Iran Warns Of Pre-emptive Strike On US Forces

Israel can take out the reactor and we very well may want them to. Even if we are worried about the implications and want them to wait though, it's not certain that Israel would listen. Israel seems to operate under the realization that they aren't a very big nation, and that small mistakes could cost them everything if they aren't very wary of possible enemies.

So what happens if Israel hits that reactor? (putting my previous post aside, I agree that Iran is very unlikely to make any preemptive strikes, even if in my opinion of military affairs that would be the logical move- so the question really is about what happens if Israel hits the reactor.)

Well there are a few possibilities- most of them dealing with Iran bending over and taking it, and a few more resulting in the destruction of Iran's current government.
The really good one though (for Iran at least) would be to gather a coalition to -STOP- the war. With heavy Russian and French help in the UN they could try to
1. Get an order for reparations from Israel- even if Israel won't pay.
2. Get war crimes charges against Sharon so that he can't go or deal with nations which acknowledge the world court.
3. Get a very small UN separation force armed with anti-aircraft missiles and fighters deployed to Iran with the stated mission of preventing attacks against Iran's nuclear reactor, which they can then start rebuilding.

Of Course the best way to go would be to get somebody to stop Israel from attacking in the first place. I don't know how in the world you could do that, short of asking Moses or Abraham to come down from heaven and ask nicely.



As for the replies to what I've posted so far, I can see that I have certainly presented my points in the wrong light, although I also feel that there is a certain lack of vision affecting the responses which rest on the premise of retaliation being too much to handle.

I encourage you to consider my replies and think about the big picture, because most of the world thinks in decades and centuries- TV and fast food have lead us to think in terms of years and isolated incidents, which I believe blinds us to the tides which are driving the world.

First I failed to make the case for the coming of a war between Iran and America. This is the point which I am most likely to be wrong about, because I'm not a psychic.
I view the world as a broader geo-strategic scenario. I do not believe that the foresight of the US government and military is as limited as that of the media-directed public. I believe that the military-industrial complex and prominent political organizations such as the New American Century people have a strong interest in continuing the Cold War. Russia is not fighting the cold war anymore, but Russia still has the weapons the positioning and the size which make it such an important factor on the world stage.
I believe that the Cheney and the rest of the New American Century crowd are pressing the military option in conflicts which do not need to be solved in that way. Iraq is an outstanding example. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that it builds a bufferzone from the black Sea to the Indian Ocean which limits rapid Russian access to the middle east.
Furthermore I believe that Afghanistan, and the progress being made in our relationship with Pakistan, are intended as political manuevering against the remote possibility of Chinese expansion (even though China is not generally an expansionist nation, you must remember that we are talking about Western moves based on their perception of China).
In that sense, Afghanistan is a greater asset if it borders a firm ally with Indian Ocean ports, and which ties them in to a network of allies by land, so that they can not be surrounded by enemy forces. For these reasons, it is important to the New American Century cause that Iran become an ally or a puppet of the United States. I believe the military road is the most likely, unless a democratic revolution is seen as having a strong chance of success.


IF (and only if) I am right on that first point, it then follows that Iran should seek ways to drive off American ambitions. The only way to do that is to cause such a scenario that America's public will shy away from conflict in the future. This is why radical measures would have to be taken, even if they resulted in catastrophic retaliation- because ultimately the American people would want to leave and stop fighting. When that happened Iran could go back to business as usual, even if it was 100 years in the future. And America would think twice before coming back.

Think about Vietnam. The enemy did whatever it took- they hacked arms off of their own countrymen, they hid weapons in villages even though it resulted in us burning the villages and murdering citizens, they fought in a desperate and uncivilized manner because they didn't care how we retaliated tomorrow. All they cared about is that we'd be gone the day after tomorrow and we wouldn't want to come back. They had been doing this for a long time against China, Japan, France, and then us. They ran their nation with 100-years vision. They didn't cut a deal to make the 70s better and suffer for it for the next 100 years. They suffered for the 70s and made the next 100 years better.


Last point- A Muslim Government which defeated the US may find itself in a position to claim hegemony over the region. If you can achieve parity with the West and with Israel, you are the one to lead the way. Pan-Arabism is a big deal. We might have forgotten about it once Saddam went off the reservation, but over there they haven't forgotten.
Nasser lead the attack on Israel because it would have been a catalyst to expand the UAR. Ba'athist Syria is the one nation that participated in every war with Israel that the arabs have fought, because it advanced the Ba'ath cause of Socialist Pan-Arabism.
It would be worth war with America, and worth any amount of retaliation to bring about a united arab super-power at some point in the future. If they can set the stage for America to eventually pull out of the middle east, as I described above, making their name as the ones who drove us out, they will be the founding fathers of a super-power.

The question is, "Can another Moselm nation absorb an attack by Israel and not respond?" I think there might be a point at which a response regardless of the reaction becomes necessary. Iran has the right to respond to any attack, and can't give it sovernity up to another nation just because it more powerful. Aggression by any country can't go unpunished. There is no good choice. Do nothing and be the laughing stock of world. Do something and become a gleaming sheet of desert glass.

Iran is sure full of themselves after they developed the Shahab-3 (Iran's newest missile), But Isreal isn't laying down on the job either with thier (Newest Missile Interceptor).

Originally posted by jrsdls
Iran would not want to tangle with the US with Bush in the White House. You can bet that Iran will wait until after the elections until they considered any attack. Just look at history, The Iranians attacked the US embassy with a Democrate in the White House. He tried to appease them, Just like Kerry would do. Only when Regan took office did the Iranians let the prisioners go. You know that the Iranians do not want to tangle with Bush. He has shown that he will walk the walk and talk the talk.

You might be interested to know that the national security advisor for Carter is the architect of the current administration's Middle East strategy. Read "The Global Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezinski. You might also be interested in a little thing called "The October Surprise." Also, terrorists killed over 200 Marines in Beiruit during Reagan's term, we had 9/11 with Bush, and Bush also apologized to China after they crashed one of our planes. Democrat = bad / Republican = good is a bit simplistic.

I think if I was in charge of Iran I'd attack the US in Afghanistan and defend everywhere else. If they appease the west forever they will go nowhere.

Just think: if China invaded Mexico and Canada, would the US sit back and wait for the bombs to drop? That's the geographical situation in Iran - the US on both sides.

Originally posted by taibunsuu


I think if I was in charge of Iran I'd attack the US in Afghanistan and defend everywhere else. If they appease the west forever they will go nowhere.

Just think: if China invaded Mexico and Canada, would the US sit back and wait for the bombs to drop? That's the geographical situation in Iran - the US on both sides.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH - WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP COMPARING THE UNITED STATES TO OTHER (Less Developed) COUNTRIES!

All were doing is putting pressure on them. they need it.
It's nearly the same in North Korea with our soldiers on their border, Political Pressure is good, but sometimes the threat of force is what some counties need to hear to calm back down.

Originally posted by thematrix

Actualy, if I'm not mistaken, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the 12-18KT range or 12.000-18.000 TONS of TNT.
Both US and Russia have "officialy" developed bombs up to 100MT, that is 100.000.000 Tons of TNT. The biggest bomb tested was a 50-60 MT weapons tested by the russians in Syberia.

Thats a bomb between 5600 and 8400 times stronger ...

EDIT: for the americans, before you say I'm wrong, belgian notation of numbers is 100.000,00
In other words, the "," is used for decimals, not the ".", so my notation is correct.

[edit on 19-8-2004 by thematrix]

Im pretty sure the biggest Nuke in the US arsenal right now is the 9 MT B-53. Which is enough to make anyone in about a 10 mile range get crisped. You are right about the larger ones they were developed but I dont think they are in active duty anymore as the accuracy has become so much better and the whole MIRV concept has been used.

Originally posted by saeediran
Well don�t you think it is about time that the Americans realise that Iranian government is a major threat to the region and the money, arms and the forces in Iraq and Palestine is being supplied by the Iranian regime?

No offence to this member, I would really like to know if saeed's location is really Iran... Can this be indicated by a kindly staff member?

Of course the US realises this, but the rationale for US aggression is still a litany of self-serving lies.

The following was and remains great, and it's been updated by the author to reflect the realisation that Bush and Blair have been lying all along.

Still interesting to watch how it plays out:

www.idleworm.com...


to creativity

to war

I can imagine the total destruction of Iran if Iran attacks the US first. I know I would be all for it. I thought Iran was happy that the US was taking care of their enemies to the East and then to the West. I haven't heard of any plans for the US to attack Iran. However, our military makes contingency plans for any scenario. If Iran really wants to be totally destroyed and totally unite the US and the West, then they should attack the US first. Just my opinion. I wasn't really opposed to the people of Iran but know how I would feel if our forces were attacked.

I didn't really want WWIII to start so soon but I can imagine a chain of events happening now. For some reason I never thought of it or didn't want to. Israel, Iran, and the US just need to keep their missles and planes within their own spaces. We don't need to fight it out. I'd like to live another 20 years or more before 1/3 of mankind is annihilated from a nuclear war.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by taibunsuu


I think if I was in charge of Iran I'd attack the US in Afghanistan and defend everywhere else. If they appease the west forever they will go nowhere.

Just think: if China invaded Mexico and Canada, would the US sit back and wait for the bombs to drop? That's the geographical situation in Iran - the US on both sides.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH - WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP COMPARING THE UNITED STATES TO OTHER (Less Developed) COUNTRIES!

I've been to 17 foreign countries and spent considerable time outside the US and I can't honestly say people and their motives are different from those of the US anywhere in the world. Also I'm not sure what you mean about less-devloped countries, because while I love my country and the people here I have to admit I've been to cleaner, safer, more high tech countries. You should see the high speed they have in S. Korea, how safe it is in Tokyo, or how clean Switzerland is. Everyone I know in S. Korea has broadband and cellies, much more so than the states. In Tokyo salarymen can sleep on the streets if they drink to much saki and miss the metro - I mean, put your head on rolled-up newspaper and sleep on the street! And in Switzerland I saw people on hands and knees scrubbing their porches with soap and water - in the freaking wintertime. In Singapore there is no trash - I mean NONE on the streets, and if you go to a movie theater you get a numbered seat. Ok that last part brings me to America, where I think the best benefits are, of course The American Dream, raw beauty of our land, freedom freedom freedom, and really independent people who live as they wish. See, every country has its bennies and I can tell you with 100% assurance that EVERYONE in the world is far more alike than they are different and because of the power of American dollar and culture - we are cultural outsourcers, and I guess because of geography, Americans as a whole are pretty ignorant about how their country isn't the best in the world at every single thing.

So, again, if I was Iran I'd wait till Iraq gets worse and then put everything into destroying US Aircraft carriers in the Exocet shooting range known as the Persian Gulf. Notice Iran has been pretty quiet and the US has been VERY quiet about possible threats from Iran. This is because it's a very precarious situation with US carriers eternally four minutes from destruction by Exocet waves. Tell me that the US would tolerate a Chinese carrier battle group armed and fighting Mexico 50 miles from the US coast. Yeaaahh....

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Im pretty sure the biggest Nuke in the US arsenal right now is the 9 MT B-53. Which is enough to make anyone in about a 10 mile range get crisped. You are right about the larger ones they were developed but I dont think they are in active duty anymore as the accuracy has become so much better and the whole MIRV concept has been used.

Thats why I said "developed" instead of "made".
The russain 50-60 MT bomb that was tested got the pritty name "Tsar Bomb" too.

And your right, the MK-53 built for B-52 bombers at 9MT is the strongest in service weapon right now. Officialy there are about 50 of those in service.

Heres a chart used elsewere on ATS to show the power of the Tsar compared to the Hiroshima bomb:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

on October 23, 1961 the Soviets detonated the "Tzar Bomba" which had the power of 50 megatons. I think 55 to be exact and it created a mushroom cloud that was as high as 60km and destroyed things in a perimeter up to 100km.

Tsar Bomba (Russian for "King of the Bombs"; During its development the bomb was actually nicknamed Ivan) was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. It was a fusion bomb with a yield of 50 megatons, though the design was capable of approximately 100 megatons. It was not intended for actual use in warfare, however; it was developed and tested as part of the sabre-rattling between the Soviet Union and United States in the course of the Cold War. The 50-Mt test was hot enough to have induced 3rd-degree burns at 100 km, atmospheric irregularities caused blast damage up to 1000 km away; the "dirty" 100-Mt version would've laid lethal radioactivity over an enormous area. In other words, such an enormous bomb has tremendous "blow back" potential to its user, while at the same time being inefficient in radiating much of its energy out into space. Modern nuclear-weapon tactics call for multiple smaller bombs to produce more damage on the ground.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by thematrix]

taibunsuu - What did I just say about Comparisions!

and yes I know that alot of countries are good clean technology driven places to live, but I'm talking about other countries that arn't like Iran and North Korea.

Hey THEMATRIX, is that really to scale model or is that a bit of an exageration?

Also Bunker Buster don't leave a mushroom cloud.


[edit on 20-8-2004 by Murcielago]

I've noticed a few people posting about China attacking Mexico or Canada, does China actually do any military exercises in the Pacific or close to America?

Do we know that Iran possesses Exocet missiles? Even if they did fire Exocet's against US ships don't they have gatling guns/rotary barrel cannons to defend against such threats? I.e like the British Royal Navy Type 42 Destoyer which has port & starboard defensive gatling guns/rotary cannons.

How big is Iran's military? How powerful is it's Army, Air Force & Navy? Do they possess the latest tanks, such as the T-80?

If Iran ever attacked US forces in the Middle East directly then i'm sure they would give them a good fight, even if it didn't last for long. It's not just the advanced weapons that win the war, it's also the training military personnel receive whch is vital in order to survive and do the job effectively.

But thanks to the NPT treaty the US, Russia , China , France and England

It's not just England, it's Britain, United Kingdom or Great Britain. Notice the team in the Olympics is not English but British?

Britain consists of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England.

Originally posted by Flyboy211
I've noticed a few people posting about China attacking Mexico or Canada, does China actually do any military exercises in the Pacific or close to America?

Do we know that Iran possesses Exocet missiles? Even if they did fire Exocet's against US ships don't they have gatling guns/rotary barrel cannons to defend against such threats? I.e like the British Royal Navy Type 42 Destoyer which has port & starboard defensive gatling guns/rotary cannons.

How big is Iran's military? How powerful is it's Army, Air Force & Navy? Do they possess the latest tanks, such as the T-80?

If Iran ever attacked US forces in the Middle East directly then i'm sure they would give them a good fight, even if it didn't last for long. It's not just the advanced weapons that win the war, it's also the training military personnel receive whch is vital in order to survive and do the job effectively.

When I mentioned China bothering US neighbors I'm just using allegory to try and see how Iranians view Americans dealing with their neighbors. Of course all the details are not identical, but putting yourself in your opponents position is just a means of analyzing a situation.

Yes, Iran has Exocets. If you remember the USS Stark accident, you'll find that the Stark was hit by an Iraqi Exocet in 1987. The Stark of course being in the Gulf was as ready as it could be, but a missile flying six feet over the water just under the speed of sound is very capable of being missed by active radars. To the crew of the Stark, they were hit out of the blue. Also, the British lost a ship in the Falklands to an Exocet in 1982. It had shipboard anti-missile defenses as well.

The Persian Gulf is a very tight place. Defending a battle group there requires a lot of skill and determination. If you remember in 1988 the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner killing over 200 people. The accident happened because there is simply so little leeway for defense there that in some cases hesitation for even a second could get your crew killed.

Now when I was in the Marines I once met a general named Paul Van Riper after hearing some cool stories about him from one of my officers who served with him in the Gulf War. Van Riper has a glass eye do to losing an eye in 'Nam. There are some stories about how when he would put troops on the spot for an Article 15 he would replace the normal eyeball with an eyeball that had a skull and crossbones on it. In the Gulf his callsign was Cyclops. Anyway, he had a lot of esteem in the eyes of many Marines. He served as a three-star in the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and retired in '97. In 2002 he was employed as the 'Enemy commander' in combat simulations to test new US warfighting techniques. He kicked the US ass so hard that they had to reset the games because the US Navy ended up 'sunk.' For example he used motorcycle couriers so the US couldn't intercept radio messages. He swamped US ships with close-in gunboats and planes in ship egress / entrance points comparable to the Straights of Hormuz.


From the article, located at www.washingtonpost.com...:

"Vice Adm. Marty Mayer, deputy commander of Joint Forces Command, defended the exercise.

"I want to disabuse anybody of any notion that somehow the books were cooked," Mayer told the Times. But he said "certain things are scripted" in any large war game. "You have to execute in a certain way or you'll never be able to bring it all together," he said.

Mayer said that in some parts of the exercise Van Riper was constrained "in order to facilitate the conduct of the experiment."

That's great, Admiral Mayer, but guess what I hope our civilian leaders realize that real war is not scripted.

So anyway, I'm not saying the US navy in the gulf is doomed, etc., they have a constant CAP and subs below providing 3-D protection to the battle groups. However if leaders are convinced their military is infallible they are more prone to make mistakes.