TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'

Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'

quote:

Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks' Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel. Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme. Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity. The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means. Enrichment activities Mr Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Iran's ability to produce nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed. "If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make nuclear fuel," he said. Uranium enrichment is Iran's right Hassan Rohani Iranian nuclear negotiator "But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk," he added. "They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks." Mr Rohani said that not even the offer of lifting US sanctions or security guarantees from Washington would be enough to make Iran abandon its enrichment programme. "Uranium enrichment is Iran's right," he said. On Sunday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said intelligence estimates indicated Iran was some years away from developing nuclear arms. Iran has agreed to suspend all its enrichment activities during negotiations with Britain, France and Germany. The US is not taking part in negotiations, and wants Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions. The European countries would like to use a package of incentives to induce Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but Tehran has said it is disappointed with what is on offer so far. It says it can only continue talks for a matter of months, not years. Enriched uranium can be used to produce nuclear power, but the technology behind it can also be used to develop weapons-grade nuclear material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4241527.stm

Wait - I thought it was for energy?

North Korea has said similar things about the possibility of US airstrikes against Pyongyang's nuclear sites (China has insinuated California would be nuked if there were any US intervention in a Taiwanese conflict) - but I would imagine this is just sabre rattling to make the US (or Israel) think twice

I'm not sure exactly what Iran could do to retaliate anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not sure exactly what Iran could do to retaliate anyway?

Never underestimate.

check out this link if u like to know more about Iran's military.


http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/041208_IranDevMilCap.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer Never underestimate. check out this link if u like to know more about Iran's military. http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/041208_IranDevMilCap.pdf

Right, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that report is very interesting but when my Acrobat Reader comes up and I look at the bottom and see "127 pages" I seem to lose all interest for some reason! Perhaps you could sum up the interesting bits?! I dont think we need to read about anything like troops, planes or tanks cos they are irrelevent (no chance against America) so that leaves missiles as the only thing we need to take into account. Obviously they dont have missiles that can reach the US (but would be able to strike at US military installations in Iraq and maybe Saudi Arabia?) They have purchased Taepo Dong-2 technology from North Korea (supposedly 9,500km range altho even North Korea has not developed this technology sufficiantly for it to be at an operational stage yet so Iran wont either)

First, i'd like to say that once again, the government of the USA is showing us how sad they are. When they want sanctions against other countries or people, they will visit the UN, but if the UN says something about them, they go "well we don't recognize it it"

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Right, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that report is very interesting but when my Acrobat Reader comes up and I look at the bottom and see "127 pages" I seem to lose all interest for some reason! Perhaps you could sum up the interesting bits?! I dont think we need to read about anything like troops, planes or tanks cos they are irrelevent (no chance against America) so that leaves missiles as the only thing we need to take into account. Obviously they dont have missiles that can reach the US (but would be able to strike at US military installations in Iraq and maybe Saudi Arabia?) They have purchased Taepo Dong-2 technology from North Korea (supposedly 9,500km range altho even North Korea has not developed this technology sufficiantly for it to be at an operational stage yet so Iran wont either)

As for this, i wouldn't know really, but i do think that Iran is far more superior than Iraq so if they go to war, it might be tougher. However, now that America has afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and more countries that surround. the outcome of a war will be clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 First, i'd like to say that once again, the government of the USA is showing us how sad they are. When they want sanctions against other countries or people, they will visit the UN, but if the UN says something about them, they go "well we don't recognize it it" As for this, i wouldn't know really, but i do think that Iran is far more superior than Iraq so if they go to war, it might be tougher. However, now that America has afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and more countries that surround. the outcome of a war will be clear.

Well the outcome of the war would always be clear, Iran could not possibly hope to overcome the US. However, you are correct to point out that Iran is in a more powerful position re their military than Iraq (Iraq had just had to contend with ten years of sanctions remember). But I dont think invasion is on the cards. Not for years (despite American dominance in the world, there is only so far their military can stretch and at the moment they are stretched to the limits). Any military action against Iran will be limited to airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities (if that)

I know this is going to sound weird. But if we wanted even using only conventional wepons to attack Iran. I think we'd seriously fuck ourselfs.

quote:

Combined with modern submarine laid mines and antiship missile systems like the CS-801/802, and SS-N-22, the EM-52 would give Iran considerable capability to harass Gulf shipping and even the potential capability to close the Gulf until US naval and air power could clear the mines and destroy the missile launchers and submarines.

and they have 3 frigging Kilo class subs!!! Used correctly they could cause big problems.

As could T72's with decent sights and 350,000 men (200,000+
conscripts).

Also:

quote:

Iran had seven air defense squadrons, with 2/20-25, -60 US-supplied F-14, 2/25-30 Russian/Iraqi-supplied MiG-29, and 1/25-35 Chinese supplied F-7M.xxxviii The Iranian air force had a small reconnaissance squadron with 3-8 RF-4E. It has 5 C-130H MP maritime reconnaissance aircraft, 1 RC-130 and other intelligence/reconnaissance aircraft, together with large numbers of transports and helicopters.

F14's and Mig29(similar to F16's) are decent aircraft. Guess is the trainning will be shit though. Unless someone like Britian at some point trainned some of their troops(remember seeing some middle eastern guys at some of the trainning bases, though I doubt they got fast jet trainning).

Depending on wether they have the trainning and the balls to fight properly they could cause big losses. Especially with us tied into Afganistan and Iraq in a big way. And the fact that in real terms we'll have a lower teeth-to-tail ratio than them(that is one american MBT need like 8 trucks backing it up, don't think the T72's need so much). But they will be operating at home and so supply for them will be less of an issue.

Just depends on thier balls and the amount of trainning they've had.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.