Do you think Isreal will launch?
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
If Isreal feels threatened Isreal will act in what it perceives are its own best interest without a whole lot of worry.mack said:
1) Why are they 'fools'?mack said:
2) They are making Uranium Hexaflouride (UF6) which is a gaseous precursor to both nuclear and power grade Uranium. They're still quite a way from having actual weapons grade Uranium (HEU) as far as we know, and continue to deny they even have plans to try and produce HEU. The IAEA has yet to find any actual evidence of them going that far.
As for Israel, if Iran does (or is perceived) to proceed to the HEU stage, they may well take action as they have in the past. This would be highly provocative of the Muslim world in general though, as we already have the US in Iraq, and the general feeling amongst Arabs is that Israel is nothing but a local proxy of the US anyway - which it pretty much is.
However a number of commentators have said military strikes against Iran with the intention of destrying such a program would be fairly useless anyway. There are something like 350 known installations where such activity might be taking place, and as I pointed out above, no one actually knows that they are trying to produce HEU or where they would/might be doing so. In this case, any bombing by Israel would essentially be a killing spree with a very low chance of achieving its objectives. Still, that's never stopped them before.
Personally I think it'd be cool if they produced a nuke. Then they used them on each other. It'd get rid of a lot of the fighting for a few decades 
*Dr Evil laugh* Mwuuuuaaaaa ahahaha... hahaha...
*Dr Evil laugh* Mwuuuuaaaaa ahahaha... hahaha...
I hope they do!! TV's been getting kinda boring lately.
Best idea is not to **** with isreal people have tried it before and lost evory time
couse when iran has things that would posably be used as a wepon and such that is agianst isreals best intrest being that iran has been in multaple wars with isreal beforeChangleen said:
Montashu,
Dude, two words: "Spell check".
Why? "couse" it would "posably" be in your best "intrest"
Dude, two words: "Spell check".
Why? "couse" it would "posably" be in your best "intrest"
Well, after your piss poor spelling (I thought about using the word atrocious, but I didn't want to send you looking for your dictionary, because I'm guessing if you could find it, you wouldn't know how to use it) I just have to ask one question.TheMontashu said:
What war has Iran fought with Israel?
Did you know that you misspelt 1 out of every 4 words in that post?
Words over 4 letters long spelt correctly:TheMontashu said:
things
would
being
before
Incorrectly:
couse
posably
wepon
agianst
isreals
intrest
multaple
isreal
Secondly, what about the actual nuclear weapons/advanced air force etc. Israel has that are 'against the interests of the Iranians'? Or are Iranian interests somehow less important than those of the Israelis?
the 6 day war, the yom kipper war to name a few
You're sure about that? Iran?TheMontashu said:
Iran in my view should not have nuclear weapons, no. Iran is a unstable goverment and to have nuclear material floating around is bad. Isreal is threatened by this, as tensions between the countrys have always been high.
From what i understand, Iran said that if Israel blows up its shiny new pressure vessel they will start to randomly fling their missles at Isreal. *the guidance of them is not top notch.
Its bad enough that North Korea has weapons and the USSR republics swimming in the pool as well.
But north korea is a pretty tight country, and i think that the US and China have a pretty good watch on them, as China is trying to increase trade relations with the US, somthing like 5 billion a year. So they have been semi-open on back door information (like the train explosion) *wich killed thousands. The US can track nuclear material from sattelites, i think, but dont quote me on it.
However Iran is more infested with groups aimed on money and different beliefs, if you can get the image im trying to paint here.
The IAEA is useless. Bill Clinton authorized North Korea to get nuclear reactors to 'help' the country, and the world got his word on it. Sure, well when the cameras were unpluged no actions were taken, what could be done? So I think its best not to have a repeat of it again. They (iran) have supposedly stoped production now, but its still very scary. Of course the UN is being very helpfull with "Hans Bricks" as the marionette (sp?) Kim Jung Ill (sp?) says.
dont flame me for my views or spelling.
From what i understand, Iran said that if Israel blows up its shiny new pressure vessel they will start to randomly fling their missles at Isreal. *the guidance of them is not top notch.
Its bad enough that North Korea has weapons and the USSR republics swimming in the pool as well.
But north korea is a pretty tight country, and i think that the US and China have a pretty good watch on them, as China is trying to increase trade relations with the US, somthing like 5 billion a year. So they have been semi-open on back door information (like the train explosion) *wich killed thousands. The US can track nuclear material from sattelites, i think, but dont quote me on it.
However Iran is more infested with groups aimed on money and different beliefs, if you can get the image im trying to paint here.
The IAEA is useless. Bill Clinton authorized North Korea to get nuclear reactors to 'help' the country, and the world got his word on it. Sure, well when the cameras were unpluged no actions were taken, what could be done? So I think its best not to have a repeat of it again. They (iran) have supposedly stoped production now, but its still very scary. Of course the UN is being very helpfull with "Hans Bricks" as the marionette (sp?) Kim Jung Ill (sp?) says.
dont flame me for my views or spelling.
Silver Silver Silver, your thinking of the Yom Kippur war.When the Montashu talks about the Yom Kipper war he is obviously referring to that little known conflict (some would say clandestine warSilver said:
) fought over dried and salted herring back in 1982. 
Arguably Iran's governement is more stable than Israel's; after all which country has had more changes of prime minister in the last ten years?mack said:
Also if, as you rightly point out, tensions have been high between Israel and Iran and Israels might be threatened bu Iran having nuclear weapons, why would Iran not feel threatened by Israel having nuclear weapons. Which of the two states has started wars in the last fifty years?
I do not like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, but I cannot see how it is possible to justify Israel having them whilst denying them to Iran.
But he meant:TheMontashu said:
However even the mythical Montashu is wrong, the idea of Israeli invincibility is a myth as illustrated by events in the Lebanon in 1982 and the early days of the Yom Kippur (or Yom Kipper to Monty) war.A mythical literate TheMontashu said:
I do enjoy Monty's posts though, he's a bit like a faulty Enigma machine...
The Yom Kippur war actually added to that supposed "myth" of yours. If anything the Yom Kippur War created the myth. Even with overwhelming forces, overwhelming surprise, an attack on multiple fronts, and with the Israelis at their most unprepared time the Arabs were completely unable to carry the offensive for more than two days. And little more than two weeks later the Egyptians got saved from complete disaster when the UN Security Council finally stepped in (an action that it had been unwilling to take while the Arabs were on the offensive, thanks to the Soviets and Kurt Waldheim.)fluff said:
How did Lebanon have that effect? It seemed to me that they rolled thru Lebanon without too much effort.
Closer examination of the Yom Kippur war uncovers a few additional points. Rather than being caught unawares the fact that it was a national holiday actually assisted Israel as almost all the reservists who needed to be called up were at home and the roads were nigh on empty, ensuring a more rapid deployment of necessary reserve forces. Also Israel was on the verge of a disaster when the Arab forces gave up the attack and failed to force home their advantage. The Israeli victory was less a case of them snatching victory from the jaws of defeat so much as the Arabs (Egypt particularly) snatching defeat from the Jaws of victory. The Arab nations lacked ambition, not ability, they achieved their objectives far more rapidly than expected and failed to annihilate Israel only because they never intended to do so. Once they gave Israel time to recover and deploy their superior forces it was inevitable that the tide would turn. Whilst Israel was indeed fighting on multiple fronts they also had far shorter supply lines. And it is worth remembering that Israel has never had to face an enemy that is better equipped.DRB said:
And yes, Israel rolled through Lebanon, but failed to achieve anything remotely approaching victory, the episode forcing Begin's resignation and nearly ending Sharon's political career. In much the same way that Vietnam was not a US victory neither was Lebanon an Israeli victory.
It is a myth, the thing about myths is so many people take them as facts.
All this tells me is that the Arab military and political commanders were stupid. I agree that the objectives of the Arab attack were limited. The stated goals of the Egyptians were to retake the Sinai, the actual objectives was to simply retake both banks of the Suez. As for the Syrians, the stated objective was to take the Golan Heights and move on Haifa but again the Golan was the real objective. Regardless of stated and/or intended goals, if the Arabs had been able to press the advantage further they would have. By doing so would have better ensured that their objectives were met. BUT in neither case were they able to hedge their initial tactical superiority in any meaningful way.
Tactically the Israelis made it possible to be in a position to use the reserves when they did get rolling. They knew they could trade space for time in the Sinai which they did. Subsequently they knew they had to stop the Syrians at the Golan Heights which due to some very heroic and bold maneuvers with some luck they were able to hold.
When the reserves were available they tactically and strategically again made the right decisions. Deal with the Syrians and then turn to face the Egyptians. They drove to within artillery range of Damascus and were facing litte or no opposition on the way to Cairo. Again only thru pressure from Soviet intervention and US and UN pressure did the Israelis back off.
In reality you have to go no farther than the fact that never again did organized military forces attack Israel in any meaningful way. If the Arabs were unable to beat the IDF with the advantages they had marshalled then it was unlikely that they ever would. What it did do was drive the Israelis to explore and more agressively expand the nuclear portion of their arsenal.
In the long run Sadat and Egypt got what they wanted. Sinai and peace with Israel. It also got Sadat killed by Muslim extremists.
Tactically the Israelis made it possible to be in a position to use the reserves when they did get rolling. They knew they could trade space for time in the Sinai which they did. Subsequently they knew they had to stop the Syrians at the Golan Heights which due to some very heroic and bold maneuvers with some luck they were able to hold.
When the reserves were available they tactically and strategically again made the right decisions. Deal with the Syrians and then turn to face the Egyptians. They drove to within artillery range of Damascus and were facing litte or no opposition on the way to Cairo. Again only thru pressure from Soviet intervention and US and UN pressure did the Israelis back off.
In reality you have to go no farther than the fact that never again did organized military forces attack Israel in any meaningful way. If the Arabs were unable to beat the IDF with the advantages they had marshalled then it was unlikely that they ever would. What it did do was drive the Israelis to explore and more agressively expand the nuclear portion of their arsenal.
In the long run Sadat and Egypt got what they wanted. Sinai and peace with Israel. It also got Sadat killed by Muslim extremists.
umm i sense a thread derailment. and uhhh isnt the montashu like 12 er something? y is he in this forum?
Dude, you're missing the point. I did not say that Israel were defeated, I just said that their myth of invincibility was just that - a myth, and the early stages of Yom Kippur made them realise that, even if most of the rest of the world has not caught up.DRB said:
That they have not been attacked since does not mean that the Arabs see them as invincible any more than Lisa's rock really scares tigers. If anything Hizbollah made them look vulnerable in 1982.
No I think you are missing the point. But let me spell it out very simply...fluff said:
1. With the tactical and strategic surprise clearly on their side.
2. The IDF at is lowest point of readiness due to intelligence and political failures.
3. On the holiest of their holidays.
4. A starting battlefield with an overwhelming numerical superiority in both men and materials.
5. A two front attack.
And in the end the Arab Nations still couldn't overcome the Israelis.
I think that you underestimate the Arabs ability to learn a lesson. They realized that there was no way in the short to mid term they would be able to militarily stay on the same field as the Israelis from what they learned during the Yom Kippur War. The myth had been proven true to the Arabs.
Shoot Sadat knew that before he started that war. His hope was that he could grab a little sliver of territory securing the Suez and hold that and let the UN sort the rest out. The couldn't even do that militarily. In the end the fact that the whole thing about turned into a dust up between the US and USSR, was what ended up getting Egypt what it wanted diplomatically. Due to much arm twisting on the part of the US and promises of increased military aid and support to the Israelis, the Israelis eventually gave up the Sinai.
If the tiger had been cracked across the head everytime it came across Lisa and her rock it would stop messing with Lisa.
Whatever. Go read some history, not even the Israelis saw it as a roaring success hence the Chief of Staff was sacked and the defence minister (Moshe Dayan) resigned shortly afterwards. Believe your myths for all I care.DRB said:
Your right, the Israel probably shouldnt have the bomb, but they do, just because they have one doesnt mean that Iran should have one too.
I think that the US kinda helped them get the bomb in the 70s to make sure that some one there had some non-islamic power, and since the 2 are close allies it makes sence. And at the time ICBm's technology was expensive (just my own thought here, no evidence to prove it) and the US kinda wanted a pupet state to have the bomb just in case some ass kicking was needed to be done.
in then end these problems can all be traced to one thing...
religion.
no religion is good religion
I think that the US kinda helped them get the bomb in the 70s to make sure that some one there had some non-islamic power, and since the 2 are close allies it makes sence. And at the time ICBm's technology was expensive (just my own thought here, no evidence to prove it) and the US kinda wanted a pupet state to have the bomb just in case some ass kicking was needed to be done.
in then end these problems can all be traced to one thing...
religion.
no religion is good religion