- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 7,198
- Points
- 398
without air cover the Iranian navy and imperial guards will last maybe 48 hours, for the ones they miss on the first night.
-
We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you
Warfare HAMAS attack on Israel, Oct 2023 & Iran’s Proxies.
- Thread starter Musashi
- Start date
Translation:
The Economist reports: Israel has identified preparations for a meeting in Iran between senior nuclear scientists and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards' air force. This meeting has been described as the "Rubicon" and is intended to begin planning the assembly of a nuclear weapon on a warhead mounted on a missile, according to some of the intelligence Israel shared with its allies about Iran's nuclear program before the attacks began.
The Economist reports: Israel has identified preparations for a meeting in Iran between senior nuclear scientists and the heads of the Revolutionary Guards' air force. This meeting has been described as the "Rubicon" and is intended to begin planning the assembly of a nuclear weapon on a warhead mounted on a missile, according to some of the intelligence Israel shared with its allies about Iran's nuclear program before the attacks began.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 13,935
- Points
- 338
Both can be true at the same time.
And again, it is all about semantics. "dangerously close" is pretty much equivalent to characterizing an opinion.
"Being close to" means you haven't reached whatever you are trying to achieve. It is like saying "soon", it does not mean anything.
Same with "dangerously close"... "very soon".
To put things into perspective, lots of debates among Historians still take place on "how close" Nazi Germany was to develop a nuclear weapon, or "how close" Imperial Japan was to surrender when the bombs were dropped.
But in the end what Ratcliffe also supports what Tulsi said: Iran does not have nuclear weapons >yet<.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2019
- Messages
- 7,198
- Points
- 398
But if the view is that when they have one, we cant do anything, because they will use it, then its to late. So in a binary view, now is preferable to then. Of course we aren't sure of their status, because the are hiding it, and lying about it. If they had no intent, they would have had no issues with the inspectors etc.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 11,368
- Points
- 328
Yes it was.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 8,829
- Points
- 293
Yeah, but the MOAB is only 2/3 the weight of the MOP and as the name says it is Air Burst, not a penetrator. The angle and velocity are critical to how the MOP works where as for air burst it's fairly irrelevant. Also the MOAB was tailored to fit the MC130, the MOP the B2 and future B21.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 13,935
- Points
- 338
We know they have no issues with their nuclear program because they made it clear their goal was to get one.
We know they want one because they said it.
That's not really the crux of the problem here. Wether they do have it or not, which they don't, isn't either because we know they don't have it.
And again, wether they will, eventually, have it or not, isn't really an issue either. Because Israel made it clear they will do whatever is necessary to prevent this from happening, and so did the US (though in less clear-cut wording).
But based on what Iran is planning on doing with its nukes, when/if they get them, it is clear it isn't to have them as a mean to protect themselves but to destroy Israel. So the intent behind the program is rather transparent in that regard.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2023
- Messages
- 995
- Points
- 159
Right because if they did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would've failed, and the forces of evil would have prevailed over good (hate to put it like this, but when a nation wants to annihilate 8 million people because of some religious prophecy to bring about the end times, there's not much else you can call that except pure evil). Though I doubt that many people even know this...
If Iran is "months away" or even "years", it doesn't really matter either way, because at some point you'll have to take action, better to do it sooner rather than later and Iran has never been weaker.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 8,829
- Points
- 293
It appears this happened last Friday.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2019
- Messages
- 1,146
- Points
- 178
Yes, a GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), also known as a "mop," could potentially be dropped from a C-130 aircraft, though it's not its primary delivery platform. While the C-130 can carry the weight and size of the MOP, its lower speed and altitude compared to dedicated bomber aircraft like the B-2 Spirit would affect the weapon's impact force and penetration capability.
From google search fwiw. So your right. This article may be a repost.
From google search fwiw. So your right. This article may be a repost.
Could Israeli C-130s Drop GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator Bunker Busters?
B-2s are the only aircraft that can employ MOPs to get at Iran's deepest facilities, but C-130s may be a viable option with a similar weapon.www.twz.com
Similar threads
