20 Feb 07
"It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions. But diplomatic sources have told the BBC that as a fallback plan, senior officials at Central Command in Florida have already selected their target sets inside Iran. That list includes Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. Facilities at Isfahan, Arak and Bushehr are also on the target list, the sources say. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6376639.stm
So, if it takes place, should the attack be only on nuclear facilities or should it be extended, as reported by the BBC, to the whole Iranian military might?
Please say 'yes' or 'no' and why?
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseThe attack should not take place.
"It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions. But diplomatic sources have t ted by the BBC, to the whole Iranian military might?
Please say 'yes' or 'no' and why?
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by SeitseIt should not take place. If it does take place, then the rationale behind attacking would determine whether or not to take out military targets. If Iran tries to defend itself of course military targets can be added.
"It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions. But diplomatic sources have t ...[text shortened]... d by the BBC, to the whole Iranian military might?
Please say 'yes' or 'no' and why?
I suppose I'd have reserve forces ready to take out these targets if necessary in case Iran fights back, but my main strike would be against the nuclear facilities...if the attack were to take place.
However Iran has a right to nuclear facilities in my opinion.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by aging blitzerNice link.
What's Iran's Air Force like nowadays?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.
Russia and Iran enjoy a close military sales relationship, and have taken steps for the Russians to sell modernized air defense systems to Iran. In February 2001 a spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry stated that "Iran hopes for ongoing military-technical cooperation with Russia. Our country plans to modernize Iranian Air Defense and it will ask Russia to sell some air defense systems in support of that."
An unknown number of "new" Su-25s were delivered to the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps Air Force (IRGCAF) in 2003. Where these Frogfoots originate from is unclear.
In July 2003 Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Corporation (CAIC) unveiled the new ‘Super-7’ or Chao Qi fighter plane to the public. The new Super-7 is “an all-purpose light fighter, required to have all-weather operation capabilities, be capable of performing the dual tasks of dogfight and air-to-ground attack, and have the ability to launch medium-range missiles. Mass production of the fighter will not begin until two and a half years of research are completed. The plane is being produced to be sold abroad to developing nations. China already has received orders from Iran and some African countries.
There have been reports of some 10 F-8Ms "Finback", 7 Tu-22Ms, 19 MIG-27s, and several MIG-31s (Russia's most modern fighter aircraft, US$40 million ) being present in Iran, but these are not confirmed.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by eamon oJust because a country has nuclear weapons it doesn't mean that they will use them.
right, like the grim reaper has a right to his scythe
So far the USA, Russia, China, the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are known to have nuclear weapons, but only one of those countries has ever used them.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by Ian68just wait.
Just because a country has nuclear weapons it doesn't mean that they will use them.
So far the USA, Russia, China, the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are known to have nuclear weapons, but only one of those countries has ever used them.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by shavixmirI agree with you. However, if they chose terrorist attacks it will provide causes belle.
Attacking Iran is not only immoral, but will only serve to be counter-productive.
Does anyone really think their airforce or WMD's are really the method of revenge they are going to use?
Don't be silly.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseNo
[i]"It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres. The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. The UN has urged Iran to stop the programme or face economic sanctions. But diplomatic sources have t ...[text shortened]... ted by the BBC, to the whole Iranian military might?
Please say 'yes' or 'no' and why?
It would be as counter productive as napalming.
It would be yet another recruitment drive for terrorism.
If you think that Iran are planning a nuclear strike, then you are crazy.
If you think that all these countries led by extremists need to be discouraged from nuclear arms then you are completely correct.
Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea etc. all developed nuclear arms because they were scared of an attack. By ATTACKING them you will give then MORE reasons to seek the ultimate deterrent.
It is no coincidence that the loony in charge of Iran came to power after that idiot Bush started his war on the "axis of evil".
Just as Hitler was a product of overzealous French/british fear and protectionism, so the fear that fools like simple seistse peddle creates monsters in a self fulfilling prophesy.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by Ian68Iran has already stated that it's goal will be to wipe Israel of the face of the world.
Just because a country has nuclear weapons it doesn't mean that they will use them.
Surely allowing them to have nuclear weapons would be total madness.
"Once again, the world stood by and did nothing as millions of Jews were annihiliated." That's what the foreword to some history book about the Iranian nuclear strikes on Israel will say, 50 years from now.