Member Profile

Total number of comments: 3 (since 2013-11-28 16:55:41)


Showing comments 3 - 1

  • Israel - Iran Military Comparison
    • You're absolutely right.

      So much so that the Iranians know this to be true as well.

      So let's look at the #s shall we?

      Israel 500 nuclear tipped missiles.

      The worst scenarios say Iran might be "on the verge (timeline indefinite) of having built one or two primitive nukes that it could place on missiles and launch targeting Israel. In reality the best intelligence says they are more than a few years away from even that.

      But let's assume the Iranians despite the obvious nuke imbalance launch their 2 or 3 nukes at Israel.

      For them to even think they succeeded, they'd have to have perfectly targeted their missiles.

      These missiles would also have to completely and totally evade the most advanced anti-missile defenses on Earth.

      Then upon reaching their target each would have to successfully explode.
      The successful detonation of a nukes is NO small feat. So kudos to the Iranian nuke team for being able to do this without any nuke tests to prove their ability (sarcasm)

      Since Iran is NOWHERE near building a hydrogen bomb, it's bombs would most likely be atomic which while they are nothing to laugh at. Once again unfortunately for Iran it would require 3 hydrogen nukes to truly devastate the nation of Israel.

      They may be close to building an atomic bomb, but no where near being able to build a hydrogen bomb.

      With the only nuke they could have, an atomic bomb, the very worst Iran could do would be to successfully decimated about 3 Israeli population centers, 10,000s of Israelis would be dead, with several times that suffering radiation poisoning.

      UNFORTUNATELY for Iran, all this pointless destruction would fail to wipe Israel off the face of the map.

      EVEN WORSE for Iran, Israel's nukes are NOT stored in cities.

      Wherever they may be, it's quite likely that Israel would still have every single one of its nukes after the absurd notion of a successful Iranian nuke strike.

      So in response to Iran's "successful nuke attack" (the notion is so absurd, it's laughable) Israel would have about 500 choice responses with a significant # being the NATION DESTROYING HYDROGEN BOMBS that Iran does not have.

      Do I really have to write out the follow up to a successful Iranian nuke strike on Israel to make it clear just how ridiculous it is to believe Iran would do such a thing.

      Iran knows of the two nations, it is Israel who has the arsenal to wipe Iran off the face of the map, while they do NOT have the ability to do so to Israel.

      Iran has demonstrated all sorts of irrational behavior, but a desire to commit national suicide has not been one of them, and a nuclear attack, even an unsuccessful one would be national suicide for Iran.

    • and what wars has Iran launched by proxy?

    • OH YES it does.

      What a ridiculous assertion on your part.

      Exactly how was Iran supposed to respond to a wholesale military invasion/onslaught from its neighbor to meet your absurd notion of NOT waging war?

      The point being made here is which nation resorts to war as a primary instrument of foreign relations with its neighbors.

      If Iraq had NOT attacked Iran, Iran was NOT going to attack Iraq.

      As the early stages of the war demonstrated. Iran was in NO position to do so. It's forward lines were quickly overwhelmed by Iraq, and Iraq took more than just the disputed territory. Other less passionate nations would have sued for peace, and Iraq would have declared victory.

      To forestall that, Iran turned to human wave attacks not seen since WWI turned the tide for Iran.

      The Iranians came in such numbers towards the Iraqi front lines that they simply could NOT KILL THEM FAST ENOUGH.

      This allowed the Iranians to overwhelm the Iraqi lines deep within Iran and push them back to the line of dispute, where the war stagnated until Iraq basically surrendered in order to take on a easier target in Kuwait.

      As for the article the problem with the whole notion of preemptive strikes ignores the completely different natures of each nation.

      Iran due to its size and population can afford to sit back and wait for an attack, for no such attack will wipe them off the face of the map.

      Israel on the other hand is small enough that waiting for an invasion would be too late. To survive it had to launch preemptive strikes to take out military forces many times larger in total #s.

Showing comments 3 - 1

Shares 0