Iran will retaliate with missiles if attacked

[RichardE]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1610722,001301970000.htm

Iran warns US, UK of missile response if attacked

Associated Press

Tehran, January 28, 2006

Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief warned the United States and Britain on Saturday that Iran would retaliate with missiles if attacked, state-run television reported.

General Yahya Rahim Safavi also accused US and British intelligence services of provoking unrest in the oil-rich southwestern Iran and providing bomb materials to Iranian dissidents.

Two bombings killed at least nine people in the southwestern city of Ahvaz on January 21, near the border with southern Iraq where 8,500 British soldiers are based.

"The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000 kms," Safavi said on state-run television. Israel is within that range.

"We have no intention to invade any country. We will take effective defence measures if attacked," he said.

Ball is in the US court now, battle lines have been set, attack Iran, kiss the bases in Iraq goodbye.

 

[Rainsford]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but while a lot of what Iran does is rather questionable, this particular announcement doesn't seem so strange. They are going to defend themselvs with every weapon they have if they are attacked? Isn't that true of almost any country?

 

[Meuge]

They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: RichardE
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1610722,001301970000.htm

Iran warns US, UK of missile response if attacked

Associated Press

Tehran, January 28, 2006

Iran's Revolutionary Guards chief warned the United States and Britain on Saturday that Iran would retaliate with missiles if attacked, state-run television reported.

General Yahya Rahim Safavi also accused US and British intelligence services of provoking unrest in the oil-rich southwestern Iran and providing bomb materials to Iranian dissidents.

Two bombings killed at least nine people in the southwestern city of Ahvaz on January 21, near the border with southern Iraq where 8,500 British soldiers are based.

"The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000 kms," Safavi said on state-run television. Israel is within that range.

"We have no intention to invade any country. We will take effective defence measures if attacked," he said.

Ball is in the US court now, battle lines have been set, attack Iran, kiss the bases in Iraq goodbye.

If Iran bombed our bases in Iraq, the response would be extremely severe from the US ... people here would be absolutely livid.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

What if Isreal is not the attacker, would Iran be justified if they attack them like Iraq did during the first gulf war in 1991 in order to try to escalate the conflict?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

They have thousands of missiles capable of striking wherever they want in Iraq.

They launched hundreds of missiles at MEK bases in Iraq in the 90s. Their base was only a few miles away from the capital of Iraq.

Their missiles didn't fail when they struck deep inside Iraq in the 90s, what makes you think they will all of a sudden fail now?

EDIT: The main attack happened in 2001 with a smaller attack in 1996

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

You mean Meuge is, he is the one who brought that up, but I was just giving my opinion on his statement if "Israel attacks Iran...etc"

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

Well any nation that is attacked has a right to attack back. Do you not agree?

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

Wow your argument is very convincing, go on please .

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

They have thousands of missiles capable of striking wherever they want in Iraq.

If accuracy of a mile or two is considered "striking wherever you want", then perhaps. And even then, your claim of "thousands" is... well... insane. They don't have thousands of medium-range ballistic missiles. The cost of building and maintaining such an enormous ground-to-ground fleet is well beyond Iraq's capabilities.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

Well any nation that is attacked has a right to attack back. Do you not agree?

U.S. attacking Iran != Israel attacking Iran.

But I'd give your argument some weight if not for the more important point. These missiles don't have the accuracy to target military strongpoints. They are likely to be aimed at civilian population centers.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

They have thousands of missiles capable of striking wherever they want in Iraq.

If accuracy of a mile or two is considered "striking wherever you want", then perhaps. And even then, your claim of "thousands" is... well... insane. They don't have thousands of medium-range ballistic missiles. The cost of building and maintaining such an enormous ground-to-ground fleet is well beyond Iraq's capabilities.

Misinformed.

It is not hard to build rockets and missiles capable of going a few hundred miles.
The cost might be high to you, but Iran has billions in military spending each year.

When was the last time Iran purchased anything expensive with their military budget? It is all used for their missile program. They even said the strength of their military is their missile program.

Read up on the Iranian attacks on MEK bases. They didnt launch missiles at the cities. They launched missiles at their bases which were inside the cities. They all hit. None of their missiles/rockets missed their targets.

Iranian missiles are guided missiles. They don't just point and shoot them.

 

[Aimster]

Iranian missiles:

Short-Range = very accurate

Long-Range = not very accurate.

Long-range missiles are not very accurate. The delivery system is entirely different than the short-range systems. They are good for bombing cities. They will be off by 1-3km from their targets.

Iran claims to have mastered the technology to pinpoint it down to only a few feet of their target. (Shab-3)
Iran claims a lot of things.

The Shab-3 missiles blow up a lot in their test in mid-air. Some experts say this is a sign that Iran is building a warhead for EMP on their shab-3 missiles. I have no idea how an EMP + missile will work so don't ask me. This is just what I read on some site.

Shab-3 missiles have never been directly tested against a target in large numbers.
The Shab-3 distance was increased not because of the technology but because Iran made the warhead smaller which brought the weight of the missile down.

Barely any information is around about shab-4 and shab-5. Iran claims they are not building such missiles and calls it propaganda by the 'zionists"

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iranian missiles:

Short-Range = very accurate

Long-Range = not very accurate.

Long-range missiles are not very accurate. The delivery system is entirely different than the short-range systems. They are good for bombing cities. They will be off by 1-3km from their targets.

Iran claims to have mastered the technology to pinpoint it down to only a few feet of their target. (Shab-3)
Iran claims a lot of things.

The Shab-3 missiles blow up a lot in their test in mid-air. Some experts say this is a sign that Iran is building a warhead for EMP on their shab-3 missiles. I have no idea how an EMP + missile will work so don't ask me. This is just what I read on some site.

Shab-3 missiles have never been directly tested against a target in large numbers.
The Shab-3 distance was increased not because of the technology but because Iran made the warhead smaller which brought the weight of the missile down.

Barely any information is around about shab-4 and shab-5. Iran claims they are not building such missiles and calls it propaganda by the 'zionists"

I don't understand. Are you trying to prove MY point?

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iranian missiles:

Short-Range = very accurate

Long-Range = not very accurate.

Long-range missiles are not very accurate. The delivery system is entirely different than the short-range systems. They are good for bombing cities. They will be off by 1-3km from their targets.

Iran claims to have mastered the technology to pinpoint it down to only a few feet of their target. (Shab-3)
Iran claims a lot of things.

The Shab-3 missiles blow up a lot in their test in mid-air. Some experts say this is a sign that Iran is building a warhead for EMP on their shab-3 missiles. I have no idea how an EMP + missile will work so don't ask me. This is just what I read on some site.

Shab-3 missiles have never been directly tested against a target in large numbers.
The Shab-3 distance was increased not because of the technology but because Iran made the warhead smaller which brought the weight of the missile down.

Barely any information is around about shab-4 and shab-5. Iran claims they are not building such missiles and calls it propaganda by the 'zionists"

I don't understand. Are you trying to prove MY point?

You said Iran cannot attack Iraq.

Iraq is not thousands of miles away from Iran

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iranian missiles:

Short-Range = very accurate

Long-Range = not very accurate.

Long-range missiles are not very accurate. The delivery system is entirely different than the short-range systems. They are good for bombing cities. They will be off by 1-3km from their targets.

Iran claims to have mastered the technology to pinpoint it down to only a few feet of their target. (Shab-3)
Iran claims a lot of things.

The Shab-3 missiles blow up a lot in their test in mid-air. Some experts say this is a sign that Iran is building a warhead for EMP on their shab-3 missiles. I have no idea how an EMP + missile will work so don't ask me. This is just what I read on some site.

Shab-3 missiles have never been directly tested against a target in large numbers.
The Shab-3 distance was increased not because of the technology but because Iran made the warhead smaller which brought the weight of the missile down.

Barely any information is around about shab-4 and shab-5. Iran claims they are not building such missiles and calls it propaganda by the 'zionists"

I don't understand. Are you trying to prove MY point?

You said Iran cannot attack Iraq.

Iraq is not thousands of miles away from Iran

I didn't say it cannot. I only said that the damage would not be critically devastating.

 

[Meuge]

Looking at a map of the Middle East, it is clear that Iran was implying they'd attack Israel. Incidentally the distance between Tehran and Tel Aviv seems awfully close to the missile range quoted.

(Tehran-Tel Aviv is ~1600km according to my estimations)

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

Well any nation that is attacked has a right to attack back. Do you not agree?

U.S. attacking Iran != Israel attacking Iran.

But I'd give your argument some weight if not for the more important point. These missiles don't have the accuracy to target military strongpoints. They are likely to be aimed at civilian population centers.

Does it matter if they are aimed at civilian population centers. How many people is isreal willing to lose to stop Iran from having Nukes?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

Ya because there is a law that says if Israel attacks you and you attack it back then you are Anti-Semetic.

Obviously you are confused, Iran never said anything about what it'd do if Israel attacked, it said if US/UK attacks...

It is certainly not out of the question that Iran will attack Israel in retaliation for the U.S. attacks, rather than attacking U.S. bases... or in addition to attacking U.S. bases.

Well any nation that is attacked has a right to attack back. Do you not agree?

U.S. attacking Iran != Israel attacking Iran.

But I'd give your argument some weight if not for the more important point. These missiles don't have the accuracy to target military strongpoints. They are likely to be aimed at civilian population centers.

If Iran thinks like Iraq during gulf war one then they will attack Isreal no matter who attacks them first.

1991: Iraqi Scud missiles hit Israel

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Meuge
They don't have the number of missiles, nor missile accuracy to do anything but kill soldiers sleeping in their barracks. Unless they use chemical weapons, that is. But in that case, they'll be much closer to Allah, very quickly.

Same goes for attacking Israel in retaliation.

They have thousands of missiles capable of striking wherever they want in Iraq.

If accuracy of a mile or two is considered "striking wherever you want", then perhaps. And even then, your claim of "thousands" is... well... insane. They don't have thousands of medium-range ballistic missiles. The cost of building and maintaining such an enormous ground-to-ground fleet is well beyond Iraq's capabilities.

Misinformed.

It is not hard to build rockets and missiles capable of going a few hundred miles.
The cost might be high to you, but Iran has billions in military spending each year.

When was the last time Iran purchased anything expensive with their military budget? It is all used for their missile program. They even said the strength of their military is their missile program.

Read up on the Iranian attacks on MEK bases. They didnt launch missiles at the cities. They launched missiles at their bases which were inside the cities. They all hit. None of their missiles/rockets missed their targets.

Iranian missiles are guided missiles. They don't just point and shoot them.

LMAO!

 

[tommywishbone]

Whenever I hear about the possibility of Iran attacking US bases located in Iraq, it always makes me feel like a German Field Marshall thinking about the Allied Forces planning to attack Fortress Europa. Always makes me laugh.

I'm pretty sure the Germans were the bad guys in that one.

 

[compuwiz1]

Ummm, a country saying it will retaliate, if attacked is a normal response. You bomb me, I bomb you back. Pretty simple concept. :shocked: