NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm wondering how feasible it is. Israel has already demonstrated their willingness to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of enemies (Iraqi Reactor), and the IAF is one of the finest Airforces in the world. They have the training and the equipment to take out the facilities. They've stated their intention to hit the reactors and research facilities if something doesn't get resolved soon.

Still, many people believe that the Iranians possess more secure facilities, buried beyond the reach of conventional bunker-busters, which would be safe from an Israeli strike. If the European-Iranian talks go South, or appear to be a "stalling" tactic, do you think that Israel will act, or will the United States take their B-2's in?

Comments?

Well, we just sent em the bunker busting missiles recently. They might not finish a plant off, but they'll surely destroy it until we get there.

In any case, Israel would need a good deal of support from our airpower and Navy, which they probably know they won't get until we've exhausted our other options and have stalled for maximum time to let Iraq calm down. So, although Israel has the ability and rationale to attack at any time, they'd be wise to wait up.

I dont think Israel will attack because they risk all the other arab nations coming to the defense of Iran. They are better off letting the US do the fighting.

I think they probably will attack the Iranian Nuclear powerplant.

I dont think Israel will attack because they risk all the other arab nations coming to the defense of Iran. They are better off letting the US do the fighting.

They did it in the 1980s, and that was back when Syria and the other Arab Nations regularly invaded every 10 years or so.

I think they probably will attack the Iranian Nuclear powerplant.

I think the US will do the first strike, anyways. And it's going to happen rather soon. :p

I think the US will do the first strike, anyways. And it's going to happen rather soon. :p

Nah, that wouldn't be in character. The normal way we do it is to threaten, then concede a little, then threaten, then try and get others to threaten, then concede a little so other nations will go along and threaten with us, then threaten, then watch our allies whine that we threatened too much, then watch our allies threaten not to threaten with us, then threaten our allies for not being serious about their threats to begin with, then concede a little to appease our allies, then threaten some more to keep the opponent in line, then be threatened by our allies for having threatened too much, then issue an ultimatum, then have our allies refuse to enforce it, then abandon our allies, then approach each individually to gather support, then attack as a coalition.

See, by the time we really do attack, the viewing audience will be tearing their hair out waiting for the damn thing to start. Stiff drinks will be issued, popcorn popped, and cable news ratings will reach all-time highs.

Well, by "rather soon" i meant in the order of a few months. :)

Wouldn't bother me if they did but I doubt they will.

I'm wondering how feasible it is. Israel has already demonstrated their willingness to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of enemies (Iraqi Reactor), and the IAF is one of the finest Airforces in the world. They have the training and the equipment to take out the facilities. They've stated their intention to hit the reactors and research facilities if something doesn't get resolved soon.

Still, many people believe that the Iranians possess more secure facilities, buried beyond the reach of conventional bunker-busters, which would be safe from an Israeli strike. If the European-Iranian talks go South, or appear to be a "stalling" tactic, do you think that Israel will act, or will the United States take their B-2's in?

Comments?
I don't think anyone wants that to happen, especially not the US. Not only would it inflame even further the tensions in this volitile region, it would serve to undermine the US efforts to bring democracy to the region, especially if the Israelis were the ones to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Its a shame we cant all just get along.

But Israel is a grossly belligerent and hypocritical nation with the attitude "do what we say, not do what we do!" Just look at Dimona, and the grossly illegal kidnap of Vanunu.

The IAF is a very fine air force, and USA excepting, not since the Luftwaffe in 1939 has there been such a reputable air force. If they wanted to they could easily destroy any surface facilites that Iran has, and being the 3rd most powerful military, they could probably beat off any threat from the Arabs.

As far as the Arabs uniting, I dont think its very likely, the West has done a very good job in keeping them divided. The USA will probably stay out of it.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

Not going to happen, though US may attack Syria soon.

Russia supports Iran by the way.

I dont think Israel will attack because they risk all the other arab nations coming to the defense of Iran. They are better off letting the US do the fighting.
They've pretty much proven they can kick the ass of any arab nation in the area.

They've pretty much proven they can kick the ass of any arab nation in the area.

Repeatedly

6-Day War
Golan Heights
Various Others...

But Israel is a grossly belligerent and hypocritical nation with the attitude "do what we say, not do what we do!" Just look at Dimona, and the grossly illegal kidnap of Vanunu.
Why? It was quite funny actually if its the story I was thinking of. He got followed to London, and fell for a woman who was an American I think, from Philadelphia. He agreed to go with her to Rome, and there they caught him. Very smart.

Why? It was quite funny actually if its the story I was thinking of. He got followed to London, and fell for a woman who was an American I think, from Philadelphia. He agreed to go with her to Rome, and there they caught him. Very smart.

If you're talking about Vanunu, he was actually kidnapped by the Mossad in Italy illegally without Italy's permission to even be on their soil... that's fact.

I'm wondering how feasible it is. Israel has already demonstrated their willingness to keep nuclear arms out of the hands of enemies (Iraqi Reactor), and the IAF is one of the finest Airforces in the world. They have the training and the equipment to take out the facilities. They've stated their intention to hit the reactors and research facilities if something doesn't get resolved soon.

Still, many people believe that the Iranians possess more secure facilities, buried beyond the reach of conventional bunker-busters, which would be safe from an Israeli strike. If the European-Iranian talks go South, or appear to be a "stalling" tactic, do you think that Israel will act, or will the United States take their B-2's in?

Comments?

The problem is only one of locating the targets.

If the targets can be located, the bombs delivered to Israel last fall, and the F-15E they possess would have no trouble at all destroying every identified site.

Iran has no effective air defense, and no air force that could contend with the F-15E at all.

Yeah.

Is the F-15I more or less capable than the F-15E? I assume that the "I" stands for "Israel", rather than a variant designation.

If you're talking about Vanunu, he was actually kidnapped by the Mossad in Italy illegally without Italy's permission to even be on their soil... that's fact.
Uh huh, name me one country which doesn't have a secret service type agency which operates abroad. Clearly though, you won't know because they're SECRET! :rolleyes:
Read John Grishams latest novel, its about just such a situation. "The Broker", a very good book.

Uh huh, name me one country which doesn't have a secret service type agency which operates abroad. Clearly though, you won't know because they're SECRET! :rolleyes:
Read John Grishams latest novel, its about just such a situation. "The Broker", a very good book.

I don't per se disagree with the basic concept you apply. However, in this case the Mossad got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. In other words, if it's to be secret, than we wouldn't all know about it. So therefore not only what they did was illegal, but they got caught.

Not going to happen, though US may attack Syria soon.

Russia supports Iran by the way.

Why on Earth would the US attack Syria, given the huge international pressure being brought to bear on Syria right now vis-a-vis Beiruit?

I don't see the US attacking *anyone* in the very near future, so as to have the reserve strength to keep the pressure up on North Korea.

I think that Bush & Co. are going to let the Euros try to handle Iran for awhile, in order to help US-EU relations. And, if that fails after a couple of years, *then* do something, with a coalition.

I don't think anyone wants that to happen, especially not the US. Not only would it inflame even further the tensions in this volitile region, it would serve to undermine the US efforts to bring democracy to the region, especially if the Israelis were the ones to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

I have to agree with you. Democracy is starting to spread rapidly in the region, Lebanon and even municipal elections in Saudi Arabia. I think the US will let Europe go the diplomatic way on this one. If that fails, I think we will let Europe take the problem to the UN. If all that fails, Europe and the US might covertly help foster a revolution in Iran.

As far as the Arabs uniting, I dont think its very likely, the West has done a very good job in keeping them divided. The USA will probably stay out of it.

Why do you blame the west for keeping the Arabs divided?

I don't per se disagree with the basic concept you apply. However, in this case the Mossad got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. In other words, if it's to be secret, than we wouldn't all know about it. So therefore not only what they did was illegal, but they got caught.
make you think on the option we really had no nukes. think on that for moment: countrey build great silver building in the middle of the desert, and bring many army forces to defend the area, and shot every close passenger. while that they say it is textil factory, and prevent the workers to talk. then they send worker to tell that to daily newspaper, and to make people believe him, he kidnaped in the most "secret" way. his trail his closed to the press, and the goverment made denial. he made 18 years in the most well-guarded jail, and after he finish his punishment they prevent him from almost anything, when they give the near citizen "pills against driping from the building".

don't you see much more mistakes than trained mossad soldiers will make? it could be the best conspiracy ever made. who would believe us, when we said we aren't have anything, after all that?

make you think on the option we really had no nukes. think on that for moment

Right or wrong in my assertions, you certainly are not going to try and tell us Israel has no nukes are you? Please!

The problem is only one of locating the targets.


Targets have already been identified and located. Pictures are on the web and I'm sure both US and Israeli militaries have even better photos. Probably photos of sites the public doesn’t even know about.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?fr=sbcfp-imp&tab=Images&p=Iran+nuclear+facilities&btn=Search

Uh huh, name me one country which doesn't have a secret service type agency which operates abroad.

Iceland? Switzerland?

If the US is gonna have any saying on this issue,it might be by helping israel all along,US's got its hands full with afghanistan and Iraq, and i dont think they wanna open a new front(for the time being),in short israel is gonna be the boss in the mid-east with the US backing them up,and theres nothing that can be done...

Right or wrong in my assertions, you certainly are not going to try and tell us Israel has no nukes are you? Please!
sure, we had. I just try to be conspirator for a moment.
although the "theory" is sensible if you think that the main aim of the israeli nukes is to scare the enemies.

Why on Earth would the US attack Syria, given the huge international pressure being brought to bear on Syria right now vis-a-vis Beiruit? right now that pressure could be the main reason to attack syria while they aren't free lebanon immidiately. add that the syrian connections to terror on iraq and israel, and I think you will had enough reasons.

I don't see the US attacking *anyone* in the very near future, so as to have the reserve strength to keep the pressure up on North Korea.north korea had nukes and no connection to terror (as I know). Iran support world-wide terror and still had no nukes.
could be the difference

I think that Bush & Co. are going to let the Euros try to handle Iran for awhile, in order to help US-EU relations. And, if that fails after a couple of years, *then* do something, with a coalition.if that fails after a couple of years, Iran will already have nukes. then it was to late to invade her.

Targets have already been identified and located. Pictures are on the web and I'm sure both US and Israeli militaries have even better photos. Probably photos of sites the public doesn’t even know about.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?fr=sbcfp-imp&tab=Images&p=Iran+nuclear+facilities&btn=Search

My God!

They have nuclear facilities inside Solana's face!

Surely even the US of A cannot contend with this technology! ;)

News flash, the United States will not be embarking on any more wars any time soon. They however may make strategic "hits" here and there. They can't even keep up with what they are doing now. (This is not American bashing, it's simply true)

Iceland? Switzerland?
Thank you for the challenge.

Switzerland has the following:

Swiss Intelligence Services (SIS) (probably the service we were discussing, CIA/Mossad)

Directorate for Strategic Intelligence (SND)

Military Intelligence Service (MND)

Air Force Intelligence Service (LWND)

Federal Office of Police (BAP)

Service for Prevention and Analysis (DAP)



And Iceland:

IDF - Iceland Defence Forces.
Notes: Tiny intelligence unit supported by United States intelligence system.

http://www.eyespymag.com/intelservices.htm#ICELAND
http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl74ch.html

^my sources^



Anyone else?

Iceland? Switzerland?
Thank you for the challenge.

Switzerland has the following:

Swiss Intelligence Services (SIS) (probably the service we were discussing, CIA/Mossad)

Directorate for Strategic Intelligence (SND)

Military Intelligence Service (MND)

Air Force Intelligence Service (LWND)

Federal Office of Police (BAP)

Service for Prevention and Analysis (DAP)



And Iceland:

IDF - Iceland Defence Forces.
Notes: Tiny intelligence unit supported by United States intelligence system.

http://www.eyespymag.com/intelservices.htm#ICELAND
http://www.cvni.net/radio/nsnl/nsnl74ch.html

^my sources^



Anyone else?

Thank you for the challenge.

Anyone else?

The South Pole!

Pehapse, but probably not in the next few months, or even this year.
I've been following this pretty closely for the last couple of years. For a while I was convinced Israel would be acting early this year, but I am much less convinced. They'll wait for a while and let the European diplomacy run it's course. The threat is less urgent than some are making it out to be.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=7014

Well, we just sent em the bunker busting missiles recently.

Close. Not missiles, but 500 BLU-109 bunker buster bombs.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-109.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200410623.asp
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?file=539926.html

The problem is only one of locating the targets.

Not quite. See this list: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

The sites are fairly easy to find. The real problem is that they are spread out and some are in some pretty sensitive locations (bombing a nuclear reactor in or near a city and possibly releasing a large amount of radioactive material would be a bad idea).

If the targets can be located, the bombs delivered to Israel last fall, and the F-15E they possess would have no trouble at all destroying every identified site.

Iran has no effective air defense, and no air force that could contend with the F-15E at all.

True they don't have an effective air defense net. But the air strikes would be very complicated. Not impossible, just very difficult.

The South Pole!
I hear rumours that they have a mean polar bear squad!:p

I hear rumours that they have a mean polar bear squad!:p

Oh, sorry, no polar bears in the south pole..lol then again there is also no government, so it was a trick question. E- for effort though :)

Oh, sorry, no polar bears in the south pole..lol then again there is also no government, so it was a trick question. E- for effort though :)
Penguins are much more devious anyway. They're all mini-Bonds.

They will try to, but it'd be nearly impossible for the IAF. No plane in their fleet has the fuel capacity to travel the politically neutral root down the Red Sea, through the Arabian Sea, and up into Iran, while able to complete the journey to Israel. A direct route to Iran would be risky. The Arab nations in the way, like Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, would see these planes as threatening their security, and may shoot them down. It's possible to go through Turkey, but I doubt that the Turks want to be involved in a conflict. Most likely would be Israel planting Special Ops in the country, and sabotaging the facilities. Also feasible, but a form of political suicide, would be to launch nuclear warheads at Israel. No nukes have been used in anger since WWII, and the list of nations to use them first, while in existence, is extremely short.

Penguins are much more devious anyway. They're all mini-Bonds.

Indeed there are Penguins in the south pole and they are always dressed for any occasion! :)

They will try to, but it'd be nearly impossible for the IAF. No plane in their fleet has the fuel capacity to travel the politically neutral root down the Red Sea, through the Arabian Sea, and up into Iran, while able to complete the journey to Israel. A direct route to Iran would be risky. The Arab nations in the way, like Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, would see these planes as threatening their security, and may shoot them down. It's possible to go through Turkey, but I doubt that the Turks want to be involved in a conflict. Most likely would be Israel planting Special Ops in the country, and sabotaging the facilities. Also feasible, but a form of political suicide, would be to launch nuclear warheads at Israel. No nukes have been used in anger since WWII, and the list of nations to use them first, while in existence, is extremely short.


Actually Israel could reach Iran, if you forget Israel bombed the PLO HQ in Tunisia and that's like the twice the distance, plus Israel also has Bunker Busters and can use Pythons to knock down the Iranian Air Force.

Israel does have the capabilities of reaching Iran, and probably knows most to all of the targets. I guess Israel is still drawing up plans when to attack...

Actually Israel could reach Iran...if you forget Israel bombed the PLO HQ in Tunisia...and that's like the twice the distance...plus Israel also has Bunker Busters and can use Pythons to knock down the Iranian Air Force.

Israel does have the capabilities of reaching Iran, and probably knows most to all of the targets. I guess Israel is still drawing up plans when to attack...
There is, however, a difference. Both Israel and Tunisia border the same body of water, making it politcally feasible. Israel doesn't have that option. In fact, now that I think about it, even if it could use the Red Sea, it'd be a political embarrasment for the US. At the Bab al'Madeb, there are two countries: Djibouuti and Yemen. Yemen hates Israel to the core, but only has the ability to detect its planes, and not shoot them down. Djibouti has too many military problems to worry about a few Israeli planes, but a joint US and French garrison are in that country, each with the ability to shoot enemy planes. It'd be a big international embarrassment if they let Israeli fighters slip by, one that neither country could use. If Israel is planning an air attack, I bet the US is trying everything in its power to stop its execution.

Actually Israel could reach Iran, if you forget Israel bombed the PLO HQ in Tunisia and that's like the twice the distance, plus Israel also has Bunker Busters and can use Pythons to knock down the Iranian Air Force.

Israel does have the capabilities of reaching Iran, and probably knows most to all of the targets. I guess Israel is still drawing up plans when to attack...
technically, we could attack them. but pracitically, it make us pass in on the area of jordan or turkey, and both are against letting us do that.
it will also anger USA that prefer we stay aside like the wars in iraq.
still, if nothing will succes to stop iran nuclear plans, Israel would act as she should.

technically, we could attack them. but pracitically, it make us pass in on the area of jordan or turkey, and both are against letting us do that.
it will also anger USA that prefer we stay aside like the wars in iraq.
still, if nothing will succes to stop iran nuclear plans, Israel would act as she should.


We'll probably end up doing a Joint Israel-America Attack.... it's the only way to guarantee that the Plants are gone.

We'll probably end up doing a Joint Israel-America Attack.... it's the only way to guarantee that the Plants are gone.we probably end up, when USA made all the work, in Israel support from the side (or from the inside, if you listen to the cospirators).

Well, wouldn't you still need permission to fly over sovereign air space? Or do international laws only apply to every one but America & Israel? :rolleyes:

right now that pressure could be the main reason to attack syria while they aren't free lebanon immidiately. add that the syrian connections to terror on iraq and israel, and I think you will had enough reasons.

Perhaps. But from what I can see from watching C-Span this morning, I think that the Saudis may well handle this one.


north korea had nukes and no connection to terror (as I know). Iran support world-wide terror and still had no nukes.
could be the difference

True, but I suspect that fighting in 3 countries (even those that border each other) at once isn't what the US has in mind. I'm more likely to believe that the US and West would prefer to see an Iranian Counter-revolution.


if that fails after a couple of years, Iran will already have nukes. then it was to late to invade her.

Nah. It's never too late. It's just that much more dangerous.
And no, I'm not terribly happy with that as a concept.

Well, wouldn't you still need permission to fly over sovereign air space? Or do international laws only apply to every one but America & Israel? :rolleyes:

I would assume that the US would attack from carriers in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf.

Israel would need permission from Saudi Arabia, or Iraq & Jordan, or Turkey.
(I'd bet on Turkey of those options).

Well, wouldn't you still need permission to fly over sovereign air space? Or do international laws only apply to every one but America & Israel? :rolleyes:
USA already have forces in Iraq. they don't need to break international laws to invade Iran.
as for israel, we listen only to the laws of USA (if we listen to somebody).the major opinion her his the world is bunch of anti-semitic, arab lovers and Israeli haters (unlike my opinion). most of the left say it's wrong, but that (and the left fight for human rights to the arabs, too) catogrize us as traitors. while the UN can't even act against the terrorists, international law can't bother israel.

I would assume that the US would attack from carriers in the Arabian Sea or Persian Gulf.

Israel would need permission from Saudi Arabia, or Iraq & Jordan, or Turkey.
(I'd bet on Turkey of those options).

True, America could attack from international waters. Israel would probably have to sit this one out. Too many non-international air space they'd have to cover to get to Iran.

I don't per se disagree with the basic concept you apply. However, in this case the Mossad got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. In other words, if it's to be secret, than we wouldn't all know about it. So therefore not only what they did was illegal, but they got caught.
Gloating detracts from your beauty. :p

Gloating detracts from your beauty. :p

E! You old smoothie... :D

Perhaps. But from what I can see from watching C-Span this morning, I think that the Saudis may well handle this one. I hope they do, but I don't see that happened. maybe you could tell me what they did?



True, but I suspect that fighting in 3 countries (even those that border each other) at once isn't what the US has in mind. I'm more likely to believe that the US and West would prefer to see an Iranian Counter-revolution.
what you mean by "iranian revolution? civil revolution in Iran, that will end the ayatullas leading? I don't see it happened.
and I think bush had to act against sirya and iran, if he sirious about the war in terror. otherwise, he will lose the small benefits he get.

Nah. It's never too late. It's just that much more dangerous.
And no, I'm not terribly happy with that as a concept.
too late mean, that atack results will be nuclear filings on the area, or even nukes shooting on neighbour countries. in those circumenses they can't attack iran.

The US impirialist shit heads have not got enough troops to attack with ground forces, so they might try to bomb the country, but Iran has AA, and fighters, and if they do not reavh their objectives, they have screwed up and lost all influence in the Middle east..

I hope Irani people make commi revolution, and that they go and free Iraq from US pigs :sniper:

DEATH TO AMERICA

hey hey, sounds cool, just let me move about 100 miles north so im a canadian then. I'll takle a few of my friends too.

Actually, it'd be easier just to kill the pres. And everyone he likes, like cheney and that condi rice fellow.

that free iraq from america by iranis sounds cool

Anyone else?

Singapore? Somalia? Sudan?

They will try to, but it'd be nearly impossible for the IAF. No plane in their fleet has the fuel capacity to travel the politically neutral root down the Red Sea, through the Arabian Sea, and up into Iran, while able to complete the journey to Israel.

The IAF has tankers and can refuel fighters in flight. The US pulled it off when we bombed Libya. The French would not let our FB-111's fly over their territory. So, we had to fly out of the UK down the coast of Portugal and make a left turn into the Med and had to return to the UK the same way. So yes, it could be done.

The US impirialist shit heads have not got enough troops to attack with ground forces, so they might try to bomb the country, but Iran has AA, and fighters, and if they do not reavh their objectives, they have screwed up and lost all influence in the Middle east..

I hope Irani people make commi revolution, and that they go and free Iraq from US pigs :sniper:

DEATH TO AMERICA

Actually, the Iranian Air Defense Network is horribly outdated. It is mostly composed of anti-aircraft guns and a few radar stations. Most of the radar barely functions, and of the few SAM batteries they own, some of them apparently don't have any missile reloads.

US CentCom has said numerous times that aircraft flying from Diego Garcia could slip in and out of Iran's airspace at will. A few months ago, people were interested when they noticed B-2 Stealth Bomber Shelters being built on Diego Garcia. I think we know what they were built for, now.

The US impirialist shit heads have not got enough troops to attack with ground forces, so they might try to bomb the country, but Iran has AA, and fighters, and if they do not reavh their objectives, they have screwed up and lost all influence in the Middle east..

I hope Irani people make commi revolution, and that they go and free Iraq from US pigs :sniper:

DEATH TO AMERICA

Are you trying to flame or are you just a troll?

He just got tempbanned by Myrth, I believe, so I wouldn't worry about him.

I hope they do, but I don't see that happened. maybe you could tell me what they did?

The Saudis are pretty much leading the rest of the Arab world in coming down on the Syrians, along with Egypt.
I can't really give you the rundown I saw on television this morning, but these are pretty close:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-03-voa55.cfm
and
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=7272


what you mean by "iranian revolution? civil revolution in Iran, that will end the ayatullas leading? I don't see it happened.
and I think bush had to act against sirya and iran, if he sirious about the war in terror. otherwise, he will lose the small benefits he get.

Counter-revolution. The 1979 revolution that brought them to power has pretty much failed. The younger generation in Iran mostly favor better ties with the west.
http://smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues05/mar05/iran.html

I'm *not* saying that they're going to do it overnight, or that afterwards they're going to welcome the US as The Greatest Nation, but they probably would get rid of the "Great Satan" tagline.

Hard to say. Libya turning towards the west is a big win. These new multi-party election in Egypt, the Saudis getting involved, the first vote in Iraq... these are all good things.
Hopefully, this is a case of inertia, where positive events will follow the way that negative events did once the Battle of Baghdad was over and the terrorists started going gangbusters.


too late mean, that attack results will be nuclear filings on the area, or even nukes shooting on neighbour countries. in those circumenses they can't attack iran.

No, not really. Nukes didn't stop the Bay of Pigs, or the U2 flights over the USSR by the US. Didn't stop the invasion of Egypt by France and the UK (with the Israelis along too). Didn't stop Viet Nam, nor the Korean War. Nor the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentinians.
And so far, India and Pakistan haven't launched.

I'm not saying it *can't* happen, just that it the possibility of the use of nukes for the first time since 1945 doesn't preclude your regularly scheduled war.

The US impirialist shit heads have not got enough troops to attack with ground forces, so they might try to bomb the country, but Iran has AA, and fighters, and if they do not reavh their objectives, they have screwed up and lost all influence in the Middle east..

I hope Irani people make commi revolution, and that they go and free Iraq from US pigs :sniper:

DEATH TO AMERICA

The US has enough forces to do the job. Iranian air defense is completely impotent - there isn't any air defense system in the world that could stop attacks by B-2 bombers.

I would bet that if it came to it, there would be enough forces to overthrow the Iranian government - just not enough forces to permanently occupy the country.

I'm not sure the mullahs would be able to get back into power if they were dead.

The IAF has tankers and can refuel fighters in flight. The US pulled it off when we bombed Libya. The French would not let our FB-111's fly over their territory. So, we had to fly out of the UK down the coast of Portugal and make a left turn into the Med and had to return to the UK the same way. So yes, it could be done.
Perhaps it can be, but at least a couple of tankers may be needed. The US had tanker planes all over the Medditeranean. Israel has virtually no troops, let alone planes, on foreign soil.

Perhaps it can be, but at least a couple of tankers may be needed. The US had tanker planes all over the Medditeranean. Israel has virtually no troops, let alone planes, on foreign soil.

The F-15E used by Israel for long range surface attack has a combat operational radius over 1000 miles greater than the distance to the most remote parts of Iran in question.

That's unrefueled. The F-16 used in the Iraqi attack in the early 1980s was a fairly short range fighter.

The F-15E should have no trouble making it all the way there and back without refueling.

The F-15E used by Israel for long range surface attack has a combat operational radius over 1000 miles greater than the distance to the most remote parts of Iran in question.

That's unrefueled. The F-16 used in the Iraqi attack in the early 1980s was a fairly short range fighter.

The F-15E should have no trouble making it all the way there and back without refueling.
So they have new fighters. I always thought that their fighters, while based on US technology, were home grown. I guess that we can expect them to get some F-22s soon, then :).

Well, wouldn't you still need permission to fly over sovereign air space? Or do international laws only apply to every one but America & Israel? :rolleyes:


International laws only apply, if your not affected by them...because Israel would be affected by Iran's Nuclear Capability, Israel would have full right to through their neighbours airspace, and shoot down any Aircraft that would try to stop them.

If that is wrong, then i hope people with your mindset never achieve world power status, it would end up you bending over to appease everyone, rather then pissing everyone off, but at least everyone is safe.

So they have new fighters. I always thought that their fighters, while based on US technology, were home grown. I guess that we can expect them to get some F-22s soon, then :).

No, the only home grown attempt was the Kfir, which was cancelled.

They buy the latest US aircraft (well, not the Stealth, but everything short of that).

Yes, Israel attempted to make their own aircraft, which ended up being a relative flop.

They're actually very good (probably the best) at buying almost-new or obsolete aircraft and completely refurbishing them into cutting-edge fighters. They've done it with several aircraft, most notably the F-4. Israel does tend to get its own squadrons of modern American aircraft, however. I doubt that the F/A-22 will be coming their way any time soon, however. Perhaps the JSF.

Perhaps it can be, but at least a couple of tankers may be needed. The US had tanker planes all over the Medditeranean. Israel has virtually no troops, let alone planes, on foreign soil.

No, the US used only the tankers out of England. Mostly KC-10s but also some KC-135's. There were no other tankers in the Med, except the ones the Navy used for their aircraft.

Navy tankers cannot refuel Air Force aircraft for two reasons. First, the Navy uses a drogue system while the Air Force uses a boom. The boom can be fitted with a drogue, and the KC-10 has both, but Navy has no tankers fitted with booms (or did not then). The second reason is the type of fuel. Navy uses a different fuel for safety reasons aboard ship and the FB-111s cannot burn that type of fuel.

How do I know all this? I was serving with the KC-10 tankers at the time of this mission.

No, the only home grown attempt was the Kfir, which was cancelled.[quote]

You're thinking of the Lavi, which was cancelled. IAI has produced two other fighters: the Nesher (http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/nesher.htm) (essentially a home grown Mirage 5 rip off - made by IAI from stolen blueprints) was in service through the 70s) and the Kfir (http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/kfir.htm) (still a bit of a rip-off of the Mirage 5). There are still some 110 Kfirs in service.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iaf-equipment.htm

[quote=Ancient and Holy Terra]Yes, Israel attempted to make their own aircraft, which ended up being a relative flop.

Check the link above. During the Yom Kippur War The Nesher squadron from Etzion was one of the leading squadrons, tallying 42 kills without a single plane lost.

More: The Nesher enjoyed great success in the Yom Kippur War with dozens of Egyptian, Syrian and Libyan aircraft shot down, the "First Fighter" squadron alone scoring 59 victories for the loss of only 4 planes. One of the first victories of the war was not an aircraft but an AS-5 Kelt air to ground missile launched against Tel-Aviv by an Egyptian Tu-16 Badger on the first day of the war, October 6th, 1973. When Libyan Mirage 5s entered the fighting all Israeli Mirages and Neshers were marked with large yellow triangles bordered by a thick black frame to prevent a case of mistaken identity (see picture above). At least two Mirage 5s were shot down by Neshers, as well as an Israeli Phantom shot down by mistake, the navigator and the pilot, a former Nesher squadron commander, parachuting to safety. By the end of the war Nesher 510 had shot down 13 enemy aircraft while 561 had shot down 12.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/nesher.html

However, it is notable that the Neshers sold to the Argentine Air Force (renamed Daggers) didn't perform so well in the Falklands War. The AAF lost half of them to the UK.

Oh, and those who are claiming the range issue, don't forget that the IAF has its own KC-707s and KC-130Hs.