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.

 

US admiral says forces prepared to confront Iran

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Nukes are still nukes and depending on the density of the population they can kill alot. Atleast that's what I read at one place. Ex: Manhattan can suffer 1M killed by the same nuke that would only kill 50K in say Minneapolis. Worst item of the nukes is the radiation related sufferings and it can be years before the area becomes normal again.

Do not try to water down the evilness of nukes. You are making it sound as if a mere cup of breakfast jelly spilled on the floor and wiping it all off is a matter of few minutes.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
I can see it all come together... 2012...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Suck that Iran has never attacked anyone...



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 



Nukes are still nukes and depending on the density of the population they can kill alot.


Humans are a renewable resource. That's a fact of life you'll have to come to terms with in your own way, or become a fanatic forever embattled against Nature, itself.


Atleast that's what I read at one place. Ex: Manhattan can suffer 1M killed by the same nuke that would only kill 50K in say Minneapolis.


It's a complex set of guesswork that has little real-world data to base itself around.

Yes, it will largely depend upon the target - but the key infrastructure necessities of our nation revolve around food; oil supply, refinement, distribution; and manufacturing. While harsh - the elderly would suffer the worst casualty rates among the population, followed by the infirm, then children, and finally able-bodied adults.

For example - even a multi-megaton "city-crushing" nuclear weapon would barely wipe out the town I live in. Sure - in a densely populated area, that's a lot of potential deaths. However - the critical infrastructure necessary to support those people is far more expansive than the dwelling area of people - meaning that their loss is, largely, inconsequential to the nation as a whole. Sure, that's people that cannot support a war effort - but it is also not creating much in the way of strain on remaining population.

They would be better served to aim for large highway interchange systems and oil refineries. That will cut entire regions off from critical supplies and induce panic/chaos.


Worst item of the nukes is the radiation related sufferings and it can be years before the area becomes normal again.


Depends largely upon what type of weapon was used, its state of repair, the altitude it was detonated at, etc. At higher altitudes, fallout is so sparse that you won't really see a rise above background radiation, anywhere. At lower altitudes, it's largely confined to a small area (and much more of a concern).

Cesium137, a radioactive isotope that is a byproduct of the fusion-stage of three-stage nuclear weapons, is chemically similar to Potassium, and will be readily absorbed by local Flora. A sufficiently large arsenal could be used in a rather abstract manner to burst at altitudes for optimal fallout dispersion, irradiating large swaths of farm-land and making the harvests for two or three crop cycles a radiological hazard (although, in times of dire need, this could be disregarded if non-contaminated food could be supplemented... it would be well above regulatory standards, but survivable with a minimal impact on future generations).

However, there are only three real powers on the planet with that kind of capability - The U.S., Russia, and Britain (expanded to NATO, if you wanted to). Even then, they could only target a limited amount of any country's agricultural resources to any kind of effect.


Do not try to water down the evilness of nukes. You are making it sound as if a mere cup of breakfast jelly spilled on the floor and wiping it all off is a matter of few minutes.


You simply misunderstand the time-scale upon which I think.

You think in days. Maybe weeks. I think in decades and centuries. A Nuclear war with a country of China's nuclear capability would be Katrina mixed with Pearl Harbor and/or 9/11. The loss of life and property would likely come in under Katrina (perhaps a somewhat higher body count), but the shock value would exceed 9/11 in terms of social reaction to the event. In ten years it would be an academic subject and tourist attraction.

You'll learn that I'm a fairly calculating individual, and not at all afraid of attrition, if it is a necessary cost.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


You are right it isn't. People like to think Russia is more committed to countries they support than they really are.

That said. If they accidentally kill Russians when bombing the nuke stations, it may be a different story.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Any nuke produces an EMP blast, as far as my knowledge goes.

That alone would cripple any city and bring it down to it's knees. Sure, many basic infrastructures would still be functional, especially the military who already have protections against EMP blasts.

But not civilians. It would cause chaos.

If 9/11 had the consequences it had around the world, and it was "just" three buildings falling, imagine what would be to wipe out most of New York and then a several mile radius where nothing electronic would work. And not only cellphones and house appliances. Even stuff like the energy grid system would take years to be functional again.

In an age so dependent of electronic and computer infrastructures (especially in western countries), a nuclear attack would not only cripple the population, but the cities they live in.

However, I do agree with you overall. We underestimate nature and it's ability to heal itself. Most people think our existence will last for millions of years. Yet, there are actually scientific studies that if humans left earth, our "empire" wouldn't even be left for fossils. People just have a hard time accepting that it's possible we can all be killed and that the world would continue to live, like nothing happened. It wouldn't be the first time (jurassic era).

(sorry for dropping in the middle of the discussion)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
We definitely should not use ground forces. We can completely devastate Iran with an air campaign. Just level everything and come on back home. IF they are building nukes, then I see no problem with nuking those facilities.

Generally there are Initial air strikes to soften up the key targets (Radars, SAMs, Command HQs etc). Then the naval attacks are carried out with cruise missiles followed by Ground Invasion. This once again depends on the terrain and geographical location in addition to the weather.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 



Any nuke produces an EMP blast, as far as my knowledge goes.

That alone would cripple any city and bring it down to it's knees. Sure, many basic infrastructures would still be functional, especially the military who already have protections against EMP blasts.

But not civilians. It would cause chaos.


Power is shut down to major urban centers before any disaster like a hurricane.

And when it does come back on, it comes back on grid-by-grid as inspectors clear it to come back on.


If 9/11 had the consequences it had around the world, and it was "just" three buildings falling, imagine what would be to wipe out most of New York and then a several mile radius where nothing electronic would work. And not only cellphones and house appliances. Even stuff like the energy grid system would take years to be functional again.


It would take several 30 megaton nuclear warheads to take out "most" of New York.

As for the disposition of the electrical system, it would really depend on a few factors. However, the system is designed to survive thunder-storms discharging more voltage into the system than we can figure out how to replicate. This simulates what the rest of the grid would 'feel' in the event of an EMP.

The main component that would require replacing would be transformers, and that largely depends upon the type of transformer, where it is, and how it's mounted.

You're still looking at very localized damage. Even for a megaton-yield weapon, only a several mile radius. The rest of the grid would have a "WTF" spasm before returning to normal operation and severing ties with the compromised sectors - as they are designed to in order to survive storms (although aspiring engineers during the Cold War era have taken measures to deliberately design our system to be more EMP hardened).

Again - the problem is self-correcting. Most of the affected area is going to be uninhabited (much the same with areas hit by Katrina and other hurricanes - whole districts getting erased from the face of the map tend to make prospective builders shy away for a decade or more, until their collective memory develops a fault). So the need for electricity and other derived necessities in those regions is minimal.

It's a somewhat new segment of behavioral and functional modeling focusing on the node/filament structure of networks. It's why we can survive even after having half of our brain traumatically removed. Same idea, here.


In an age so dependent of electronic and computer infrastructures (especially in western countries), a nuclear attack would not only cripple the population, but the cities they live in.


This all comes down to altitude. The only areas that are going to be substantially affected are those where the transformer windings are burned out (insulators compromised by HV spikes induced by the EMP, or incinerated by abnormally high current). Exactly what is burned out and for how large of a radius (all other factors being equal) will depend upon how high the bomb is when it goes off.

Other, more sensitive, electronics (such as cell phone relays) will be affected for a somewhat larger radius - but the target is also sufficiently smaller. The PN junction of diodes and transistors is the vulnerability in solid state electronics. While solid-state is presumed to be more vulnerable to EMP - this is only part of the story. In order for the device to be compromised, the EMP must be able to induce a reverse current sufficient to destroy the PN junction, or generate enough forward-current to destroy the junction.

ESD hardening of personal electronics makes the prospect of successfully inducing destructive voltage via the traces in electronics a much more difficult prospect. I suspect many of our devices would be far less vulnerable than predicted (though effects would still be noticed well beyond the initial power failure).

www.thespacereview.com...


The failures observed were generally in the unprotected input stages of receivers or in rectifiers of electronic equipment; transients on the power line probably caused the rectifier failures.


U.S. Declassified Analysis on Starfish Prime: one of our primary EMP tests from the effects of nuclear weaponry.


Indeed, the main damage in the Soviet test #184 appears to have been caused by the E3 component by its coupling to the long-lines which functioned as antennae for the low frequency pulse.


These burned out primary and secondary windings in transformers not designed to handle sustained current in that manner.

Further, multi-stage nuclear weapons have less powerful E1 waveforms because of the pre-ionization of the atmosphere by the first fission stage - which reduces the effect of the secondary fusion and tertiary fission stages.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I dont see any winners in this conflict, just more pain and suffering from both sides, The future of the Humanity is at stake, No matter how many bombs fall, it will not bring the world any closer to a common ground, where each different society can Co-exist without having to threaten and boust there powers, Im not feeling very good about this conflict, It will either be decided through an emergency diplomatic meeting and agreement of both differing nations, or the first shot will be heard around the world, only to be followed by more shots, and death. We need an intervention With brilliant minds, that do not jump straight to the big red button that says Fire, but the button that says stop, lets actually talk this out, co-exist and not kill eachother every chance we get, but then i woke up from that dream and im still just a guy stuck on a rock, where Greed and power are the only things that make people change not Love, Intellect, and a common understanding that we are all the same at first, only to be muniplated through the years of growing up, and brainwashed into thinking we are better than the person next to us. WTF. Gosh I wish the people in power actually gave a damn about the future of Humanity, ON both sides



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonFire1024
 



Oh Maine.....The way life should be.. Love it....

Just there last week at the post.

God I love that place.

By the way is Bob's Clam shack open. They were closed for renovations recently. Had to go to the weather vane across the street instead.

God I love Maine. My second home.

Ok back on topic.

Yes.

Of course they are ready the have tridents in the area and could light up iran like disney land in under 4 minutes.

They have so many weapons at the ready.

And Iran is no way ready to recieve what they are cliing for.

Not saying they are asking for anything.....BUT.

When you say that your not making NUKE weapons. Then get caught making them It makes you go Hmmmm.

Then you say that you do not advocate the destruction of Israel then in the next sentence say that all Jews are against ALLAH and must die.

Well you need to stop talking smack.

Listen you have the most liberal president qwho will give you everything you want.

And what do you do.

You slap his face.

Well Iran you may just get what you want .

Which is the destruction of the US.

Well it will never happen.

you may inflict damage to us. but we are determined in ways you just don't understand.

Remember 911.

We shall never forget our mothers and fathers which were killed that day.

Think your gonna destroy a base in the middle east and launch missle at our soldiers.

Well you had better think again.

As that will be game set match.

Wish the were not so ignorant and we could all just get along.

We are really the people of peace.

If iran wanted peace they could come out and say.

We would like to make a statment to the people of the world.

Yes Iran wanted Nuke weapons to protect ourselves from others.

We seek only peace with our neighbors and today we make a commitment to the world of visibility. We are making this gesture as a peacful nation.

We would like to make peace with the workld and the US. We are all on this planet together and it is bad enough we have bben destroying its resources.

It is time to sett all matters to rest.

We would like to join hands with the United States of America.

We weould like to try to preserve our resources by going nuke. Will are willing to work with the us gov. To produce our fuel to supply the world with fuel for their reactors.

This would settle everything.

But tobad they are all stubburn spoiled little brats who treat their people like # in the nam,e of ISLAM.


SAD very sad indeed.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
America needs a new war, I think it's been chomping at the bit to show off it's newest toys that'll suddenly remind the rest of the world how far behind technologically they are in comparisson. They last did it during the first gulf war when they announced the existance of the B2 and F117 stealth bomber/fighter. well it's been 20 years since America went "Looky here at what we got now" So I'd expect Iran to be hit by.. oh I dunno, laser technology maybe EM railguns or hyper sonic stealth bombers.. who knows maybe even space based weaponry

It needs to attack Iran to justify using new and deadly weapons as they are a big player in the middle east..

It wouldn't have the same effects using them against some Somali pirates or a car full of taliban.


peace

Rock Ape



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


www.parowanprophet.com...

Contradict this 1 Megaton scenario on Salt Lake City. It won't be back to normal over a long weekend.

End of it all, STAY THE F*****k AWAY FROM NUKES!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Carbon? Seriously?

I'd like to see you in any way support that contention. Basing your opinions off a "carbon-tax" floating around is ridiculous.

Carbon is like the most abundant atom in the Universe.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Rock Ape
 



It needs to attack Iran to justify using new and deadly weapons as they are a big player in the middle east..


If we went: "looky-looky"

... Why would we spend so much time and effort trying to keep those things Top Secret? ... IE: "Why does this very site exist?"


It wouldn't have the same effects using them against some Somali pirates or a car full of taliban.


The Naval Special Warfare Development Group has a number of classified field development projects ongoing at any given time. Exactly what those are is classified - but they actively use them in the deployment and support of SEAL team operatives in their missions that never get published.

You'll find that the developmental warfare community, for the most part, likes its privacy. If they get media attention - it means they were going after a very high profile HVA (dangerous), or they #ed up. That's generally the way they like to keep it.


well it's been 20 years since America went "Looky here at what we got now" So I'd expect Iran to be hit by.. oh I dunno, laser technology maybe EM railguns or hyper sonic stealth bombers.. who knows maybe even space based weaponry


That's 70s and 80s style thinking.

I'm one soldier on the ground. I look around, and I see indicators pointing at where all of my buddies are, and where all of their identified contacts (hostile, neutral, or otherwise) are. I can, if I so desire, get all kinds of environmental data streamed to me, and call up radio-resonance-imaged maps that give me a rough idea of the layout of any building I'm about to charge into.

A new warning pops up, and I see a fortified position several blocks away with heavy armor reinforcing. I can see the locations of presumed hostiles, and estimates of the gear they are carrying (from body armor composition to make and model of the rifle) all thanks to the milimeter-band radar mounted aboard a drone flying support. My squad is not equipped to handle this. I mark the target with a request to make it go away.

20,000 meters overhead, an orbiting B-52 (yes, they are still around - they will be flying on other planets... yeah... they are "going to be retired by 2050"... but let's be real... how many times have we heard that one?) receives the marked target coordinates and the avionics automatically relay them to a GPS/INS redundantly guided 500lb JDAM-equipped warhead.

Moments later, the ECP is no more. Surviving hostiles are quickly brought down with what can only be described as collective omniscience.

This is all just one tiny little element of a real-time situational display aboard a carrier flying support operations a hundred klicks off shore.

It's easy to program into games. It makes for epic and intuitive squad-based combat.

The technology and capability to make it real... well... I'd guard it carefully until I could train and deploy it in sufficient amounts.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Russia has said they will defend Iran - but, honestly, that's posturing and an attempt to show good will and testament to the old USSR. They wouldn't get involved beyond selling Iran weapons and contracting military advisers out to them. Russia is starved for cash and doesn't want to admit they are still a shadow of the power they once were. They are still a serious contender, but won't be sticking their own necks too far out on the line for anything not in direct defense of their homeland.


Keeping the routes to the South problematic makes Russia's petroleum the most palatable source for Europe. Even if Europe would prefer to diversify.

Keeping Iran in a state of where they cause problems, and allowing Saudi Arabia to influence extremism throughout the Islamic corridor is to Russia's benefit.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Ah, yet more of the Battlefield Earth simulation for combat training awesomeness. Love it. Seriously.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Rock Ape
 


If the intention of global economic development is to diversify, then allowing other countries to level up to what is the apparent level playing field is to the advantage of the balance and progress of the entire global economy.

The vast differences between the developing second world and the first world are too great. There needs to be some view that there is an attainable and useful level to come to. So showing that the level that one or two players are on is vastly beyond compare is NOT useful to the end goal.

The differences between the developing second and the first are great. Between the undiversified first and the diversified first the levels are still astounding. Between the third and the first, the differences are unimaginable. The amounts being booked even by the developing second are largely based on transfers, and not real development.

Blowing the appearance of economic homogenization up is not to anyone's advantage.
edit on 2012/2/13 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by Aim64C
 


www.parowanprophet.com...

Contradict this 1 Megaton scenario on Salt Lake City. It won't be back to normal over a long weekend.

End of it all, STAY THE F*****k AWAY FROM NUKES!


You can't turn back time. They exist. Even if you wiped humanity down to a tiny percentage of the current population, it is rather likely that the knowledge of their existence and possibility will remain in the human knowledge field drastically reducing the amount of time it would take to recreate them.

I know everyone wants to go back to Eden - but you got kicked out. Deal with it.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by victor7
 



Contradict this 1 Megaton scenario on Salt Lake City. It won't be back to normal over a long weekend.


www.ij-healthgeographics.com...

No one ever said it would be a "return to normal" - but that the impact wouldn't be debilitating.

Considering China's entire arsenal: www.fas.org...

The Dong Feng 5/CCS-4 missile is the only one in active service with the range to strike the U.S. Most of their arsenal is intended to counter India and, interestingly enough, Russia. For a total of 20 single-entry 5 megaton nuclear warheads. A nice little picture that shows their ranges, here: 4.bp.blogspot.com...

We could take it with a smile on our face.

Yes. People would die. There are 380 million of us. Projected casualties would range in the 10-20 million range, depending upon how each weapon was used (though it is likely targets would be double and even tripled-up on to reduce the chance of successful interception by Pacific and Atlantic ABM assets, as well as failure of the weapon).

However, farming, manufacturing, and many other processes would continue.

In other words - they would just piss the rest of the country off. I'm not saying cities wouldn't be heavily damaged and take decades to restore. I'm simply saying that people would adapt. Industry would relocate, if necessary. People would move. And life would go on. The actual economic impact, however, would be less than that of your average hurricane.

You want to try and argue against a fundamentally attritionary process by arguing the loss of human life.

What I'm saying is that it would take a volley of hundreds of nuclear warheads to even begin to touch the ability of our nation to pick up and carry on.

For any country to attempt to threaten us with an arsenal smaller.... is silly. Because we don't even need to return the threat of using nuclear weapons. We can unleash a storm of Marines that just lost their family in a nuclear strike.


End of it all, STAY THE F*****k AWAY FROM NUKES!


Kind of why we're getting involved with Iran.

Just because we could take a full nuclear volley from China and meet them with a cold, unflinching stare doesn't mean we want to deal with vans spontaneously reaching critical mass in parking garages.

It simply means that China can be told to sit down and mind their own damned business. MADD doesn't apply in their case, and they shouldn't act like they are on equal footing when threatening military action.

Russia is a different story - but considerable effort is spent keeping them from selling off their nuclear arsenal to the highest bidder. So their promise of involvement is not going to be at their own cost, but to their profit (Oh, the irony).



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


They may be ready for war but are they prepared to suffer the consequences
edit on 102929p://2America/ChicagoMon, 13 Feb 2012 10:52:47 -0600 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join