• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

US - Iran - Israel | Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd-28th | Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
The ME isn't going to gang up on Israel if the US attacks Iran. The ME hates Iran.
Yep, just lip service, or fear of getting caught in the crossfire. Same dynamic with the Palestinian issue, a lot of Middle East governments talk, but do very little, and could actually care less unless they can use the Palestinian suffering to their advantage.

Maybe ask Egypt why it hasn’t taken in Palestinians (outside of limited medical cases for kids, often with the intent to move them elsewhere) since October 7.

Heck, a lot of Iranians don’t care much for the Palestinian cause either. Hard to blame Iranian people when they’re dealing with water shortages and basic commodity problems, while their government spends what little the country generates on proxy groups instead of investing back at home.

Note: Don’t twist this into “Palestinians are terrorists.” That’s not what I said. I’m talking about the Iranian regime funding terrorist organizations like Hamas, which is based in Gaza. Big difference. Please read before responding.
 
Personally i'm not so sure. I beleive Iran has the amount of missiles required to devastate israel to the point of panic enough to launch nukes at Iran. Iran hasn't used it's best missiles yet, only old stuff mostly just like western support for ukraine and russian responses mostly aswell. Everyone seems to be depleting old stock in conflicts first .
So Iran got the shit bombed out of them for 12 days in a conflict where nobody knew what would happen, took massive destruction of their nuclear facilities and air defenses, lost numerous high ranking officials, but decided to save their best missiles for a more appropriate time? They would’ve been well within their legal rights to respond harshly against the U.S. and Israel during the 12 days war but did nothing. If they have a stockpile they could’ve unleashed, why not do it? To be clear, Iran and their proxies probably have a decent number of munitions, but they are quite crude in comparison to their western counterparts.
 
So Iran got the shit bombed out of them for 12 days in a conflict where nobody knew what would happen, took massive destruction of their nuclear facilities and air defenses, lost numerous high ranking officials, but decided to save their best missiles for a more appropriate time? They would’ve been well within their legal rights to respond harshly against the U.S. and Israel during the 12 days war but did nothing. If they have a stockpile they could’ve unleashed, why not do it? To be clear, Iran and their proxies probably have a decent number of munitions, but they are quite crude in comparison to their western counterparts.
Iran got the shit bombed out of them for 12 days 🤣😂🤣
Destruction of nuclear facilities 🤣😂🤣
Oh dear you do you .
Why the hell would iran be stupid enough to deplete their real only defence offence capability? Especially since those situations from the US and Israel was so small,limited and no real risk to the country,please 🙄. The 12 day war was no threat to Iran either and they knew it simply from what they received and the limited inventory in the region. 12 days like you said. They didn't surrender. It stopped because israel couldn't keep up with air defence and american supplies needed replenishment aswell. Hence 12 days. Hence the difference in build up this time around by the US and Israel to sustain a longer more brutal attack to try and collapse the regime because previous attempts kept failing. As this one will . To change the regime in Iran their are only 2 possible options left . 1. Nuke the whole country . Or 2. Invade defeat occupy and remain. Anything less fails everytime. Economically fails.
Protests fails
MIlitary strikes eg. 12 days etc fails.
Terrorists attacks eg. Beeper bombs etc fails.
The western efforts in ME conflicts rarely if at all fail to acheive any long term change full stop.
The only reason this shit show will be devastating compared to previous failures is the obvious massive build up by the US and Israel. Iran can plainly see the different threat level just like everyone else. This conflict imo will affect everyone. Fuel prices etc will put the world into recession. Populations not even involved will suffer in living standards. The end cost of this shit show will far far out way any result as usual only on a global massive scale. End result Iran survives and continues. The west suffers economically on such a massive scale the recovery time and damage caused far out ways any beneficial results if any from attempting to do what ever it is they are trying to do to Iran. Western medling ,power projection and wars have acheived bugger all in the long term through out the ME. Costs are never truly justified in the end. This may beat up Iran for while but won't change shit in the long run meaning the costs involved = loss once again.
Winning battles isn't winning wars. Costs far out way long term results also = LOSS. No shot fired yet and end result is obvious. Stupidity at its finest.
 
So why are my questions so hard to directly answer ? I never suggested ME gang up on israel. My regional war comment is because i think irans target lists involve many ME countries due to US bases.
Question list again looking for direct answers to each without deflection.
1. Rescue plan for carrier sailors should it arise?
2. Amount of israeli nuclear weapons?
3. Possible israeli nuclear targets including outside of iran?
A rescue in the water would be strait forward,
if a crew goes down on land, there are too many variables,
Likely a scenario between the rescues in the Balkans, Desert storm, and Vietnam will likely come into play,

As for weapon supply, one can google this, I think the ultimate in that answer is a best guess.

In this current potential conflict, I think the use of Nukes is less than 1.3879 % chance. Thus the only serious nuclear related targets will be Iranian lines of production.
 
A rescue in the water would be strait forward,
if a crew goes down on land, there are too many variables,
Likely a scenario between the rescues in the Balkans, Desert storm, and Vietnam will likely come into play,

As for weapon supply, one can google this, I think the ultimate in that answer is a best guess.

In this current potential conflict, I think the use of Nukes is less than 1.3879 % chance. Thus the only serious nuclear related targets will be Iranian lines of production.
The rescue refered to a carrier so i was thinking 3000-4000 possible swimmers. How would that be straight forward during conflict? That would be difficult without conflict.
 
👀👇
The U.S. military bombed the USS America for 4 weeks with missiles and bombs, and it STILL didn't sink. They had to blow it up from the inside. Yet Islamic Republic, with old weapons, threatens to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln.
I mean if the US military itself couldn't sink its own Aircraft carrier with bombs. Not sure how Iran think it's gonna.

Could Iran disable a Aircraft carrier? Maybe. But not sink it. That's almost impossible short of a nuclear weapon which even then aircraft carriers are designed to withstand not a direct hit but withstand being in a blast radius of a nuclear detonation.
 
👀👇
The U.S. military bombed the USS America for 4 weeks with missiles and bombs, and it STILL didn't sink. They had to blow it up from the inside. Yet Islamic Republic, with old weapons, threatens to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Yeah yeah yeah. Think new missiles , consider mines and subs. Imagine Iran stole a drone in mid flight and remotely landed it safely (obama). Oh no imagination needed their. What is so hard about worse case scenario here. After all we do admit American mainland could be severely attacked by 100s if not 1000s of nukes?
 
I mean if the US military itself couldn't sink its own Aircraft carrier with bombs. Not sure how Iran think it's gonna.

Could Iran disable a Aircraft carrier? Maybe. But not sink it. That's almost impossible short of a nuclear weapon which even then aircraft carriers are designed to withstand not a direct hit but withstand being in a blast radius of a nuclear detonation.
You only have to hit the deck to mission kill an aircraft carrier.
 
Does anyone know israels nuclear targets ? And amount of nuclear weapons? Considering no one could sensibly answer my question on aircraft carrier crew rescue situation hopefully these 2 questions maybe a little less challenging
Israel has never confirmed they possess nuclear weapons, of course, but it is presumed they have approximately 80. My understanding is they are all plane-delivered, but that's older information, so don't quote me on it.

What aircraft carrier rescue situation question did you ask? I didn't see it.
 
Israel has never confirmed they possess nuclear weapons, of course, but it is presumed they have approximately 80. My understanding is they are all plane-delivered, but that's older information, so don't quote me on it.

What aircraft carrier rescue situation question did you ask? I didn't see it.
Should a carrier sink what was the procedure to rescue approx 3-4000 sailors?
 
So why are my questions so hard to directly answer ? I never suggested ME gang up on israel. My regional war comment is because i think irans target lists involve many ME countries due to US bases.
I didn't see this earlier.

Question list again looking for direct answers to each without deflection.
1. Rescue plan for carrier sailors should it arise?
Complicated and dependent on a lot of variables. It takes a while for a ship that size to sink. However, all carriers have lifeboats they can deploy in the event the ship is sinking. They are also going to launch as many aircraft with crew aboard as possible, assuming they can continue flight operations. Beyond that, all other external rescue options are in play, including other Navy vessels, support aircraft, and submarines if necessary.

2. Amount of israeli nuclear weapons?
Approximately 80 warheads. That is an old figure from the 70s. They probably have more now. Israel's nuclear capacity isn't my specialty, but I do know Israel came very close to using them both during the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War.

3. Possible israeli nuclear targets including outside of iran?
Again, complicated and situational. Up until recently, Israel was the most likely nation to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. Figure the capitol city of any aggressor nation is an automatic. They might also include attacks on nations with a history of aggression against Israel to prevent them from taking advantage of the situation and invading. There is also the mythology behind their "Samson Option," which can mean different things depending on whom you ask. One scenario is it is a plan for a massive nuclear strike against a conventional attacker to put a quick end to the war. Another, and probably less likely possibility, is it is more of a "scorched earth" plan to use every single nuclear weapon they have against anyone within range, including non-combatant nations, to be used only if Israel's destruction is imminent.
 
I didn't see this earlier.


Complicated and dependent on a lot of variables. It takes a while for a ship that size to sink. However, all carriers have lifeboats they can deploy in the event the ship is sinking. They are also going to launch as many aircraft with crew aboard as possible, assuming they can continue flight operations. Beyond that, all other external rescue options are in play, including other Navy vessels, support aircraft, and submarines if necessary.


Approximately 80 warheads. That is an old figure from the 70s. They probably have more now. Israel's nuclear capacity isn't my specialty, but I do know Israel came very close to using them both during the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War.


Again, complicated and situational. Up until recently, Israel was the most likely nation to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. Figure the capitol city of any aggressor nation is an automatic. They might also include attacks on nations with a history of aggression against Israel to prevent them from taking advantage of the situation and invading. There is also the mythology behind their "Samson Option," which can mean different things depending on whom you ask. One scenario is it is a plan for a massive nuclear strike against a conventional attacker to put a quick end to the war. Another, and probably less likely possibility, is it is more of a "scorched earth" plan to use every single nuclear weapon they have against anyone within range, including non-combatant nations, to be used only if Israel's destruction is imminent.
Thankyou 👍🤝
 
Iran agreed on a €500M arms deal with Russia in December to acquire thousands of advanced shoulder-fired missiles in its most significant effort to rebuild air defences shattered during last year’s war with Israel, reports FT.
Well, that’s just great. They’re probably going to have to wait a decade for it to arrive, if it arrives at all. Ask India how Russian arms procurement has gone... delays, delays, delays, and eventually ‘fine, we’ll build it ourselves’ or ‘we’ll buy it from literally anyone else.’

This feels like virtue signaling. Big headline, questionable delivery, and the schedule is apparently ‘sometime after the heat death of the universe.’

Russia is losing its own war/full scale invasion to help anyone else atm.
 
Interesting notes from another media contributor. They quote Mr W

Date on this Feb22

Conflicting reports on readiness to build.

Thoughts?
I feel this gets posted Everytime there’s talk of military action against Iran.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom