Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Israel attack on Iran "unavoidable"


Recommended Posts

From what I have read, the Iranian nuclear program is in bunkers and spread out. It has extensive air defences. The Americans might be able to take it out (or slow it down a fair bit), but I doubt Israel would. They would be dropping bomb after bomb onto the desert not knowing what they hit. All the time having to content with modern air defenses and a return trip over Syria.

We have heard about the "extensive" air defenses before....I am not impressed. American cruise missiles easily penetrated Iranian air space in 2003. Iran cannot maintain air superiority.

They probably have too many. They do have reasons for having them, however. Israel does not.

Agreed, but I'm talking about creative use of only one hull.

They were small escort carriers and that was ancient history. At one point Canada had the third largest navy in the world.

Did Canada "need" them?

I believe they were turning it into a floating casino at one point.

Two are tourist attractions..one is in drydock fitting out as a warship (ex Varyag), likely with spares from the casino hulls.

These carriers have a huge operating cost. You need spare parts and all sorts of other things.

Yep....parts are parts.

This is not all that usefull anyway. Israel cannot hope to bomb away Iran's nuclear program. It would be like Lebanon all over again. Israel would be fighting on Iran's terms. Israel would have to bomb forever (which it cannot afford) and loose airplane after airplane. Iran could play the victim while continuing to run its nuclear program.

Israel doesn't need to destroy the entire program, just key elements. Hell, Iran lost to Iraq.

If I were Israel, I would probably wait for the first excuse and start bombing Iran's oil industry (mostly with drone aircraft). No money to fuel their cars, much less buy stuff from North Korea. Don't stop until they agree to let in UN inspectors.

Israel can refuel over Iraq with impunity now. There is a new sheriff in town.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The HMCS Bonaventure and the HMCS Magnificent were hardly escort carriers. They were CVLs that were upgraded to fleet carrier (CV) status by addition of an angled deck plus catapult, arresting gear, et al. They were comparable to ships like the the Essex class conversions post WW2.

Canada did have two escort carriers, though...and one of them is Canada's first carrier.

pp: It would be ALOT harderthan Entebbe (is that spelled correct?). Entebbe was a single target and they had the element of suprise, and they had a very poorly armed opponent.

I was thinking more along the lines of the logistics of the very long flight. I'll also point out that you are in a long line-up of folks who claim Israel can't pull something off as it would be 'impossible'.

--------------------------------------

I never trust a fighting man who doesnt smoke or drink.

---Adm William "Bull" Halsey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well one thing is for sure -- if the Israelis go on their bombing run, we'll be looking at oil tripling or quadrupling in price overnight! I don't know if the Iranians have the missile capability to strike Israel, but you can damn well bet they will be going all out against the Americans in Iraq and bombing everything in sight in the Persian Gulf!

It would be one thing if the attack could have a reasonable chance of success, but if Iran is really working on a nuclear program, they are not going to build just one reactor like Saddam Hussein did back in 81. There will be so many underground sites, that it will be impossible to locate all of them, and based on the wonderful job the intelligence experts did in Iraq during the leadup to Bush's War, I wonder if either the Israelis or the U.S. can afford to take that risk! The only effective nuclear deterrence strategy may still be the M.A.D. strategy that kept the world free from nuclear attacks during the Cold War.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well one thing is for sure -- if the Israelis go on their bombing run, we'll be looking at oil tripling or quadrupling in price overnight! I don't know if the Iranians have the missile capability to strike Israel, but you can damn well bet they will be going all out against the Americans in Iraq and bombing everything in sight in the Persian Gulf!

It would be one thing if the attack could have a reasonable chance of success, but if Iran is really working on a nuclear program, they are not going to build just one reactor like Saddam Hussein did back in 81. There will be so many underground sites, that it will be impossible to locate all of them, and based on the wonderful job the intelligence experts did in Iraq during the leadup to Bush's War, I wonder if either the Israelis or the U.S. can afford to take that risk! The only effective nuclear deterrence strategy may still be the M.A.D. strategy that kept the world free from nuclear attacks during the Cold War.

Yes, it has been documented that the Iranians have several sites, no doubt heavily fortified from attack.

The weakness with the M.A.D. strategy is the assumption that the threat of mutual destruction would be a deterrent. If you have an insane person who is willing to sacrifice his country so he can wipe out Israel, well then you have a problem that only a pre-emptive bombing run would solve. The other issue would be what happened during the cold war, North Korea, Viet Nam still occurred. Other countries around Iran that do not have WMD might look tempting to Iran.

Edited by sharkman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody can name Canada's first aircraft carrier? Do we have to get an American to answer this one???

:lol::lol::lol:

------------------------------------------

One bourbon, one scotch and one beer.

---George Thorogood

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody can name Canada's first aircraft carrier? Do we have to get an American to answer this one???

:lol::lol::lol:

------------------------------------------

One bourbon, one scotch and one beer.

---George Thorogood

Gaetan Dugas

He was an Air Canada steward who is believed to have caught the disease in Paris and is believed to have infected hundreds and infected almost 50% of the first reproted cases..

I win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you missed it. Google: Chirac +Iran +nuke +attack

I'm still confused.

Ahmadinejad words are incorrectly translated to indicate that Israel's existence is threatened. In response, Israel threatens to nuke Iran in a preemptive attack. You believe that Israel's actions are justified because president Jacques Chirac warned Iran* not to sponsor terrorist "attack against French interests" thereby validating Israel's course of action?

A bundle of fun logic aren't you...

In actuality Chirac did not specifically mention Iran, he said "any country".

Quotations are taken from this news story

Edited by lost&outofcontrol
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still confused.

Ahmadinejad words are incorrectly translated to indicate that Israel's existence is threatened. In response, Israel threatens to nuke Iran in a preemptive attack. You believe that Israel's actions are justified because president Jacques Chirac warned Iran* not to sponsor terrorist "attack against French interests" thereby validating Israel's course of action?

A bundle of fun logic aren't you...

In actuality Chirac did not specifically mention Iran, he said "any country".

Quotations are taken from this news story

It is debateable that the translation is incorrect, in any case the intent is clear given that ahmandingalingadingdong has made so many other comments regarding his final solution for israel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaetan Dugas

He was an Air Canada steward who is believed to have caught the disease in Paris and is believed to have infected hundreds and infected almost 50% of the first reproted cases..

I win.

lol...good one.

:lol::rolleyes::lol:

------------------------

Lisa: Bart looks really hurt, Nelson.

Nelson: I said: "Ha! Ha!"

---The Simpsons

Link to post
Share on other sites
You believe that Israel's actions are justified because president Jacques Chirac warned Iran* not to sponsor terrorist "attack against French interests" thereby validating Israel's course of action?

Broadly speaking only (and for smart ass fun), yes. If nuclear power France can take such a position for terrorist attacks (by any country), then so can Israel when directly threatened by her arch enemy.

Israel has experience with pre-emptive attacks, and the UN permits such actions.

Nobody wants to wait for Iran to get stupid with a nuclear weapon, including France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Broadly speaking only (and for smart ass fun), yes. If nuclear power France can take such a position for terrorist attacks (by any country), then so can Israel when directly threatened by her arch enemy.

Israel has experience with pre-emptive attacks, and the UN permits such actions.

Nobody wants to wait for Iran to get stupid with a nuclear weapon, including France.

Do you not see the difference of position between France and Israel? France affirms that it will retaliate to any attacks against French interest. Israel is threatening a preemptive attack. What constitute preemptive? Is it Pearl Harbour style, Caroline affair of 1837, or Osirak reactor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not see the difference of position between France and Israel? France affirms that it will retaliate to any attacks against French interest. Israel is threatening a preemptive attack. What constitute preemptive? Is it Pearl Harbour style, Caroline affair of 1837, or Osirak reactor?

Not to mention the 6 day war...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it Pearl Harbour style, Caroline affair of 1837, or Osirak reactor?

Definitely Caroline Affair....pre-emptive attack. The controversial protocol and criteria have developed to include nuclear weapons in accordance with Sofaer's four elements

1. The nature and magnitude of the threat involved

2. The likelihood that the threat will be realized unless preemptive action is taken

3. The availability and exhaustion of alternatives to using force; and

4. Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U.N. Charter and other applicable international agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Canadian manned but commissioned as RN ships. Carried about 20 aircraft with a crew of 1,000 and a maximum speed of 18 kts. Armament consisted of 2-5" guns, 16-40mm bofors and 20-20mm pom-poms.

HMS Nabob and HMS Puncher were canada's first kick at Aircraft carriers.

HMCS Warrior and HMCS Magnificant were canada's first Aircraft carriers

HMCS Bonnventure was Canada's last aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carriers

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between this suggested pre emptive attack and Osirik. To destroy Iran's nuclear program would have to involve Tac nuk wpns as most of it is in deep hardened caverns .....where Osirik involved only free fall conventional bombs, OK and a few dead frenchmen....

but once you introduce nuks to the play ground it becomes a whole different game....enough to perhaps change the minds of a few of the non players in the region....

Edited by Army Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
...but once you introduce nuks to the play ground it becomes a whole different game....enough to perhaps change the minds of a few of the non players in the region....

Agreed....and that is why a new generation of bunker buster was developed to replace the "small" 5,000 lb GBU-28. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) [30,000 lbs], is currently undergoing evaluation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it has been documented that the Iranians have several sites, no doubt heavily fortified from attack.

The weakness with the M.A.D. strategy is the assumption that the threat of mutual destruction would be a deterrent. If you have an insane person who is willing to sacrifice his country so he can wipe out Israel, well then you have a problem that only a pre-emptive bombing run would solve. The other issue would be what happened during the cold war, North Korea, Viet Nam still occurred. Other countries around Iran that do not have WMD might look tempting to Iran.

It's also a mistake to assume that Ahmadinejad has control over whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program and would have the authority to use them. Most Iran-watchers believe that the Grand Ayatollah has the real power, since any decisions by the elected parliament can be struck down by the clerics. Are all of the Iranian leaders insane? My guess is that the wealth and power they enjoy will influence them to keep on living in this world rather than have their country turned into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot. Either way, there is no reasonable expectation that the United States or any world body, will be able to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Right now, the U.S. is trying to negotiate a deal with North Korea, because they recognize there is no feasible way of stopping them through military means; and it's a pipe dream to expect that an air bombardment would work in Iran, and do anything other than set the stage for a wider conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the old tired "what's good for us, big no-no for you". Look how advanced and civilized we're and yet, we'll go and blast out a country for no reason, just because some bonehead decided it's a good idea.

A preemptive nuke attack will do futher volumes of good to our credibility. As if, after Iraq, much of it's left, anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HMS Nabob and HMS Puncher were canada's first kick at Aircraft carriers.

HMCS Warrior and HMCS Magnificant were canada's first Aircraft carriers

HMCS Bonnventure was Canada's last aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carriers

You are correct, sir! The Nabob was one of the superb Bogue class CVEs. She saw a lot of action and even survived a torpedo hit.

--------------------------

Happiness is your dentist telling you it won't hurt and then having him catch his hand in the drill.

---Johnny Carson

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Iran has yet to be shown that it has nuclear weapons and a former President of the US of A (Carter) says that Israel has at least 150 of them; yet you debate military hardware?

You are playing fiddle on the deck of the Titanic, bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Iran has yet to be shown that it has nuclear weapons and a former President of the US of A (Carter) says that Israel has at least 150 of them; yet you debate military hardware?

You are playing fiddle on the deck of the Titanic, bud.

I never miss a chance to talk shop with folks who were actually there.

There's another thread re: Mr Carter's epiphany about Israel's nuclear capabilities.

--------------------------------------

Nice and easy does it everytime.

---Frank Sinatra

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Iran has yet to be shown that it has nuclear weapons and a former President of the US of A (Carter) says that Israel has at least 150 of them; yet you debate military hardware?

Since when do you believe anything a US of A president says?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's also a mistake to assume that Ahmadinejad has control over whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program and would have the authority to use them. Most Iran-watchers believe that the Grand Ayatollah has the real power, since any decisions by the elected parliament can be struck down by the clerics. Are all of the Iranian leaders insane? My guess is that the wealth and power they enjoy will influence them to keep on living in this world rather than have their country turned into a glow-in-the-dark parking lot.

If you look at the Iran/Iraq war, they were willing to sacrafice tens of thousands in human wave attacks, but when Iraq started lauching scuds into wealthy neighbourhoods in Iran, the war ended.

Iran was sure alot more pissed at Iraq than they are at Israel (poison gas and all), but they made peace when the upper class began to suffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...