1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible Future Scenario

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by neil3k, 17 Jan 2006.

  1. neil3k

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 Aug 2004

    Posts: 6,762

    Location: Bedford

    January 16th 2008.
    ------------------

    Israeli jets streak towards their targets in Iran at supersonic speeds. Israeli pilots have been practicing for this attack for the last two years since Iran broke the seals on its nuclear facilities.

    It has been estimated that Iran could have the capability to construct nuclear warhead by 2010/2011 and this is a scenario Israel cannot tolerate.

    Therefore, the Israeli high command has took the decision to neutralise the Iranian nuclear facilities before this occurs.

    Israel's whole defence plan relies on the fact that it has nuclear supremacy in the middle East.

    Ariel Sharon " A nuclear capable Iran is not a scenario Israel would tolerate"

    thoughts?
     
  2. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,417

    Location: UK

    Sharon wont be saying anything :o

    It will happen a lot sooner than 2008.
     
  3. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Yes I think it will, since the proposed euro trading iranian oil bourse (the real reason behind the current problems) opens in March 2006.
     
  4. AJUK

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 14 Nov 2003

    Posts: 10,949

    Not only is that future plausible it is probable except that it may not be Israeli fighters but American, British and even French.
     
  5. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 6,468

    Some news commentators are saying that the distributed nature of the Iranian nuclear programme would require a much larger bomb campaign than the Israeli attack on the Osrik (sp?) reactor in Iraq to achieve the same aim of derailing the nuclear development programme. This being the case it seems highly unlikely that it will take place in my opinion.
     
  6. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708


    Well, it wouldnt happen without the US's approval, either tacitly or explicitly, so why wouldnt the US do the job itself, with its superioir military technology, than take the more risky option of allowing Israel to do it?
     
  7. Loki

    Asus Rep

    Joined: 17 Nov 2004

    Posts: 9,778

    Location: The Republic

    I was watching the news last night and I was unaware that Iran are the worlds 5th largest oil exporter with something like 2.6 million barrels per day. Maybe that is one of the reasons The Iranian Government is doing so much sabre rattling and being beligerant at the moment. Maybe it wants more parity with the other oil producing nations and is using the Nucelar angle as a barganing chip
     
  8. neil3k

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 Aug 2004

    Posts: 6,762

    Location: Bedford

    However, i can see Israel as having the technology to quite easily elimnate the Iranian nuclear sites without much of a problem. They do have american supplied F16's.

    Also, to the above posted who stated that french jets could take part. I mean its seems like the French dont wish to take part in military action against muslim countries due to the large amounts of muslims present in France.
     
  9. theleg

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,417

    Location: UK

    Israels military is not inferior to the US.

    They would have Israel do it because then its international and not a unilateral action.
     
  10. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Yes, but it would still require the US's say so. WOuldnt it be easier to lob some tomohawks from a US ship in the Persian Gulf than to launch a staged bombing raid over hostile territory?

    Israel to the Iranian nuclear compounds is a fair distance, and I cant see the Iranians standing by and letting it happen.

    I would concede that Israel has some very advanced kit, but when it comes to stand off raids to eliminate specific, discrete targets, the US is in a much better position.
     
  11. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 6,468

    Politically it is risky because I guess we in effect control the skies over Iraq. Any flight from Israel to Iran has a limited number of possible routes. If they over fly Syria it would be without Syrian approval and then they would fly over Iraqi airspace which we control so we would be complicit in “allowing them access” to Iraqi airspace without the agreement of the Iraqi Government. They could fly over either Syria or Jordan and across Saudi Arabia but of those only Jordan is likely to give approval. They could over fly Turkey but I don’t know what Turkish Israeli relations are like and I doubt they are good enough for Turkey to stir that nest of hornets. Finally they could go down the Red Sea around Saudi and into Iran but that would be an extremely long flight no doubt necessitating several refuels on both legs. Equally any direct flights would also probably need. So either they go direct and we are likely to receive some of the blame or they go around. I don’t think that logistically it is a trivial matter at all.
     
  12. Errol

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 7 Jan 2005

    Posts: 2,178

    Launch them at what ? Iran has, rather cunningly, created 50+ (minimum) nuclear sites. The majority of these are deep under ground or within mountain ranges. Most would be invulnerable to even a nuclear warhead (Iran planned for an attack of this nature).

    Also, sitting in the Persian gulf on a ship with 100+ sunburn anti-ship missiles pointing at me, is not my idea of a good plan.
     
  13. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

  14. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Could you cite a source for this? Ta.

    If your looking for a way to detroy facilities that the enemy dont want destroying, and you want to do it without being in harms way, then your **** out of luck.....
     
  15. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    And on a similar note I was just reading that his original comment "Israel should be wiped off the map" is a mistranslation too. He didn't mean in the military sense, he meant the state of Israel in the political and religious sense.
     
  16. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Interesting. A bit of spin to demonise an enemy and garner support for a military adventure.

    Now where have i heard that before......
     
  17. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 May 2003

    Posts: 6,468

    I’m fairly sure there should be a forum rule about referring to your own posts in other threads……..
    But in the thread about developing nuclear powers I posted a link and a quote about Hassan Abbassi (apparently a policy dude in Iran). Here is the quote from Arab News an English language website
     
  18. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 May 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    Phew. Thank god i'm not Anglo-Saxon ;)
     
  19. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Well again, I know what he said sounds bad, and I'm playing devil's advocate because I don't speak the arab language, but I've heard that again he was talking about the concept of an anglo-saxon society, i.e. our moral values etc., rather than physically destroying us like the quote implies.
     
  20. neil3k

    Soldato

    Joined: 13 Aug 2004

    Posts: 6,762

    Location: Bedford


    Why risk lives when you can simply launch ICBM's at them.