Iran: If Israel fires single missile at Iran, target every inch of Israel.
88 replies, posted
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33459925]struggling to see justification for indiscriminate iranian strikes in this post[/quote]
So if a enemy nation decided to detonate nuclear warheads in your country, you would just take it? MAD. If any nuclear warhead from the soviet union was detonated on US territory, US would target Russian civilians/cities Is this justified? Israel's attack plan includes nuclear warheads to take out Iranian underground facilities.
I'd condemn Iran for such a horrible threat, but... can't help but recall just a few instances of my own country blowing up a few hundred thousand civilians at once.
[QUOTE=johnlukeg;33460333]I'd condemn Iran for such a horrible threat, but... can't help but recall just a few instances of my own country blowing up a few hundred thousand civilians at once.[/QUOTE]
They say they would retaliate jesus fuck how hard is it to understand.
[B]RETALIATE.[/B] As in strike back after taking a punch, not-shooting-first. Counter-strike, revenge, etc, etc.
And do you seriously take pride in slaughtering civilians? Seriously?
^ dude johnlukeg wasn't remotely implying pride in slaughtering civilians, get a grip
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33460042]So if a enemy nation decided to detonate nuclear warheads in your country, you would just take it? MAD. If any nuclear warhead from the soviet union was detonated on US territory, US would target Russian civilians/cities Is this justified? Israel's attack plan includes nuclear warheads to take out Iranian underground facilities.[/QUOTE]
israel's plan is to take out nuclear facilities, not bomb tehran because they love nuking arabs. there is no justification for an indiscriminate attack against israeli civilians in response to the israeli attack on a military target. hell, there is no justifcation for an indiscriminate attack against israeli civilians in response to an israeli attack on a civilian target. i can't comprehend how you can sanction indiscriminate bombing under any circumstances.
Doesn't sound very probable, but it's a threat nonetheless.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;33459891]Wait, Israel launches tactical nukes... and hits Israeli civilian centers? Confusion.[/QUOTE]
The post suggests Iran aims their own secret nuclear stockpile at Israeli cilivian targets, because, altough a bit biased, it's generally assumed Iran has lower moral standards then Israel and could pull out dirty tricks like this one.
An entire nation will be leveled to smoldering ruins. "Winner".
This is the exact type of thing that happens on DEFCON.
[QUOTE=R3N3GADE;33460463]^ dude johnlukeg wasn't remotely implying pride in slaughtering civilians, get a grip
israel's plan is to take out nuclear facilities, not bomb tehran because they love nuking arabs. there is no justification for an indiscriminate attack against israeli civilians in response to the israeli attack on a military target. hell, there is no justifcation for an indiscriminate attack against israeli civilians in response to an israeli attack on a civilian target. i can't comprehend how you can sanction indiscriminate bombing under any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
You can't only look at it from that view, though. Sure Israel may be threatened, but let's not forget they actually have no right to go in and bomb those facilities. Iran only seems so dangerous because America and Israel keep threatening their sovereignty, which would piss anyone off.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
You guys are forgetting that people actually work in these facilities, and the detonation of a nuclear facility is quite a threat to Iranian civilians on several fronts. I don't tolerate the civilian killing of anything, but if you're going to take sides at least understand it from both sides.
I swear, they're both acting like a bunch of spoiled kids.
[QUOTE=Van-man;33460574]I swear, they're both acting like a bunch of spoiled kids.[/QUOTE]
did you even read the op
[QUOTE=ZeroS;33460554]This is the exact type of thing that happens on DEFCON.[/QUOTE]
Luckily here it's Israel and Iran, while in DEFCON it's more likely to be Europe and US going at each-other with everything they got.
[QUOTE=johnlukeg;33460333]I'd condemn Iran for such a horrible threat, but... can't help but recall just a few instances of my own country blowing up a few hundred thousand civilians at once.[/QUOTE]
Resulting, in the process, in a few million lives being saved.
Are people really [i]this[/i] uninformed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;33460924]Resulting, in the process, in a few million lives being saved.
Are people really [i]this[/i] uninformed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?[/QUOTE]Sadly.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=johnlukeg;33460333]I'd condemn Iran for such a horrible threat, but... can't help but recall just a few instances of my own country blowing up a few hundred thousand civilians at once.[/QUOTE]This was the alternative: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall[/url]
That's what was prevented with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The loses of those two cities prevented all of Japan from being reduced to rubble. A lot of people like to say that when the loses are so great, the end never justifies the means. But lets look at what just the estimates were:
[quote]Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population", high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000. Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing. (This is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock. There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[/quote]
The best thing for Japan at the end of the war, believe it or not, was the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;33459092]Can we call it crater land from now on?[/QUOTE]
Holey land would be more appropriate I guess.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
Ah shit I am late apparently.
nk and sk, israel and iran
these two conflicts alone make me very worried about the future and this isn't even considering the ongoing wars in colombia and sudan as well as other places
[url=http://www.leetchan.org][b]LEET. TACTICAL. GAMING.[/b][/url]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Rza7pTy-c[/media]
[i] marl, xx aryan pride xx, savetheinternet, ROBERT "robbie" DOE, boris, moe, mao, quintosh & daspp[/i]
[QUOTE=TAU!;33459102]If only their governments could get along for once...[/QUOTE]
What about your clusterfuck of a government?
[QUOTE=Conspiracy;33460557]You can't only look at it from that view, though. Sure Israel may be threatened, but let's not forget [B]they actually have no right to go in and bomb those facilities[/B]. Iran only seems so dangerous because America and Israel keep threatening their sovereignty, which would piss anyone off.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
[B]You guys are forgetting that people actually work in these facilities, and the detonation of a nuclear facility is quite a threat to Iranian civilians on several fronts.[/B] I don't tolerate the civilian killing of anything, but if you're going to take sides at least [B]understand it from both sides.[/B][/QUOTE]
This is an amazing post. I was about to say the last part.
I have a feeling Iran will do no more than Iraq or Syria did.
[url=http://www.leetchan.org][b]LEET. TACTICAL. GAMING.[/b][/url]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Rza7pTy-c[/media]
[i] marl, xx aryan pride xx, savetheinternet, ROBERT "robbie" DOE, boris, moe, mao, quintosh & daspp[/i]
Oh god they're everywhere!
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
The Tactical Leet spam is most concerning.
Target every inch? That's not much to target.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;33459047]There we go, a threat to destroy Israel, well more of a retaliatory threat then a random act of violence.[/QUOTE]
This pretty much applies to every other country that has nukes
So is the US currently threatening to destroy other countries as well?
MAD has worked well enough in the past, as long as both of them are waiting for the other to attack first, nothing will happen.
Though I don't put it past Israel to do something stupid...
[QUOTE=Conspiracy;33460557]You can't only look at it from that view, though. Sure Israel may be threatened, but let's not forget they actually have no right to go in and bomb those facilities. Iran only seems so dangerous because America and Israel keep threatening their sovereignty, which would piss anyone off.
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
You guys are forgetting that people actually work in these facilities, and the detonation of a nuclear facility is quite a threat to Iranian civilians on several fronts. I don't tolerate the civilian killing of anything, but if you're going to take sides at least understand it from both sides.[/QUOTE]
yes, i can look it at it from that view. the targeting and killing of civilians is always wrong, regardless of context. personally i feel that israel has every right to bomb those facilities given that they would be military targets in breach of un rulings but that's an aside - nothing provides justification for iran to then indiscriminately target israeli soil. nothing. nada. zip. there's no "perspective" here, save for understanding - not justification.
might i also add that iran is dangerous because it is run by a violent theocracy which refuses to accept israel's right to exist and actively destabilises the middle east through proxy insurgencies and groups such as hamas and hezbollah, leading to much middle-eastern resentment for iran. it's a dangerous country which cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons - but once again, this isn't relevant.
"My patch of sand is nicer than your patch of sand!"
"Hey, you're right!" [B][h2]I'M TAKING IT![/h2][/B]
There, I've just summed up every single "holy land" conflict since the days of BC.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;33461537]nk and sk, israel and iran
these two conflicts alone make me very worried about the future and this isn't even considering the ongoing wars in colombia and sudan as well as other places[/QUOTE]
You seem to be forgetting one much more important than Colombia and Sudan, India and Pakistan.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33469210]"My patch of sand is nicer than your patch of sand!"
"Hey, you're right!" [B][h2]I'M TAKING IT![/h2][/B]
There, I've just [I]oversimplified[/I] every single "holy land" conflict since the days of BC.[/QUOTE]
fixed
Silly Iran, you won't be able to launch the missiles because you won't have any silos left.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;33459079]there goes the holy land[/QUOTE]
Jesus is spinning in his grave.
Oh, wait.
Jesus is...rotating on his cross?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.