Bomb Iran?
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
What a simplistic world you live in. This isn't anyone "meddling" in an Iranian domestic policy. Having an emerging nuclear power is a WORLD affair and thus gives all countries the right to protect their interests in a way that is deemed acceptable by the international community.
Its Neville !
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lain.jpg/225px-Arthur-Neville-Chamberlain.jpg
No hotlinking!
History has taught us that looking the other way doesn’t work it only makes thinks worse.
Israel's challenge is not one of resources but one of likely losses, which will be extensive due to the protection Iran has built around their facilities. They want other nations with better capabilty to do it but if they don't they will be forced to.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
During Operation Desert Storm (1991) there was a need for deep penetration bomb similar to the British weapons of World War II, but none of the NATO air forces had such a weapon, though the RAF possesses several of Barnes Wallis' bombs as museum pieces. As a stop-gap, some were developed rapidly over a period of 28 days, using old 8 inch (203 mm) artillery barrels as casings. These bombs weighed over two tons but carried only 647 lb of high explosive. They were laser-guided and were designated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)", and worked very effectively.
More recently the US has developed a series of custom made bombs to penetrate hardened or deeply buried structures:
Depth of Penetration
Weapon Systems
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 1.8 m (6 ft) BLU-109 Penetrator GBU-10, GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-118/B Thermobaric Warhead GBU-15, GBU-24, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: more than 6 m (20 ft) BLU-113 Super Penetrator GBU-28, GBU-29
.
More recently the US has developed a series of custom made bombs to penetrate hardened or deeply buried structures:
Depth of Penetration
Weapon Systems
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 1.8 m (6 ft) BLU-109 Penetrator GBU-10, GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) GBU-15, GBU-24, GBU-27, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: 3.4 m (11 ft) BLU-118/B Thermobaric Warhead GBU-15, GBU-24, AGM-130
Penetration of reinforced concrete: more than 6 m (20 ft) BLU-113 Super Penetrator GBU-28, GBU-29
.
Last edited:
I'm not really sure why a few members are implying that we shouldn't interfere in these issues. It is clear why some countries shouldn't have such weapons - you wouldn't want to see a psychotic man get his hands on a set of kitchen knives, how is this any different?
Not that I'm commenting on Iran, or any country in particular, of course.
Not that I'm commenting on Iran, or any country in particular, of course.
You will need to think a lot bigger than that. Those munitions are fine if you want to hit a communications bunker or a Hardened Aircraft Shelter (HAS) that is at ground level but if you want to take out an underground bunker built of ultra hard high pressure concrete then you will want something with a lot more punch.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator
Oh please...dont give me that rubbish...Iran poses absolutely no threat to the UK or the USA...maybe Israel has reason to be scared but the Americans and the British have nothing to worry about unless they decide to attack Iran then Iran attacks America or UK...which tbh i wouldnt blame them in the slightest bit.
Problem is that Israel havent got the capability to take Iran out so will beg America to protect their interests...which makes me laugh...its fine for Israel to be the aggressor but when the shoe is on the other foot they cry wolf...
I hope Obama has the balls to say to Israel to go do one...doubt but i can hope and wish i suppose.
And what gives you the impression that Iran is similar to a psychotic man?
Remember, to those in the middle east, Westerners are nothing more than invaders who want to possess their resources (namely oil). The Westerners simply cannot keep out of the business of Iran, Iraq, etc. To Iranians, the Western countries such as USA would be akin to the man with a knife, intent on attacking people.
It depends on whose viewpoint you take. I can see Westerners viewing the Middle Eastern countries as "the enemy" because that is what Governments want them to believe.
What shocks me is that people have absolute faith in their Governments, despite the fact that a big War was fought (and still is being fought) under false pretences (ie. the Iraq war, weapons of mass destruction that didnt actually exist).
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
sorry but what Utter tosh
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,175
It does make me laugh, the western world is abit sick in that it has all the power but wont allow other countries to get them, what makes them any less responsible than we are? And it makes me laugh everyones going ape at Iran for a secret military base, area 51 anyone ? if I was Iran id ask USA to get rid of that, if they want to lead by example.......
Is that the best you can come back with??..why not try to prove me wrong on what i said???...oh i forgot its not your strongest point is it?? when we are trying to have a civil debate....mind you even thats a new one for GD
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Is that the best you can come back with??..why not try to prove me wrong on what i said???...oh i forgot its not your strongest point is it?? when we are trying to have a civil debate....mind you even thats a new one for GD
Have you dropped your dummy out of your pram again ; )
No but stop being an utter moron and try to have a civil debate without having to resort to stupid one line comments...just makes you look silly in all honesty if thats the best you can come back with
.surely the idea of them possibly having nukes doesnt change much.
how would it be that much different to the current state of things?
IF they were to launch one, they'd get it back 10 fold.
i know the idea of the initial casualty's is bad, but what country is really going to commit an act that is A. going to cause irreversible damage and B. bring about their own annihilation.
i understand that some of the middle eastern countries want others wiped off the planet, but at the cost of their own existence?
how would it be that much different to the current state of things?
IF they were to launch one, they'd get it back 10 fold.
i know the idea of the initial casualty's is bad, but what country is really going to commit an act that is A. going to cause irreversible damage and B. bring about their own annihilation.
i understand that some of the middle eastern countries want others wiped off the planet, but at the cost of their own existence?
I have no idea where you have that idea of Obama? He has been publicly anti-war, removed the troops from Iraq, resisted calls for more troops in Afghanistan and has made efforts to reach out to the Middle East.
If anyone would have given Israel a hand it would have been Bush and even he said no.
It's not about secret bases, more the fact that they have opened a new nuclear refinery when the US, UK, France and NATO have told them they will not let them create a nuclear weapons program. They are defying the international community at a time when the US is trying to reach out to them.
Are you an official Iranian government spokesman or is that just your opinion? It is however a fact (no, not just my opinion) that Iran does present a threat to UK/US interests (even though you failed to notice I was talking about all global nations in my original post).
Israel does have the capability to attack Iran and probably would do so if its existence is threatened enough. It would also possibly attack unilaterally if it feels it has been betrayed by America, which interestingly are your wishes. Lets not forget Israel have acted before against Syria and Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Attacking Iran, despite its bigger clout, isn't a huge leap of faith considering it would get (and already has in some cases) the underhanded support of Western nations and Iran's Sunni neighbours.
There are so many things wrong with this post I wouldn't know where to start. So I won't bother.
Just go read some books or something, ok?