Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/13/2006 10:54:07 PM EDT
I'm thinking early March, I am not involved with the military, and this is just a guess, I have no actual knowledge of anything, beyond what I hear and read in the news. Does anyone care to make a guess, or do you feel it won't happen? From all the news, it seems to be when, not if.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:54:43 PM EDT
later
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:55:45 PM EDT
Not soon enough, and not with big enough bombs.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 10:59:49 PM EDT
I'm wondering, if Isreal won't beat us to the party, All holy sheite would break out if that happens.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:16:09 PM EDT
I believe when push comes to shove they will "back down" but, they will still continue to do as they please (developing Nuclear weapons) and will someday be in direct combat with Israel and we may get 'drawn' into it. I think it could get very ugly for the participants.

I also believe that when/if we join in, we will be quick to act and a retaliation from Iran will be too slow to be of any use.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:22:19 PM EDT
I don't think Iran will back down. The Iranian president is stone crazy and believes we are approaching the Islamic version of Armageddon and the return of the 12th imam. I think the US will give Israel a green light and maybe some logistical support--it would be easier than getting the bedwetters in congress and the media on board with a US-led bombing campaign.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:39:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sta1treeman:
I'm thinking early March, I am not involved with the military, and this is just a guess, I have no actual knowledge of anything, beyond what I hear and read in the news. Does anyone care to make a guess, or do you feel it won't happen? From all the news, it seems to be when, not if.



I think you're on the money, but I was guessing it'll be at or after the middle of the month. A mullocracy with nukes is simply unacceptable. My big question is whether it'll be us or the Izzies.

On a side note, an acquaintance (a physician & therefore presumably pretty smart) thinks it'll be a tactical nuke strike because (1) conventional weapons couldn't efficiently do the job [multiple conventional hits required to penetrate each target]; (2) whoever does it will want to put an exclamation point on the statement "No nukes for Hajji;" (3) whoever does it will want to irradiate the locations and equipment to render them unuseable for the next 8 thousand years or so.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:48:29 PM EDT
If the US or Israel do use nuclear weapons,
then it will indeed be Game On for the ROP.
The talk and predicitons of AQ having
nukes will then really be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The Twin Towers rubble was cleaned up
and people still live and work nearby.
Radioactive sites will a little harder to mop.
Then it will be TEOTWAWKI.

Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:51:12 PM EDT
... March 28 2006
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:59:14 PM EDT
With the new AA systems the Iranians just aquired from the Russians, it will be a tough row to hoe for whoever does it!!
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:06:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
With the new AA systems the Iranians just aquired from the Russians, it will be a tough row to hoe for whoever does it!!



Not really. They don't have enough of it to even begin to slow us down, let alone stop us. Plus, they gotta first see a target to shoot at. By the time they know what's going on, it'll be game over.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:08:00 AM EDT
April, 2007
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:25:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
With the new AA systems the Iranians just aquired from the Russians, it will be a tough row to hoe for whoever does it!!



Not really. They don't have enough of it to even begin to slow us down, let alone stop us. Plus, they gotta first see a target to shoot at. By the time they know what's going on, it'll be game over.



Well if you've got SOC folks in the neighborhood, like we do, you can get rid of little annoyances like AA sites fairly easily; and sometimes even quietly.

By the end of summer. Cant say full invasion, may just be specific targets. Nukes are on the table, I think.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:28:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
With the new AA systems the Iranians just aquired from the Russians, it will be a tough row to hoe for whoever does it!!



Not really. They don't have enough of it to even begin to slow us down, let alone stop us. Plus, they gotta first see a target to shoot at. By the time they know what's going on, it'll be game over.



Rule 1. Turn your radar on and you will die!
Rule 2. Refer to Rule 1.

If your emitting radiation, you are going to become a target and will be systematically destroyed.

I would think a strike against the Iranian's most critical nuclear targets would be done by B-2's with a nice ECM support package. The B-2 is tailor made for this type of mission.

The B-2 can carry eight 4,500 lb GBU-37 penetrators or 16 2000 lb penetrators, or 16 B-61/B-83 "Instant Sunshine".
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 12:57:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
With the new AA systems the Iranians just aquired from the Russians, it will be a tough row to hoe for whoever does it!!



Not really. They don't have enough of it to even begin to slow us down, let alone stop us. Plus, they gotta first see a target to shoot at. By the time they know what's going on, it'll be game over.



Rule 1. Turn your radar on and you will die!
Rule 2. Refer to Rule 1.

If your emitting radiation, you are going to become a target and will be systematically destroyed.

I would think a strike against the Iranian's most critical nuclear targets would be done by B-2's with a nice ECM support package. The B-2 is tailor made for this type of mission.

The B-2 can carry eight 4,500 lb GBU-37 penetrators or 16 2000 lb penetrators, or 16 B-61/B-83 "Instant Sunshine".



I think you could pull it off with conventional aircraft and some ECM/Weasel back-up if you wanted to. These latest Russian SAM's that are suppose to be such hot shit don't have a great deal of range. So you could literally just fly above their envelope. Then you could just blanket the place with ordnance, as they don't have enough missiles to hit all the bombs we can send at them. At high altitude, you'd then just have to contend with older SAM designs and Iranian fighters, which we are more than capable of handling.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 1:28:51 AM EDT
I think Isreal will beat us to it.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 4:16:51 AM EDT
I don't want to see things go nuclear in trying to stop them, it sets a bad precedence. Does make me warm and fuzzy inside, but it won't be as simple as finding the sites and dropping a tactical nuke on them. Basically, you are validating the Muslim notion that it's ok to nuke the USA when their day comes.

Dave
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 4:30:23 AM EDT
Never.

The U.S. can't do it without attracting large scale terrorit attacks and getting themselves booted out of the Middle East, not to mention having the Iranians stir up a heap of trouble in the south of Iraq that will make it ungovernable. The Israelis cant do it for similar reasons, except substitute the wole Muslim world for Iraqi shiites. If anyone uses nukes, then the only way to stop the resulting Jihad would be to kill every last Muslim on Earth. Not going to happen.

Unfortunatly, everyone's about 25 years too late to stop it.

More likely would be the U.S. sittling down with the Iranians and politely telling them that if a nuke goes off anywhere in the world attributed to Islamic radicals, then Iran will be held resonsible, and made to glow in the dark.

Just my 2c.

Link Posted: 1/14/2006 4:34:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... March 28 2006



06087
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 4:56:42 AM EDT
I don't know who is going to hit them first, but the fireworks will be spectacular.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 4:58:17 AM EDT
Never
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:07:07 AM EDT
Never going to happen.

We don't have the manpower or balls to start a war with Iran.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:09:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I don't want to see things go nuclear in trying to stop them, it sets a bad precedence. Does make me warm and fuzzy inside, but it won't be as simple as finding the sites and dropping a tactical nuke on them. Basically, you are validating the Muslim notion that it's ok to nuke the USA when their day comes.

Dave



Do unto others before they can do unto you. Do you honestly believe that if the hajjis got nukes, they'd hesitate for a second because we haven't nuked their asses yet?

They want you and your countrymen dead. React accordingly.



Originally Posted By Lert:
If anyone uses nukes, then the only way to stop the resulting Jihad would be to kill every last Muslim on Earth. Not going to happen.




(from The Boondock Saints)
"We could kill everybody"
"How does that make you feel?"
"I'm strangely ok with it."

Islam seems bent on proving that it can't coexist with us. I see no reason to force them to. If they insist on playing the "war of annihilation" angle, Let's play.

If it comes down to that sort of jihad, I have no doubt who would emerge victorious (think "millions of square miles of glow in the dark glass between Casablanca and India")
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:12:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:17:04 AM EDT
It's my opinion that the supersonic JDAM release two weeks ago had two purposes -
- a little showing off of the capability, and
- some saber rattling toward Iran.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an F-22 plus F-117 attack of their nuke "labs" to soften the Iranians up, followed by Israeli strikes to finish the job.

This time we will abide by international diplomatic pressure until the Iranian reactor sites are still soft enough to bust up with conventional boombs, unless the crazy Iranian president decides to sink a carrier or toss a couple of missiles into Baghdad first, or move into Iraq when we pull out. I don't think it will happen this year, or until the pressure to strike is incredibly high and there is no choice.

I suspect the US is trying to collect support from the Europeans right now, and probably warning the French, Chinese, Russians, and North Koreans about their arms exports to Iran.

In France, the lights are on and no one is home, the N Koreans are as nutty as the Iranians, the Russians need the trade and don't care as long as we ignore them a while longer, and the Chinese are plugging away every day in an attempt to make the US irrelevent.

Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:19:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:22:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 5:24:30 AM EDT by sgtstinger]
I don't know if and when we(U.S.) will try to take out Iran's nuclear sites...Looks like the E.U. possibly will lead the charge on this one.

But I am sure of this:

Most Muslims in this part of the world only understand one thing...A boot on their neck.

If we do anything, we need to be ruthless and absolute about it.

-sgtstinger, LIVE FROM KUWAIT
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:33:03 AM EDT
If any of you really believe there will be airstrikes against Iran this year, there are betting houses online now that will give you 7-1 odds against a US or Israeli airstrike before 30 June 06. You can buy a $100 contract right now for $15...
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 5:59:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
Not soon enough, and not with big enough bombs.



Amen and Good Night!
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:00:17 AM EDT
Why bomb indiscriminately when we can go house to house and get great young Americans killed while giving the left more propaganda to use against their most hated country - the USA?
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:24:45 AM EDT
Fox news reported, that some tactical bomber squads, and tac. fighters have been deployed to southeast Asia, Pentagon response was ordinary move, don't read anything into it, but it makes you go hmm.. I think we can get it done from the air, and won't use nukes, that would encite every muslim in the world, friend( and I use that term loosely) or foe. I do think it will be before W is out of office, I don't think he would want to leave that choice to a bunch of bleeding heart leftist demoncrats, they wouldn't have the balls, and we can't risk letting Iran having a N-bomb with the dems in control. I hope they aren't in control in the future, but with all their BS, and alot of dumb U.S. voters out there it is very possible. We supposedly have Germany on our side now on this one, that is at least a start toward international support.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:26:56 AM EDT
By the way, where are the betting houses giving those odds? I might want a piece of that action, no bet is a sure thing, but those are pretty good odds.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:57:57 AM EDT
We can't let the Iranians have the bomb. They will give it to some ROP group who will send it in a ship to LA or NYC. Not to mention that Tel Aviv or Haifa could eventually be glowing. But THAT will never happen. Israel will pre-emptively defend itself with whatever means it has and will live with the world condemnation.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 7:49:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 4:12:16 PM EDT by sta1treeman]
Yep, I could not believe their restraint in the first Gulf War, holding Isreal back, is like holding off a pit bull, hell bent on eating somthing up. During gulf war one, nukes were not in the picture as an offensive option for iraq, or iran, but with them being a real threat now, there is no amount of diplomacy that would keep Isreal from pre-emtive strikes. although I think the muslim perception of an air strike would be be better, if it were done by someone other than the Isrealies, that would galvanize all muslims, no matter what they say, they all hate Isreal. We don't need them to find a reason to put aside their own issues, and rally around iran. I think the best possible scenerio would be Germany doing it, they have the capability, and the world perception would be better. but that is a long shot to say the least.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 7:56:03 AM EDT
Why would we need to go to war with Iran? Don't worry, the UN is on top of the situation, it'll all be fine.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 7:58:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sta1treeman:
By the way, where are the betting houses giving those odds?



www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?query=iran

Tradesports does lots of political futures contracts for all sorts of things. It's a really fascinating example of applying free market principles to intelligence prediction.

The March 07 contracts are running at about $40 now, December 06 at $25-$30.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 8:02:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/14/2006 8:21:45 AM EDT by sta1treeman]
Bookies always have the inside scoop. Just checked the site out, I think the 14.5 June 06 is not a bad bet, I believe all this will go down pretty soon. When the new supreme court judge is confirmed, President Bush will have accomplished alot of what he can get done politicly, and I really don't think he nor the military would want to trust a potentially drawn out middle east conflict to the democrats. The President would have two years to get the job done, and he may need all two, to get the middle east some what stable. Running a few bombs up Irans ass, would in the long run decrease the insurgecy in Iraq, the insurgents would be preoccupied with irans defense. It would also send a message to North Korea, that we will take measures to stop unchecked nuclear programs. Russia doesn't have that much to bring to the fight, unless you had an all out nuclear war. China is the wild card in the deck, the way I see it.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 10:46:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lert:
Never.

The U.S. can't do it without attracting large scale terrorit attacks and getting themselves booted out of the Middle East, not to mention having the Iranians stir up a heap of trouble in the south of Iraq that will make it ungovernable. The Israelis cant do it for similar reasons, except substitute the wole Muslim world for Iraqi shiites. If anyone uses nukes, then the only way to stop the resulting Jihad would be to kill every last Muslim on Earth. Not going to happen.

Unfortunatly, everyone's about 25 years too late to stop it.

More likely would be the U.S. sittling down with the Iranians and politely telling them that if a nuke goes off anywhere in the world attributed to Islamic radicals, then Iran will be held resonsible, and made to glow in the dark.

Just my 2c.




Good post; perhaps what will happen as we pass the buck again.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 2:26:41 PM EDT

Yep, I could not believe their restraint in the first Gulf War, holding Isreal back, is like holding off a pit bull, hell bent on eating somthing up. During gulf war one, nukes were not in the picture as an offensive option for iraq, or iran, but with them being a real threat now, there is no amount of diplomacy that would keep Isreal from pre-emtive strikes.


There were hints after the war that Saddam was told early on, if he used chemical or bio on Israel or the coalition forces he would be nuked. I suspect they forgot to mention that conventional Scuds on Israel were a no go too. Our over sight. He is the master of twisting words. Remember the truce talk after GW1, the no fly zones.



China is the wild card in the deck, the way I see it.



Yea. I agree too. They need that oil from the Gulf. India too. It is in their best interest a stable supply of oil from the Gulf. And a war with the Iranians would stop up the Straits of Hormuz with THEIR supplied Silkworms. Talk about cutting off the branch your sitting on. Better hope you have a good gas mileage car and have your house paid off. It could get expensive to live for a while.
Link Posted: 1/14/2006 2:37:13 PM EDT
Middle of Summer maybe later. Random musings follow

Too many ducks to get in line with Europeans, Russia, UN, etc.

Also gives some time for internal Iranian politics to kick them out, maybe even outside assist on the internal machinations. There is a possibility if it becomes clear that the Iranian limb is about to be sawed off the family tree. they will do something first.

First thinking there will be a worldwide monolithic ROP responce is on the ignorant side, with few exceptions, there are no political leaders in any Islamic country that really support Iran. The Arabs may bluster, but they hate Persians. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Indonesia have no desire to see Iran go nuclear, they do and their leaders are suddenly on the target block after Israel. Apostate Moslems (in their view) are more worthy of death and their countries absorbed into the new Islamic before they go further afield. They know that they don't have the wherewithal or ability to go after the West now.

India doesn't want a nuclear Iran. Various Hindu groups are fighting Moslem groups in India proper of Holy sites and Kashmir. Plus India is in range of Iran.

Any action will be non-nuclear on our side, nobody (sane) needs or wants the fallout clouds even a small nuclear strike or exchange would cause.

Israel is off the table for several months. Until they get Sharon replaced, they likely can't or won't do anything. This is something the General Staff is not going to attempt without full backing of the National Command Authority (equivalent) and they have no National Command Authority now, and their parliamentary election system almost guarantees a several month election cycle.

Iran has a lot of sites, determining which are the correct ones is a major issue right now in several capitals. Nobody wants another WMD fiasco where all the major Intel services agree on something and they are wrong.

If we were to hit, it would be combined with other countries, and it would be an overwhelming strike at one or two sites. Then again at the next few. Eliminate the defenses and effectively break the site. You don't need to collapse the whole complex, but if you block the exits and they can't get anything out. A much more politically palatable and possible event.

Link Posted: 1/14/2006 6:05:21 PM EDT
I agree with the world wide islamic response part of your post, but there are radicals whether sheite,or soonyies(?), that may well unite, and put aside there differences, also it would give the alkayda(?), I don't know how to spell all of those arab names, and don't really give a damn if I spell their names correctly or not. They would be even more determined to strike at everyone they see as infidels, they hate weastern incursion in the middle east, and know they are powerless to stop it, which frustrates them, a US lead bombing of Iran would only increase their determination, but in a more united way. The way I see it ,they want to hit us, and Isreal anyway, so who cares if we get them pissed and united. As far as Isreal, they have already transferred powers from Sharone, they did that on the day he had the stroke. If the current Isreal leadership thinks Iran is close to having a working nuke, they will strike, regardless of their leader. right now, GB, France and Germany are with us, Japan , China and Russia aren't ready to play ball out of fear of a dissruption in their oil supply. Irans grand Iyotollas are generally against Irans pres. he has made statements of a spiritual nature that they regard as blasphemous, and that is a very big deal in the islamic religon, so having him internally removed is possible, that seems to be the very best outcome, but they elected a nut last time, the next one may be worse, but it could give diplomacy a little more time, and hopefully not in vain . I am afraid of Iran getting a nuke with the democrats in power, the first thing they will do is slash the military, and then try to call on them in a very limited and deminished state. They ( the military) would still get the job done, but at what cost? Hell I wouldn't doubt if that is what the demos want, they are so jealous of President Bush, they would love to do somthing to so that they are strong on the war on terror, and the media would play to them, and end up making them look like heros, if we aren't all glowing first.
Top Top