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.

 

Why Everyone is SO afraid of Iran..American Bunker Bombs Don't Work....

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 


Once this scenario kicks off, if Iraq decides to close it's airspace, one of 2 things will happen. Israel will still fly over Iraq with little or no resistance or Saudi Arabia will allow them overflight. SA is a little of a jaunt, but still doable. Saudi Arabia is not a big fan of Iran's. It will probably be a multi-day mission to eliminate any further "percieved" threat that Iran poses IRG will be just as big targets as the nuclear facilities. Israel may even strike Hamas and Hezbollah at the same time to minimize retaliation. But like I said, the nations involved will understand that this will likely cause a serious conflict and will be ready to go the distance. This might be the reason we are letting alot of the uprisings and such to happen and even help foment a few of them, to minimize any regional support for retaliation.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Would the Israeli's need in-air refueling?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Yes. We would supply that.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
One good indicator is to watch for any deployment of a squadron or two of the F-22 to Saudi Arabia . If that happens then it won't be long after that.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
No doubt in my mind that we have the tools to dismantle Irans military and any weapons program we consider a threat.

Some people crack me up with this America doesnt have ability to do this or America cannot win vs Whoever.
We spend more on Defense then the rest of the world spends on anything.

Frankly Im tired of ALL these savages demanding all our time and resources. Flatten the entire middle east and then let them fight over thier radioactive sand.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This is the real reason America has to remove Iran,............Kerching ,

Iran openly held a press conference and announced the manufacture of their first nuclear fuel rod on Jan 2, 2012. On Mar 8, 2008 President Admadinejad announced Iran’s intention to build 50,000 centrifuges for refining Uranium 235 to fuel rod purity (3% to 5% U235) for power reactors.
By way of contrast, the US produces all the uranium nuclear fuel it needs with only 3,000 centrifuges.
It appears Iran has every intention of entering the world wide nuclear reactor fuel market and competing with American, English, French, Japanese and/or any other nuclear fuel businesses.

With 50,000 centrifuges refining uranium Iran [as the Ruskies client state] can easily supply the uranium fuel needs for all the power and research reactors on the planet at a very competitive price, even a subsidized price if bought with a big reactor from the friendly Russian salesmen and women.

That means it is a multi-trillion Ruble series of transactions. These transactions would change the balance of power in the world; thus, the US opposes the transactions.

www.veteranstoday.com...

Even the poor old UK is being left behind,

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 29-1-2012 by Droidinvoid because: (no reason given)


The wiki entry gives 80% of the info needed to make your mind up regarding the USA,

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 29-1-2012 by Droidinvoid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
For your information guys,this is 2012...we are not in 50's any more....Iran is not Korea or Vietnam...you have toys ,they also have them....you have brains, i guess they do too....you have extra money to toss around carelessly!!.......I think they do too,specially for defense purposes....you have spin doctors and politicians to justify your actions....so do they.....you have media....almost everyone has media this days....you have motivation to invade...they have ten times motivation to defend....Invading not good...defending,good...and just because you have a play station3,it doesn't mean you have the best one in the planet.there are people in some parts of the world playing with more sophesticated gadgets. .they just don't like to advertise it like you guys do.....so be careful of what you are asking for........ besides ,what has Iran ever done to any country in the world to deserve to get BOMBED!....oh,i almost forget,,,Israeeeel!!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by travis911
Could compromise be possible if the U.S. can't destroy them?

the-diplomat.com...


if?
IF?!

you gotta be kidding. of course u.s. army is able to destroy iran. don't forget the military is always years ahead in terms of technological advance over what's admitted in public, so when they say that something does - or doesn't - work, it's all for the sheeple watching fox news.

it's not a problem of being able or not to destroy iran. it's a problem of u.s. government being a bunch of complete morons for even considering doing so. china stated it clearly - touch iran, and we won't sit and watch, even if it'll end up with WWIII.

they want that war, and they'll get it. compromise isn't an option.
it never was.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 


The Isrealis also have in-flight refueling capabilities. It just boils down to where those tankers would be allowed to loiter. I think Suadi Arabia would allow that..



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by travis911
It was on foxnews. So this is why I believe the US will compromise...they have no choice.


Compromise?


Compromise is not part of the agenda. The Americans want Iran to work in their interests. The Iranian regime works for its own nation, and will certainly not work with the same nation that propped up the Shah that tortured Iran for over two decades just so Iran would only work under American interests.

The only solution for Washington is to force the Iranian regime out of power. They know that there is little popular support for a war, hence why the CIA backs anti-Iranian (minority) factions that conduct terrorism within Iran. This is all about intimidation.

Other methods have included sanctions on Iranian industry in an effort to break the Iranian people through attrition, hoping that such efforts would create a divide that pits the Iranian people against its government. Unfortunately for the West, Iranians are not ignorant of history and know exactly what the alternative is to their current regime- imperialist exploitation and totalitarian government.

So before talking about "compromise", go talk to the Iranians about what "compromise" means to them. I don't think the "compromise" that Fox News describes is what the Pentagon has in mind



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by travis911
It was on foxnews. So this is why I believe the US will compromise...they have no choice.


Compromise?


Compromise is not part of the agenda. The Americans want Iran to work in their interests. The Iranian regime works for its own nation, and will certainly not work with the same nation that propped up the Shah that tortured Iran for over two decades just so Iran would only work under American interests.

The only solution for Washington is to force the Iranian regime out of power. They know that there is little popular support for a war, hence why the CIA backs anti-Iranian (minority) factions that conduct terrorism within Iran. This is all about intimidation.

Other methods have included sanctions on Iranian industry in an effort to break the Iranian people through attrition, hoping that such efforts would create a divide that pits the Iranian people against its government. Unfortunately for the West, Iranians are not ignorant of history and know exactly what the alternative is to their current regime- imperialist exploitation and totalitarian government.

So before talking about "compromise", go talk to the Iranians about what "compromise" means to them. I don't think the "compromise" that Fox News describes is what the Pentagon has in mind


Well, we may be misconstruing what the word “compromise” means from the Pentagons viewpoint.

I’m sure they want to “compromise” the structural integrity of Iran’s bunkers.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Yeah, I am aware of that however like you said it is whether or nor SA would allow that. It would be easier to just use U.S.'s tankers which are already in the region.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Maybe somehow Ireal, Iran and the US can get in a room and talk it out somehow? It seems like Iran's fear of having its regieme changed is driving the whole issue. Maybe we the US and Iran signed a non-aggression pack.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by travis911
Maybe somehow Ireal, Iran and the US can get in a room and talk it out somehow? It seems like Iran's fear of having its regieme changed is driving the whole issue. Maybe we the US and Iran signed a non-aggression pack.


Are you really so naive? Iran has done nothing wrong! It is the US that is encroaching on Iran, a country half a world away from America.

True, the US may be influenced by factors like the Israeli lobby to strike Iran faster, but why should Iran have to change what it is as a sovereign nation just to make the US happy? All of this crap about nuclear weapons and how much of a threat Iran is, is the same propaganda that was used with Iraq. It is nothing but doublespeak, because the fact is that it is the US forces that are prepared to attack Iran, NOT the other way around.

If you want to see a peaceful solution, then do what the US was founded on and revolt against the warmongers who have hijacked your government and turned it into a fascist global empire.
edit on 29-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ookie
I think Iran needs the bomb. They will get the respect they need and won't be under threat from Israel or the US.

They get pushed around too much and endure constant harrassment. No country deserves that.

Having a nuke got North Korea the respect it needed. Hopefully it will work for them too.

No country should push around another.


What about the people who live in that country? Are they happy with the regime they live under in your opinion?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by Ookie
I think Iran needs the bomb. They will get the respect they need and won't be under threat from Israel or the US.

They get pushed around too much and endure constant harrassment. No country deserves that.

Having a nuke got North Korea the respect it needed. Hopefully it will work for them too.

No country should push around another.


What about the people who live in that country? Are they happy with the regime they live under in your opinion?


They probably feel a lot more secure, and thus "happy", with thier current regime than the current majority in the US feel under Obama. What is Obama's approval rating, something like in the 20% range? At least your buddy Reagan was a military keynesiest who avoided direct conflict.

Iran is a lot like Iraq was under Saddam in terms of stability. The Saddam regime and the Ayatollah government both do/did a good job of holding their countries together, considering internal dynamics (mostly of ethnic nature, and external pressure). When Saddam was disposed of, Iraq fell apart into a civil war between many factions fighting for prevalence (much to the expectations of western commanders).
edit on 30-1-2012 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Satellite launched MOAB or a combination of MOAB and air fuel bombs will wipe out the installations. a non nuclear option, one of shock and awe.

I am very disappointed in the one sentence look at m link post. you get a F minus




if a base has no way to get in or get out. resupply oxygen or food and water its still a dead base. nuclear fuel need a lot so stabilization to keep the machines of processing usable material.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Andrew303
Satellite launched MOAB or a combination of MOAB and air fuel bombs will wipe out the installations. a non nuclear option, one of shock and awe.

I am very disappointed in the one sentence look at m link post. you get a F minus




if a base has no way to get in or get out. resupply oxygen or food and water its still a dead base. nuclear fuel need a lot so stabilization to keep the machines of processing usable material.


Satellite-launched MOAB?

MOABs/fuel-air bombs being used against hardened underground bunkers?

Play a lot of video games there?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join