Israel...Have the stakes just increased?

[Jimbuna]

Israeli army tests rocket system:

Israel has tested a rocket propulsion system from a military base in the centre of the country, the defence ministry said.
Israeli media reports said a ballistic missile had been fired.
The test came amid speculation in Israel that the government could be preparing a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15552533

[Gerald]

The neighbors are moderately amused,

[Jimbuna]

They must think it hilarious to be within range of tactical and strategic nuclear missiles

[1480]

That is a shat storm brewing into biblical proportions.

[JU_88]

In response to media reports, an Iranian spokesman warned Israel against an attack.
''We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them,'' General Hassan Firouzabadi told the INSA news agency. ''The US officials know that Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US seriously as well as Zionist regime.''

Im just about ready to stick my head in the sand, If the worst happens Id rather try to enjoy what I have left.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

In response to media reports, an Iranian spokesman warned Israel against an attack.

''We would make them regret such a mistake and would severely punish them,'' General Hassan Firouzabadi told the INSA news agency. ''The US officials know that Zionist regime's military attack against Iran will inflict heavy damages to the US seriously as well as Zionist regime.''

And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran

I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.
The only way the conflict could stay localised within the region is if Iran made the first move.
anything pre-emtive on our part could actually have consquenses far more dire than just letting iran do their thing.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.

Not particularly happy but simply a way of saying to Iran...."Oh really? bring it on then if your really serious"

[August]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

And any Iranian attack on the US would possibly bring about the destruction of Iran

Not possibly,...definitely. We have the ability to turn the entire country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot. The Mullahs would do well to remember that.

As for Russia and China, I seriously doubt that they'd risk global thermonuclear destruction over Iran. Their response would be limited to sharply worded diplomatic notes.

[JU_88]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...pending-report

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by August

Not possibly,...definitely. We have the ability to turn the entire country into a glass floored, self lighting parking lot. The Mullahs would do well to remember that.

As for Russia and China, I seriously doubt that they'd risk global thermonuclear destruction over Iran. Their response would be limited to sharply worded diplomatic notes.

Ok but put your self in Irans shoes, If you were Iran would you attack Isreal knowing what would come?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

I dont know what your happy about, do you seriously belive the buck would stop there? You might want to read up on where Russia and China stand on an Isreali or US lead attack on Iran.
The only way the conflict could stay localised within the region is if Iran made the first move.
anything pre-emtive on our part could actually have consquenses far more dire than just letting iran do their thing.

Both China and Russia have an interest to hurt the US via the ME card, and to form their own close ties with Iran. But that interest is not such that they would start lobbying nukes onto American cities. In fact, fi a local nuclear exchnage - unilateral or bilateral - starts going in the Iranian region, both will take a hell of a care to get out of the firing lines.

It is my argument since years that the destruction of several key components and storage sites vital to the Iranian nuke weapon program most likely can only be acchieved by having infiltrating troops at location destroying them from within, which is unlikely to acchieve since a ground war can be ruled out I think, or by nuking said facilities by using socalled ini-nukes. I do not like using mini-nukes.

Problem is that at least 3 years ago we did not have precise object coordinate. Knowing where a perimeter of 10x15 km is, is one thing. Knowing where inside that perimeter the precise entry tunnel is - for example, is something different, and the Iranian installations are known to be buried ddep inside mouintains or in hardened bunkers below the ground. I severly doubt you can get them with FAE bombs or some conventionel MOABs, because you would need to cliuster-bumb the whole perimeter.

Of which there are several dozens.

It would also be helpful to intoxicate the whole region of a destroyed fcility so that it cannot - be accessed easily to try saving some partrs of the installations or material in case they survived.

Posasibly mini.-nuking such installations is easier for the civilian population than a long-lasting conventional air campaign. We know how the losses are climbing even with laser-guidance and GPS missiles. However, the ground effected by mini-nukes would be lost for the Iranians. Which is part of the effect we must hope to acchieve.

We do not talk about intentionally nuking Iranian cities and civilian settlements - as long as the Iranians haven't built their critical installation right below or inside them. If they would need to live with the coming generations avoiding several radiating hotspots in their country, like they need to do in Japan now at Fukushima, then this is just a mild price for them having allowed the political developements in their county over the past 20 years. Everybody has the right to be held responsible for what he does and does not, supports and supports not, reaches for, or not.

However. I would support a war against Iran only when the clear operation goal is the undisputed and complete destruction of the Iranian weapon pogram - no matter what that costs. If it is only about delaying the program by causing damage, then I am against it, since it would cause a big show and a big ammount of destruction done over nothing. Just to find out some years later that one needs to start again. But right this iron-hard determination must be doubted in Western political leadership, as has been demonstrated in Gulf 91, Afghanistan02, Irak 03, Lebanon 06, and before that: Vietnam. Putting your money on politicians screwing things up over dubious reasons, is always a very safe bet.

Either go for it, then go for all of it. Or don't even worry to ever get started.

That we need to make this decision now, is for majpor part our own fault. We just do not learn it that appeasement and endless negotiating with enemy for whom negotiating only means to buy time, leades to an increasing of the crisis, not to a solution. What we want to acchieve now, could have been acchieved easier 10 or 15 years ago. But back then we preferred to just close our eyes before a reality we did not wish to see. And I admit, at least 10-15 years ago I was like that, too, when it came to Iran. To my defence I can say I started seeing since then.

[JU_88]

@Skybird and August
Well I hope for all our sakes you are both right. And I hope Iran does not get nuked! Anyone who does is one hell of a heartless bastard.

[August]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Ok but put your self in Irans shoes, If you were Iran would you attack Isreal knowing what would come?

Well Israel doesn't have the capability that we have so there is no real assurance of either side being totally destroyed in an nuclear exchange with Iran which, according to conventional atomic wisdom, actually increases the chances of it occurring.

Either way though I doubt the US would respond with nukes in that event unless we were actually attacked with one ourselves.

[Oberon]

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...strikeiran.pdf