Israel Considers Pre-Emptive Attack On Iran

JustinDee

The conspiracy theorists will love this.
Stores of explosive material explode and suddenly its the work of Zionist or satanic American saboteurs.

Just embarrassment to Iran's regimes that has happened before.
Strangely enough, not even showing on lead stories on Iran's propagandic 'news' channel, Press TV. Just yet more anti-western tosh about the US and Europe.

Mr.Micro

nacho libre wrote: »

If it's yet again a case of you can't absolutely prove a negative, as we saw in Iraq, whatever Iran does is irrelevant from now on, as there will no placating her accusers.

Absolutely correct and well put. If it was not the prospect of nuclear weapons it would be something else, the axis of evil and all that.

snafuk35

Unless they are in for a suicide mission, how will IDF going to get to Iran and back?

The Iranian ground radar and anti-aircraft systems are going to be hammered to pieces, their museum collection of obsolete jets if they are dumb enough to try to try and intercept, will end up as burning scrap sprinkled over the mountains sides and their airbases will be obliterated.

A few years ago the IDF smashed a Syrian nuclear facility and to hammer their point home they broke the sound barrier over the roof of Assad's palace.

And who will open their air space for them in the region? :rolleyes:

The IDF will do it themselves of course!.:)

halkar

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Iranian ground radar and anti-aircraft systems are going to be hammered to pieces, their museum collection of obsolete jets if they are dumb enough to try to try and intercept, will end up as burning scrap sprinkled over the mountains sides and their airbases will be obliterated.

A few years ago the IDF smashed a Syrian nuclear facility and to hammer their point home they broke the sound barrier over the roof of Assad's palace.



The IDF will do it themselves of course!.:)

Did you look at the ME map? Do you know the compat range of planes?
This is not COD

snafuk35

halkar wrote: »

Did you look at the ME map? Do you know the compat range of planes?
This is not COD

You've never heard of aerial refueling?



Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq who would be just as likely to by targeted Iranian nukes would have no problems with Israeli jets overflying their territory to hit Iran. The US have their carriers fleets in the Gulf and they would protect the Israeli strike force.

The Israeli strike force would have a clear run at the Iranian sites, the Iranian ground-to-air defenses would be dealt with handily if they were stupid enough to turn on their targeting radars and the current fleet of Iranians jets are simply are not up to the job. The Syrians would not interfere because they are in the midst of a civil war and they got their asses handed to them back in 2007.

Jaafa

Is there a conventional weapon in the US or Israeli army that can be felt from 45Km away? Serious question.

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

The conspiracy theorists will love this.
Stores of explosive material explode and suddenly its the work of Zionist or satanic American saboteurs.

Just embarrassment to Iran's regimes that has happened before.
Strangely enough, not even showing on lead stories on Iran's propagandic 'news' channel, Press TV. Just yet more anti-western tosh about the US and Europe.

Actually it is on Press tv website front page 3rd story down.

Claiming a fire at the munitions depot apparently. Similar thing happen in a former soviet block country a year or two ago.....I don't remember the details but that caused a massive explosion too. Ill see if I can find it.

Still though I know if I'd believe it. Most likely sabotage.

JustinDee

Jaafa wrote: »

Actually it is on Press tv website front page 3rd story down.

Claiming a fire at the munitions depot apparently. Similar thing happen in a former soviet block country a year or two ago.....I don't remember the details but that caused a massive explosion too. Ill see if I can find it.

Still though I know if I'd believe it. Most likely sabotage.

It doesn't figure in their headline pieces on TV. A bullsh piece on Syria being bunched out of Arab League, italy's crisis, the Euro, protests in Yemen and a one sided 'debate' on us foreign policy.
Only mention is a brief line on tickertape. In short: "What explosion?"

Jaafa

JustinDee wrote: »

It doesn't figure in their headline pieces on TV. A bullsh piece on Syria being bunched out of Arab League, italy's crisis, the Euro, protests in Yemen and a one sided 'debate' on us foreign policy.
Only mention is a brief line on tickertape. In short: "What explosion?"

Well what do you except from a pro Iran channel?

BlaasForRafa

Jaafa wrote: »

Is there a conventional weapon in the US or Israeli army that can be felt from 45Km away? Serious question.

Haaretz are reporting that the base affected stored Shahab ballistic missiles (among other things) and if the propellant in some of those went off it would be a tremendous blast. Without any further evidence to the contrary one can only assume poor Iranian discipline to be the cause.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/27-dead-after-explosion-rocks-revolutionary-guards-base-outside-iranian-capital-1.395158

JustinDee

Jaafa wrote: »

Well what do you except from a pro Iran channel?

Nothing. That's what I was pointing out.

Manic Moran

Munitions depot explosions are nothing new. There was a massive one in Cyprus a few months ago. (That said, that one wasn't poor discipline, as much as a complete lack of decision-making in the government). One even bigger one in Turkmenistan the same month, and two in Russia the month before that.

halkar wrote: »

Did you look at the ME map? Do you know the compat range of planes?
This is not COD

The PLO thought the same thing in the 1980s, until they were visited in Tunisia by Israeli jets.

NTM

snafuk35

Jaafa wrote: »

Is there a conventional weapon in the US or Israeli army that can be felt from 45Km away? Serious question.

No.
The largest deliverable conventional weapon in the US inventory is the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) (colloquially known as the Mother of All Bombs). It weighs 22,600 lb (11.3 ton) and has a blast yield of 11 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

Son Of A Vidic

halkar wrote: »

how will IDF going to get to Iran and back? And who will open their air space for them in the region? :rolleyes:

snafuk35 wrote: »

The IDF will do it themselves of course!.:)

I think you mean the USAF.

FreudianSlippers

snafuk35 wrote: »

No.
The largest deliverable conventional weapon in the US inventory is the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) (colloquially known as the Mother of All Bombs). It weighs 22,600 lb (11.3 ton) and has a blast yield of 11 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/B_Massive_Ordnance_Air_Blast_bomb

Are those the ones they're moving into the U.A.E. in the near future?

snafuk35

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are those the ones they're moving into the U.A.E. in the near future?

Did you read the link?

The MOAB is a fuel air explosive bomb and designed for use against infantry and vehicles, trenches, dugouts and light buildings etc. When it explodes it bursts spreading fine droplets of fuel explosive over a very wide mixing with the air and then detonating creating an massive fireball and tremendous explosive force. It is a very crude weapon because it is designed to cause maximum damage over a wide area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ea-DinsBJQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gk49n5djw

Bunker buster bombs are much different.

For example:

The initial batch of GBU-28s was built from modified 8 inch/203 mm artillery barrels (principally from deactivated M110 howitzers), but later examples were purpose-built.[3] They weigh 4,700 pounds (2132 kg) and contain 630 pounds (286 kg) of high explosive. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and the munition guides itself to the spot of laser light reflected from the target.
The bomb underwent testing at the Tonopah Test Range, Nevada, a test facility for United States Department of Energy funded weapon programs. It proved capable of penetrating over 30 meters (100 ft) of earth or 6 meters (20 ft) of solid concrete; this was demonstrated when a test bomb, bolted to a rocket sled, smashed through 22 ft (6.7 m) of reinforced concrete and still retained enough kinetic energy to travel a mile downrange.[4][5] The GBU-28 is unique in that the total development time from conception to the first drop test took only 2 weeks, and the weapon went into active service after only one test drop,[6] at Eglin AFB, Florida on 19 February 1991.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28

Since the Gulf War 1991 there have been more sophisticated bunker busting bombs developed.

The extra speed provided by a rocket motor enables greater penetration of a missile-mounted bunker buster warhead. To reach maximum penetration (Impact depth), the warhead may consist of a high-density projectile only. Such a warhead carries more energy than a warhead with chemical explosives (kinetic energy of a projectile at hypervelocity).

This a test of a GBU-39 or GBU-40 SDB. (Small Diameter Bomb)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbtzpqZOtB8

Most of these weapons are designed to explode inside a cavity inside the hardened bunker.

FreudianSlippers

snafuk35 wrote: »

Did you read the link?

No... that's why I asked.

Overheal

calling the MOAB 'crude' would be inaccurate. It still has a guidance system and has a 2-stage detonation method that requires it within a fraction of a second to 1) disperse all of its fuel into the air around it and only then 2) detonate that air-dispersed fuel, which is how it has such a large yield.

According to wikipedia 15 are known to exist and none have been deployed in combat operations.

snafuk35

Overheal wrote: »

calling the MOAB 'crude' would be inaccurate. It still has a guidance system and has a 2-stage detonation method that requires it within a fraction of a second to 1) disperse all of its fuel into the air around it and only then 2) detonate that air-dispersed fuel, which is how it has such a large yield.

According to wikipedia 15 are known to exist and none have been deployed in combat operations.

When I said 'crude' I meant you wouldn't drop a MOAB to hit a specific target when it would also destroy everything within a very large radius.

Geekness1234

snafuk35 wrote: »

When I said 'crude' I meant you wouldn't drop a MOAB to hit a specific target when it would also destroy everything within a very large radius.

Problem is its only method of delivery is via AC-130,as far as I know.

snafuk35

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Problem is its only method of delivery is via AC-130,as far as I know.

The AC-130 is a gunship. You are confusing it with the C-130 transport plane on which it is based. The MOAB can also be delivered by the C-17.

Regarding the MOAB:

However, multiple strikes with lower yield ordnance may be more effective and can be delivered by fighter/bombers such as the F-16 with greater stand-off capability than the C-130 and C-17. High altitude carpet-bombing with much smaller 2,000 or 1,000 pound bombs delivered via B-52s is also highly effective at covering large areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB

Border-Rat

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf.

dragonslayer1

I can't see that being too much use considering that some targets will be deep(ish) underground.

Sykk

Border-Rat wrote: »

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf.

Seems Legit

Border-Rat

Sykk wrote: »

Seems Legit

lol. Well, you thoroughly debunked that article. The Hormuz Strait will be closed, its guaranteed.

Jaafa

Sykk wrote: »

Seems Legit

The leak about the war-games has been widely reported. It's common knowledge what the real outcome was.

Geekness1234

Jaafa wrote: »

The leak about the war-games has been widely reported. It's common knowledge what the real outcome was.

That the USN had a sh!t fit,scrapped the USMC General and re-ran it do they got their desired outcome?

Jaafa

Geekness1234 wrote: »

That the USN had a sh!t fit,scrapped the USMC General and re-ran it do they got their desired outcome?

Basically.

Geekness1234

Jaafa wrote: »

Basically.

But you not think they would change tactics?

karma_

Sykk wrote: »

Seems Legit

Politics becomes more like AH every day.

FreudianSlippers

Ok, strangely my entire post just disappeared so here it goes again.


Rense.com is a really poor source due to its owner being a massive name in the conspiracy theory world - for him it's the crazier the better.

However, the substance of the article is true albeit hugely skewed and exaggerated. Ret. Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper's "red" army was able to cause 20,000 "deaths" by sinking one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships.
Van Riper opined that the US Military was too focused on the "Transformation Warfare" proposed by Rumsfeld. He opined that this made two flawed assumptions: 1) that the enemy would have technology equal to the US and 2) that they would use it.

From wikipedia, but accurate and sourced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 wrote:

Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications. Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted". Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game. Van Riper later expressed concern that the wargame's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience. He was quoted in the ZDF–New York Times documentary The Perfect War as saying that what he saw in MC02 echoed the same view promoted by the Department of Defense under Robert McNamara before and during the Vietnam War, namely that the U.S. military could not and would not be defeated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/21/usa.julianborger

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/immutable-nature-war.html

SamHarris

Border-Rat wrote: »

lol. Well, you thoroughly debunked that article. The Hormuz Strait will be closed, its guaranteed.

It is? Militarily Iran looks remarkably like Iraq before the invasion, with regard to the technology level and amount of personel. It would be a walkover.

An argument against a strike has much more to do with the enormous implications of destabilising a country of that size and population in that region, and the ramifications of what will no doubt be seen as an attack on another Muslim nation in the wider world. Not to mention cost to both in life and treasure.

Any sort of military defeat in the classical sense is not even on the cards. If they could not close the straits against Iraq 30 years ago, the possibilities of them succeding against the moderen US navy existant.

On the link provded the reason the US navy is perceived as "invcinible" is because it can afford to do tests just like that. It far from demostrates that the US would be defeated by any third world country, as some seem to take is as proof of :rolleyes:

snafuk35

dragonslayer1 wrote: »

I can't see that being too much use considering that some targets will be deep(ish) underground.

Tactical nukes could be used.
The latest design can penetrated like conventional bunker busters and then explode underground. The shockwave through layers of would make shyte of underground targets.:D

Jaafa

SamHarris wrote: »

It is? Militarily Iran looks remarkably like Iraq before the invasion, with regard to the technology level and amount of personel. It would be a walkover.

An argument against a strike has much more to do with the enormous implications of destabilising a country of that size and population in that region, and the ramifications of what will no doubt be seen as an attack on another Muslim nation in the wider world. Not to mention cost to both in life and treasure.

Any sort of military defeat in the classical sense is not even on the cards. If they could not close the straits against Iraq 30 years ago, the possibilities of them succeding against the moderen US navy existant.

On the link provded the reason the US navy is perceived as "invcinible" is because it can afford to do tests just like that. It far from demostrates that the US would be defeated by any third world country, as some seem to take is as proof of :rolleyes:

The difference between the Iraqi military pre war and the Iranian one today is significant. Firstly the Iranian ballistic missile program is very advanced for a "third world country". Second only to the Israelis in the region. Swindle Iranian intelligence is far superior to what the iraqis had. Hell sadaam never even believed the Americans would invade. Iran on the other hand know it could come anyway. Now let me make thud very clear. Nobody here is saying Iran could defeat Israel it American in a war. All I'm saying is they have the capability to cause enough damage and deaths to make a war not worth while.

SamHarris

Jaafa wrote: »

The difference between the Iraqi military pre war and the Iranian one today is significant. Firstly the Iranian ballistic missile program is very advanced for a "third world country". Second only to the Israelis in the region. Swindle Iranian intelligence is far superior to what the iraqis had. Hell sadaam never even believed the Americans would invade. Iran on the other hand know it could come anyway. Now let me make thud very clear. Nobody here is saying Iran could defeat Israel it American in a war. All I'm saying is they have the capability to cause enough damage and deaths to make a war not worth while.

I agree with your last bit, and with your opinion on the Iranian intelligence agencies abilities, however I beleive their capacity to make it "not worthwhile" will not manifest in a closed Strait, or naval casualties or even to a large extent any US military casualty. It will be wider unrest caused, groups that Iran can flood with money regardless if they still having a working militarty and government or not. It is this instability in the entire region that will vicariously cost the US and others.

RichieC

Border-Rat wrote: »

Myth Of US Invincibility Floats In The Persian Gulf.

It's an interesting read but could you really strike a carrier fleet with a pleasure ship? even if you're not expecting it... don't they have 24/7 air cover and subs dotted about them?

Geekness1234

RichieC wrote: »

It's an interesting read but could you really strike a carrier fleet with a pleasure ship? even if you're not expecting it... don't they have 24/7 air cover and subs dotted about them?

As well as Saudi Tornadoes,U.S.A.F drones as well as unmanned underwater vehicles deployed from the likes of the USS Texas.

FreudianSlippers

RichieC wrote: »

It's an interesting read but could you really strike a carrier fleet with a pleasure ship? even if you're not expecting it... don't they have 24/7 air cover and subs dotted about them?

Geekness1234 wrote: »

As well as Saudi Tornadoes,U.S.A.F drones as well as unmanned underwater vehicles deployed from the likes of the USS Texas.

If you read Van Riper's analysis rather than the article from Rense.com you'll see that it was realistically Blue's over-reliance on modern technology that allowed these small boats to get close and attack conventionally or via "suicide attacks".

"My belief at the outset of Millennium Challenge was that Blue believed it had a monopoly on preemption, and it would strike first. And, of course, in any war game I was familiar with up to that point, that had never been the case. The U.S. had only gone to war as a result of some aggression by an enemy, and so always had to react. Now that it was announced policy that we reserved the right to do that, the Blue force was going to take full advantage of it and plan to strike first.

So I simply stepped back and said, "What advantage is there for Red to wait for Blue to strike?" There was none. And that lead to the natural conclusion that if they're coming, and we can't persuade them not to diplomatically, then we will strike.
As I looked at an ultimatum that gave me less than 24 hours to respond to what literally was a surrender document, it was clear to me that there was no advantage in any of this diplomacy. I was very surprised that the Joint Forces Command personnel who had argued for using all of the elements of national power—the economic, the diplomatic, the political information—in some sort of coherent fashion, really came at Red with a blunt military instrument. So it was clear to me that this was not going to be negotiated, this was going to be a fight. And if it was going to be a fight, I was going to get in the first blow."

Jaafa

SamHarris wrote: »

I agree with your last bit, and with your opinion on the Iranian intelligence agencies abilities, however I beleive their capacity to make it "not worthwhile" will not manifest in a closed Strait, or naval casualties or even to a large extent any US military casualty. It will be wider unrest caused, groups that Iran can flood with money regardless if they still having a working militarty and government or not. It is this instability in the entire region that will vicariously cost the US and others.

It depends on your definition of large US casualties. 4400 Dead Americans in 8 year in Iraq. Some 2000 dead in 10 years in Afghanistan.

If the Iranians could kill even 1000 US soldiers within say the space of a month, I'd say that would be a serious shock to what they are used to in terms of casualty rates.

As for the closed strait. People seem to think the Iranians would be predictable in how they'd go about this. Mine the strait or hit the ports with missiles. (both potentially effective.) They're are a multitude of different ways the Iranians could prevent oil getting through. You don't its possible they might have an agent or two, or several dozen? just hanging about near the main oil ports? Sabotage is not off the cards.

Geekness1234

Jaafa wrote: »

It depends on your definition of large US casualties. 4400 Dead Americans in 8 year in Iraq. Some 2000 dead in 10 years in Afghanistan.

If the Iranians could kill even 1000 US soldiers within say the space of a month, I'd say that would be a serious shock to what they are used to in terms of casualty rates.

As for the closed strait. People seem to think the Iranians would be predictable in how they'd go about this. Mine the strait or hit the ports with missiles. (both potentially effective.) They're are a multitude of different ways the Iranians could prevent oil getting through. You don't its possible they might have an agent or two, or several dozen? just hanging about near the main oil ports? Sabotage is not off the cards.

I'd have to agree with you there,I'd say they're keeping all their options open.
If war breaks out those ports will become more like military bases,IMO.But that's not going to stop the ones already imbedded.

Manic Moran

RichieC wrote: »

It's an interesting read but could you really strike a carrier fleet with a pleasure ship? even if you're not expecting it... don't they have 24/7 air cover and subs dotted about them?

In fairness, Adm Woodward got HMS Glamorgan into Exocet range of a carrier by pretending to be the Indian ocean liner "Rawalpindi" and putting up every light bulb they could find.

That said, getting close enough to shoot, and actually managing to M-Kill a carrier are two entirely different proposals.

NTM

nacho libre

JustinDee wrote: »

The conspiracy theorists will love this.
Stores of explosive material explode and suddenly its the work of Zionist or satanic American saboteurs.

Just embarrassment to Iran's regimes that has happened before.
Strangely enough, not even showing on lead stories on Iran's propagandic 'news' channel, Press TV. Just yet more anti-western tosh about the US and Europe.

you're right about them being embarrassed - Assassinations of nuclear scientists, a sophisticated cyber-attack, and just last weekend, a "mysterious" blast at a munitions base that just happens to kill the "architect" of Iran's ballistic missile programme.


As you say they are embarrassed over this and other incidents. So would Israel, if her foes could successfully execute a series of attacks without them being thwarted.

JustinDee

nacho libre wrote: »

you're right about them being embarrassed - Assassinations of nuclear scientists, a sophisticated cyber-attack, and just last weekend, a "mysterious" blast at a munitions base that just happens to kill the "architect" of Iran's ballistic missile programme.


As you say they are embarrassed over this and other incidents. So would Israel, if her foes could successfully execute a series of attacks without them being thwarted.

Again, Conspiracy Theories forum is thattaway

---

>

RichieC

SamHarris wrote: »

It is? Militarily Iran looks remarkably like Iraq before the invasion, with regard to the technology level and amount of personel. It would be a walkover.

I think you might want to read up further on that.

(standing army of over half a million and one and a half million reserves)

Mr.Micro

RichieC wrote: »

I think you might want to read up further on that.

(standing army of over half a million and one and a half million reserves)

What difference would the numbers make though, as the yanks would just want to carpet bomb for weeks on end....the usual strategy so killing thousands? The actual numbers might only make a difference, if their was an invasion and the off chance the army was left intact.

Pamwe Chete

RichieC wrote: »

I think you might want to read up further on that.

(standing army of over half a million and one and a half million reserves)

Not much good in the air. They're going to get one massive pummelling. Well deserved too.

RichieC

Pamwe Chete wrote: »

Not much good in the air. They're going to get one massive pummelling. Well deserved too.

No one is suggesting they going to win. but I think the zionist/yank alliance will regret it not long after it starts.

And so will we.

Pamwe Chete

RichieC wrote: »

No one is suggesting they going to win. but I think the zionist/yank alliance will regret it not long after it starts.

And so will we.

I don't know, the Ireland/Nazi alliance didn't regret much. All lived happily ever after in Eire.

RichieC

Pamwe Chete wrote: »

I don't know, the Ireland/Nazi alliance didn't regret much. All lived happily ever after in Eire.

haha... I win the thread.

Mr.Micro

Pamwe Chete wrote: »

I don't know, the Ireland/Nazi alliance didn't regret much. All lived happily ever after in Eire.

You sound like a poster we had here last week going on about the same s*it. On this very thread too, what a coincidence :rolleyes: