This is what a US strike on Iran would look like.....

page: 5
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Rebroadcast
 





The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.


I'm speaking for ALL countries, actually all people when I say we don't need any more countries with nukes.




posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

*** now this doesn't even TOUCH on the fact that by known intelligence the public can see, nothing the United States has in conventional weapons can destroy the Fordow facility. The 30,000lb MOAB goes DEEP. Indeed. Fordow is KNOWN to be deeper. Not by much....but close doesn't count when 100% destruction is absolutely essential. Using Tactical Nuclear Weapons? Oh hell....Fordow won't even know what hit them.....but then, nor will Obama when the world comes down on him with the weight of the entire planet



Devils advocate.


Why would it need to touch the facility?

They could theatrically use 3 or 4 and just obliterate all access deep down and entomb those working there ....


You are quite blood thirsty aren't you?
You like the idea of killing & suffering, based on whatever fears your mind makes up.
Thats not a sign of a healthy mind. Maybe you should seek some professional help?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RagingBull
I really don't understand the anti-Israeli sentiment on ATS. Especially with regards to Iran.


Start doing history lessons and you will understand.


Israel has not attacked Iran. Israel has not sponsored terrorist groups against Iran.


Israel is threatening Iran.


Iran has and continues to support terrorist groups against Israel.

Israel, just like any other country, has every right to defend it self.


So do Palestinians.. Yet you continue to call them terrorists because of that. How do Israel defend killing scores of them in the late 40's also? With the Holocaust?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Rebroadcast
 





The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.


I'm speaking for ALL countries, actually all people when I say we don't need any more countries with nukes.



As long as one country has nukes, we all should have nukes.
If you are a US citizen and you believe in the 2nd amendment, you would also agree.

All of us pay (a lot) taxes to our individual governments to protect us from hostile forces.
I want my government to spend their money on the best deterrent possible. If thats
nukes, then that is the answer. If they are squandering our money on stupid defensive
weapons, then they shouldn't be our leaders.

Now, I know you got some panicky arm wavers claiming that if Iran would get nukes they
would nuke Israel. Well so what, thats between Israel and Iran. If that would happen,
guess what, Israel has nukes too. Problem solved, conflict contained.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


The U.S. decided to sign a Nuclear Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia when Russia was basically on it's knees. Now why do you think we would do that? Because the U.S. right now has a very Good and Working Missile Shield. It will further augment this Shield with the new FEL and there are already several FREE ELECTRON LASER SYSTEMS operational.

Less Missiles...easier to shoot down. Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Rebroadcast
 





The idea that your country can choose who and what happens on earth. It makes me sick.


I'm speaking for ALL countries, actually all people when I say we don't need any more countries with nukes.



As long as one country has nukes, we all should have nukes.
If you are a US citizen and you believe in the 2nd amendment, you would also agree.

All of us pay (a lot) taxes to our individual governments to protect us from hostile forces.
I want my government to spend their money on the best deterrent possible. If thats
nukes, then that is the answer. If they are squandering our money on stupid defensive
weapons, then they shouldn't be our leaders.

Now, I know you got some panicky arm wavers claiming that if Iran would get nukes they
would nuke Israel. Well so what, thats between Israel and Iran. If that would happen,
guess what, Israel has nukes too. Problem solved, conflict contained.






If everyone in your neighborhood owned a firearm, would that make your neighborhood safer?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.

Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   
No scenario would be Optimal to the survival of this planet. We have enough natural disasters to deal with. Someone call all their govt's across the planet and tell them to LOVE each other and stop all wars.


We need to focus on the things that are important people. Saving lives not ending them.

Ascension211



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ascension211
No scenario would be Optimal to the survival of this planet. We have enough natural disasters to deal with. Someone call all their govt's across the planet and tell them to LOVE each other and stop all wars.


We need to focus on the things that are important people. Saving lives not ending them.

Ascension211


I thought that pipe dream died out when the '60s ended.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I don't think they'll go in straight for the reactors, its not like the reactors are a 'immediate threat'.
and I don't think they'll send up jets.

The US could just sit in its ships and send off the worlds most massive cruise missile strike. Iraq they had to hold back somewhat, they didn't want CNN showing 200 cruise missiles striking at once, It needed to be in proportion.
This time, everyone knows the capability of Iran's missiles for the entire region so the level of ''allowable media destruction'' goes up too!

Following this, the first ever mass deployment of drones in an attack formation armed to the teeth. most of them, on suicide missions. They can send out signals to confuse AA, imagine if all of Iran's nice new anti air missiles were wasted knocking out a few dozen drones sending out signals pretending to be F18's.

Each drone has a target, the US has a large cyber division of 1000 consoles with operators each handling 1 drone. You could do serious damage... maybe this is why we allowed Iran to kidnap the drone, we set it up so they have a 'perceived' transmission detection ability, we use this to confuse them while using some other tech on our drones.

This report but is part of the plan. I mean, why does something like this appear in www.businessinsider.com, we want to target that audience, logical thinking business professionals. The size of the list they submitted isnt much.. i can imagine some banker saying '' a few dozen F18's ? jee's just send them in already thats not a lot of risk to lose ''

... no, we'll go in and try to knock out all their offensive missiles and setups as possible. all their coastal defenses, their communications hubs etc etc. Once Iran has been limited and slowed down, we'll send in a few stealth's with underground mini nukes and just pop one on each target. The US populace wouldnt bother to much about the whole 'nuclear' genie, if it occurs in Iran, underground and the media only shows small piles of rubble with birds tweeting and the people in the suburbs cheering.


edit on 28-10-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-10-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer



If everyone in your neighborhood owned a firearm, would that make your neighborhood safer?


Yes
edit on 28-10-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.

Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.


You talking about the Iraq/Iran war? They lost roughly 1/2 a milion people... They are no walk overs even in this day and age.
edit on 28-10-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by beezzer



If everyone in your neighborhood owned a firearm, would that make your neighborhood safer?


Yes
edit on 28-10-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)


I would argue that the same level of safety and integrally can be attained in a weapons free environment as well.



edit on 28-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.

Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.


This is the Reality of the situation. The Iranian Population is basically being HELD HOSTAGE by a small minority of 80 to 90 year old Old Guard Religious Fanatics who still cling to the Islamic Revolution which ousted the U.S. backed Shah...not one of our smartest ideas...but the U.S. was in the act of preventing the Invasion of the Middle East by the SOVIET UNION. The harsh reality of how close this actually came to be was shown to the world in the Russian Yeltsin Leadership...and it WAS CLOSE!

The Numbers...OVER 70% of all the population of IRAN is UNDER THE AGE OF 30 YEARS OLD. 94% of ALL IRANIANS WANT GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES. OVER 96% OF ALL IRANIANS DESIRE A NEW GOVERNMENT THAT IS DEMOCRATIC AND REWRITES THE IRANIAN CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW A U.S. STYLE BILL OF RIGHTS.

Now those are the numbers...and so far the Iranian Pro-Democracy Movement is gaining great strides as sanctions are working and anger at the Regime for what is perceived as a foolish and dangerous path of confrontation where the Regime is seen as PURPOSELY antagonizing the U.S. as well as playing a Nuclear Word Game with a SUPERPOWER...is only splitting the People from the Regime as well as A MAJOR SPLIT AND NEAR MUTINY BY THE REAL IRANIAN MILITARY...which has no illusions of what the outcome and cost would be if a WAR with the United States were to break out. The Iranian Military sees itself in a NO WIN SITUATION which they feel as they are being used as a SACRIFICIAL LAMB in order to provide the Regime with MASSIVE IRANIAN CASUALTIES as a way to get the Iranian people behind them. The Iranian Military will STAND DOWN as it knows any attempt to BLOCK THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ would trigger automatic U.S. Military action which would FIRST result with the OBLITERATION of the entire Iranian Navy, Air Force and Coastal Defenses. This would be followed with the Air Drop of Tens of Thousands of U.S. Special Forces and Rangers to seize IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES. If the Iranian Army were to attempt a Counter Attack...U.S. Bombers and WINGS of B-52H's loaded with New Smart Carpet Bombing Munitions would destroy any attempt at Counter Attack. As for Iran's ability to shoot Missiles...NEW U.S. ABM's...SM-3's ABM's with their new long and powerful Burn Solid Fuel with Networked Super Computer Target and Acquisition Systems would down them all. If necessary...Secret Non-Nuclear EMP devices could render the entire Iranian Country and Military INERT. This would be only if it was necessary as it would destroy the Civilian Economy and bring the country back to the Stone Age. Lastly...if necessary...the FREE ELECTRON LASER could be used to VAPORIZE IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES OR ANY TARGET IN LAND SEA OR AIR. This is the U.S.'s ULTIMATE WEAPON and makes Nuclear Missiles OBSOLETE! THIS...is the REALITY. Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


Since when has anything America done over the past 100 years been for the greater good lol.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I laugh at anyone who thinks Israel can not do this job alone. Israel does not want to have to go it alone because they are going to need to stomp Hezbollah and Hamas in the process to keep them at bay as well. Israel is now also having to deal with a very unfriendly Egypt.

Israel has more advanced tech on the books than we do. Anyone who thinks that they cant and don't have secrete bombers and bombs just like our bunker busters is really naive. They already build more reliable missiles and that is a fact so why cant they build anything they need? They have the money.

Did anyone happen to notice the power went off in Sudan an hour before Israel blew up their weapons factory this week? That is Israeli tech at its best. Israel can turn off the power in Iran like a switch without radical nukes to do so, as well as make their current F series fighters invisible to radar electronically.

The only problem with a strike is that it will start the Gog-Magog war in witch Israel will be forced to use nukes to stop the invaders in their tracks.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.

Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.


Against Iraq back in the 80s sure. Against a division of U.S. Army and Marines with M1-A2 Main battle tanks


They would be chum for the birds! Even if they were that nuts, most probably would have better sense as most are Persians that hate their government and not wacko Islamic s.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by followtheevidence

Since when is anti-war synonymous with anti-Israel?


Since Iran started building nukes.


There is no evidence that Iran has built any nuclear weapons. There is no evidence that Iran has enriched uranium beyond 20%; 90% enrichment is needed for nuclear weapons. Hence, Iran has not started building nukes. Once again, you're misrepresenting the facts. To quote Big Daddy in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof": "Smell that? That's the smell of mendacity."



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


More to the point are they actively TRYING to develop nuclear weapons?
And if so how long will it take them?
And what are their intentions once / if they have them?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Patriotsrevenge

Originally posted by mypan
Iran is no walkover and any attacks would galvanised their population as before.
Remember their human wave attacks in the 80's ? Such waste on human lives but they bulldozed through and proved themselves worthy adversary for anybody.

Sure, the US can attack them from afar or even nuke them but they probably have a few dirty bombs in place already. Ultimately it is down to what level of casualties one is prepared to absorb and the mullahs win hands down on this one.


Against Iraq back in the 80s sure. Against a division of U.S. Army and Marines with M1-A2 Main battle tanks


They would be chum for the birds! Even if they were that nuts, most probably would have better sense as most are Persians that hate their government and not wacko Islamic s.


Those tanks can be destroyed with the RPG 29. This threat is so great, the US refuses to allow Iraq to buy this system because of the risk of it falling into enemy hands. Iran has a vast number of RPG29s. Mind you, I think the biggest threat to M1A2 tanks are other M1A2 tanks, thanks to the US Military's legendary skills in working out who the enemy is and killing their own as a result.

edit on 28-10-2012 by Rebroadcast because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join