2025 Israel - Iranian conflict

T

TPenglake

Junior Member
Registered Member
SinoAmericanCW said:
It's better for Iran to just lose its nuclear program than to both lose said program and get wrecked in the process.
Click to expand...
I mean, its easy to say that when its not your country and you're just arguing for what's logical. When you're fighting for home, logical is the last thing on anyone's minds. "Getting wrecked" exactly describes the situation of the KMT in WW2, Vietnam, Afghanistan during both the Soviet and American wars, or for that matter Ukraine today and none of the aforementioned parties surrendered. Or at least for Ukraine, not yet.
SinoAmericanCW said:
Living to fight another day isn't cowardice.
Click to expand...
Getting rid of Iran's ability to fight another day ie. continue being a security threat to Israel, is why they started this war in the first place. Do you think a man like Netanyahu will let anyone disuade him from finishing the job?
 
Randomuser

Randomuser

Captain
Registered Member
I think its kinda expected that US only bombed the entrances and not the whole facility. This is in line with Trump who really does not want to get bogged down in another long war. Basically its a message saying, I hit you and there's more where that came from. So you better negotiate right now or its gonna get far more ugly for you.

So now does Iran call out the bluff and endure or does it quit now?
 
W

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
Randomuser said:
I think its kinda expected that US only bombed the entrances and not the whole facility. This is in line with Trump who really does not want to get bogged down in another long war. Basically its a message saying, I hit you and there's more where that came from. So you better negotiate right now or its gonna get far more ugly for you.

So now does Iran call out the bluff and endure or does it quit now?
Click to expand...
Negotiate what exactly?
 
A

AndrewJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
Anlsvrthng said:
Anyone whgom think that a 20 storey big airplane can enter a airspace protected by high mobiliilty high altitude SAM systems without at least double digit loss needs a brand new bridge parking not far away from his house, for very low price.


B-2 is a STRATEGIC BOMBER, means its deisnged job is to provide counterstrike capability in the even of full out nuclear war.
It was designed because B52 against S300 has single digit chance of survival to do the strike ( be clear , it is the chance for single way success), so they had to increase this chance to 50-70% for credible deterent.

It means in pracical terms a B-2 sortie against a single target deep in Iran has in best case 50% chance of SURVIVAL. This percentage include the case when the plane turn back.


Whole Iran looks like a large hide and seek wetdream for BUK units, doesn't matter the flight path, there is allwazs a chance to see a BUK radar pop up underneath the airplane.

Again , design target of B2 is like " if we send 20 of them then with sum of 320 nuclear bomb then at least 160 bomb will be delivered "
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Iran AD disappointed everyone again. Their AD can't detect B-2. Stealth bombers are the real nightmare for Iran. They came in & out at ease. :rolleyes:
 
P

pokepara

New Member
Registered Member
AndrewJ said:
I'm sorry Iran AD disappointed everyone again. Their AD can't detect B-2. Stealth bombers are the real nightmare for Iran. They came in & out at ease. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They really should have taken Putin's deal if not the Chinese one (if there was one).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
ON HELPING IRAN WITH WEAPONS:
"We once offered our Iranian friends to work in the field of air defence systems, but our partners didn't show much interest then, and that's it. As for the agreement you mentioned about the strategic partnership, there are no articles related to the defence sphere... And thirdly, our Iranian friends don't even ask us to do this. So there's practically nothing to discuss."

"Our proposal was to create a system, not separate supplies, but a system. We eventually discussed this once, but the Iranian side didn't show much interest in it, and it all died down. As for individual deliveries, yes, of course, we carried out these deliveries at one time. This has nothing to do with today's crisis. It was what is called regular cooperation in the military-technical sphere. And within the framework of international norms."
Click to expand...
 
T

TPenglake

Junior Member
Registered Member
TK3600 said:
I think Iran already surrendered in its action. No country would allow itself get bombed, head of government killed, entire military high command wiped, and still choose to not resist. It is not the capability, it is a matter will. They chose being defeated.
Click to expand...
We don't even know what the Iranian response to American bombs will be and Iran has already inflicted most damage to Tel Aviv since the Gulf War, while largely holding back a good chunk of its arsenal precisely for the possibility of American joining in. What more resistance are you expecting, considering that Israel is still the more technogically advanced party here?

Nobody ever said you needed battlefield victories to win wars. How many wars has America been in now where they've won every battle but still lost?
 
L

lube

Junior Member
Registered Member
TPenglake said:
We don't even know what the Iranian response to American bombs will be and Iran has already inflicted most damage to Tel Aviv since the Gulf War, while largely holding back a good chunk of its arsenal precisely for the possibility of American joining in. What more resistance are you expecting, considering that Israel is still the more technogically advanced party here?

Nobody ever said you needed battlefield victories to win wars. How many wars has America been in now where they've won every battle but still lost?
Click to expand...

People with good reason are suspecting Iran wants to back away at the last minute and beg for a peace summit instead. 'Holding back missiles' is just a diplomatic play instead of any real commitment.

It's the way Iran has been conducting itself for the last few years. Everything they've built is for diplomatic leverage, except they're much worse at it than Kim.
 
J

jshw31

New Member
Registered Member
Frankly, if this is the end of it, then Iran will have gotten off relatively lucky. No damage so far is irreparable in the scheme of things.

You'd have to imagine that anything outside of a permanent denuclearisation agreement and some form of disarmament from Iran would be a dissatisfactory outcome for Israel. If (big assumption) Iran's capabilities are as indeed as degraded as it looks, then that means that the damage done to Israel has been front loaded, and any further damage will be manageable. Trading some more buildings for "permanent security" seems worth it and it would be greatly in Israel's interest to (attempt) to finish the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top