless of course like you they dont know what the hell a JDAM is! They would use the bunker blaster, specifically the GBU-28. However in Israel's case they might couple the GBU-28's with a RNEP or the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators for the uninformed, which I know you are a part of.
Second, the Israelis would be using their F-15E's for this mission as it has a range of 2000 miles and with Air to air refuling, they can easily make it back.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Loiter?

What you think KC-130 refuelers can just circle around Iraq for a few hours while they wait for the F-16's to travel another 800km and take out the targets?

Yes, Loiter!
And no "genius", they would refuel on the way back towards Israel.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Any breach of Iraq's sovereignty is a breach of America's military sovereignty.

Says who ? A breach of Iraq's sovereignty is a breach of only Iraq's sovereignty, nothing more, nothing less. The USAF may get pissed but if the Pentagon is informed and the USAF is "busy" they could do it on their own with ease.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The Iraqi Government wouldn't ever allow Israeli planes over their airspace and the Washington made a big enough stink about the Turks cross-border campaign in Northern Iraq, so I seriously doubt they'd just allow Israeli planes to waltz in and out of their joint airspace without repercussions.

Are you comparing the Turkey's influence with Israel's influence in the US ? Are you really sane to make that kind of comparison ? As for Iraq "allowing", they are in no position to "allow" anything if they dont know till after the fact.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Israeli didn't get a green light last year for an air strike and that certainly kept that idea off the table for the rest of the year.
edition.cnn.com...

True, they didnt get the green light but that doesnt mean they cant pull it off on their own as you were stating all this while.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Unless Washington authorizes it, you can be sure Israel's never going to have the balls to go at it alone without big brother holding it's hand.

As I stated previously, nobody needs to hold anybody's hand. The IDF can do it pretty much alone and as for Iranian retaliation, they may be able to launch a few missiles and aid Hezbullah a bit more but they can't march across Iraq and Syria or launch similar air strikes over Israel.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Uh, not they don't. No one has the option of a Nuclear first strike here, which is the only way IRBM's would be effective in taking out Iranian sites.

Nuclear first strike ? Do you understand the term "bunker buster" ? An IRBM with its greater throw-weight would not need to necessarily to go in for a full nuclear device and instead could use a combined penetrator with low yield munition.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


re-entry speed.

since an ICBM bus is in orbit unpowered re-entry speed is around mach 28 (same as appollo mission) the shuttle enters at mach 23

thought you knew that?


edit:

www.bharat-rakshak.com...

a re-entry speed of 3.9 km/second and a boost phase of 110 seconds.

indian IRBM in the same class as the shahab-3 , 2500 km IRBM - which comes in at a slightly lower mach 12 from a height of 90 km`s

now - the entry speed is dependant on the design of the re-entry vehicle , and it is easily possible to double the speed with a light weight warhead - say 250 kg to 8km`s

[edit on 4/4/09 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by JanusFIN

Petraeus: Israel might attack Iran

www.presstv.ir

Top US commander in the Middle East, General David Petraeus says Israel might choose to attack Iran as a move to halt its nuclear program.

Go Isreal! Bomb Iran!

reply to post by JanusFIN

Could it be that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was elected precisely because Iran's President talked freely of wiping Israel off the map?

In their previous election, Israel elected the party that talked of peace and gave land to those who publicly declared their desire to destroy Israel and who responded to offers of peace by launching thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel to accomplish that end. Is it any surprise that Israel elects someone who says "Never again!"?

Do the "Palestinians" want peace? A new poll by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry, says that 53% don't want the two state solution.

I think it's strange how we can't see ourselves in the eyes of others. Israel is stating how dangerous it is to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a messianic warring nation. Hello! Ever look in the mirror? Who invented the word messiah to begin with? Who attacked who last... wasn't it Israel that attacked Iranian nuclear facilities? Who disavowed the Annapolis peace agreement? Wasn't it Israel? In my opinion, Israel is going to push us into war. I believe it would be in the best interests of the USA to talk to Israel, tell them to cool off. Threats to the surrounding neighboring nations do not breed peace. Perhaps the reason Arafat and the rest want to annihilate Israel is because they are so difficult to work in directions of peace.

I remember a 700 Club broadcast from Jerusalem several years ago. The 700 Club reporter was on the scene interviewing citizens in the Islamic quarter of the city. There was a loud demonstration of Jewish citizens proceeding down the open street in the Islamic quarter. The citizen mentioned to the reporter how the Jews come into their quarter without a permit and make trouble and it doesn't make the news, but if the Moslems do the same in the Jewish quarter they are publicized and denigrated.

I don't think we're getting the full story on what's going on with Israel. I think we're supporting warmongers. I think they should cool off the rhetoric and let peace have a chance. Whatever happened to the turn the other cheek standard? Just stop. Just stop retaliating against the rockets, the suicide bombers, etc. Let the UN settle the problem. Disarm Israel. It worked for Japan, it can work for Israel. It worked for Germany, it can work for Israel. They suffer from national paranoia, and it is likely caused by the media. Ever see "Bowling for Columbine"? Lock your doors at night, keep a gun under your pillow, get scared....really scared. Watch the news at night and get all the latest on the murders, rapists, child molesters, and such.

For God's sake, don't put on news about all the good things people are doing in your neighborhood. Never talk about the charitable giving, the volunteer work. Spend all your time on the child beaters, wife beaters, gay haters. "You have to be carefully taught" to hate (South Pacific- the movie).

Aren't you fed up with the hate?

OK We have two nations whose present regimes are ,quite frankly,two of the most intolerant and bigoted on the planet,in an ideal situation,the two of them could wipe each other out,unfortunately sides will be taken,US on one side Russia on the other,etc,etc,etc,I.m afraid tht I personally have no wish to share this planet with any nation who executes its children in the name of the ultimate fairy story which is religion,nor one whose raison d'etre is the subjugation of all its neighbours."Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"I say!

reply to post by CharlesMartel


Look deeper in to that modern eras one of the greatest ABCCCNBBCMSBC newshoax... "Wiping off the map" was orginally misstranslated and missunderstood statement. You find that real translation of the speech easily by google... Educate your self.

Maybe Netanyahu was elected because of the continuous lies -

Hell - even Intifada is 99% misuderstood and lied - reported as act against Israel, but in fact its only against Zionism - and that is a great difference. If you look the orginal statements for calling intifada - you cant find a word from Jew or Israel - only Zionism. ( Compare that to fight against Nazism )

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Actually, the Middle East and Greece laid the foundations for the modern world.

reply to post by TheComte


I'm an American, please don't lump me in with the fat and ignorant, because I am neither.