Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Israel threatens to bomb Iran

Israel Iran Bomb Osirak Nuclear Complex

  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#21 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 23 September 2004 - 07:16 PM

Iran's nuclear capabilities would be getting developed at one site whose location is open public knowledge to other countries, so that eliminating the whole program would be a simple matter of flying some planes over it and making it go BOOM, right? That is implied by what Israel's talking about doing.

Aside from Israel doing it and its not getting done, the third possiblity is the most interesting one to me: the USA or Britain does it.

#22 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 23 September 2004 - 08:56 PM

I'm actually in favour of this.  Personally, I abhor nuclear weapons, but they're key to the survival of Israel.  And while I dislike a lot of Israel's policy, they, like every other nation on this Earth, have a right to self-preservation.

#23 gadfly

gadfly

    Romantic Progressive

  • Islander
  • 1,333 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 07:29 AM

Oh yes, I can just see the Iranians just sitting back and letting themselves be bombed.  Uh huh.  That's so true.  This backward nation that's not in the least bit industralized nor has any military capability at all.  Nope.  They'd be easy targets.  Why don't we just go bomb Nantanz now?

#24 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 07:33 AM

prolog, on Sep 24 2004, 02:56 AM, said:

I'm actually in favour of this.  Personally, I abhor nuclear weapons, but they're key to the survival of Israel.  And while I dislike a lot of Israel's policy, they, like every other nation on this Earth, have a right to self-preservation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Then given that a lot of people have talked quite extensively about dealing with Iran, don't they have a duty to their nation to provide any and all means to defend themselves?

For that matter, doesn' the US demolisin of Iraq pretty much prove that they have a need to do it, if the current rulers wish to remain in power?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#25 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 10:09 AM

I can see your point Ch. I guess nuking them would be for the best amd we must do so to make sure we get each and every Iranian innocent of villian. So maybe 3 times overkill. Then send in C130 Gunships and kill anyone left.

Or they can agree to work with the international community. Which do you think would be better?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#26 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 12:15 PM

that was so not my point.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#27 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 01:32 PM

Your point from my end  sounds to be . It's a good thing Iran is trying to make  nuclear weapons. They have the right out of a need for self defense an dI am aruging back that I guess they do and we have the same right of self defense and have kill everybody there.

Or we can talk and they can stop trying to make the bomb in the first place.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#28 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 02:39 PM

Cyberhippie, on Sep 24 2004, 12:33 PM, said:

prolog, on Sep 24 2004, 02:56 AM, said:

I'm actually in favour of this.  Personally, I abhor nuclear weapons, but they're key to the survival of Israel.  And while I dislike a lot of Israel's policy, they, like every other nation on this Earth, have a right to self-preservation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Then given that a lot of people have talked quite extensively about dealing with Iran, don't they have a duty to their nation to provide any and all means to defend themselves?

For that matter, doesn' the US demolisin of Iraq pretty much prove that they have a need to do it, if the current rulers wish to remain in power?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Absolutely, and such is politics.  The U.S.'s approach to Afghanistan/Iraq (war) is contrasted with its approach to other countries it really doesn't like that either have nuclear capability, or could (Iran, North Korea).  The rest of the world is learning that to really negotiate with the U.S., you need nuclear weaponry.  From their perspective, I'm sure, nuclear weaponry gives them bargaining power, and ensured survival.

But in the west, the opinion is different.  We understandably see dictators, whether Jung-Il or the Iranian clerics, as very dangerous indeed.  It should also be understandable that nobody wants a crackpot to have the power to nuke an entire city, or worse.  However, that's the situation we're currently facing.  We don't care that Britain, India, France, etc., have nuclear capabilities, just as we're no longer afraid of Russia's nuclear arsenal.  The countries I just listed have by-and-large stable governments and well-educated populaces.  They understand that nuclear weapons, really, are not to be used (unless one wants to provoke WW3).  Countries with a fanatical hatred of other countries (Iran, North Korea, etc) should not, we feel, have nuclear weaponry because they're liable to not think through the implications.

Basically, each side has a legitimate point.  And while I'd prefer a strong dialogue with Iran to military action, I don't people with a fanatical hatred of Jews and Israelis to acquire the technology that would enable them to perform an extraordinarily rash action.  And yeah, I realize that the India/Pakistan hostilities could be used against my arguments, but they've already got nukes, so it's kind of a moot point.  Besides, they're at least talking now, and the results seem promising.

#29 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 02:50 PM

The fact also remains that both Iran and North Korea had nuclear ambitions well before even Bush Senior was president. The North Korean enrichment facility at Yongbon was in operation by 1988 and Iran has had the nucleus of a nuclear program since the 1970s. It wasn't until 1992 that the Iranians became more serious about it due to a number of factors including the beginings of a recovery from the massive devastation of the Iran-Iraq war and contracted with the Russians for the first major reactor facility near the Persian Gulf. The North Koreans on the other hand continued to work on thier program through the Reagan, Bush and into the Clinton administration until only appearing to stop under Clinton's Agreed Framework. But as was learned later they never truly stopped and had been building secret enrichment facilities even before the Agreed Framework had collapsed. While the current Bush's actions probably had each nation put more emphasis on thier nuclear programs they had already existed well before running for president was even a gleam in this Bush's eye. They weren't simply thrown together in a crash program due to the actions of the current president. They were part of ongoing programs to develop nuclear capabilities that have existed for decades.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#30 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 03:01 PM

You can probably answer this best, Tennyson, but does Iran have the air power or anti-air defences capable of repelling an Israeli strike?  As well, I have to wonder if Israel were to launch an attack that Iran repelled, would this lead to significant escalation and likely retaliation, possibly spilling over into a wider war, as opposed to the definitive conclusion resulting from a clearly successful Israeli attack.

Aric

#31 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 04:20 PM

Iran is something of an enigma in terms of its military capabilities. They have built a significant native industrail complex to supply thier own needs but are still dependent on nations such as Russia and China for most of thier high-end military needs. The influx of Iraqi military aircraft in 1991 and thier buys of Russian Su-27s and Mig-29s have improved thier air defence significantly while thier old F-14s have refitted to serve as both attack and air defence aircraft. Still, even with the rumored Russian IL-76 Madcap AWACS, HAWK SAMs and other advances they still don't have anything like a fully intergrated air defence network so it may be possible for the Isreali strike aircraft to simply sneak in and out unopposed but this is probably not the most likely scenerio.
My guess is that the Isrealis would try an airstrike with thier F-15I strike aircraft, possibly armed with thier AGM-142 Hav Nap precision guided missiles(these are native Isreali weapons that the US bought from Isreali. I don't remember thier native designation so I used the US one.) The problem is that even with Isreali tanker capability it is a very long and ardous trip and they can only deliver so many munitions. I think Isreal can do it but I don't think it will be as quick or as clean a strike as Osrick back in 1980. The Iranian facilities are more spreadout and better hardened that the French reactor at Osrick was. I think the Isrealis can break through the Iranian defences, they have better pilots, electronic warfare equipment and guided munitions but thier is still enough of an element of a gamble in it for it to turnout badly for the Isrealis.
What the Isrealis might be able to do but I don't think they will is launch a few of thier Jericho series missiles at the Iranian sites. If armed with nuclear warheads the missiles inaccuracy wouldn't matter and they would destroy the sites but that would garantee a violent Iranian response(with chemical weapons if not with nuclear warheads) as well as make Isreal an even greater international paraiah than it already is.
With an airstrike the Isrealis could destroy the site without as much of a chance of Iranian escalation. It is still possible the Iranians might launch a few missiles in retaliation and is it possible although even more unlikely that the Iranians would commit ground troops to attack Isreal since the only way for them to go would be through Iraq. But I think they would definitely start funding even more antiIsreali terrorism if the Isrealis hit the site as well as rampup the antiIsreali rhetoric to hertofore unseen levels.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#32 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 05:52 PM

tennyson, on Sep 24 2004, 03:20 PM, said:

The problem is that even with Isreali tanker capability it is a very long and ardous trip and they can only deliver so many munitions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They do, however, now have an allied base or two along the way.

#33 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 06:06 PM

Actually Delvo I do not think we could allow them to refuel at our bases. It could be seen as aiding in a act of war and not keep us out of a response from Iran. which means we would fully responde which means Iran is a bug stain and dealing with radiation for the next 100+ yrs.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#34 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 06:54 PM

^ Why be so overt by having them land in Iraq.  You could easily have a few KC-135s get lost during the day the Israelis strike and come back shorter on fuel than the should have been.  For that matter for more cloak and dagger a B-2 should be able to get into Iran clear a path when it comes to the defenses.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#35 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 07:00 PM

^Honest, those -135s had engine trouble and had to dump some fuel to lighten their load...
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#36 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 07:00 PM

Or just have some of them join the Coalition forces that are based there anyway, so that when the time to strike comes, they're already there.

#37 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 09:26 PM

Actually if we can do it ourselves it might just be good to take out the reactors via B-2's espiaclly if no one actually shoots one of ours down.  We do the whole we do not know what you are talking about. We had no aircraft in the area. Then send the b-2's back to mountain Home and make sure they guys know that a polar research post in Antarctia awaits the career of anyone who talks.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#38 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 24 September 2004 - 10:07 PM

Why are you guys thinking so sneakily about the whole thing? Why do you assume that if we do it pretending not to is an automatic part of the deal?

#39 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 26 September 2004 - 11:28 AM

^Well it would avoid getting Iran even more uppity towards US troops in Iraq.   And it might avoid offending the Russians who are pulling closer to us in the WOT.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#40 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 26 September 2004 - 11:46 AM

Iran is gonna get nukes, and we just need to deal with it.  You think Iran hasn't taken notes from Iraq's Osirak experience and dispersed/hardened their facilities accordingly?  Israel simply doesn't have the capacity for the precision bombing campaign against multiple targets over an extended period of time that would be necessary to disarm Iran's nuclear capacity.  The Unites States does, but Iran has such a capacity for retaliation against us is such that it's a very dicey proposition.  You think dealing with Sadr has been a pain? Just wait until 100,000 Revolutionary Guards pour into the Shiite regions of Iraq and the mullahs rearm Hekmatyar and the other thugs in Afghanistan they maintain ties with.  And let's not even get started on Hezbollah, which has observed an informal truce against US interests since the late 1980s but makes Al Qaeda look like amateurs when it comes to terrorist strikes.

And as for Iran itself, it's not Iraq.  The country has 3 times Iraq's population, a military that hasn't been weakened by sanctions, and mountainous borders.  And while there's a tremendous amount of internal dissatisfaction with the mullahs, the Iranians are also intensely patriotic and tend to rally around the flag when outsiders threaten them.  I wish there were good options in dealing with Iran, but there really aren't.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Israel, Iran, Bomb, Osirak Nuclear Complex

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users