How Do You Rate the Chances of a Military Confrontation Between the US and Iran?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Iranian Monitor, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    I saw a TV program yesterday suggesting USA could conduct a missile attack on Iran from the US mainland, not needing any Mideast forces. Did anyone else see it or know what network it was on? (Not that I'm suggesting that we do this)
     
  2. sardus_pater

    sardus_pater Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Sardinia Italy EU
    Club:
    Cagliari Calcio
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    Probably it's me but i fail to see where is the comedy in what you said.

    Was it the idea of a carpet bombing of populated areas?
    Then it's iranians who are dangerous paranoids...
     
  3. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    It was on Fox News' special Iran: Nuclear Threat

    http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/articles/article.php?id=15
     
  4. 352klr

    352klr Member+

    Jan 29, 2001
    The Burgh of Edin
    Apparently you've never heard of MASINT.
     
  5. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I advised Iranian expats stay safe in the West. The ":D" indicated that I was joking when I wished that Iranian Monitor would not heed that advice. You're right, it's not funny, which is why I deleted it. I didn't anticipate that it would take so long to respond after clicking "quote"
     
  6. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    That conversation posted by Ben is as enligthening as the sources that held it and the source that then republished it.

    What does Bushehr have to do with Iran building a bomb? Iran could build a bomb without Bushehr! Arak and Natanz are relevant, but Iran does not need such extensive facilities for a simple (a couple of nukes per year) program. Natanz is built to house 50,000 centrifgures. That is enough to allow Iran to build 40 nukes a year, although the real reason for the number of centrifuges Natanz is meant to house is simple: while you need much less to build a few bombs, you need that many to have a real civilian nuclear fuel program.

    Anyway, here is an article by Newsweek that reflects the views of its sources (Israeli analysts, American ones, as well as those from IAEA).

    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8443649/site/newsweek/

     
  7. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I responded directly to a question about which tv program JBigjake viewed. I answered "Iran: Nuclear Threat" on Fox News and included a transcript of the part he mentioned.
     
  8. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  9. sardus_pater

    sardus_pater Member

    Mar 21, 2004
    Sardinia Italy EU
    Club:
    Cagliari Calcio
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    ah... I see. You were unlucky.

    Truth is the post was meant to be much longer then I changed my mind and deleted the most of it.
    I realized it was useless.
    I realized it before clicking "submit reply". ;)

    Add to it that I am usually slow in replying both because of my english and my habit to think in italian and both because i usually check and check again what I say.

    You amended yourself by deleting the message btw, Ben. That's good.

    Go and don't sin anymore.
     
  10. !Bob

    !Bob Member

    Apr 28, 2005
    UK
    First of all, I would like to thank nicephoras for showing that he really doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. If you start preaching in other threads I can direct you to this post.

    Agreed.


    You need to ask yourself the essential question, why? If the aim is to get rid of the "murdering mullahs", a simple air strike will affect Iran's military power however the bitter public will more likely than not rally behind the mullahs even more so as opposed to the aggressors just as they have done previously (I'm sure you know of this!) There is the alternative that they will feel sick and tired of the mullahs for bringing the wrath of America upon them but given the way Iranians think this is not very likely. I would like to go into it, but it would take too long.

    The alternative reasoning would be to get rid of Iran's nuclear threat. As of now, there has been no evidence that Iran is developing such a program but if you ask your average Joe in America from what they have been presented with in the media, they think Iran has nukes or if America doesn't attack soon they will get them in the next few weeks! Plus, Iran's sole ambition is to develp nukes and hit the Americans! Hell they might even think that the nukes are already pointed at the East coast. The nuclear program if for military purposes cannot be prevented by airstrikes against the stated sites. Do you really think if Iran was building nukes, the sites they've told everyone and allowed IAEA to investigate would be where they keep their plans! It might delay a weapons programs but given the stage Iran is at, it would merely push it underground and perhaps add more incentive for the Iranians to develop it.

    There is the possibility of oil reasons which I'd rather not go into but I'm pretty sure a simple air strike will not suffice there either.

    The alternative to both is a ground invasion with air strikes which would be very difficult for the US at its present state.



    erm... :confused: So I'm assuming that the fire bombings in Japan, the nuclear bombs against Japan and the bombing of Germany were all aimed at military targets with all cautions taken against civilian casualties. A gem, a true gem nicephoras.


    I'm sorry but I thought normally if the air strike did the deal there would be no need for troops to move in. Maybe that's just me! I love the fact you are saying air strikes alone sufficed but then US troops went in. So America bombed the hell out of Iraq and after they won the war, for the hell of it decided to go in? The objectives of the war were to find and neutralise the WMDs, destroy any terrorist cells/links and then later to free Iraq and regime change (depending on when you listened to the reasoning for the war). None of those could have been achieved merely with air strikes.

    The alternative is that you are saying that the air superiority allowed for a destruction of the Iraqi military and hence an easy victory for the ground troops. Isn't that what I said? So you are disagreeing with me but as the alternative reasoning are saying exactly what I'd been saying in vague language, trying to portraying that is not exactly the case!


    Refer to above. The point is of an invasion with air support!!! I'm pretty sure Napolean's tactics did not involve air superiority and destruction of key military and command installations before or during the invasion.

    It's OK. I assume you forgot the thinking before posting time here.

    PS for the extract by Ben to answer Jake's question; Fox :D
     
  11. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    well I didn't know S-400, S-300 are outdated and untested (even a S-200 can be useful when used in a combination with fighters).... but anyways degrading any arm which is not American made is like habit for you guys! ;)
     
  12. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I think the discussion regarding US military options would be helped if you ask how Iran could make a nuclear weapon?

    For countries that do not have the infrastructure to have a complete nuclear fuel cycle program, any hope of building nuclear weapons basically rested on using fuel from nuclear reactors and diverting it to a weapons program. This is what North Korea was doing in the 1990s, what Saddam was trying to do with Oserick, and how a lot of other countries like Israel became nuclear powers.

    There are dozens of countries with civilian nuclear reactors, but only a handful (less than 10) that have a full fuel cycle program and capabiility. Iran is one of them. What does that mean?

    It means Iran possess (a) the natural uranium deposits, (b) the mining infrastructure to extract those deposits; (c) the ability to turn those deposits into uranium yellow cake (d) process the uranium yellow cake into uranium hexofloride (precursor which is fed into centrifuge machines) and (e) enrich the uranium hex using uranium centifgue machines, turning into nuclear fuel.

    Once you have this ability, you can enrich uranium to the degree that is appropriate for nuclear fuel for a civilian reactor. Or you can enrich it further for a nuclear bomb.

    Bushehr is very important for Iran's civilian nuclear energy program, but it is irrelevant to any nuclear weapons program Iran might have right now since Iran wants to product its own fuel, not divert the imported fuel from Bushehr. So this idea that you take out the Bushehr reactor and somehow the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program is delayed itself betrays a lack of a clear idea about we are talking about.

    US air strikes can limit and delay any Iranian nuclear weapons program by being able to destory the installations I mentioned that mine uranium, reprocess it, and enrich them. Some of these installations cannot be easily hidden or sufficiently protected against US air strikes. (Israel does not have the capability to get at them).

    But here is the crux of the problem. Iran already has reprocessed enough uranium hexofloride for potentially 5 nuclear bombs. As long as Iran can safeguard this product, the rest of the route to making the bomb (if Iran so intended) can be done outside of Natanz. The centrifuge facility at Natanz is huge; it is designed to house 50,000 centrifuge matchines. That is enough to make 40 nuclear bombs a year. It only require a few thousand centrifuges, operated in a cascade, located practically anywhere, to turn the uranium hex Iran has into the material needed to build a nuclear bomb.

    What this all mean? It means that air strikes are capable of damaging Iran's economy, eroding Iran's military capablities, of setting back several years Iran's nuclear energy program, but they are not going to be able to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb. And that is just relying on what Iran has made public about its program. If Iran has a secret program already, Iran would and should have all it needs for several nuclear bombs.

    P.S.

    Air strikes can prevent Iran from one day becoming a major nuclear weapons power. If Iran was allowed to continue on the path it has in mind, it could easily switch its program and build enough nukes to be one of the leading nuclear powers in the world behind only the US, Russia and China. The full range of Iranian program, from Natanz to Arak, if used for a nuclear weapons program can allow Iran to build more 50 nuclear weapons each year. In other words, in less than 5 years, Iran would surpass the stockpile Israel is believed to have accumulated. That, and the hope that somehow the bombings could result in some sort of a regime change, or they will get lucky and disrupt the program enough to even prevent the few nukes Iran should be capable of making even right now, is what some pro-Israeli folks are banking on in advocating air strikes.
     
  13. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Going on what has been shown in recent wars it has been proven that US designs have exceded expectations in the battle zone. I would submit that since the US has been able to field test our equipment under actual combat that we have a decided advantage now. I am not saying that what Iran has won't work, but the chance to use those weapons may be suppressed early on in any combat.
     
  14. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    didn't you say you had army training?.... now tell me if Iran puts 10-15 of these S-400s around each potential military target... will US be willing to scarify at least 7 fighters on each of these targets?.... so before even going into the discussion about how effective our domestically built stuff are(Iranian engineers are brilliant enough to come up with effective stuff and the latest solid fuel system for our ballistic missiles is proof of my claim), just tell me what is the plan against Iran's anti air strike system?
     
  15. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Perhaps you have heard of a missile called the Tomahawk? Oh gee solid fuel system missiles, I think the US had those in the 50's. Way to catch up with our distant past.

    Also if you light up your radar to enable your aa systems, they will be blow apart with Anti-radar missiles before they ever have a chance to even try and find our stealth aircraft.
     
  16. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I should also point out that they lack the range to hit the B-52 Bombers so again putting 10-15 around any viable target will just increase the losses to your air defenses.
     
  17. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    yeap I heard about Tomahawk and it's perfect accuracy beside there is no way to shoot it down! :rolleyes: .... also thanks for the excellent display of ignorance about the solid fuel system.... it's like saying Benz came up with a new breaking system for their cars then some fool will jump in and say “wasn't car break invented 100 years ago!!?” :D
     
  18. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    B-52 Bombers? wow I heard so much about those... they have proven to be untouchable indeed ;)
     
  19. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Lets see you try and shoot down a Tomahawk. Good luck. The untested, unproven systems that you brag about are nothing compared to the much better quality and tested systems the US has. Of course if you had ever served in the Military, not that YOU would, you would quickly realize the folly of your BS posts.

    You talk about the solid fuel systems like they are some great innovation, they aren't. You talk about Iran being able to go nuclear, yeah big deal there, we did it in the 40's.
     
  20. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Ok, in Iraq and in Afghanistan name one B-52 that has been shot down?

    Do you even know the range of the systems you are speaking of? Do you know the altitude that a B-52 flies at? Or a B-1B?

    Do you understand that a tomahawk can fly mere feet off the ground and be directed by GPS to a target? At that low of a flight path, the aa missiles Iran has wouldn't even get halfway through acceralation before they are too high for the intercept. Of course it isn't like you have Patriots systems there.

    After you have been in the military then come back and talk about weapons systems. Your ignorance is matched only by your stupidity.
     
  21. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    like I said I completely ignored Iran’s domestically made stuff... and S-400, S-300 and S-200 are not untested and unproven.... but sure man if degrading other countries’ arms really makes you feel better so be it!
     
  22. JBigjake

    JBigjake Member+

    Nov 16, 2003
    Perhaps the saddest aspect of this entire discussion is that two nations which are thousands of miles apart, whose populations appear to know little and care less about each other, can come to the point of military confrontation. The US government sees Iran as an incubator of terrorists and religious extremists. Iran sees the USA as seeking domination over the Middle East and an incubator of secular threats to its culture/religion. I fear for the future as more nations join the nuclear club, with the risk that one will directly or secretly use that weapon. If a nuclear device, tactical or "dirty", is deployed anywhere in the world, retaliation against the real or suspected source may lead to full-scale destruction world-wide. The fear of such an event in the USA may influence our government's effort to limit nuclear expansion elsewhere by conventional military means. Although that did not happen regarding the USSR, or even Pakistan or India, Iran is perceived as a more direct threat as a "sponsor" of terrorism. I never cease to be amazed that countries such as Pakistan & India, and now North Korea & Iran, seem more concerned about a nuclear program that the well-being of their own impoverished people.
     
  23. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Red Card

    Feb 13, 2004
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Degrading how? By stating that they have proven ineffective to date against US systems? Frankly not much made by the Soviets has proven worth a ******** against US systems in the past 50 years. Some has had great success, but all in all, the US stuff has been remarkedly better. Just look at the Israeli-Arab wars. Desert Storm, Gulf War II. Hell even in Nam, we made some crap there, but the lessons were learned.
     
  24. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    Iraq?!!! Afghanistan?!!!.... so if Iran wants to test and prove its arms they should go attack Maldives ;)

    not a waroholic (it says Iranian in my passport not American) so can't give you the numbers but Google is just clicks away!
    so what you are saying is that Iran is completely defenseless when it comes to air strike from America.... Russians tend to disagree on that....
    man you are so harsh... I'll be sure to put down your name in my suicide note as the sole reason of my suicide after reading this! :rolleyes: .... but seriously I'm keen to know that have you ever managed to insult anyone in your life? full credit for the try though!
     
  25. Kamran

    Kamran Member

    Nov 19, 2004
    Melbourne - AUS
    Club:
    Perspolis
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    I have to disagree on the fact that Iranians know little about America... just go through this thread as an example and see the stereotyped used by both sides, you'll see what I mean.....

    India, Pakistan and NK are way more likely to actually use a nuclear bomb.... first 2 being America's allies there is no pressure on them regarding their already established nuclear facilities.... like always America has proven that the goal is not "bringing peace to the world" if it was anything close to this the whole charity would have started at home and among the allies...
     

Share This Page