Now I wonder what the IDF wants these babys for…And notice the expected delivery date?… after the US Elections in November… coincidence

Better get the Popcorn ordered… I expect we may see some very good film shortly!

"US to sell Israel bunker-buster bombs

By Jerusalem
September 22, 2004


The US plans to sell Israel $139 million ($A200 million) worth of air-launched bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" able to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources said yesterday.

The newspaper Haaretz quoted a Pentagon report as saying the procurement sought "to maintain Israel's qualitative advantage and advance US strategic and tactical interests". The US embassy in Israel had no comment, referring queries to Washington. Israel's Defence Ministry also declined to comment.

But an Israeli security source who confirmed the story said: "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria."

Haaretz quoted Israeli sources as saying the sale, including 4500 other guided munitions, was not expected to go through until after the US elections in November.

Earlier this month Haaretz said Israel sought to obtain the US-made, one-tonne "bunker- buster" bombs for a possible strike against arch-foe Iran's nuclear program, which Israel considers a strategic threat.

Tehran denies hostile designs, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

- Reuters"

www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651323300.html?oneclick=true


Andy

Case of Popcorn Ordered!

outstanding
sorry Iran but you dont need plutonium and here are tools for the people who have enough nuts to remove it from you.

Finally some good news reported here tonight!

I would have to think that an attack on Iran's nuke facility would be the primary reason for the purpose of these weapons.

I've kinda figured this would be the case all along, but now I am glad to see some evidence that it is indeed gonna happen. This is the most clear sign I've seen yet.

But when this goes down, expect a shitstorm to start in the region. It could plunge the whole mideast into chaos. But's it's gonna happen sooner or later. The risks associated with allowing Iran to go nuclear are far greater than any risks of whatever conflict may arise from this.

Now to the IDF.........."Git some"!

-CH

I would say pretty dam scary, alot of tension.

Quoted: I would say pretty dam scary, alot of tension.

Of course you would.


Go Israel! Do the World's dirty business again, since we can't seem to do anything about Iran's stated intention to build and launch nuclear weapons against you, post-haste.

Russia helps build a HEAVY Reactor and is shipping the fuel for it in ~13 months, Old Europe obstructs, the jihadi (El Baredei) on the IAEA looks the other way while Iran builds their nuclear missiles - and he's going to get a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

STRIKE, Israel, STRIKE!

07 JUN 81 (note to CBS, THAT's the proper format for a mil date of the era, ya Forgers) is when Israel struck the Iraqi Reactor at Osirak.

Bonus trivia / honors - the Israeli astronaut killed in the Columbia breakup, Ilan Ramon, was a flight leader on that reactor strike.

Good hunting and good luck to the IDF/AF!  

"This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria."

I think its A good Start Giving Bunker buster Bombs to Israel.

US to invade Iran before 2005 Christmas

9 June 2004: The reason for the US break-up with Ahmed Chalabi, the Shiite Iraqi politician, could be his leak of Pentagon plans to invade Iran before Christmas 2005, but the American government has not changed its objective, and the attack could happen earlier if president George W. Bush is re-elected, or later if John Kerry is sworn in.

An invasion plan prepared by the Pentagon conceives of amphibious attacks on Iran from the Arabian Sea, with a provocative US naval blockade in the Gulf of Oman to choke its sea-lanes of communications, and the British navy is developing three islands taken on a ten-year lease from Oman to give up to America in case of a war.

Besides these attacks from open waters, the US has also planned land assaults from Iraq, where its troops will be stationed for at least two years after the 30-June handover of sovereignty, and it will mount massive air reconnaissance and surveillance operations from its bases in Pakistan, whose leases will be extended when they expire in January 2005.

Diplomats said Chalabi was alerted to the Pentagon plans and in the process of trying to learn more to tell the Iranians, he invited suspicions of US officials, who subsequently got the Iraqi police to raid the compound of his Iraqi National Congress on 20 May 2004, leading to a final break up of relations.

While the US is uncertain how much of the attack plans were leaked to Iran, it could change some of the invasion tactics, but the broad parameters would be kept intact.
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/invadeiran.htm

I wouldn't get your hopes up too high.

#1.... these "bunker busters" are what we used against Saddam's bunker facilities in Baghdad.... the bunker we targeted where we thought Saddam was hiding, after being hit with 3 of these bombs in the same spot, survived in tact . Not a good sign.

These bunker busters have a classified pentration depth... but it has been reported they can only pentrate between 30-50 feet before exploding.

Iran's Natanz facility, where it is housing its centerfuges to enrich uranium, is buried 75 ft under ground with reinforced concrete walls 9 feet thick, with the building sitting on shock absorbing springs. Good Luck.

Secondly... Iran has already started to create the Uranium Hexaflouride gas which is the feedstock for these centerfuges. It plans on converting 37 tons of Uranium Oxide (UO2), into HF6 gas, enough feedstock for 5-6 crude nuclear weapons. They aren't planning on waiting until the elections are over, they have already started to create the gas.  Look
here

The only weak link in Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the conversion plant at Esfahan where this gas is being made. This is the crucial step... the only step that really matters. If they carry this process out... and are able to stock pile this amount of feedstock... no amount of bombing will be able to stop them.

If Natanz was bombed and destroyed... highly unlikely as that is... they could, and probaly do, have many redundant facilities undeclared to the IAEA. They could have many places through the country with 100 centerfuges here and 100 there; alls they would need to do is fill the centerfuges with UF6, and enrich the uranium.... and it would be undetectable. Unlike reprocessing Plutonium, which is detectable due to the release of Krypton 85 gas, enriching uranium is undetectable. Iran could go nuclear and we would never know it. It was uncovered in the last IAEA report that Iran's military was invovled in helping to make ceterfuges.... and Iran has not alowed the IAEA access to all of its military cites.... there could be a huge centerfuge factory/enrchment facility on a military base somwhere in Iran that we don't know about. The point is... for any strike to be successful... you would need better ordnance.... perfect intel... which we will never be able to get (Iraq proves this).... and everything would have to go according to plan.... which it never does.

Lastly.... the Israeilis would have to find a way to get to Iran to drop the bombs and be able to get back. They have the range with inflight refeuling to get their F-15's there, but not back. And then of course there is their flight path; they would have to flight over Turkey, which they haven't had good relations with lately and who has a US bought missile defense system which could shoot down planes who enter their air space unauthorized; or over Jordan and Iraq, which would be very tenuous and definitely would have to involve US complicity which would buy us some serious flak- both from terrorists inside Iraq thanks to the Iranian agents there, and in the international community (I know who cares right!).

The Bottomline.... it is far from a clear done deal.

Beyond this issue, even Israeli experts doubt that Israel could pull off such an attack. Yiftah Shapir, of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv Univ. writes,

"Israel's options to counter the threat are limited.  A preemptive strike against Iran's missile or nuclear assets is problematic because the targets are too far away, too numerous and dispersed, and too well protected – some of them in deep underground installations.  Thus, the remaining Israeli option against a nuclear-armed Iran would be deterrence – perhaps by abandoning the policy of ambiguity in favor of a declared nuclear posture.  But since the problem would not be Israel's alone, it is reasonable to expect that the United States will act even before Israel does to make sure that the threat to its interests does not materialize."
(Shapir, Yiftah. "Iranian Missiles: The Nature of the Threat", TEL AVIV NOTES, THE JAFFEE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, No. 83, July 9, 2003, Tel Aviv University, Israel)

click here Then click on #83

If you were wondering... I wrote my college honors thesis on IRAN's NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM and had to weigh the options both the US and other actors (ie Israel) had in confronting it.

None of our options are good, especially our military options... even more so now that we are bogged down in Iraq. If the Mullahs want nukes... they will eventually get them. Air strikes will at best slow them down, but could possibly have the opposite effect; air strikes could cause Tehran to throw caution to the wind and pick up the pace, getting them nukes faster than they would have, had we not bombed them and they played along with the IAEA.

Quote:  "Beyond this issue, even Israeli experts doubt that Israel could pull off such an attack. Yiftah Shapir, of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv Univ. writes,"


OK… Let's play 'Devils Advocate' here…  agreed Israel single handed can not take out Irans Nuclear capability… so how about this scenario……

Israel hits at selcted Key Targets, Iran then lashes out at Israel AND the 'Great Satan's' forces… USA then has all the justification it needs to kick the hell out of Iran as an act of 'self defence'… Game On!


Andy

That is wishful thinking. Iran would use terrorist proxies to do its bidding like they are now, giving them plausible deniability. Even if we did know they were behind it, we wouldn't kick the hell out of them... we would just do a couple of air strikes... possibly bomb the head quarters of the Revolution Guards or something like that to make our point.  

This would still not solve our problem of Iran going nuclear. We don't have the troops or resources right now to take Iran on in a full scale war. Iran has 3 times the population as Iraq and has around 7 times the land mass. It is huge compared to Iraq and we would not be able to occupy it at this stage. Plus, while Iran would lose a war to us, obviously, they would pose a much great military challenge than baghdad did. And if it came down to regime survival... I think they would use their CBW on us and on our troops in Iraq. Not a good option.

Iran will most likely retaliate against Israel using its new Shahab-3 missiles.... it has warned that it will strike Israel's nuclear reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks it. While Israel does have the Arrow-2 missile to try to shoot down the Iranian Shahab-3, it failed in recent tests in California to successfully intercept a Scud B missile.... a much inferior missile compared to Iran's current capabilities. And Israel is obviously worried about this possibility because it was recently annouced in Haaretz, an Israeli newpaper... that Israel was distributing anti-radiation pills to people located around the Dimona facility for quote unquote "in the case of an accidental release of radiation from the aging plant". People around the Dimona area found this strange since Israel had never taken such steps as this before. Coincidence, I think not.

Iran would retaliate against us by upping the pressure on US forces in Iraq through its terrorist allies in Iraq.... Muqta al Sadr and other groups within the country. Iran would not launch direct acts by its own military forces against the US.

Occupying Iran wouldn't likely be a part of any plan. Simply destroying the nuke facility would likely be it. Maybe hitting a few government and military targets at most.

BTW, a couple of bunker busters may not get the job done, but if you place enough ordnance on top of that thing, you can get results. We also have thermobaric weapons now too. If necessary, we could saturate the target area with enough bombs to melt that sumbitch.

To do this you would first have to take out all of Iran's air defense capabilities using stealth aircraft. You would have to take out all of their airfields using a lead strike force. Iran has capable Mig 29 aircraft that could offer protection to these facilities; while we do have the power to acheive air dominance, we would still likely loose some planes. Iran has concentrated their air defenses around these facilities including radar guided Anti-aircraft guns and the more advanced S300PMU-1's and possibly some PMU-2's... although their radar detection network is pretty sketchy.

Bottomline, it would be a massive operation that we could do but we wouldn't be able to just hover over targets and drop bombs like a dump truck does garbage. We wouldn't be able to bring in B-52's to just drop everything we had at them. We would need to destroy Iran's whole airforce first before we could do that. That would take an all out war to accomplish. Not going to happen.

As for the thermobaric bombs... what is your point. The bunkers are under ground. Thermobaric bombs blow big.... but above ground they explode. I guess if you dropped enough bunker busters in the same spot and then tried to drop a thermo bomb down the hole it could do the job.... not likely.

Iran's Natanz facility, where it is housing its centerfuges to enrich uranium, is buried 75 ft under ground with reinforced concrete walls 9 feet thick, with the building sitting on shock absorbing springs. Good Luck.

I can say for a fact it is not safe from a GBU-28 nor some of the goodies being developed.  There is still one out at White Sands that penetrated deeper than that in rock hard caliche.  

Quoted: Lastly.... the Israeilis would have to find a way to get to Iran to drop the bombs and be able to get back. They have the range with inflight refeuling to get their F-15's there, but not back.

Im curious, how do you figure inflight refueling will get them there but not back????

I guess we will see. The point of my first post was that Natanz is irrelevant if they get their hands on the feedstock they are creating. They most likely have several redudant facilities like Natanz hidden that we don't know about. The feedstock for the bomb is what matters... not where they have to enrich it. This was my whole point. Bombing Natanz doesn't stop them from enriching shit. It causes them to move to a different location and use different centerfuges... if it is destroyed that is.... I'm not sure it will be.

I'm just being a realist here. Iran has plenty of money and seems determined.... nothing short of full occupation and regime change will stop them. And we can't do that right now.

Quoted: Quoted: Lastly.... the Israeilis would have to find a way to get to Iran to drop the bombs and be able to get back. They have the range with inflight refeuling to get their F-15's there, but not back. Im curious, how do you figure inflight refueling will get them there but not back???? hacko.gif

What... is Israel going to do, send their tankers to refuel the planes while over Iranian air space???? They only have a 1500 nutical mile range 1650 with drop tanks at 35,000 ft.... but they have to carry so much ordnance and fly so low to avoid being detected on radar they will burn fuel up too fast get there and back.

They can't refuel while in Iran. They would have to land in Iraq probably.... the US I guess could let them land there.... the Iraqis would probably have to be kept out of the loop though.

Quoted: I guess we will see. The point of my first post was that Natanz is irrelevant if they get their hands on the feedstock they are creating. They most likely have several redudant facilities like Natanz hidden that we don't know about. The feedstock for the bomb is what matters... not where they have to enrich it. This was my whole point. Bombing Natanz doesn't stop them from enriching shit. It causes them to move to a different location and use different centerfuges... if it is destroyed that is.... I'm not sure it will be. I'm just being a realist here. Iran has plenty of money and seems determined.... nothing short of full occupation and regime change will stop them. And we can't do that right now.

If the situation becomes serious enough, we've got enough tactical nukes on hand to take care of the issue. That would require minimal resources. And yes, just to be clear, I would hit Iran with tactical nukes before I would allow them to gain nuclear weapons.

Just because the mission might be difficult doesn't mean we can't do it. There are other, more conventional ways of dealing with it also.

We would never launch a tactical nuclear first strike on anyone. NEXT OPTION PLEASE???

Be realistic. We would never nuke anyone first.... it is us policy to have no first use since the 1950's. I admire your aggressiveness.... but it won't happen .

Iran has the same shit in their air force that Iraq had at the start of the Gulf War. Iraq had Mig-29's too. Trust me, Iran's air force would be rendered inoperable after one night of fighting. After that, Israel or the US could send tankers into Iran, no problem. And as far as SAM's, both the Israelis and the US have the means do deal with them. The SA-6 is old technology.

The bottom line, Iran's Air Force would be helpless against either us or Israel.

Not true. Iraq didn't even put planes up against the US air force.... it flew its planes over to Iran for safe keeping... which Iran then kept. You are right... our air force would wipe the floor with them.... but we still wouldn't be able to make Iranian air space into a US parking lot for aircraft... be realistic.

And again... you are missing the point. I said bombing Natanz and known Iranian nuclear infrastructiure means nothing if the regime is left in place and they use redundant facilities through out the country (which we don't know about) to enrich the uranium anyway.

Once they have the feedstock... they can enrich it anywhere in the country.... not just at natanz (the one enrichment site we know about). And they are producing the UF6 gas feedstock right now.

Quoted: Quoted: I guess we will see. The point of my first post was that Natanz is irrelevant if they get their hands on the feedstock they are creating. They most likely have several redudant facilities like Natanz hidden that we don't know about. The feedstock for the bomb is what matters... not where they have to enrich it. This was my whole point. Bombing Natanz doesn't stop them from enriching shit. It causes them to move to a different location and use different centerfuges... if it is destroyed that is.... I'm not sure it will be. I'm just being a realist here. Iran has plenty of money and seems determined.... nothing short of full occupation and regime change will stop them. And we can't do that right now. If the situation becomes serious enough, we've got enough tactical nukes on hand to take care of the issue. That would require minimal resources. And yes, just to be clear, I would hit Iran with tactical nukes before I would allow them to gain nuclear weapons. Just because the mission might be difficult doesn't mean we can't do it. There are other, more conventional ways of dealing with it also.

I forgot to mention by the way... if we nuked Iran and made their oil radioactive and therefore unusable.... it would send oil to probably $200 a barrel. Try driving you SUV when that happens. LOL

Quoted: Not true. Iraq didn't even put planes up against the US air force.... it flew its plane over to Iran for safe keeping... which Iran then kept. You are right... our air force would wipe the floor with them.... but we still wouldn't be able to make Iranian air space into a US parking lot for aircraft... be realistic.

The Iraqi's did not go into the air for a good damn reason.  They knew they didn't have a damn chance and they were dead meat the second they touched off the ground.  

The U.S. would have Air Supremecy after the first day and the Iranian Air Defenses will be systematically eraticated with ruthless efficiency.  Any system that turns on its radars will not be on for long.

Quoted: Not true. Iraq didn't even put planes up against the US air force.... it flew its plane over to Iran for safe keeping... which Iran then kept. You are right... our air force would wipe the floor with them.... but we still wouldn't be able to make Iranian air space into a US parking lot for aircraft... be realistic.

I am being realistic. Iran's AF would be wiped out or grounded after the first night of fighting. We shot down several of Saddam's AF planes, including at least 1 MiG-29. That's why they bugged out and avoided us. They saw they had no chance against us.

But should it become necessary, we could take out their AF before they ever got any planes in the air. We have enough B-2 Stealth bombers and F-117's to pepper their airfields and take out their runways. Before they knew what hit them, they'd be SOL. Meanwhile, other aircraft could be finishing off that nuke facility with a combination of weapons. Once the sky is free of enemy bandits and routes have been cleared from SAM's, even more conventional jets like the B-1B and F-15E could be used. If you put enough 2,000 to 5,000 lb bombs on top of that place, we'll eventually punch through. Seventy-five feet isn't all that deep when you turn the ground above it into a tossed green salad.  

Provided Bush is re-elected, I believe we will strike Iran next year and it will be from the air.  That is my prediction!

Yes the U.S. does have HARM anti-radiation missiles... and they would of course get air supremacy eventually.... but it would require a full scale conflict as I previously stated.... and we are not at a point to do this yet.

Again... you are missing the point which I have hightlighted several times.... bombing Natanz will not stop the program... it will not stop the enrichment of uranium... it will only stop the enrichment of uranium at the site of Natanz. They have redundant facilities through out the country which we do not know about... and can then enrich uranium there. PLEASE.... do not write another post saying how we can bomb them.... this was never my point. We can... it just won't stop them or do much good. They'll just enrich the uranium at anothe site.

Once the feedstock is available to them.... it is game over... and just a matter of time.

Really.... I enjoy agreeing with you on how the U.S. could bomb Iran.... but the bombing does no good unless we have perfect intel and can destroy everything... and we never will.

Quoted: I'm just being a realist here. Iran has plenty of money and seems determined.... nothing short of full occupation and regime change will stop them. And we can't do that right now.

Well as a realist you seem to be making a few significant capability issue mistakes…

You refer to the advanced SA-6 missiles… Sorry… SA-6 is a dud, we can jam them on demand.

You seem impressed with the Mig 29… Just airborne targets for an AMRAAM

Reality fix… Iran hasn't an air defence network worth shit… it's a joke.

Also Isreal hit the Osirac reactor using a much less capable aircraft then the F15 Strike Eagles they now have… and do you honesty think the US Air Force is going to stop an outbound strike from Isreal heading to Iran… nope! They will look the other way. And Bushir is just a short hop down the Gulf. The strike would pass along the Iraq/Saudi border, and the Saudis and the US will look the other way because it's in both their interests to let it through.

So what are you saying the Israelis do… sit back and let Iran become a fully deployed Nuclear power, yeah, that will happen! Iran has plainly declared its intention to hit Israel with a Nuke as soon as they get one. They are in the 'Use them or Lose Them' game… they must use it as soon as they have one before it gets taken out. Israel cannot and will not allow an adversary the luxury of a 'First Strike' they are a small country with a small population who could be effectively wiped out with a handfull of nukes.

You need to read some of the statements Israel has been making recently and consider how determined Israel is to survive… because when they are threatened with annihilation their policy is to stop at NOTHING to ensure their survival.

Andy

<spelling nazi>

Orbers?

</spelling nazi>

Just playing, I know what you mean, so it's all good.

I will restate the exact same thing I just wrote... because you are obviously still not getting it

Again... you are missing the point which I have hightlighted several times.... bombing Natanz will not stop the program... it will not stop the enrichment of uranium... it will only stop the enrichment of uranium at the site of Natanz. They have redundant facilities through out the country which we do not know about... and can then enrich uranium there. PLEASE.... do not write another post saying how we can bomb them.... this was never my point. We can... it just won't stop them or do much good. They'll just enrich the uranium at anothe site.

Once the feedstock is available to them.... it is game over... and just a matter of time.

Really.... I enjoy agreeing with you on how the U.S. could bomb Iran.... but the bombing does no good unless we have perfect intel and can destroy everything... and we never will.

Again... you are missing the point which I have hightlighted several times.... bombing Natanz will not stop the program... it will not stop the enrichment of uranium... it will only stop the enrichment of uranium at the site of Natanz. They have redundant facilities through out the country which we do not about... and can then enrich uranium there

If we don't know they have redundant facilities, then what proof do we have any exists?

It would seem the Natanz facility is crucial to their development efforts. If they had super-secret facilities that would allow them to complete their enrichment efforts, then why is Natanz necessary in the first place? That only draws attention to their efforts and severely handicaps their whole effort. If they could develop nukes without using the Natanz facility, then they would do so, secretly, without us knowing anything. The fact the facility exists leads me to believe it is absolutely critical to their mission. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it.

Quoted: I will restate the exact same thing I just wrote... because you are obviously still not getting it Again... you are missing the point which I have hightlighted several times.... bombing Natanz will not stop the program... it will not stop the enrichment of uranium... it will only stop the enrichment of uranium at the site of Natanz. They have redundant facilities through out the country which we do not know about... and can then enrich uranium there. PLEASE.... do not write another post saying how we can bomb them.... this was never my point. We can... it just won't stop them or do much good. They'll just enrich the uranium at anothe site. Once the feedstock is available to them.... it is game over... and just a matter of time. Really.... I enjoy agreeing with you on how the U.S. could bomb Iran.... but the bombing does no good unless we have perfect intel and can destroy everything... and we never will.

Hello? As you KNOW about all these REDUNDANT FACILITIES that the DoD does not know about, (as you clearly have some super secret intel source) , can you do Israel and the US Government a favor and tell them were they are?

Andy

Quoted: Also Isreal hit the Osirac reactor using a much less capable aircraft then the F15 Strike Eagles they now have… and do you honesty think the US Air Force is going to stop an outbound strike from Isreal heading to Iran… nope! They will look the other way. And Bushir is just a short hop down the Gulf. The strike would pass along the Iraq/Saudi border, and the Saudis and the US will look the other way because it's in both their interests to let it through. So what are you saying the Israelis do… sit back and let Iran become a fully deployed Nuclear power, yeah, that will happen! Iran has plainly declared its intention to hit Israel with a Nuke as soon as they get one. They are in the 'Use them or Lose Them' game… they must use it as soon as they have one before it gets taken out. Israel cannot and will not allow an adversary the luxury of a 'First Strike' they are a small country with a small population who could be effectively wiped out with a handfull of nukes. You need to read some of the statements Israel has been making recently and consider how determined Israel is to survive… because when they are threatened with annihilation their policy is to stop at NOTHING to ensure their survival. Andy

I think they have no option. Sure they can try to strike Iran's facilities... whatever good that does. Iran will become a nuclear power unfortunately... and there is nothing we can do about it. Even if you were to change the regime.... the nuclear issue is the one issue that all Iranians agree upon regardless of their political outlook. As long as Israel has nukes... Iran will seek them. And you can never remove the scientific knowledge base that the Iranians have now acquired... unless you systematically murder everyone of their nulcear scientists.... you seem radical enough... maybe you would.

Quoted: Hello? As you KNOW about all these REDUNDANT FACILITIES that the DoD does not know about, (as you clearly have some super secret intel source) , can you do Israel and the US Government a favor and tell them were they are? Andy

Will do... they are my next call right after I'm done winning this debate.Seriously... look at our intel on Iraq.... does that build your confidence. And even if you make the case that just because we sucked at getting intel on Iraq.... did doesn't mean we do on Iran. Well.... you can cross your fingers.

Quoted: Quoted: Hello? As you KNOW about all these REDUNDANT FACILITIES that the DoD does not know about, (as you clearly have some super secret intel source) , can you do Israel and the US Government a favor and tell them were they are? Andy Will do... they are my next call right after I'm done winning this debate.

That may take awhile. LOL.

Quoted: Quoted: Hello? As you KNOW about all these REDUNDANT FACILITIES that the DoD does not know about, (as you clearly have some super secret intel source) , can you do Israel and the US Government a favor and tell them were they are? Andy Will do... they are my next call right after I'm done winning this debate.

Thank you, I'm glad to hear that… but please remember to call Fort Meade first to arrange an appointment…the number for general enquiries is 301-688-6524.

Andy

Quoted: Yes the U.S. does have HARM anti-radiation missiles... and they would of course get air supremacy eventually.... but it would require a full scale conflict as I previously stated.... and we are not at a point to do this yet. Again... you are missing the point which I have hightlighted several times.... bombing Natanz will not stop the program... it will not stop the enrichment of uranium... it will only stop the enrichment of uranium at the site of Natanz. They have redundant facilities through out the country which we do not know about... and can then enrich uranium there. PLEASE.... do not write another post saying how we can bomb them.... this was never my point. We can... it just won't stop them or do much good. They'll just enrich the uranium at anothe site.

Natanz will just be one of the strike targets, the other dozens of  facilitys will be reduced to rubble too.  We can make it very NOT worth the Iranians trouble.  Knock out all power facilities, ports, ammo depots, missile depots & test facilities, etc.

They won't be doing much nuclear work when virtually everything in their program is in rubble.  

I'm putting it in my speed dial. I'm sure their eager to listen to me. LOL

Quoted: outstanding sorry Iran but you dont need plutonium and here are tools for the people who have enough nuts to remove it from you.

Who the hell are you to decide what others need?

Quoted: Natanz will just be one of the strike targets, the other dozens of  facilitys will be reduced to rubble too.  We can make it very NOT worth the Iranians trouble.  Knock out all power facilities, ports, ammo depots, missile depots & test facilities, etc. They won't be doing much nuclear work when virtually everything in their program is in rubble.

Who needs other weapons when you got nukes..... that will just give them more incentive.

Rebuilding a conventional military force would cost 100's of billions of dollars.... building nukes... a couple billion. I think the choice would be pretty easy for them..... especially since nukes would buy them much more deterent value.

Quoted: Quoted: Natanz will just be one of the strike targets, the other dozens of  facilitys will be reduced to rubble too.  We can make it very NOT worth the Iranians trouble.  Knock out all power facilities, ports, ammo depots, missile depots & test facilities, etc. They won't be doing much nuclear work when virtually everything in their program is in rubble.

Actually, disabling their Nuclear program is rather easy… nuclear fuel processing needs electrical power… lots of it! Just knock out the power grid to the plants and they ain't processing shit!

A cruise Missile is your friend… woosh, a load of carbon filaments and your power grid burns out… easy!

Andy

Right! It will be hard to develop nukes while your supplies are being bombed and your own citizens are rising up against you. We gotta remember that most of the Iranian people hate the government there. The slightest spark could ignite a big flame from within.

As has been mentioned, we could make their efforts far too much trouble to be worth it. As it is, they remain defiant and will remain as such until someone bloodies their nose satisfactorily. They might be able to fuck around with the UN, but neither the US or Israel are like the UN.

Quoted: Thank you, I'm glad to hear that… but please remember to call Fort Meade first to arrange an appointment…the number for general enquiries is 301-688-6524. Andy

Damn... I hate those automated phone answering programs.... for dept. such and such.... press 1....

for general such and such... dial extension blah blah blah

LOL

Quoted: Quoted: Natanz will just be one of the strike targets, the other dozens of  facilitys will be reduced to rubble too.  We can make it very NOT worth the Iranians trouble.  Knock out all power facilities, ports, ammo depots, missile depots & test facilities, etc. They won't be doing much nuclear work when virtually everything in their program is in rubble.   Who needs other weapons when you got nukes..... that will just give them more incentive. Rebuilding a conventional military force would cost 100's of billions of dollars.... building nukes... a couple billion. I think the choice would be pretty easy for them..... especially since nukes would buy them much more deterent value.

You can't make nukes when your facilities are in rubble, you need special facilites.  Nukes are more expensive to build and maintain than a conventional force, shit the Iranian Army is mostly light infantry - RPG's and AK's are pocket change.

Quoted: Right! It will be hard to develop nukes while your supplies are being bombed and your own citizens are rising up against you. We gotta remember that most of the Iranian people hate the government there. The slightest spark could ignite a big flame from within. As has been mentioned, we could make their efforts far too much trouble to be worth it. As it is, they remain defiant and will remain as such until someone bloodies their nose satisfactorily. They might be able to fuck around with the UN, but neither the US or Israel are like the UN.

Actually the Iranian peole are highly nationalistic... even though they hate the regime. Any nation, facing a threat from an outside military force is bound to react by uniting to confront that outside agressor (ever hear of Nationalism). Especially a people that has shown a high tolerance for pain and who praise a culture of matyrdom. They lost over 1 million lives in the war with Iraq, and they still kept fighting until the war bogged down into a stalemate.

Israel does not have the capability to sufficient "bloody their nose", the US does though. Israel could only launch limited air strikes, while Hezbollah drops rocket by the thousands on Hifa and Israel's northern cities.

But hey.... maybe we will be greated as liberators this time too. LOL
I love how people always refer to the statement that Iran is just a spark away from a revolution.... when they have never actually visited the country or talked to an actual Iranian. How would you know??? Are you relying on Iranian exiles statements... cuz that didn't work out too well in Iraq.

Quoted: You can't make nukes when your facilities are in rubble, you need special facilites.  Nukes are more expensive to build and maintain than a conventional force, shit the Iranian Army is mostly light infantry - RPG's and AK's are pocket change.

The whole point has been throughout this entire thread that we will not be able to get all their facilities... have you been paying attention to what I have been saying... we can't find them all.

Quoted: We would never launch a tactical nuclear first strike on anyone. NEXT OPTION PLEASE??? Be realistic. We would never nuke anyone first.... it is us policy to have no first use since the 1950's. I admire your aggressiveness.... but it won't happen .

Please don't be so naïve.  That is an incorrect statement.  There have ALWAYS been nuclear first strike options included in the SIOP.  The preservation of the Constitution trumps ALL other priorities...PC crap included.  Since that is a very hot topic...it isn't discussed much...but it is the truth.  Several years ago, it came to light that the SIOP included such options.  The PC press went absolutely NUTS and the nuclear freeze hippies had epileptic fits in the streets...but so what?  Can't remember who was prez then...but I seem to recall it was during the Reagan administration.

Trust me...this WAS on the menu.  Is it now?  Don't know...'cause I've been retired for twelve years.

Quoted: Quoted: Right! It will be hard to develop nukes while your supplies are being bombed and your own citizens are rising up against you. We gotta remember that most of the Iranian people hate the government there. The slightest spark could ignite a big flame from within. As has been mentioned, we could make their efforts far too much trouble to be worth it. As it is, they remain defiant and will remain as such until someone bloodies their nose satisfactorily. They might be able to fuck around with the UN, but neither the US or Israel are like the UN. Actually the Iranian peole are highly nationalistic... even though they hate the regime. Any nation, facing a threat from an outside military force is bound to react by uniting to confront that outside agressor (ever hear of Nationalism). Especially a people that has shown a high tolerance for pain and who praise a culture of matyrdom. They lost over 1 million lives in the war with Iraq, and they still kept fighting until the war bogged down into a stalemate. Israel does not have the capability to sufficient "bloody their nose", the US does though. Israel could only launch limited air strikes, while Hezbollah drops rocket by the thousands on Hifa and Israel's northern cities. But hey.... maybe we will be greated as liberators this time too. LOL I love how people always refer to the statement that Iran is just a spark away from a revolution.... when they have never actually visited the country or talked to an actual Iranian. How would you know??? Are you relying on Iranian exiles statements... cuz that didn't work out too well in Iraq.

Ahhhh, but that's where you are wrong. Iran is indeed a spark away from revolution and have been for years. Much of the Iranian population likes the idea of Western culture but are held back by a Taliban type government. The situation in Iran has more in common with the Taliban than with Saddam or Iraq. You saw what happened among the people when we ignited the spark in A-Stan didn't you? That country was also very nationalistic. But they saw their government as a far bigger enemy than us and helped us fight.

Besides, Iran isn't a nation we are going to invade and occupy. If we hit them, it'll be airstrikes or quick incursions. It won't be done in the same manner as Iraq. If there's a revolution and an overthrow of the government, it'll be by the Iranian people, not us. Although if they start it, I'm sure we'll offer all the assistance that we can to help them succeed. But the main point is, a limited strike against a particular target or sets of targets isn't going to unite them against us and lead to our defeat. By the time the strikes occur, it'll be over. We won't have anyone left there for them to fight. It'll be more of a hit and run operation than an occupation.

Find them all or not, no doubt that they will be struck and very soon, too. Big difference between what you can do with a large, well equipped site and what is possible with only a few, much smaller and not nearly as well equipped sites, hidden or not. The Arabs...OK, Persians in this case...talk big, but they never can come close to being able to do what they talk their shit about...Iran is no different. There is no real alternative to a premptive strike and ALL the players know it.

Do not rule out some help from places that you might not expect in so-called "traditional" terms...Russia, for example, appears to finally be getting serious about terrorist strikes, among others.  also, the word "never" should be taken out of your vocabulary. Many things that were "never" going to happen already have...more will follow, foir sure. Sounds to me like you have convinced yourself that the Mullahs are damn near invincible. Lucky for us that everyone does not share your view.

Stand by for fireworks...news at 11!

Quoted: If we don't know they have redundant facilities, then what proof do we have any exists?

Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. First thing they teacher you in law school on the first day.

Quoted: It would seem the Natanz facility is crucial to their development efforts. If they had super-secret facilities that would allow them to complete their enrichment efforts, then why is Natanz necessary in the first place? That only draws attention to their efforts and severely handicaps their whole effort. If they could develop nukes without using the Natanz facility, then they would do so, secretly, without us knowing anything. The fact the facility exists leads me to believe it is absolutely critical to their mission. Otherwise, they wouldn't have it.

You don't think they would really only build one facility do you. The fact that everyone is centering their focus on Natanz could be extactly what Iran wants.... everyone look at this big nice bunkered facility.... while we enrich uranium in secret at a wholely different facility. with no scrutiny from the IAEA or the international community. Remember, we didn't know what Iraq had until 1995 when Hussain Kamal defected and let Saddams secrets out of the bag. The IAEA was ready to declare him WMD free until Kamal's disclosure... and we had no idea.

Quoted: If they could develop nukes without using the Natanz facility, then they would do so, secretly, without us knowing anything.

What makes you think they aren't???