DELETED_74993

Castiel said:
Not only mission creep, but putting men on the ground to enable strategic strikes in the first place is a tactical and logistical nightmare, of course they could just go for the Shock and Awe BS, but that would negate the "We are only stopping the Nuclear program" defence.

The only real way to deal with this is by negotiation. As someone said in an article I read today, the carrot and the stick, with the emphasis on the carrot as it is far harder to fight off an embrace than it is an attack and in today's political climate in the Middle East that could not be more true.
Click to expand...

Yep madman is going soon anyway they going to do away with the presidential post and whilst other one talks a good hard game his actions show a very different character and he advocates anti-violence in a great number of his speeches although he does strongly believe that the west manipulates and destabilises the region which in fairness aint too far from the truth when you look at it from their perspective.
 
Not read the whole thread but this supposed covert war is quite interesting such as Stuxnet, assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and most recently, a missile base and "architect" of the country's missile programme been blown up in an *accident*.

Source

Could the Israeli's carry out a covert sortie/strike on the nuclear sites? Or would the sites need some less covert methods to destroy them? Didn't they do a similar thing in Syria?
 
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/iaea_iran_report_11-8-11.pdf

Section G "possible military dimensions", particularly para 43. Published 8th Nov 11:

Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

"Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities;
"Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material;
"The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network; and
"Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components."
Click to expand...


xibinim said:
Could the Israeli's carry out a covert sortie/strike on the nuclear sites? Or would the sites need some less covert methods to destroy them? Didn't they do a similar thing in Syria?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if they could fly a sortie into their airspace without detection, Iran have a large multi layered air defence system.
 
Last edited:
The British Military is committed to Afghan till the end of 2014. They are also undergoing redundancies the final figure of 16,000 is yet to be confirmed. This will bring the Army down to 82,000 of which only a fraction will be Infantry battalions. The British Army will soon be in no fit state to carry out a state on state war such as an invasion of Iran. In fact the military will struggle to carry out the basics such as defence of the realm and defending our overseas interests. No Carriers no ability to fly planes off the new carriers when they get built. Not enough vessels to patrol our overseas interests. More Generals than tanks. More Admirals than ships.....you get the gist.
 
obs030770 said:
The British Military is committed to Afghan till the end of 2014. They are also undergoing redundancies the final figure of 16,000 is yet to be confirmed. This will bring the Army down to 82,000 of which only a fraction will be Infantry battalions. The British Army will soon be in no fit state to carry out a state on state war such as an invasion of Iran. In fact the military will struggle to carry out the basics such as defence of the realm and defending our overseas interests. No Carriers no ability to fly planes off the new carriers when they get built. Not enough vessels to patrol our overseas interests. More Generals than tanks. More Admirals than ships.....you get the gist.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about an invasion though. I think the term would be "surgical strikes" if they happened.
 
Surgical strikes on what though? The Israeli's have already tried to knock out his nuclear facilities and to be frank they are wasting their time. It won't work. If your going to prevent them from getting Military nukes any time soon then the fact of the matter is your options are.

1. Get rid of the madman in control of that country, although who's to say his replacement wouldnt be ten times worse.
2. Destroy his facilities which entails actually identifying them all !! and then taking them out and making sure of it. This cant be done by air power alone.
3. Invasion similar to Iraq and the so called hunt for WMD. Cant see the Brits having the stomach for that following the Iraq debacle. In fact to be honest cant see the Americans going for that either.
4. Try and bring the looney leader in from the cold like they did with Gadaffi, then hope over time his own people get rid of him.

My own opinion is if Iran even get close to a nuke then the Israeli's will find some way of stopping them.
 
obs030770 said:
Surgical strikes on what though? The Israeli's have already tried to knock out his nuclear facilities and to be frank they are wasting their time. It won't work. If your going to prevent them from getting Military nukes any time soon then the fact of the matter is your options are.

1. Get rid of the madman in control of that country, although who's to say his replacement wouldnt be ten times worse.
2. Destroy his facilities which entails actually identifying them all !! and then taking them out and making sure of it. This cant be done by air power alone.
3. Invasion similar to Iraq and the so called hunt for WMD. Cant see the Brits having the stomach for that following the Iraq debacle. In fact to be honest cant see the Americans going for that either.
4. Try and bring the looney leader in from the cold like they did with Gadaffi, then hope over time his own people get rid of him.

My own opinion is if Iran even get close to a nuke then the Israeli's will find some way of stopping them.
Click to expand...

All four options won't work with Iran.

1. The government is firmly in control of Iran
2. The US is already trying this. Sending corrupt centrifuges into the black market etc to try and destroy nuclear enrichment plants. The Iranians only need to scan their parts carefully for faults/irregularities to weed out dodgy centriuges.
3. This war would be at least 10 times more costly than the Iraq operation, and would draw response from a whole bunch of Iran's allies, China and Russia would not be happy as they have gas deals in place. Germany and France also trade largely with Iran.
4. He doesn't wan't anything the West can offer him. Iran's economy is doing fine.

America has been acting as the playground bully for too long. Eventually playground bullies get KO'd, but knowing our stupid Politicians the UK will be dragged into it one way or another
 
Captain Planet said:
No one said anything about an invasion though. I think the term would be "surgical strikes" if they happened.
Click to expand...

How will they install a new central bank, take over the oil and overthrow the regime with only air strikes? the first thing the Libyan 'rebels' did was set up a new central bank talk about confidence.

Rebel 1: "So, how will we accomplish this revolution?"
Rebel 2: "I know, lets set up a central bank!"
Rebel 1: "Shouldn't we take control of the country first?"
Rebel 2: "No hurry, NATO & the UN have told us it's just a formality."

The Iranian 'nuclear threat' is nothing but an excuse a la Iraq to launch yet another coup d'etat.
 
Guardian Newspaper said:
In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.
Click to expand...

Ok so studying some of the posts above, OcUK forum users have deduced that:

1.The British military planners, who are expert in their field of doing just that (military planning), are wasting their time in planning an air and sea based military campaign, they are wrong (despite us not actually knowing what the actual objective is).

2. We know exactly how much the Iraq war cost and we know that an Iranian campaign would cost at least 10x that.

I need to start directing my CO's to these forums in future! :)
 
There were far more obvious drone shootdowns earlier in the year anyway, didnt they shoot one down near Qom which is nowhere near the border?

This new one is a relative non issue. There can't be much of strategic importance that close to the Afghan/Pakistan border anyway.
 
Well I guess in decade or so the Chinese might come up with a cheap knock off version - no doubt they are already going to be buying the remains as they did in Serbia.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom