Iran War. How do you think it will lead to that and the possible outcome.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by spy66


Spy66: I do agree with you there. The creation of a nuclear bomb in Iran is probably a Hoax. They actually need the precise guided missiles to attack Israel. They even claimed to have them now: Washingt on post

I believe that the US will not be the first one to attack. It will probably be Iran attacking Israel, and Israel requesting help from their ally the US to counter-attack.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13



False-Flag at the Super Bowl? Seems to be a lot of "firsts" in Indianapolis. Media Day will allow regular ticket holders to access the field. People from all over the world as well as international journalists.

www.woodtv.com...

Hmmm. I wonder...

The war will start when Israel finally decides to kamikaze an Iranian nuclear facility and Iran returns fire because we cannot go to war with Iran if they have nukes as they will be forced into using them during an invasion. Two nuclear powers have never gone to war head to head against each other and used nukes.

I also don't see the Iranian War starting until the F-35 is ready for shipment to all of our allies that have ordered them, nor until we have a new long-range bomber because WW3 could start if Iran is attacked.

I believe we will keep trying to use social media, covert-ops, and propaganda against Iran in attempt to get their people to get the ball rolling for us like Libya, which will give us another reason to invade.

We must attack Iran before China has active aircraft carriers.

The attack on Iran will also have to be in coordination with Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We want to use their people as troops, and further divide the Muslim community into Sunni vs. Shiite.

The main problem with starting the Iran War will be the oil prices for China and India. If the Iranian oil shipments stop it will crush both their economies, and with it about 30% of the world's population.

At 4AM (local time)....

- Israeli jets attack Iranian bases.
- Iran is now at war with Israel and is in full armed combat over Iran's skies
- Now that the sleeping giant is awake and at war with Israel, Israel moves to prevent a counter-strike by ongoing attack on Iranian air bases.- Russia moves to protect Iran against ongoing Israeli jets
- Russian and Israeli jets now engage
- US threatens Iran if it counterattacks Israel.
- Iran pre-empts US involvement and attacks US with Silkworms
- Huge loss of major US ships which cannot defend against SIlkworms.
- Through huge losses at hands of Russians and Iranians and the US Navy/Air Force in Middle East battered, Israel can no longer prevent a counterstrike.
- Israeli nuke grouping of Iranian Air Force gathering for strike with possible nukes themselves.
- Immediate knowledge of who nuked Iran unknown.
- Russia uses battlefield nuke against Israel who are stupid enough (fact!) to have all their nukes stored at just one armoury and possibly remains of US Navy in region as warning.
- Attempt to call a halt.
- Dying Israel launches all out nuclear counterstrike.
- Nuclear exchange initiated between Israel and Russia.

By Noon (Local time)/4AM in Washington...

- All out "pre-emptive" nuclear exchange between US and Russia.
- PLANET DEAD

reply to post by sonnny1


NK is not hurting anyone but them selves. They certainly ain't hurting any Americans. So why do you bring up NK. Unless you think you have right to attack them to. Which you dont have.

If nuclear weapons are such a damn big deal for you. Why do let the US have them?
What wright does the US and Israeli have, that Iran and NK dont have when it comes to producing or having a nuclear weapon?

Israel wont let anyone inspect their stock pile nuclear weapons. I guess that is all good and dandy for you.

.....................................................

The US had nuclear weapons before Russia did. Before the cold war. So i dont know how you can use that pitiful excuse. Even for the sake of argument; Iran would have the right to have the weapons for protection against the US and Israel. If your logic is to be any good.

Originally posted by Kenniestuk
reply to post by spy66

 

Spy66: I do agree with you there. The creation of a nuclear bomb in Iran is probably a Hoax. They actually need the precise guided missiles to attack Israel. They even claimed to have them now: Washingt on post

I believe that the US will not be the first one to attack. It will probably be Iran attacking Israel, and Israel requesting help from their ally the US to counter-attack.

If Iran has missiles that can hit small ships from a long distance, they probably also have missiles that can strike accurately within Israel as well.



I also agree with you. The US wont attack first. They will force Iran to fire the first shot at either them or Israel.

But non of us will know until the day comes.

reply to post by sonnny1

What US invasion are we speaking of?

Have you been following this thread at all? The hypothetical invasion of Iran by the US.

They actively made aggressions against the US. Iran had Americans killed. From the Embassy takeover,to Beirut. I would say Iran had the first move.

Right, the first move. The may have committed the first murders between the US and Iran, but, the US was supplying counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons. Everything I had posted before.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I have a few questions regarding this last reply.
First off Oil is a commodity. Available from a myriad of sources. Right now Iran is in a pinch economically and is offering their oil at rock bottom prices to gain customers. Countries will purchase oil where it's the cheapest [For the time Being] when the price or situation changes so do loyalties.

AGAIN, I'm not advocating an attack on Iran but since you've written a "What If" thread.

1. What makes you so sure that Russia and/or China will risk the lives of millions of their people over Iran?
2. Just how exactly will they defend Iran?
3. Will Russia or China drive their forces across sovereign countries to get there?
4. Will they use their navies? Let's try to stick to real world logistics in this "What If"

Yes, you are right, oil is a commodity. Don't you think the US would love to have control over this?:

Energy resources in Iran consist of the third largest oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world.

1) I am not sure, I cannot say with any certainty what any world leader will decide, I am sure everything will become more apparent if this does escalate.
2) If they were to come to Iran's aid (which I don't think they will if Iran strikes first), I believe they would do the same tactics that the US did in the Iran-Iraq war. Give them intelligence, training, weapons. Either that or cripple the US economically.
3) See #1
4) I don't know what they will use, I just sure as hell hope no nation uses a nuke. China is building aircraft carriers for a reason though right? Maybe this Iran business will just be a smokescreen for China to expand it's empire. Sure wish I had a crystal ball.

reply to post by DJW001


Exactly. That is what this is truly about, American interests.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Well you cant disregard something that has a direct connection to the Embassy incident. It was from the US embassy that the US NATO general instigated everything. And than use it as a legitimate argument for Iran being aggressive.

That is corrupt.

Sigh.....

Again reread my post.

Iran is aggressive. They are attempting to build Nuclear bombs,under the guise that North Korea used,as "peaceful purposes". Iran had Americans killed. Did the US storm the Iranian Embassy? The US has many times "helped" with regime change in other parts of the world,and I am not saying without consequences. The aggression of Iran is clear,unless you want to define it another way.....

Source for Iran building nuclear bombs please, or at least let people know it is conjecture on your part or your opinion.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by superman2012

Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

Wouldn't you be pissed if that happened to you? I think it is just sour grapes on Iran's part, it seems like they feel they should have been chosen.

Meanwhile back at the Ranch.

Iraq was just loaded to the gills with Russian made tanks, trucks, BMPs, fighter jets, support aircraft and transports, helicopters. RPGs, AK-47s, Scud missiles and launchers not counting Russian made boots, belt buckles, helmets and socks etc etc etc....

But all that has been ignored.

So, who was really supplying and profiting from the Iraqi war machine?

Ok. So you are saying that the Russian tech is equal in superiority to the US tech? Did Iran use chemical weapons? No. Did Iraq? Yes. Supplied by who? Many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.

A long-range 'Iran-busting' drone crashed near an Israeli air base during a test flight.
A wing from the remote controlled Heron TP, which is nearly as wide as a Boeing 737, broke off after the aircraft 'performed a manoeuvre beyond its capabilities' on Sunday.
The accident took place during secret tests to prepare the drone, which can be used for spying and bombing missions, for a military strike against Iran, it has been claimed.
The Israeli Air Force has now launched an investigation into the smash of the $30million craft which can stay in the air for 40 hours and fly for 4,600 miles.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by SLAYER69


THREAT POSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) TO U.S. MILITARY SYSTEMS AND CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE

House of Representatives,

Committee on National Security,

Military Research and Development Subcommittee,

Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 16, 1997.

Newest one I could find in a 3 min search. It clearly shows that nothing was done about it up to that time. I wonder if I will find any newer ones?

reply to post by seabag

It’s always funny to see people, when their argument completely falls on its face, resort to saying something like “well the US has it so why can’t Iran?”

Don't laugh it happens to everyone, you should know.

That is the weakest argument of all time!! That’s like saying “Well serial killer Ted Bundy killed a dozen people so why can’t I.”

I think what people are trying to get across to you when they say this is that the US should make sure their house is clean before they tell everyone else not to have a dirty house.

The fact is, Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons. The IAEA says they are.

Source.

reply to post by tooo many pills

We must attack Iran before China has active aircraft carriers.

Too late.

PS- ugh, I know, fox news. I just thought it was a cool picture though.

Originally posted by superman2012
THREAT POSED BY ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) TO U.S. MILITARY SYSTEMS AND CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE

House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Military Research and Development Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 16, 1997.

Newest one I could find in a 3 min search. It clearly shows that nothing was done about it up to that time. I wonder if I will find any newer ones?

Did you take the time to read it thoroughly?

"One of our earliest experiences with high-altitude EMP dates back to the resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing in 1962 following a 3-year testing moratorium"

It refers to the situation of "Unhardened" electronics etc.

Let's continue...

From your source.

In keeping with your request, Mr. Chairman, I would next like to provide some additional details regarding the phenomenon of high-altitude EMP, how we protect against it, how we validate the hardness of military systems. I will keep this very brief, since Dr. Smith has already done a superb job on the details.

"EMP hardening protocols are described in numerous military standards and handbooks. There are user friendly computer codes available to facilitate system hardness design. EMP is well understood"

On a final note, high-altitude EMP does not distinguish between military and civilian systems. Unhardened infrastructure systems, such as commercial power grids, telecommunication networks, as we have discussed before, remain vulnerable to widespread outages and upsets due to high-altitude EMP. While DOD hardens their assets it deems vital, no comparable civilian programs exist...

Can I just throw a question out there?

Why is it that the "doves" (versus the "warmongers") are te ones spouting off about a posible conflict with Iran?

Speaking as someone who would conceivably have their fanny in the line of fire, I would like to say "no" to war. (getting shot really sucks)

Frankly, I'm tired of war. I'm looking forward to peace. Not surrender. Peace.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by tooo many pills

 

We must attack Iran before China has active aircraft carriers.

Too late.

PS- ugh, I know, fox news. I just thought it was a cool picture though.

Not so fast...

China's new Aircraft carrier is missing one primary and critical ingredient.

"Aircraft"

The Ship was out on sea trials when photographed. It will be a while before they can launch and recover aircraft from it. So technically it's not an "Active Carrier"

From your source.

China bought the ship from the Ukraine in 1998 and spent years refurbishing it. It had no engines, weaponry or navigation systems when China acquired it.

Beijing is believed to be years away from being able to launch and recover aircraft from it as part of a carrier battle group

Originally posted by superman2012
Ok. So you are saying that the Russian tech is equal in superiority to the US tech?

No
Quote where I said or implied that?
I was replying to your post about who armed Iraq.

But since you brought it up, The Russians have plenty of fine high tech military hardware. Russian hardware in Russian hands is a force to be reckoned with.

Russian hardware In Iraqi hands?
Not so much apparently

Did Iran use chemical weapons? No. Did Iraq? Yes. Supplied by who? Many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.

Here is a comprehensive list of suppliers to Iraq's chemical weapons program.

• Singapore
  
• Brazil
  
• India
  
• Germany
  
• Spain
  
• Belgium
  
• Netherlands
  
• China
  
• France
  
• Britain
  
• United States of America
  

Source

Linky here
In the late 1970's, it was actually the German firm 'Karl Kobe' that sold Iraq the ingredients for it's first chemical weapons. Karl Kobe and others sold Iraq over 1,027 tons of the chemicals needed to produce mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and various tear gasses including CS and CN. The chemical weapons program was operational by late 1983/early 1984

The United States CDC (Center for Disease Control) provided Iraq with biological samples up until 1989 for "Medical research and other purposes". The US supplied anthrax, West Nile virus, botulism, and Brucella melitensis to Iraq for little or no charge.

The United Kingdom paid, in full, for the Iraqi chlorine plant where mustard gas was manufactured. Brazil provided around 100 tons of mustard gas in the early 80's before the British funded plant was up and running. Singapore and India provided the ingredients for VX nerve agent and yet still more Tabun.

Egypt and Spain both provided the majority of Iraq's munitions that were designed to carry and disperse the chemical weapons. In 1984, a CIA leak reported to the Washington Post that the CIA was providing intel to the Iraqis, including the targeting information and coordinates where Iraq used it's chemical weapons against Iran.