ganeshran Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 The Hezbollah war was more a psychological victory than an strategic one. Its just that Israel wasnt able to defeat them comprehensively as was expected. Hezbollah's losses were far higher than Israeli ones, just that the Israeli losses were higher than what was expected. That conflict cannot be compared with a full blown war neither can it be used to show that Israel is vulnerable against Iran. Israel has the one of the best military hardware in the world and will get good support from the US in a conflict even though the public line taken by the US government is to condemn the war. The worrying point for Israel is that there is no element of surprise like its previous operations which earned it the admiration of the agencies around the world. With Iran fully anticipating a conflict, it will quickly escalate into a full blown conflict with them also having the capacity to inflict decent amount of damage on Israel. Whether Israel wants its public to endure this is a point of debate for them.
hari504504 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Hezbollah's losses can't be accounted for because they are not very transparent about it - but the Israeli losses were serious enough for the Knesset committee to conduct an investigation on the entire operation. They lost 40 odd state-of-the-art Merkavas along with the human losses. Most of the reports you would find on the war would say that there were no victors in that conflict - which in itself is a psychological victory for Hezbollah as you did say so yourself. But Israel didn't really meet its objectives of the war - Lebanon's border with Israel is still firmly in the control of Hezbollah who are being armed by the Iranians now with better weapons and missiles. Israel has good hardware and a military, agree. But there is nothing conclusive to suggest that it would boss the Iranians in a war - where Israel would be the aggressor. Infact there are interesting analyses on how any attack on Iran would only make them get to the nuke quicker. If the US is firmly behind Israel, nothing's stopping Russia from throwing their weight behind Iran - its a big market for their weapons. They have already shown America the finger along with the Chinese by veto-ing a UN resolution on Syria.
ganeshran Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 The main point is that you cannot take Israel's performance in the Hezbollah conflict and use it to predict its performance in the war against Iran. In cricketing parlance, that would be like using a team's performance in a T20 game and predicting a test victory. The dynamics and scale of the conflict against Iran would be completely different. Israel might not boss over Iran but as the conflict drags on they will be able to win it. They have better resources and logistics, and longer the war, the more these things will come into play. Its just like an India/ Pakistan conflict. Pakistanis can gain short term advantages by bursts like they have done in all wars, but the longer the war drags on and once we start targeting their supply lines and their finances start wearing thin, the resolve to stay on in war evaporates . Iran will have a hard time financing the conflict given the sanctions over its oil companies, unless the Chinese or Russians support them whole heartedly with money/resources, not just token support in wording of UN resolutions. Its the resolve of the Chinese which will be tested who will have to make a call on how much they want to piss off the US government. IMO they will not go to the extent of providing full support till they grow confident of taking on the US head on. Russians will chicken out, they wont go and burn their hands in external conflict after the last disaster. I dont think there will be an attack in the near future (1-2 years) but the closer Iran gets to the bomb, the closer the region is to war. Israeli leaders live in the mortal fear of one of their neighboring countries acquiring the bomb, even the relatively friendly ones. They will never let that happen, whatever may be the cost. All their numerical superiority, miltary hardware counts for zilch once the enemy gets the bomb.
hari504504 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 The Lebanese operation was a major one for Israel - bombers backed by Tanks and special forces into a neighbouring country is almost the whole works. Why do you think it is T20 ? ..its rather a test match against Ireland. There's nothing to be proud about coming out of it with a draw. I am just saying Israel is not as invincible as is being claimed. There is not much Israel and the US can do in Iran actually. A land invasion of Iran is out of the question(US can't afford another bloody conflict X times worse than Iraq), US/Israel can only attack Iran over the air = missiles and planes. The Iranians probably have anticipated all this - they have their overt nuclear installations in plain view..and the covert ones hidden deep under mountains. Experts have questioned the existing non-nuclear munitions that Israel and the US have in terms of their effectiveness in hitting a target buried so deep under the rocks. At the most , all they can do is temporarily halt the proceedings by causing a minor cave-in. The Israelis had the same mortal fear about Pakistan getting the bomb and distributing it among its brothers in the middle east, well then we saw what happened. I think it is inevitable that Iran will eventually have a nuke, nothing US and Israel can do to stop them apart from nuking their suspected enrichment locations. And Iran is not going to be lobbing nukes into tel aviv the moment they have it - that is simply fear mongering.
Clarke Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 so the shrewd nation couldn't adapt and fight ? - it only shows mighty Israel is as vulnerable as anyone else' date='[/quote'] When it comes to guerrilla warfare, yes. Which does not mean they're average in other departments. How about the Kashmir conflict ? How many of our soldiers laid down their lives in our own land ? Facing a suicidal enemy in urban environments or rugged terrain has always lead to losses, unless one considers Saddam's idea of gassing entire villages as an option. The six day war at least had the element of surprise as an advantage for Israel. Yom Kippur stands out like nothing else for obvious reasons. I don't see how any other country could have defended its territory when faced with two way bigger conventional forces on both borders without any major technological advantage. Isn't that what we're talking about in terms of Iranian retaliation, conventional warfare ? Does Iran plan to hire the Hezbos to defend its nuclear infrastructure from air/missile strikes ? BTW i also mentioned Operation Opera, which is more relevant to Iran than the above wars. These are mentioned only to prove that Israel has all the stomach it needs to face a larger nation or to carry out a strike. The difference this time is its way ahead technologically, which is why i don't see any major problems the day Israel moves ahead.
hari504504 Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 When it comes to guerrilla warfare, yes. Which does not mean they're average in other departments. Its important to note that Hezbollah has always been present in that region. Their tactics of fire and run, has always been the same. Israel should've fully known what was waiting for it - wasn't the case of Saddam's republican guard suddenly vanishing into the civilian population and then leading suicide attacks/groups against the occupation - noone expected that. There was no surprise factor to it, it only shows how badly Israel had planned the whole operation. The Knessett committee was so taken aback, they held a formal investigation on the entire operation. How about the Kashmir conflict ? How many of our soldiers laid down their lives in our own land ? Facing a suicidal enemy in urban environments or rugged terrain has always lead to losses, unless one considers Saddam's idea of gassing entire villages as an option. We have lost a lot of precious lives in Kashmir, but have the operations been effective ? Resounding YES. Things are so much more quieter in the valley these days compared to the 90s (in terms of armed militancy) - our army has attained its objective. Whatever the terrain in Hezbollah's Lebanon - is not and should not be completely alien to Israeli forces, its not on a different continent. And the more important point - they failed the major objective in the Lebanon war - get the Lebanese army into those border areas. Even today Hezbollah controls those parts and are now being better armed by the Iranians and the Syrians. The six day war at least had the element of surprise as an advantage for Israel. Yom Kippur stands out like nothing else for obvious reasons. I don't see how any other country could have defended its territory when faced with two way bigger conventional forces on both borders without any major technological advantage. Isn't that what we're talking about in terms of Iranian retaliation, conventional warfare ? Does Iran plan to hire the Hezbos to defend its nuclear infrastructure from air/missile strikes ? BTW i also mentioned Operation Opera, which is more relevant to Iran than the above wars. These are mentioned only to prove that Israel has all the stomach it needs to face a larger nation or to carry out a strike. The difference this time is its way ahead technologically, which is why i don't see any major problems the day Israel moves ahead. Operation Opera is completely irrelevant to the current scenario - Saddam was stupid to have his nuclear asset - ONE asset - the Osirak reactor in plain view on the surface just waiting for the bombers to drop their payloads on them. Iranians have pbly learned from this.. all their covert nuclear facilities are reportedly deep inside the mountains . (The same strategy as North Korea - no surprises there). Experts agree that it is doubtful that current conventional munitions with US and Israel including the deep penetrating bunker-busters can do significant damage to facilities so deep under solid rock. Israel faces a number of problems when trying to face-off against Iran 1) The Distance is too big..their F-15s with additional fuel tanks and air-refuelling will barely be able to hit its objectives and make it back even if the scenario runs perfectly ( no Iranian SAMs lock in on them, no fighters are scrambled to intercept - wasting more fuel on evading or downing these Iranian fighters) 2) The element of surprise would last a very short time and the facilities are spread out all over Iran, hitting just one is only going to be a minor setback to the programme - won't destroy the nuclear programme completely. Infact will probably make them wiser in terms of finding a new location even more hard to destroy and get on with it. 3) Iran reportedly has the S-300 AAs (from Belarus after Russia refused to give it directly due to the sanctions) , top of the line SAMs from Russia, good luck getting past those. 4) Like Ganeshran pointed out, Israel will take direct hits from Iranian missiles from Iran as well as the ones Hezbollah has (better ones supplied after the Lebanese war). How much collateral damage are they willing to take today - over an imaginary Iranian nuclear threat. 5) Hezbollah can open up a front against Israel just to add to the commotion and bring the international community into ending it as quickly as possible. In short, nothing but a nuclear strike on Iran would truly halt its programme. An airstrike or a missile strike would neither end the programme like the case of Opera nor be as easy considering the SAMs Iran has.
punjabi_khota Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Just for my understanding, can you explain why nuclear attack (missile or air dropped bomb) is not susceptible to SAMs while conventional attack is ? :hmmm: Is it just that you need few nuclear bombs to pass through or something else ? Also, is there a source for 'expert consesus' on US bunker busters not being able to reach the depths of iranian facilities ? I heard on NPR last week that the whole point of Netanyahu visiting US was to make US agree that they would use bunker busters later (if required) , if Israel agrees to hold off attack right now.
EnterTheVoid Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 Iraq 1981 - They had one point to hit. Iran has nuclear facilities that are scattered all over the country and many of them, are buried deep underground. Iran can take a nuclear hit (if it comes to that) but if missiles hit Tel Aviv, its over for Israel.
Clarke Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Its important to note that Hezbollah has always been present in that region. Their tactics of fire and run, has always been the same. Israel should've fully known what was waiting for it - wasn't the case of Saddam's republican guard suddenly vanishing into the civilian population and then leading suicide attacks/groups against the occupation - noone expected that. There was no surprise factor to it, it only shows how badly Israel had planned the whole operation. The Knessett committee was so taken aback, they held a formal investigation on the entire operation. If you're saying Israel made mistakes, i am not disagreeing to that. Suggesting that they are the ones makiing big mistakes but the US Armed Forces couldn't have forseen any possibility of an insurgency is outright naive. The Iraqis were supposed to be dumb and wait in the line of fire despite their military strength being destroyed in the first gulf war ? The Agranat Commission also documented the failures that led to the second war. Who said they are outright perfect ? Fact of the matter is, they have been decisively victorious in their major wars against the combined strength of stronger opponents. We have lost a lot of precious lives in Kashmir, but have the operations been effective ? Resounding YES. Things are so much more quieter in the valley these days compared to the 90s (in terms of armed militancy) - our army has attained its objective. Some double standards you got here. We've lost more soldiers on our own land than they did while invading foreign territory. But then we are more effective than them, coz our lives are cheaper in your book ? Whatever the terrain in Hezbollah's Lebanon - is not and should not be completely alien to Israeli forces, its not on a different continent. And the more important point - they failed the major objective in the Lebanon war - get the Lebanese army into those border areas. Even today Hezbollah controls those parts and are now being better armed by the Iranians and the Syrians. Please, enough preaching of the lebanon war and the shifting of the goalposts from one threat to another or one objective to another. Its not like the rockets are the same as WMDs or Hezbollah is the same as Iran. Operation Opera is completely irrelevant to the current scenario - Saddam was stupid to have his nuclear asset - ONE asset - the Osirak reactor in plain view on the surface just waiting for the bombers to drop their payloads on them. You cannot imagine the challenge of taking out a SAM guarded nuclear facility after covering a thousand miles of hostile airspace in the early 80s. It presented its own set of challenges which seem too simple now in 2012. Iranians have pbly learned from this.. all their covert nuclear facilities are reportedly deep inside the mountains . (The same strategy as North Korea - no surprises there). Experts agree that it is doubtful that current conventional munitions with US and Israel including the deep penetrating bunker-busters can do significant damage to facilities so deep under solid rock. Israel faces a number of problems when trying to face-off against Iran ..... In short, nothing but a nuclear strike on Iran would truly halt its programme. An airstrike or a missile strike would neither end the programme like the case of Opera nor be as easy considering the SAMs Iran has. Follwing the usual script are we ? I've heard/read the same stories a dozen times about why Iran is different. Its not supposed to be easy, it never was in Iraq's case and this one might be tougher but not outright impossible. Are we supposed to believe Iran has new SAMs that work really well all the time, somehow the Iraqi ones didn't work (let me ignore their scrambling fighters for obvious reasons) ? Is the US sitting on the sidelines if Iran responds with missile attacks on Israel or does it deploy its Air Force/cruise missiles/satellites to hunt down the missile launchers, and thats assuming the Iron dome is an epic fail ? Considering the known idea of an underground nuclear facility deep below the ground, are we to assume that no weapon was created at all in the past decade ? Did we expect a stealth heli to fly from a US airbase into a Pakistani garrison town to take out Osama early last year ? What i am suggesting here: expect another rabbit out of the hat when (and not if) the decision to strike is made.
Zelch Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Argumentative Indians at it again. Arab terrorists will always be blood thirsty in their Islamic frenzy and Israelis will always drop on them like a 1000 lb hammer. Beech mein hamko kya? Bhailog these people are TFTA warrior class and we are timid, meek people.
Zelch Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 On Monday, nearly 50 rockets pounded Israel including several that landed in Beersheba and Ashdod despite Iron Dome rocket-defense batteries deployed nearby. The system succeeded in intercepting 11 rockets out of 18 throughout the day. In total, over 200 rockets have been fired into Israel since hostilities began on Friday, including 50 with ranges of over 20 kilometers. Some of the rockets were manufactured domestically in the Gaza Strip.
surajmal Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Some double standards you got here. We've lost more soldiers on our own land than they did while invading foreign territory. But then we are more effective than them, coz our lives are cheaper in your book ? Indian Army doesn't use helicopter gunships or carpet bombing (which is the clear MO of Israeli and American forces in every engagement) to clean out hideouts . Think about that for a second and comeback if you don't understand the reasoning.
Sooda Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 There are several small armed factions in Gaza the ones launching the rockets are not ruling party Hamas' military arm. Hamas are largely a bunch of nutjobs, equivalent of Likud on the Israeli side, but to their credit have done ok enough to maintain a ceasefire over the last 6 or so months in particular. And all this happened in response to an air raid on Friday morning, that Israel launched to kill Palestinian militants who they suspected of planning an attack into Israel.
hari504504 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 If you're saying Israel made mistakes, i am not disagreeing to that. Suggesting that they are the ones makiing big mistakes but the US Armed Forces couldn't have forseen any possibility of an insurgency is outright naive. The Iraqis were supposed to be dumb and wait in the line of fire despite their military strength being destroyed in the first gulf war ? The Agranat Commission also documented the failures that led to the second war. Who said they are outright perfect ? Fact of the matter is, they have been decisively victorious in their major wars against the combined strength of stronger opponents. So Israel is not an invincible force - it can't just walk in and take Iran's nukes out. Let me get this straight - thats lahori logic: "we lost against Zimbabwe... but we will beat Australia !". If Israel couldn't take out all the Hezbollah rocket launchers and supply line, what are their chances of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities ? US didn't expect the kind of insurgency that it did face eventually in Iraq, why do you think they still criticize and make fun of Bush and Cheney who suggested that Iraqis will be showering flowers at the coalition troops while they are in Baghdad ? Some double standards you got here. We've lost more soldiers on our own land than they did while invading foreign territory. But then we are more effective than them, coz our lives are cheaper in your book ? Why are you simply evading my point man ? Did you even read my post i wonder. We achieved the objective in Kashmir - ended the armed militancy to a large extent. Israel didn't meet its main objective in the Lebanon war, the HEzbollah are still active with better and more sophisticated rockets pointed at Israel. Please, enough preaching of the lebanon war and the shifting of the goalposts from one threat to another or one objective to another. Its not like the rockets are the same as WMDs or Hezbollah is the same as Iran. Hezbollah HAVE fired rockets at Israel, HAVE caused civilian casualties. Apart from knee-jerk repraisals Israel has not been able to stop them. Iran HAS NOT fired rockets at Israel, it is only sabre rattling. Who is the immediate threat here ? - the Hebollah ofcourse , Iran is not dumb enough to lob nukes at Israel and get turned into glass before the day ends. Shifting goalposts meh ? If Israel couldn't do the simpler job of pushing back Hebollah, what chance do they have against the Iranians. They didn't achieve their last military objective, so it is only reasonable to question what they can do with a bigger objective. You cannot imagine the challenge of taking out a SAM guarded nuclear facility after covering a thousand miles of hostile airspace in the early 80s. It presented its own set of challenges which seem too simple now in 2012. As another poster has also pointed out - it was ONE target, you can have the element of surprise to bring you victory when attacking one target. But not multiple targets. The main challenge for the Israelis was flying over Jordanian and Saudi airspace undetected..not the SA-6 SAMs which are laughable when compared to the S-300s. Follwing the usual script are we ? I've heard/read the same stories a dozen times about why Iran is different. Its not supposed to be easy, it never was in Iraq's case and this one might be tougher but not outright impossible. Are we supposed to believe Iran has new SAMs that work really well all the time, somehow the Iraqi ones didn't work (let me ignore their scrambling fighters for obvious reasons) ? Is the US sitting on the sidelines if Iran responds with missile attacks on Israel or does it deploy its Air Force/cruise missiles/satellites to hunt down the missile launchers, and thats assuming the Iron dome is an epic fail ? Considering the known idea of an underground nuclear facility deep below the ground, are we to assume that no weapon was created at all in the past decade ? Did we expect a stealth heli to fly from a US airbase into a Pakistani garrison town to take out Osama early last year ? What i am suggesting here: expect another rabbit out of the hat when (and not if) the decision to strike is made. So yours is based on the - "They will conjure up with something out of thin air - but destroy they will !" and I am saying "Based on their recent records in military ops, and known arsenal/weaponry(apart from nukes) - their operation will be an epic fail and will only exacebate things " What weapons they come up with tomorrow is something we all look forward to seeing. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692.html No known weapon can completely take out the underground facilities in Iran - you'd find reports on it even on BBC, why do you think North Korea got away with its nuclear facilities and made the bomb ? Because S.Korea/ US didn't have any conventional weapon that can assure 100% destruction of something buried so deep, so as to risk a total war.
EnterTheVoid Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo]Pro-Israel Rally For Attacking Gaza, NYC, 1-11-09 - YouTube[/ame] Unbelievable. I hope someone drives these ****s out to the sea.
cricket_usa Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 These are evalangicals who are planning for Armagedon.
yoda Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FABqq_jjRRo]Pro-Israel Rally For Attacking Gaza' date=' NYC, 1-11-09 - YouTube[/url'] Unbelievable. I hope someone drives these ****s out to the sea. sree_israel :omg:
Clarke Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Indian Army doesn't use helicopter gunships or carpet bombing (which is the clear MO of Israeli and American forces in every engagement) to clean out hideouts . Think about that for a second and comeback if you don't understand the reasoning. I guess i stretched the absurdity of comparing two operations, one dealing with guerrilla warfare and another related to taking out reasonably guarded nuclear facilities mostly by air. That's what this Palestine thread has ended up in unfortunately.
Clarke Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 So Israel is not an invincible force - it can't just walk in and take Iran's nukes out. Let me get this straight - thats lahori logic: "we lost against Zimbabwe... but we will beat Australia !". If Israel couldn't take out all the Hezbollah rocket launchers and supply line, what are their chances of taking out Iran's nuclear facilities ? Lets not walk all over the park by bringing the Iraq war, we shouldn't have started discussing Iran here since this is about Palestine. What i felt absurd was we're comparing cricket to soccer when talking about taking on hezbollah vs damaging/destroying nuclear facilities far off. But that's just an opinion. Actually, i've seen lahoris argue the same about Israel not being able to take on hamas or the stone throwers and thus Iran, you know how deep their sentiments run for the umm@h. Why are you simply evading my point man ? Did you even read my post i wonder. We achieved the objective in Kashmir - ended the armed militancy to a large extent. Israel didn't meet its main objective in the Lebanon war, the HEzbollah are still active with better and more sophisticated rockets pointed at Israel. Another tangential discussion in terms of Kashmir. Maybe i shouldn't have brought that but as mentioned earlier i couldn't see the relation between 2006 war and the upcoming conflict. Hezbollah HAVE fired rockets at Israel, HAVE caused civilian casualties. Apart from knee-jerk repraisals Israel has not been able to stop them. Iran HAS NOT fired rockets at Israel, it is only sabre rattling. Who is the immediate threat here ? - the Hebollah ofcourse , Iran is not dumb enough to lob nukes at Israel and get turned into glass before the day ends. Shifting goalposts meh ? If Israel couldn't do the simpler job of pushing back Hebollah, what chance do they have against the Iranians. They didn't achieve their last military objective, so it is only reasonable to question what they can do with a bigger objective. Same as above. I say: diff sports. You say: same sport, Zimbabwe & Australia as opponents. As another poster has also pointed out - it was ONE target, you can have the element of surprise to bring you victory when attacking one target. But not multiple targets. The main challenge for the Israelis was flying over Jordanian and Saudi airspace undetected..not the SA-6 SAMs which are laughable when compared to the S-300s. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/12/israel-has-prepared-for-possible-iranian-nuclear-strike-for-years/ - Once Israeli planes reach Iran, they would come under fire from Iranian air-defense systems and warplanes. Israeli officials say they take these threats seriously, but believe Israel's superior firepower and radar-jamming technology would allow them to perform the mission. - Outside experts say Iranian capabilities, particularly homegrown technologies, are limited. So yours is based on the - "They will conjure up with something out of thin air - but destroy they will !" and I am saying "Based on their recent records in military ops, and known arsenal/weaponry(apart from nukes) - their operation will be an epic fail and will only exacebate things " What weapons they come up with tomorrow is something we all look forward to seeing. I'm betting on their past record on major conventional (and not guerrilla) military objectives, their technical prowess & if required the backing of youknowwho. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203363504577187420287098692.html No known weapon can completely take out the underground facilities in Iran - you'd find reports on it even on BBC, why do you think North Korea got away with its nuclear facilities and made the bomb ? Because S.Korea/ US didn't have any conventional weapon that can assure 100% destruction of something buried so deep, so as to risk a total war.
Sachinism Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Sree_israel talking against israel :omg: That's exactly what I was thinking.....Something not right here :hmmm:
Recommended Posts