Iran's Real Plan

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by rogue1
It was Hitler who said that the German people had failed him and all they deserved was destruction.

- Yes, as anyone who has seen his last 'testament' knows, not quite the same thing though, is it?

Anyway, Hitler probably did order the use of nerve agents, but the orders were countermanded by Otto Ambros - accordng to his own testimony.

- So come on then; let's see you back this assertion up.

You have made the claim, let's see you prove it.

Otto Ambros was the head of the Nazi nerve gas division.

- Yes, google is a wonderful thing; that's not the same as supporting your claim about an "order the use of nerve agents, but the orders were countermanded by Otto Ambros".

Well, your going to have to read a book, sorry I don't have a link to a 5 line paragraph for you.
If you really want to know then read this book -

Paxman, J.; Harris, R. (2002). A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare (2002 Rando edition). Random House Press. ISBN 0812966538.

If Hitler could have fought to the last German he would have, you seem to be a bit misinformed about the history of WWII.

- That is pure opinion and speculation, he didn't.
Those are the facts.
The "history" of what actually happened in WW2 is all about the facts of the events, what actually happened, you are the one who seems misinformed in fact, actually.

For someone who like to talk about facts, you seem not to accept them. Hitler was waging war of annihilation on the Eastern Front, a fight to the End. The Western Theater was but a side show.
Simple fact sminkey is that the reich was conquered before all the germans were killed. If the resources had been there to continue the war, it would have been continued.
It is blatantly obvious even in the basic histories of WWII you have read.

.....and quite often the 'stand to the last man' orders were all about trying to secure and hold economic assets Germany desperately needed.
Not entirely the decisions of a crazed fanatic (within the context of the general lunacy he had unleashed across the globe, that is).

Ahem, Hitler issued many orders to his generals which were ' lost ' along the way. The generals knew how to fight the war and how wasteful some of Hitlers orders were. A prime example being Hitlers orders to hold the cities in the Eastern Front so that his soldiers could easily be surrounded and destroyed by seige warfare - this happened time and time again in the final years.
A struggle to the end sminkey in Hitlers words.

In every history I have ever read about WW2 (and I have read more than a few) there has never been the slightest mention of any of the senior figures pacing about awaiting news or demanding reports of how this (what would have been then) 'secret wonder weapon' sarin or tabum (nerve gas) attack was going - nor of terrified demands to know if there was news of the guaranteed retaliation (if it was attempted but failed).

Never said they did The nerve agents were under the control of the SS and quite possibly the enigmatic Hans Kammler. If any orders were issued they would be top secret. As I have already said the orders may have been issued but stopped right at the very top, so there wouldn't be any paper trail. Hell, many programs and orders were lost or hidden during the final years of the war.

Not one of the debriefs (of the senior executed figures) mentions any such thing and none of the memoirs from any of the surviving senior and lesser figures there in the last year ever talked about any such thing.

Who's to say they were ever involved, the SS was it's own state with high ranking officers you've probably never heard of in charge of all sorts of secret wepons programs and units.

OK, the end.

An obscure book reference and yet more guessing is all you have got.

I thought so.

Byeeeee.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
OK, the end.

An obscure book reference and yet more guessing is all you have got.

I thought so.

Byeeeee.

Ahem ok, it is probably by far the most descriptive book on the Nazi nerve gas programs with more than a few references. As I thought though you don't have the balls to read anything which is more than a few paragraphs on a web page. Each to his own, but don't BS me saying you're informed.

LMAO

And.... that is the end.

Back to Iran's Real Plan now please.

Jak

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahem ok, it is probably by far the most descriptive book on the Nazi nerve gas programs with more than a few references.

- Really?
Not just the product of a swift google?

....and yet none of this information on such an important and seriously open to question aspect of the war is available to link, how convenient for you.

You'll see that book is mentioned in Wikipedia, although they singularly fail to mention the story you did, strange considering wouldn't you say?

As I thought though you don't have the balls to read anything which is more than a few paragraphs on a web page.

- More ludicrous trolling......but then, as a little look back on this thread shows, you haven't been able to help but 'leaven' most of your post here with that kind of ridiculous infantile baiting stupidity, right?

Each to his own, but don't BS me saying you're informed.

LMAO

- I shan't be wasting my time talking to such an obvious trolling BSer, don't you worry about that.


[edit on 3-11-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Back to the authors intended topic please.

Iran's Real Plan

Thank you.

Iran's real plan is to cause the Western powers,especially the United States the maximum amount of damage it can while allegedly staying neutral.
Ive no doubt that Iran is supporting the attacks on coalition troops by providing training and expertise to anti-coalition forces.There is no way Iran wants a US-backed Iraq on its border and will do its best to disrupt this from happening by destabilising its neighbour as much as it can get away with.
In terms of nuclear weapons,imo i have no doubt that Iran intends to have these to use at some point in the future.The development of medium and long range ballistic and cruise missiles i believe is to go in tandem with development of nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and possibly Europe.

Originally posted by bmdefiant
Iran is supporting the attacks on coalition troops by providing training and expertise to anti-coalition forces.There is no way Iran wants a US-backed Iraq on its border and will do its best to disrupt this from happening by destabilising its neighbour as much as it can get away with.

- I have no doubt the Iranians are utterly hostile to the US invasion and occupation of the region (just as they are utterly hostile to the US' proxy in the region, Israel).

However I don't think Iran can be blamed for "destabilising" Iraq.

As many Iraqis are now saying (did you see the polling done by the British recently?) things are worse for them, the invasion and occupation did the 'destabilising'.

In terms of nuclear weapons,imo i have no doubt that Iran intends to have these to use at some point in the future.

- Given the actions and statements of the US in recent years who could blame them?

Of course you may well say those were just 'pressure' or words (which is something people seem keen to dismiss when things are the other way around).
But, given the state of the ME and the history between Iran and the US in recent decades (not to mention the other western powers over the last century) their suspicion and hostility to what they see as western imperialism is IMO hardly surprising.

The development of medium and long range ballistic and cruise missiles i believe is to go in tandem with development of nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and possibly Europe.

- This I find nonsensical.
Israel has many nuclear weapons as does Europe.
Currently one might say Israel and Europe 'threaten' them.

Unless Iran magically conjures up a way of neutralising the retaliatory capabilities of Israel and Europe I find the idea of this scary Iranian bomb makes no sense at all.

Deterrence works.
Maybe if or when they do get a bomb everyone will start to calm down over this for a change.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahem ok, it is probably by far the most descriptive book on the Nazi nerve gas programs with more than a few references.

- Really?
Not just the product of a swift google?

LOL, whatever, don't read it, not that you were ever going to But I have showed you the book with the information and you've dismissed it without even reading it. Hardly the actions of an intelligent person.

....and yet none of this information on such an important and seriously open to question aspect of the war is available to link, how convenient for you.

Like I said,, there are these things called books which are researched by people. They are far more detailed than any generic crapola yu can get on the web. You should try reading a book sometime

You'll see that book is mentioned in Wikipedia, although they singularly fail to mention the story you did, strange considering wouldn't you say?

Good ole wikipedia, what did you expect someone to paraphrase the book for you

As I thought though you don't have the balls to read anything which is more than a few paragraphs on a web page.

- More ludicrous trolling......but then, as a little look back on this thread shows, you haven't been able to help but 'leaven' most of your post here with that kind of ridiculous infantile baiting stupidity, right?

LOL, you mean the same ridiculous infantile baiting you've just displayed ? Ahem

Each to his own, but don't BS me saying you're informed.

LMAO

- I shan't be wasting my time talking to such an obvious trolling BSer, don't you worry about that.

Well I guess that's the obvious reaction from a person who feels he is being bested

All you've got to do is read the book What's the matter don't know how to order on Amazon.


PS. Sorry JAK, but he responded and I had to answer

Enough. You both have a little red badge of courage now.

Any further and this thread will be closed.

Jak

Greetings,

I have to say that I am rather interested in this topic, and thus far, I frankly believe that two members should reconsider their rather stiff view point. I won't pretend to have a in depth knownledge of the situation but,

- Iranian WMD
As it has been mentioned, the Iranians have had Chemical Weapons for quite some time and they have yet to imploy them in a first strike role. There have been no preemptive chemical attacks on any state in that region by Iranian WMD.

Frankly I believe that as sminkeypinkey has rightly mentioned, how can the Americans propose this to the world community that it is a viable threat to their nation and europe when they have had those weapons for the last 10 + years?

Can and one see similarities to Iraq?

- Attack
I can see from the replies that some of you folks haven't looked into infiltrating a country, as for the "Coast approach" I nearly blew frosties out my nose when I read it. If you have looked at the Israeli Coast line defenses you would think twice about bringing any thing in from the sea.

It will take a minimum of 9 or 10 years to produce a nuclear warhead on their own, frankly I will be shocked if it is any smaller than a SUV! As for one of the members mention of a Nuke producing more damage, sure, I suppose your right, but some one could just as easily load up 6 cars with normal explosives and a chemical mixer and blow those cars up around the city, they would think its a simple car bomb... A few days later hospital and front line staff start keeling over, frankly to me a Chemical or Biological attack has more fears than a nuclear one.

- Germany
Does it really matter? I frankly can't say what state of mind hitler was in when the end was near, but I would voice a word of warning, be Very careful what members list as FACT or merely their opinion. It avoids the nasty confusion.

My Conclusion
American Paranoia.

I can't see the Iranians providing a Viable nuclear threat to europe untill at least 2020, that includes construction of a new missile system and the ability to make the warhead small enough to fit to the new missile, frankly the USA would never have to worry about a missile launch from the Iranians with a nuclear weapon, Europe has more reason to worry, but hey, I suppose as long as Iran has oil and doesn't follow the US party line they are a threat.

- Phil

thank you all for your replies, but everyone seems to have gotten way off track here. this thread is not about iran using WMD in an attack upon israel, but whether or not it would use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an israeli nuclear strike in order to gather all of israel's enemies for a conventional war. there are many other threads currently open that discuss whether or not iran intends to use nuclear weapons either directly or through a terrorist group.

so the question remains: if iran obtains nuclear weapons (and for the sake of discussion, lets just assume that they will), does that make a conventional war against israel a real possiblity?

Originally posted by snafu7700
thank you all for your replies, but everyone seems to have gotten way off track here. this thread is not about iran using WMD in an attack upon israel, but whether or not it would use nuclear weapons as a deterrent to an israeli nuclear strike in order to gather all of israel's enemies for a conventional war. there are many other threads currently open that discuss whether or not iran intends to use nuclear weapons either directly or through a terrorist group.

so the question remains: if iran obtains nuclear weapons (and for the sake of discussion, lets just assume that they will), does that make a conventional war against israel a real possiblity?

Negative

Thats my opinion, I doubt any nuclear power would want to risk an all out exchange, there is more change of israel attacking the power plant before any progress is made on the weapon.

- Phil

Originally posted by gooseuk
Negative

Thats my opinion, I doubt any nuclear power would want to risk an all out exchange, there is more change of israel attacking the power plant before any progress is made on the weapon.

- Phil

ok, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that international pressure forces israel to do nothing and let the reactor be built, and the iranians in turn use said reactor to build a weapon. does iran with a nuke level the playing field enough to allow for a conventional war, or will israel still keep the "samson option" on the table?

i mean, look at india and pakistan. they still manage to have conventional intense conventional exchanges while both sides have nukes.

[edit on 4-11-2005 by snafu7700]

Originally posted by snafu7700
ok, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that international pressure forces israel to do nothing and let the reactor be built, and the iranians in turn use said reactor to build a weapon. does iran with a nuke level the playing field enough to allow for a conventional war, or will israel still keep the "samson option" on the table?

i mean, look at india and pakistan. they still manage to have conventional intense conventional exchanges while both sides have nukes.

The difference with Israel is that they have hunfreds of nuclear weapons and they are just the basic fission devices. They have thermonuclear warheads as well dwarving the power of any Iranian nuke.
So yes the Sampson option would still be on the table.
As Iram is capable of producing that mnay nuclear wepons at the present they may use there warhead as an EMP wepon. One detnated above the Negev Desert would destroy most unhardened electronics including military circuits.

Originally posted by gooseuk


- Iranian WMD
As it has been mentioned, the Iranians have had Chemical Weapons for quite some time and they have yet to imploy them in a first strike role. There have been no preemptive chemical attacks on any state in that region by Iranian WMD.

First of all they didn't have the cpability to deliver WMD's very far except to their immediate neighbours across the boarder. That has since changed with their new Shahab series rockets.
Apart from responding to Iraq who else would they attack with them except Israel.

Frankly I believe that as sminkeypinkey has rightly mentioned, how can the Americans propose this to the world community that it is a viable threat to their nation and europe when they have had those weapons for the last 10 + years?

Hmm, how about the President of Iran calling for Israel to be wiped out

I can see from the replies that some of you folks haven't looked into infiltrating a country, as for the "Coast approach" I nearly blew frosties out my nose when I read it. If you have looked at the Israeli Coast line defenses you would think twice about bringing any thing in from the sea.

You have ? well I've seen the Israeli coastline at Tel Aviv and it would be possible to smuggle a boat in, I'm not sure wht these formidable defenses you talk about are. Palestinian terrorists have done it before.

It will take a minimum of 9 or 10 years to produce a nuclear warhead on their own, frankly I will be shocked if it is any smaller than a SUV!

You would ? Why's that, you bave a background in the area ?

As for one of the members mention of a Nuke producing more damage, sure, I suppose your right, but some one could just as easily load up 6 cars with normal explosives and a chemical mixer and blow those cars up around the city, they would think its a simple car bomb...

LOL, you talk about how hard it would be to smuggle a nuke into ISrael, yet you think that terrorists can detonate 6 chemical car bombs ( and they would hvae to be very big ) with impunity

Besides using chemicals in a car bomb is a highly inefficent way to dispere chemicals. MOst of the chemical or bio agent would be destroyed by the heat produced by the blast. Hence why most chemical weapons are deployed by using a small bursting charge or aerosol.
So chemical bombs would cause a little local discomfort but that is all. A Shahb with a chem warheasd detoanted at 1-2000 feet above a city would be worth 50 chemical car bombs.

First of all they didn't have the cpability to deliver WMD's very far except to their immediate neighbours across the boarder. That has since changed with their new Shahab series rockets.

Valid Point, but they have had the ability to mount them to their military aircraft and strike a country using this approach, I also believe they have had the Scud series for some time, while limited in range it can still carry the payload.

Hmm, how about the President of Iran calling for Israel to be wiped out

Ignorance is Bless, sadly they have been making those kind of statements since the Islamic Revolution. I believe the Americans are merely using it now because they need some thing to go at the Iranians with.

You have ? well I've seen the Israeli coastline at Tel Aviv and it would be possible to smuggle a boat in, I'm not sure wht these formidable defenses you talk about are. Palestinian terrorists have done it before.

Interesting that you say that, I have looked into on a academic level, I have also seen some of the defenses first hand, if you don't count motion sensors, M113 Pillboxes, patrols (Sea and Land) 24/7 and a host of other nasty things, I am shocked if you can't call those formitable.

There is a different between getting a few men in and trying to unload a nuclear device the size of the orginal Small Boy or SUV!

You would ? Why's that, you bave a background in the area ?

I made clear from the start that I didn't know a vast amount in the area of nuclear weapons, I doubt you do either, but from common sense and a little research, you can see that for every nation to produce a device on their own, it has been the same size or larger than the little boy device.

LOL, you talk about how hard it would be to smuggle a nuke into ISrael, yet you think that terrorists can detonate 6 chemical car bombs ( and they would hvae to be very big ) with impunity

Your going off again lad. I made the point that a Chemical or Biological attack could do just as much damage, not how much easier it would be to get them into the country, but I suppose when losing you have to grab hold of some thing, please read the post more slowly.

As for the other posts, I don't know, I don't believe that the Israelis would use the nuclear option unless they knew they where to lose, I don't see the Iranians pulling the trigger either at present, but I think its in every ones best interest if the Israelis and the Iranians don't have a punch up.

- Phil


[edit on 5-11-2005 by gooseuk]

Originally posted by gooseuk
I made clear from the start that I didn't know a vast amount in the area of nuclear weapons, I doubt you do either, but from common sense and a little research, you can see that for every nation to produce a device on their own, it has been the same size or larger than the little boy device.

No every nation after the US has produced a smaller device than Fatman ( sam as the Trinity test a 20kt Mk-III nuclear weapon ) except for the USSR's Joe-I test in 1949 which was almost an exact copy of the Mk-III.

So, yes Iran is capable of producing a much smalller device than then orginal US test in 1945.