Reply With Quote
@ B-2 as an "escort". The idea of an F-117 escort is only slightly less funny.
It wouldn't surprise me if they have one of our B-2 Bombers and F-117's to escort it. I don't think they'd have a hard time even with older birds.
They do have the refuel capabilities to make it now. I read up on it this weekend. They've been running training exercises for the range for some time now.
In any event, Israel attacking is unlikely. They've known about this site for some time just as the US has and they've yet to do anything. They're not going to get American support and I think the people in DC actually realize how bad a strike would be long term in Iran.
the F-117 is retired... Secondly, those aren't fighter/attack escorts.
The article I read in the WSJ showed three possible routes of attack. I guess the one going over Syria and Kurdistan might be the least problematic, but flying over any part of Iraq could lead to some pretty negative repercussions there.
Right, there are three other sites in plain view besides Qom. Are they going to hit them all?In any event, Israel attacking is unlikely. They've known about this site for some time just as the US has and they've yet to do anything. They're not going to get American support and I think the people in DC actually realize how bad a strike would be long term in Iran.
If you think Israel likely won't attack you are sadly mistaken. In a recent poll 66 percent of israelis are for a pre-emptive strike on Iran. It's only a matter of when. There is no need to rush at the moment because they know the plants wont make anything weapons ready for some time and they can strategically plan their course of attack. is going to hit the fan.
Poll: 66% of Israeli Jews back attack on Iran
By Aluf Benn
Tags: Nuclear Weapons, Barack Obama
A large majority of Israeli Jews support military action aimed at destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a survey sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League.
According to the poll, co-sponsored by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, a large majority of those who support a move by the army said they would maintain their support even if the Obama administration opposed it.
An overwhelming majority also said they believed close relations with the United States were essential for ensuring Israel's security.
Advertisement
The survey, administered by the Maagar Mochot research ins ute, involved 610 respondents, cons uting a representative sample of Israeli Jews over the age of 18.
Asked about military action against Iran, 66 percent said they approved of it, 15 percent said they were opposed and 19 percent said they did not know. Among those who said they approved army action, 15 percent said they would change their minds if the United States opposed it, while 75 percent said they would not. The rest said they did not know or gave other answers.
Focusing on Israeli-U.S. relations in the Obama era, the survey revealed concern over possible erosion of U.S. support for Israel, and over a rapprochement between the United States and Arab countries at the expense of Israel.
Sixty percent of the respondents said they had a "positive" or "very positive' at ude toward President Obama. However, only 38 percent said they thought his at ude to Israel was friendly - in contrast to 73 percent of respondents in a 2007 poll, who defined the at ude of the previous president, George W. Bush, as friendly.
Asked whether reconciliation with the Arab and Muslim world would come at the expense of Israel's interests, 63 percent said they believed it would; 71 percent, however, said the interests of the United States and Israel were "similar" or "complemented each other."
Most Israelis, according to the poll, follow the news in America, mainly through the Israeli media.
We have what, 100,000 or so troops in Iraq, right?
War in the Persian Gulf would likely do what to the price of energy in a worldwide recession?
Could it lead to a wider regional war?
The threat is that there are many groups, including groups in S.A., that could cause problems...not saying they will, just that they might...the greater threat is what Iran can do to make sailing in the Persian Gulf much riskier...
dunno why you guys wanna start another war when you got 2 on-going wars not even finished which is stretching ur countrys debt.
i doubt an attack iran is going to be swift and over quick like clintons admin on iraq early in the 90s where the campaign was over in a matter of weeks....
america is better off allowing israel to do the dirty work since they receive money from you guys every year while doing jack besides starting petty wars against neighboring countries who dont have the capacity to fight back.
i doubt syria will allow american planes to use its airspace to go launch an attack into iran.
That's how we roll!dunno why you guys wanna start another war when you got 2 on-going wars not even finished which is stretching ur countrys debt.
woudn't be surprised at all with an Islaeli attack. thas is their modus operandi.
actually I see this as the more likely scenario, Israel taking it on their own. Sooner or later.
when that happens, the loser in all this will be USA.
If you aprioristically remove the threat of military intervention, you won't stop Iran from continuing to develop their program in the long-run.
I think the US Administration approach will more or less be "close your eyes and maybe the problem will disappear". That's their favourite modus operandis, as there's too much heterogeneity inside the Administration, they don't really have strategies (wasn't Obama supposed to have a "stronger, broader, etc." strategy "to win" the "war of necessity" in Afghanistan? After all, he doesn't have a clue about what to do, those were just words) or a doctrine about these issues, they are overinfluenced by polls and the President is unexprienced and more comfortabel with words than with actions. I think that in the next 4 years the US will be more comfortable as a follower than as a leader, pretty much like in the late 70s (that's not necessarly bad).
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6851981.eceIran fired two of the longest-range missiles in its arsenal today ahead of a confrontation with foreign powers over a previously undisclosed secret nuclear facility later this week.
The Revolutionary Guard is reported to have successfully launched a Shahab-3 and a Sejil missile, both of which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads with a range of up to 1,200 miles – which would put Israel, most Arab states and parts of Europe, including much of Turkey, within its range.
Brigadier General Hossein Salami, air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said of the firings: “This exercise has a message of friendship for friendly countries.
It wasn't important for me to double check the rolls of these planes. Just to point out that Israel might be using them. The B-2 has an extraordinary range of almost 7,000 miles. The F-117 has over a 1000 mile range and can carry the appropriate bombs as well. I thought it had a longer range. Oh well.
Who knows. Maybe they have a bunker-buster cruise missile they can launch from one of their submarines.
Bottom line, it doesn't much matter. I believe Israel will take action. Even if it's a real dangerous mission.
What if we sold a few to Israel? Just because we retired ours, doesn't mean they did the same. In fact, that increases the chance of us giving some up to our allies!the F-117 is retired... Secondly, those aren't fighter/attack escorts.
Israel has no strategic bombers and no F-117s.
The sub angle is a slight possibility, but there's no telling if they can even accommodate their longer range missiles, or if those missiles can carry a bunker-buster warhead.
You're a ing moron. Just stop.
Why?
It's fun to see your face change colors. especially when you cannot offer reasonable explanations why I could be wrong.
Israel has the resources to retrofit any kind of payload they want coming from their subs. They have time, money and the motivation to get it done.
It is safe to say that if Israel sits idle sooner or later a suitcase bomb will show up in their backyard. Probably about 90 percent to happen.
I just do not see them doing nothing about this, they will see where diplomacy leads first but Iran seems more than willing to defy the world to become a world super power.
How has Israel's bombing worked out in preventing so far? I hear they were able to bomb Hezbollah out of existence in Lebanon. Oh and then they followed that with bombing Hamas out of existence in Gaza.
You can't stop Iran with a few bunker busting bombs. The entire country wants a nuclear program. You can't stop them. They KNOW what a strategic boost they would get from this and thats exactly why they want it. Bombing them will only reinforce that idea.
There's an idea in so many people that you can change everything in the world and no matter how many times that idea is rebuffed they still cling to it. Sure, lets see those bombs drop. It'll buy Israel a year or two more of so called safety and probably another generation of animosity from the Iranians. Its not bad enough they have done the same in Lebanon and Gaza so they should also do it in Iran.
How many bombs will Israel drop before they wonder why it doesn't work?
What if we had a teleportation experiment that sent an F-117 back in time to Nazi Germany.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Experiment_II
I like how all of a sudden Manny the aspiring weather guy is all of a sudden the military expert. Damn man you are a jack of all trades. Online poker phenom, weather guy, military expert and professional post critic bag. Calling the guy a ing moron? Little out of line.
Lets see I don't agree with what you have to say so you sir are a ing moron.
My face hasn't changed colors. Its been brown this time. You keep advocating thats re ed. You don't think I can tell you why you're wrong?
F117 and B2's as escorts: The biggest advantage of these planes moron, is that they're stealth aircraft. Sending them in as "escorts" with other aircraft which are not stealth kinda defeats the purpose of using a stealth aircraft. Can you figure out why?
Sub launched cruise missiles: Not accurate enough and not effective on hardened underground target. Just a stupid suggestion.
There's a reason they've been practicing a tactical mission with tactical aircraft. Maybe you can figure it out.
You're not open minded enough. Read my previous post^
Anything is possible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
