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.

 

Is Israel preparing to attack Iran?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


In order to reach Iran's deep underground sites like at Fordo, US might have to use tactical nukes repeatedly to destroy such venues. That would be insanity unleashed just out of fear of Iran having nukes. But then Hiroshima was nuked out of a fear of million US causalities that could have been incurred in a ground invasion of Japan.

Hate and Fear are very strong emotions. I see both of them at work in this case also. Hope peaceful minds prevail.




posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
In order to reach Iran's deep underground sites like at Fordo, US might have to use tactical nukes repeatedly to destroy such venues.

So in all likeliness , we have to nuke them, so they don't have nukes.
Well, we had better pray they don't have nukes.
Or I fear Bunkers in the US wouldn't be the Target.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


Fordo is not in the civilian areas I think. It is in the mountains deep inside them. So using tactical nukes in that area would result in minimal civilian loss and that makes it more likely that US might chose the nuke option. However, US also has several very big bunker penetrating bombs and they might resort to using them several dozen times to destroy the facility.............to their hearts content!



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
So using tactical nukes in that area would result in minimal civilian loss and that makes it more likely that US might chose the nuke option.

Do you realize the number of terrorist this would unleash?
Using a nuke, even tactical nukes.

I'm not just talking Iranian Terrorist. There would be a lot of American, blue eyed , blond haired, who would say they went to far.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 



Once you have enriched uranium then making a bomb is matter of having a lab a size of a garage that can host 5 cars or so.


Uranium isn't easy to work with. While it -can- be done in a small facility; and achieving a "boom" is not all that difficult: You want it to go boom when and where you want it - not while you are putting it together or transporting it. You also want it to give a decent sized bang for the effort you put into it.

Which means you need precision engineering and some people who know what they are doing. Unless you want an atomic fizzle. Which would be nothing to scoff at... but decidedly less shock&awe compared to a boom.


Iran has several missiles that can host a small weapon size nuke.


There's a difference between a "nuke" and what they are building.

What they are attempting to build will end up quite bulky for its yield. As you mentioned, you need to keep the uranium apart from itself and shielded from its own emissions - or you will have a warhead with a decidedly short shelf-life (that may even melt down on the shelf).

Modern nuclear warheads consist of some uranium plutonium, and tritium (a hydrogen isotope). Conventional explosions collapse a small amount of uranium, the resulting energy triggers fusion in the tritium, the force of that fusion collapses a plutonium sphere even further and releases a tertiary fission reaction. It's a three-stage system.

We use highly advanced and stable explosives to trigger this reaction, as well as precise engineering. That is how we have megaton-yield weapons that can be small enough to MIRV them with an ICBM.

Iran will need a very large missile to deliver their weapon even a short distance. They really don't have the capability.


Iran wants nukes to prevent any attack on itself by US NATO. Do not think they will do a mistake of using them on anybody. The whole world will react very strongly to that act.


Because that's a likely scenario.

Iran wants a nuclear weapon to donate to extremist groups - who already have a "who I will nuke first if I ever get one" list.

I doubt they would be so foolish as to use one overtly - but they would certainly act as a supplier.

A single nuclear bomb is not a deterrent. Even a few dozen are not a deterrent. I've discussed the mathematical break-down of a nuclear exchange with a nation such as China - and the U.S. doesn't even need to flinch in the face of a full barrage from China's available arsenal. Only 20-some weapons have the potential to strike the mainland - and each one of those could hit their primary targets successfully while causing less damage than the average Hurricane that makes landfall (their entire arsenal would barely amount to the damage a single hurricane does).

We would laugh - and the carrier task force out of Yokosuka would shut down most of their key strategic resources before being lost or reinforced by forces out of Pearl.

Even China would not warrant a nuclear response if they were to strike with their full nuclear arsenal.

If we wanted to take Iran - it would happen. They could have a dozen Tzar bombs and we could still wipe them out with a drunken evocation of the War Powers Act before the President had time to sober up. Hell - Israel could still handle an Iran with three to five 50 kiloton nuclear warheads - and there wouldn't be much Iran could do about it.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Aim,

While most of your comments make sense but regarding Chinese nukes reaching US and doing damage only a size of hurricane landfall, is something I would still doubt. I think the material loss is only like 6-10 mile radius for 1 megaton bomb but real loss is in the radioactive spread out and this can harm around 100+ mile radius depending on the weather and other conditions. Psychologically it would be a nonsense and the world might go into depression let alone the US.

Also, I believe China has far more long distance ICBMs and nukes than they show on paper. On paper they have only 15 or so long distance missiles but at $3M a piece a mere billion dollars can get them good 300 such deals. So do not trust the commies on that. However, commies attack only the weak, so US atleast is safe from Chinese attack.

Also regarding Iran becoming a supplier, I think technology helps in easily finding out the source of the nuclear material. Something equal to like DNA of human beings for crime fighting. So no country in the world can provide covert nukes to some fanatics and hope that they accomplished with they could not in the overt sense, i.e. attacking the enemies.
edit on 2-2-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
However, commies attack only the weak, so US atleast is safe from Chinese attack.

El Salvadore
Afganistan
Iraq
Grenada
Panama
Libya

Just off the top of my head.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


I never said that US attacks only the strong either. Further, when US attacks it likes to attack in coalition so it is much less honorable than attacking all by oneself. Hope that pacifies you a little bit.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I have two thoughts on this thread.

First, it doesn't matter how deep a bunker is buried in a mountain - it still has to have a door. If you destroy the door (tunnel entrance) you can't use what is in the bunker. If they try to fix the door you just watch on a satellite until it is almost ready and then destroy it again. I don't buy the argument that Iran has bunkers so strong that they can't be destroyed or that we would have to use nukes to destroy them. You can render something useless without having to totally destroy it.

Second, I marvel at how many people say "Well, Iran would never do this or that because it would be crazy, or suicidal, or whatever." That logic is based on the assumption that the Iranian leadership (notice I said leadership, not general population) is sane and shares the same value of life that we do. I believe the evidence shows that those in power in Iran hold their religious and political goals as more important than any number of innocent lives.
I don't but the argument that Iran would never use a nuke on anybody. I do think that they might decide the opportunity to destroy Israel with a few nukes would be worth whatever damage they suffer in retaliation. If there is the possibility that they even MIGHT choose this path then they simply cannot be trusted with any nukes ever.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by itguysrule
 


Two points:
a) Iran has had WMDs and they did not use them even after Chemicals were used upon them in the war against Iraq.

b) Rules of Geopolitics are made by the strong and if these rules are not sufficient then strong will further bend the rules to fit their goals. This is happening a lot in the world since 1991 so do not surprised if the current rules are further bended to fit the needs and goals of the stronger on the block.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
There has been post, upon post, israel will attack Iran way back in 2010-2011, this is just predictions, Israel probably honestly killed that iranian nuke scientist, (mini button bomb can do that easily in his car)



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Israel would not be lookin to do this without at least the tacit approval of the US government.If this comes to pass I sincerely none of you fall for all the flimsy denials that will be coming from the White House to DOD and DOS.The neo-cons of the Bush years have simply transformed into neo-liberals.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Even my Iranian friends here in the US believe that they are intent on making a nuclear bomb. As far as a delivery system I think the simplest way they would do it is a cargo container on a ship bound for the US or Israel. I do not know if Israel is going to attack but I do see it as a threat. It wasn't even a month ago that Russia expressed concern about Iran enriching uranium beyond what they had agreed to. Iran's excuse was it was for medical purpose but I do not buy that. My neighbor who is from Iran said that her brother worked at the nuclear facility and even though this was 10 years ago she said that he had concerns that their enrichment program was not just for peaceful purposes. When somebody from Iran tells me that I tend to believe them. I should say she hasn't been back in over 10 years and only has limited communication through Facebook with her family there. She has also told me she is careful of what she communicates to her family for fear of getting them in trouble.



posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jordan River
There has been post, upon post, israel will attack Iran way back in 2010-2011, this is just predictions, Israel probably honestly killed that iranian nuke scientist, (mini button bomb can do that easily in his car)


What is a mini button bomb or are you makeing that up?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I never understood why such fear over them getting ONE weapon? I am sure they could have gotten one through other means by now (buying one/getting radicals to steal one from pakistan/etc). If they got a bomb and tried something and it failed that would be their one shot not to mention their end. Even if they succeeded it would be their end and unless they made a tsar bomba it wouldn't be anyone's total destruction.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
If they do I hope the people in Washington have enough sense to keep us the hell out of it. They've said many times they don't need our military help. I know they have been goading things over there and issuing statements to try and get us involved and pull the trigger for them...How about let them handle their own $h!t like they say they can?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I guess the Israelis are still butthurt about what happened to their grandparents in WW2, so instead of 'never again', they wanna call the shots on the next World War.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by vogon42
Man this is so messed up.

The soldiers they are going to send have blood in their veins.

The politicians who will send them have OIL in their veins, or religion.

What a twisted twisted world.


Soldiers need to stop complaining about doing the bidding of our government. That is what you are there for.
Dont join the military if youre afraid to go to war?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I never understood why such fear over them getting ONE weapon? I am sure they could have gotten one through other means by now (buying one/getting radicals to steal one from pakistan/etc). If they got a bomb and tried something and it failed that would be their one shot not to mention their end. Even if they succeeded it would be their end and unless they made a tsar bomba it wouldn't be anyone's total destruction.


Hezbollah.

End of story.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by theBigToe
 


You have a problem with someone taking a humanitarian stance?

FYI - soldiers swear to serve and defend the constitution. The constitution gives us the right to free speech.

So someone puts their life on the line to ensure everyone in this country has that right.....then you whine when the soldiers use that right.

So......
Civilians that don't like freedom of speech should go somewhere else.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join