rc135x
Topic Author
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:46 am

Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:04 pm

Today's Washington Post carried an article which cited "former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.) and retired Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald suggest[ing] that the United States provide Israel with three KC-135 refueling tankers." This would enable Israeli F-16s and F-15s to reach targets in Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...2/07/gIQAWQs5zQ_story.html?hpid=z3

What has happened to Israel's 707 tankers? I believe they were used during the Israeli attack on PLO targets in Algiers, so why not use them in an attack on Iran? USAF assets participating in an Israel-only attack would be idiotic to the degree that it would mean total and premeditated US complicity at a time when it needs plausible deniability.

n.b. I am not advocating such an attack or any strategy relating to the matter, just wondering what has become of this aerial asset and why "informed" personnel would make an offer of USAF KC-135s.
KC-135A, A(RT), D, E, E(RT), Q, R, EC-135A, C, G, L, RC-135S, U, V, W, X, TC-135S, W
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:01 pm

If they are not advocating an attack with US, (which seems to be the situation) I am unclear what their stance is.

Besides, given the similarities between a B707 and KC135, the US will get the credit even if Israel attacks on it's own.

Is that the intention?.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:04 am

Perhaps the current IDF tanker fleet is too small to bring an effective strike force to Iran. 3 KC-135 (E or R?) should be enough for another 6-9 F-15I int he strike package. This could just be a supplement.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3642
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:28 am

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 2):
This could just be a supplement

Bingo. However the PR problem if one doesn't return will be huge.
 
packcheer
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:28 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:24 am

Why can't they lease one and repaint it. If they are set on attacking Iran, I wouldn't put it past them to just repaint one, or three... or more
Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
 
rc135x
Topic Author
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:46 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:00 pm

I appreciate that 3 KC-135s could be a supplement to the 707 tankers in the IAF. Who would operate these airplanes, US or Israeli crews? (I presume that if Israeli then there would be a "crash" checkout process for the crew). The US would not be prepared to lose a crew in combat or due to attrition. I also presume any "loaners" would be active service KC-135Rs and not airplanes withdrawn from the "Boneyard."

The US will still be blamed for premeditated participation---as they did during the 1973 war. Ex-USAFE F-4Es were flown directly to Israel by USAFE crews. The planes entered combat in USAF colors but with IAF roundels. This contributed to the Arab belief that US crews were fighting on behalf of Israel (Anwar Sadat complained about this publicly after the war started to go badly for the Egyptians).

Incidentally, after a quick check of references I find 5 IAF 707 Re'em: 260, 264, 272, 275, and 290. They certainly aren't enough to sustain an aerial campaign, but are they enough to support, say, 3 packages out-and-back from Israel to Iran?


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erezms

KC-135A, A(RT), D, E, E(RT), Q, R, EC-135A, C, G, L, RC-135S, U, V, W, X, TC-135S, W
 
iceberg210
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:46 pm

Hmmm Israel is short on tankers? They might just want to buy some KC767's me thinks, :p

In all honesty though, while on a moral/ally level, seems like a fine move, one does have to wonder the PR implications of having US metal supporting operations of a different nation. It'll be awfully interesting to see how it all pans out...
Erik Berg (Foster's is over but never forgotten)
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:15 pm

Isn't IAI converting 767 tankers for Colombia?

3 KC-135s could be used for friendly areas (filling strike packages between takeoff and over Saudi Arabia), returning to base, refueling and launching to meet the returning aircraft. You'd get 6 sorties out that, effectively doubling the IDF tanker force.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:36 pm

The KC-135Rs have about twice the off-load capability of the KC-707. Each KC-135 can combat refuel (pre-strike and post-strike) 6 attacking aircraft, making the total of 18, for bombing and CAP. The Israelis have about 4 operational KC-707s, which would also be used and provide an additional 12 strike/CAP aircraft. This force is not enough to take out enough of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, but will set it back several years. My guess is since the KC-135 is the more capable tanker, they would be used for the strike aircraft while the KC-707s would be used for the CAP aircraft, since the strike aircraft would require a lot more fuel. Israel has about 25 F-15Is, as well as more than 100 GBU-28 bunker busters capable of penetrating about 30m (100') of dirt/rocks, or up to 8m (25') of steel rebar reinforced concrete, and has a glide range of more than 9 km (5 nm) and weigh in at about 5000 lbs (2268 kg). Each F-15I can carry 2 GBU-28s (these things are 25' long), and like all F-15s has the M-61 Vulcan cannon, which would most likely be loaded with M-56A3/A4 rounds (anti personnel and anti aircraft) for a mission like this.

But, if the USAF were to use KC-135s to help the IDF strike force, they might as well join the strike and CAP packages, too. The USAF has more aircraft, and could supplement the Israeli CAP with F-15Cs and F-16Es (additional CAP could also be provided by USN F/A-18E/Fs from CVNs in the gulf, if needed), maybe even F-22s, and supplement the strike package with B-2As ( carrying GBU-57 or GBU-28s), B-1Bs, and F-15Es, as well as more KC-135s and perhaps E-3s, E-8s, and RC-135s.

But the US will have to weigh any participation against what Iran's response would be. Clearly they will try to close the Strits of Hormoz, at a minimum.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:48 pm

 
cargotanker
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
But, if the USAF were to use KC-135s to help the IDF strike force, they might as well join the strike and CAP packages, too

I don't think a combined US/Israeli strike is politically feasible. It won't happen.

I like the KC-135 idea, but instead we should SELL the Isaelis 10 of them for $1 each. That would send a strong message to Iran and instantly give Israel the strategic reach to strike Iran repeatedly. I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:40 pm

A while back, there was a program to modify the port underwing drop tank with a probe for refueling for the F-16. There was also a modification to install a probe into the port CFT on the F-16 as well. In both cases these were retractable.

Suppose either of these solutions were available. How far could, say, an F-15I with max gas drag an F-16I being its buddy tanker?
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:09 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 11):
How far could, say, an F-15I with max gas drag an F-16I being its buddy tanker?

Fighters use as buddy tankers are not very useful in long range missions, they simply don't carry enough fuel. With FAST Pak CFTs (750 gallons each) and 3 X 300 gallon external fuel tanks, plus internal fuel a F-15 can carry a maximum of 51,775 lbs of fuel. Of course as a buddy tanker it would be less than that as the centerline external fuel tank would have to be the buddy refueling pod, so the total fuel on board drops to 49,735 lbs. In this configueration the "F-15 Tanker" would be burning a lot of gas for itself. My rough numbers say it can fly out as far as 500 nm while refueling the F-16I, with an EAR point at the 500nm point, then return to base, after off-loading about 10,000 lbs of fuel. That would be enough to get the heavy F-16Is to strike their targets, and get out of Iran air spaces, as long as they did not have to use AB to much. The airplanes would probibly run out of fuel over the gulf. then the crews punch out and picked up ('rescued") by USCG or USN warships.

This type of mission does not provide a CAP.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:55 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
My rough numbers say it can fly out as far as 500 nm while refueling the F-16I, with an EAR point at the 500nm point, then return to base, after off-loading about 10,000 lbs of fuel. That would be enough to get the heavy F-16Is to strike their targets, and get out of Iran air spaces, as long as they did not have to use AB to much. The airplanes would probibly run out of fuel over the gulf. then the crews punch out and picked up ('rescued") by USCG or USN warships.

Thanks for the estimates. Looks like we're mixing strategy with a bit of logistics. 500nm based on the GlobalSecurity images would provide for fully tanked F-16s to mid-iraq or SA. What I'm considering is that this may save 2-3 KC-135s worth of tanking while "in the neighborhood" of Israel. The probes could also be used for WARp refuelling, cutting the problem of number of booms available.

What kind of offensive could we therefore put together using these considerations:

F-16I strike package, perhaps 3-6 F-15I hauling bunker busters too
F-15C/I CAP

F-16s refueled via buddy tankers inbound and outbound in 500NM nearest Israel (eliminating need for KC-135s and KC 707 early and late.)
CAP gets 3 dedicated KC-135s, they'll need the booms.
5 remaining KC-707s orbit at 1000nm from Israel to top off on ingress, refuel on egress to get strike package back to buddy tankers.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:19 pm

Don't forget when you install the probe refueling pods on the F-16Is, you loose a hard point and the weapons it can carry. I doubt the F-16I can carry a GBU-28. The weapon is just to big, it is 25' long. The F-15E/I/K/S can carry 2 of them, the B-2A can carry several.

So in my professional opinion, buddy refueling is not the way to plan this mission, use real tankers like the KC-707 and KC-135 and keep it simple s... (KISS theory)

Cargotanker had the best idea yet, sell some KC-135Rs to the IDF for about $1 each, give the Israeli a quicky difference training course to transistion from the KC-707 to the KC-135.

But, no matter what happens the Iranians will blame the US and Israel. They may also blame the French and British. At the very least they will place mines in the Strait of Hormuz to try to stop the flow of oil to the rest of the world. That brings in the USN and RN into the mix.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:50 pm

A real quick and dirty line on the map shows that about 3/4 of Iran is north of a line from Israel to the southern border of Kuwait. So most of the nuclear sites are probably in the area that would require flying through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. Since Iraqi currently has Cessna Caravans as it's air force that leaves Jordan with any ability to intercept. What happens to the plan if the tankers orbit over Iraq? Whose is going to shoot them down?
That avoids any interaction with the Saudis. Would Jordan want a nuclear Iran in the neighborhood?
How much deniability would the US have to 10-15 135s that were on a training mission over Iraq when Iran got bombed?
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:56 pm

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 15):
How much deniability would the US have to 10-15 135s that were on a training mission over Iraq when Iran got bombed?

Depends, how many EA-6Bs and EA-18Gs can you spare. If enough, the response would be "We were never there".
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:03 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 10):
I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.

Hell, if I could learn to fly them... 
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
ryu2
Posts: 1545
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:51 am

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 15):
Since Iraqi currently has Cessna Caravans as it's air force that leaves Jordan with any ability to intercept. What happens to the plan if the tankers orbit over Iraq? Whose is going to shoot them down?

Even if they couldn't, if Israeli jets were passing eastbound through their airspace, Iraq would certainly give early warning to Iran.

[Edited 2012-02-13 19:53:05]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:23 am

I will point out to everyone that you are assuming best case scenario's for maximum range and weapons payload... and anytime you strap on bombs and missiles, you take a hit in maximum range due to parasitic drag.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3135
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:40 pm

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 18):
Even if they couldn't, if Israeli jets were passing eastbound through their airspace, Iraq would certainly give early warning to Iran.

I doubt that. Iraq still isn't the greatest fan of Iran. There would need to be some severe jamming, since Iran's radar coverage does not end at its border.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:31 pm

War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
canoecarrier
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:20 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:42 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 20):
I doubt that. Iraq still isn't the greatest fan of Iran. There would need to be some severe jamming, since Iran's radar coverage does not end at its border.

Not at all. Iraq has almost no capability to keep Israel from using their airspace as a point of transit to Iran. Israel has far bigger problems if they want to attack Iran. Most importantly an attack like that is at the edge of the range of their F-15s and F-16s. Hence the discussion about tankers. Iran learned from the Iraq strike and scattered their nuclear facilities around the country rather than putting them in a convenient, lone, above ground location.
The beatings will continue until morale improves
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:47 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.

Iran will be quickly put down much like Iraq was. I don't think the Iranian people are opposed to regime change, the ignorant fools running the country need to go. Cut throat. Iran has everything to be a leading middle-east power economically, but the morons in charge are holding them back, threatening Israel and the US into a suicidal war. Anyone who openly threatens another country with extinction through nuclear or other means needs to be removed. Permanently.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:29 pm

Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:35 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 17):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 10):
I'm sure Israeli aircrews could figure them out pretty quickly.

Hell, if I could learn to fly them...

Me too!!!!, I'd go in a New York minute. Hey, IDF are you listening? Retired KC-135 Instructor Boom Operator available, Former CCTS Instructor at Castle AFB, lives in Fort Worth.

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.

Can we afford Iran with nukes and controlled by unstable mad-men?

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

We were, and so weren't the British troops in Basara, at least for the first year or so.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:56 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.

The US lost 4,487 of our finest people.

The UK lost 179 of your finest people.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:36 pm

Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
Antidote
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:15 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:46 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.

Yeah, time for a group reread of Addicted to War by Joel Andreas. It's an easy enough read - it's in comic format.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Fighters use as buddy tankers are not very useful in long range missions, they simply don't carry enough fuel. With FAST Pak CFTs (750 gallons each) and 3 X 300 gallon external fuel tanks, plus internal fuel a F-15 can carry a maximum of 51,775 lbs of fuel

That's pretty impressive, it carry's almost as much fuel as a B727-200 !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2465
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:19 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 29):

That's pretty impressive, it carry's almost as much fuel as a B727-200 !

It should be noted that it is extremely rare for a F-15E to have 3 external drop tanks and 2 CFT's. For long missions CFT's and two external drop tanks are used.
 
cargotanker
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:53 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 24):
Everyone expected to be welcomed into Baghdad as a liberator as well.

How many troops did the UK/US lose there?.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.
Quoting antidote (Reply 28):
Yeah, time for a group reread of Addicted to War by Joel Andreas. It's an easy enough read - it's in comic format.

Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with how you would deal with the FACT that Iran will have nuclear weapons, and will continue to build more and more, in the near future. And their leader publically states that he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map'. What do you suggest? Read a comic book? Cross our fingers and hope that a few hundred thousand Israelis don't disappear in a flash? I'd really like to hear your solutions, because it seems like the world is running out of peaceful options, and I don't think Israel has any reason to feel safe hoping that Iran suddenly becomes very peaceful.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7424
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:07 pm

Firstly, regime change, with or without US/UK boots on the ground is a lot more problematic that many, (including many of our leaders think).

Iraq surely shows just how screwed up things can very rapidly get if you do no plan for all eventualities.

Even Libya, which had no US/UK boots on the ground, (at least officially) is clearly very unstable.

I am making no statement against regime change per se, although who decides that a regime should be changed is always a moot point. My point is that regime change should be the last option, and thought needs to be given to "What happens after the old regime is gone".

Secondly, is it possible that he wants Nuclear power to generate energy. Many countries use Nuclear power, even those who have Oil/Gas.

Finally, the assumption that Iran would use Nuclear weapons, is presumably based on the assumption that Iran thinks that Israel has'nt already got them.
 
Antidote
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:15 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:40 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Most of us come here because we share an interest in military aviation and comments in the threads are generally thoughtful and well-considered. This thread, in particular, has very informed conjecture on a possible strike. Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread. I appreciate your point, though, that neither do glib dismissals.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1699
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:05 am

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
War & Oil prices will hit the roof.....The World cannot afford that.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 27):
Hmmmm....tom-toms pounding pretty loudly on this thread. Testosterone to the max.

Professional discussion is one thing, actual excitement at the prospect is out of place and jingoistic.

Quoting antidote (Reply 33):
Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread.

IMO too many people seem to ready to attack Iran. "Oh no they want nukes" The Iranians are not stupid. They want to survive and launching a nuke at Israel is a quick way to kill yourself off.

Relevant questions:
Can the IDF successfully attack Iran?
Do they need additional tankers?
What strike package could they use?
What precautions can Iran take?
What routes make most sense?
How much deniability can the IDF or the US achieve?
What obstacles can other regional nations offer?
What regional reaction can we expect?

Non-relevant/Inflammatory:
"Yee hay!"
"Sign me up for the attack"
"Lets kick some rag head ass"
"Cant wait to see this happen"
"This has to happen"
"Who cares what the UN thinks"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
Nice comments fellas, we're all blown away by how ridiculous you've made us look as we consider the options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Quoting antidote (Reply 33):
Most of us come here because we share an interest in military aviation and comments in the threads are generally thoughtful and well-considered. This thread, in particular, has very informed conjecture on a possible strike. Posts that show unrestrained glee at the prospect of another conflict, though, just don’t add imo to the otherwise professional context of the thread. I appreciate your point, though, that neither do glib dismissals.

cargotanker, they just don't understand that the threat of a rogue regime having nuclear weapons isn't just their ability to detonate an airburst 3,000 feet over some city, or a smuggled suitcase bomb detonating on city streets, but it is more importantly the EMP threat. If Iran could detonate a single 500 kt weapon about 300 miles above North America or Europe it will put us all back into the stone age. No modern conveniences will work because the electric grids are fried. Since most p[eople are not farmers, they will soon starve to death. There will be caos in the streets and people shooting each other for a can of beans. Over NA, power will be lost in all of the US, Canada, and Mexico. Over Europe the EU will cease to exsist.

They also don't understand that the military hates war more than anyone.

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 34):
"Lets kick some rag head ass"

Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1699
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:13 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
Me too!!!!, I'd go in a New York minute. Hey, IDF are you listening? Retired KC-135 Instructor Boom Operator available,
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

They also don't understand that the military hates war more than anyone.

You must have been frapped!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.

And Iranian's aren't Arabs either, yeah I have read things that contain facts,
.....unlike most political affairs commentators on Fox news.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:24 am

Iraq was quickly put down? That's hilarious...mission accomplished, eh? Over 4000 dead Americans is quickly put down? With military planning like that, they'd end up with a bunch of lost wars...oh yah...they did.

Just like every other country on the planet that has ever been attacked, no matter what they think of their government, they will band together long enough to fight an external enemy.

Every intelligence agency in the US says Iran is not attempting to build nukes and haven't since 2003.

I'm curious, since I doubt anyone in here will actually be any closer to the front lines than their tv, how many American dead and wounded justify an attack on Iran? How many billions of dollars spent?

Unlike Iraq, Iran has designed their entire military for exactly this scenario. Iran will not attack so any war will be started by Israel and the US...a preemptive war just like the Japanese attack on Pearl. They thought the war was justified too....but these are just dirty damned Muslims...they are probably terrorists and deserve to die anyway, right?

How many actual service personnel are itching for a war? The intelligence professionals aren't. The military brass isn't. Even the former head of Mossad said attacking Iran was the stupidest thing he's ever heard.

Not a single estimate of any amount of attacks on Iran slow down their nuke program by more than a year. They also all agree that if attacked, Iran will build a bomb.

Yet so many seemed thrilled to have more of their fighting men and women killed in another insane war....and countless Iranians.

So far, regime change in Iraq has swapped one murderous president for a murderous vice president, just arrested for at least 150 death squad murders. Corruption is rampant and they suffer almost daily car bombs. The US is officially in peace talks with the Taliban, the folks the regime was so keen on getting rid of...and they'll be back running Kabul even while the US troops are still training, what will be, the new Taliban army...and funded by 90% of the global opium trade...which didn't exist until after the invasion...so the war has not resulted in regime change, it has resulted in a new industry for the old regime...and they get to supply poison to the western world as a bonus.

So what precedent leads so many to believe that Iran won't be able to mount an effective defense and retaliation? Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Bombed back to the stone age? They did that twice...but still lost thousands of the best men and women...done with stone age weapons...after the mission was supposedly accomplished.

Iran has hundreds of missiles which can reach anywhere in the middle east. They have at least 50 thousand rockets in Lebanon and Syria. They have supersonic anti ship missiles, which are almost impossible to defend against. They have super cavitating torpedoes capable of speeds of 200 miles per hour...which are almost impossible to defend against. They have thousands of anti aircraft rockets and radar guided AA guns.

They don't have to close Hormuz...they just have to shoot one tanker then the insurance will be pulled and all tanker traffic stops...with little more than a threat. Oil rose 10 bucks a barrel on Iran cutting off almost no oil to the UK and France...what happens if all oil stops from the Gulf?

Ironically, the US is directly responsible for the current Iranian regime. When the democratically elected Iranian government attempted to get more than 10% for the oil in their country, the US and UK deposed the elected president, and put in the dictator Shah. He was such a brutal, corrupt tyrant that the Iranians preferred the strict religious rule of the Ayatollah to US instituted Shah.

A lot like the Mujaheddin were armed by the US to fight the Soviets, and turned into the Taliban, which helped Osama plan and carry out 9/11. The US paid for and armed Saddam's Iraq in their losing war with Iran. Just over a decade later, they started a war to get rid of him.

Remember the Iran/Contra scandal when the US gave Iran money and weapons...with the help of Israel?

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK3Ch7.html

Libya is free of Qaddafi, so now death squads rule huge swaths of the country.

That's what regime change gets you.
What the...?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:56 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Israel has about 25 F-15Is

That makes an Israeli strike out of the question. For a country the size of Iran, 25 F-15 will cause minimal damage, even if none get shot down, which I think some would. And in return.....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
But, no matter what happens the Iranians will blame the US and Israel.

Exactly. Not only that, but Iran would rain hell on Israel with their missiles and would cause damage on Israel far out of porportion ti any damage Israel inflicts on Iran. As to the US, who gives Israel the money to even contemplate such things? If Israel received no US money, what would the Israeli military strength be? The world knows this and is uneasy with it. How many UN security Council resolutions against Israel have not passed because only the US vetoed it? All this is highly visible.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 16):
Depends, how many EA-6Bs and EA-18Gs can you spare. If enough, the response would be "We were never there".

Well, nobody would believe it, if Israeli fighters flew impossible distances, well beyond their own tankering capability, people would just assume the US was the helping hand, true or not.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 31):
how you would deal with the FACT that Iran will have nuclear weapons

Whoa there cowboy. There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence.


One way to guarantee that Iran will militarize it's nuclear program is to attack Iran.


http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-us-intelligence-207/



[Edited 2012-02-25 05:02:39]


[Edited 2012-02-25 05:11:08]

[Edited 2012-02-25 05:11:53]
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:15 pm

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 36):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Most Persans don't wear turbans, neither do the North Koreans.

And Iranian's aren't Arabs either, yeah I have read things that contain facts,
.....unlike most political affairs commentators on Fox news.

Yes, Iranians (Persans) are not Arabs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Iraq was quickly put down? That's hilarious...mission accomplished, eh? Over 4000 dead Americans is quickly put down? With military planning like that, they'd end up with a bunch of lost wars...oh yah...they did.

Yes, the uniformed Iraqi military forces were quickly put down. It was uncoordinated insurgent forces that caused the trouble after Iraq fell.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Not a single estimate of any amount of attacks on Iran slow down their nuke program by more than a year.

It worked in 1982 when Israel attacked the nuke plant in Iraq, and again in Syria in 2009.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
funded by 90% of the global opium trade...which didn't exist until after the invasion...

Just ignor the facts, Joe. The opium production has florished in Afghanistan since the 1979 invasion by the Soviet Union. Warloards found they could use it as a source on money to fight the Soviets. By the early 1990s, opium production in Afghanistan out produced the so called "golden triangle" countries of Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, and Loas. Afghanistan is part of the "golden crescent' which includes opium production in Pakistan and Iran, and has been producing opium since at least the 1920s. Other major producers are Columbia and Mexico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HeroinWorld-en.svg

But there wouldn't be a global production of opium if it were not for the heroin junkies and opium den smokers. There were at least two wars fought in China due to the "recreational use" in China.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
JoeCanuck
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
tommytoyz

It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world. Part of me wants to commend you for that, and part of me wants to remind you that world is a very dangerous place to live, and always has been. It is unfortunate we cannot trust each other and have to resort to some type of military action to restore peace. But that is the world we live in. Brutal regimes throughout the world do not compromise with those of us who just want peace, they see that as a weakness they can easily rule over. So, we should never stick our head in the sand.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:11 pm

Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. No single strike is going to take out Iranian nuclear sites. Even the Israelis admit it won't slow them down by more than a couple of years at most.

Their sites are scattered and well buried, not above ground and not ripe, easy targets for Israeli fighters. They are heavily defended with layers of missiles.

Israel doesn't have big enough bunker busters to get most of the sites and even the best US ones can't get them all...but the US will be in the battle so they will be retaliatory targets.

There is no such thing in law as a preemtive self defense attack. I thought he was going to bomb me so I bombed him back first doesn't fly with the Geneva conventions.

An undeclared first strike is an act of war, is murder, plain and simple, no different than what the Japanese did at Pearl, and the Iranians will have every right under international law to retaliate, just as the US did after Pearl. Unlike Iraq, the US will not get UN approval for this war.

Iran has enough anti ship missiles to overwhelm naval defenses and will hit some ships and US sailors will die...there's no way to tell how many but the number will be significantly higher than zero. They can also hit Israel and US assets in the region and may even conduct terror campaigns in the US. It only took a couple of redneck yokels to pull off Oklahoma city.

Only a fool underestimates the enemy and he's a greater fool if he doesn't expect that some of his troops will die. Every person who calls for war should remember that...especially since those calling for war won't be doing the dying.

There was not a single confirmed kill of an Iraqi mobile scud launcher in the first Iraq war...and they hid in the desert. Iran is mountains, valleys, forests, caves, coves and a million other places to hide their very mobile launchers. No matter how many drones they have, it will be impossible to find all of the launchers.

So what I am is realistic. There will be no sunday afternoon drive, shock and awe victory. Americans will die, Israelis will die and Iranians will die. How many more dead men and women does the US want to fly into Dover at night? More billions will be spent on another war that will accomplish nothing. Within 2 years at the most, Iran will be repaired, they will tear up the NPT, so there will be zero oversight of their nuclear program, they will be buried much too deep for any conventional weapon and they will go for the bomb.

Every US intelligence agency says Iran is NOT researching or building a bomb. If attacked, that will change.

As for the opium, production increased every year after the US invasion, to annual levels greater than any year under the Taliban.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
What the...?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world.

KC135TopBoom:

I respect your views here on A.net. But please understand me: I am not against taking action to stop a threat by nuclear weapons or stop their proliferation - by any means necessary. And we've already started doing that with respect to Iran. May countries have already put in real economic sanctions against Iran as a warning to not militarize their nuke program, not just the U.S. If the U.S. or anyone else is to go in militarily, guns blazing and kill people - one thing has to be 100% rock solid and certain:

That a military threat actually exists or is imminent - by whatever nuke program is being blamed and targeted.

If we are not certain, we can not go in there, guns blazing.

The Israelis themselves alone can not pull this off with their aircraft against a country that lies beyond the borders of Iraq, and is larger than the countries of Spain, France and Germany - combined. Israeli aircraft would have to spend more time in Iranian airspace than anywhere else, such are the distances.

I would presume the Israeli fighters would need refueling inside Iranian airspace. I don't think the tankers would be able to go in there and come back alive and once the Israeli fighters have shot all their air to air missiles, they'd be sitting ducks. It would be the first F-4 kills (or whatever they have) against the F-15.

[Edited 2012-02-25 13:29:36]
 
Antidote
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:15 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:04 am

During the Six Day War, the Israeli's apparently bombed southern Egyptian targets out of normal range of their Sud Aviation Vatour fighter-bombers by flying them there and back on one engine to extend their range. The first question is whether or not this was just an apocryphical story and the second is whether it could be duplicated today in an F15?
 
Antidote
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:15 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:35 am

Actually had some time to check on the supposed single engine Vatour attack on Luxor and/or Ras Banas - it's a slow night on the Left Coast. Apart from posted references similar to mine above, the flight time of the missions seems to line up with the range/normal speed of the aircraft, although there is a reference in IAF records of one Vatour pilot returning from Luxor on one engine. My best guess is urban myth unless someone knows differently. Which probably makes my question of whether a fully loaded F15 could increase its range by flying on one engine a bit academic. Carry on!
 
Newark727
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:39 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
It is clear both of you are against any action to end/eliminate further expansion of nukes in the world. Part of me wants to commend you for that, and part of me wants to remind you that world is a very dangerous place to live, and always has been. It is unfortunate we cannot trust each other and have to resort to some type of military action to restore peace. But that is the world we live in. Brutal regimes throughout the world do not compromise with those of us who just want peace, they see that as a weakness they can easily rule over. So, we should never stick our head in the sand.

This assumes that the only two options are a pre-emptive strike or Iran with the bomb. Right now, this is a false dichotomy. It might not be in the future, but until it is, we shouldn't be too happy to jump in.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:46 pm

Quoting Newark727 (Reply 44):
Newark727

That only leaves the option of Iran striking someone first. For most of us that is not a viable option.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
tommytoyz

Not quite. The tankers will not have to enter Iranian airspace. If they did, they would need a dedicated CAP as well as AWACS, and most probibly some jammers. Of course that involves even more airplanes.

We are talking about a max of 10-12 target areas, where research and production is done. The latest bunker buster/penetrating bombs are more than adaquite to do the job. The objective would be to totally destroy these facilities and equipment/production, along with killing the scientists/researchers and save computer data.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Iran has hundreds of missiles which can reach anywhere in the middle east. They have at least 50 thousand rockets in Lebanon and Syria. They have supersonic anti ship missiles, which are almost impossible to defend against. They have super cavitating torpedoes capable of speeds of 200 miles per hour...which are almost impossible to defend against. They have thousands of anti aircraft rockets and radar guided AA guns

Yes, Iran has all of those. But that does not mean we are completely defenseless against such weapons. For example those supercavitating torpedos (Iran calls it the "HOOT", which in Persian means "whale") have very significant limitations. 1. once fired, they are not contrilled and have no, if any self manuverability. 2. they are extremely range limited (the Russian VA-111 has a max range of just 13 km), making the launch vessel vunable to ASuW or ASW. 3. they have very small convential warheads (these are not nukes), with a max warhead on the VA-111 about 210 kg (about 460 lbs). So an Iranian "HOOT" fired at a US warship at max range needs 78 seconds to reach the warship, not including the time needed to accelerate to 360 khp. This gives the USN warship plenty of time to manuver out of the path of the torpedo. Also do not underestimate the fact the USN most likely has defensive systems to defeat such a torpedo. The same with an SS-ASM. CIWS is designed to work against approaching targets at almost any speed between about 50 knots to 3.0M. I'm not to concerned about radar controlled air defenses as these radars would be taken out as soon as they illuminate with systems like HARM and AARGM. My guess is there will also be the use of JSOW for targets within an area that is too heaverily defended.

But, I agree with you, any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will not be a walk in the park for the attackers. There will be very significant and capable SAR Forces standing by in case they are needed.

I also agree the best option for all sides is for Iran to completely give up on their nuclear weapons program. Lybia did that back in early 2003.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:13 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):

But, I agree with you, any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities will not be a walk in the park for the attackers. There will be very significant and capable SAR Forces standing by in case they are needed.

I also agree the best option for all sides is for Iran to completely give up on their nuclear weapons program. Lybia did that back in early 2003.

It is supreme hubris to assume that they will take out all defenses quick or ever, and I bet none of the military commanders and planners are making that assumption. These men and women know that arrogance can get their own people killed. The only people assuming the Iranians are toothless are those not responsible for putting people into harms' way or the ones put in harm's way.


Every US intelligence agency has agrees that Iran gave up any nuclear weapons program in 2003 and haven't restarted it. The IAEA has stated that there is no missing uranium which could have been diverted to any weapons program.

Parchin was already inspected in Nov 2011 and the 'suspicious' container was already debunked by former IAEA inspector Robert Kelley as being completely inadequate for nuclear research. Parchin isn't even an area with any nuclear reactors or materials, so technically, the IAEA has no authorization to even be there.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7597

Every location of Iran's nuclear program is under constant surveillance 24/7 and there is a complete record of all uranium. Under the NPT, Iran has the right to civilian nuclear power and to enrich uranium to the levels they are currently achieving.



The hoot can be launched by surface craft, subs or air. It may travel in a straight line but it still has to be dealt with, the same time as incoming missiles and probably artillery. If they can get within 6km, the travel time is cut in half, leaving 30 or 40 seconds to react. If nothing can get through, why do fire drills? I can bet the military commanders aren't assuming none of their people will die.

The more stuff they shoot at a ship, the better the chance of a hit...and they have a lot of stuff. It doesn't have to sink a ship...if it can poke a hole in it, that's one ship out of action and more ships required to escort it out of harms way and protect it.

And tankers aren't nearly as maneuverable as warships.

The US didn't confirm a single mobile scud launcher kill in the first Iraq war. Regardless of the capability of HARM systems, radar technology has advanced as well and Iran has lots of hiding places.

So the question remains, how many deaths of US fighting men and women do you think justify an attack Iran? How many dead Iranians justify it? What if they can't get all the nuclear facilities? How many deaths satisfy the thirst for war?

Nobody who's calling for war seems willing to answer these questions which should be answered before anybody starts a war.

If the shooting starts, it won't end any sooner than the last two wars did, which were started with the same justification, were supposed to be over in a few months, the people were going to support the invaders and they'd be happy with the US installed regime.

All that was wrong...none of that came to fruition and look at the cost. How many people died because of wrong assumptions? If the US and Israel attack and kill Iranians, is it acceptable if Iranians kill Americans, like the US did to Japan after Pearl? Under international law, they are justified to defend themselves and retaliate.
What the...?
 
cargotanker
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Every intelligence agency in the US says Iran is not attempting to build nukes and haven't since 2003.

The IAEA report of Nov 2011 differs with yours which noted numerous breaches with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The EU imposed sanctions on Iran in Dec 2011 due to its interference with IAEA inspectors and the its pursuit of military purposes for its nuclear program. What about the five UN security council resolutions levied against Iran for its failure to comply with IAEA inspections and the NPT? The NIE report which you are probably referring to was from 2009, things have changed since then. Answer me one question: why does Iran enrich and stockpile uranium fuel enriched to 20% (weapons quality) when only 5% is required for power plants?

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
Whoa there cowboy. There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence

Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again? Just last week the director of NIE and director of CIA stated that they believed Iran was building the components of a nuclear weapon, but not yet assembling them to form a weapon. One incredibly stupid war doesn't mean we should never fight again.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
There is no such thing in law as a preemtive self defense attack. I thought he was going to bomb me so I bombed him back first doesn't fly with the Geneva conventions.

Ooohhh. Better tell Israel, they'll be so embarrassed for bombing the Osirak reactor in 1982 and the Syrian reactor in 2007. If Israel violates the mighty Geneva conventions the whole world might hate them....oh wait they already do. And why can't Israel attack Iran in retaliation for its arming of Hezbollah and all of those rockets that get shot at its cities?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
It is supreme hubris to assume that they will take out all defenses quick or ever, and I bet none of the military commanders and planners are making that assumption

Yes, supreme hubris based on the successes of Desert Storm, Kosovo, OEF, OIF, the Libya raid, Bekaa valley that repeatedly show that well fought air campaigns can be incredibly successful against third world countries.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
If we are not certain, we can not go in there, guns blazing.

100% certainty is not possible. Israel did this in 1982 and 2007, guns blazing and bombs dropping, what moral hazard prevents them from doing this now?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
The US didn't confirm a single mobile scud launcher kill in the first Iraq war. .

Relevance to anything in the discussion? Desert Storm was a masterful air campaign that led to a lopsided defeat of the then 4th largest army in the world.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
So the question remains, how many deaths of US fighting men and women do you think justify an attack Iran?

The precise number is 137.5. Israelis are worth less so they can have up to 473 killed. Any higher and the operation is a total failure.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
How many dead Iranians justify it?

Iranians, worth even less than Israelis, 1,360, give or take a few.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
How many deaths satisfy the thirst for war?

How many non-Americans are on the planet? Add in the baby seals, whales and pandas and I'll be happy. (typed in the font of Sarcasm, no one freak out please)

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
If the shooting starts, it won't end any sooner than the last two wars did, which were started with the same justification, were supposed to be over in a few months, the people were going to support the invaders and they'd be happy with the US installed regime.

Afghanistan was not started with the same justification, not even close. The length of time of Iraq and Afghanistan are a result of NATION BUILDING efforts that are incredibly difficult and I think will be ultimately unsuccessful. Most on this forum aren't calling for regime change and an invasion, they're calling for a series of air and missile strikes aimed at Iran's nuclear facilities with the intention of halting or delaying the manufacture and production of nuclear weapons, with enough extra damage thrown in to make the Iranians seriously reconsider further attempts. This is possible. This has been done in the past and while Iran might make it a little more difficult they would not prove much of a challenge to a US led coalition effort. It gets a lot trickier for Israel to do this on its own, but they've proven to be very tricky warfighters in the past.
 
cargotanker
Posts: 175
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:45 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
There were no WMDs in Iraq either, were there? Or are we still looking? Saddam was also supposedly pursuing a nuclear weapon, just ask W. Bush, Cheney or Condalezza Rice. Specifically here, what you stated as "FACT", is 100% contradicted by US Intelligence
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
Every US intelligence agency says Iran is NOT researching or building a bomb.

The two of you are contradicting yourselves in each of your posts by claiming that 1) US intelligence got it wrong about WMDs in Iraq and 2) US intelligence is now correct about nuclear weapons in Iran. Which one is it?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?...=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7597

The Real News? Seriously? They have an entire tab dedicated to the Occupy Wall Street movement. That article was not accurate. Is this where you go for news?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40):
Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. No single strike is going to take out Iranian nuclear sites. Even the Israelis admit it won't slow them down by more than a couple of years at most.

GOOD! That's the whole point. That means a couple of years that Israel doesn't have to stare down the barrel of a nuclear gun. Israel should keep slowing them down. Use computer viruses, kill their engineers, plant bombs at their nuclear plants, do everything they can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Act like their lives depend on it.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 38):
http://rt.com/news/iran-nuclear-us-intelligence-207/

Are you serious? This is a Russian news site. Is this where you go for news?
 
tommytoyz
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: Israeli Tankers For Possible Strike On Iran

Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:44 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 45):
The tankers will not have to enter Iranian airspace. If they did, they would need a dedicated CAP as well as AWACS, and most probibly some jammers. Of course that involves even more airplanes.

We are talking about a max of 10-12 target areas, where research and production is done.

I only looked on the map and saw thw extreme size of Iran. Makes Iraq look very small. In order to really tell if F-15s would have to be tankeres by dedicated tankers or not in Iranian airspace, we would have to know where in Iran the targets are located and measure the distances. Remember, Iran is bigger than Spain, France and Germany - combined.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Fine, the US, along with UK, Israel, Russia, the UN, and countless other organizations got WMD WRONG in the lead up to the Iraq war. So we should never listen to them again?

Many, even in the U.S. intelligence agencies got it right, or at least shed enough doubt on WMD or the threat and even W. Bush's source of info, which were ignored and shouted down or redacted by those who had made up their mind as to the "reality" - The Neocons and Bush.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
100% certainty is not possible. Israel did this in 1982 and 2007, guns blazing and bombs dropping, what moral hazard prevents them from doing this now?

You do not know the degree of certainty the Israelis had. Moral hazard? If I have to explain this to you....Remember the millions marching in the streets around the world protesting the U.S. bombing of Iraq?


Quoting cargotanker (Reply 47):
Iranians, worth even less than Israelis, 1,360, give or take a few.

This shows your frame of mind and pretty much why you are OK with bombing Iran and your lack of any feeling of morality. Very sad. You also forget the price to the U.S., even if Israel went it alone, much less if we are involved.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 48):
The two of you are contradicting yourselves in each of your posts by claiming that 1) US intelligence got it wrong about WMDs in Iraq and 2) US intelligence is now correct about nuclear weapons in Iran. Which one is it?

I have NEVER said the US intelligence got it right or wrong in any previous post regarding the W. Bush war on Iraq. W.Bush, Cheney, and Condi are not U.S. Intelligence - they are U.S. stupidity who ignored information that did not fit into their preconceived notions.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests