Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mahdi is coming - and the strategy for it

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by deckdel
 


Israel takes out Iran's offensive capabilities first.....then they bring in the bunker busters.

And that is after they destroy Iran's ability to communicate with command and control in the theater of battle.




posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by deckdel
 



Thing is, even if IDF is toughest bitches on planet - without air-cover, they are down.


Israel with UN backing has air superiority over any country in the world.




The 60% damage rate to allied naval fleet is easy to calculate. Iran has 5000+ anti-ship missile systems along the coast. Iranians know these cannot be reloaded - so all of them are shot once, and then the crew runs. However, against the fleet of 200+ vessels, and kill rate of 75-80% in this sort of battle condition, would still leave 500-1000 missiles coming through.

Smallest vessels sink, large ones get damaged, but still floating.


I’m not trying to turn this into a pissing contest but do you know what the Phalanx is? You should read up on its capabilities before you do anymore math!



edit on 21-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
This Mandy thing it's supposed to be after a big war. Thats not a big war



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


Could be, if Russia jumps into the boiling pot!!

2nd.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


In nuclear detonation, main part of radioactive material comes down through the fall-out. Which in the worst case scenario is ... back home. That is really dependent on weather conditions.

Radioactivity won't stop any army. They can fight a day and two easily in any possible high exposure levels, and maintain battle condition for 1-2 weeks in medium rate exposure areas. But, in the explosion area - the enemy is eliminated.

On the other hand - if Israel would resort to nuclear - then they need to go all-out. Means, they need to target any possible WMD depot in the area, and braise for the worst.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Sure I know Phalanx. It shoots one target at a time. In average a battle ship has 2 of them, carriers 4.

So? You send 3:2, or a torpedo. Hence the overall hit-rate of 75-80%... right? In an all-in launch, they won't be able to shoot down the incoming targets in sufficient rate.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by radpetey
 





Israel takes out Iran's offensive capabilities first.....then they bring in the bunker busters. And that is after they destroy Iran's ability to communicate with command and control in the theater of battle.


In the "Mahdi"-scenario - the battle ground is not Iran at all. Iran is only a decoy/diversion to get air-superiority off from Israelis. Israel is lured to reduce airforce capability for 6 hours. During this time they are subjected to a co-ordinated sneak attack.

In such a scenario, the chances are remarkably high for Israel to loose.

Remember also, Mahdi is the chief for all the muslims - so, here we go with a simulation of a joint strike by hostile neighbors, which have had conflicts with Israel.
edit on 21-9-2012 by deckdel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by deckdel


In nuclear detonation, main part of radioactive material comes down through the fall-out. Which in the worst case scenario is ... back home. That is really dependent on weather conditions.

Radioactivity won't stop any army. They can fight a day and two easily in any possible high exposure levels, and maintain battle condition for 1-2 weeks in medium rate exposure areas. But, in the explosion area - the enemy is eliminated.

On the other hand - if Israel would resort to nuclear - then they need to go all-out. Means, they need to target any possible WMD depot in the area, and braise for the worst.



Israel is not dropping any nuclear bombs.

These arm chair generals are awesome, I cant believe MOSS-AD hasn't picked up
edit on 21-9-2012 by popcornmafia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by deckdel
 


Concerning IDF, I just need to remind they lost in south-Lebanon 2006 (mission was to destroy the MAD-base, but they did not get even close, and lost 50+ Merkavas there). If there is no air-cover - the force capability of IDF is radically reduced.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I and many others here know far better than you do about Israels and Irans weapons capabilities. ISrael would not send a air strike first if they have weapons such as EMP's You send in the EMPs first. destroying almost all of The electronics severly limiting Irans retaliation. As to attacking irans missiles and launchers. All of those have been pre targeted and will be destroyed by a coordinated strike right after the EMPs have detonated in a layered attack.

I will not entertain any delusions that Iran will do anything but get a beating. SO do not even respond to this post if you are the OP because I ain't hearing it.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by yuppa
 


I would also like to point out the many ME countries that don't want Iran to be the bully in the ME. What about Saudi Arabia, Quatar, United Arab Emirates ....

With the exception of Saudi Arabia who plies their poor with trinkits, they live rich and want to keep it that way.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by deckdel
 



In nuclear detonation, main part of radioactive material comes down through the fall-out. Which in the worst case scenario is ... back home. That is really dependent on weather conditions.

Radioactivity won't stop any army. They can fight a day and two easily in any possible high exposure levels, and maintain battle condition for 1-2 weeks in medium rate exposure areas. But, in the explosion area - the enemy is eliminated.


Yes, I’m familiar with life at MOPP level 4. It’s not a fun existence in 110 degree desert environment. I was fortunate to only spend @ 3 months in Iraq but I was there in 2003 when the threat of WMB was the greatest, so we spent more time in charcoal/rubber suits than anyone after us.




On the other hand - if Israel would resort to nuclear - then they need to go all-out. Means, they need to target any possible WMD depot in the area, and braise for the worst.


Typically (in conventional warfare) the aggressor is at a disadvantage because the enemy is ready, dug in, and knows the environment. However, the dug in enemy really has no advantage in the case of a nuclear or aerial attack; they just dig in and get blasted!



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by deckdel
 



Sure I know Phalanx. It shoots one target at a time. In average a battle ship has 2 of them, carriers 4.

So? You send 3:2, or a torpedo. Hence the overall hit-rate of 75-80%... right? In an all-in launch, they won't be able to shoot down the incoming targets in sufficient rate.


Phalanx is just one of MANY defensive system. In fact, it’s a last line of defense. But based on that statement you really don’t understand its capability; It can track and engage dozens of target on its own.



You also obviously don't know the main defensive systems that protect our ships. Point being, the US fleet will not be taken out by the old-tech surface missiles or v-bottom gun boats that Iran possess.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Wouldn't surprise me if Israel snatched the "Doomsday Bomb" off the Russians a few years back and intend to use it if they look like being beaten.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by deckdel
 





I’m not trying to turn this into a pissing contest but do you know what the Phalanx is? You should read up on its capabilities before you do anymore math!



edit on 21-9-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)


I've seen the R2D2's in action and they can take down multiple anti-ship missiles in a matter of seconds.

I just love armchair military strategists. They should spend a decade or so in the military or better yet attend the School of Americas or any of the Military Academies then postulate on military tactics and outcomes.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deckdel
reply to post by tvtexan
 


The point is - if Israel would do an air-strike towards Iran - the planes would have nowhere to return to, back at Israel (airfields). During the mission - and thus long time after it - Israel would not have capability to provide local air-superiority. If this happens, the scenario above is possible (hard to tell if its likely).

Their only safe measure is missile attack, and take the burden of some civilian losses. But, they do not have enough missiles to cover the 3,600 potential nuclear sites in Iran, add to that need to hit several times (if using conventional war-heads).

THUS: Either Israel in its current noice making is a) playing internal politics or b) is suicidal.

edit on 21-9-2012 by deckdel because: (no reason given)


They don't need the time. Just a well placed EMP nuke.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deckdel
reply to post by seabag
 


Sure I know Phalanx. It shoots one target at a time. In average a battle ship has 2 of them, carriers 4.

So? You send 3:2, or a torpedo. Hence the overall hit-rate of 75-80%... right? In an all-in launch, they won't be able to shoot down the incoming targets in sufficient rate.


Your statement right there tells me all I need to know about your naval tactics knowledge. We haven't used Battleships in 40 some odd years. Our Navy is made up of carrier groups and the destroyer has long since replaced the Battleship. An Aegis cruiser or destroyer has the ability to track and destroy multiple inbound targets at a time.

My knowledge comes from 16 years of US Navy service, where's yours come from?



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Step Zero

China and Russia turns off all electrical devices and says. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Hush !



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Even if somehow somebody got a significant strike on Israeli airfields, I'm fairly sure the IDF can and would quickly take over certain stretches of highway and have ad-hoc runways implemented on short notice. Thus any planes not destroyed during such initial strike would still have some alternatives to return to. It's nothing new either, it's a strategy well implemented in Europe since WWII and it even influenced the development of the U.S. Interstate system during the cold war. (We saw how well it worked for Germany.) So I'd be certain the Israeli's are well aware of it.

Thus anyone attacking would also have to cripple this other transportation infrastructure so it couldn't be used in this way, but then that makes pressing forward more of a logistical nightmare if you're planning on taking and holding ground. Not to mention that messing up miles and miles of highway is a more daunting task than cratering closely spaced runways.

And if the nuclear option is used for some reason or other, prevailing winds will likely spread the fallout over the Arabian peninsula. It's not going to be fun times for them either. It would be survivable, but cancer and birth defect rates would definitely go up.

Also if they attack any U.S. Carriers in the Persian Gulf, it's pretty much going to be them eating the poison pill. Where do you think that reactor fuel would end up? Although it's a big body of water, most of it isn't that deep compared to the rest of the worlds oceans. Hopefully they're smart enough to realize that.

I think most of the fight will remain economic and political unless somebody on the Western side does something first.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join