Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.


Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.



--
If Americans knew about Israel's treatment of non-Jews they would turn
against Israel as fast as they did against apartheid South Africa.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3737
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer wrote:

Nothing coherent.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Matt Giwer wrote:


How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What other
than slaughter prisoners?

Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.

Bob Kolker

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.

I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.

And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world. In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction. There really no intermediate use for them.

In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
other than slaughter prisoners?

Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.

That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
fact did nothing to end the war. It was Grant willing to throw men to the
slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
replacement troops. But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
not like he was sending real Americans.

--
If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Dan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

Nothing coherent.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Nothing you can answer.

There was no lawful basis for the war on Iraq. Therefore all the Iraqi soldiers
who did their patriotic duty in defending their country from foreign aggression
were murdered by Americans.

Israelis are in fact a lawful target under international law.

Since the early 1920s Zionists did go to Palestine with the openly stated
intention to kill or drive off the Palestinians and steal their land.

Those are all facts. That the facts do not agree with your fantasy life is no
interest of mine.

--
Whatever happened in the holy holocaust, ending it was never important
enough to generate the least bit of gratitude.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3726
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of
thousands of civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and
even more slowly downwind with fallout? After homes and family are
destroyed what interest does the Iranian army have in peace? What
other than slaughter prisoners?

Once the civillian infrastructure is destroyed the army cannot be
resupplied. This was General Sherman's great discovery. If you want to
defeat the army, defeat the civillians.

That is what they said would happen in WWII but it did not happen. Sherman in
fact did nothing to end the war.

Wrong.

It was Grant willing to throw men to the
slaughter to get a 1:5 exchange ratio

Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?

with Lee eventually depleting his forces.
Recognizing what kind of sub-human was Grant he surrendered for lack of
replacement troops.

Oh, I see...you really don't know what you're talking about.

But Grant was sending new immigrants to be slaughter. It was
not like he was sending real Americans.

Wrong again. You should really read some history on the Overland
Campaign....it was, overall, a masterful campaign. (Now's your chance
to say "Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor! Cold Harbor!")

--
If the Iraqi army were running loose in the US I would kill them just for
the fun of it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3719
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.

I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.


As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.


Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.


Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.

And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.


There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.


In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?


--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

Matt Giwer wrote:


In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in
WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they
get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to
resist" which has NEVER happened.

Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Bob Kolker

wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:

If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.

All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.

Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.

Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.


Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

This guy also seems to ignore the US's truly prodigious capability to
move people and goods by air...which the Iranians would have virtually
no ability to block...also the US's ability to rain destruction onto
Iran from above...even without going nuclear...which, if "properly"
implemented (don't hit civilian targets at all and stay away from
military targets that have a higher probability of collateral damage)
against the Iranian military only...would tend to destabilize the
mullahs and either destroy Iran's ability to make war OR bottle the
Iranian armed forces up in their cities...
If the mullahs could be shown to be ineffective against the US while at
the same time being hammered relentlessly militarily and causing "a
little" discomfort to the Iranian people only, the mullahs will lose
credibility with their own people and would likely be overthrown...from
within.
Remember, the only place in the Muslim world where there were
spontaneous demonstrations of SORROW and SADNESS and in SUPPORT of the
US after 9/11 was in IRANIAN cities...for God sake, built of that, don't
squander it like Bush senior and Bush junior did in Iraq...

....Ken