Here's How Israel will Attack Iran

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by ahmedsid, May 16, 2009.

  1. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program
    By Reuven Pedatzur

    Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.

    They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

    Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel's offensive options been published. The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel's military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran's nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries' missile inventory.

    After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: "A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible ... [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate."

    The first problem the authors point to is intelligence, or more precisely, the lack of it. "It is not known whether Iran has some secret facilities where it is conducting uranium enrichment," they write. If facilities unknown to Western intelligence agencies do exist, Iran's uranium-enrichment program could continue to develop in secret there, while Israel attacks the known sites - and the strike's gains would thus be lost. In general, the authors state, attacking Iran is justified only if it will put an end to Iran's nuclear program or halt it for several years. That objective is very difficult to attain.

    Intelligence agencies are also divided on the critical question of when Iran will deliver a nuclear weapon. Whereas Israeli intelligence maintains it will have the bomb between 2009 and 2012, the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will not happen before 2013. If the Israeli intelligence assessment is accurate, the window for a military strike is rapidly closing. It is clear to everyone that no one will dare attack Iran once it possesses nuclear weapons.

    Since Iran has dozens of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout its large territory, and since it is impossible to attack all of them, Toukan and Cordesman investigated the option of hitting only three, which "constitute the core of the nuclear fuel cycle that Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons grade fissile material."

    Destroying these three sites ought to stall the Iranian nuclear program for several years. The three are: the nuclear research center in Isfahan, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, and the heavy water plant, intended for future plutonium production, in Arak. It is doubtful whether Israel would embark on an offensive with such major ramifications just to strike a small number of facilities, when it is not at all clear that this will stop Iran's nuclearization for a significant length of time.

    The study analyzes three possible flight routes and concludes that the optimal and most likely one is the northern one that passes along the Syria-Turkey border, cuts across the northeastern edge of Iraq and leads into Iran. The central route passes over Jordan and is shorter, but would not be chosen for fear of political trouble with the Jordanians. Using the southern route, which passes over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, might likewise lead to political entanglements.

    To prevent the aircraft being detected en route to Iran, the IAF would use advanced technology to invade and scramble communication networks and radar devices in the countries over which the F-15s and F-16s fly, so even though dozens of planes would pass through the countries' airspace, they will not be detected. According to the authors, the IAF used this technology in the raid on the Syrian nuclear reactor in Dayr az-Zawr, in September 2007. A hacker system was installed on two Gulfstream G550 aircraft that the IAF bought in recent years.

    A strike mission on the three nuclear facilities would require no fewer than 90 combat aircraft, including all 25 F-15Es in the IAF inventory and another 65 F-16I/Cs. On top of that, all the IAF's refueling planes will have to be airborne: 5 KC-130Hs and 4 B-707s. The combat aircraft will have to be refueled both en route to and on the way back from Iran. The IAF will have a hard time locating an area above which the tankers can cruise without being detected by the Syrians or the Turks.

    One of the toughest operational problems to resolve is the fact that the facility at Natanz is buried deep underground. Part of it, the fuel-enrichment plant, reaches a depth of 8 meters, and is protected by a 2.5-meter-thick concrete wall, which is in turn protected by another concrete wall. By mid-2004 the Iranians had fortified their defense of the other part of the facility, where the centrifuges are housed. They buried it 25 meters underground and built a roof over it made of reinforced concrete several meters thick.

    The Iranians use the centrifuges to enrich uranium, which is required in order to produce a nuclear bomb. There are already 6,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility; the Iranians plan to install a total of 50,000, which could be used to produce 500 kilos of weapons-grade uranium annually. Building a nuclear bomb takes 15-20 kilograms of enriched uranium. That means that the Natanz facility will be able to supply enough fissile material for 25-30 nuclear weapons per year.

    Because the Natanz facility is so important, the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect it. To contend with the serious defensive measures they have taken, the IAF will use two types of U.S.-made smart bombs. According to reports in the foreign media, 600 of these bombs - nicknamed "bunker busters" - have been sold to Israel. One is called GBU-27, it weighs about 900 kilos and it can penetrate a 2.4-meter layer of concrete. The other is called GBU-28 and weighs 2,268 kilos; this monster can penetrate 6 meters of concrete and another layer of earth 30 meters deep. But for these bombs to penetrate ultra-protected Iranian facilities, IAF pilots will have to strike the targets with absolute accuracy and at an optimal angle.

    Additional challenges

    But the challenges facing the IAF do not end there. Iran has built a dense aerial-defense system that will make it hard for Israeli planes to reach their targets unscathed. Among other things, the Iranians have deployed batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus they have SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Furthermore, 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protect the nuclear facilities - not to mention the 158 combat aircraft that might take part in defending Iran's skies. Most of those planes are outdated, but they may be scrambled to intercept the IAF, which will thus have to use part of its strike force to deal with the situation.

    However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF's calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is "a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying."

    If Israel also decides to attack the famous reactor in Bushehr, an ecological disaster and mass deaths will result. The contamination released into the air in the form of radionuclides would spread over a large area, and thousands of Iranians who live nearby would be killed immediately; in addition, possibly hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer. Because northerly winds blow in the area throughout most of the year, the authors conclude that, "most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides."

    The difficulty involved in an IAF strike would become a moot point if ballistic missiles wind up being used instead of combat aircraft. The Iranians cannot defend against ballistic missiles. The study lays bare Israel's missile program and points to three missile versions it has developed: Jericho I, II and III. The Jericho I has a 500-kilometer range, a 450-kilogram warhead, and can carry a 20-kiloton nuclear weapon. Jericho II has a 1,500-kilometer range, and entered service in 1990. It can carry a 1-megaton nuclear warhead. Jericho III is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 4,800-6,500 kilometers, and can carry a multi-megaton nuclear warhead. The study says the latter was expected to enter service in 2008.

    The authors apparently do not insinuate that Israel will launch missiles carrying nuclear warheads, but rather conventional warheads. By their calculation it will take 42 Jericho III missiles to destroy the three Iranian facilities, assuming that they all hit their marks, which is extremely difficult. It is not enough to hit the target area: To destroy the facilities it is necessary to hit certain points of only a few meters in size. It is doubtful the Jerichos' accuracy can be relied on, and that all of them will hit those critical spots with precision.

    The study also analyzes the possible Iranian response to an Israeli strike. In all likelihood the result would be to spur Iranians to continue and even accelerate their nuclear program, to create reliable deterrence in the face of an aggressive Israel. Iran would also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which until now has enabled its nuclear program to be monitored, to a certain degree, through inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An Israeli strike would immediately put a stop to the international community's attempts to pressure Iran into suspending development of nuclear weapons.

    No Syrian response

    Iran would also, almost certainly, retaliate against Israel directly. It might attack targets here with Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, whose range covers all of Israel. A few might even be equipped with chemical warheads. In addition, the Iranians would use Hezbollah and Hamas to dispatch waves of suicide bombers into Israel. The Second Lebanon War showed us Hezbollah's rocket capability, and the experience of the past eight years has been instructive regarding Hamas' ability to fire Qassams from the Gaza Strip.

    Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets from South Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War, and their effect on northern Israel has not been forgotten: Life was nearly paralyzed for a whole month. Since then the Lebanese organization's stockpile was replenished and enhanced, and it now has some 40,000 rockets. Israel does not have a response to those rockets. The rocket defense systems now being developed (Iron Dome and Magic Wand) are still far from completion, and even after they become operational, it is doubtful they will prove effective against thousands of rockets launched at Israel.

    An Israeli strike on Iran would also sow instability in the Middle East. The Iranians would make use of the Shi'ites in Iraq, support Taliban fighters and improve their combat capabilities in Afghanistan. They also might attack American interests in the region, especially in countries that host U.S. military forces, such as Qatar and Bahrain. The Iranians would probably also attempt to disrupt the flow of oil to the West from the Persian Gulf region. Since the United States would be perceived as having given Israel a green light to attack Iran, American relations with allies in the Arab world could suffer greatly. Toukan and Cordesman believe, however, that Iran's ally Syria would refrain from intervening if Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Regarding a possible time frame for an Israeli strike, the authors cited factors that could speed up the decision in this matter. By 2010 Iran could pose a serious threat to its neighbors and Israel, because it would have enough nuclear weapons to deter the latter and the United States from attacking it. Iran's inventory of effective ballistic missiles capable of carrying nonconventional warheads could also be an incentive. The fear that the country will procure the Russian S-300V aerial-defense system (if it has not done so already) might also serve as an incentive for a preemptive strike.

    So what should Israeli policy makers conclude from this American study? That an IAF strike on Iran would be complicated and problematic, and that the chance of it succeeding is not great. That they must weigh all of the far-reaching ramifications that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would have, and that they must not be fooled by promises, should any be made, by Israel Defense Forces officers who present the attack plan as having good odds for success.

    One of the conclusions from Toukan and Cordesman's study is that it is questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran's nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years. Therefore, if the diplomatic contacts the Obama administration is initiating with Iran prove useless, and if in the wake of their expected failure the American president does not decide to attack Iran, it is likely that Iran will possess nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. It seems, therefore, that policy makers in Jerusalem should begin preparing, mentally and operationally, for a situation in which Iran is a nuclear power with a strike capability against Israel.

    This is the place to emphasize Israel's mistake in hyping the Iranian threat. The regime in Tehran is certainly a bitter and inflexible rival, but from there it's a long way to presenting it as a truly existential threat to Israel. Iran's involvement in terror in our region is troubling, but a distinction must be made between a willingness to bankroll terrorists, and an intention to launch nuclear missiles against Israel. Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel's power of deterrence will suffice to dissuade any Iranian ruler from even contemplating launching nuclear weapons against it.

    It is time to stop waving around the scarecrow of an existential threat and refrain from making belligerent statements, which sometimes create a dangerous dynamic of escalation. And if the statements are superfluous and harmful - then this is doubly true for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Of course, none of this contradicts the possibility of taking covert action to hamper the Iranians' program and supply routes. When the IAF destroyed the Osirak reactor in Baghdad in 1981, the "Begin doctrine" came into being, which holds that Israel will not let any hostile country in the region acquire nuclear weapons. The problem is that what could be accomplished in Iraq more than two decades ago is no longer possible today under the present circumstances in Iran.

    The continual harping on the Iranian threat stems from domestic Israeli politics and a desire to increase investment in the security realm, but the ramifications of this are dangerous when you analyze expected developments in Iran's ballistics: It is impossible for Israel to ignore Iran's capacity to hit it, and Jerusalem must shape a policy that will neutralize that threat.

    In another year, or three years from now, when the Iranians possess nuclear weapons, the rules of the strategic game in the region will be completely altered. Israel must reach that moment with a fully formulated and clear policy in hand, enabling it to successfully confront a potential nuclear threat, even when it is likely that the other side has no intention of carrying it out. The key, of course, is deterrence. Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles. The Iranians have no logical reason to bring about the total destruction of their big cities, as could happen if Israel uses the means of deterrence at its disposal. Neither the satisfaction of killing Zionist infidels, nor, certainly, the promotion of Palestinian interests would justify that price. Israeli deterrence in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat has a good chance of succeeding precisely because the Iranians have no incentive to deal a mortal blow to Israel.

    Therefore, all the declarations about developing the operational capability of IAF aircraft so they can attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, and the empty promises about the ability of the Arrow missile defense system to contend effectively with the Shahab-3, not only do not help bolster Israel's power of deterrence, but actually undermine the process of building it and making it credible in Iranian eyes.

    The time has come to adopt new ways of thinking. No more fiery declarations and empty threats, but rather a carefully weighed policy grounded in sound strategy. Ultimately, in an era of a multi-nuclear Middle East, all sides will have a clear interest to lower tension and not to increase it.


    Here's how Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear program - Haaretz - Israel News
     
  2.  
  3. Sailor

    Sailor Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best write up on this I have ever seen Ahmedsid. THANKS
     
  4. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
    Cannot possibly think what the assessment that the introduction of the S-300 would fundamentally change Israel's options, and that "aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent" is based on.

    This is the report which the article is based on - http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

    Pedatzur's implication is that the likelihood that Israel could cripple Iran's nuclear program in an air strike is low. I disagree with that interpretation. The study IMHO implied that an Israeli air strike would be difficult - but that Israel did have enough firepower to ultimately do the job.

    The author's belief that the Iranian leadership will act in a rationale manner once they possess nuclear arms. He asserts that
    and
    . This is a very dumb argument in my view, deterrence will not work with Iran. When the Iranians say that their goal is to wipe Israel off the earth, it is not an idle threat. Iranian cities were pounded during the Iran-Iraq war and that didn't deter them from human wave attacks to clear minefields. Clearly, Iran will not flinch at the loss of a couple of major cities in order to fulfil what it sees as its theological goal.

    Personally it is my view that Israel has to make an all-out effort to do this, almost regardless of potential military casualties and collateral damage because the alternative i.e. Iran have nukes is too dangerous for the ME situation and the world in general.

    WRT the report itself, I am not a technical guy so I might be wrong but theres minor mistakes mistakes like confusing Arrow II Block 3 with Arrow 3. Secondly am not sure about the Hawk coverage map. Thirdly, that the primary Iranian threat to Israel is the Shahab-3, and Hawk has no capability against IRBMs, wouldn't Arrow or Patriot coverage areas have been better? No thought is given to what will be the Israeli effort to destroy mobile Shahab launchers. This should have some merit given my understanding that these would be the actual immediate threat to Israel.
     
  5. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
  6. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
  7. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    There is a possibility because both view it as a fight to the finish and many other nations would also be involved on both sides.
     
  8. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
    It has been my understanding the report is built on the premises that pretty much no one else will really get involved ?

    WRT the missiles, my question is primarily the feasability of submarine launched conventional cruise missiles in the attack on Iran's nuclear production facilities?
     
  9. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    Cruise missile probably would not penetrate deep enough to destroy the underground facilities ,their accuracy may not be perfect. It would have to be an air attack using Bunker busters and possibly even using follow up strikes by Bombers to ensure that it is destroyed, but destroying the facility does not destroy the knowledge to rebuild again in the future.
     
  10. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    If Israel attacks Iran then Qatar, Bahrain, Us Forces pretty much elsewhere will be affected, because Iran has been building up their missile stockpile and mind you these aint scud a and b and c' or Ds!!! Accurate of Innacurate, when pointed against a populated city it will prove to be lethal, so arab countries wouldnt want to play with them like they did with iraq.

    And Lastly, taking out the SAMs with Harpies, yes possible, but does anyone think that Iran will sit Idle while its Assets are being bombed? Come on, we are talking of the Persians here!!!! I have met many and I must say, I am impressed by their way of thinking and logical outlook. None if the Iranians I met have had problems with US, but they hate the US double standards on stuff. If Pakistan can have nukes, why not them? Arent Iranians sworn enemies of the Taliban and Qaeda??? This is what they have told me!

    I too support their quest for Nuke tech, but dont wanna see a bomb with them or for that matter anyone. Right Now, Iran has something lethal, if not as lethan as the N Bomb. Its missile Arsenal. The sole reason Israels not attacking it is because of this reason. Not only that, the US doesnt want a war to happen in the region, they aint ready for it.

    As long as US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is an Insurance policy for the Iranians. They will never be attacked. We Must see that the Russians, Chinese and us Indians have interests in Iran. If the US comes there, then we must as well say goodbye to their Resources!

    Israel has a credible ABM in place, but have they been tested against a barrage of Missiles approaching against Tel Aviv?? Fine, Iran will go down, but as they say, we will take u down with us!

    This simple logic proves that War is not feasible, rather the carrot and stick policy is!
     
  11. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
    LF,
    I don't know about the accuracy part. It has been my understanding that modern GPS guided intelligent cruise missiles are as accurate as guided bombs?
     
  12. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    Accuracy man not be a major issue but the destruction should be contained underground as much as possible, if the explosion is too "messy" it may cause radioactive fallout over that whole area and into neighboring countries. Also the Issue of knowing which facility to bomb?? Iran has 4(main) facilities where nuclear activity is taking place, what if the processed material is transferred before the attack? Intelligence would have to be perfect, and also attack on one facility may have the other facilities picking up where they left of so will all 4 facilities be attacked that would be a much tougher operation and chance of success would be slim.(off topic) As far as cruise missile accuracy goes an unexploded of course TOMAHAWK landed near pakistan/afghan border where pakistanis picked it up and sent it to china to be reverse engineered and create BABUR so cruise missile accuracy may not be 100%. Penetrating and destroying everything below would be the main goal and cruise missiles are not suited for that task.
     
  13. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    If Israel attacks Iran then Qatar, Bahrain, Us Forces pretty much elsewhere will be affected, because Iran has been building up their missile stockpile and mind you these aint scud a and b and c' or Ds!!! Accurate of Innacurate, when pointed against a populated city it will prove to be lethal, so arab countries wouldnt want to play with them like they did with iraq.

    -This would involve many more countries and possibly trigger bigger regional or at worst world war type scenarios depending on Russian and Chinese involvement and also have a major impact on US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And Lastly, taking out the SAMs with Harpies, yes possible, but does anyone think that Iran will sit Idle while its Assets are being bombed? Come on, we are talking of the Persians here!!!! I have met many and I must say, I am impressed by their way of thinking and logical outlook. None if the Iranians I met have had problems with US, but they hate the US double standards on stuff. If Pakistan can have nukes, why not them? Arent Iranians sworn enemies of the Taliban and Qaeda??? This is what they have told me!

    -Iranains are clever and at one time they had excellent relations with the west. Even with the use of HARPY UAV's intelligence would have to be perfect for the follow up strikes on the right facility, and it will not erase the knowledge to rebuild, Iran does have a point Iran is an NPT signatory while Pakistan is not, and Pakistan has proliferated actively with no repercussions, and IAEA inspection in Iranian facilities are routinely done.

    I too support their quest for Nuke tech, but dont wanna see a bomb with them or for that matter anyone. Right Now, Iran has something lethal, if not as lethan as the N Bomb. Its missile Arsenal. The sole reason Israels not attacking it is because of this reason. Not only that, the US doesnt want a war to happen in the region, they aint ready for it.

    -Israelis hope to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb they believe the window is still open for this to be possible, but history has shown when a country wants a bomb they will get it even if they have to eat grass.

    As long as US is in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is an Insurance policy for the Iranians. They will never be attacked. We Must see that the Russians, Chinese and us Indians have interests in Iran. If the US comes there, then we must as well say goodbye to their Resources!

    -if Iran becomes an SCO member in the future, this will change the picture in many ways.

    Israel has a credible ABM in place, but have they been tested against a barrage of Missiles approaching against Tel Aviv?? Fine, Iran will go down, but as they say, we will take u down with us!

    -what does either country gain from this?

    This simple logic proves that War is not feasible, rather the carrot and stick policy is!
    but why do some countries(pakistan) get offered a carrot while others don't? (Iran, N.korea)
     
  14. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    I find it hard to make out your reply to my post LF as its jumbled, But I do agree with you mostly, but I dont understand the meaning of this line "but why do some countries(pakistan) get offered a carrot while others don't? (Iran, N.korea) "
     
  15. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    the last line means why are 2 countries Iran and North korea offered no or very small carrots and discouraged in their pursuit, while Pakistan get offered the biggest carrot even after proliferating it may seem like the answer maybe their help in the terror war but separating the war and the proliferation it seems like pakistan can view the soft approach to their nuclear program and proliferation as encouragement?
     
  16. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
    Exactly where your article and the report it is based on are lacking in.

    **Thirdly, that the primary Iranian threat to Israel is the Shahab-3, and Hawk has no capability against IRBMs, wouldn't Arrow or Patriot coverage areas have been better?**

    Ah yes, the Iranians are the very models of modern civilisation and their statements about wiping out Israel attests to that.

    So they don't have a problem with USA, just hate it?

    I see, since Pak already has nukes, why can't all Islamic nations have nukes? Makes sense, not.

    Iranians telling you they are opposed to Taliban and Queda has what do with the issue at hand?

    I
    They don't have to attack tomorrow .....

    Bet Iraqis thought the same with US in Stan.
    But anyway, the scenario is about an Israeli strike on Iran, not American.
    Israel /= America

    All the more reasons for the world to support the destruction of Iran's nuclear capability, their resources are precious, lets not let them be destroyed in a future nuke war in the ME.

    Iran is indeed currently capable of carrying out a conventional missile attack on Israel - a substantial but not existential threat. No one is talking about "going down" completely, not at this stage anyway. And I ll assume the Israelis will have a counter-strategy in place as its not only the Logical Persians who are masters of warfare.

    Which simple logic ??
     
  17. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    This is where the Double Standards of the US comes into play! I rather see a nuke with the persians than with Pak! The N koreans have the bomb already, and it goes onto prove what u said! If you want the bomb badly, who can stop???
     
  18. ahmedsid

    ahmedsid Top Gun Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,958
    Likes Received:
    243
    When someone is biased against a certain someone, They tend to post sarcastic retorts which has an icecubes chance in hell!

    The IRanians are enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda? WHY? Brush up on GK Bro! You badly need it! Now dont tell me you got a "Sexed" up Dossier to prove that Iran has a N Bomb and has ties with Qaeda and Gang!

    If Israel had a Plan B when it comes to Missiles falling on All of Israel, they would have attacked by now! Goes onto prove that they dont have one!!

    About USA being dragged in! Who do you think Israel is to attack Iran without the consent of USA?? Whose airspace will they use? Come on! Iran has said a thousand times, they will attack US if Israel launches an attack! Silly of you to discount it!

    Iraq thought US wont attack it becaus US was in Astan? Man what r u going at! Iraq was crippled to the core! They didnt have any Missiles that could fly more that a few Miles! lol and they thought of attacking US bases in the Gulf/Afghanistan!!! GK-thats the codeword!
     
  19. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,342
    Likes Received:
    6,292
    Iranians are an NPT signatory while Pakistan is not and IAEA inspections are regularly done in the Iranian facilities, If Iran were to acquire the bomb it would still fall under the NPT umbrella and the laws that apply while pakistan does not fall under any such umbrella and proliferated nuclear technology actively. But the world has accepted that it is okay to accept pakistan's Islamic bomb upto recently with the taliban takeover looming; but not Iran's nuke. The reason i said Pakistan's islamic bomb is because the view of the pakistani's bombs creator AQ Khan was it is a bomb that should be shared with all islamic countries.
     
  20. Auberon

    Auberon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    3
    Reported.

    I know why, my question was what its enemity with Taliban or Queda has to do with its development of nukes?

    Really? Then if you believe Israel is solely refraining to act because of Missiles Falling All Over Israel, why do you figure in the US equation?

    No, you have missed the point entirely again.
     
  21. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    THE THREAD HAS BEEN MONITERED AND 2 SPECIFIC POINTS NEEDS TO BE MADE PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SARCASM IN SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS EVEN IF YOU DO IT IN RIGHT SPIRIT ALSO LEARN TO RESPECT OTHERS OPINIONS EVEN IF IT IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR VIEWS.
    LETS KEEP THE FORUM CLEAN chat on the shoutbox and clear your ideas with other members ..

    thanks
     

Share This Page