NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_israel_iran

Well now this is very interesting. An exercise that nobody can miss. Is this a sign of things to come?

This has already been posted.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/fail-family-planning.jpg

The point of doing so is saying "Iran, stop it." All it is, is to basically tell Iran that they can do what they need to do.

Like they need to.
Everyone knows they can. They did it in 1981.
Since 1981, Iran hasn't gotten much better equipment or training. What they have is deteriorating.
Since 1981, Israel has just been developing and buying better stuff and done almost non-stop training. Their pilots, on average, are the best pilots in the world.

Yeah, they can do it. But that's like saying the sky is blue, grass is green, and that Obama is waffling on the issue of Iran. (Says one thing to the American people, says another to AIPAC).

http://media.tumblr.com/zcTqHiK8c8yu1g33fdGvz1gd_400.jpg

Corneliu, was this yours?

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jobapplication.jpg?w=500&h=634

Their pilots, on average, are the best pilots in the world.

lolwut? You're kidding, right?

lolwut? You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

Israel easily has the best military in the world, pound for pound.

lolwut? You're kidding, right?
They're far superior to the USAF, and about as good as the RAF. I'd rate them pretty highly.

Israel easily has the best military in the world, pound for pound.
I'd disagree, in my opinion the British armed forces are better man per man. Seeing as the IDF essentially got driven off by Hezbollah and all...

If you can shoot down the entire Syrian air force in three days...
They had a massive advantage in terms of their surprise attack which wiped out most of the air force before the main war even began, let's be honest.

lolwut? You're kidding, right?

If you can shoot down the entire Syrian air force in three days...

lolwut? You're kidding, right?

Just look at Operation RED FLAG that the USAF holds annually.
Israeli pilots come in first.
American pilots come in second.
The American Air Force is better than Israel's for two reasons - we are a decade more technologically advanced than they are in some areas, only a few years in other areas, and we have stealth technology that Israel doesn't (Granted, everyone has SOME stealth technology), and we have a far larger Air Force than Israel.

Yes, Israeli pilots are a bit better. It's a very slight ratio, but give an American pilot and an Israeli pilot each an F-15C, and the Israeli pilot comes out ahead almost every time.

Like New Stalinberg said, Israel has the best military pound for pound.
America just has a whole lot more pounds.

Israel also has a tendency to do the absolutely impossible... If America went to war with them, I don't want to know how many lives would be lost. It would be utterly brutal.

If you do an in depth study, Israel beats anyone.
Israel is first. Experience helps.
America is second. We spend more than everyone else, and we train non-stop.
England comes in a close third.

Israel also has a tendency to do the absolutely impossible... If America went to war with them, I don't want to know how many lives would be lost. It would be utterly brutal.
About zero Yanks because they could just fire ICBMs at Israel and use Patriot to shoot down the fairly limited amount of return fire they'd get...

I'd disagree, in my opinion the British armed forces are better man per man. Seeing as the IDF essentially got driven off by Hezbollah and all...

The Wanks, you say?

No doubt their military is of the finest quality, but no where near better than Israel's.

There's not a chance they could have done better than Israel in that war/skirmish whatever since Israel's army has been geared towards fighting guerrilla wars ever since its existence.

If you want to play the historical war records game, there was the Zulu, Market Garden, that one battle in WW1 where they lost so many men they never recovered...

About zero Yanks because they could just fire ICBMs at Israel and use Patriot to shoot down the fairly limited amount of return fire they'd get...

Hah. We aren't that dumb.
You fire a nuke at Israel, and the entire world will suddenly find itself in a Nuclear Winter at behest of Israel's nukes.

Israel's too smart to allow their nukes to be shot down by Patriots. All they have to do is fire off a few preliminary nukes, high-altitude detonate them for EMP, then use the rest to make the kill.

The Wanks, you say?

No doubt their military is of the finest quality, but no where near better than Israel's.
Uhu... seeing as it's not lost a war in fifty years (the Suez, such a débâcle), and has participated in many, all over the world even in this time (the Falklands, peacekeeping in just about every continent etc.), and of any different kinds, I think we're not doing badly at all.

The IDF wins when it's shooting at schoolboys with rocks and not much more. The British have won against such piss-poor insurgencies all over the place, as well as fighting a pretty much conventional war in the Falklands and coming up tops there, and keeping the peace in the Balkans and Sierra Leone along with other forces. Which is pretty good.
There's not a chance they could have done better than Israel in that war/skirmish whatever since Israel's army has been geared towards fighting guerrilla wars ever since its existence.
Don't really see why not. We'd probably have had a higher level of discretion regarding bombing the general Lebanese population, which didn't help anything, and would have been a bit more careful about avoiding IEDs, which we've had to deal with in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as generally fighting guerrillas all over the empire and then in Ireland since before the new state of Israel was even created.

It was pretty incompetently 'resolved' by the IDF, let's be honest.
If you want to play the historical war records game
I don't, but fine.
there was the Zulu
Yes, we won that in the end, along with most of Africa, what's your point?
Market Garden
Yep, that was a bit of a shocker by Monty, although a lot of the problem was due to the radios which didn't work properly.
that one battle in WW1 where they lost so many men they never recovered...
You're probably thinking of the Somme, and we didn't lose so many men that we never recovered, that's just how people have remembered it. We took pretty heavy casualties, but then it was mainly newly-conscripted men against a well dug-in German force. Even then, about 73% of men came out without a scratch, and we won the war, so there we go.

Hah. We aren't that dumb.
You fire a nuke at Israel, and the entire world will suddenly find itself in a Nuclear Winter at behest of Israel's nukes.

Israel's too smart to allow their nukes to be shot down by Patriots. All they have to do is fire off a few preliminary nukes, high-altitude detonate them for EMP, then use the rest to make the kill.
Bugger nukes. Just load them with cluster munitions, it's not like you haven't got many missiles...

Also, if you reckon that anti-nuke missiles and their launchers aren't going to be hardened against EMP... well...

You're probably thinking of the Somme, and we didn't lose so many men that we never recovered, that's just how people have remembered it. We took pretty heavy casualties, but then it was mainly newly-conscripted men against a well dug-in German force. Even then, about 73% of men came out without a scratch, and we won the war, so there we go.

The real problem of the Somme (and for the French at Verdun) was that the High Command suddenly came up against their own men. Once your own soldiers stop being willing to follow orders, prosecuting a war becomes pretty much impossible. That happened on both sides.

How did this thread degenerate from "OMG Israel is gonna bomb Iran to bits if they don't stop enriching uranium" to a pissing contest about who's got the best military force?

You do know that's an awfully 12-year-old thing to do, comparing to see who's got the biggest dick.

The IDF wins when it's shooting at schoolboys with rocks and not much more.
The Israeli Air Force, on the other hand, kicks ass.

The British have won against such piss-poor insurgencies all over the place Agreed - Aden, Malaya, etc...

You're probably thinking of the Somme, and we didn't lose so many men that we never recovered, that's just how people have remembered it. We took pretty heavy casualties, but then it was mainly newly-conscripted men against a well dug-in German force. Even then, about 73% of men came out without a scratch, and we won the war, so there we go.

The Somme was stupid, you have to admit. But as you said, it didn't make a difference, other than losing a generation of men.

While I don't think it was critical, the presence of the Americans at the end of WW I helped - I think the French were at the point of mutiny.

Just look at Operation RED FLAG that the USAF holds annually.
Israeli pilots come in first.
American pilots come in second.
The American Air Force is better than Israel's for two reasons - we are a decade more technologically advanced than they are in some areas, only a few years in other areas, and we have stealth technology that Israel doesn't (Granted, everyone has SOME stealth technology), and we have a far larger Air Force than Israel.

Yes, Israeli pilots are a bit better. It's a very slight ratio, but give an American pilot and an Israeli pilot each an F-15C, and the Israeli pilot comes out ahead almost every time.

Like New Stalinberg said, Israel has the best military pound for pound.
America just has a whole lot more pounds.

Israel also has a tendency to do the absolutely impossible... If America went to war with them, I don't want to know how many lives would be lost. It would be utterly brutal.

If you do an in depth study, Israel beats anyone.
Israel is first. Experience helps.
America is second. We spend more than everyone else, and we train non-stop.
England comes in a close third.

Bloody superhuman Jews...

How did this thread degenerate from "OMG Israel is gonna bomb Iran to bits if they don't stop enriching uranium" to a pissing contest about who's got the best military force?

You do know that's an awfully 12-year-old thing to do, comparing to see who's got the biggest dick.

Well, it is to be expected since it can be easily twisted to "st00pid ebil mozlemz dun hav shit hurr hurr hurr," as with the case of comparing Iran's military capabilities against Israel.

The real problem of the Somme (and for the French at Verdun) was that the High Command suddenly came up against their own men. Once your own soldiers stop being willing to follow orders, prosecuting a war becomes pretty much impossible. That happened on both sides.
Also we pretty much ran out of bullets in mid-1916. Bit of an issue right there.
The Somme was stupid, you have to admit. But as you said, it didn't make a difference, other than losing a generation of men.
Ach it didn't lose an entire generation of men. By any means. Certain areas were extremely hard hit due to the Pals Battalions policy of whole towns going to war together, but it didn't kill an entire generation. Indeed the entire war killed less than a million men, and if you think the young male population of Great Britain just before the Great War was about 800,000 you've got another thing coming.
While I don't think it was critical, the presence of the Americans at the end of WW I helped - I think the French were at the point of mutiny.
Aye, it raised morale.

Well, it is to be expected since it can be easily twisted to "st00pid ebil mozlemz dun hav shit hurr hurr hurr," as with the case of comparing Iran's military capabilities against Israel.
I was waiting for this more than anything else.

Uhu... seeing as it's not lost a war in fifty years (the Suez, such a débâcle), and has participated in many, all over the world even in this time (the Falklands, peacekeeping in just about every continent etc.), and of any different kinds, I think we're not doing badly at all.

The IDF wins when it's shooting at schoolboys with rocks and not much more. The British have won against such piss-poor insurgencies all over the place, as well as fighting a pretty much conventional war in the Falklands and coming up tops there, and keeping the peace in the Balkans and Sierra Leone along with other forces. Which is pretty good.

Don't really see why not. We'd probably have had a higher level of discretion regarding bombing the general Lebanese population, which didn't help anything, and would have been a bit more careful about avoiding IEDs, which we've had to deal with in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as generally fighting guerrillas all over the empire and then in Ireland since before the new state of Israel was even created.

It was pretty incompetently 'resolved' by the IDF, let's be honest.

I don't, but fine.

Yes, we won that in the end, along with most of Africa, what's your point?

Yep, that was a bit of a shocker by Monty, although a lot of the problem was due to the radios which didn't work properly.

You're probably thinking of the Somme, and we didn't lose so many men that we never recovered, that's just how people have remembered it. We took pretty heavy casualties, but then it was mainly newly-conscripted men against a well dug-in German force. Even then, about 73% of men came out without a scratch, and we won the war, so there we go.

Britain no longer has the worlds premier air force. That would defiantly be the Israelis in terms of pilots and the USAF in terms of planes. Secondly Britain is an ISLAND entirely unused to be surrounded by enemies on all sides. The Israelis are in an essentially impossible position and the fact that the country even still exists proves the fact that their military is bad ass enough to easily beat out the brits.

Also we pretty much ran out of bullets in mid-1916. Bit of an issue right there.


Indubitably. Not that that stopped orders to go "over the top" from being sent anyway.

Well, it is to be expected since it can be easily twisted to "st00pid ebil mozlemz dun hav shit hurr hurr hurr," as with the case of comparing Iran's military capabilities against Israel.

No need to laugh, or make it up.

From Anthony Cordesman's analysis on what a Israel vs. Iran nuclear war would end up as:

some 16 million to 28 million Iranians dead within 21 days, and between 200,000 and 800,000 Israelis dead within the same time frame. The total of deaths beyond 21 days could rise very much higher, depending on civil defense and public health facilities, where Israel has a major advantage.

It is theoretically possible that the Israeli state, economy and organized society might just survive such an almost-mortal blow. Iran would not survive as an organized society. "Iranian recovery is not possible in the normal sense of the term," Cordesman notes. The difference in the death tolls is largely because Israel is believed to have more nuclear weapons of very much higher yield (some of 1 megaton), and Israel is deploying the Arrow advanced anti-missile system in addition to its Patriot batteries. Fewer Iranian weapons would get through.

The biggest bomb that Iran is expected to have is 100 kilotons, which can inflict third-degree burns on exposed flesh at 8 miles; Israel's 1-megaton bombs can inflict third-degree burns at 24 miles. Moreover, the radiation fallout from an airburst of such a 1-megaton bomb can kill unsheltered people at up to 80 miles within 18 hours as the radiation plume drifts. (Jordan, by the way, would suffer severe radiation damage from an Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.)

Cordesman assumes that Iran, with less than 30 nuclear warheads in the period after 2010, would aim for the main population centers of Tel Aviv and Haifa, while Israel would have more than 200 warheads and far better delivery systems, including cruise missiles launched from its 3 Dolphin-class submarines.

The assumption is that Israel would be going for Iran's nuclear development centers in Tehran, Natanz, Ardekan, Saghand, Gashin, Bushehr, Aral, Isfahan and Lashkar A'bad. Israel would also likely target the main population centers of Tehran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Isfahan, Shiraz, Yazd, Kerman, Qom, Ahwaz and Kermanshah. Cordesman points out that the city of Tehran, with a population of 15 million in its metropolitan area, is "a topographic basin with mountain reflector. Nearly ideal nuclear killing ground."


No need to "hurr hurr" here.

http://media.tumblr.com/zcTqHiK8c8yu1g33fdGvz1gd_400.jpg

CM, the last part of your sig blew my mind.

why would the Iranians keep developing nukes after EVERYONE has said its a problem. I mean its not worth it. hell I wouldn't go up against Israel alone but with the states backing?

How did this thread degenerate from "OMG Israel is gonna bomb Iran to bits if they don't stop enriching uranium" to a pissing contest about who's got the best military force?

You do know that's an awfully 12-year-old thing to do, comparing to see who's got the biggest dick.

Welcome to NSG? :p

why would the Iranians keep developing nukes after EVERYONE has said its a problem. I mean its not worth it. hell I wouldn't go up against Israel alone but with the states backing?

1. They probably believe the US will do nothing.
2. The EU will do nothing, except more sanctions. Maybe.
3. The rest of the world isn't really going to adhere to a sanctions regime, and multinational corps will sell stuff there anyway.
4. Iran probably believes their propaganda, that they can defeat Israel handily.
5. They have this thing about the Hidden Imam, and see it as their destiny to kill all the Jews (their leadership far more than the people of Iran).

1. They probably believe the US will do nothing.
Why do you imagine that? They're surrounded by american forces (or American allies), and they've seen what happened with Iraq. I highly doubt Iran believes that the US would do nothing.

Uhu... seeing as it's not lost a war in fifty years (the Suez, such a débâcle), and has participated in many, all over the world even in this time (the Falklands, peacekeeping in just about every continent etc.), and of any different kinds, I think we're not doing badly at all.

Yeah, but it's nothing major. And you really had to think big to protect the Falklands since you no longer have a bluewater navy.

The IDF wins when it's shooting at schoolboys with rocks and not much more. The British have won against such piss-poor insurgencies all over the place, as well as fighting a pretty much conventional war in the Falklands and coming up tops there, and keeping the peace in the Balkans and Sierra Leone along with other forces. Which is pretty good.

You know that isn't true. I mean really, don't even try that. I'm guessing you didn't read about their little operation in Uganda under Idi Amin.

Don't really see why not. We'd probably have had a higher level of discretion regarding bombing the general Lebanese population, which didn't help anything, and would have been a bit more careful about avoiding IEDs, which we've had to deal with in Iraq and Afganistan, as well as generally fighting guerrillas all over the empire and then in Ireland since before the new state of Israel was even created.

It was pretty incompetently 'resolved' by the IDF, let's be honest. No disagreement there.

Yes, we won that in the end, along with most of Africa, what's your point?

Well you killed natives with spears who charged your Maxim machine guns, and you call out on the Israelis for "shooting at schoolboys with rocks " Plus your Rhodesias and South Africa gained indepedence, then treated anyone who wasn't white like shit and now the end result is clear.

Yep, that was a bit of a shocker by Monty, although a lot of the problem was due to the radios which didn't work properly.

Tell yourself what you want. You know you can't blame radios.

You're probably thinking of the Somme, and we didn't lose so many men that we never recovered, that's just how people have remembered it. We took pretty heavy casualties, but then it was mainly newly-conscripted men against a well dug-in German force. Even then, about 73% of men came out without a scratch, and we won the war, so there we go.

True. WW1 was just a war of attrition.

However

The battle is best remembered for its first day, 1 July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including 19,240 dead—the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.

Don't forget Yorktown! Tehe!

Britain no longer has the worlds premier air force. That would defiantly be the Israelis in terms of pilots and the USAF in terms of planes.
Err yep.
Secondly Britain is an ISLAND entirely unused to be surrounded by enemies on all sides.
Oh, of course. Because it's not like we have some level of jurisdiction over the entire world, right? You know, like the fact that we fought, and won, on every single theatre of World War 2, from East Africa to the pacific, to Europe, and have more recently fought as far away as the Falklands and come out on top.
The Israelis are in an essentially impossible position and the fact that the country even still exists proves the fact that their military is bad ass enough to easily beat out the brits.
No it doesn't. It shows that their military is bad ass enough to fight off a bunch of half-arsed attempts from nations run by extremely in-bred royal families. Which is not exactly an amazing feat.

Why do you imagine that? They're surrounded by american forces (or American allies), and they've seen what happened with Iraq. I highly doubt Iran believes that the US would do nothing.

Call it wishful thinking. They probably believe that no one in the US has the stomach for any more military action - and if popular opinion on the Iraq War is any indication, they are certainly right to think so.

Think about it - any military action by the US against Iran means regime change - and we don't have the stomach or political endurance to do that sort of thing.

Saddam was right during the First Gulf War - the US has no stomach for casualties. His problem was that he was unable to inflict any, the way that the current insurgents have.

I remember clearly the doom and gloom scenarios painted by the popular media just before the ground assault of the First Gulf War - that US soldiers would be dying by the thousands on the trenches built by the Iraqi Army.

Then during OIF, everyone expected the same result (even the people in the White House), and when it turned out to involve a few thousand US soldiers' lives over a few years, the American public showed clearly that they have no stomach for it.

That's why the Iranians know we won't.

Tell yourself what you want. You know you can't blame radios.


Um, I don't particularly care for the rest of the cock measuring drivel - but no.

Read up on one the major failing points of Market Garden. Not tactics, not men, not drop zones - it was having no communications between the separate forces that doomed the operation to failure from the very first moment. Yootopia is exactly on the button about the radios not working.

The Iranians will keep on developing nukes as it is the will of Allah to wipe Israel off the map. Or at least it is to the president

Yeah, but it's nothing major. And you really had to think big to protect the Falklands since you no longer have a bluewater navy.


What? I'm fairly certain the UK has 2 carriers and definitely has a blue-water navy.....

Didn't Israel bomb Saddam's nuclear station after he threatened to nuke Israel? I'm not sure if Israel is stabilizing force in the middle east, or the source of a large amount of recent conflict. Only History will tell I suppose. I just want to know if this sort of thing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War) will ever end.

I can't believe the number of people who seem to believe that Iran would launch any attack, especially a nuclear one, on Israel. There are many things you can say for the leaders of Iran: oppressive, evil, greedy, ect. But one thing they are not is suicidal. They are perfectly aware that an attack on Israel, especially now, with US troops in the countries to both sides of them, is nothing less than suicide.

They are perfectly aware that an attack on Israel, especially now, with US troops in the countries to both sides of them, is nothing less than suicide.
I am not sure that they are. Religious mania can lead to extraordinary delusions. Some, at least, may assume that God will work miracles on their side.

I am not sure that they are. Religious mania can lead to extraordinary delusions. Some, at least, may assume that God will work miracles on their side.

They have managed to take and hold power for 29 years, in the face of an increasingly angry and frustrated populace. I have seen nothing to suggest that they are stupid enough to do something like attack Israel. I'm not even sure if they're truly religious- it might just be a convenient tool to control the people. You can be sure that if they hadn't had Islam to back them up, they would never have gotten power in the first place, let alone keep it.

I can't believe the number of people who seem to believe that Iran would launch any attack, especially a nuclear one, on Israel. There are many things you can say for the leaders of Iran: oppressive, evil, greedy, ect. But one thing they are not is suicidal. They are perfectly aware that an attack on Israel, especially now, with US troops in the countries to both sides of them, is nothing less than suicide.

Exactly, the response from the US to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be a counter strike on Iran. Their nation would cease to exist. The leaders of Iran have families and friends that would be killed. They are not that stupid.

I'm not even sure if they're truly religious- it might just be a convenient tool to control the people.
I'm sure there is the same proportion of hypocrites among them as among, say, American evangelical preachers. But most of them are true believers in all the horseshit. Hyper-religious people can be very politically savvy, and yet still be incredibly stupid about certain things, like their chances in a major war: just look at George W. Bush, and ask yourself how in the world he is clever enough to have gotten away with all that he has, and yet still stupid enough to have thought the war in Iraq would be easy.

Bloody superhuman Jews...

Fear the Ubermensch Ashkenazi?

Didn't Israel bomb Saddam's nuclear station after he threatened to nuke Israel?
Did he ever threaten to nuke Israel?

Exactly, the response from the US to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be a counter strike on Iran. Their nation would cease to exist. The leaders of Iran have families and friends that would be killed. They are not that stupid.

I agree with this.