Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nearly two-thirds of Jewish Israelis believe that attacking Iran to stop its nuclear program would be less harmful to Israel than living under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear bomb, a new survey shows.
The poll, conducted by Prof. Camil Fuchs for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, showed that 65 percent of those asked agreed with the claim that the price Israel would have to pay for living with the threat of an Iranian bomb would be greater than the price it would pay for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Only 26 percent disagreed with this claim, with nine percent saying they weren't sure.
I don't get it. What are they going to attack or expect to accomplish? Shut down the Iranian nuclear program forever? With a few sorties? Makes no sense to me.
You don't poke a beehive, you have to kill it completely, which is not possible with Iran.
I don't get it. What are they going to attack or expect to accomplish? Shut down the Iranian nuclear program forever? With a few sorties? Makes no sense to me.
You don't poke a beehive, you have to kill it completely, which is not possible with Iran.
I don't get it. What are they going to attack or expect to accomplish? Shut down the Iranian nuclear program forever? With a few sorties? Makes no sense to me.
You don't poke a beehive, you have to kill it completely, which is not possible with Iran.
Not a few sorties. About 100 manned aircraft, 40 + Jericho III missiles, several heavy (heavily armed) UAV's and special operations forces already operating inside of Iran. This should be sufficient to do serious damage to Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, and the sanctions will do enough damage to Iran's economy to keep them from rebuilding these programs.
I don't get it. What are they going to attack or expect to accomplish? Shut down the Iranian nuclear program forever? With a few sorties? Makes no sense to me.
You don't poke a beehive, you have to kill it completely, which is not possible with Iran.
Not a few sorties. About 100 manned aircraft, 40 + Jericho III missiles, several heavy (heavily armed) UAV's and special operations forces already operating inside of Iran. This should be sufficient to do serious damage to Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, and the sanctions will do enough damage to Iran's economy to keep them from rebuilding these programs.
So you put their program back maybe 5 years, if it's not already underground and protected already and the buildings on the surface are just decoys.
Shut it down for good? LOL, you're dreaming. If that was the case, they would have attacked them already.
Not a few sorties. About 100 manned aircraft, 40 + Jericho III missiles, several heavy (heavily armed) UAV's and special operations forces already operating inside of Iran. This should be sufficient to do serious damage to Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs, and the sanctions will do enough damage to Iran's economy to keep them from rebuilding these programs.
So you put their program back maybe 5 years, if it's not already underground and protected already and the buildings on the surface are just decoys.
Shut it down for good? LOL, you're dreaming. If that was the case, they would have attacked them already.
If the sanctions remain in place, Iran will not be able to afford to rebuild their program. Underground facilities are more difficult but not impossible to destroy. Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility, is underground and in addition protected by 20 feet of reinforced concrete and steel, but the US military estimates it can be destroy by successive hits by bunker buster bombs, each bomb going deeper until the facility is destroyed. Fordow, Iran's newest enrichment facility, is built into the side of a mountain, and would be more difficult to destroy from the air, but by destroying its supporting infrastructure, water, roads electricity, it can be rendered useless.
The combination of an effective strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs and economy wrecking sanctions can prevent Iran from ever rebuilding its programs. If you check you will see that none of the people who claimed Iran would be able to rebuild its programs in a few years took into account the crippling effect the new sanctions are having on Iran's economy.
So you put their program back maybe 5 years, if it's not already underground and protected already and the buildings on the surface are just decoys.
Shut it down for good? LOL, you're dreaming. If that was the case, they would have attacked them already.
If the sanctions remain in place, Iran will not be able to afford to rebuild their program. Underground facilities are more difficult but not impossible to destroy. Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility, is underground and in addition protected by 20 feet of reinforced concrete and steel, but the US military estimates it can be destroy by successive hits by bunker buster bombs, each bomb going deeper until the facility is destroyed. Fordow, Iran's newest enrichment facility, is built into the side of a mountain, and would be more difficult to destroy from the air, but by destroying its supporting infrastructure, water, roads electricity, it can be rendered useless.
The combination of an effective strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs and economy wrecking sanctions can prevent Iran from ever rebuilding its programs. If you check you will see that none of the people who claimed Iran would be able to rebuild its programs in a few years took into account the crippling effect the new sanctions are having on Iran's economy.
You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
So you put their program back maybe 5 years, if it's not already underground and protected already and the buildings on the surface are just decoys.
Shut it down for good? LOL, you're dreaming. If that was the case, they would have attacked them already.
If the sanctions remain in place, Iran will not be able to afford to rebuild their program. Underground facilities are more difficult but not impossible to destroy. Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility, is underground and in addition protected by 20 feet of reinforced concrete and steel, but the US military estimates it can be destroy by successive hits by bunker buster bombs, each bomb going deeper until the facility is destroyed. Fordow, Iran's newest enrichment facility, is built into the side of a mountain, and would be more difficult to destroy from the air, but by destroying its supporting infrastructure, water, roads electricity, it can be rendered useless.
The combination of an effective strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs and economy wrecking sanctions can prevent Iran from ever rebuilding its programs. If you check you will see that none of the people who claimed Iran would be able to rebuild its programs in a few years took into account the crippling effect the new sanctions are having on Iran's economy.
You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
If the sanctions remain in place, Iran will not be able to afford to rebuild their program. Underground facilities are more difficult but not impossible to destroy. Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility, is underground and in addition protected by 20 feet of reinforced concrete and steel, but the US military estimates it can be destroy by successive hits by bunker buster bombs, each bomb going deeper until the facility is destroyed. Fordow, Iran's newest enrichment facility, is built into the side of a mountain, and would be more difficult to destroy from the air, but by destroying its supporting infrastructure, water, roads electricity, it can be rendered useless.
The combination of an effective strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs and economy wrecking sanctions can prevent Iran from ever rebuilding its programs. If you check you will see that none of the people who claimed Iran would be able to rebuild its programs in a few years took into account the crippling effect the new sanctions are having on Iran's economy.
You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
Will the troglodytes in iranistan enlist Mexicans to retaliate as they did with that botched attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador?
muslimes are not the sharpest knives in the drawer
You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
Will the troglodytes in iranistan enlist Mexicans to retaliate as they did with that botched attempted assassination of the saudi ambassador?
muslimes are not the sharpest knives in the drawer
You would be one of the few to believe that story.
So Israel can't attack Iran without US help? Geez, great. And you all argue that the US doesn't protect Israel through war?If the sanctions remain in place, Iran will not be able to afford to rebuild their program. Underground facilities are more difficult but not impossible to destroy. Natanz, Iran's main enrichment facility, is underground and in addition protected by 20 feet of reinforced concrete and steel, but the US military estimates it can be destroy by successive hits by bunker buster bombs, each bomb going deeper until the facility is destroyed. Fordow, Iran's newest enrichment facility, is built into the side of a mountain, and would be more difficult to destroy from the air, but by destroying its supporting infrastructure, water, roads electricity, it can be rendered useless.
The combination of an effective strike against Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs and economy wrecking sanctions can prevent Iran from ever rebuilding its programs. If you check you will see that none of the people who claimed Iran would be able to rebuild its programs in a few years took into account the crippling effect the new sanctions are having on Iran's economy.
You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
The US has developed 30,000 lb. bunker busters especially for this purpose, and Israel has at least 60 5,000 lb. bunker busters. Iraq's Osirak reactor was reinforced to withstand attack and it was thought to be impervious to any weapons Israel had, but successive hits on the same spot eventually broke through and rendered the reactor unusable. There is no reason to think the same thing can't be done with the much better munitions Israel has today. If Israel attacks during the election campaign, with Americans strongly supporting an attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, Obama will have to support the Israeli attack unless he is either hopelessly behind in the polls or too far ahead to worry, and that will certainly mean those multi million dollar bunker busters will be used if the Israelis have left any part of Iran's nuclear weapons or long range missile programs standing.
So Israel can't attack Iran without US help? Geez, great. And you all argue that the US doesn't protect Israel through war?You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
The US has developed 30,000 lb. bunker busters especially for this purpose, and Israel has at least 60 5,000 lb. bunker busters. Iraq's Osirak reactor was reinforced to withstand attack and it was thought to be impervious to any weapons Israel had, but successive hits on the same spot eventually broke through and rendered the reactor unusable. There is no reason to think the same thing can't be done with the much better munitions Israel has today. If Israel attacks during the election campaign, with Americans strongly supporting an attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, Obama will have to support the Israeli attack unless he is either hopelessly behind in the polls or too far ahead to worry, and that will certainly mean those multi million dollar bunker busters will be used if the Israelis have left any part of Iran's nuclear weapons or long range missile programs standing.
Personally, I think that if Israel attacks Iran it'll be like the guy who farts at a party, everyone just slowly walks away.
So Israel can't attack Iran without US help? Geez, great. And you all argue that the US doesn't protect Israel through war?You're a dreamer, and everyone needs a dream. You actually think that the US will bunker bust with successive blasts until they hit paydirt? Hell, they might as well nuke NYC and Tel Aviv while they're at it to save some time waiting for the retaliation.
The US has developed 30,000 lb. bunker busters especially for this purpose, and Israel has at least 60 5,000 lb. bunker busters. Iraq's Osirak reactor was reinforced to withstand attack and it was thought to be impervious to any weapons Israel had, but successive hits on the same spot eventually broke through and rendered the reactor unusable. There is no reason to think the same thing can't be done with the much better munitions Israel has today. If Israel attacks during the election campaign, with Americans strongly supporting an attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, Obama will have to support the Israeli attack unless he is either hopelessly behind in the polls or too far ahead to worry, and that will certainly mean those multi million dollar bunker busters will be used if the Israelis have left any part of Iran's nuclear weapons or long range missile programs standing.
Personally, I think that if Israel attacks Iran it'll be like the guy who farts at a party, everyone just slowly walks away.
So Israel can't attack Iran without US help? Geez, great. And you all argue that the US doesn't protect Israel through war?The US has developed 30,000 lb. bunker busters especially for this purpose, and Israel has at least 60 5,000 lb. bunker busters. Iraq's Osirak reactor was reinforced to withstand attack and it was thought to be impervious to any weapons Israel had, but successive hits on the same spot eventually broke through and rendered the reactor unusable. There is no reason to think the same thing can't be done with the much better munitions Israel has today. If Israel attacks during the election campaign, with Americans strongly supporting an attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, Obama will have to support the Israeli attack unless he is either hopelessly behind in the polls or too far ahead to worry, and that will certainly mean those multi million dollar bunker busters will be used if the Israelis have left any part of Iran's nuclear weapons or long range missile programs standing.
Personally, I think that if Israel attacks Iran it'll be like the guy who farts at a party, everyone just slowly walks away.
Of course, it can. Israel can destroy the main enrichment facility at Natanz, the military research complex at Parchin, where nuclear weapons and missile research is carried out, the small reactors at Tehran, Isfahan and the sites for proposed reactors at Arak, etc. About the only site that would be very difficult to take out from the air would be the new facility at Fordow, but the fact that the IDF has recently begun practicing large scale parachute drops after a lapse of many years suggests to me that Israel may be planning a ground operation in addition to the aerial attack. Of course the Israelis would also seek out Shahab 3 missile launchers to limit Iran's ability to retaliate.
However, no matter how efficient and effective the Israelis might be, because of limitations imposed by the need to refuel and rearm, it might take them two or three or more attacks to achieve what the US could accomplish in a single prolonged attack from its carrier groups in the Gulf. Alternatively, if the US were to allow Israeli planes to refuel and rearm on its carriers, the Israelis would be capable of accomplishing it all in one longer attack since it will be sending the about the same number and type of attack aircraft as the two carrier groups carry.
So Israel can't attack Iran without US help? Geez, great. And you all argue that the US doesn't protect Israel through war?
Personally, I think that if Israel attacks Iran it'll be like the guy who farts at a party, everyone just slowly walks away.
Of course, it can. Israel can destroy the main enrichment facility at Natanz, the military research complex at Parchin, where nuclear weapons and missile research is carried out, the small reactors at Tehran, Isfahan and the sites for proposed reactors at Arak, etc. About the only site that would be very difficult to take out from the air would be the new facility at Fordow, but the fact that the IDF has recently begun practicing large scale parachute drops after a lapse of many years suggests to me that Israel may be planning a ground operation in addition to the aerial attack. Of course the Israelis would also seek out Shahab 3 missile launchers to limit Iran's ability to retaliate.
However, no matter how efficient and effective the Israelis might be, because of limitations imposed by the need to refuel and rearm, it might take them two or three or more attacks to achieve what the US could accomplish in a single prolonged attack from its carrier groups in the Gulf. Alternatively, if the US were to allow Israeli planes to refuel and rearm on its carriers, the Israelis would be capable of accomplishing it all in one longer attack since it will be sending the about the same number and type of attack aircraft as the two carrier groups carry.
Obama's not going to attack Iran like that, he'll just leave the Israelis hanging on their own, as Iran doesn't directly threaten the US anyways, and hell, we can't even take a shithole like Afghanistan, you think that we can beat Iran? Look what happened in Irak and Iran is much, much, bigger, with way more nasty people.
