Rogue State of Israel Threatens Tactical Nuke Strikes on Iran

wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:

If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.

All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.

Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.

Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

--
Tony Blair says the war on the Taliban will take decades. That is the same
as saying the war on Southern Baptists will take decades. Or perhaps in the
British sense, the war on Roman Catholics will take decades.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3728
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:

If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.

All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.

Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.

Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?


--
Tony Blair says the war on the Taliban will take decades. That is the same
as saying the war on Southern Baptists will take decades. Or perhaps in the
British sense, the war on Roman Catholics will take decades.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3728
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

--
If Americans knew about Israel's treatment of non-Jews they would turn
against Israel as fast as they did against apartheid South Africa.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3737
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.

Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?

How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.


Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.



--
If Americans knew about Israel's treatment of non-Jews they would turn
against Israel as fast as they did against apartheid South Africa.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3737
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml a6

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.

I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.

And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world. In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction. There really no intermediate use for them.

In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.

I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.


As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.


Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.


Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.

And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.


There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.


In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?


--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Another Zionist Jew trying to smoke screen the war for Israel agenda as
he doesn't care how many Americans die/get horribly wounded for Israel
in the Middle East like we have already experienced with the Iraq
quagmire with Iran to come soon for Israel as well:
If we use nukes, I doubt there'll be a quagmire.
All US supplies come inland from Kuwait via the only two major roads. The south
is controlled by the Shia. Iran is Shi'ite.
Get Iran ****ed and they shut off the supplies to US troops and they starve.
Cut off supplies and move into Iraq and kill them quickly.
Respond to an Iranian land war and face a well equipped army several times
larger than the Iraqi army and discover there are not enough US troops in the
world to fight them. Then there is a draft which takes months to deliver the
first troops to the battlefield presuming presuming by some miracle US troops
have managed to hold out that long.
Which doesn't change my point...if we use nukes, I doubt there'll
be a quagmire. What will be left of Iran or the Iranian Army?
How does one nuke an army? Dozens of nukes? Kill off hundreds of thousands of
civilians and thousands your own troops immediately and even more slowly
downwind with fallout? After homes and family are destroyed what interest does
the Iranian army have in peace? What other than slaughter prisoners?
Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.
I can see that right now. DC is nuked by Iran and the troops in Iraq and around
the gulf lose interest in Iran. What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
The fantasy is Iranians are not human. Only Americans are human.

Wow, what a stretch. The Iranian govt is much more centralized.
Removing the top along with strikes on troop concentrations...combined
with the threat of more strikes...is quite different than a single
blow.

So you are saying all the US government does not live in DC when Congress is in
session? There goes the top if nuking on a Wednesday.

Troop concentrations only work for the standing army, not reserves and only if
they are far from the blast radius of cities. Kill people in the cities nad you
motivate the troops who have lost family. Maybe you would not be motivated but I
would be.

As to tactical nukes, do not move troops in large groups. That has been known
since August 1945. Keep the all spread out until massing for an engagement. Or
just move in for a guerrilla war.

Dispersion creates its own problems. The small units are very
vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal. Command, control, and
coordination are very difficult. US recon can spot concentrations and
destroy them.

There are always problems with any tactic but equally there is a problem with
matching attacks as US forces would have to be dispersed also. But Iran can
field a million against the US 140,000 so it would be difficult to find small
enough dispersed Iranian groups to win one on one. 7:1 sort of usually wins
regardless of firepower.

Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.
I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
And my point is nukes are not a viable option in the real world.

Why? Because they're morally reprehensible? Please.

Because the real world since September 1945 has realized all the basic
ramifications of nukes and has worked to deal with them.

I know how to pacify Iraq. It is very simple. It has worked throughout all
history. Carry away all the able bodied people into slavery or decimate the
population. It has always worked. But it is a matter of what will sell these days.

And I can tell you how to make nukes work. Destroy civilian population centers
so all available manpower is engaged in returning life to normal. But if you do
not do that you only make enemies who are armed and trained and ready to fight.

In 1945 Japan
had been suing for peace for nearly a year and only arguing conditions when the
bomb removed the last condition. In the real world nukes are only valuable as
either a threat or total destruction.

Bull. You're stuck in the Cold War. MAD only works if both sides can
destroy the other...when one side has all of the cards, nukes can be
very useful.

As this has NEVER been tried please tell me how you can predict the future so
confidently. "It stands to reason." is bull****. Please tell me exactly how it
works in terms of the US being the non-nuclear victim. Tell me how Americans
would respond.

There really no intermediate use for them.

Of course there is. This is a totally absurd argument.

Please describe in detail the intermediate use of nukes.

In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed the
resolution to fight has increased.

Yep, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sure galvanized the Japanese.

Together they were less than the Tokyo firebombing in terms of immediate deaths
and square miles destroyed. Please explain the difference if it was not just one
plane doing it.

That should have been learned in WWII but
those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they get involved they
want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to resist" which has NEVER
happened.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As anyone who has gone beyond what they were taught in gradeschool will tell
you there were many more reasons and the only thing that one plane bombing
accomplished was dropping the conditions of the surrender than had been on the
table for at least nine months before.

Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.
Some 8 million Shia Iraqis in the south all along those supply lines would be
the first to cut it. By the last poll 61% of Iraqis approve of attacking
Americans but they are not doing it in the south. We are talking 400 miles of
two highways for 800 miles to guard and keep open. How many troops per mile
would be needed just to keep them open and uncratered? The latter meaning the
road itself is not subjected to mortar attack.

Did you read my post? Why are you assuming the US forces will just
sit there and starve? What is to stop them from heading south? Have you
ever read about Chosin?

Let them head south through the Shia south supported by Shia Iran. But remember
they are doing it with the food and fuel they can bring with them. Can they
carry enough fuel to get everyone a minimum of 400 miles to Kuwait? You tell me
as you are the pretend expert. I recite my experience but then only ask
questions so lets stick to the issues.

So lets see 146,000 soon 21,500 more are going to be in Baghdad and point north
because the Shia region is by definition to the south of Baghdad. So tell me
where 167,500 troops have enough equipment to carry food and fuel to get to
Baghdad and then the additional 400 miles back to Kuwait. I am interested in
hearing all about these hidden assets in Iraq.

Please tell me how they would make the trip with no resistance at all.

Tell me how they are going to make it even if the only attacks are destroying
the pavement. The slower the travel the more food and water needed.

--
American troops in Iraq have to know they are risking their lives for people
who hate them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3727
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2

--
A certain thing in this world is if you say Jews are inconsequential then
Jews will start making claims of Jewish power they would call antisemitic if
a non-Jew had said them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3713
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1

Matt Giwer wrote:


In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned in
WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time they
get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will to
resist" which has NEVER happened.

Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Bob Kolker

Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
In the real world every time civilian populations have been bombed
the resolution to fight has increased. That should have been learned
in WWII but those AF types have delusions of grandeur. So every time
they get involved they want to bomb civilians again to "break the will
to resist" which has NEVER happened.

Wrong. It worked in Japan. Two nukes and the war was over.

Far be it from me to contradict your grade school teachers.

--
A cakewalk to a death march in three easy neocon steps.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3722
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4

wrote:

Nuke Tehran and Qom. The Iranian Army will lose interest in the
fight. Also, tactical nukes against troop concentrations as they move
forward.


So Nuke LA or New York and the US Armed Forces will simply lose
interest in fighting?
So Nuke Rome and Vatican and the Catholic population will simply accept
it?



Nukes were to be used in the Fulda Gap because it was narrow and the only tank
entry point into western Europe and it would have been against a background of a
total nuclear exchange.

I'm not saying nukes are a good option. My initial post was in reply
to the claim that the US would be in a quagmire in Iran. My point is
that nukes would alter this situation....since nukes are mentioned in
the initial post.
Your point that US supply lines would be easy to cut is also weak. A
US movement toward Kuwait would reopen those supply lines before the
troops starved.....fuel would be a bigger problem. If the Iranians
moved to cut the supply lines, there would be a boatload of dead
Iranians.....even using conventional weapons. Now conquering Iran, much
less holding the nation, is a whole different argument.

Cutting supply lines in the South would be relatively easy. Of course
US could take control back but it would put up the cost of the
operation and tie up large numbers of troops defending the length of
the supply lines.
For most of the time since the invasion in 2003 the supply lines from
the South have been relatively peaceful, they were defended by the non
US parts of the Coalition most of which have since gone home and handed
over to Iraqi troops. The South is full of Iraqi Army which may no
longer be reliable after a major strike, nuclear or otherwise on Iran,
it has 2 competing major Shiite Militias the Iranian aligned Badr
Brigades and the Iraqi nationalist Mahdi Army, neither are actively
attacking US forces now, they are attacking the Sunni population much
further North and have clashed with each other, a decision by them to
disrupt US supply lines would be initially successful and to reclaim
that territory and population you are talking about a need for at least
1 and maybe 2 additional Divisions, and that is before you factor in
active Iranian Invasion.

The US could do that if it was committed to but it may mean the end to
the concept of "tours in Iraq". The Army goes to War and gets to come
home when the War is won. The reason an army of 500,000 plus is
struggling to maintain 150,000 plus in Iraq at present is the
assumption you have a third recovering from deployment, 1/3 deployed
and 1/3 training for the next deployment with a deployment tour of 12
months. With in addition a rule that the National Guard can only be
mobilised for 1 year in any 5, and they have already done recent tours
in Iraq. So will not be available to return till 2009.

The US is the most powerful nation on the planet by a long way with the
worlds largest economy, a united US population to that makes a decision
to do something and is willing to accept casualties to do it can do it.
If that is invade and occupy Iran that is possible.

But that is not the point, the debate is the present position with a
politically dis-united US, a US population which thinks 3,000 fatal
casualties in 3 years is high, and US armed forces as of today.