Featured IRANIAN NUCLEAR SCIENTIST ASSASSINATED: STATE TV NEWS

[SalarHaqq]

Germany's foreign minister Heiko Maas told Der Spiegel that any new deal with Iran will have to be "a kind of nuclear plus" agreement, a more precise version of Biden's suggestion to CNN that a deal would have to address "the missile issues."

As Iran mulls retaliation for nuclear scientist's death, a riddle remains. What exactly was he working on? | CNN

Iran's leaders are furious over the killing of a top nuclear scientist, and the Supreme Leader has demanded that Mohsen Fakhrizadeh's work be continued. The broader issue for Iran's adversaries is exactly what that work was.

edition.cnn.com

so there will be no new deal probably. sanctions will remain. Iran will get the Saddam treatment of 1992+ with sanctions used to soften them up for 20 years, these current and greater sanctions.

Contemporary Iran and Saddam's Iraq differ in a number of ways, thanks to which Iran is not going to be affected in the same manner as Iraq from US and even UN sanctions:

1) When Iraq was sanctioned to the fullest from 1991 onwards, its military and defence industries had already been seriously weakened if not destroyed by so-called "Operation Desert Storm". In addition to that, the US had established no-fly zones over Iraq and kept bombing its infrastructures at will, ensuring that Baghdad would not be able to rebuild its military. This is not the case with Iran.

2) Iran enjoys a much, much greater degree of industrial, agricultural and technological self-sufficiency compared to the Iraq of the 1990's, which used to be far more dependent on imports, including in the defence sector. Hence sanctions will not have the same consequences.

3) Iran's extensive network of regional allies, something that Saddam's regime lacked, as well as Iran's alliances beyond the region (with countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, themselves subjected to US sanctions), also contribute to dampen the effect of sanctions.

In particular, Iran will use the help of allies in neighboring countries via mechanisms such as hard-to-detect trade of merchandise and currencies (moved accross the borders by smugglers, mules etc).

4) Iran's sheer size in terms of population and therefore economic market. Thanks to this, a minimum amount of black market, semi-official or official trade with countries such as the UAE, Qatar and Turkey is almost guaranteed to continue no matter how severe the US sanctions.

Likewise, Russia and China, which since the 1990's have grown much stronger and assertive towards the USA and have increasing rivalries of their own with Washington, are going to contribute to circumventing the sanctions more than they could and were willing to do with Iraq back then (of course I'm not saying that Iran could fully rely on them, far from it, but compared to Iraq's situation, this is going to be different).

5) Between 2.5 and 3 million Iranians (and naturalized ex-Iranians) are living abroad, particularly in north America (between 1 and 1.4 million), western Europe (up to an estimated 500.000 to 650.000), the Persian Gulf (around 500.000), plus another 200.000 to 250.000 in South / East Asia and Oceania. This too helps Iran fight the sanctions. Iraq nowadays has almost as many of its people living abroad, but they mostly emigrated after the US occupation and subsequent destruction of their country, so during the 1990's sanctions period Baghdad could not benefit quite as much from this.

In other terms, these sanctions are not going to weaken Iran like they weakened Iraq, and therefore they won't open the path to a military option for the enemy.

 

[thetutle]

Contemporary Iran and Saddam's Iraq differ in a number of ways, thanks to which Iran is not going to be affected in the same manner as Iraq from US and even UN sanctions:

1) When Iraq was sanctioned to the fullest from 1991 onwards, its military and defence industries had already been seriously weakened if not destroyed by so-called "Operation Desert Storm". In addition to that, the US had established no-fly zones over Iraq and kept bombing its infrastructures at will, ensuring that Baghdad would not be able to rebuild its military. This is not the case with Iran.

2) Iran enjoys a much, much greater degree of industrial, agricultural and technological self-sufficiency compared to the Iraq of the 1990's, which used to be far more dependent on imports, including in the defence sector. Hence sanctions will not have the same consequences.

3) Iran's extensive network of regional allies, something that Saddam's regime lacked, as well as Iran's alliances beyond the region (with countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, themselves subjected to US sanctions), also contribute to dampen the effect of sanctions.

In particular, Iran will use the help of allies in neighboring countries via mechanisms such as hard-to-detect trade of merchandise and currencies (moved accross the borders by smugglers, mules etc).

4) Iran's sheer size in terms of population and therefore economic market. Thanks to this, a minimum amount of black market, semi-official or official trade with countries such as the UAE, Qatar and Turkey is almost guaranteed to continue no matter how severe the US sanctions.

Likewise, Russia and China, which since the 1990's have grown much stronger and assertive towards the USA and have increasing rivalries of their own with Washington, are going to contribute to circumventing the sanctions more than they could and were willing to do with Iraq back then (of course I'm not saying that Iran could fully rely on them, far from it, but compared to Iraq's situation, this is going to be different).

5) Between 2.5 and 3 million Iranians (and naturalized ex-Iranians) are living abroad, particularly in north America (between 1 and 1.4 million), western Europe (up to an estimated 500.000 to 650.000), the Persian Gulf (around 500.000), plus another 200.000 to 250.000 in South / East Asia and Oceania. This too helps Iran fight the sanctions. Iraq nowadays has almost as many of its people living abroad, but they mostly emigrated after the US occupation and subsequent destruction of their country, so during the 1990's sanctions period Baghdad could not benefit quite as much from this.

In other terms, these sanctions are not going to weaken Iran like they did to Iraq, and therefore they won't open the path to a military option for the enemy.

Ok, Are you in Iran right now? are there any serious shortages? how is the economic situation generally?

 

[thetutle]

Iran's path to a second strike capability

The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...

patarames.blogspot.com

Ok, Ive read this thing carefully.

The whole thing is sound logically, were it not for this critical mistaken assumption.

"Once such a capability is reached, the nuclear option of the opponent is neutralized due to two realities:

• A nuclear counter-force strike will not disable Irans counter-strike capability and what survives is sufficient to cause a scale of damage that can't be tolerated by the opponent
• The scale of damage due to point-strike capability on critical and high value targets, reaches a level high enough, to be compared to what was previously only possible with nuclear weapons or at least complete air dominance."

The above is a mistaken assumption upon which this whole thesis is based. Thus the theses becomes irrelevant and nonsensical.

Firstly, I don't believe that anyone will use a nuclear weapon against Iran, simply because it is not necessary. Irans destruction can easily be achieved by conventional means. Only by the US, not Israel.

Bunkers can be penetrated and destroyed. US knows where they are, and where the missile exit points are. Every inch of Iran is mapped by high resolution satellite and AI scanning is used to determine where the exit points of the missiles are. Further, US has sophisticated radar that can detect holes in the ground (missile shafts and caverns for missile storage). High explosives can be lowered into the shafts and detonated. Drones or robots can enter the segregated areas and detonate their explosives where the missiles are stored. You've seen Azerbaijani drones enter bunkers and detonate. well multiply that capability 100 times and you have USA drone capability. Not to mention DARPA two legged robots that can perform backflips. Well America probably has tens of thousands of them armed and ready to take out any such complex.

So those missile cities are no secret to anyone, they know when your scientists go for a walk. they killed him in the car without killing his wife. Apparently, by a facial recognition remote controlled gun. so those missiles has a limited shelf life.

But, lets assume just for arguments sake, that some of those missiles will go off and strike lets say Israel.
And you have, lets say 20 of these tunnels. Lets say more. lets say 40 of them. Thats 30,000 missiles safely stored that can hit Israel with a 1 tonne warhead.

I think Iran has more than 30,000 such missiles. probably 80,000. But lets say 30,000 are able to be launched successfully and with precision. that's 30 thousand hits on en enemy with a significant one tonne warhead.

Now,
An Israeli F15, can practically carry 8 tonnes of bombs. So, one F15 carries the equivalent of 8 such missiles.
Israel has 83 such aircraft. so in one sortie Israel can deliver 664 such missiles. Using just its F15 Aircraft.

It also has 25 F35, which can also carry the same amount (8 tonnes), or 200 such missiles.

It has some F16's and each can carry 2 such missiles. and it has 224 of them. So that's 448 such missiles.

So Israel, using its airforce can deliver 1,312 such one tonne missiles in one single flyover. then they will go back that same morning and load up again. and drop another 1,313 missiles.

A one tonne guided bomb is not as sophicitated as an Iranian missile and can be carried in a Toyota hilux, and a fighter plane can land on a freeway and be refilled there and repaired there. so these planes can fly several sorties per day. Lets say. they can deliver 3,939, 1 tonne bombs per day.

In 7 and a half days, Israel has dropped the equivalent of 30,000 missiles that Iran will be able to drop on Israel. But after Iran fires its missiles. that's the end. It will destroy factories and buildings. bridges and refineries and airbases (but not necessarily the planes), and it will kill a lot of people. Lets say each missile kills 5 people. they will be in shelters. that's 150,000 people.

Thats not the end of the world. Jews lost 150,000 per week in WW2 at times, and they are still going. Iran will lose more as it has less shelters and may lose 300,000 people in the first 7 days that it gets hit by these 30,000 bombs.

But the Iranian missiles are exhausted and Isreal is just getting started. every 7 days of bombing will claim 300,000 lives in Iran. lets say for 2 months. that's 2.5 million casualties in 2 months. But those planes can keep going. for 6 months, 1 year 2 years, while America replenishes the Israeli airforce as it is losing its fighters, mainly to mechanical faults. 3 sorties per day takes its toll.

So don't think for a moment Israel needs nukes to cause nuke like damage to Iran. Losing 150,000 people to Iran would be a distastes to them, but they can afford it. Israel is mainly middle eastern Jews and Russians who a probably not even real Jews. Its worth it to eliminate Iran.

This is damage Israel could conceivably do to Iran. and Damage Iran could conceivably to Israel. Now, not many western analysts would claim Iran could launch 30,000 missiles, but I say they could.

And Israel losing 150,000 people is much better than having to live with a nuclear Iran that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes, using only about 20 nuclear warheads and 5 missiles. Don't you think?

So I don't know how such missiles could even come close to replacing a nuclear deterrent?

 

[Blue In Green]

Contemporary Iran and Saddam's Iraq differ in a number of ways, thanks to which Iran is not going to be affected in the same manner as Iraq from US and even UN sanctions:

1) When Iraq was sanctioned to the fullest from 1991 onwards, its military and defence industries had already been seriously weakened if not destroyed by so-called "Operation Desert Storm". In addition to that, the US had established no-fly zones over Iraq and kept bombing its infrastructures at will, ensuring that Baghdad would not be able to rebuild its military. This is not the case with Iran.

2) Iran enjoys a much, much greater degree of industrial, agricultural and technological self-sufficiency compared to the Iraq of the 1990's, which used to be far more dependent on imports, including in the defence sector. Hence sanctions will not have the same consequences.

3) Iran's extensive network of regional allies, something that Saddam's regime lacked, as well as Iran's alliances beyond the region (with countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, themselves subjected to US sanctions), also contribute to dampen the effect of sanctions.

In particular, Iran will use the help of allies in neighboring countries via mechanisms such as hard-to-detect trade of merchandise and currencies (moved accross the borders by smugglers, mules etc).

4) Iran's sheer size in terms of population and therefore economic market. Thanks to this, a minimum amount of black market, semi-official or official trade with countries such as the UAE, Qatar and Turkey is almost guaranteed to continue no matter how severe the US sanctions.

Likewise, Russia and China, which since the 1990's have grown much stronger and assertive towards the USA and have increasing rivalries of their own with Washington, are going to contribute to circumventing the sanctions more than they could and were willing to do with Iraq back then (of course I'm not saying that Iran could fully rely on them, far from it, but compared to Iraq's situation, this is going to be different).

5) Between 2.5 and 3 million Iranians (and naturalized ex-Iranians) are living abroad, particularly in north America (between 1 and 1.4 million), western Europe (up to an estimated 500.000 to 650.000), the Persian Gulf (around 500.000), plus another 200.000 to 250.000 in South / East Asia and Oceania. This too helps Iran fight the sanctions. Iraq nowadays has almost as many of its people living abroad, but they mostly emigrated after the US occupation and subsequent destruction of their country, so during the 1990's sanctions period Baghdad could not benefit quite as much from this.

In other terms, these sanctions are not going to weaken Iran like they did to Iraq, and therefore they won't open the path to a military option for the enemy.

Why do so many think it's appropriate to compare Iran of 2020 to circa 1990s Iraq Saddam era?

Iran's path to a second strike capability

The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...

patarames.blogspot.com

Ok, Ive read this thing carefully.

The whole thing is sound logically, were it not for this critical mistaken assumption.

"Once such a capability is reached, the nuclear option of the opponent is neutralized due to two realities:

• A nuclear counter-force strike will not disable Irans counter-strike capability and what survives is sufficient to cause a scale of damage that can't be tolerated by the opponent
• The scale of damage due to point-strike capability on critical and high value targets, reaches a level high enough, to be compared to what was previously only possible with nuclear weapons or at least complete air dominance."

The above is a mistaken assumption upon which this whole thesis is based. Thus the theses becomes irrelevant and nonsensical.

Firstly, I don't believe that anyone will use a nuclear weapon against Iran, simply because it is not necessary. Irans destruction can easily be achieved by conventional means. Only by the US, not Israel.

Bunkers can be penetrated and destroyed. US knows where they are, and where the missile exit points are. Every inch of Iran is mapped by high resolution satellite and AI scanning is used to determine where the exit points of the missiles are. Further, US has sophisticated radar that can detect holes in the ground (missile shafts and caverns for missile storage). High explosives can be lowered into the shafts and detonated. Drones or robots can enter the segregated areas and detonate their explosives where the missiles are stored. You've seen Azerbaijani drones enter bunkers and detonate. well multiply that capability 100 times and you have USA drone capability. Not to mention DARPA two legged robots that can perform backflips. Well America probably has tens of thousands of them armed and ready to take out any such complex.

So those missile cities are no secret to anyone, they know when your scientists go for a walk. they killed him in the car without killing his wife. Apparently, by a facial recognition remote controlled gun. so those missiles has a limited shelf life.

But, lets assume just for arguments sake, that some of those missiles will go off and strike lets say Israel.
And you have, lets say 20 of these tunnels. Lets say more. lets say 40 of them. Thats 30,000 missiles safely stored that can hit Israel with a 1 tonne warhead.

I think Iran has more than 30,000 such missiles. probably 80,000. But lets say 30,000 are able to be launched successfully and with precision. that's 30 thousand hits on en enemy with a significant one tonne warhead.

Now,
An Israeli F15, can practically carry 8 tonnes of bombs. So, one F15 carries the equivalent of 8 such missiles.
Israel has 83 such aircraft. so in one sortie Israel can deliver 664 such missiles. Using just its F15 Aircraft.

It also has 25 F35, which can also carry the same amount (8 tonnes), or 200 such missiles.

It has some F16's and each can carry 2 such missiles. and it has 224 of them. So that's 448 such missiles.

So Israel, using its airforce can deliver 1,312 such one tonne missiles in one single flyover. then they will go back that same morning and load up again. and drop another 1,313 missiles.

A one tonne guided bomb is not as sophicitated as an Iranian missile and can be carried in a Toyota hilux, and a fighter plane can land on a freeway and be refilled there and repaired there. so these planes can fly several sorties per day. Lets say. they can deliver 3,939, 1 tonne bombs per day.

In 7 and a half days, Israel has dropped the equivalent of 30,000 missiles that Iran will be able to drop on Israel. But after Iran fires its missiles. that's the end. It will destroy factories and buildings. bridges and refineries and airbases (but not necessarily the planes), and it will kill a lot of people. Lets say each missile kills 5 people. they will be in shelters. that's 150,000 people.

Thats not the end of the world. Jews lost 150,000 per week in WW2 at times, and they are still going. Iran will lose more as it has less shelters and may lose 300,000 people in the first 7 days that it gets hit by these 30,000 bombs.

But the Iranian missiles are exhausted and Isreal is just getting started. every 7 days of bombing will claim 300,000 lives in Iran. lets say for 2 months. that's 2.5 million casualties in 2 months. But those planes can keep going. for 6 months, 1 year 2 years, while America replenishes the Israeli airforce as it is losing its fighters, mainly to mechanical faults. 3 sorties per day takes its toll.

So don't think for a moment Israel needs nukes to cause nuke like damage to Iran. Losing 150,000 people to Iran would be a distastes to them, but they can afford it. Israel is mainly middle eastern Jews and Russians who a probably not even real Jews. Its worth it to eliminate Iran.

This is damage Israel could conceivably do to Iran. and Damage Iran could conceivably to Israel. Now, not many western analysts would claim Iran could launch 30,000 missiles, but I say they could.

And Israel losing 150,000 people is much better than having to live with a nuclear Iran that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes, using only about 20 nuclear warheads and 5 missiles. Don't you think?

So I don't know how such missiles could even come close to replacing a nuclear deterrent?

Very well said, and you bring up quite a good point.

There has always been a point of contention regarding Iran's ballistic missile fleet and that is it just doesn't stand in for a traditional air-force in-terms of raw tonnage of bombs that can be deployed and used against enemy assets during war-time.

I've always questioned the practicality of such an approach since, for the sake of argument, Iran were to match its own missile force to that of Israel/USAF and try to match tonnage of bombs. Iran would literally needs tens of thousands of ballistic missiles that can carry +1,000 ton bombs which brings up a near insurmountable logistical issue: where would one store all these thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of missiles in the first place? Is it even possible build that many to begin with? Simply put, I just don't see how that's even possible even for Iran which has the most robust nation-wide missile fabrication/fielding infrastructure in the region if not the world.

Really is concerning when you look at it that way.

 

[TheImmortal]

Iran's path to a second strike capability

The concept Interpretation of Irans new basing concept Non-nuclear states can have the highest conventional military capability but are alwa...

patarames.blogspot.com

Ok, Ive read this thing carefully.

The whole thing is sound logically, were it not for this critical mistaken assumption.

"Once such a capability is reached, the nuclear option of the opponent is neutralized due to two realities:

• A nuclear counter-force strike will not disable Irans counter-strike capability and what survives is sufficient to cause a scale of damage that can't be tolerated by the opponent
• The scale of damage due to point-strike capability on critical and high value targets, reaches a level high enough, to be compared to what was previously only possible with nuclear weapons or at least complete air dominance."

The above is a mistaken assumption upon which this whole thesis is based. Thus the theses becomes irrelevant and nonsensical.

Firstly, I don't believe that anyone will use a nuclear weapon against Iran, simply because it is not necessary. Irans destruction can easily be achieved by conventional means. Only by the US, not Israel.

Bunkers can be penetrated and destroyed. US knows where they are, and where the missile exit points are. Every inch of Iran is mapped by high resolution satellite and AI scanning is used to determine where the exit points of the missiles are. Further, US has sophisticated radar that can detect holes in the ground (missile shafts and caverns for missile storage). High explosives can be lowered into the shafts and detonated. Drones or robots can enter the segregated areas and detonate their explosives where the missiles are stored. You've seen Azerbaijani drones enter bunkers and detonate. well multiply that capability 100 times and you have USA drone capability. Not to mention DARPA two legged robots that can perform backflips. Well America probably has tens of thousands of them armed and ready to take out any such complex.

So those missile cities are no secret to anyone, they know when your scientists go for a walk. they killed him in the car without killing his wife. Apparently, by a facial recognition remote controlled gun. so those missiles has a limited shelf life.

But, lets assume just for arguments sake, that some of those missiles will go off and strike lets say Israel.
And you have, lets say 20 of these tunnels. Lets say more. lets say 40 of them. Thats 30,000 missiles safely stored that can hit Israel with a 1 tonne warhead.

I think Iran has more than 30,000 such missiles. probably 80,000. But lets say 30,000 are able to be launched successfully and with precision. that's 30 thousand hits on en enemy with a significant one tonne warhead.

Now,
An Israeli F15, can practically carry 8 tonnes of bombs. So, one F15 carries the equivalent of 8 such missiles.
Israel has 83 such aircraft. so in one sortie Israel can deliver 664 such missiles. Using just its F15 Aircraft.

It also has 25 F35, which can also carry the same amount (8 tonnes), or 200 such missiles.

It has some F16's and each can carry 2 such missiles. and it has 224 of them. So that's 448 such missiles.

So Israel, using its airforce can deliver 1,312 such one tonne missiles in one single flyover. then they will go back that same morning and load up again. and drop another 1,313 missiles.

A one tonne guided bomb is not as sophicitated as an Iranian missile and can be carried in a Toyota hilux, and a fighter plane can land on a freeway and be refilled there and repaired there. so these planes can fly several sorties per day. Lets say. they can deliver 3,939, 1 tonne bombs per day.

In 7 and a half days, Israel has dropped the equivalent of 30,000 missiles that Iran will be able to drop on Israel. But after Iran fires its missiles. that's the end. It will destroy factories and buildings. bridges and refineries and airbases (but not necessarily the planes), and it will kill a lot of people. Lets say each missile kills 5 people. they will be in shelters. that's 150,000 people.

Thats not the end of the world. Jews lost 150,000 per week in WW2 at times, and they are still going. Iran will lose more as it has less shelters and may lose 300,000 people in the first 7 days that it gets hit by these 30,000 bombs.

But the Iranian missiles are exhausted and Isreal is just getting started. every 7 days of bombing will claim 300,000 lives in Iran. lets say for 2 months. that's 2.5 million casualties in 2 months. But those planes can keep going. for 6 months, 1 year 2 years, while America replenishes the Israeli airforce as it is losing its fighters, mainly to mechanical faults. 3 sorties per day takes its toll.

So don't think for a moment Israel needs nukes to cause nuke like damage to Iran. Losing 150,000 people to Iran would be a distastes to them, but they can afford it. Israel is mainly middle eastern Jews and Russians who a probably not even real Jews. Its worth it to eliminate Iran.

This is damage Israel could conceivably do to Iran. and Damage Iran could conceivably to Israel. Now, not many western analysts would claim Iran could launch 30,000 missiles, but I say they could.

And Israel losing 150,000 people is much better than having to live with a nuclear Iran that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes, using only about 20 nuclear warheads and 5 missiles. Don't you think?

So I don't know how such missiles could even come close to replacing a nuclear deterrent?

I stopped reading once you said US has thousands of armoured two legged robots that will attack Iranian military sites.

What a joke.

 

[tower9]

I stopped reading once you said US has thousands of armoured two legged robots that will attack Iranian military sites.

What a joke.

Might be the case in 5-10 years.

 

[thetutle]

I stopped reading once you said US has thousands of armoured two legged robots that will attack Iranian military sites.

What a joke.

No, I said they probably have tens of thousands. If its on YouTube and I can conceive it as a weaponised robot, rest assured its already done. And probably done for a long time.

 

[thetutle]

I've always questioned the practicality of such an approach since, for the sake of argument, Iran were to match its own missile force to that of Israel/USAF and try to match tonnage of bombs. Iran would literally needs tens of thousands of ballistic missiles that can carry +1,000 ton bombs which brings up a near insurmountable logistical issue: where would one store all these thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of missiles in the first place? Is it even possible build that many to begin with? Simply put, I just don't see how that's even possible even for Iran which has the most robust nation-wide missile fabrication/fielding infrastructure in the region if not the world.

Really is concerning when you look at it that way.

I think its possible that they have 30,000 or even 80,000 or more. Thy've been doing to for decades and ih their Leanese proxies have 100,000 short range ones, its not inconceivable that Iran has long range ones in a similar amount.

Where do you store them? Well underground tunnels. I've given Iran 40km of such tunnels to store 30,000 of them. assuming they are 25 metres long each and stacked several high. And freeway type of tunnel.

I was just reading, on one stretch of freeway on my native Bosnia there is now about 20km of freeway tunnels deep into mountains. so if some relatively poor country of 3.5 million people can build such freeway tunnels that fully comply with EU regulations etc. Why cant Iran of 80 million build 40 km of such tunnels which are more crude and used only for the military. In fact they could build much more of such tunnels that 40km and I have no doubt they are building them as we speak. So there is a place to put those missiles.

So yes, it possible Iran has 30,000 long range missiles stored underground ready to launch. could be much more.

The problem as you point out is that Israels airforce could deliver the same tonnage in 7.5 days. and keep doing it indefinitely. It's a lot easier to build a bomb than a missile that can travel 1,000 km.

this is the problem with Irans missiles. But all under the assumption it can launch 30,000 missiles.

Lets say there are 15 such missile cities, and each has 5 launch tubes. and you launch each missile in 5 minutes.

Thats 75 missiles launched in 5 min, and you would need 400 launch increments of 5 minutes each to launch all 30,000.

that's 2,000 minutes to launch 30,000 missiles. Thats 33.3 Horus required to launch them all. In that time there would be 1,000 aircraft sorties conducted by Israel during the first 24 hours. Not to mention they have missiles as well.

Lets just say there would be a hell of a lot of smoke coming out of those missile tubes. it would not be invisible to attacking aircraft. and this would be going on for a day and a half.

I can tell you that would be one hell of a missile strike and if it happens, I hope CNN has it on pay per view or something.

the germans dropped 41,000 tonnes on London and killed 40,000 people in the Blitz which lasted ~5 months. This, what Iran has, would be dropped in less than 2 days.

Alternatively this is the amount of bombs that the British dropped on cologne in the whole of WW2. Killing "only" 20,000 people.

These Iranian missiles are precision, but still. there is only so much damage that 30,000 tonnes of explosives can do to a country. Its not as dangerous as most would think.

one little nuke of 30 kilotons is the equivalent of all the Iranian missiles it is able to launch on this very generous scenario. One nuke.

So now imagine the destructive force that Pakistan or North Korea or Israel can unleash with nukes.

one nuke = All of Irans missile arsenal. they have hundreds of them.

Imagine Iran's deterrence capacity if it said, we have the equivalent of a million missiles and we can launch it 5 minutes. hmmmmm something to think about.

 

[thetutle]

Just for comparison. We know that US has nuclear bombs in Turkey and each has about 300,000 tonnes of TNT. that's 10 times Irans missile capacity in one bomb.

There are 50 of them sitting there. I mean wow. just wow.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The whole thing is sound logically, were it not for this critical mistaken assumption.

"Once such a capability is reached, the nuclear option of the opponent is neutralized due to two realities:

• A nuclear counter-force strike will not disable Irans counter-strike capability and what survives is sufficient to cause a scale of damage that can't be tolerated by the opponent
• The scale of damage due to point-strike capability on critical and high value targets, reaches a level high enough, to be compared to what was previously only possible with nuclear weapons or at least complete air dominance."

The above is a mistaken assumption upon which this whole thesis is based. Thus the theses becomes irrelevant and nonsensical.

The paper focuses on the utility of Iran's missile power as a counter-force asset against nuclear strikes. It is not discussing conventional war scenarios. Thus in order to be able to dismiss it, one would need to demonstrate that these missile bases are not offering a counter-strike option in case of a nuclear attack on Iran, or the threat thereof. Surely the author would be able to explain why this same Iranian arsenal is as much a deterrent against conventional attacks and as survivable against them than it is against nuclear strikes, but that wasn't the subject of his article.

Firstly, I don't believe that anyone will use a nuclear weapon against Iran, simply because it is not necessary. Irans destruction can easily be achieved by conventional means.

Not at a bearable cost (political, economic, human) though. Which is why it never occurred in 40+ years and particularly since 9-11.

Bunkers can be penetrated and destroyed.

In case of complete air and/or ground dominance, which is not a given here.

High explosives can be lowered into the shafts and detonated.

Who or what is going to lower them into the shafts?

Drones or robots can enter the segregated areas and detonate their explosives where the missiles are stored.

How are these robots going to get there? They won't be swimming accross the Persian Gulf, nor will the US be able to parachute them at will over Iran, so...

Likewise, where are all the drones going to take off from?

Then, it's not as if Iran is going to let them reach its missile bases so easily. Even if they manage to do so, those openings are going to be surveilled, and the personnel inside the bases is armed and thus capable of suppressing intruders.

You've seen Azerbaijani drones enter bunkers and detonate. well multiply that capability 100 times and you have USA drone capability.

One would also have to multiply Armenia's almost inexistent (or at least very ineffective) air defence by 1000 (possibly more) to get an idea of what US aircraft and UAV would be up against in Iranian skies, if they make it thus far that is.

Also, most American UAV's will need to operate from bases and locations within reach of Iran's A2/AD weapons systems. It stands to question how many will be able to take off.

Missile base openings will tend to be repaired if struck. Drilling and boring equipment along with specialized engineers and workers populate each of Iran's underground missile cities.

Not to mention DARPA two legged robots that can perform backflips. Well America probably has tens of thousands of them armed and ready to take out any such complex.

This is speculative. Iran too has secret weapons. But I'd prefer not to indulge in discussing things for which there's no proof. But once again, even if it was an established fact, how exactly would these be made operational on Iranian soil? The US would need to land forces in Iran. Which would mean all out war, which in turn would require the mobilization of way over 500.000 US troops. A small contingent entering Iran will have no chance to advance or hold on to Iranian territory.

So those missile cities are no secret to anyone, they know when your scientists go for a walk. they killed him in the car without killing his wife. Apparently, by a facial recognition remote controlled gun. so those missiles has a limited shelf life.

A token number of scientists and underground missile bases are different matters. I don't remember claiming these bases are a secret. Iran itself disclosed their existence. But being aware of their locations and actually being able to neutralize them aren't the same.

So Israel, using its airforce can deliver 1,312 such one tonne missiles in one single flyover. then they will go back that same morning and load up again. and drop another 1,313 missiles.

I very much doubt they'll be sending all those 332 fighter jets on daily sorties when both their bases and logistics are going to be pounded by dozens of ballistic missiles, and when Iran's integrated air defence network is going to engage them.

A one tonne guided bomb is not as sophicitated as an Iranian missile and can be carried in a Toyota hilux, and a fighter plane can land on a freeway and be refilled there and repaired there. so these planes can fly several sorties per day. Lets say. they can deliver 3,939, 1 tonne bombs per day.

As for highway strips, there aren't usually that many of them. Especially in a tiny place such as Occupied Palestine. Plus, these can be targeted by precision BM-strikes just like regular air bases.

Also, they might be of use to a number of fighter jets, but will not replace regular, fully equipped airbases.

In 7 and a half days, Israel has dropped the equivalent of 30,000 missiles that Iran will be able to drop on Israel. But after Iran fires its missiles. that's the end. It will destroy factories and buildings. bridges and refineries and airbases (but not necessarily the planes), and it will kill a lot of people. Lets say each missile kills 5 people. they will be in shelters. that's 150,000 people.

By hitting the enemy's air bases, Iran will interdict their use. All missiles needn't be fired at once. A base that is under constant threat of being struck by ballistic missiles - and indeed has one impacting every half an hour for example, will no longer be able to function properly or to its full potential.

Thats not the end of the world. Jews lost 150,000 per week in WW2 at times, and they are still going. Iran will lose more as it has less shelters and may lose 300,000 people in the first 7 days that it gets hit by these 30,000 bombs.

Please don't compare the contemporary world with the period of WW2. Everything has changed since, from societies to culture to so many other things.

I fail to see the relevance of Jewish losses during WW2, to the question of how many of its citizens the zionist regime would be ready to lose in a conflict with Iran. Iran lost 10 million people (50% of its population) between 1914 and 1919 i.e. during WW1, and she is still here. During the Mongol invasions, some regions of Iran lost up to 80%-90% of their population. This has no bearing on the discussion at hand however.

Not to mention that losing people against one's will to an aggressor, and deliberately accepting casualties among one's own ranks as an expected consequence of a war that one would have launched oneself, are two different pairs of shoes.

In case of a zionist attack, Iran's aim will not be to kill as many of them as possible but to completely cripple the zionist entity by targeting its military and strategic infrastructures, thus compromising its legitimacy in the eyes of its own constituency.

But the Iranian missiles are exhausted and Isreal is just getting started. every 7 days of bombing will claim 300,000 lives in Iran. lets say for 2 months. that's 2.5 million casualties in 2 months.

2.5 million casualties in two months of conventional bombings? That's pretty out of touch, I would say. Iran wouldn't engage in such a sustained bombing campaign to target civilians, as it would be wasteful if not counter-productive in terms of the military objectives and even the underlying political ones pursued by each side.

So don't think for a moment Israel needs nukes to cause nuke like damage to Iran. Losing 150,000 people to Iran would be a distastes to them, but they can afford it. Israel is mainly middle eastern Jews and Russians who a probably not even real Jews. Its worth it to eliminate Iran.

The zionist entity is neither ready nor willing to launch a war of such excessive dimensions in the 21st century. Its population is used to near western living standards, and while its threshold for casualties might be superior to the western average, it is nowhere enough to make it sacrifice 2% of its population in a war of aggression.

The zionist regime and its citizens had a systematically habit of swift and decisive military victories, until the Resistance emerged in south Lebanon. The zionists lost around 165 people in the 2006 war, and already an unusually elevated degree of shock and the pressure could be felt within the Isra"el"i population.

The entire viability of the zionist project is linked to the image of invulerability the regime has been cultivating, in particular with immigrants from the west. Some fanatics might not get affected to the same extent if Isra"el" took a major incapacitating blow, but the bulk of the population will. It expects the regime to make sure that Isra"el" will never be on the receiving end of such considerable damage, and it will consequently have very little tolerance for these levels of casualties.

And any Jewish mass emigration from Occuption Palestine = end of the "zionist dream".

And Israel losing 150,000 people is much better than having to live with a nuclear Iran that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes, using only about 20 nuclear warheads and 5 missiles. Don't you think?

Since zionist leaders know that Tehran is not going for nuclear weapons, they'd be stupid to start a war against Iran in which they'd themselves lose 150.000 people.

Given that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, it'd be beyond stupid for zionist decision-makers to provoke a war in which so many of their subjects would perish.

So I don't know how such missiles could even come close to replacing a nuclear deterrent?

Because when they are fielded the way Iran does, they threaten the viability and survivability of a minuscule entity like the zionist one.

 

[thetutle]

The paper focuses on the utility of Iran's missile power as a counter-force asset against nuclear strikes. It is not discussing conventional war scenarios. Thus in order to be able to dismiss it, one would need to demonstrate that these missile bases are not offering a counter-strike option in case of a nuclear attack on Iran, or the threat thereof. Surely the author would be able to explain why this same Iranian arsenal is as much a deterrent against conventional attacks and as survivable against them than it is against nuclear strikes, but that wasn't the subject of his article.

Yes, Ive admitted they offer a counter strike capability, For any attack, nuclear and non nuclear. I'm just saying that 30,000 missiles is a pin prick of what the outer side could deliver to Iran. And I'm being very generous about Iran being able to deliver 30,000 one tonne missiles on target. Most people here talk about Iran being able to launch 1,000 missiles. or a few thousand missiles. I'm giving Iran 30,000 missiles on target.

The other side could deliver the equivalent of Irans arsenal even 7 days or so. and continue to do so indefinitely. Alternatively if they are so inclined, they could deliver this firepower against Iran with one single nuclear bomb.

Irans best case scenario as I've said is what British threw on one germans city in WW2. 30 thousand tonnes of explosives will not defeat anyone. Especially not Israel. It could destroy UAE, or Saudi and their economy. But not Israel. It would cause immense damage, but they would rebuild, they are not short of money. I think they are famous for not being short of money.

Not at a bearable cost (political, economic, human) though. Which is why it never occurred in 40+ years and particularly since 9-11.

The cost is very bearable if it means they set Iran back 40 years and keep nukes away from them. A lot better to lose 150,000 than have an Iran with nukes that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes.

In case of complete air and/or ground dominance, which is not a given here.

There would be complete Air dominance. With Air dominance will come ground dominance after a while and long enough for them to destroy everything worth destroying in Iran.

Who or what is going to lower them into the shafts?

explosives might be lowered into shafts using precision strikes, or, drones.

How are these robots going to get there? They won't be swimming accross the Persian Gulf, nor will the US be able to parachute them at will over Iran, so...

Likewise, where are all the drones going to take off from?

Then, it's not as if Iran is going to let them reach its missile bases so easily. Even if they manage to do so, those openings are going to be surveilled, and the personnel inside the bases is armed and thus capable of suppressing intruders.

Robots might be parachuted in, some might make amphibious landings in some remote part fo the country and be transported there in driverless armed vehicles with air support. who would attempt to reach the entry point of the underground base. Some sort of fuel air bomb would eliminate the infrastructure outside. some sort of bunker buster would open that door. The robots would enter, and blow up inside, or shoot the place up first then blow up.

they might be lowered into the shafts using stealth helicopters. Like the ones sent into Pakistan to get bin laden.

They might be smuggled into Iran using dissident Iranians like the ones that helped orchestrate the scientist murder.

The list is a wide as our imagination, but ti would happen.

I'm talking about America of course. Israel would not be able to do any of this. Israel could only bomb Iran using its airforce and missiles. And probably could not take these facilities out.

One would also have to multiply Armenia's almost inexistent (or at least very ineffective) air defence by 1000 (possibly more) to get an idea of what US aircraft and UAV would be up against in Iranian skies, if they make it thus far that is.

Armenia has the latests air defences, perhaps as good as Irans, all provided by Russia, free of cost. the latest jamming equipment and the whole thing. It's not Armenias fault that Russian stuff is crap and cant shoot down Turkish Bayraktar drones or overcome Turkish jamming pods. Down forget while Iran was begging Russia for s300, Russia gave it to Armenia for free 10 years before it sold it to Iran for billions.

Iranian airspace is effectively undefended. You Iran managed to shoot down a ukranian airliner. and an America drone, but that was drone was probably sacrificed in order to learn about the Iranian air defences so they caudal be jammed next time.

Same as Azerbaijan to Armenia. As Armenia was celebrating the shooting down of Azeiri drones turkey was collecting that info and learning how to jam Armenian air defences. and you saw the result. Iranian Airspace is effectively undefended against Israel or US.

Also, most American UAV's will need to operate from bases and locations within reach of Iran's A2/AD weapons systems. It stands to question how many will be able to take off.

Missile base openings will tend to be repaired if struck. Drilling and boring equipment along with specialized engineers and workers populate each of Iran's underground missile cities.

Those UAVs would launch from aircraft carriers, or bases. Israeli ones would launch form their own bases or freeways.

This is speculative. Iran too has secret weapons. But I'd prefer not to indulge in discussing things for which there's no proof. But once again, even if it was an established fact, how exactly would these be made operational on Iranian soil? The US would need to land forces in Iran. Which would mean all out war, which in turn would require the mobilization of way over 500.000 US troops. A small contingent entering Iran will have no chance to advance or hold on to Iranian territory.

Of course Iran has secret weapons. They re just not terminator style robots and sophisticated jammers that US has. It has proxy forces, that could enter Israel, tear up a few cities. sabotage the place.

US would not need to land troops to destroy Iran. I admit, It could not land 500,000 troops for an invasion. At best it could send special forces to sabotage the bunker sand critical infrastructure and they would take large causalities. but that's their job. to take take casualties.

Israel also, would not even send that. They have no capacity for it.

I very much doubt they'll be sending all those 332 fighter jets on daily sorties when both their bases and logistics are going to be pounded by dozens of ballistic missiles, and when Iran's integrated air defence network is going to engage them.

they could send those 332 fighters especially on the first day. They might not have bases to return to so they would land on the freeways, and be supplied using portable fuel trucks, loaded with bombs using pick up trucks and repaired by mobile mechanics.

They would have losses, mainly mechanical, and would be resupplied but he US as they are taking those losses. US has like 600 F-15's in storage. and maybe 2,000 F-16 in storage ready to be delivered.

As for highway strips, there aren't usually that many of them. Especially in a tiny place such as Occupied Palestine. Plus, these can be targeted by precision BM-strikes just like regular air bases.

Also, they might be of use to a number of fighter jets, but will not replace regular, fully equipped airbases.

Israel has about 2,500 km of freeways that are suitable airstrips. This is how Taiwan does it, knowing that it also would not have any air bases intact in a serious conflict.

By hitting the enemy's air bases, Iran will interdict their use. All missiles needn't be fired at once. A base that is under constant threat of being struck by ballistic missiles - and indeed has one impacting every half an hour for example, will no longer be able to function properly or to its full potential.

see video above.

Please don't compare the contemporary world with the period of WW2. Everything has changed since, from societies to culture to so many other things.

I fail to see the relevance of Jewish losses during WW2, to the question of how many of its citizens the zionist regime would be ready to lose in a conflict with Iran. Iran lost 10 million people (50% of its population) between 1914 and 1919 i.e. during WW1, and she is still here. During the Mongol invasions, some regions of Iran lost up to 80%-90% of their population. This has no bearing on the discussion at hand however.

Not to mention that losing people against one's will to an aggressor, and deliberately accepting casualties among one's own ranks as an expected consequence of a war that one would have launched oneself, are two different pairs of shoes.

In case of a zionist attack, Iran's aim will not be to kill as many of them as possible but to completely cripple the zionist entity by targeting its military and strategic infrastructures, thus compromising its legitimacy in the eyes of its own constituency.

They will take any amount of losses if they believe they can stop Iran getting nukes. The know the long term consequences for them and their children is Iran ever gets nukes. Its a life or death situation for them. in the long term. they will have no choice but to take the casualties. whether its 50,000 or 150,000.

2.5 million casualties in two months of conventional bombings? That's pretty out of touch, I would say. Iran wouldn't engage in such a sustained bombing campaign to target civilians, as it would be wasteful if not counter-productive in terms of the military objectives and even the underlying political ones pursued by each side.

2.5 milion dead for Iran. under this scenario. per two months of this type of conflict.

The zionist entity is neither ready nor willing to launch a war of such excessive dimensions in the 21st century. Its population is used to near western living standards, and while its threshold for casualties might be superior to the western average, it is nowhere enough to make it sacrifice 2% of its population in a war of aggression.

The zionist regime and its citizens had a systematically habit of swift and decisive military victories, until the Resistance emerged in south Lebanon. The zionists lost around 165 people in the 2006 war, and already an unusually elevated degree of shock and the pressure could be felt within the Isra"el"i population.

The entire viability of the zionist project is linked to the image of invulerability the regime has been cultivating, in particular with immigrants from the west. Some fanatics might not get affected to the same extent if Isra"el" took a major incapacitating blow, but the bulk of the population will. It expects the regime to make sure that Isra"el" will never be on the receiving end of such considerable damage, and it will consequently have very little tolerance for these levels of casualties.

And any Jewish mass emigration from Occuption Palestine = end of the "zionist dream".

they will take the casualties in order to continue their western standard. Iran with nukes spells the end of their world as they they know it.

They didn't lose 165 in that war. They probably lost a lot more. they always hide their casualties. Their people have no choice, they want to keep that land. they will sacrifice if they are forced to and if it means a nuclear free Iran.

Since zionist leaders know that Tehran is not going for nuclear weapons, they'd be stupid to start a war against Iran in which they'd themselves lose 150.000 people.

Given that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons, it'd be beyond stupid for zionist decision-makers to provoke a war in which so many of their subjects would perish.

They won't start a war until Iran come very close to the nukes. they will just take out your infrastructure and personnel so it never gets to that drastic scenario.

Because when they are fielded the way Iran does, they threaten the viability and survivability of a minuscule entity like the zionist one.

those 30,000 thousand missiles will not do very much to prevent attacks. they are preventing open warfare fro now. But if you come close to the bombs, those missiles will not save you from this destruction described above.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Yes, Ive admitted they offer a counter strike capability, For any attack, nuclear and non nuclear. I'm just saying that 30,000 missiles is a pin prick of what the outer side could deliver to Iran.

In order to achieve deterrence against aggression, one doesn't necessarily need to match the whole extent of the enemy's arsenal one to one. One needs to be able to credibly inflict a high enough cost on the aggressor. Which is precisely what Iran is able to do.

The other side could deliver the equivalent of Irans arsenal even 7 days or so.

Not really. Iran's A2/AD and air defence would severly limit the numbers of munitions that would effectively hit their targets in Iran over those 7 days.

and continue to do so indefinitely. Alternatively if they are so inclined, they could deliver this firepower against Iran with one single nuclear bomb.

In fact, they are deterred from any such aggression as we speak, conventional or nuclear, due to Iran's counter-strike potential.

Irans best case scenario as I've said is what British threw on one germans city in WW2. 30 thousand tonnes of explosives will not defeat anyone.

War with Iran will not be comparable to WW2.

Tens of thousands of tons of explosives capable of being delivered by survivable missile forces and in a precise manner onto the enemy's offensive strike assets and/or vital infrastructure deters overt military aggression. Like it has in effect been doing for the past decades.

As said, the very fact that Iran has not been attacked is proof of this in and by itself.

Especially not Israel. It could destroy UAE, or Saudi and their economy. But not Israel. It would cause immense damage, but they would rebuild, they are not short of money. I think they are famous for not being short of money.

Money and the possibility to reconstruct aren't the issue here. It's that a blow of such an intensity to both their mythical military might (a myth that has carefully been cultivated for decades) as well as to their key infrastructures, which would be completely unprecedented, is going to have a traumatic effect on a population with a low threshold for strategic setback, and would rattle the foundations upon which the legitimacy of that colonial project rests in the minds of its own population.

Hence why to the zionist regime, launching a conflict that costly is not an option.

The cost is very bearable if it means they set Iran back 40 years and keep nukes away from them. A lot better to lose 150,000 than have an Iran with nukes that could kill 8 million Israelis in 15 minutes.

Much preferable yet it would be to return to their comfortable lives in the US, western Europe, Canada etc, rather than to sacrifice 150.000 on a colonialist project that requires so many to die in order to maintain itself. As said, other than a minority of extremist settlers, the bulk of liberal Isra"el"is is not going to go along with such costly endeavours.

In short, the zionist public definitely is neither willing nor ready to accept this many Isra"el"i losses in the framework of a preemptive war of choice, no matter the objectve pursued.

Also, here is yet another issue with this whole argumentation: for several pages, you'd been arguing that the Iranian leadership is naive for refraining from pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet now you're explaining that the zionist regime is going to launch one of the biggest wars since 1945 in order to prevent Iran from acquiring precisely those weapons... Which would imply that top zionist officials in your view have to be even more simple minded than the Iranian ones whose logic you dismissed, since they fail to realize that Iran isn't after nuclear weapons in the first place. What to make of your previous assertion that an Iranian effort to go for nuclear arms would actually be safe from preemptive attacks by the zionists, while presently you are suggesting the opposite (namely, that the regime in Tel Aviv can and will go to extreme lengths to prevent Iran from developing nukes, and that Iran in effect cannot deter it from doing so).

There would be complete Air dominance. With Air dominance will come ground dominance after a while and long enough for them to destroy everything worth destroying in Iran.

Iran's sophisticated, massive and integrated air defences, as well as its area denial weapons will prevent that, while raising the cost of aggression enough to deter the enemy from going ahead with such plans (as successfully done for decades).

explosives might be lowered into shafts using precision strikes, or, drones.

Drones will need somewhere to take off from. So will the platforms carrying precision munitions. Those locations are in range of Iranian precision BM's and will therefore be targeted by them.

Robots might be parachuted in, some might make amphibious landings in some remote part fo the country and be transported there in driverless armed vehicles with air support.

In both cases, aircraft will be vulnerable to Iran's A2/AD and air defence weapons. In the second case, attackers will be hit by Iranian ground forces.

Some sort of fuel air bomb would eliminate the infrastructure outside. some sort of bunker buster would open that door. The robots would enter, and blow up inside, or shoot the place up first then blow up.

All of this is hardly conceivable without effective opposition from Iranian forces.

they might be lowered into the shafts using stealth helicopters. Like the ones sent into Pakistan to get bin laden.

And Iran is fielding state of the art anti-stealth and stealth detection technologies.

They might be smuggled into Iran using dissident Iranians like the ones that helped orchestrate the scientist murder.

To smuggle in an entire army of hypothetical robots (operative term: hypothetical, since this scenario remains speculative) and have them travel thousands of kilometers accross the country undetected doesn't seem very plausible to me.

The list is a wide as our imagination, but ti would happen.

If the US regime thought it could invade Iran, it would already have done so years ago. So none of this really risks to occur in the foreseeable future.

Armenia has the latests air defences, perhaps as good as Irans, all provided by Russia, free of cost. the latest jamming equipment and the whole thing. It's not Armenias fault that Russian stuff is crap and cant shoot down Turkish Bayraktar drones or overcome Turkish jamming pods. Down forget while Iran was begging Russia for s300, Russia gave it to Armenia for free 10 years before it sold it to Iran for billions.

Iranian airspace is effectively undefended. You Iran managed to shoot down a ukranian airliner. and an America drone, but that was drone was probably sacrificed in order to learn about the Iranian air defences so they caudal be jammed next time.

Sorry to say but to make this sort of assessment, your information about Iranian air defence systems must be approximative or incomplete.

There's a thread dedicated to the subject on this forum, so I'd recommend spending some time there to get updated. In fact air defences come right after missiles as the second sector in whose development Iran has invested the most.

Iran didn't beg Russia for the S-300's, but rather didn't want to allow Moscow to renege on its contractual obligations due to pressures exerted by the zionists and the west. Furthermore, while Russia was delaying S-300 deliveries, Iran designed and developed its own domestic high-altitude / long range anti-aircraft system, the Bavar-373, which is on par with more recent S-300 models.

And that's just one of a series of domestic Iranian SAM systems.

In addition, Iran operates a large number of modern radar, electro-optic and other detection systems (from troposcopic scatters to passive, OTH, AESA and PESA radar systems etc). Its anti-aircraft artillery systems are top notch as well (ranging from a CIWS system to radar- and optically guided artillery of various calibers, while a domestically designed gun designed to fire AHEAD-type programmable air-burst munitions was shown by Iran some time ago).

The topic is so vast it should be read up on.

As for US (and zionist) UAV's neutralized by Iran, it's not just one American drone we're talking about. But an entire range of these, with at least 6 to 8 different types (and many more examples) of US-made UAV's either shot down or actually made to land and recovered intact - in particular the low-observable RQ-170 Sentinel captured by Iranian electronic warfare units in late 2011, which until then used to be a largely undisclosed secret weapon. Among those shot down, there's the RQ-4 Triton, which is among the largest, most sophisticated and expensive in the US arsenal. These cases put together disqualify any notion that the US sacrificed so much of its cutting edge technology (some of which came in handy for the development of Iran's own UAV industries) only to test Iranian defences.

Those UAVs would launch from aircraft carriers, or bases. Israeli ones would launch form their own bases or freeways.

These can be targeted by Iran's missile forces.

US would not need to land troops to destroy Iran. I admit, It could not land 500,000 troops for an invasion. At best it could send special forces to sabotage the bunker sand critical infrastructure and they would take large causalities. but that's their job. to take take casualties.

There are too many critical infrastructures in a country the size of Iran for the US military's entire special forces units to be able to eliminate these quickly enough. And even special forces need safe airspace or land to enter.

they could send those 332 fighters especially on the first day. They might not have bases to return to so they would land on the freeways, and be supplied using portable fuel trucks, loaded with bombs using pick up trucks and repaired by mobile mechanics.

They would have losses, mainly mechanical, and would be resupplied but he US as they are taking those losses. US has like 600 F-15's in storage. and maybe 2,000 F-16 in storage ready to be delivered.

And so the costs will increase and increase and increase. By now you can see what an onerous and messy undertaking all out war on Iran would be. Even from the economic standpoint, it would hardly be viable.

Israel has about 2,500 km of freeways that are suitable airstrips. This is how Taiwan does it, knowing that it also would not have any air bases intact in a serious conflict.

Highway strips require more than just a stretch of road as far as I'm aware.

Here's a list of highway strips by country:

Highway Strips Worldwide

www.mil-airfields.de

According to this, the zionist entity operates three of them.

At any rate, they too can be targeted by precision BM's.

2.5 milion dead for Iran. under this scenario. per two months of this type of conflict.

Very unusual numbers for a conventional war. They would literally have to carpet bomb civilian areas for many months if not years non-stop, and if this were their goal, then in all logic they'd resort to nuclear weapons rather than to conventional means.

they will take the casualties in order to continue their western standard.

Western standards of wealth, development and liberalism = low tolerance for mass casualties. It's just how modern liberal socities are.

They didn't lose 165 in that war. They probably lost a lot more. they always hide their casualties. Their people have no choice, they want to keep that land. they will sacrifice if they are forced to and if it means a nuclear free Iran.

As said, most of them are akin to citizens of modern, liberal, western types of societies: not willing nor ready to sacrifice this much for ideological or religious beliefs.

Of course it's easy for the likes of the so-called Christian Right movement in America to cheerlead videogame-like wars of aggression against bled out, weakened, disarmed and smaller countries at the opposite side of the globe. But taking on a major regional power such as Iran, with a solid defence and a sound asymmetric doctrine to go with it, will trigger costs felt directly by these people, and is therefore a different ball game altogether.

And their regimes are aware of it. Which is why in effect, they have forgone any actual military option against Iran.

They won't start a war until Iran come very close to the nukes. they will just take out your infrastructure and personnel so it never gets to that drastic scenario.

But Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. I thought you were aknowledging as much. Now there's no way for the enemy to suppress entire scientific communities as well as the entire nuclear infrastructure in Iran using sabotage or terrorist attacks. They would need to launch overt strikes, and not just a few, which as said would trigger war.

those 30,000 thousand missiles will not do very much to prevent attacks. they are preventing open warfare fro now. But if you come close to the bombs, those missiles will not save you from this destruction described above.

I have no doubt that if they were able to, they wouldn't hesitate one second to destabilize Iran in accordance with their so-called "regime change" agenda, and including by military means if they could get away with it at a bearable cost (in the subjective sense).

Finally, let's not forget that Iran's missiles are simply the central component of its deterrence. But this deterrence includes additional assets on top of the missiles, namely Iran's regional allies as well as its capability to interdict global energy supplies to a significat extent. Taken together, these three weapons at Iran's disposal make for a formidable deterrence against military aggression by the US and the zionist regime.

 

[thetutle]

Western standards of wealth, development and liberalism = low tolerance for mass casualties. It's just how modern liberal socities are.

It's hardly a country with western standard and wealth. The Israelis I know have got as far away as possible. Standard of life is quite bad. It's very competitive and too expensive to ever buy a house and raise a family.
Everywhere you go in the world, the jews own everything and have the most money. Imagine a country where they are competing against themselves? The universe will collapse on itself. It is not a liberal society, its more like a cleric fascism apartheid colony. none is asking them to take casualties, they will tell them if the time comes.

In order to achieve deterrence against aggression, one doesn't necessarily need to match the whole extent of the enemy's arsenal one to one. One needs to be able to credibly inflict a high enough cost on the aggressor. Which is precisely what Iran is able to do.

those missiles aren't enough.

Not really. Iran's A2/AD and air defence would severly limit the numbers of munitions that would effectively hit their targets in Iran over those 7 days.

They will not be Abel to do that. and ti won't be 7 days. It could be for months. the 7 days will just be the 30,000 tonnes of explosives they can drop on Iran in those first 7 days.

As said, the very fact that Iran has not been attacked is proof of this in and by itself.

But it is being attacked. they don't need to attack it openly. They haven't attacked Syria openly (very much).

Also, here is yet another issue with this whole argumentation: for several pages, you'd been arguing that the Iranian leadership is naive for refraining from pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet now you're explaining that the zionist regime is going to launch one of the biggest wars since 1945 in order to prevent Iran from acquiring precisely those weapons... Which would imply that top zionist officials in your view have to be even more simple minded than the Iranian ones whose logic you dismissed, since they fail to realize that Iran isn't after nuclear weapons in the first place. What to make of your previous assertion that an Iranian effort to go for nuclear arms would actually be safe from preemptive attacks by the zionists, while presently you are suggesting the opposite (namely, that the regime in Tel Aviv can and will go to extreme lengths to prevent Iran from developing nukes, and that Iran in effect cannot deter it from doing so).

Yes, Israel I think may launch such an overall attack. may. to prevent Iran going nuclear, if they know you are about to go nuclear or coming close. So you would have build them in secret and detonate a few bombs to show them you have it. Then there would be no attack. They aren't crazy to provoke a nuclear armed country.

Iran's sophisticated, massive and integrated air defences, as well as its area denial weapons will prevent that, while raising the cost of aggression enough to deter the enemy from going ahead with such plans (as successfully done for decades).

this is fantasy.

And Iran is fielding state of the art anti-stealth and stealth detection technologies.

fantasy x2.

Sorry to say but to make this sort of assessment, your information about Iranian air defence systems must be approximative or incomplete.

Of course I don't have access to secret Iranian military documents. but I know you were demanding an obsolete Russian AA system. And being very sore when they wouldn't sell it.

the Bavar-373, which is on par with more recent S-300 models.

that's the problem isn't it. s300 is obsolete when up against Turkish drones.

These can be targeted by Iran's missile forces.

Targeted yes, maybe. Hit while they are outside the Persian gulf, probably not.

According to this, the zionist entity operates three of them.

I am sure that out of 2,500 km of freeway they can find more than 3 sections to land a plane on.

Very unusual numbers for a conventional war. They would literally have to carpet bomb civilian areas for many months if not years non-stop, and if this were their goal, then in all logic they'd resort to nuclear weapons rather than to conventional means.

no they would not need to use nukes. They want to rebuild it using their contractors and take all your money as well as oil.

Western standards of wealth, development and liberalism = low tolerance for mass casualties. It's just how modern liberal socities are.

Again, Israel is anything but a modern liberal developed state. do such states keep 5 million people in captivity?

But Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. I thought you were aknowledging as much. Now there's no way for the enemy to suppress entire scientific communities as well as the entire nuclear infrastructure in Iran using sabotage or terrorist attacks.

They seem to be doing it right now. And it seems to be working.

I have no doubt that if they were able to, they wouldn't hesitate one second to destabilize Iran in accordance with their so-called "regime change" agenda, and including by military means if they could get away with it at a bearable cost (in the subjective sense).

They re destabilising it right now, and military will come in when it is possible. they re escalating slowly. things are already blowing up. When Syrian nuclear facility was hit, syria didn't comment on it. They just pretended nothing happened and they hoped to avoid a war. they didn't. You cant avoid a war unless you are very very strong. Do you think Iran could blow something up in Israel or USA? not a chance. But they can do it in Iran because they know Iran cant hit back on their own soil.

 

[yavar]

They re destabilising it right now, and military will come in when it is possible. they re escalating slowly. things are already blowing up. When Syrian nuclear facility was hit, syria didn't comment on it. They just pretended nothing happened and they hoped to avoid a war. they didn't. You cant avoid a war unless you are very very strong. Do you think Iran could blow something up in Israel or USA? not a chance. But they can do it in Iran because they know Iran cant hit back on their own soil.

His got good point in there


The rest of his post is Horse sh@t but in the last bet is got good point

 

[SalarHaqq]

It's hardly a country with western standard and wealth. The Israelis I know have got as far away as possible. Standard of life is quite bad. It's very competitive and too expensive to ever buy a house and raise a family.

Same as in the west, where the economic setting is a hyper-competitive one and where the majority of people are having a hard time purchasing a property and properly catering to the needs of a family.

Everywhere you go in the world, the jews own everything and have the most money. Imagine a country where they are competing against themselves? The universe will collapse on itself. It is not a liberal society, its more like a cleric fascism apartheid colony. none is asking them to take casualties, they will tell them if the time comes.

The majority are following liberal, westernized lifestyles. The religious orthodox element is a minority and even they are risk averse enough not to embrace a war of choice if it theatens to kill off a considerable portion of their population.

those missiles aren't enough.

Iran's BM's and other deterrence assets are sufficient.

They will not be Abel to do that. and ti won't be 7 days. It could be for months. the 7 days will just be the 30,000 tonnes of explosives they can drop on Iran in those first 7 days.

Iran is able to do it. There will be no wholesale aggression of Iran by the tiny and extra fragile zionist entity, not for 7 days nor for months.

What a military can do on paper owing to its theoretical order of battle and holdings of equipment is practically never the same as what it will effectively do in practice. As demonstrated by von Clausewitz in his refutation of the uni-dimensional, technicist conception of war held by authors such as Jomini.

But it is being attacked. they don't need to attack it openly. They haven't attacked Syria openly (very much).

Token terrorist / sabotage attacks and actual war are very different matters. Syria was indirectly subjected to a proper and full scale war, not simply to token acts of assassination and sabotage.

Iran is not and will not be, because of its deterrence power. US and zionist policy makers as well as consulting analysts for these regimes have clearly presented assassinations, sabotage and the like as substitutes to their glaring lack of a military option against Iran. Not as elements or facilitators thereof. One should just hear and read what they say.

Yes, Israel I think may launch such an overall attack. may. to prevent Iran going nuclear, if they know you are about to go nuclear or coming close. So you would have build them in secret and detonate a few bombs to show them you have it. Then there would be no attack. They aren't crazy to provoke a nuclear armed country.

They are not going to launch a war that would put their "state"'s viability and its political survival at such eminent risk.

this is fantasy.

fantasy x2.

It's an accurate assessment derived from open source research. Something everyone should deem necessary, rather than being content with blanket judgements.

Of course I don't have access to secret Iranian military documents.

No one's talked of secret documents. It is largely sufficient to review existing open source material.

but I know you were demanding an obsolete Russian AA system. And being very sore when they wouldn't sell it.

This hardly absolves one from the duty of properly researching Iranian air defence systems if one wishes to emit categorical comments on them.

Russia never refused to sell the system to Iran. Rather, they held back and delayed deliveries, although the merchandise had already been paid for. Of course Iran will be irritated by a partner's refusal to make good on contractual obligations. But this doesn't say anything about Iran's air defence capabilities vis a vis the system in question.

And, newer models of the S-300 are not / were not obsolete by any means.

that's the problem isn't it. s300 is obsolete when up against Turkish drones.

Bavar-373 is on par with the S-300 as far as nominal specifications are concerned. Performance wise, it could well surpass the S-300.

When it comes to the S-300 itself, individual side-by-side analogy drawn in a vacuum between random weapons systems, like the one quoted above, aren't very telling. Firstly, the S-300's role is not to intercept comparatively cheap UAV's. It'd be stupid for any country to spend its relatively limited and expensive high-end, high-altitude and long-range interceptor rounds on hordes of drones.

Secondly, the S-300 like any other individual surface-to-air weapon is most effective when used in combination with and as part of an integrated, multi-layered air defence system made of more or less specialized components. Compated to Iran, Armenia is way behind in this regard.

Thirdly, Iran is a global pioneer of armed drone warfare (the first ever employment of armed UAV's, albeit crude ones, goes to Iran's credit and was accomplished during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's) and certainly one of the world's top six or seven UAV powers. As such, Iran will have deep understanding not just of the strengths but also of the weaknesses and shortcomings of UAV warfare, and will therefore have taken necessary measures and procured the necessary air defence equipment (from electronic warfare and jammers to short range SAM's and anti-aircraft artillery, along with the required means of detection and tracking) to effectively counter its enemies .

As a matter of fact, Azarbaijani UAV's trespassing into Iranian airspace were systematically shot down during the recent Karabakh conflict.

Targeted yes, maybe. Hit while they are outside the Persian gulf, probably not.

Stationing itself far outside of the Persian Gulf region will considerably hamper the capability of an attacking US force, be it terms of firepower, sortie rates, ground support etc, in addition to driving the already prohibitive costs of such endeavour even further up.

I am sure that out of 2,500 km of freeway they can find more than 3 sections to land a plane on.

On the whole, highway strips do not offer adequate replacement for air bases nor make the latter obsolete.

no they would not need to use nukes. They want to rebuild it using their contractors and take all your money as well as oil.

If the goal is to inflict civilian casualties in the millions, nuclear weapons fulfill it at a fragment of the cost and in a much simpler manner. Reconstruction would be necessary after nuclear weapons use too. Also, if Iran was to submit to the empire, they would exploit Iran's resources anyway, reconstruction imperatives or not.

Again, Israel is anything but a modern liberal developed state. do such states keep 5 million people in captivity?

Massive crimes are a hallmark of economically developed, so-called democratic and zionist-controlled regimes of the west. The US for instance will massacre 500.000 Iraqi children through sanctions as if it was a joke.

They seem to be doing it right now. And it seems to be working.

It doesn't. A scientific community consists of hundreds if not thousands of researchers. The zionist regime martyred five Iranian nuclear scientists in ten years. In other words, they'd need 10.000 years to suppress 5000 Iranian nuclear scientists, by which time Iranian universities will have produced hundreds of thousands more.

Same for Iran's nuclear infrastructure. A token explosion in a centrifuge assembly hall does nothing to stop Iran's uranium enrichment and its nuclear program.

They re destabilising it right now,

Iran is in a completely stable state. There's no serious domestic challenge to the stability of the state anywhere, daily life is going on on a normal pace and in a regular fashion, etc.

and military will come in when it is possible

For military aggression to become possible, Iran would have to lose its presently established deterrence power, which is hardly conceivable.

they re escalating slowly. things are already blowing up.

Things, and many more of them actually, were exploding in the 1980's too, when the west used Saddam's regime as a proxy in hopes of defeating Iran. But they failed, much as they are failing now.

Plus, as said, these token and largely ineffectual acts of sabotage and terrorist assassinations do not constitute a preparation for war. As highlighted by US and zionist regime analysts themselves, they are in fact being resorted to precisely as a means to compensate for the fact that they do not have any actual military option against Iran.

When Syrian nuclear facility was hit, syria didn't comment on it. They just pretended nothing happened and they hoped to avoid a war. they didn't. You cant avoid a war unless you are very very strong.

However, Syrian and Iranian deterrence power aren't comparable. Syria lacked any of the major deterrence assets at Iran's disposal (missiles, allied armed movements accross the region, geographic location sitting atop the main artery of global energy supplies).

Do you think Iran could blow something up in Israel or USA? not a chance. But they can do it in Iran because they know Iran cant hit back on their own soil.

They can conduct token sabotage operations, but these are not of much consequence in the overall geostrategic picture and balance of power. These acts do not announce escalation towards full fledged war, but exemplify the enemy's actual incapacity to wage war of aggression on Iran, forcing it therefore to fall back on such insufficient compensatory measures.