| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"=?utf-8?B?VGhlIExhc3QgMjQ0OSBkYXlz4oSiIOKZpQ==?=" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2006 04:01:35 AM |
| Object: |
U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown
How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action?
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1798711
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
---0---
.
|
|
| User: "K Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
05 Apr 2006 10:25:08 PM |
|
|
Still thinking that your GURUs are blowing smoke the wrong way.
My money is still on Israel "Dropping the Big One" (literally) !!!
;-)
"The Last 2449 daysT ?" <stargatedecember2012@yahoo.ca> wrote in
message news:1144227695.794631.96060@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown
How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action?
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1798711
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
---0---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
05 Apr 2006 10:51:37 PM |
|
|
Thanks for that. They hardly made reference to oil, which is a bit
curious. Forget terrorism as their ability to launch a terrorist
strike on US soil is doubtful. But they will be attacked and they will
retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 25% of the
world's oil. That would cause worldwide shortages, rationing, ground
airlines, spike inflation, increasing the cost to transport and create
goods Shelves in supermarkets would go bare. Think the 1970's oil
crisis only an order of magnitude greater. It would destroy the world
economy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 01:55:10 AM |
|
|
Spat the Words
Thanks for that. They hardly made reference to oil, which is a bit
curious. Forget terrorism as their ability to launch a terrorist
strike on US soil is doubtful. But they will be attacked and they will
retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off 25% of the
world's oil. That would cause worldwide shortages, rationing, ground
airlines, spike inflation, increasing the cost to transport and create
goods Shelves in supermarkets would go bare. Think the 1970's oil
crisis only an order of magnitude greater. It would destroy the world
economy.
I think everyone is over-estimating Iran's actual ability to
affect the oil supply. In a direct conflict with even one of
the US carrier groups, ALL of Iran's 'military' capability
would be destroyed in about a day and a half. The only real
danger Iran poses is the possible use of nukes on its neighbors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 09:52:11 AM |
|
|
I disagree. An aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf would be a rather
easy target for an exocet missile or two. Iran wouldn't have to defeat
the U.S....all Iran would need to do is to not lose. Iraqi insurgents
are already bleeding the U.S. military at a Billion dollars a week, not
to mention a steady supply of wounded, and dead. Iran is much larger
than Iraq. Further, any war with Iran, would result in the uprising of
the two thirds Shia majority in Iraq. For any Sane Administration, a
war with Iran is a non-starter. Iran will go nuclear, and there's
nothing the U.S. and Israel can do about it, except the "armageddon"
scenario...The question is, is this administration Sane? Some
indications say not...but if they go down this road, Bush, and his
administration haven't seen anything yet, regarding their tanking in
the polls! They would be lucky to just get impeached.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 07:58:03 PM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
I disagree. An aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf would be a rather
easy target for an exocet missile or two.
This assumes Iran could get anywhere near a US carrier to fire
those missiles. Remember, a carrier group is looking around it
in all directions at once and can reach out a very long distance
with it's planes.
Iran wouldn't have to defeat
the U.S....all Iran would need to do is to not lose.
One would have to define winning and losing here. Winning for
the US might be simply destroying enough of Iran's nuclear
sites so the Russians decide to leave and Iran is set back at
least 10 years in their nuclear efforts. This scenario doesn't
require a ground invasion.
Iraqi insurgents
are already bleeding the U.S. military at a Billion dollars a week, not
to mention a steady supply of wounded, and dead. Iran is much larger
than Iraq. Further, any war with Iran, would result in the uprising of
the two thirds Shia majority in Iraq. For any Sane Administration, a
war with Iran is a non-starter. Iran will go nuclear, and there's
nothing the U.S. and Israel can do about it, except the "armageddon"
scenario...The question is, is this administration Sane? Some
indications say not...but if they go down this road, Bush, and his
administration haven't seen anything yet, regarding their tanking in
the polls! They would be lucky to just get impeached.
Perhaps they will, but it doesn't address the problem of muslim
religious fundamentalists with control of nuclear weapons. That
whole region becomes endangered if Iran goes nuclear. Right now
Iran would only face a conventional attack, but if they go nuclear
Iran could easily face a nuclear attack (from any number of countries)
if they begin to do irresponsible things. I'm just not convinced the
Iranian power structure can reign in their hard-core religious fundies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 09:47:40 PM |
|
|
aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...An Iranian vessel would not have
to be anywhere close to an aircraft carrier to take it out...invisible
to radar, and capability to travel many miles, exocet cruise missiles
for instance....the aircraft carrier is an anachronism to modern
warfare for even mid-sized powers like Iran. Iran is more than
capabable of sinking any aircraft carrier perched too closely to the
Persian gulf.
If Iran goes nuclear it precludes a nuclear attack, as per N. Korea.
The irresponsible thing would be for a nuclear power to use nukes in
yet another "preventative" war. Not only irresponsible, but
monstrously immoral. And lets be quite clear here....the most
irresponsible country on earth, right now is Bush's U.S. of A. Does
"A" stand for Assholes? Anyway, Bush has destabilized the planet, much
to dismay of the world, and to the pleasure of the Neo-Cons, the
Fundy's, and the Armegeddon-Seekers.
The whole region is dangerous because Israel alreadys Nuclear, and is
still expanding it's "borders". If u think that one power can go
Nuclear, without it's rivals matching that, then you're pretty naive.
Although all dangerous, so far the most dangerous Fundy have been
Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
07 Apr 2006 02:51:26 AM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...An Iranian vessel would not have
to be anywhere close to an aircraft carrier to take it out...invisible
to radar,
Cruise missiles are not invisible to radar, have a discrete and
limited range, and can be shot down by any number of things
including other missiles, guns on fighter jets, and phalanx
batteries aboard most US war vessels. Your only hope is to
send an overwhelming number of missiles and hope you destroy
the entire US military in the first round (or you'll catch
hell afterward).
If you can get anywhere near a US naval fleet with anything
resembling a weapon then you'll be lucky to live another day.
and capability to travel many miles, exocet cruise missiles
for instance....the aircraft carrier is an anachronism to modern
warfare for even mid-sized powers like Iran. Iran is more than
capabable of sinking any aircraft carrier perched too closely to the
Persian gulf.
If Iran goes nuclear it precludes a nuclear attack, as per N. Korea.
North Korea is now a nuclear target if it ever gets out of line.
Prior to going nuclear, North Korea was not a nuclear target.
The irresponsible thing would be for a nuclear power to use nukes in
yet another "preventative" war. Not only irresponsible, but
monstrously immoral. And lets be quite clear here....the most
irresponsible country on earth, right now is Bush's U.S. of A. Does
"A" stand for Assholes? Anyway, Bush has destabilized the planet, much
to dismay of the world, and to the pleasure of the Neo-Cons, the
Fundy's, and the Armegeddon-Seekers.
The whole region is dangerous because Israel alreadys Nuclear, and is
still expanding it's "borders".
When was the last time Israel expanded it's borders, and what were
their reasons for doing that ?
If u think that one power can go
Nuclear, without it's rivals matching that, then you're pretty naive.
Although all dangerous, so far the most dangerous Fundy have been
Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
07 Apr 2006 11:48:24 AM |
|
|
Ok...now I feel like I'm talking to Steven cuz you're saying ridiculous
things. I'll only bother with your first point, cuz I don't feel like
wasting my time with u. Iran has cruise missiles that are absolutely
capable of not being detected by radar. Thus, they're invisible. Of
course you can spout whatever nonsense u want...it doesn't make it
true.
eric.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
08 Apr 2006 07:21:40 AM |
|
|
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> Spat the Words
Ok...now I feel like I'm talking to Steven cuz you're saying ridiculous
things. I'll only bother with your first point, cuz I don't feel like
wasting my time with u. Iran has cruise missiles that are absolutely
capable of not being detected by radar. Thus, they're invisible.
Maybe they're invisible to Iranian radar. We can detect stealth
planes. Even B2 bombers aren't completely invisible to radar...
that's why they're programmed on a certain flight path to fly
outside the envelope of the radar facilities. This is why they're
called 'low observable' aircraft instead of 'invisible' aircraft.
To think a missile is invisible to radar is laughable... and
missiles can be brought down with various counter-weapons.
Of
course you can spout whatever nonsense u want...it doesn't make it
true.
eric.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The CO" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliateif U.S. were to take military action? |
08 Apr 2006 09:12:30 AM |
|
|
eric wrote:
aircraft carriers are sitting ducks...
Unless they are defended. Carrier Battle GROUPS are very ably defended.
Can you say Aegis?
An Iranian vessel would not have
to be anywhere close to an aircraft carrier to take it out
If it's in range, it was in range of the carrier's aircraft quite a bit
earlier. Do the Iranians teach their sailors to swim? Might be a good
idea if they did. Iranian warships (and I use the term loosely) are no
threat to US CBG's at any range.
...invisible to radar,
All radar? Under all circumstances? At all ranges? I doubt it.
You are confusing propaganda with the real world...
and capability to travel many miles, exocet cruise missiles
for instance....
ROFL. The Exocet is obsolete. Can you say Phalanx?
Aegis eats Exocets for breakfast and they are cold meat for
most CIWS - Exocet had a brief blaze of glory in the Falklands - the
Phalanx and similar CIW systems are specifically designed to defeat
Exocet and similar ASMs.
the aircraft carrier is an anachronism to modern
warfare
Codswallop. Force projection. Air power is fundamental to modern
warfare and a carrier makes it portable. Get a clue.
for even mid-sized powers like Iran.
Mid sized? Make that minnow sized. Iran has no navy to speak of and no
air force that would last 30 minutes against a USN Carrier Air Wing,
much less a significant portion of the USAF.
? Iran is more than capabable of sinking any aircraft carrier
Iran is incapable of sinking anyone's aircraft carrier.
Except maybe the Varyag. That's tied to s dock somewhere and has
no weapons or engines. They might have a show against that.
perched too closely to the
Persian gulf.
You need to get off those strange drugs. Or start taking some.
If Iran goes nuclear it precludes a nuclear attack, as per N. Korea.
Think so?
The irresponsible thing would be for a nuclear power to use nukes in
yet another "preventative" war.
Don't disagree. Iran has no nukes and will probably never be allowed to
develop them. Iran's offensive capability can be readily destroyed with
conventional weapons. No need for nukes.
Not only irresponsible, but monstrously immoral.
Stoning women to death is immoral too. But Iran does that.
And lets be quite clear here....the most
irresponsible country on earth, right now is Bush's U.S. of A.
IF you say so. That doesn't mean they need nukes to clean Iran's clock.
Does "A" stand for Assholes?
Why?
Anyway, Bush has destabilized the planet, much
to dismay of the world, and to the pleasure of the Neo-Cons, the
Fundy's, and the Armegeddon-Seekers.
The Armageddon seekers are the Iranian clerics and their kook President
who thinks the Mahdi is just waiting for him to bring on Judgement Day.
The whole region is dangerous
No ***** Sherlock. Figure that out all by yourself did you?
because Israel alreadys Nuclear,
Good thing that. It stops kook countrys like Iran from invading.
and is still expanding it's "borders".
Hmm, let's see various Arab nations invade Israel over the years, get
their sorry arses handed to them and instead of being overrun Israel
takes some of *their* territory and holds it.
Tell someone who cares.
If u think that one power can go
Nuclear, without it's rivals matching that, then you're pretty naive.
If you think Iran can magically destroy even one US carrier much less
the fleet of them they actually have you are beyond naive.
Although all dangerous, so far the most dangerous Fundy have been
Christians.
Well, I'm not Christian, so I musn't be dangerous..
--
The CO
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 10:02:17 AM |
|
|
Just to address another point...when Iran does go nuclear, there is no
danger of it using a nuke. A nuclear Iran would merely even the
playing field and protect it from being nuked by Israel, or the U.S.
Currently, with a non-nuclear Iran, Israel and the U.S. are far more
likely to use this option - as they said they would do.
Iran sees what happens to countries around it without the bomb...and it
sees what happens to N Korea, that does have it. Iran would be nuts
not to go nuclear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?utf-8?B?c2F0YW4gb3NjaWxsYXRlIG1ldGFsbGljIHNvbmF0YXPihKIg4pml?=" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 10:30:51 PM |
|
|
Eric, both Iran & Syria *already* have nukes !
Besides, this is a mute point.....
Russia has quite a large number of Sunburn missiles pointed
fairly & squarely at Israel.....
She also has many billions of rubles of vital economic & strategic
interests invested in Iran -- not to mention Russian technicians
working at Iranian nuclear installations......
Israel is a thorn in the side of Russia & the world.
If Israel crosses the red line & attacks a sovereign nation such as
Iran or Syria (or both) -- BOOOM -- instant vaporization !!!
http://www.joevialls.co.uk/myahudi/sunburn.html
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
---0---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fuzzy_logic" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. and Iran: The Nuclear Showdown -- How would Iran retaliate if U.S. were to take military action? |
06 Apr 2006 11:20:10 AM |
|
|
I suspect that Iran probably already has nukes...
"eric" <ericdavis500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144335737.684065.204140@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just to address another point...when Iran does go nuclear, there is no
danger of it using a nuke. A nuclear Iran would merely even the
playing field and protect it from being nuked by Israel, or the U.S.
Currently, with a non-nuclear Iran, Israel and the U.S. are far more
likely to use this option - as they said they would do.
Iran sees what happens to countries around it without the bomb...and it
sees what happens to N Korea, that does have it. Iran would be nuts
not to go nuclear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
