Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 3:08pm

danielo

danielo

1,748 posts

this tread is about the statistics and guesing. even if you support by ideaoligy one of the side, its about what you think will happen, not what you hope or want to. so "Israel people are braver" "the iranian have the right to destroy israel" - Out, "the IDF as prove himself useful and has the tools for the job" "Iran have a strong anti-air defence system" - In.

so guys, do you think that an attack in Iran by Israel will stop the Developing of an atomic bomb by Iran, will only slow it or will do nothing at all? do you think that the damage in the home front Will be worth it or will cost too many lives and damage?
and - does Israel need to wait for USA to interfere or Israel need to do it by herself, "befor its too late"?

firstly, my opinion is that Netanyau is trying to make a 'scene', make the problem be bigger than its actualy is. sure that an nuclear Iran is a treat to Israel, but attacing it will only give them an Excuse to attack us, saying that they are defending against us.
even that the Israeli is a very strong army {one of the bests in the world}, the Iranian showd us that they are not to be disregard. they fought for 8 years against Iraq. so tehy wont break up easly, like some in Israel hope {like the eygeption army in 1967 - againt, i dont disregard them too. like i dont blame the french army in WW2}. and, unlike the US army, we wont get the support of the locals who oppose the regiem, as it will be easier to Hammedinijad to unit the Iranian against the 'zionists', while USA is more nautral to them.
and, unlike USA, saudi-arabia as said that they wont let our airplanse to fly over her Territory and will shoot them if they will. afcors they will never do this to USA army.

so, i think that we {Israel} need to let USA make the move, maybe help as we can, and not do it ourself. not because of cowardness or that we are affraid, but because of the fact that the USA army is much much stronger and have a better chanses to sucssed, while the Israeli army has less chance to gain support inside Iran and to defeat Iran befor a devisteted rocket barrage on us.

so, what do you think?

 

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 6:23pm

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,863 posts

I think whether USA or Israel, either of them or both if attack, that will be a bad move.
Iran is the most technologically advanced and united nation america will be facing in decades.
Eventually they may succeed but at a hefty price.
(The above scenario is in case of full invasion)
As for surgical strikes Israel would be at loss on those too, as they are in Iran's range.
In america's case, iran can attack on its bases fleets in the area.

 

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 7:23pm

jt25rox

jt25rox

344 posts

Nuke em

 

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 10:19pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

do you think that an attack in Iran by Israel will stop the Developing of an atomic bomb by Iran, will only slow it or will do nothing at all?

If Israel attacks Iran, wouldn't Iran try even harder to make/obtain one to use in retaliation?

does Israel need to wait for USA to interfere or Israel need to do it by herself, "befor its too late"?

Most likely, but if war brakes out, especially if Israel initiates the war (NATO members wouldn't favor that), I doubt the US would get involved directly (sending combat troops, other than for training and the like). We'd probably send a lot more supplies.

but attacing it will only give them an Excuse to attack us, saying that they are defending against us.

And they would be. It's like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If Israel strikes first, it will indeed be devastating, but Iran is a very tough nation with 10x Israel's population and will certainly retaliate. They've got nearly 2.4M people ready to fight (active+reserve), while Israel has nearly 2.9M fit for service (that's overall civilians who could possibly sign up and get trained) with a current active+reserve of nearly 622K. NOT GOOD NUMBERS. Iran also has Russia, NK, and China on their side for potential support and aid. I'm pretty sure NK would gladly hand over a nuke early on.
 

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 10:23pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,477 posts

Most likely

Of course, that was meant for the "need to wait" part.
 

Posted Aug 12, '12 at 10:41pm

314d1

314d1

3,962 posts

If Israel attacks Iran, wouldn't Iran try even harder to make/obtain one to use in retaliation?


Wait. Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Did you just suggest that Iran, in response to conventional force, would retaliate with nuclear weapons? That would be their stupidest move ever. It would literally turn their entire nation into a crater. Why, in Allah's name, would they use a nuclear weapon to retaliate against a conventional assault?
 

Posted Aug 13, '12 at 12:19am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

No nation has attacked another over nuclear weapons development, it's only going to be MAD. Israel's missile shield pose enough of a deterrence without actually going to attack Iran. Israel has attacked Iraq before over nukes, but Iran is no Iraq; it's a regional power and one that has quite a lot of leverage. Plus it's proxies can make life hell for anyone who attacks it.

 

Posted Aug 13, '12 at 7:19am

DSM

DSM

1,313 posts

Why, in Allah's name, would they use a nuclear weapon to retaliate against a conventional assault?


USA did it, so I don't see your point. Beside the Allah part, USA did for Jehova or something in that line.
 

Posted Aug 13, '12 at 8:21am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,298 posts

Knight

@DSM

The only time nuclear weapons were used was in WWII so I don't know where you're plucking "facts" from. And they only did it since estimates of American casualties were supposedly too grave to risk an invasion of Japan. Also because they wanted to intimidate the Soviets and gain a negotiating advantage. Not because of religion.

 

Posted Aug 13, '12 at 8:30am

tomertheking

tomertheking

1,797 posts

OK, time to make my opinion on this.

And they would be. It's like Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. If Israel strikes first, it will indeed be devastating, but Iran is a very tough nation with 10x Israel's population and will certainly retaliate. They've got nearly 2.4M people ready to fight (active+reserve), while Israel has nearly 2.9M fit for service (that's overall civilians who could possibly sign up and get trained) with a current active+reserve of nearly 622K. NOT GOOD NUMBERS. Iran also has Russia, NK, and China on their side for potential support and aid. I'm pretty sure NK would gladly hand over a nuke early on.


Wait... you suppose Iran can transport It's whole army about 1500 k.m. by desert or about 2000 through non-desert?!?! Do you know what a logistical nightmare that is? They have a maximum of a few tens of thousands of transport vehicles. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army#Vehicles)
So they'll move about 100,000 troops max if they don't make them walk all the way, and the column would be under constant threat of bombardment. At about 500 k.m. per day(and that's very optimistic for such a large force)It would take 4 days minimum. Also, that would be across neutral territory, so they'll probably scavenger, which would force the local populace against them. 4 days for bombardments is a lot, since the Iranian army couldn't intercept since their airport is far away.
also, tanks are not very mobile and wear out very fast, so they won't pass the trip on their own, at least not very fast. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Mobility) So conventional attacks on such scales are impossible.
Naval attacks would have two options- going through Gibraltar, the Suez or Eilat. The first two would have to go through Spain and Egypt respectively, and both would very much not like the territory passed through. The last one has two problems- it is possible to defend Eilat, and even if they get there, they won't do much damage. So naval attacks are not that helpful.

No nation has attacked another over nuclear weapons development,


Well, if 0=2, then yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

Get your facts straight.

Israel's missile shield pose enough of a deterrence without actually going to attack Iran.


Well, anti-rocket systems do not always work. For example, Israel's iron dome works a bit over 90% of the time, and that is to single missiles. The moment you have lots of them, the success rate drops.

it's a regional power and one that has quite a lot of leverage.


All of Iran's neighbors hate it. So yes, they have negative leverage.

USA did it


Usa did it for the questionable fact that it would save lives that would have perished during the attack of mainland Japan.

The main question for Israel stands upon is will the conventional attack destroy the facility or not.
Since the base is deep underground, it may not be harmed to the extent of being nonoperational. Every other question is more of less non-important.
 
Reply to to attack in Iran or to not attack in Iran

You must be logged in to post a reply!