Why would Israel nuke Iran when Israel already has much greater conventional strength? Also, Iran doesn't have any nukes as yet, Israel has nearly 150-200 warheads that can be fitted in missiles, bombers and sub's. Israel is waaaay ahead in conventional and WMD strength/
Iranian Forces
- Thread starter wesside
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
"Why would Israel nuke Iran when Israel already has much greater conventional strength? Also, Iran doesn't have any nukes as yet, Israel has nearly 150-200 warheads that can be fitted in missiles, bombers and sub's. Israel is waaaay ahead in conventional and WMD strength"
Ye sri I’m not arguing with that but lets just say that thing some to a point where Israel actually wanted to "bomb" Iran.
Now considering that Iran also has some nukes and decide to retaliate against Israel
What would be the outcome?
Ye sri I’m not arguing with that but lets just say that thing some to a point where Israel actually wanted to "bomb" Iran.
Now considering that Iran also has some nukes and decide to retaliate against Israel
What would be the outcome?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
sorry didnt mean that it had nukes, what i ment to say was that considering that if got his hands on nukes and both iran and israel had nukes. thats what i ment. i am aware that iran has no nukes.
But for argument sakes if it had nukes and a nuclear conflict occured between Iran and Israel, how much damage would be done and the aftermath of these actions?
But for argument sakes if it had nukes and a nuclear conflict occured between Iran and Israel, how much damage would be done and the aftermath of these actions?
The Joy you expressed shows how evil is supported by the intellectual world, regarding Iranian Nukes, no body know's what kind of animal is inside the bag, as far as you dont know there can be any possiablity, just think about Israel, what would be left after a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Iran, more worst then what Nazi's did, simply no more jewish state.turin said:
It is not like I am in dreams, it is history if you will push some one hard, he will reatliate, with the strength and courage given to him by fear of possiable loss.
all iran has to do is get it's shahab 3 with non nuclear material and target isreals major bases and then that would be bye bye to israels f-16 and f-15 and what ever. then to top that up 1 or 2 more nukes would do the job. isreal would obviously attack as well but if you think about it, it would take 3-4 nukes to wipe isreal of the map and it would that about 10-20 nukes to mash up iran.
http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/24/top18.htm
Iran warns Israel of most severe reaction
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 23: Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi warned on Wednesday his country would react "most severely" to any Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.
"Israel is always a threat not only against Iran, but all countries in the Middle East," Mr Kharazi said after talks here with his British counterpart, Jack Straw. "Be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely."
Mr Kharazi said he had "a very good discussion" with Mr Straw on the nuclear issue as well as relations between the two countries. "I believe there are concerns on all sides," the Iranian minister said. "There are concerns on the European side, and we have to arrive to some conclusions that will be acceptable to both sides to overcome this impasse."
He said he believed there were "ways and means how to make both sides happy," but added: "Nobody can deny our right, which is using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."
Mr Straw did not make a statement at the end of the talks. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given Iran until Nov 25 to provide assurances that its nuclear programme has no secret military aspects.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier Wednesday that the US had no plans to attack Iran to thwart what it claims is the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons, but has not formally ruled out any options to deal with the matter. Iran says talks only way to resolve nuke stand off. -AFP/Reuters
Iran warns Israel of most severe reaction
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 23: Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi warned on Wednesday his country would react "most severely" to any Israeli strike against its nuclear facilities.
"Israel is always a threat not only against Iran, but all countries in the Middle East," Mr Kharazi said after talks here with his British counterpart, Jack Straw. "Be sure that any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us most severely."
Mr Kharazi said he had "a very good discussion" with Mr Straw on the nuclear issue as well as relations between the two countries. "I believe there are concerns on all sides," the Iranian minister said. "There are concerns on the European side, and we have to arrive to some conclusions that will be acceptable to both sides to overcome this impasse."
He said he believed there were "ways and means how to make both sides happy," but added: "Nobody can deny our right, which is using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."
Mr Straw did not make a statement at the end of the talks. The International Atomic Energy Agency has given Iran until Nov 25 to provide assurances that its nuclear programme has no secret military aspects.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier Wednesday that the US had no plans to attack Iran to thwart what it claims is the Islamic republic's pursuit of nuclear weapons, but has not formally ruled out any options to deal with the matter. Iran says talks only way to resolve nuke stand off. -AFP/Reuters
Hmm... the issue is how to define victory. Destruction of hardware ? Control of territory ? Imposing a political will ? By these standards, the US have destroyed the Iraqi army but are unable to control the Iraqi territory or to impose a political solution. The same goes with Afghanistan. So, of course, the US could launch thousands of cruise missiles against Iran and obtain rapid air superiority or wreck iranian command system. But as Irak example shows, it was easier to defeat a conventional army than handdle insurgents acting in small groups. I think that Iran could really be a nightmare for the US. Not to mention that if the US can encircle Iran and attack it from both Irak and Afghanistan, Iran could also easily let some thousands of fighters well into Irak or use the shiite connection they have to lead Irak into a further nigthmare for the US. If I were the Iranian commander, i would disseminate my forces around the country and restrain from any offensive action other than subsersive attacks against US troops in Iraqi cities
Bordo-Bereli
New Member
Maybe Iran's soldiers aren't as well as a ranger,delta force or a whichever powerful unit but they know how guerilla warfare is made I think.So they have technological weapons and they have their own missiles like Sahap.Three or four months before I had watched their applications on T.V.and saw that how powerful they are.However,if Iran fights with a whichever country a lot of Moslem people come for figting from Turkey,Azerbaijan,Saudi Arabia and the other Moslem countries.Iran couldn't conquered since they founded.Even Ottoman armies checked control hardly.I think they are so powerful.
UnarmedSoldier
New Member
I think u're understating the options available to the iranians. Yes, it's true, the americans can very well bomb the country into the ground, but remember the Karbala gap. If stupid Saddam was not so convinced that the main attack would come from the north, they could have just used chemical wepons in the open desert and decimated the invading forces. By their own admission the us forces were not ready to deal with that. Also u don't seem to remember how scared they were at the thought of advanced russian antitank weapons comping from Syria.
How about that apache being shot down by rocket fire the other day ? How well would they be able to fight without air support fearing shoulder launched AA missiles ?(like the soviets in afganistan).
The iranians are now making tanks like crazy, do u think they forgot to make or import anti tank and anti aircraft missiles ? All they'd have to do to scare off the americans would be to give each iranian 2 of those.
How about that apache being shot down by rocket fire the other day ? How well would they be able to fight without air support fearing shoulder launched AA missiles ?(like the soviets in afganistan).
The iranians are now making tanks like crazy, do u think they forgot to make or import anti tank and anti aircraft missiles ? All they'd have to do to scare off the americans would be to give each iranian 2 of those.
The Iranians have also seen what happens to massed armour. Anyone who thinks that a war with Iran would be an early ground war is ignoring the fact that all nations undergoing their own version of the RMA are heading rapidly to precision rather than mass. Armoured warfare changed after 1999.UnarmedSoldier said:
hojaat, you can post your experiences on here without an invitation from the forum. anything relevant to the thread topic is welcome.HOJAAT said:
alternatively, you might have experiences that can be put in the "military tactics" section.
:Well, i had to say something.
I think you're seeing Israel as a country who can only attack and cannot defend it self.
Well, you have a big mistake down there.
So, lets say, Iran nukes israel, the missle will be shut down by an arrow before he get to Jordan, won't success? another one.
since 1994 all Arrow's tests was 100% success, he can take a nuclear warhead.
Iran wont hit israel with a nuke, she can only try, and after the first try, there is no more Iran to launch those warheads.
Evreything that Highsea mentiouned is completley right.
Comon, Iran might have some troops, but we are tlaking about freaking USA here.
Iran HAS NO Migs 29, or any kind of SU's in her AF.
Iran had Migs, but after the war with Iraq they all gone down.
You can look here
www.iiaf.net
about evreything Iran has.
and last thing.
If iran gets to Israel she wont be able to shut down all her sources in 1 bomb, no in 2, and not in 3.
Israel air bases are dispersed in all over the country, in each base there's few models of aircraft, especially in the bases who close to the bounds.
In time of war, like in 2003 when USA attacked Iraq, israeli attack aircrafts and helicopters was up in the air for 24\7 and all missles and the crows was in alert.
At 2003, we knew that Iraq doesn't have with what to attack us, but we were in " code red " so if the war with Iran start, i don't want to think what will be going on over here.
I think you're seeing Israel as a country who can only attack and cannot defend it self.
Well, you have a big mistake down there.
So, lets say, Iran nukes israel, the missle will be shut down by an arrow before he get to Jordan, won't success? another one.
since 1994 all Arrow's tests was 100% success, he can take a nuclear warhead.
Iran wont hit israel with a nuke, she can only try, and after the first try, there is no more Iran to launch those warheads.
Evreything that Highsea mentiouned is completley right.
Comon, Iran might have some troops, but we are tlaking about freaking USA here.
Iran HAS NO Migs 29, or any kind of SU's in her AF.
Iran had Migs, but after the war with Iraq they all gone down.
You can look here
www.iiaf.net
about evreything Iran has.
and last thing.
If iran gets to Israel she wont be able to shut down all her sources in 1 bomb, no in 2, and not in 3.
Israel air bases are dispersed in all over the country, in each base there's few models of aircraft, especially in the bases who close to the bounds.
In time of war, like in 2003 when USA attacked Iraq, israeli attack aircrafts and helicopters was up in the air for 24\7 and all missles and the crows was in alert.
At 2003, we knew that Iraq doesn't have with what to attack us, but we were in " code red " so if the war with Iran start, i don't want to think what will be going on over here.
Last edited:
These kinds of comments aren't helpful. There are people in here who still have security ratings and at various levels. They don't use their security status as part of an argument - as it's a hollow argument in itself.Patzek said:
If you want to debate and contest information, you need to do it without implying that you have any info which makes you appear to be in a position of "protected information". It's meaningless here.
Iran does not possess any nukes, so talk of Iran launching such weapons are fantasy.
That the U.S could win on conventional terms is beyond dispute; but what then? Any thoughts that the U.S could hold Iran for any length of time as an occupier, need only to look at the lessons being learned in Iraq.
The Iranian military would account for itself much better than Iraq did in GW2. Iraqi capability had been worn down by years of U.N sanctions (and of course the previous GW), so much of the defence infrastructure (communications, Air Defence etc) were non functional, and materiel and weapons largely degraded thus making an effective defence improbable. Iraq is not Iran.
Iran is not ruled by a largely unpopular, despotic dictator as Iraq was. So there's going to be more cohesian within the Iranian government and its military in terms of dealing with an invasion. I am sure that the Iranians watched with great interest on how quickly Iraqi forces were dismantled and presumably would have incorporated those lessons into a refined doctrine on how to best defend themselves; and if that fails, how to wage war under occupation ala Asymmetric warfare. I envisage the Iranians pre-positioning weapons, setting up alternative communications networks (redundancy), organising potential resistance cells and identifying urban areas which could become 'turkey shoots'.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides, I highly doubt there would be an invasion of Iran though I don't exclude a possible air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. If that happens, one would expect some form of retaliation, possibly escalating into a conflict that could ultimately engulf the whole region in war. A daunting prospect.
That the U.S could win on conventional terms is beyond dispute; but what then? Any thoughts that the U.S could hold Iran for any length of time as an occupier, need only to look at the lessons being learned in Iraq.
The Iranian military would account for itself much better than Iraq did in GW2. Iraqi capability had been worn down by years of U.N sanctions (and of course the previous GW), so much of the defence infrastructure (communications, Air Defence etc) were non functional, and materiel and weapons largely degraded thus making an effective defence improbable. Iraq is not Iran.
Iran is not ruled by a largely unpopular, despotic dictator as Iraq was. So there's going to be more cohesian within the Iranian government and its military in terms of dealing with an invasion. I am sure that the Iranians watched with great interest on how quickly Iraqi forces were dismantled and presumably would have incorporated those lessons into a refined doctrine on how to best defend themselves; and if that fails, how to wage war under occupation ala Asymmetric warfare. I envisage the Iranians pre-positioning weapons, setting up alternative communications networks (redundancy), organising potential resistance cells and identifying urban areas which could become 'turkey shoots'.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides, I highly doubt there would be an invasion of Iran though I don't exclude a possible air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. If that happens, one would expect some form of retaliation, possibly escalating into a conflict that could ultimately engulf the whole region in war. A daunting prospect.
Last edited:
As someone already said.
USA nor Israel will let Iran to have Nuclear warheads.
If Iran wont stop from what she's doing, there's 2 ways she will end.
With only nuclear sites destroyed, or total revolution and she will end like Iraq did.
Iran got the choise, the only thing she need to do is to choose wisely.
USA nor Israel will let Iran to have Nuclear warheads.
If Iran wont stop from what she's doing, there's 2 ways she will end.
With only nuclear sites destroyed, or total revolution and she will end like Iraq did.
Iran got the choise, the only thing she need to do is to choose wisely.
Last edited:
No one with priveliged information reveals it on a public forum.Patzek said: