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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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,
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.
I think that if Israel attacks Iran, the distance for Iran to Israel would be an issue. Most likely, they would just rely on Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel for them. However, these two organizations can be nullified, as has been shown in the past. The only worry is if Iran tries to get any of Israel's neighbors to attack her, but I don't think that is likely.
There is no absolute proof that Opera and Orchard were in fact for weapons development. In fact the Iraqi one was beige built by the French in partnership, hardly a nation likely to help Iraq build nukes and Jump on the missile bandwagon. So get your facts right.
Also you read it out of context. My reply was to another person over an attack where nuclear weapons were confirmed to be there, in whichvase MAD would occur. Read properly.
Given that Iran possibly has only a handful of nukes, and not the barrage of rockets Hamas uses, Iron Dome doesn't look to be penetrated soon.
Also, Iran does have leverage. It's proxies are all over the ME. And it has one of the larger armed forces in the region.
People quote population numbers as though they're the most important aspect. Hello, all the African nations have huge populations but hardly a dozen are real powers.
Iran won't dare to attack Israel head on. It knows that it's far weaker militarily. It will continue to fund proxies perhaps, but Iran knows the history of it's Arab neighbors attempts to deal with Israel. In any case, even the IDF chief admitted in April that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.
USA did it, so I don't see your point. Beside the Allah part, USA did for Jehova or something in that line.
The USA did it, but that was different. For many reasons that I will list in list form:
1. They where the only ones with nukes. Retaliation was unlikely, since no one else would be able to use nukes against them. If Iran uses nukes, it will get nukes used against it, which will literally destroy the country.
2. The conventional warfare was some of the biggest in all of history, being WWII. It was very possible with the mindset of the Japanese of never surrendering and the mindset of the Americans at the time that it was the best thing to do.
3. No one had used them before, so no one new what exactly the consequences would be.
Number 1 is most likely the biggest, if anyone ever fires a nuke they get a nuke fired at them. Then the country ends.
