Officer of Engineers

Are you daft? WE KNEW YOU HAD THE BOMBS A DECADE BEFORE YOU TESTED THEM!?!?!Because the Israelis believe that they would use their nukes.So what? Your arguement is that Israel can kill Iran conventionally. So, you're changing the subject.They're not the ones devising policy.BULL CRAP! The North Korean fiasco shows just how much Russia and China likes another lunatic with a bomb. So much so that China moved her best army to the Korean border and almost collapsed the regieme by cutting off oil and money.

__________________
Chimo

Asim Aquil

Are you asking me a question or are you making a statement?

Dude, you guys did know a decade ahead, but my comment of "proving" is related to self-restraint and the stability of the command structure in which control of the nukes would be passed on... That doesn't include a Mullah in it.

Said clearly enough?

Because they've been warring as much as the Israelis have in the past decade or so? Or as much as anyone else? And you think Israelis won't flatten Iran in response? Knowing full well that Iran would lose a nuclear battle with Israel, I don't think it would actually fire a nuke.

Actually you're raising several issues and just getting responses on them. I don't want anyone to accuse me of dodging OOE again .

So anyway to make things clearer for you... My comment suggests that Israel can't take out Iran's nuclear capability... NOW. Not just by air raids at least. So can't the US.

And now to put your comment into perspective with our discussion, Israel can kill Iran conventionally (With Kill I hope you mean mess up the infrastructure and large scale civilian deaths like how it attacked Lebanon x 10 or an imminent threat of invasion) but Israel won't risk going that far conventionally once nukes are introduced. Facing certain doom, Iran would fire off the nukes. An Israeli retaliation won't matter at that point. Do I have to explain MAD to you now? :D I know you like to talk logistics and not strategy/tactics, but I'm sure you do give some respect to the concept of MAD.

America would go war with Iran against the majority will of the American populace? It might happen, technically, but no President would risk that. As it is, only the ardent supporters of Israel want a conflict with Iran within the USA if you are to believe American media.

There is no comparison of the Iranian mindset with the North Koreans. See that's the thing you guys have villainized and created an image of monsters and evil minions from hell about the Iranians or even the Iranian leadership.

But enough of that... I won't argue who is a bigger lunatic of the two, but China is continuously making new deals and is buying oil on a very large scale (coupla years back they signed a deal worth $100bn with the provision to crank it up to $200bn). And as Iran flexes more of its money I'm sure China won't mind handing over some of its warplanes and Russia it's cruise missiles and torpedoes.

One last thing about how the NK and Iranian examples fail to match in similarity is that North Korea went ahead against Chinese wishes and went nuclear. It just didn't need to do so. China didn't want the headache. China didn't mind it in Pakistan's case since Pakistan was presented with a clear cut threat of nuclear retaliation and some loose rhetoric from the Indian side of how they would take over Lahore.

If Iran does something that stupid China/Russia (heck everybody else) won't have any choice but to align up with the US on this issue.

HistoricalDavid

An 'inaccurate fact' is an oxymoron. If it's not accurate, then it's a faulty documentary or a faulty individual point, and therefore inadmissible in an argument, my friend.

Heh, you're basically saying "It's okay to use facts even if they're "not the most accurate..."

Unless Iran is stupid enough to put its nuclear facilities right near population centres, then the civilian casualties are not likely to hinder efforts much, especially considering the numbers that have died in US bombing efforts before. And who's going to give in first - US willingness to tolerate Iranian civilian casualties in the continual destruction of an Iranian nuclear programme, or Iranian willingness to tolerate Iranian civilian casualties in the continual... You get the point.

1948. US supplies a lot, but doesn't get involved itself.

1956... US goes against Israeli policy!

1967... US doesn't get involved itself.

1973... US considers getting involved... but doesn't.

1982. Ditto.

1991... alright you may have the slimmest point - Saddam threw Scuds at Israel, and US was heavily involved in shooting them down, or trying to.

Intifadas... Ditto.

2006. Ditto.

There have been no major involvements (sorry, any at all?) of US forces in direct support of an Israeli military campaign, unless you or OoE or someone, anyone at all, wants to correct me.

At every stage and throughout the last 60 years, the US has supplied Israel with a hell of a lot of weapons. However, never in the quantity to visit the sort of LONG-RANGE harm on Iran that you're talking about.

If it had, it would have probably launched something already.

In other words, I put more effort into finding your own source than you did. I looked through the wiki page with Firefox's trusty search function, and found plenty of PAF boasting about taking on the Israelis with token forces sent to aid the Arabs, but nothing about an incident so major it required 3/4 of the PAF scrambled (ignoring the strategic stupidity of tying up so much of your forces while sitting next to India).

Okay, suppose wiki is unreliable. google search.

Seen From Israel, the Signs Point to a Nuclear Arms Race

Ah yes, apparently F-16s (maybe misidentified PAF ones? ) were apparently around apparently the Pakistani border at apparently around the time of the nuclear detonation. Conducting surveillance? With an F-16? Strikes against Pakistan, with a short-ranged single-engined light fighter?

Gimme a break. Israel has plenty of motivation, but until they get bases near Pakistan or amazing inflight refuelling capabilities, or just go the whole hog and buy refurbished B-52s from America (real Sci-Fi here, now)... I still call BS.

Unlikely, since it would be easier simply to launch Tomahawks from the massive amount of naval assets - including the prized Iowa-class! - in the Gulf rather than bother with air-launched missiles, except maybe to hit the northern extremities of Iraq.

What's your point? Maybe they were used once or twice against very sparsely populated caves and whatnot. In all likelihood, Israel has no MOABs and probably no capability to realistically deliver them... as I've been at great pains to explain in this thread, even if the US considered supplying them on an emergency basis, which is ridiculous considering that Israeli C-130 pilots haven't trained to push a 10 ton explosive brick out their planes' backsides, literally.

And because of its vastly superior capability to actually deliver munitions on target, it will dominate the conflict and really change its name.

You might as well call WWII, "The Polish-German War," using your logic!

Which youngsters from the tribal belt took on the Soviet Union? The mujahedeen? You calling some Stingers a "big stockpile of weaponry"? Really...

Yes it would, but not really against Iran. Afghanistan was guerilla warfare - you're talking about Israel visiting serious harm on a country 1,000 miles away. Really, you aren't comparing MOABs to CIA training and Stingers?

This has been said before: You're a moderator of a defence forum, but what you say stretches anything remotely possible, even to a totally war-inexperienced 17-year-old like me.

You're not the only one with the right to ask questions here. Your questions and points are often so outlandish that they can only be responded to with disbelief, which may take the form of a rhetorical question.

entropy

Iran cannot invade Israel without using another country's lands to travel their troops through. They need a country to choose their side. A sea invasion is impossible because I doubt the Iranian navy will find the way all the way to the Red Sea without bumping into a reef somewhere, let stand they have a sufficient landing craft. If Iran's troops travel through Iraq - well that's a reason for the US to get involved.

An attack by Iran, especially if successful, will cheer everyone in the Middle East up against Israel. Syria will certainly be involved, so why can't USA help Israel, a country it has economical and social ties with?
And why does USA have to treat Iran equally, with A-jad having anti-USA speeches part of his morning ritual?

__________________
If memory serves...

Dreadnought

An 'inaccurate fact' is an oxymoron. If it's not accurate, then it's a faulty documentary or a faulty individual point, and therefore inadmissible in an argument, my friend.

Heh, you're basically saying "It's okay to use facts even if they're "not the most accurate..."


I see what your saying. IMO though the source is a very credible one. 99% of the documentaries from this source are non fiction and more or less come straight from the horses mouth. But I understand what you are implying.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Ray

Asim,

Since I don't usually get into this theoretical issue, this is the first time I am giving a dekko.

If Israel threatens with a nuke, which side will Pak jump?

I ask this since Pak is the only Islamic country with a nuke and delivery system!

Other Islamic countries don't count.

The outcome in my opinion is the way Pak jumps!

Right now, it does what the US orders!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Dreadnought

They wont venture outside their own waters. Thats the only place they are safe FOR NOW!.

Traveling via ocean to attack Israel would be a real bad choice meaning that Iran dont value their troops/Navy very much. And hope for their sakes they are real good swimmers. The chances of them being able to attack Israel via the ocean is almost a certain 0% chance. IMO I would say the chances of them encountering a USN CVBG would be about 100:1. What happens then? Your not going to outrun them and you dam sure wont out last them in a sea conflict. But I would also say that the USN would be much more compassionate towards them. Can you imagine then encountering the RN mid-route? I bet it wont go anything like what has happened in the last few weeks with Iran and Britain.

entropy

So is there a way for Iran to actually attack Israel?

I say not really. Aerial assaults are out of the question, IMO. If USA, Israel or Turkey will detect Iranian airplanes in their airspace, these planes will be shot down rather quickly. Then, given the possiblity that the airplanes carried nukes, Iran will be attacked by everyone.

Land and sea assaults are even more impossible.

The only way, and the way it most certainly will happen, is that of giving terrorists a bomb, and then quoting Manuel from Fawlty Towers
"I'm Mahmoud, I'm from Iran, I know nothing"

JMH

With their current strategy, they don't have a choice.

- Threats have not worked
- Sanctions have not worked
- Air raids would only delay it out. Plus I recall some military cooperation pact between Iran-China? US needs China and perhaps even Russia on board.
- The US congress would never give an OK to invade Iran. Plus I suspect the US also fears failure in this plan.

Iran can be dealt with. Negotiate. Put the same nuclear disarmament pressure on Israel. Ask Iran to allow IAEA operatives to push day and night shifts in every Iranian nuclear facility. If they still betray you guys then all the Superpowers will HAVE to pitch in and fight Iran.

Assassination of the leading Iranian Mullahs, the Iranian President and Revolutionary Guard leaders fallowed by a long ten year war using naval Blockade and airstrikes would hurt Iran and slow Iran's advance accross the Middle East towards Israel. A faster way to finish Iran would be for the USA to launch a nuclear strike against Iranian Nuclear facilities, military targets and political targets, which would probably only occur after Iranian back terrorists detonate nuclear devices in western cities and in Israel.

Asim Aquil

Pak doesn't offer a nuclear umbrella to the Iranians. As a lone ranger it shouldn't even do so. Of course if there's a big block of countries (that matter - hehe) that do put their weight behind this issue to prevent a nuclear war, then Pakistan's obvious stance would be to at least threaten with the semblance of a MAD scenario.

If Israel just threatens with nukes and doesn't actually use them, then nothing would happen. The western media has already began speculating that using "tactical nukes" might the only way to shut the Iranian nuclear plans down. Israel being the gung ho irrational nation as it is seen by the gulf countries is already in a threatening position. Hence more and more acceptance of the idea to have a lot more nations with nukes in the region.

HistoricalDavid

Can it threaten with a semblance of a MAD scenario? They're even farther away from Israel than Iran is.

The Western media is indeed famed for its rational technical analysis of military affairs. They're not, you know, trying to sell newspapers or advertising slots at all, and so never resort to sensationalism and inaccuracy... Of course, would you know the difference, Asim?

brad in newyork

I have to disagree with you, israel devoloped nuclear weapons to defend their homeland not to use it agianst others.

Iran qiute foolishly has stated they want to drive the Israelis into the sea.
as it is already suspected that the Iranian's are trying to devolop a nuclear weapon, the internaional community can only presume that the anihlition of israel and other western societies is iran's motive. Even though these countries have capabilities to eliminate such a weapon.

also you should look your facts up more throughly israel bombarded hezbollah locations and camps. i dont know if that a religous symbol for you but they certainly didn't touch any religous sight so please dont make this sound like it was a religous war.

dont forget of israel's capabilities iran really is a mud puppy compared to israel.as Ehud Olmert stated.

brad in newyork

i completely agree with what your saying about Israel, just about everything you have said regarding iran and israel is fact.

but

to say those things about the the middle eastern nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran is completely out of line. you should be mindful of thier ways and achievements, saying those things will not bring peace and harmony

Ray

I go with the line that Ironduke has enunciated, more so on the issue of the Saudi camel drivers living off ill gotten gain which should actually be used for the common Saudis.

A repressive and a lousy regime of Bedouin camel men installed by the British, and as per the history, buying peace and legitimacy by kneeling before the Wahhabis! Ask the East Saudi Shias if they are not second class citizens! And Asim wants nukes for these horrid pretenders to royalty

Iranians are a highly cultured and sophisticated people. Unfortunately, they are in the grip of obscurantists and hence are coming up odd and wild!

It is an interesting issue to note that Israel has not attacked anyone till attacked. Therefore, one must realise this aspect too!

However to say Olmert is intelligent and capable is another canard. He is a prize (epithet) who has no clue and he is the cause for Israel's most horrifying embarrassment in the last conflict with the Hezbs. Because of his lack of imagination, the Hezb has got a shot in the arm.

But then there is a silver lining. The Shias have halted Israel which the Sunnis could never do and instead was thrashed to the inch of their life at every conflict the Sunnis initiated. This has scared the Sunnis out of their pants and the Shias are leading the Islamic world! From the US point of view, nothing could be better than having the Sunnis worried like hell and running for shelter and calling for a rethink about Israel!

xerxes

I havent read the whole thread yet, but I find the title of this thread disturbing:

"Theoretical Discussion: What if Iran Attacks Israel?"

Iran has already attacked Israel through its proxy Hizbollah. So I assume the question that is being asked is a direct Iranian attack toward Israel. But the thread doesnt clearify if the Iranian attack is a reponse to Israel's attack, or is the Iranian attack, an unprovoked attack.

If the latter is being asked, then I find it utterly hilarious the thought of Iranian attack against Israel?? .. with what?? ... couple of old Phantoms escorted by F-14, like the ambitious H-2 raid that was done against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. and what would the point of such raid, which most probably fail, considering the fact that Israel's ally occupies Iraq.

If it is ballistic missile attack that we are talking about, I am just assuming that considering the fact that Iran has no nuclear arsenal, they (Shahabs fitted with chemicals) are for last resort and to be used against Israel, should Israel decides to go nuclear.

__________________
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon