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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
Matt Giwer wrote:
Nothing coherent. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 09:18 PM |
Crime of the Century: Are Bush & Cheney Planning Early Attack on Iran? | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 7 | December 29th 06 12:42 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 |