For the record... If Hezbollah attacks Israel again

[Lemon law]

I may be somewhat ignorant on fighter capacities---but what kind of bomb load can a F-16 carry in addition to the two external fuel tanks plus some sort of compliment of defensive air to air missles? And since the Iranian nuclear facalities are buried, what sort of bomb could they carry that would be effective as a bunker buster assuming the 70 plus nuclear facilities are the prime targets?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
As long as the US is out of it, I don't give flying fvck if they wipe each other off the earth.

:thumbsup:

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I may be somewhat ignorant on fighter capacities---but what kind of bomb load can a F-16 carry in addition to the two external fuel tanks plus some sort of compliment of defensive air to air missles? And since the Iranian nuclear facalities are buried, what sort of bomb could they carry that would be effective as a bunker buster assuming the 70 plus nuclear facilities are the prime targets?

I'm not sure if us -> israeli weapons are 1:1 but I have seen pictures of israeli f-16s with the 600gal tanks, cft, 2x2000lb laser guided bombs, and 4 air-to-air missiles. I've also seen them with GPS guided JDAMs so I would assume Israel has the capabilities to launch offensive attack with 2000lb JDAMs or LGBs with penetrating capability as with USA weaponry.

I dunno the penetrating depth though.

More information can be found on military sites under GBU-24 and JDAM munitions.

 

[Lemon law]

Well, I have heard some stuff that any conventional bunker busters in the US arsenal are limited to a 70 foot or so damage depth---and those suckers by themselves are far too big for any but the largest of bombers to carry---which would eliminate a f-16.

With some nuts now advocating some nuke type bunker busters.

These are indeed scary times.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: nkgreen
As long as the US is out of it, I don't give flying fvck if they wipe each other off the earth.

:thumbsup:

You couldn't care less about a nuclear war eh? Just let the weapons go flying, you don't care where they land as long as it's not your backyard? Who is to say it won't be, you ARE an infidel after all.

 

[imported_dna]

Heh, yeah, every infidel will be struck, that's why we don't want the "righteous" ones to have it.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, I have heard some stuff that any conventional bunker busters in the US arsenal are limited to a 70 foot or so damage depth---and those suckers by themselves are far too big for any but the largest of bombers to carry---which would eliminate a f-16.

With some nuts now advocating some nuke type bunker busters.

These are indeed scary times.

I would agree that weapons probably cannot damage the nuclear plant itself, I think for Israel to handle it without allied help would require nothing short of carpet bombing the site and hoping enough earth moves to reach the insides.

They can reach in far enough into Iran to disable air defenses though, making way for further Israeli strikes and possibly United States help from strategic bombers. Though I'm not intrested in debating what we should or shouldn't do(USA), it is a possibility, especially if the air defenses are already neutralized.

 

[skooma]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Extelleron
If Hezbollah attacks again, as I BELIEVE Israel has said, Lebanon's done. Israel will re-invade ENTIRELY, and crush any resistance for good. This time, a war against Iran and Syria will also have to be fought. Most likely, by the time Hezbollah acts up again (oh, it WILL happen, believe me) we'll have economic sanctions with Iran, but Iran will still be pursuing their nuclear goal...... so we'll invade Iran.

If Israel invades Iran, I would support Pakistan nuking Tel Aviv.

Unless you want to face the might of a few hundred ICBM's in your backyard, I'd keep such thoughts out of your brainwashed mind.

It would end the world. An Israeli "invasion" of Iran is as absurd as Pakistan nuking TelAviv. So now that people are calling for an invasion of Iran, why doesn't Iran have the right to defend itself by building nukes?

If Iran continues to support terrorists, preach hate against the United States and Israel, and doesn't accept the incentives package that we KINDLY offered them, anyone but those who are brainwashed to think everytime the West defends itself it's an "invasion," will clearly believe we are right to invade Iran.

Iran has taken our people hostage, they fund terrorism, and they are building a nuclear missile which they will probably use to destroy Israel, and SOMEHOW, you don't see an invasion of Iran as justified. Explain this.

how old are you anyway?

 

[Lemon law]

To skooma,

We have another armchair general of indeterminate age but certain foolishness. Who thinks the whim of the US is enough to invade and conquer Iran---maybe you have not checked lately, but US military power is stretched already in Iraq----and now you think the USA can just eat a nation twice the size and population in a single gulp.---and supersize the order.

Has it occured to you that this act would cause a world wide oil shortage as no Persian gulf oil would move for years. Maybe you might want to check with China---who could just call in Sam's IOU's----and crush our economy flat.

Next time you get delusions of grandeur I recommend you try leaping out of small buildings in a single bound---gravity will bring you to earth and reality---if you try tall buildings you might hurt yourself and others.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, I have heard some stuff that any conventional bunker busters in the US arsenal are limited to a 70 foot or so damage depth---and those suckers by themselves are far too big for any but the largest of bombers to carry---which would eliminate a f-16.

With some nuts now advocating some nuke type bunker busters.

These are indeed scary times.

I would agree that weapons probably cannot damage the nuclear plant itself, I think for Israel to handle it without allied help would require nothing short of carpet bombing the site and hoping enough earth moves to reach the insides.

They can reach in far enough into Iran to disable air defenses though, making way for further Israeli strikes and possibly United States help from strategic bombers. Though I'm not intrested in debating what we should or shouldn't do(USA), it is a possibility, especially if the air defenses are already neutralized.

1) Isreal cannot reach most of Iran. Not even close. They need to refuel over Iraq which would be pointless. U.S might as well attack Iran over Israel. U.S Air Force > Israel Air Force.
2) Israel is going to take out Iran's air defense systems with what? F-16s? F-16s light up on radar. I'm sure the pilots of those F-16s are going to love that mission.
3) Russian techs work at Iran's nuclear plants. As many as 500. Let's kill 500 Russian techs.

 

[raildogg]

Israel has been wrong for a while now and they'll continue to be wrong for a while. Hezbollah is capitalizing on this moment while Israel is really unsure as to how its offensive went. I think both sides are to blame but you have to dig deeper and look at what is not there. Israel will not solve anything by attacking the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria or whoever. That should be clear.

In fact, Israel is making the situation much worse by attacking and creating more problems for itself and others. Both sides need peace. One side needs to back down and grow up and until that happens, I don't know.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: Aimster

1) Isreal cannot reach most of Iran. Not even close. They need to refuel over Iraq which would be pointless. U.S might as well attack Iran over Israel. U.S Air Force > Israel Air Force.
2) Israel is going to take out Iran's air defense systems with what? F-16s? F-16s light up on radar. I'm sure the pilots of those F-16s are going to love that mission.
3) Russian techs work at Iran's nuclear plants. As many as 500. Let's kill 500 Russian techs.

1400mi radius for the f-16 with cft, 2x600gal I believe puts them well into Iran, I don't know exact distances from IAF airfields to the edges of Iran though, but it certainly reaches into the center of Iran, from a glance.

Also, I would disagree I believe the IAF is better or equal to USAF in technology, until the F-22 enters service fully their F-16s would probably cream ours in 1 to 1 engagement in performance and capabilites if not for AWACs and our phenomenal electronic warfare capabilities. We have strengh in numbers currently, but not much else until the F-22. After all, their Aircraft are USAF tech gutted and replaced with their top of the line avionics/ewar technology.

Second point I'd also have to say - what aircraft do you think we use for SEAD, f-16s just like the Israelis have. You don't hear the USAF pilots complaining about F-16 for SEAD.

Third I never really said they should/would/will attack the plant.

Anyways the only reason I posted here was to inform people of the 1400mi radius, that their f-16s can reach iran, not to debate wether they would attack the plant.

But I digress, I don't want to hijack the thread.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Aimster

1) Isreal cannot reach most of Iran. Not even close. They need to refuel over Iraq which would be pointless. U.S might as well attack Iran over Israel. U.S Air Force > Israel Air Force.
2) Israel is going to take out Iran's air defense systems with what? F-16s? F-16s light up on radar. I'm sure the pilots of those F-16s are going to love that mission.
3) Russian techs work at Iran's nuclear plants. As many as 500. Let's kill 500 Russian techs.

1400mi radius for the f-16 with cft, 2x600gal I believe puts them well into Iran, I don't know exact distances from IAF airfields to the edges of Iran though, but it certainly reaches into the center of Iran, from a glance.

Also, I would disagree I believe the IAF is better or equal to USAF in technology, until the F-22 enters service fully their F-16s would probably cream ours in 1 to 1 engagement in performance and capabilites if not for AWACs and our phenomenal electronic warfare capabilities. We have strengh in numbers currently, but not much else until the F-22. After all, their Aircraft are USAF tech gutted and replaced with their top of the line avionics/ewar technology.

Second point I'd also have to say - what aircraft do you think we use for SEAD, f-16s just like the Israelis have. You don't hear the USAF pilots complaining about F-16 for SEAD.

Third I never really said they should/would/will attack the plant.

Anyways the only reason I posted here was to inform people of the 1400mi radius, that their f-16s can reach iran, not to debate wether they would attack the plant.

But I digress, I don't want to hijack the thread.

Iran's air defense systems would be targeting Israel's aircraft. I'm sure Iran has hundreds of air defense systems lined up all around their nuclear reactor.

U.S has cruise misssiles and stealth aircraft. That is how Saddam's Iraq was stunned during the Gulf War. Israel has no stealth and no ships with cruise misssiles in range of Iran.

F-16Is are a horrible choice to send into a country with S-300 missile defense systems. Stealth + Cruise Missiles > air defense systems.

Also Israel cannot go well into Iran without refueling. Your mileage estimates are way off. 1400 miles? The high end estimates are 2,100km. Most sources are putting it at 1,500-1,800km. 1,500 is more like it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Both sides need peace. One side needs to back down and grow up and until that happens, I don't know.

Of course you only mention one side to stop, and that is Israel. Hizbollah certainly wouldn?t come through on their sworn duty to destroy Israel eh, all we have to do is lay down and surrender to them?

 

[Aimster]

By the way the straight line distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear plant (which is located on the far left of Iran near the water) is almost 1,000 miles.

Israel would def. have to refuel.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: skooma

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Extelleron
If Hezbollah attacks again, as I BELIEVE Israel has said, Lebanon's done. Israel will re-invade ENTIRELY, and crush any resistance for good. This time, a war against Iran and Syria will also have to be fought. Most likely, by the time Hezbollah acts up again (oh, it WILL happen, believe me) we'll have economic sanctions with Iran, but Iran will still be pursuing their nuclear goal...... so we'll invade Iran.

If Israel invades Iran, I would support Pakistan nuking Tel Aviv.

Unless you want to face the might of a few hundred ICBM's in your backyard, I'd keep such thoughts out of your brainwashed mind.

It would end the world. An Israeli "invasion" of Iran is as absurd as Pakistan nuking TelAviv. So now that people are calling for an invasion of Iran, why doesn't Iran have the right to defend itself by building nukes?

If Iran continues to support terrorists, preach hate against the United States and Israel, and doesn't accept the incentives package that we KINDLY offered them, anyone but those who are brainwashed to think everytime the West defends itself it's an "invasion," will clearly believe we are right to invade Iran.

Iran has taken our people hostage, they fund terrorism, and they are building a nuclear missile which they will probably use to destroy Israel, and SOMEHOW, you don't see an invasion of Iran as justified. Explain this.

how old are you anyway?

^^

Gotta love people who bring up age in an argument. :disgust:

 

[kobymu]

I only have one thing to add to this debate:

Originally posted by: piasabird
They are not innocent civilians they are accomplices with their hands out ready to receive money from Hezbolah and their sugar daddies in Iran and Syria. There are no innocent civilians, silence and complicity is the same as if they were pulling the trigger on the rockets sailing into Isreal.

Not all the citizens in south Lebanon are like you described, the majority maybe, but definitely not all of them.

Yes, there are times that I wish we could just obliterate them (Fatah, Hamas, Hizballa, Palestinians in general), but that is just because I'm human, and sometimes I just want to get even.

Now let's take a trip to "what if" land:

What if we had a bomb that can discriminate between citizens that support terror and citizens that don?t so it will only detonates when the civilians that stand to close to the terrorist are the ones that it's ok to kill. Or for the sake of argument, we know for an absolute fact that 100% of all civilians in south Lebanon support terror so we can promptly bomb the fvck out of them.

Do you think that it would be morally justified to kill civilians just because they A. support terror and B. let terrorist operate in their vicinity?

Is that all it takes to give us (Israel) the right to kill thousands or tens of thousands of civilians?

DON?T GET ME WRONG, for every reason you have to hate them, I HAVE TEN!

HOWEVER that does NOT give us Israelis or for that matter the US, the western culture or any other group of people, no matter how large they are, or how much they are vindicated by their (so called) superior ethical principals, the right to judge that kind of sentence on them, and it sure as fvck not even remotely close enough for being a good enough justification to carry out the execution!!!

Its like I said, there are times that I wish we could just obliterate them but that's just because I'm human, and that isn't a good enough excuse.

 

[Lemon law]

Can we agree on two principles?

1. An Israeli life is worth no more or no less than a non Israeli life.

2. Innocent children are always blameless even if the parents are not blameless.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can we agree on two principles?

1. An Israeli life is worth no more or no less than a non Israeli life.

2. Innocent children are always blameless even if the parents are not blameless.

Not if that "non-Israeli life" is a member of Hezbollah. Then they're entirely worthless.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

4) If the UN & Lebanonise army can control the buffer zone, then Lebanon will be out of the picture. should the buffer zone be violated, then the house cleaning will probably start again the way it happened with the PLO/Arafat. Lebanon will suffer, but that is the consequences of the bed that they chose by hooking up with Syria and Hezbollah and the PLO.

EagleKeeper,
The Lebanese did not "hook up" with Syria and Hezbollah. The Syrians siezed conrol over much of Lebanon after the decades long Civil War had decimated the country, and have dominated Lebanon for over a decade - friends of mine in the Lebanese government estimate that one quarter of all Lebanese government funds are channeled into the Syrian government coffers each year. The Syrians stand on the verge of being linked to the murder of the Lebanese Prime Minster last year by a UN investiative squad, which may well even cause the downfall of Assad politically (we can only hope). The outcry over the murder was enough to get all 40,000+ uniformed Syrian troops FINALLY out of Lebanon, although their Security services (secret service) remain in force. Hezbollah are Syrian proxies, too well armed (according to statements by BOTH the UN and Israel) for the Lebanese military to control or kick out.

You want to help Israel? Help the Lebanese establish their own country and protect it...don't claim they are complicit.

Future Shock

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Future Shock
You want to help Israel? Help the Lebanese establish their own country and protect it...don't claim they are complicit.

First you protect your own citizens.

The Hezbollah has been hoarding since Israel left in 2000 (and probably before that), and Syria left only recently.

As you said, Hezbollah is too powerfull, but perhaps the recent assault is just what was needed to weaken it to such a point that the Lebanese army can muscle it around (perhaps with the help of the UN).

I doubt that without this Israeli incursion, Hezbollah's power would have diminished on its own.

 

[rise]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can we agree on two principles?

1. An Israeli life is worth no more or no less than a non Israeli life.

2. Innocent children are always blameless even if the parents are not blameless.

Not if that "non-Israeli life" is a member of Hezbollah. Then they're entirely worthless.

you're borderline sick kid. you obviously are of a young age but you have little grasp of history, less a grasp of diplomacy and no grasp of what a child means to his parents.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Future Shock
You want to help Israel? Help the Lebanese establish their own country and protect it...don't claim they are complicit.

First you protect your own citizens.

The Hezbollah has been hoarding since Israel left in 2000 (and probably before that), and Syria left only recently.

As you said, Hezbollah is too powerfull, but perhaps the recent assault is just what was needed to weaken it to such a point that the Lebanese army can muscle it around (perhaps with the help of the UN).

I doubt that without this Israeli incursion, Hezbollah's power would have diminished on its own.

Hezbollah would have been SEVERLY weakened in the coming months when Assad is accused of the murder of the Lebanese Prime Minister. In fact, it is widely speculated that Assad ordered the Hezbollah provocation to draw attention away from the coming UN indictment against him. If NO war had just been fought, then the indictment of Assad may well have removed him from power in Syria, which would have bolstered Lebanese security AND possibly removed a key sponsor for Hezzbollah.

Instead, Israel played into Assad's hands - Hezbollah's standing (and Assad's) has never been higher in the Arab world, and now the UN indictment will seem insufficient reason to remove him from office domestically.

Iran provides the money - but Syria is the key player. Remove Syrian hegemony over Lebanon, and Hezbollah has no free pass, and fewer supply routes for weapons and money.

The weakening of Hezbollah over the past month is minor, and can be re-supplied relatively quickly (1-2 years), even under UN watch I suspect. This is a political battle, and it must be fought in those terms...

Future Shock

 

[imported_dna]

For some reason I doubt Assad would be forced down because of the Harriri assasination.
Nothing, probably, short of what they did to Anwar Sadat would take him out of the picture, and he'll be there till the very end, just like his daddy.

 

[Lemon law]

dna,

Why don't you quit wishing death on your opponents and start thinking of ways to defuse this crisis and bring a just peace. You seem to think that your sense of justce is going to prevail if you can just prove who started this-----get a clue---it ain't gonna happen and it no longer matters---all we have now is an endless cycle of tit for tat violence. And there is a sea change this year---from now on the arab is getting more equal in the ability to kill Israelies----Israelies can still kill arabs faster than arabs can kill Israelies---but the ratio is slipping closer to equality. Can Israel fight a war of attrition?---and does it matter---because there are any number of equally determined and equally stupid on the other side who will win at all costs.
No matter how much murder it takes.