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

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
nobody is going to nuke anybody ..Iran know once they have the bomb .they are pretty much safe from a defence point of view ..they also know it would be suicide to START a war with the so called big hitters . anyone with any intelligence knows this .. so where are we going with this?



The threat is with Iran having such tight terrorist ties. Those terrorists WOULD use a nuke without question.
And to paraphrase Iran, "we want Israel wiped off the map".

I mean, that's gotta make you think twice. Stupidity is not an issue. Stupid people are sometimes leaders. See Kim Jong.




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by IZombie
 


Not this again, everywhere I go some wipe of the map nonsense is spewed, Iran talks the talk, but seems NATO walks the walk.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   
This is a fantasy land in almost this whole discussion. The USA cannot take out those facilities with conventional weapons. The US military is either spreading total propaganda and lying about this, or it is total disinfo, and none of these hardened nuke plants are even intended to be the targets. As some others have already said, the real reason to attack Iran has nothing to do with this. This is proven by the simple fact that the USA does not have the conventional military capability to actually do so, and neither does Israel.

The only way it could be done is an all out thermonuclear war. And if the USA did that, there would be consequences on USA soil.

Clearly, very few people here have the slightest clue as to how any of these military operations would actually work, nor to what would be involved. The whole idea of "taking out" these "nuclear facilities" is absolutely beyond ludicrous, and it's just being talked about in the Zionist controlled media so that the moronic brainwashed masses can be fooled by it.

And as far as the talk about "secret weapons" and all of that - yes, the USA has extremely advanced weapons. So what? They don't have anything in the alternative weapons category that can take out these facilities, except for things like HAARP, which if actually used for such a task cannot be controlled properly. They use one of these "alternative" weapons to "take out" these hardened nuclear plants and there will be a radiation cloud over western Europe.

The only way to even begin such operations, from a tactical standpoint, would be to use large scale nukes so that the radiation would be locally held where the strikes occurred. This could be accurately gauged by the local weather pattern, and the use of advanced military tech (like HAARP) in controlled amounts, could keep the fallout down.

This would negate the radiation leakage from the plants themselves.

This whole thread, talking about conventional attacks to take out nuke plants (which is impossible), about attacking Iran over bombs they don't have, and about it being some kind of video game circle jerk, for sick and demented psychopathic Americans to watch on Zionist owned TV, as they masturbate to it, and ejaculate over the casualty reports coming in on TV, is nothing more than a sick and delusional fantasy of the minds of the psychotic.

The idea expressed here by some, that somehow there would be no consequences to the US for doing this, is nothing short of pure lunacy. There are some extremely disturbed people posting in this thread.
edit on 29-10-2012 by Red Cloak because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Red Cloak
This is a fantasy land in almost this whole discussion. The USA cannot take out those facilities with conventional weapons. The US military is either spreading total propaganda and lying about this, or it is total disinfo, and none of these hardened nuke plants are even intended to be the targets. As some others have already said, the real reason to attack Iran has nothing to do with this. This is proven by the simple fact that the USA does not have the conventional military capability to actually do so, and neither does Israel.

The only way it could be done is an all out thermonuclear war. And if the USA did that, there would be consequences on USA soil.

Clearly, very few people here have the slightest clue as to how any of these military operations would actually work, nor to what would be involved. The whole idea of "taking out" these "nuclear facilities" is absolutely beyond ludicrous, and it's just being talked about in the Zionist controlled media so that the moronic brainwashed masses can be fooled by it.

And as far as the talk about "secret weapons" and all of that - yes, the USA has extremely advanced weapons. So what? They don't have anything in the alternative weapons that can take out these facilities, except for things like HAARP, which if actually used for such a task cannot be controlled properly. They use one of these "alternative" weapons to "take out" these hardened nuclear plants and there will be a nuclear cloud over western Europe.

The only way to even begin such operations from a tactical standpoint would be to use large scale nukes so that the radiation would be locally held where the strikes occurred. This could be accurately gauged by the weather pattern and other advanced military tech (like HAARP) in controlled amounts could keep the fallout down.

This would negate the radiation leakage from the plants themselves.

This whole thread, talking about conventional attacks to take out nuke plants (which is impossible), about attacking Iran over bombs they don't have, and about it being some kind of video game circle jerk, for sick and demented psychopathic Americans to watch on Zionist owned TV, as they masturbate to it, and ejaculate over the casualty reports coming in on TV, is nothing more than a sick and delusional fantasy of the minds of the psychotic.

The idea expressed here by some, that somehow there would be no consequences to the US for doing this, is nothing short of pure lunacy. There are some extremely disturbed people posting in this thread.


Don't even know where to begin on this.

Out of curiosity, what military branch are you in, if any? I assume you are not in any. Sorry if this is mistaken.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Is everyone as dumb as a plank on here?

Events would unfold swiftly as in the film "Threads" (well worth a watch)

1. At about 4am, Israel launches attack on Iran.
2. Iranina fighters engage and begin to lose against Irael, but tying up Isreal's attack force.
3. Iran calls on Russia who scramble.
4. Russian planes engage Iraeli and Israeli jet s begin going down rapidly.
5. Many Israeli retreat and pursued by Iranian and Russian.
6. US forced to intervene to defend Israel, US jets scramble in the Gulf.
7. Iran hits US fleet with Silkworm missiles with heavy loses.
8. Other country's presetn drawn in to defend US fleet.
9 US Jets engage Iranian jets.
10. Russian jets and US jets engage mutually but US jets forced to retreat due to losses by US Navy.
11. More RUssian jets pulled in from SIberia and elsewhere - more US jets pulled in from Qatar and elesewhere.
12. At some point either Russian bases or US bases face bein overwhelmed and soemone uses a battlefield tactical nuke on an Israeli or Iranian base.
13. By noon, dead planet.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by georgemoseleylander
 


interesting theory ...Iran won't be attacked without been the aggressor ...don't think the public and the world in general will fall for the old Harboring Terrorists plot... (if you can call that an excuse for killing millions of innocent people )

maybe the naive but not the people who matter

some times i have to question who the real terrorists are ...the facts remain that Iran hasn't played ball to allow western interference controlling there vast resources

western media spin it saying we have put sanctions on them not allowing any exports from Iran .....
while in reality they don't need or want to trade with USA/UK/Israel , enjoying free trade with Russia and china and much of the Arab states to the embarrassment of the 3 countries mentioned



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by georgemoseleylander
Is everyone as dumb as a plank on here?

Events would unfold swiftly as in the film "Threads" (well worth a watch)

1. At about 4am, Israel launches attack on Iran.
2. Iranina fighters engage and begin to lose against Irael, but tying up Isreal's attack force.
3. Iran calls on Russia who scramble.
4. Russian planes engage Iraeli and Israeli jet s begin going down rapidly.
5. Many Israeli retreat and pursued by Iranian and Russian.
6. US forced to intervene to defend Israel, US jets scramble in the Gulf.
7. Iran hits US fleet with Silkworm missiles with heavy loses.
8. Other country's presetn drawn in to defend US fleet.
9 US Jets engage Iranian jets.
10. Russian jets and US jets engage mutually but US jets forced to retreat due to losses by US Navy.
11. More RUssian jets pulled in from SIberia and elsewhere - more US jets pulled in from Qatar and elesewhere.
12. At some point either Russian bases or US bases face bein overwhelmed and soemone uses a battlefield tactical nuke on an Israeli or Iranian base.
13. By noon, dead planet.


Okay..my take.

1. Alright. Unlikely Israel would do this without US consent, but for this scenario - sure.
2. Iranian Air Force cannot in any way shape or form contend with Israeli Air Force. But I will move on.
3. I have to jump on this one. Russia would not jump to Irans defense physically. There is no chance of that. Nil. They will sell them equipment to their hearts content, but would not jump into an altercation directly.
4. How the hell are Russian jets going to engage Israeli jets? We're getting into fantasy land here.
5. Israeli jets would be defensive. They would rarely cross the border into Iran until missile strikes were done. Much as the way US went into Iraq.
6. This would happen.
7. This would not happen.
8. This is unlikely in a conflict with Iran without Russian intervention.
9. If by engage you mean US decimates what is left of the Iranian Air Force without a single loss - yes.
10. This made me laugh out loud.
11. If Russia was in, they would cruise missile strike Qatar first off.
12. More likely that chemical weapons would be used, not nukes.
13. You assume other countries would jump in. I believe they would not.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sitchin
reply to post by georgemoseleylander
 


interesting theory ...Iran won't be attacked without been the aggressor ...don't think the public and the world in general will fall for the old Harboring Terrorists plot... (if you can call that an excuse for killing millions of innocent people )

maybe the naive but not the people who matter

some times i have to question who the real terrorists are ...the facts remain that Iran hasn't played ball to allow western interference controlling there vast resources

western media spin it saying we have put sanctions on them not allowing any exports from Iran .....
while in reality they don't need or want to trade with USA/UK/Israel , enjoying free trade with Russia and china and much of the Arab states to the embarrassment of the 3 countries mentioned


Vast resources? Okay.
Western Media hasnt said #. The President has said it. The Prime Minister has said. Multiple leaders in NATO have said it. Their economy is hurting from it. This is a fact. You may look it up.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IZombie
 


So this is how facts work? I see, so after Bush and NATO buddies said Iraq had nukes you took it as fact. So in your fact world facts are only facts when leaders of a nation give you news about another nations status?



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
here's what it would look like.....




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Antonio1
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

I've been saying for years, the U.S. won't invade Iran overtly. With the recent delisting of the MEK/PMOI from the list of terror groups, and the fact that the group has significant contacts in Iran, all the U.S. has to do is to give them a few hundred million dollars, let them set up shop in Afghanistan, and voila, we have a civil war in Iran that would make the one in Syria look like picnic. Not saying I support this, just saying that this is how I see it going down. It would become even easier if the MEK/PMOI were to combine forces with the other major rebel groups in Iran, and the more militant members of the old green movement from 2009.

good insight. and by MEK/PMOI you mean MKO (khalgh jihadists). this amazing terrorist group has many faces. this group has served Mossad and Saddam very well. it is not fair that they call it a terrorist group !
you mentioned the city war and rebellion. it is indeed their first aim. I think even EU declares it explicitly that the aim of economic sanctions is to make a context for such situations. they know it well that Iran's regime is populist.
but there is a truth that they have lost their players in 2009 failed colored revolution. the leaders of rebellion are isolated. people do not care about them. because the majority Iranian's Antennas are so sensitive to foreign intervention and mostly people are against what scratches their independence.
I do not want to disappoint EU but I do not think that they can gain something sensible from such harassing acts. Iran has survived such situations many times.
most of Iranians are thinking to issues like choosing better governments and how they can reform their economy faster, but not to issues like a regime change !
www.foreignpolicy.com...
edit on 29-10-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-10-2012 by maes2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Well, Iraq as well as Afghanistan were basically ground wars. Iran would be a sea-air operation, and those assets are far from depleted. Ordinance has an expiration date, and US forces are chomping at the bit.

The force protection in the whole theatre is in a go-state at this point. What may have been a bad idea in the midst of previous hostilities, now becomes an event to simply get out-of-the-way.
edit on 29-10-2012 by FlyingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by MDDoxs
 

No there isn't.
Name a few. Oil? Saudi Arabia said it would take over Iran's output. Iraq has massive oil reserves it could drill and exploit. The United States could create hundreds of thousands of jobs drilling our massive oil supply.
Iran isn't needed. Their military and government should be obliterated. Russia gets involved? So be it.

Bruce Riedel: The U.S. is engaged in cyberwarfare with Iran and Iran is fighting back. The result could be that Iran shuts down our oil supply from Saudi Arabia leaving Americans unable to meet their energy needs.

it seems that equations are not so simple to solve.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by IZombie
And to paraphrase Iran, "we want Israel wiped off the map".
. Stupidity is not an issue.
Stupid people
You "quoted" Iran with this quote.
Then used a form of Stupid twice in regards to others....

And you expect to be Taken Seriously?
edit on 29-10-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by IZombie
And to paraphrase Iran, "we want Israel wiped off the map".
. Stupidity is not an issue.
Stupid people
You "quoted" Iran with this quote.
Then used a form of Stupid twice in regards to others....

And you expect to be Taken Seriously?
edit on 29-10-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)


I guess I must be stupid too as I don't get where you are going with this. Are you trying to say I made it up?



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by IZombie

I guess I must be stupid too as I don't get where you are going with this. Are you trying to say I made it up?
There was 3,400,00 in ,37 of a second when Goggled.

I linked the First one for you. Heres a snippet.

Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, that Mr. Ahmadinejad’s rhetorical flourish had been misinterpreted. “This idea that Iran wants to wipe Israel out,” Mr. Nabili said, “now that’s a common trope that is put about by a lot of people in Israel, a lot of people in the United States, but as we know Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran’s policy is to exterminate Israel.”
thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Also luckily we all know Iran has the straight of Hormuz to sink. Without that it might have already happened.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IZombie
 


Im saying you made it up, according to people who speak Farci the man said " this zionist regime shall be wiped from the pages of history". Iran is evil for wanting the Zionist regime to leave yet the US and NATO are fine for actually invading other regimes and removing them.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by IZombie
The argument of #1 country in the world is pointless. Everyone thinks their country is best.
If it comes out to strategic military dominance - if you think the US isn't on top, you should be a comedian.

without any doubt USA is on top in military dominance. but even Hitler dominated EU and reached Russia. where is Hitler !? USA knows it well that it is not enough. or maybe you think that their atomic bombs can save them. again USA knows it well that it can not. because that was USA which broke down soviet union from inside. and USSR's atomic bombs could not save itself. so if USA attacked Iraq it had UN support and it's own peoples' support and even Irqies would regard that a liberating war.
nowadays UN does not support even NATO attack on Syria, let alone Iran. americans have much more important issues to think than a war. and what about Iranians !

On issues regarding the economy and sanctions, 65 percent blamed the worsening economy on sanctions, and only 11 percent said the state of the economy was due to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's incompetence. Nineteen percent said it was due to the obstructionist techniques of Ahmadinejad's opponents. When asked if Iran continues to enrich uranium, how likely is it that the current sanctions will be increased, 42 percent said sanctions would definitely increase. This finding is consistent with the same question asked in 2009 by the World Public Opinion poll, which found that 35 percent of Iranians definitely believed sanctions would increase - and they have.
In a very telling question, respondents were asked: "Would you favor or oppose an agreement whereby all current sanctions against Iran would be removed and Iran would continue its nuclear energy program, except that it would agree not to enrich uranium?" Fifty-nine percent were opposed to stopping enrichment and only 29 percent were in favor.
In another question, respondents were asked which statement is closer to their opinion: 1)"Iran should continue its nuclear enrichment activity even if it results in war;"or 2) "Iran should prevent a war from occurring even if it means suspending nuclear enrichment." Fifty-five percent chose to continue enrichment, while 33 percent said Iran should prevent a war, even if it means suspending enrichment.

www.newsday.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IZombie
 


the president /prime minister are media spin ...Iran is doing fine without western interference no matter how you want to spin it...now that's a fact





 
37
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join