Iran will retaliate with missiles if attacked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
There isn't a military "solution" to Iran for several reasons:

1) US, UK, and even Israeli intelligence is quite limited. The notion that Iran is "up to something" is a given. Effectively neutering their VARIOUS weapons programs requires intelligence that we just don't have.

2) Iran ain't Iraq. Everybody in Iran will fight back if we attack. They won't be bribed. They won't cower in fear of our "shock and awe".

3) The price of oil will go nuts. If we are lucky it will just trigger a global recession.

4) Even if Iran does not invade Iraq . . . Iraqi Shi'ites are likely to strike for their brothers.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: 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:



Yes it is a pretty simple concept except for one thing. They warn the United States and Britain but they also bring in Isreal and Isreal has said it will not stand down and hold back like they did during the first gulf war and Iran is counting on that.


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.

 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,303
15
81
Originally posted by: 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. :confused:

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?

If Iran HAS nukes, Israel could lose almost everyone.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: 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)

Ok and Iran claims 1920km

Yes.. they are aiming for Tel Aviv.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: 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.

So you are saying U.S troops have nothing to worry about when it comes to hundreds of rockets/missiles being launched at their base?
 

JinLien

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,038
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: 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)

Ok and Iran claims 1920km

Yes.. they are aiming for Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv - 1594 km (990 miles) - Tehran

I don?t want Iran or anyone else to have nuclear weapon, however how can we dictate to others when the US breaks every law that ever written.

I?m sure many countries that aren?t bowing down to the west are desperately looking to get their hand on nuclear capability as a deterrent against the imperialistic US army because of the recent actions of US in the Middle East (it would be a different story if Iraq had nuclear weapon).

The success of taking on Iran is low because the US over stretch army is barely keeping Iraq together at the moment. Iran is doing a good job at keeping the US mighty busy with the small arms & money that they are supplying the insurgents with. Iran may not have the technology & money of the US, but it have the united will power of its people that are willing to die for their country, while the US army is a mercenary army that can?t relate to the culture and isn?t defending their family or property from hostility.

If the US could take on Iran it would have done so because the US strikes against Iraq both in the first and second gulf war didn?t take much time of ponder/saber rattling as now.

Why would it work now if the same threads didn?t work against North Korea?

IMHO, the US administration is on crack or is running by a bunch of drunk.

 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,423
478
126
if we did attack Iran, I would say you take out bridges, power plants, communications, and water treatement facilities.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: JinLien
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: 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)

Ok and Iran claims 1920km

Yes.. they are aiming for Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv - 1594 km (990 miles) - Tehran

I don?t want Iran or anyone else to have nuclear weapon, however how can we dictate to others when the US breaks every law that ever written.

I?m sure many countries that aren?t bowing down to the west are desperately looking to get their hand on nuclear capability as a deterrent against the imperialistic US army because of the recent actions of US in the Middle East (it would be a different story if Iraq had nuclear weapon).

The success of taking on Iran is low because the US over stretch army is barely keeping Iraq together at the moment. Iran is doing a good job at keeping the US mighty busy with the small arms & money that they are supplying the insurgents with. Iran may not have the technology & money of the US, but it have the united will power of its people that are willing to die for their country, while the US army is a mercenary army that can?t relate to the culture and isn?t defending their family or property from hostility.

If the US could take on Iran it would have done so because the US strikes against Iraq both in the first and second gulf war didn?t take much time of ponder/saber rattling as now.

Why would it work now if the same threads didn?t work against North Korea?

IMHO, the US administration is on crack or is running by a bunch of drunk.

That article is either wrong or out-dated

In late July 2005 Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Shihab(Shab)-3 contained a range of 1,930 kilometers

I have no idea where they got the 1,594km figure from.
They pulled it from the sky?
 

JinLien

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,038
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: JinLien
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: 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)

Ok and Iran claims 1920km

Yes.. they are aiming for Tel Aviv.
Tel Aviv - 1594 km (990 miles) - Tehran

I don?t want Iran or anyone else to have nuclear weapon, however how can we dictate to others when the US breaks every law that ever written.

I?m sure many countries that aren?t bowing down to the west are desperately looking to get their hand on nuclear capability as a deterrent against the imperialistic US army because of the recent actions of US in the Middle East (it would be a different story if Iraq had nuclear weapon).

The success of taking on Iran is low because the US over stretch army is barely keeping Iraq together at the moment. Iran is doing a good job at keeping the US mighty busy with the small arms & money that they are supplying the insurgents with. Iran may not have the technology & money of the US, but it have the united will power of its people that are willing to die for their country, while the US army is a mercenary army that can?t relate to the culture and isn?t defending their family or property from hostility.

If the US could take on Iran it would have done so because the US strikes against Iraq both in the first and second gulf war didn?t take much time of ponder/saber rattling as now.

Why would it work now if the same threads didn?t work against North Korea?

IMHO, the US administration is on crack or is running by a bunch of drunk.

That article is either wrong or out-dated

In late July 2005 Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Shihab(Shab)-3 contained a range of 1,930 kilometers

I have no idea where they got the 1,594km figure from.
They pulled it from the sky?
1930 km could be the road distant, and the 1550-1600 km is the straight line distant that is calculated from the latitude and longitude between 2 cities.

According to http://www.wcrl.ars.usda.gov/cec/java/lat-long.htm calculator and several other calculators the distant between Jerusalem & Tehran is between 1550-1600 km.


 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
yes but Iran is not going to launch their missiles from Tehran

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/19/iran.elex/iran.tehran.lg.jpg

I mean I guess they could now if the 1920 is true.
If they do, they're done. They are not getting nuclear weapons and they'll just have to live with it. Because if they don't, they die with it.

Unless they use chemical weapons, they'll still not cause a lot of damage in Israel... and if they use chemical weapons - well we know what happens then.
 

JinLien

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,038
0
0
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: Aimster
yes but Iran is not going to launch their missiles from Tehran

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/19/iran.elex/iran.tehran.lg.jpg

I mean I guess they could now if the 1920 is true.
If they do, they're done. They are not getting nuclear weapons and they'll just have to live with it. Because if they don't, they die with it.

Unless they use chemical weapons, they'll still not cause a lot of damage in Israel... and if they use chemical weapons - well we know what happens then.
I'm not sure if we can stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon technology, because countries such as India & Pakistan acquired the technology under the watchful eyes of the world. We can make it harder for them to get it, but eventually they will be there with the rest of the world leaders.


 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: Aimster
yes but Iran is not going to launch their missiles from Tehran

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/19/iran.elex/iran.tehran.lg.jpg

I mean I guess they could now if the 1920 is true.
If they do, they're done. They are not getting nuclear weapons and they'll just have to live with it. Because if they don't, they die with it.

Unless they use chemical weapons, they'll still not cause a lot of damage in Israel... and if they use chemical weapons - well we know what happens then.

Explain to me how Israel is going to destroy Iran if Iran launches missile attacks on Israel. If Israel attacks Iran first, nobody is going to be like OMG Iran attacked Israel. They will be like DUH.

Israeli jets fire missiles at Iran
Iran fires missiles at Israel

Israel has a missile defense system
Iran has air defense systems

Explain to me how Israel is going to destroy Iran.

Ground war is impossible.

The only ground war is this->

Hezbollah has 15,000 rockets/missiles/etc. capable of hitting Israel. Most of them are Iranian made or imported from Iran. Hezbollah hasn't used their main weapons on Israel. They can and they probably will if Israel attacks Iran.

Hezbollah/Lebanon is not Iran. They are just Iran's puppet.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Good Grief folks...
Iran need not strike US soil nor even any soil beyond maybe 1000km from their border. Their objective ought to be the oil and lay a few 'dirty' bombs into every oil field America and Europe consume from and they will have done quite nicely IMO. Of course our smart folks know this as well so .... who has what interest in what untouched oil reserves and could that figure into any of this... hmmmm I wonder.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Good Grief folks...
Iran need not strike US soil nor even any soil beyond maybe 1000km from their border. Their objective ought to be the oil and lay a few 'dirty' bombs into every oil field America and Europe consume from and they will have done quite nicely IMO. Of course our smart folks know this as well so .... who has what interest in what untouched oil reserves and could that figure into any of this... hmmmm I wonder.
Dirty bombs do ****** all. They are a useless weapon, concocted mostly by the media, to assure the public that everyone else is so inferior that they cannot produce a nuclear weapon, but to ensure that the public is still terrified.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Iran will retaliate with missiles if attacked

I sure hope so. Any sovereign nation has the right to defend themselves if attacked.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

People please. If Iran is attacked, they will launch tactical and strategic missiles in retaliation, targeted at US bases in Iraq and probably Israel too. Some of those missiles will hit, some will not. I think it's pretty clear that their doctrine states that civilian targets (esp in Israel) are AOK because any American in Iraq is an invader and they consider any Israeli citizen to be a member of the armed forces.

Neither Israel nor Iran will use WMD. Neither Israel nor Iran has the air force to sustain a long-term air or missile war.* It would be a short lived conventional air war with limited casualities on both sides.

The only question is, will the U.S. launch an all out air strike on Iran in such a case?

The U.S. air force COULD sustain operations over Iran, but it would be costly in terms of planes lost and weapons expended. We would be talking mostly stealth fighters and stand off weapons because Iran has the S-300 air defense missile from Russia.

It would suck for everyone, Iraq, Iran, Israel, and the U.S. and I hope it doesn't happen.

*Note, by this I mean Israeli F15 and F16 strike fighters do not have the endurance to fly to Iran and back w/o refueling. Israel has only limited refueling assets.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Funny how we went to Iraq

Iran has the largest chemical weapons program in the M.E

They've always had the largest chemical weapons program in the M.E ( last 10+ years )

They started the chemical weapons program the second the U.S supplied Iraq with the means to get chemical weapons.

When Iraq used the chemical weapons on Iranians, Iran was forced to start a chemical weapons program.

Good job U.S?
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
What is also ironic is that during the Shah regime the U.S saw the need for Iranian nuclear reactors in Iran.

In fact there was contracts out for 20+ nuclear sites to have been built by the year 2000. Yes, 20+.

Now the U.S is saying Iran doesn't need nuclear energy.. blah blah.

The U.S administration at the time had been quoted as saying it will help Iran's energy needs, etc (the U.S President said it). Well Iran's energy needs are like a lot more than they were then given the population has gone up 300%.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Good Grief folks...
Iran need not strike US soil nor even any soil beyond maybe 1000km from their border. Their objective ought to be the oil and lay a few 'dirty' bombs into every oil field America and Europe consume from and they will have done quite nicely IMO. Of course our smart folks know this as well so .... who has what interest in what untouched oil reserves and could that figure into any of this... hmmmm I wonder.
Dirty bombs do ****** all. They are a useless weapon, concocted mostly by the media, to assure the public that everyone else is so inferior that they cannot produce a nuclear weapon, but to ensure that the public is still terrified.

By "dirty" I refer to what lays waste to the land and etc for a thousand years or how ever long the half-life of the substance is. Actually, it takes a lot more to make a nuke clean than just leave it dirty... well that is according to Tom Clancy and we all know he is smarter than most of our media.
 

Meuge

Banned
Nov 27, 2005
2,963
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Good Grief folks...
Iran need not strike US soil nor even any soil beyond maybe 1000km from their border. Their objective ought to be the oil and lay a few 'dirty' bombs into every oil field America and Europe consume from and they will have done quite nicely IMO. Of course our smart folks know this as well so .... who has what interest in what untouched oil reserves and could that figure into any of this... hmmmm I wonder.
Dirty bombs do ****** all. They are a useless weapon, concocted mostly by the media, to assure the public that everyone else is so inferior that they cannot produce a nuclear weapon, but to ensure that the public is still terrified.

By "dirty" I refer to what lays waste to the land and etc for a thousand years or how ever long the half-life of the substance is. Actually, it takes a lot more to make a nuke clean than just leave it dirty... well that is according to Tom Clancy and we all know he is smarter than most of our media.
Again, they do ****** all. Long-halflife nuclides aren't very radioactive per unit mass, by the virtue of having long halflives. Short halflife radioactives disappear quickly.
 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Meuge
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Good Grief folks...
Iran need not strike US soil nor even any soil beyond maybe 1000km from their border. Their objective ought to be the oil and lay a few 'dirty' bombs into every oil field America and Europe consume from and they will have done quite nicely IMO. Of course our smart folks know this as well so .... who has what interest in what untouched oil reserves and could that figure into any of this... hmmmm I wonder.
Dirty bombs do ****** all. They are a useless weapon, concocted mostly by the media, to assure the public that everyone else is so inferior that they cannot produce a nuclear weapon, but to ensure that the public is still terrified.

By "dirty" I refer to what lays waste to the land and etc for a thousand years or how ever long the half-life of the substance is. Actually, it takes a lot more to make a nuke clean than just leave it dirty... well that is according to Tom Clancy and we all know he is smarter than most of our media.
Again, they do ****** all. Long-halflife nuclides aren't very radioactive per unit mass, by the virtue of having long halflives. Short halflife radioactives disappear quickly.

lol what exactly is the swear filter blocking out here? The f bomb?
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
What is also ironic is that during the Shah regime the U.S saw the need for Iranian nuclear reactors in Iran.

In fact there was contracts out for 20+ nuclear sites to have been built by the year 2000. Yes, 20+.

Now the U.S is saying Iran doesn't need nuclear energy.. blah blah.

The U.S administration at the time had been quoted as saying it will help Iran's energy needs, etc (the U.S President said it). Well Iran's energy needs are like a lot more than they were then given the population has gone up 300%.

Nope. If Iran's president hadn't said that he basically wants to wipe Israel off the map, things would be a mite bit different.

If Iran attacks anyone, they will be obliterated, one way or another. If we decide that Iran doesn't need nuclear power, which is a little wierd, then hopefully we will find some other way other than bombing them. Look at Iraq. We bombed their infrastructure to Uranus, and do they love us? Maybe our special forces should be given a shot at taking out KEY people or buildings.