Iran responded by sending 200 drones to bomb in retaliation. All intercepted and taken out. Next Iran sent three barrages of missiles. The first two barrages sent 100 missiles. The third, 50 missiles. All at Tel Aviv. Significant destruction but only four deaths. All barrages aimed at civilian areas.
This attack just destroyed any chance of the US making a deal with Iran. It leaves Russia as the only ones who can possibly do it and that is not going to happen any time soon.
While Israel did kill some key people, they did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability. That is nearly impossible as the facilities are deep underground. What is worse is that the attack has made Iranian critics of the regime to rally to the flag and support it against an external threat.
IMO, Israel just set diplomatic negotiations back years and failed to achieve their goals of doing significant damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. Worse, this gives Iran an incentive to start actively developing their nuclear program.
This is a mistake and the US should stay as far away from it as possible. President Trump needs to listen to Tulsi Gabbard.
SNIP
IMO, Israel just set diplomatic negotiations back years and failed to achieve their goals of doing significant damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. Worse, this gives Iran an incentive to start actively developing their nuclear program.
While my crystal ball isn't all that clear, the one thing we should have learned from history is that to change the course of a nation usually takes a complete and total destruction of their leadership. Just because Iran's nuclear sites are deep underground does not mean access to them cannot be denied nor that they cannot be destroyed. Where there is the will, there is always a way.
While my crystal ball isn't all that clear, the one thing we should have learned from history is that to change the course of a nation usually takes a complete and total destruction of their leadership. Just because Iran's nuclear sites are deep underground does not mean access to them cannot be denied nor that they cannot be destroyed. Where there is the will, there is always a way.
Rams
It is not that hard to build things deep enough underground that no bomb short of a nuclear one can damage it. Humans have been digging mines for a long time. It is not that hard to create multiple entrances.
I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Iran. Israel thought that their Iron Dome would stop all of the Iranian rockets and yet many of them got through. Iranians are not stupid. They change their tactics, develop new technology and adapt.
All of this cheering on of Israel to do damage to Iran just drives the Iranian people towards the mullahs and it solidifies their power. There are roughly 180,000 mullahs in Iran. That is a lot of leadership to kill in order to topple the regime.
While your sentiment that there can be military solution to any problem, the price of such a victory would be tremendous. ISIS was tens of thousands of fanatics and it took years to wipe them out. Iran has a population of 92 million. What would it take to pacify even 1/3 of that population or 30 million people?
... While Israel did kill some key people, they did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability. That is nearly impossible as the facilities are deep underground. What is worse is that the attack has made Iranian critics of the regime to rally to the flag and support it against an external threat.
What I've been hearing - right or wrong - is that a MOAB (bunker buster) will take out the deep underground facility. Since the Mossad has had moles in place, literally for decades, I have to believe they/we are approaching this from an educated standpoint.
I also have to believe that they know how close Iran is - or isn't - to developing a nuclear device. (Yeah. I know. It's been "a matter of weeks" for several years now.)
Are they telling us the truth?
Further... Should we "loan" Israel a MOAB and a (B2 bomber) delivery system? I'm inclined to say that we should, but obviously I am operating under the influence of the information available to me. (The media or "gummint" wouldn't lie in an attempt to influence public opinion... would they? Naaaaah.)
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
I don't believe that. Why do they have uranium enriched to 60%, more that what is needed to power a nuclear power plant ? Why are they trying to enrich to to weapons grade uranium ?
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: This attack just destroyed any chance of the US making a deal with Iran. It leaves Russia as the only ones who can possibly do it and that is not going to happen any time soon.
I don't believe that either.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: While Israel did kill some key people, they did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability. That is nearly impossible as the facilities are deep underground. What is worse is that the attack has made Iranian critics of the regime to rally to the flag and support it against an external threat.
Remember the Green Movement of Iranians wanting freedom ? Obama refused to aid them, to appease the Alatolla.
quote
Originally posted by Doug85GT: IMO, Israel just set diplomatic negotiations back years and failed to achieve their goals of doing significant damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. Worse, this gives Iran an incentive to start actively developing their nuclear program.
It is not that hard to build things deep enough underground that no bomb short of a nuclear one can damage it. Humans have been digging mines for a long time. It is not that hard to create multiple entrances.
I think it would be a big mistake to underestimate Iran. Israel thought that their Iron Dome would stop all of the Iranian rockets and yet many of them got through. Iranians are not stupid. They change their tactics, develop new technology and adapt.
All of this cheering on of Israel to do damage to Iran just drives the Iranian people towards the mullahs and it solidifies their power. There are roughly 180,000 mullahs in Iran. That is a lot of leadership to kill in order to topple the regime.
While your sentiment that there can be military solution to any problem, the price of such a victory would be tremendous. ISIS was tens of thousands of fanatics and it took years to wipe them out. Iran has a population of 92 million. What would it take to pacify even 1/3 of that population or 30 million people?
Can't say I agree but, my crystal ball isn't as good as yours. I guess we'll see how this works out. But, I totally disagree with your statement about underestimating Iran, Israel has not done that and Iran would soon be a nuclear threat to Israel and other nations to include us.
Ironically, this entire war could have never happened if Iran had just agreed to have their Nuclear Programs audited to ensure they were telling the truth. But,............ Well, I think you can see where I was going with that.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-17-2025).]
It does not take much of a crystal ball to predict things are going to go bad. Look at the history of the region with regards to American intervention.
Jimmy Carter undermined the Shah of Iran leading to the Iranian Revolution. Peace keeping force in Lebanon led to the Beirut Barracks Bombing and hundreds of American deaths. Reagan did the most sensible thing and withdrew. Invasion of Iraq lead to the rise of ISIS and thousands of deaths. US and allies eventually destroyed ISIS in Iraq. Iraq is somewhat stable today. This is arguably the only "success". The country is far from stable and can easily fall into chaos. Invasion of Afghanistan had thousands of deaths over two decades, billions of dollars spent and ended with the Taliban back in power with a big gift of billions of dollars in US military equipment Overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya. Libya is still a basket case today, harbors terrorists and lead to a flood of immigrants into Europe. Minor US intervention in Syria. Syria eventually fell to Islamists anyway.
How much treasure and American lives are we willing to throw away to these wars in the Middle East? Our success rate is not that great.
It does not take much of a crystal ball to predict things are going to go bad. Look at the history of the region with regards to American intervention.
Jimmy Carter undermined the Shah of Iran leading to the Iranian Revolution. Peace keeping force in Lebanon led to the Beirut Barracks Bombing and hundreds of American deaths. Reagan did the most sensible thing and withdrew. Invasion of Iraq lead to the rise of ISIS and thousands of deaths. US and allies eventually destroyed ISIS in Iraq. Iraq is somewhat stable today. This is arguably the only "success". The country is far from stable and can easily fall into chaos. Invasion of Afghanistan had thousands of deaths over two decades, billions of dollars spent and ended with the Taliban back in power with a big gift of billions of dollars in US military equipment Overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya. Libya is still a basket case today, harbors terrorists and lead to a flood of immigrants into Europe. Minor US intervention in Syria. Syria eventually fell to Islamists anyway.
How much treasure and American lives are we willing to throw away to these wars in the Middle East? Our success rate is not that great.
Consider who was in charge and limiting what our military could do. When one goes to fight a war, it has to be fought with the intention of winning, not pacification. Rules of engagement must allow our forces to do what needs to be done, limitations placed on our warriors have been a problem for a very long time. Chesty Puller is still and will always be my hero.
This attack just destroyed any chance of the US making a deal with Iran. It leaves Russia as the only ones who can possibly do it and that is not going to happen any time soon.
While Israel did kill some key people, they did not destroy Iran's nuclear capability. That is nearly impossible as the facilities are deep underground. What is worse is that the attack has made Iranian critics of the regime to rally to the flag and support it against an external threat.
IMO, Israel just set diplomatic negotiations back years and failed to achieve their goals of doing significant damage to Iran's nuclear capabilities. Worse, this gives Iran an incentive to start actively developing their nuclear program.
I'll take Mossad's assessment over Ms. Gabbard's anytime on this matter.
Moreover, absolutely ZERO negotiations with the Islamic Revolutionary regime have EVER been successful since 1979 / 1980
Tehran still holds a special place in my heart. I lived there for a year and a half back in the 70's (pre-revolution) and it's sad to see what the mullahs have turned the city and the entire country into. .
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-17-2025).]
Originally posted by randye: Tehran still holds a special place in my heart. I lived there for a year and a half back in the 70's (pre-revolution) and it's sad to see what the mullahs have turned the city and the entire country into. .
I think that's the most interesting part of this whole discussion. I've seen pictures of Iran back then, but I'm kind of surprised that with the intelligence we had there at the time, that they were able to spur a revolution so quickly without us even being aware of it until it actually happened.
What were you doing when you were living there? Was that when you worked for the Government at the time, or was it something else?
I don't really know a whole lot about the Shah... as it was kind of a moot point, but I have wondered what it would be like if the Islamic revolution had never taken place. Iran seemed to be the most technically developed nation of all the middle east at the time... and extremely moderate as well. The women there wore the same kind of outfits our American women wore at the pool, etc... seems ashame how things turned out.
What I've been hearing - right or wrong - is that a MOAB (bunker buster) will take out the deep underground facility. Since the Mossad has had moles in place, literally for decades, I have to believe they/we are approaching this from an educated standpoint.
I also have to believe that they know how close Iran is - or isn't - to developing a nuclear device. (Yeah. I know. It's been "a matter of weeks" for several years now.)
Are they telling us the truth?
Further... Should we "loan" Israel a MOAB and a (B2 bomber) delivery system? I'm inclined to say that we should, but obviously I am operating under the influence of the information available to me. (The media or "gummint" wouldn't lie in an attempt to influence public opinion... would they? Naaaaah.)
I just hope we don't screw it up.
I don't have access to any information as to how effective a few MOABs would be considering how deep these facilities are supposedly underground but, I feel confident access can be denied or maybe cause the collapse of the entire facility if enough effort is made.
quote
Originally posted by randye:
I'll take Mossad's assessment over Ms. Gabbard's anytime on this matter.
Moreover, absolutely ZERO negotiations with the Islamic Revolutionary regime have EVER been successful since 1979 / 1980
I don't have access to any information as to how effective a few MOABs would be considering how deep these facilities are supposedly underground but, I feel confident access can be denied or maybe cause the collapse of the entire facility if enough effort is made.
Rams
Unrelated... but there was a cheesy late 70s / early 80s movie that involved the Federal government bombing their own underground nuclear facility in order to trap aliens into it. I just remember being totally enamored with the movie, particularly the scene when a young couple and some military guy were trying to escape from the facility after (or during) the time it was being bombed... I've been trying to figure out what movie it is... and have never been able to. I'm sure when I eventually do find it, it's going to be the worst movie in the whole world and I'll hate it forever... but willing to take that risk if anyone knows the movie I'm talking about.
I don't have access to any information as to how effective a few MOABs would be considering how deep these facilities are supposedly underground but, I feel confident access can be denied or maybe cause the collapse of the entire facility if enough effort is made.
Rams
I heard it said on the radio, this morning, that they are effective to the depth of 20(?) stories.
From what I remember, it's basically an ANFO explosive, about the size of a school bus. Considering what McVeigh did to the Murrah Federal Building with a Penske box truck full of the same stuff, it's... kind of(?) plausible.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 06-18-2025).]
Whew...there it is. I was worried for a second there.
I don't dislike Tulsi Gabbard as a person... but she does not really have the experience to be in the position she is. So you and I agree on that.
Couple of things...
1 - She's a Snowden sympathizer... which I really have an issue with. She now has access to the information that I know, and others know, so hopefully her mind has changed on that... she hasn't mentioned him lately, but if she still says she thinks Snowden is a patriot after having the access she does... then she's an idiot.
2 - Office of the Director of National Intelligence is actually a bull **** organization that was created by Congress and signed by Bush after 9/11, for no other purpose than to say that we did something. It's a figure head that's supposed to "align" the intelligence agencies and be the single focus point for intelligence for the President. Very quickly though, everyone realized it was a horrible idea... why create ANOTHER layer between the president and his intelligence chiefs? So... ODNI doesn't really do much. The heads of the NSA, CIA, DIA, and to a lesser extent, NRO, NGA, etc... they all confir with the president directly for his daily standup and his weekly breifing. ODNI is there too... but they all bypass ODNI. Tulsi isn't really telling Trump anything, think of ODNI as an administrative managment level for the intel community.
3 - I think she's a "great American" as they say, but I think she's too easily swayed into propaganda and I've seen her fall for things that I know to not be true.
... and yes, I know ODNI was created to stop stove-piping between the agencies... but it hasn't really worked out that way. CIA still takes credit for everything NSA does. CIA pretends like it knows things and lies about it in briefings when everyone else in the room knows they actually got the information from another agency. CIA pays others to do things because it doesn't have the people to do the things it used to do. NSA still thinks it's the most powerful cyber agency in the world, but CyberCom has taken half their authorities and DHS has taken the other half. No one knows what DIA does anymore, NGA serves no purpose since they literally use Google APIs with data from the other agencies, etc., etc., ...the agencies are worse now than they've ever been in probably the last 50 years, and ODNI is bloating like a dead racoon laying in the sun.
I heard it said on the radio, this morning, that they are effective to the depth of 20(?) stories.
From what I remember, it's basically an ANFO explosive, about the size of a school bus. Considering what McVeigh did to the Murrah Federal Building with a Penske box truck full of the same stuff, it's... kind of(?) plausible.
20 stories? That's impressive if factual. As I remember, the MOAB started off basically as an 8 inch artillery barrel (IIRC) that was machined to accept a nose, fins at the base and internally to accept the payload. No doubt if dropped from one of our bombers from sufficient altitude, it would make one heck of a depression. With a delayed fuse, the resulting explosion could very easily cause extensive damage and potential collapse of an underground facility but, this is all guess work on my part. Multiple dropped MOABs would definitely get someone's attention. I know I wouldn't want it dropped on my property.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-18-2025).]
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It does not take much of a crystal ball to predict things are going to go bad. Look at the history of the region with regards to American intervention.
Invasion of Iraq lead to the rise of ISIS and thousands of deaths. US and allies eventually destroyed ISIS in Iraq. Iraq is somewhat stable today. This is arguably the only "success". The country is far from stable and can easily fall into chaos.
The US and it's allies (?) tried for years to decimate ISIS. It was done in weeks, perhaps just a few months into the beginning of Trump's first term. Trump is a "all in for the win" kinda guy. His Defense Secretary is also big on overwhelming force, having served in Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq.
Neither will handcuff our military might.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 06-18-2025).]
20 stories? That's impressive if factual. As I remember, the MOAB started off basically as an 8 inch artillery barrel (IIRC) that was machined to accept a nose, fins at the base and internally to accept the payload. No doubt if dropped from one of our bombers from sufficient altitude, it would make one heck of a depression. With a delayed fuse, the resulting explosion could very easily cause extensive damage and potential collapse of an underground facility but, this is all guess work on my part. Multiple dropped MOABs would definitely get someone's attention. I know I wouldn't want it dropped on my property.
Rams
I remember when the MOAB first came out... it had to have been like ~18 years ago? They first used it in trying to bomb what they thought was Bin Laden's hide-out (before they found him in Pakistan). But I remember there was a huge thing on the news about it, and they went into great detail. It basically falls short of splitting the atom, but it's absolutely enormous and is meant to penetrate far, far down...
The US and it's allies (?) tried for years to decimate ISIS. It was done in weeks, perhaps just a few months into the beginning of Trump's first term. Trump is a "all in for the win" kinda guy. His Defense Secretary is also big on overwhelming force, having served in Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq.
Neither will handcuff our military might.
It took until March 2019 to take the last territory that ISIS controlled. This was after President Trump removed any constraints on our military, except nuclear of course, and let our military do their thing. It took two years, not weeks.
Too many people are beating the drums for war thinking it will be quick and easy. It will not be quick, it will not be easy and it will be costly in both money and lives. Short of nuclear war, I am unaware of any country that has had a regime change due to areal bombing. The only way to have a permanent regime change is to have someone with troops to take territory and hold it. It does not look like there is enough of a resistance in Iran to fill that role. Which means it will have to be US troops and allies filling that role. If you thought Afghanistan was a quagmire, Iran has close to double the population of Afghanistan and there are no local warlords which the US can bribe.
While I still believe Israel can handle offensive operations, I have no issues with the US assisting in defensive actions. It's reported that the US now has three aircraft carriers in the region. Those three carriers carry a lot of aircraft that can assist in knocking down Iranian missiles headed to Israel. I am not currently in favor of the US putting boots on the ground.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: It took until March 2019 to take the last territory that ISIS controlled. This was after President Trump removed any constraints on our military, except nuclear of course, and let our military do their thing. It took two years, not weeks.
Too many people are beating the drums for war thinking it will be quick and easy. It will not be quick, it will not be easy and it will be costly in both money and lives. Short of nuclear war, I am unaware of any country that has had a regime change due to areal bombing. The only way to have a permanent regime change is to have someone with troops to take territory and hold it. It does not look like there is enough of a resistance in Iran to fill that role. Which means it will have to be US troops and allies filling that role. If you thought Afghanistan was a quagmire, Iran has close to double the population of Afghanistan and there are no local warlords which the US can bribe.
Most of the dates in that source are during the Obama regime.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: Russian and Chinese Military Cargo Planes Shuttling weapons, Missiles, Supplies into Iran
One has to wonder if any of those planes my be delivering a nuclear war head to Iran.
The latest news is two B2 Stealth Bombers to off to Guam.
The latest news is two B2 Stealth Bombers to off to Guam.
By now you should know that was a very successful decoy.
(By the way my friend, the "MOP" munition does not use a "fertilizer explosive" as you previously presumed. Depending on the BLU size it uses a mix of AFX / RDX and PBX explosives).
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-21-2025).]
Originally posted by randye: ... (By the way my friend, the "MOP" munition does not use a "fertilizer explosive" as you previously presumed. Depending on the BLU size it uses a mix of AFX / RDX and PBX explosives).
That may have been my mis-statement. ("ANFO") But I was referring to what I had heard about the MOAB, anyway. Didn't realize that they were doing something different. Not like I am in a position to know.
But I don't much care what it is, as long as it works.
The die has been cast. I hope they were successful.
edit to add: I hope I was wrong in my assessment. If President Trump is successful in destroying Iran's nuclear capability and that brings them to the negotiation table, then we are all better off for it.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 06-21-2025).]
