A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 12th 07, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Robert Kolker wrote:
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.


Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

--
A cakewalk to a death march in three easy neocon steps.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3722
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
  #22  
Old January 12th 07, 12:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Ken Chaddock wrote:
....
This guy also seems to ignore


As preamble I have a practical understanding of it and its limitations.

the US's truly prodigious capability to move people and goods by air...


And if you look it you will discover it is all shock force troops to hold an
area until the bulk of the troops arrive by conventional means. You will also
learn it is a fair weather capability and anyone can download satellite images
and predict the weather.

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...


The destruction from above would play well at home and it might even be true
that no civilians were harmed. But in the middle east it will be portrayed as
targeting civilians and everyone there will believe it. Look at what Americans
still believe about WWII if you don't think that will happen.

As for aerial bombing I repeat, it failed in Germany during WWII. It increased
not decreased the will to resist. It has increased the will to resist every time
it has been tried. Both Vietnams, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Serbia you name it. It
has always been troops on the ground that have been the deciding factor. For the
US in Afghanistan it was the alliance with the drug lords and their mercenaries
that provided the troops.

Why in the world would you talk about bottling up Iranian troops in the cities
as troops are not stationed in cities in the first place? In any confrontation
they would be augmenting the Shia in the south and east of Iraq cutting off the
land resupply from Kuwait. There is no way the US has the ability to air supply
what is brought in from Kuwait. And if that is tried ****loads of shoulder fired
AA rockets are going to find their way into Iraq to bring them down.

Am I pessimistic? The last I heard planes landing at Baghdad airport still
spiral in to avoid fire from the ground. Last I heard which was only six months
ago the FIVE MILES of city street from the airport to the Green Zone still is
NOT secured.

Please tell me how all this is suddenly going to turn around.

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.


And that is on the assumption that Iranians are really Americans trying to get
out from under the religious leadership. If they are overthrown they will be
replaced by some group that is more effective against the American attacks. That
is exactly what Americans would do if this country were under attack and losing
because of incompetent leadership. Why do you assume Iranians would do
differently from Americans?

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...


It was squandered on Iran when the US attacked Afghanistan three months after
9/11 without justification and based upon a war announced in MARCH 2001.

It was not the only place. Despite the Zionists lies the Palestinians also
expressed sympathy while Netanyahu said 9/11 was a good thing for Israel.

--
Before the Iraq war Brad Pitt was ridiculed for filming kite flying in
Baghdad. Looks like he was right.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3730
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Lawful to bomb Israelis http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a11
  #23  
Old January 12th 07, 12:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Ken Chaddock wrote:

When considering US superior technology here is a question that a far from a
trick question.

The US constantly boasts of its night vision technology as a decisive
superiority capability.

What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage that requires
no extra effort or expenditure?

I have had lots of guesses on that from bonfires to flares but none have gotten
it right the first time. Care to make a guess?

--
The WWII holocaust is the only one which the victims do not want
investigated. It is also the only one where reparations are being paid. That
is an odd combination.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3736
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
  #24  
Old January 12th 07, 05:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Robert Kolker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Matt Giwer wrote:


What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage
that requires no extra effort or expenditure?


Attack by day? I can't think of any practical way of preventing heat
emission except by insulation.

Bob Kolker

  #25  
Old January 13th 07, 04:12 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
george
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 803
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran


Matt Giwer wrote:

Robert Kolker wrote:
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.


Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.


Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with

  #26  
Old January 13th 07, 06:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

george wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
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.

Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.


Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with


And George is too stupid to know what a nazi is. What else is new?

--
We know Bush is serious on Iraq. He changed slogans.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3720
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
  #27  
Old January 13th 07, 12:56 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Dan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran


george wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

Robert Kolker wrote:
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.


Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.


Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with


Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).

Japan had did not only surrender because of THE BOMB.
US had total air superiority was bombing Japan on a daily basis with
conventional weapons,
more people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo a few weeks before than
in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Japan was dependant on imports for Food and Fuel, and US Submarines had
sunk the vast majority of the Japanese Merchant Fleet and most of the
Japanese Navy was also at the bottom of the Pacific by this time. Total
Naval blockade was already condemning Japan to starvation and a
simultaneous Oil embargo.

On land Stalin's forces were taking Manchuria that week, heading into
Korea and before the end of the year would be preparing for invasion of
the Home Islands.

UK was moving forces freed up from Europe so was in the process of
taking back SE Asia, and had a Pacific Fleet again for the first time
in 4 years.

US had a real plan to invade and occupy the Home Islands and Japan knew
it. The UK and Empire by mid 46 would be in a position to provide
sufficient troops to be arguing for an occupation zone of Japan, the US
neither needed the troops nor wanted the future political complications
of a joint occupation and that's before you think about the Red Army.

Oh and of course in 1945 something like 90% plus of the nations on the
planet were in a declared state of War with Japan.

An unprovoked Nuclear attack on Iran by either the US or Israel with
the support of no other nation on the planet except each other would
provoke the reaction from Iran that 9/11 provoked in the US "how do we
hit back". The rest of the Muslim world would support Iran against what
would be seen as Genocidal monsters, most of the rest of the planet
would initially be sympathetic to Iran. 24/7 pictures on CNN,
Al-Jazeera, Star, Sky, etc etc pictures of Iranian corpses and
irradiated children.
Major risk is a coup in Pakistan which puts existing Nuclear weapons
into the hands of hard line Islamic regime.
Other risk is reaction in Iraq, last summer the elected Iraqi
government backed Hezbullah in the war with Lebanon much to the shock
of US politicians, it is possible that you would end up with direct
fighting between US and Iraqi Army as well as mass revolt in Shia
south, attacks from both major Shia militias Badr Brigades, and Mahdi
Army which at present are not attacking US troops.

  #28  
Old January 13th 07, 01:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Dan wrote:
george wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Robert Kolker wrote:
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.
Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

Giwer is a nazi. That's the level of clever you're dealing with


Giwer may or may not be a Nazi but he on this one he is also right, (a
stopped clock is right twice a day).


Disagreeing with WWII propaganda is the easiest way to be right. If you
actually look at it when it is available without comment you have to ask why
your parents/grandparents were stupid enough to fight that war.

"Why we fight" couldn't sell air conditioning to Floridians it is so primitive
and stupid. And yet every reason today is based upon making that propaganda
sound sophisticated. No one today would fight WWII in Europe for any reason
given at the time. Of course we can assume our parents were idiots but that does
not explain how their children are suddenly so smart.

Would you join with the communists to fight the Nazis? Would you join with the
colonial masters of a billion people to fight the Nazis? A modern person would
join the Nazis to free a billion people from colonial domination and end communism.

Or at least stay out of it and let them destroy each other for the fun of it.

The US only got into the war in Europe because Germany declared war on the US
for legitimate cause according to international law at the time. That cause only
existed because the US was attacking German U-Boats as cited in Germany's DoW on
the US from an FDR fireside chat announcement.

--
Bush's reason for staying in Iraq is the disaster he caused by invading.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3715
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6
  #29  
Old January 13th 07, 01:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

wrote:
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.


And as the South never surrendered your position is what? Lee's surrender of
the Army of Virginia was not a surrender of the South. But you know that.

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


Where was this 1:5 exchange ratio?


The Irish Grant was throwing at Lee.

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.


Rather I do. What war are you talking about? Please cite the CSA surrender if
you think there was one. The Star Trek TNG writers adopted Johnson's
declaration, Further resistance is futile.

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!")


Why? The South did not surrender. What is the point?

--
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


--
The total failure in Iraq is not the execution of the post war strategy but
the war itself. There was never a way it could win. No people have ever
accepted foreigners ruling them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3718
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
  #30  
Old January 13th 07, 01:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,soc.history.war.misc,soc.history.what-if,sci.military.naval
Matt Giwer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 90
Default Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
What is the cheapest and easiest method to nullify that advantage
that requires no extra effort or expenditure?


Attack by day? I can't think of any practical way of preventing heat
emission except by insulation.


So now I have to say only one person got it right the first time.

That is precisely the point. Every strength is limited and can be negated as it
is predicated upon a specific tactic. Night fighting is predicated upon enemy
troops being massed at night instead of being at home in bed as in Iraq.

If you cannot stand and fight then kill without doing that. If you get perfect
armor they learn to spray poison gas.

If they cannot be defeated never fight them. Just cause enough trouble they get
called and then go away. Fake trouble calls. Let them kill the innocent as you
can recruit the survivors.

Attack 20 places and melt away but get calls as to where they do show up.
Re-attack where they do not show up. How hard is this? Think simple.

--
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
environmentalism http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a9
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran [email protected] Naval Aviation 1 January 7th 07 10:18 PM
Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran? [email protected] Naval Aviation 7 December 29th 06 01:42 AM
Please Israel come to Iran... X98 Military Aviation 1 May 13th 04 09:47 PM
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future Jack White Military Aviation 71 September 21st 03 02:58 PM
Why the Royal Australian Air Force went for Israeli Python-4 AAM's over US AIM-9L's Urban Fredriksson Military Aviation 79 July 19th 03 03:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.