Israel Has Until Week's End to Strike Iran,

Zachstar · 08-17-10, 09:44 PM

They wont attack. They arent THAT stupid.

08-17-10, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

They wont attack. They arent THAT stupid.

I think stupidity has nothing to do with it. Unless you think the powers that be in Israel are stupid, of course. It would be a different calculation which brought israeli bombs upon Iran.

TLAM Strike · 08-17-10, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zachstar

They wont attack. They arent THAT stupid.

How is it stupid? Don't forget they did it before...

nikimcbee · 08-17-10, 11:41 PM

okay, no attacks until after the subsim meeting. After that I don't care what they do.

nikimcbee · 08-17-10, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

How is it stupid? Don't forget they did it before...

Quote:

10 Iraqi soldiers killed
1 French scientist killed

France is everywhere

Gerald · 08-18-10, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

How is it stupid? Don't forget they did it before...

08-18-10, 07:08 PM

Quote:

what nation does Obama want to wipe off the map?

Is it still your countries policy to reunite the korean peninsula as one country?
Chinas a bit dodgy as the choice was support Taiwan or recognise China.
so which of those nations must remain on the map?
That regime currently in Havana has got to go too hasn't it.

Quote:

Are you referring to Reagan when you say my "favorite leader" ?

Indeed, can you find the nation known as the German democratic republic on a map now or has it been wiped away. Has that regime in Berlin been consigned to history.

Bubblehead1980 · 08-20-10, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Is it still your countries policy to reunite the korean peninsula as one country?
Chinas a bit dodgy as the choice was support Taiwan or recognise China.
so which of those nations must remain on the map?
That regime currently in Havana has got to go too hasn't it.

Indeed, can you find the nation known as the German democratic republic on a map now or has it been wiped away. Has that regime in Berlin been consigned to history.

You are confusing regime change and political issues with wiping off the map aka destroying a nation.Iranian President stated he wants to wipe Israel off the map., he was talking about destroying the country.

The GDR was a casualty of the Cold War because the people there wanted a change and reunification.I actually watched a documentary a while back on PBS about life in the GDR.

Reagan was prepared if we had to attack the "Evil Empire" if the US was at risk but did not desire to destroy it and its people as Iran's President has said he would like to do.Lets face, Soviets were rather evil

Gerald · 08-20-10, 12:24 PM

SPECIAL REPORT: At some point, Israel and the United States will have to decide: Which is more dangerous — an Iran capable of launching a nuclear weapon? Or, an Iran out for revenge after a preemptive attack? Both scenarios are frightening, but the thought of military action is not far-fetched. FoxNews.com takes an in-depth look at the rock-and-a-hard-place realities of using force to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...risky-options/

Iranian Military Tech:

http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/sci...-tech/#slide=1

Tchocky · 08-20-10, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendor

SPECIAL REPORT: At some point, Israel and the United States will have to decide: Which is more dangerous — an Iran capable of launching a nuclear weapon? Or, an Iran out for revenge after a preemptive attack?

Why not have both, eh?

Platapus · 08-18-10, 07:10 PM

Anytime a nation considers taking any action against a second nation, the first nation should have an understanding of the possible outcomes.

What exactly does Israel think will be the reaction if they bomb the nuclear reactor? Do they really think the Iranians will simply say, ''Oops, I guess we lost. So sorry, I guess we should stop our entire nuclear industry". If so, then the Israelis are unwise.

Knocking out the power reactor in Brushehr will accomplish nothing but firm up the commitment of the hardliners in Iran to continue to hide and protect their nuclear industries. Does anyone really think that the Iranians will stop their nuclear industries if the Brushehr reactor is bombed? No, the Iranians will simply but more of their nuclear industries underground and we will have a much harder time monitoring them.

Jimbuna · 08-19-10, 10:28 AM

Only time will tell if it's best to strike now or sit back and do nothing.

I can't see an Israeli strike doing much more than setting Irans nuclear programme back a little in time and the thought of a nuclear Iran gives me cause for concern on the potential consequences for the Middle East regionally.

Who'd want to play God?

Schroeder · 08-19-10, 11:50 AM

It's not just a concern for the middle east.
Radical groups might get access to nuke material through Iran.... I believe that is by far the bigger danger than an attack on another country by Iran.

Bilge_Rat · 08-20-10, 08:16 AM

I don't think Israel is overly worried about Iran's reaction.

In 2007, they were in indirect peace negociations with Syria, Syria has a more powerful army than Iran and is right next door. Yet the IAF still attacked the Syrian nuclear reactor.

There is a line of reasoning, which I agree with, that Iran is in a transitional state. You have a shrinking group of aging religious leaders in control, while the mass of the younger generation is more secular and open to the West. You saw that clash break out in the open after the last election.

There is a window of 5-10 years until the current leaders die off or lose control. The greatest risk is during that window and anything which is done to delay Iran's nuclear program past that window is seen as being in Israel's security interest.

The trick, of course, is how do you carry out an air strike without alienating the younger generation of Iranians? Obviously, anything that would cause a large loss of civilians is unacceptable, but a surgical strike of 1-2 facilities which are choke points for the entire program could be an acceptable risk.

As to what the Iranian reaction could be, it is hard to gauge. Iran and Israel are already in a technical state of war. Iran already funds and supplies paramilitary groups which carry out attacks against Israel. Iran's air force does not have the capability to strike Israel and they would need the consent of neighboring countries to let the Iranian army through. A real threat could come from Iranian scud missiles with poison gas/conventional explosives, but Israel already lived through that in 1991 and again, it could be an acceptable trade-off.

Again, if you look at the Syrian example, Israel imposed a total news blackout after the raid and was very careful not to crow or rub the Syrian's nose in it after the sept. 07 strike. Syria lodged a formal protest, then let the whole thing quietly die without taking any further action.

Having said all that, an airstrike is really a last resort. The Mossad has already been waging its own secret, dirty war using dirty tricks, sabotage, bribes, intimidation, even possibly assasinations to disrupt the program. It is very secret, but you see occasional hints in the news media. It is not pretty and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, but sometimes, there is no other alternative.

08-17-10, 09:44 PM	#1
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	They wont attack. They arent THAT stupid. __________________

08-17-10, 11:41 PM	#4
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	okay, no attacks until after the subsim meeting. After that I don't care what they do. __________________

08-20-10, 12:24 PM	#9
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	RISKY BUSINESS: No Safe Options in Dealing With Nuclear Iran SPECIAL REPORT: At some point, Israel and the United States will have to decide: Which is more dangerous — an Iran capable of launching a nuclear weapon? Or, an Iran out for revenge after a preemptive attack? Both scenarios are frightening, but the thought of military action is not far-fetched. FoxNews.com takes an in-depth look at the rock-and-a-hard-place realities of using force to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...risky-options/ Iranian Military Tech: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/sci...-tech/#slide=1 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

08-18-10, 07:10 PM	#11
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,379 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Anytime a nation considers taking any action against a second nation, the first nation should have an understanding of the possible outcomes. What exactly does Israel think will be the reaction if they bomb the nuclear reactor? Do they really think the Iranians will simply say, ''Oops, I guess we lost. So sorry, I guess we should stop our entire nuclear industry". If so, then the Israelis are unwise. Knocking out the power reactor in Brushehr will accomplish nothing but firm up the commitment of the hardliners in Iran to continue to hide and protect their nuclear industries. Does anyone really think that the Iranians will stop their nuclear industries if the Brushehr reactor is bombed? No, the Iranians will simply but more of their nuclear industries underground and we will have a much harder time monitoring them. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-19-10, 10:28 AM	#12
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,645 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	Only time will tell if it's best to strike now or sit back and do nothing. I can't see an Israeli strike doing much more than setting Irans nuclear programme back a little in time and the thought of a nuclear Iran gives me cause for concern on the potential consequences for the Middle East regionally. Who'd want to play God? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

08-19-10, 11:50 AM	#13
Schroeder Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Banana Republic of Germany Posts: 6,170 Downloads: 62 Uploads: 0	It's not just a concern for the middle east. Radical groups might get access to nuke material through Iran.... I believe that is by far the bigger danger than an attack on another country by Iran. __________________ Putting Germ back into Germany.

08-20-10, 08:16 AM	#14
Bilge_Rat Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: standing watch... Posts: 3,856 Downloads: 344 Uploads: 0	I don't think Israel is overly worried about Iran's reaction. In 2007, they were in indirect peace negociations with Syria, Syria has a more powerful army than Iran and is right next door. Yet the IAF still attacked the Syrian nuclear reactor. There is a line of reasoning, which I agree with, that Iran is in a transitional state. You have a shrinking group of aging religious leaders in control, while the mass of the younger generation is more secular and open to the West. You saw that clash break out in the open after the last election. There is a window of 5-10 years until the current leaders die off or lose control. The greatest risk is during that window and anything which is done to delay Iran's nuclear program past that window is seen as being in Israel's security interest. The trick, of course, is how do you carry out an air strike without alienating the younger generation of Iranians? Obviously, anything that would cause a large loss of civilians is unacceptable, but a surgical strike of 1-2 facilities which are choke points for the entire program could be an acceptable risk. As to what the Iranian reaction could be, it is hard to gauge. Iran and Israel are already in a technical state of war. Iran already funds and supplies paramilitary groups which carry out attacks against Israel. Iran's air force does not have the capability to strike Israel and they would need the consent of neighboring countries to let the Iranian army through. A real threat could come from Iranian scud missiles with poison gas/conventional explosives, but Israel already lived through that in 1991 and again, it could be an acceptable trade-off. Again, if you look at the Syrian example, Israel imposed a total news blackout after the raid and was very careful not to crow or rub the Syrian's nose in it after the sept. 07 strike. Syria lodged a formal protest, then let the whole thing quietly die without taking any further action. Having said all that, an airstrike is really a last resort. The Mossad has already been waging its own secret, dirty war using dirty tricks, sabotage, bribes, intimidation, even possibly assasinations to disrupt the program. It is very secret, but you see occasional hints in the news media. It is not pretty and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, but sometimes, there is no other alternative. __________________