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.

 

Iran is not an easy prey

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Among most of the forum posters, there is a widespread acceptance that Iran is the next most probable target of the US in her famous "campaign against terror". But what makes some think that Iran will be that easily defeated? During Iran-Iraq war, Iran successfully resisted an invasion attempt from a country that had full backing of Russia, France (possibly US) and financial backing of every Arab country on the face of the map and rumbled into Iran with 700 tanks and did not hesitate to use chemical weapons, when they deemed necessary. Also remember that Iranians are of "Aryan" race and that makes it easy for them to infilltrate into "Western facilities" be that in US, UK or Germany due to similarities in their appearance and language. Is this a country that can be easily classified as an "easy prey"?

[edit on 14-10-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
There are Iranians of many ethnicities. First Iranian I met, and later dated, was a blonde girl with green eyes. Mongols invaded Iran, Muslims invaded Iran, etc.

Iran is not a target you can just roll into, like Iraq in which case US basically drove to Baghdad.

At the current rate, Iran is going to be the strongest nation in the Middle East. This is mostly due to the destruction of the regime traditionally used to check Iran.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
First Iranian I met, and later dated, was a blonde girl with green eyes.


Man I bet she was hot! Some Iranians I ahve seen are cute as hell. One thing about them they do have hot women! SO does Isreal for that matter.

Anyhow to the question,

We do not need to invade with tanks etc, they are so close to implosion to begin with. Just give it time and prodding........maybe non rigged elections next time around?



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
There are Iranians of many ethnicities. First Iranian I met, and later dated, was a blonde girl with green eyes. Mongols invaded Iran, Muslims invaded Iran, etc.

Iran is not a target you can just roll into, like Iraq in which case US basically drove to Baghdad.

At the current rate, Iran is going to be the strongest nation in the Middle East. This is mostly due to the destruction of the regime traditionally used to check Iran.


I concur. Iran is not the pushover that Iraq was. But you got to take into consideration that they're starting to irritate the U.N. and if there is an invasion, it will be a larger coalition than the one that went into Iraq. Iran at one time was the most Pro-Western nation in the Middle East when the Shah was in power and they've studied the western theory of war, so they are at least on top of their game.

I do hope the situation can simmer down. It sure doesn't need to boil over.

[edit on 14/10/04 by Intelearthling]



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
they are so close to implosion to begin with.


I don't think they're close to implosion. The country's pretty stable. Also, some would say the US is close to implosion, but nothing unifies a country more than direct threat to the nation. Just look at 9/11.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling

Originally posted by taibunsuu
There are Iranians of many ethnicities. First Iranian I met, and later dated, was a blonde girl with green eyes. Mongols invaded Iran, Muslims invaded Iran, etc.

Iran is not a target you can just roll into, like Iraq in which case US basically drove to Baghdad.

At the current rate, Iran is going to be the strongest nation in the Middle East. This is mostly due to the destruction of the regime traditionally used to check Iran.


I concur. Iran is not the pushover that Iraq was. But you got to take into consideration that they're starting to irritate the U.N. and if there is an invasion, it will be a larger coalition than the one that went into Iraq. Iran at one time was the most Pro-Western nation in the Middle East when the Shah was in power.

I do hope the situation can simmer down. It sure doesn't need to boil over.



im sure israel will simply bomb Irans nuclear facilities just like they did in Iraq way back when.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Everyone said Iraq would be easy but look at the chaos now. O.K the Iraqi army didnt put up much of a fight but now the militants are doing that job, so Invading Iran would worse than invading Iraq.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__


im sure israel will simply bomb Irans nuclear facilities just like they did in Iraq way back when.


Gee, I wonder why they haven't yet? Maybe because it's an entirely different situation in every aspect from that of the Osirak reactor raid.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by edsinger
they are so close to implosion to begin with.


I don't think they're close to implosion. The country's pretty stable. Also, some would say the US is close to implosion, but nothing unifies a country more than direct threat to the nation. Just look at 9/11.



Well look back at the mullahs fear of the elections, so what did they do? they disquaified the opposition. You know like we should do to Kerry for his aid and comfort to the enemy...



Did I just say that?



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by __rich__


im sure israel will simply bomb Irans nuclear facilities just like they did in Iraq way back when.


Gee, I wonder why they haven't yet? Maybe because it's an entirely different situation in every aspect from that of the Osirak reactor raid.


I believe they waited until the last possible moment in that raid, just before the reactor was to come online?

The situation is eerily similar in many ways, though.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__
im sure israel will simply bomb Irans nuclear facilities just like they did in Iraq way back when.


If there is a conflict in Iran with a coalition of UN members, Israel will most certainly be ask to stand down. I am quite sure they can inflict heavy damage on Iran's nuclear facilities but that's highly unlikely with the present situtation.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__


I believe they waited until the last possible moment in that raid, just before the reactor was to come online?

The situation is eerily similar in many ways, though.



It's actually entirely different. It's far more difficult to destroy the technological infastructure of a nation with indigenous nuclear program than it is to destroy the isolated work of a third party in Iraq. Also, it's a more strategically difficult mission by far.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu

Originally posted by __rich__


I believe they waited until the last possible moment in that raid, just before the reactor was to come online?

The situation is eerily similar in many ways, though.



It's actually entirely different. It's far more difficult to destroy the technological infastructure of a nation with indigenous nuclear program than it is to destroy the isolated work of a third party in Iraq. Also, it's a more strategically difficult mission by far.


That may have been true before the advent of the nuclear bunker buster.
If we go to war with Iran I would expect low yield tactical nukes to most definately be used. How many reactor sites does Iran have? I thought they only had one near completed station?



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by __rich__

That may have been true before the advent of the nuclear bunker buster.
If we go to war with Iran I would expect low yield tactical nukes to most definately be used. How many reactor sites does Iran have? I thought they only had one near completed station?


A reactor isn't needed to enrich Uranium to the fissile level. It can be done on a relatively small scale these days.

If low-yield tactical nukes are used, a massive Pandora's box will be opened. The diplomatic and strategic ramifications are completely unknown.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
really?

i always thought used uranium fuel rods had to be used in enriching uranium.

such as North Korea is doing.

hmm i suppose there may be other ways but they must be extremely difficult and technological. (not like the old way is easy)

i still wonder if many US nuclear power reactors havent been secretly converted to hafnium-178 gamma ray heat exchange reactors? maybe thats a good idea for a whole topic? hmm..




posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Tehrans regular armed forces consist of about 325,000 in the army, 18,000 in the navy, and 52,000 in the air force. It has a parallel force structure in the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with about 125,000 soldiers, including about 100,000 ground troops, 20,000 naval, 5,000 marines, and an unknown number in an air force. Tehran also has a paramilitary force, the Popular Mobilization Army or Basij, with about 40,000 active troops. See International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), The Military Balance, 2002-2003

In July 2003 Iran successfully tested the Shahab-3 missile, which achieved a range of about 1,000 km. Iran is suspected of having an unspecified number of operational Shahab missiles, which are based on North Koreas No Dong-1 missile that is reportedly capable of carrying an 800 kg warhead. Iran also is working on a 2,000-km Shahab-4 based on Russian technology, as well as a 5,000-km Shahab-5 missile.7 These missiles probably are too inaccurate to be of much military utility if armed with conventional warheads, but they would be sufficiently accurate to deliver WMD, particularly nuclear warheads.8 According to a foreign intelligence official and a former Iranian intelligence officer, the North Koreans are working on the Shahab-4 and providing assistance on designs for a nuclear warhead.9

Perhaps most alarming are the recent international exposures of Irans emerging uranium enrichment capabilities. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in February 2002 discovered that Iran is building a sophisticated uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, about 200 miles south of Tehran. The IAEA found that 160 centrifuges were installed at a pilot plant at Natanz and 5,000 more centrifuges are to be completed at a neighboring production facility by 2005. After completion of the plant, Iran will be capable of producing enough enriched uranium for several nuclear bombs per year.19
Rich Russell - sorry cannot provide link

Ground forces? Iran is too damn big and has 67,000,000 people - ground invasion is not an option. Air strikes on key facilities and reactors if they don't shut down. The border will have to be contained with air strikes anyway, as Iran currently supplies logistics and bodies for Iraqi operations.

Hopefully Iran will see clearly and abandon the nukes. If they don't we assault and they terrorize us forever, or we allow them to make the nukes.

I think the latter is what will happen we will make alot of ruckus allow them to make nukes while the CIA stages coup after coup to take down the regime - either way it's a whole new century.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Didnt the Iranians give leak false intelligence to the US to help the cause for the Iraq war? If so they're alot smarter than people give them credit for because they're sitting back and laughing right now...

Also evidence suggests saddam planned on the war to be quick and for there to be alot of uprising after it was 'over'... looks like he's winning (except for the whole he's been captured thing)



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7


Ground forces? Iran is too damn big and has 67,000,000 people - ground invasion is not an option. Air strikes on key facilities and reactors if they don't shut down. The border will have to be contained with air strikes anyway, as Iran currently supplies logistics and bodies for Iraqi operations.



If you have intelligence as to exactly where their centers of technology are, to include enrichment stations, reserves of yellowcake, and most importantly where their technicians or academies are, then yes, you could perform ground assaults and thoroughly wreck those establishments, implode their mines, and kill or capture their scientists. This would follow the air campaign.

Bushehr is right on the coast. The other enrichment stations the public knows of are further up, closer to Tehran.

It would be a costly operation, but it's doable. It could set them back indefinitely. The US military is much better at performing an operation like this than fighting an insurgency in Iraq.

Diplomacy to pave the way for this would be somewhat of a bitch. But hey, Bush said you're with us or against us, so if you don't like it, screw you.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
If you have intelligence as to exactly where their centers of technology are, to include enrichment stations, reserves of yellowcake, and most importantly where their technicians or academies are, then yes, you could perform ground assaults and thoroughly wreck those establishments, implode their mines, and kill or capture their scientists. This would follow the air campaign.

Bushehr is right on the coast. The other enrichment stations the public knows of are further up, closer to Tehran.

It would be a costly operation, but it's doable. It could set them back indefinitely. The US military is much better at performing an operation like this than fighting an insurgency in Iraq.

Diplomacy to pave the way for this would be somewhat of a bitch. But hey, Bush said you're with us or against us, so if you don't like it, screw you.


Right taibunsuu, but they have already ruled out ground forces as they would have to commit on a large scale and they do not want another quagmire. When I said ground forces I should have been more specific. Ground campaign is what I should have said.

The country is too big for current operations to maintain strongholds on cities. Rangers, Delta, and SEALS for key installations? You bet. CIA green beret para's - absolutley. 1st, 3rd infantry, 101st - not gonna happen.



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I think it's funny that Bush plays down the threat of N. Korea and Iran. They are obviously a greater threat to the world and the US than Iraq was. The difference?

Iran and N. Korea can fight back quite effectively unlike Iraq.

I have heard military analysts talk about difficulties in Yugoslavia that arose when Yugoslavia's tanks, mortars, jets, etc. were hidden in population centers instead of being lined up neatly at military bases. We had a hard time even finding them and a harder time destroying them from the air (the US's preferred method of pre-weaking an enemy before starting ground-based operations). The same analysts said that N. Korea and Iran had both taken a page from that operation and have begun to hide their assets as well. The difficulty in rendering N. Korea or Iran impotent in a pre-invasion air assault makes the conflict with the two countries' military forces much, much, much more difficult.

Almost like an actual war...not the 'fish in a barrel' conflicts that ousting the Taliban and the Ba'athists were.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join