Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

**keda** · 05-09-2007, 12:53 PM

if there's any credibility in what some of our rabid allahwallahs would have the brainless believe, gitmo is a conversion depot, bad muslims go in and good muslim terrorists come out.

**Boon Mee** · 17-09-2007, 06:34 PM

World should brace for possible war over Iran: France

The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio.

So...the ball's in Ahmadinejawhackjob's court, eh?
Simple - give up the Nuke program or you're history...

Link

**chinthee** · 17-09-2007, 07:30 PM

Interesting analysis now going on about the effects on stock markets and oil prices if a war breaks out.

Better get the old bike out and oil the chain...

**keda** · 17-09-2007, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

World should brace for possible war over Iran: France

The world should brace for a possible war over the Iranian nuclear crisis but seeking a solution through talks should take priority, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," he said in an interview broadcast on French television and radio...

Link

That's the daftest most irresponsible statement I have heard from a career politician - as opposed to the 3rd world ersatz variety - in a long while....'the worst is war'?

And this in reference to a country whose leader is a loose canon Islamic extremist that has the Western world by the balls - not with his oil, which at a pinch can be obtained elsewhere, but at the thought of his battalions of dedicated suicidal maniacs that would happily buy one way plane tickets to every world capital.

The whackjob would relish destabilising the world, nothing profound there, and quite aside from the logistical impossibility of invading Iran that statement demeans the intellectual capacity of his audience, which in this case is global. Oh, missed it, he's French.

**stroller** · 17-09-2007, 08:09 PM

You do have a way with words, keda...

**barbaro** · 17-09-2007, 08:57 PM

Sep 17, 2007 13:55 | Updated Sep 17, 2007 15:05
600 Iranian missiles said to be pointed at targets in Israel

Six hundred Iranian Shihab-3 missiles are pointed at targets throughout Israel, and will be launched if either Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian website affiliated with the regime reported on Monday.

Behind a poster of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reading: "Missile maneuver of the Great Prophet," Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards tests the long-range Shihab-3 missile in a central desert area of Iran.

"Iran will shoot at Israel 600 missiles if it is attacked," the Iranian news website, Assar Iran, reported. "600 missiles will only be the first reaction."

According to the report, dozens of locations throughout Iraq, which are being used by the US Army, have also been targeted.

The Shihab missile has a range of 1,300 km, and can reach anywhere in Israel.
On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the nuclear Iranian crisis forces the world "to prepare for the worst," and said that in this case it "is war."

Entire: 600 Iranian missiles said to be pointed at targets in Israel | Jerusalem Post

Here is more info. on the Shihab-3 missle: (Sorry, it is wiki.)

Shahab-3B

The Shahab-3B differs from the basic production variant. It has improvements to its guidance system and warhead, a few small changes on the missile body, and a new re-entry vehicle whose terminal guidance system and rocket-nozzle steering method are completely different from the Shahab-3A's spin-stabilized re-entry vehicle.

The new re-entry vehicle uses a triconic aeroshell geometry (or 'baby bottle' design) which improves the overall lift to drag ratio for the re-entry vehicle. This allows greater range maneuverability which can result in better precision. The triconic design also reduces the overall size of the warhead from an estimated one metric tonne to 700 kg.

The rocket-nozzle control system allows the missile to change its trajectory several times during re-entry and even terminal phase, effectively preventing pre-calculated intercept points of radar systems - which is a method nearly all ABM systems use these days. As a high-speed ballistic missile and pre-mission fuelling capability, the Shahab-3 has an extremely short launch/impact time ratio. This means that the
INS/gyroscope guidance would also remain relatively accurate until impact (important, given the fact that the gyrosopes tend to become inaccurate the longer the flight lasts). With that guidance system, the Shahab-3B could achieve an accuracy of around 30-50m CEP or even less. The Iranians have already proved of developing even more precise systems - their Fateh-110 missiles have an electro-optical terminal guidance system. Shahab-3B is not known of having anything similar, but should be fully dependent on INS and, probably, GPS.

These improvements would increase the Shahab-3B's survivability against ABM systems such as Israel's Arrow-2 as well as being used for precision attacks against high value targets such as command, control and communications centres.

Shahab-3C & D

Little is known about Shahab-3C and Shahab-3D. From what can be gathered, the missiles have an improved precision, navigation system, and a longer range. The missiles were indigenously developed, and are being mass produced.

Shahab-3 range

The Shahab-3 was first seen in public on September 25, 1998, in Azadi Square, Tehran in a parade

Entire: Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Boon Mee** · 17-09-2007, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by keda

aside from the logistical impossibility of invading Iran

Come again?
Ferget about them B-1 & B-2 Sealth bombers?
Ferget about them Thomahawk Cruise (Submarine launched) missiles?
Ferget about them bunker-bustin' MOABS?
Heh..it'd be over before it started...

**barbaro** · 17-09-2007, 09:02 PM

double post edited.

Attacking Iran is possible via missles and jets from the air. Ground forces are not needed, and not possible.

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

**Boon Mee** · 17-09-2007, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

Not if we took out the SAM and missile sites first.

**Butterfly** · 17-09-2007, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday.

He is back on smoking pot again, I don't know how many times I told him to stop

Originally Posted by keda

That's the daftest most irresponsible statement I have heard from a career politician

Agree, completely stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if these comments would push him out faster from Sarko Facist government.

**barbaro** · 17-09-2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

Not if we took out the SAM and missile sites first.

I'm no expert, but I'm making an assumption, Boon.

Iran has the radar, and rapid response completely available. The Iranians are tracking all movements by U.S. air craft carriers, jet take-offs, missles, and bases etc.

The Iranians are sophisticated, and have been planning for an attack against them and a response for a long time.

It won't be that easy IMO.

With the number of missles Iran has, let's just say that 20% of them made it to U.S. bases in Iraq, the U.S. embassy, and to Israel.

Result: bad.

And, I am quite sure Israel would respond to an Iranian attack:

So you have

The U.S.
Iranians
Israel

**Boon Mee** · 17-09-2007, 09:17 PM

^^
Hey!
The Frenchies elected Sarko to clean up that socialist mess there - heh...

**Boon Mee** · 17-09-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

Not if we took out the SAM and missile sites first.

I'm no expert, but I'm making an assumption, Boon.

Iran has the radar, and rapid response completely available. The Iranians are tracking all movements by U.S. air craft carriers, jet take-offs, missles, and bases etc.

The Iranians are sophisticated, and have been planning for an attack against them and a response for a long time.

It won't be that easy IMO.

With the number of missles Iran has, let's just say that 20% of them made it to U.S. bases in Iraq, the U.S. embassy, and to Israel.

Result: bad.

And, I am quite sure Israel would respond to an Iranian attack:

So you have

The U.S.
Iranians
Israel

M/M
recall I listed the stealth bombers?
Nothing can see them...

**Butterfly** · 17-09-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The Frenchies elected Sarko to clean up that socialist mess there - heh...

The socialists haven't been in charge since 2002

Sarko is a dog, he will quit in shame sooner than you think. I give him 2 years max

he is a cocksucker and he loves to suck cocks

**Boon Mee** · 18-09-2007, 02:04 AM

2,000 targets.

"Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail."

Man...the price of oil's gonna go thru the roof!

Link

**Butterfly** · 18-09-2007, 09:11 AM

the last thing you need is to have Americans get their ass kicked by another third world country, that would be totally non-constructive for the region. Draft maybe ?

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by keda

aside from the logistical impossibility of invading Iran

Come again?
Ferget about them B-1 & B-2 Sealth bombers?
Ferget about them Thomahawk Cruise (Submarine launched) missiles?
Ferget about them bunker-bustin' MOABS?
Heh..it'd be over before it started...

Bombing is easy, that's what planes and missiles are for, so any place on earth is subject to strikes against specific targets which can then be rebuilt, but it is logistically not possible to invade Iran and those drawing on this as even the remotest scenario are plain and simply fearmongering to suit their agenda or interests.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

double post edited.

Attacking Iran is possible via missles and jets from the air. Ground forces are not needed, and not possible.

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

I'd go so far as to say attacking Iran is precisely what its leadership would welcome.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

Attaacking Iran IMO, would lead to massive retaliation, as noted above.

Not if we took out the SAM and missile sites first.

The response, not retaliation since the connotation implies the victim of the initial striker, would not be relying upon missiles.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

...And, I am quite sure Israel would respond to an Iranian attack...

Sure Israel would retaliate, but in line with previous learning one hopes it would be swift and ruthless rather than tempered, to reach as many of their objectives as they could within the brief window of free world opinion on their side.

At termination of 1967 hostilities I recall arguing that the best thing for Israel was to roll thousands of trucks into WB and Gaza, and transport to dump the Palestinians unto Egypt and Jordan. This would give them the leverage to later negotiate their return with a choice on which ones not to allow back.

Flame away, but it was a different time with different values and expectations not stunted by political correctness, world opinion was firmly with them, they had the opportunity, and missed it.

**sabang** · 18-09-2007, 10:32 AM

On face value that may make sense keda, but think of the number of trucks involved, plus the added manpower to remove an indigenous population that does not want to move. Logistically, it would involve more effort than the war.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

...Man...the price of oil's gonna go thru the roof!

Link

It would too, and we still haven't learned that the best protection against global panic being instilled at the whim of a bunch of peasants is to reduce our dependence on the stuff with serious effort into viable alternatives.

But in context of supply disruption rather than other repercussions which are obvious and do not need to be entered, measures would be installed and alternative sources of oil would be preempted as an integral part of any action that might result in Iranian oil being entirely removed from the supply line.

The speculators and BB would clean up as they did when the price lurched from $30 to $80, but then as 30 years before from $4 to $20 it would settle to an acceptable if higher band with the global economy, robust as it is, absorbing the impact.

The blessing in disguise, which I'm sure the OPEC bullyboys are well aware of and would rather not entertain, is that once the oil price reaches around $110 (was $80 6 years ago), it makes sound economic sense to pull out the stops and invest heavily for that world saving alternative.

**keda** · 18-09-2007, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by sabang

On face value that may make sense keda, but thing of the number of trucks involved, plus the added manpower to remove an indigenous population that does not want to move. Logistically, it would involve more effort than the war.

Could be, and I wouldn't agree the population would've put up more than token resistance but will address that later, but again consider the different times and expectations, the constraints of political correction had not yet been invented, the lowly arab of the 60s much like today were followers of vociferous leaders, the arab world had suffered a blow to their esteem, though as it turns out this was salvaged by an even more radical Islam and of course the leverage afforded by oil, but these came after the event.

Important too were the fears instilled by their own leaders from their hives of safety that the Israelis were preparing for wholesale slaughter, and this was a vital factor that Israel could have exploited to turn the Egypt/Jordan exodus dribble into a flood.

Thousands of trucks were available and these could have moved the greater part of the population, assuming compliance and of course myriad other variables.

**DrB0b** · 18-09-2007, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

M/M
recall I listed the stealth bombers?
Nothing can see them...

Serbians can!

Stealth bombers, cruise missiles, MOABs, shock-and-awe? It worked before so I guess it'll work again, oh wait......

**stroller** · 18-09-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by keda

but again consider the different times and expectations, the constraints of political correction had not yet been invented

I suppose the "PC nutters" with their strange ideas of how people should be treated or not, were focusing on those pesky Germans at the time. However, they insist the same standards should apply to all these days, and Israel has cashed in all its victim-bonus-vouchers already.
Too bad.

Thread: Ahmadinejawhackjob Wants To Share Nukes With Middle East

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions