• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Asks for Bunker Buster

Sorry you lost me there. Of course USA is on USA side. But USA has strategic partners and Israel is one of them, am I wrong? No I am not.

What Thunder and Connery mean is that despite the fact that we have a special relationship/alliance with Israel, when it comes to certain issues, the interests of Israel and the United States do not align perfectly - and in fact those interest can often be at odds or even fractured. Of course, it is impossible to have your interests 100% aligned with those of your allies no matter who we're talking about.
 
I am not disagreeing with you. I am saying that as long as Israel serves good purpose for the US they will remain partners.



And vice versa Connery, it works both ways.
 
And vice versa Connery, it works both ways.

It appears that if the US does not supply the Bunker bombs that would not serve "good purpose" for Israel. Do you think Israel would seek out another or substitute strategic ally?
 
What Thunder and Connery mean is that despite the fact that we have a special relationship/alliance with Israel, when it comes to certain issues, the interests of Israel and the United States do not align perfectly - and in fact those interest can often be at odds or even fractured. Of course, it is impossible to have your interests 100% aligned with those of your allies no matter who we're talking about.


I know exactly what you are talking about StillBallin75... but at some stage you must take sides and say am I with this or am I with that.... am I living in the Middle Ages or am I living in 2012?

It comes a time StillBallin75.... we have to choose sides
 
It appears that if the US does not supply the Bunker bombs that would not serve "good purpose" for Israel. Do you think Israel would seek out another or substitute strategic ally?


I don't know.
 
I know exactly what you are talking about StillBallin75... but at some stage you must take sides and say am I with this or am I with that.... am I living in the Middle Ages or am I living in 2012?

It comes a time StillBallin75.... we have to choose sides

Even in the middle ages a side had to be chosen. The level of destruction and economic considerations are more complex.
 
Even in the middle ages a side had to be chosen. The level of destruction and economic considerations are more complex.


Everyone is aware of that.

So what's new!
 
Everyone is aware of that.
I was responding to this, "am I living in the Middle Ages or am I living in 2012?"

So what's new!

Oh I don't know I found a bunion I did not know I had and Auntie May will be visiting soon. What's new with you?
 
I was responding to this, "am I living in the Middle Ages or am I living in 2012?"



Oh I don't know I found a bunion I did not know I had and Auntie May will be visiting soon. What's new with you?


Cool, no problem ok?
 
Cool, no problem ok?

I wish it were, but, the vehemence with which the Israeli's seek this bunker bomb is quite disturbing. Having the bomb will not solve their problems and only cause more problems for the US.
 
I wish it were, but, the vehemence with which the Israeli's seek this bunker bomb is quite disturbing. Having the bomb will not solve their problems and only cause more problems for the US.

ok bye I've had enough
 
ok bye I've had enough

I do not blame you, the world has had enough of the hate, the killing and the destruction that has occurred in that region. Nothing good can come out of further the goals of any of the players in this scenario.
 
I think what I find the most interesting about this is that the people who say they are pro-Israel and want to attack Iran somehow don't comprehend that Israeli civilians will end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Since Iran cannot attack the US directly, they will attack US military bases in the region, but will also attack Israel as well. This won't be a normal attack, it will most likely be sustained for as long as possible and the opening salvos may be quite hard. Israeli civilians will most likely end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Thus, I must ask the people who want Iran to be attacked: Do you think it is worth it?

Well, lets see, have a few possibly get killed or the whole nation if Iran completes nuclear weapons and a system to deliver it? It is not only worth it, it is pretty much imperative.

You are also apparently unaware of the disparity in systems capability, quality of personnel and some politics in the region.

Iran has very limited longrange/medium range missle capability. Mostly some chinese and ex-soviet systems, so unless Russia or China suddenly start upping Irans iventory, they have a limited supply. Israel also has Patriot missle defence systems, depending on stock piles, Iran may not be able to get a non-balistic missle through. Iran may have a few home built Balistic missles, but not enough to cause much damage without Nuclear/Chemical warheads. Iran does however have chemical capabilites but I am not sure how much delivery capability they could muster up.

Iran has some fighters that might, maybe make it all the way to Israel, that is assuming that they can cross either Turkey (A NATO country), Iraq and Syria (a Sunni Muslim country that has provided materials, arms and financial support for insurgents in Iraq fighting the Irannian backed Shi'ite muslims or Saudi Arrabi (which is strongly opposed to Iran going Nuke and has fought for decades to curb Iranian influence in the region, Saudi may not support Israel (they also hate them) but they also would not support Iran either). If NATO stays neutral, very likely, then Turkey/NATO would shoot down either sides aircraft that enter their air-space. Turkey may be Muslim, but they value their ties to NATO too much to risk supporting Iran. Syria maybe a possible route, considering the really screwed up situation there, but to get to Syria, they would have to cross Iraq. Israel might make it on this route if the US turns a "blind eye" or outright supports them, Iran stands no chance of crossing Iraq as the US forces there would consider them potentially or even outright hostile, and Iranian aircraft against a US built and manned Air-Defence system would just be meat to the grinder. Saudi Arabia, as I said earlier has opposed Iran for a longtime now, this partly goes back to the old Sunni-Shi'ite thing. Saudi is also most likely going to stay neutral in this whole thing. They won't let either side cross, which they dislike more Israel or Iran, take a guess, because I sure as heck don't know. Saudi's Air Defences are mostley US and French made, I wouldn't exactly put thier personnel in the same league as the US or Israel, but they should be able to handle Iran's Air Force. That leaves going the long way around the Arabian peninsula, which is going to pretty much be determined by either a stop off to refuel or air-to-air refueling. Israel definitely should have this capability, very doubtful on the Iranian side.

Iran has either old US Aircraft that they have had since the 1970s or earlier without any kind of parts or supplies for them since then. Iran was the only country to receive the F-14, but since the US Navy no longer uses them because of maintenance, it is doubtful if Iran could get any of theirs to fly and even if they did, their armaments are 40 years old. They have some Soviet Era planes and possibly some French or Chinese ones, but as demonstrated twice in Iraq, putting them up against US made fighters with well trained pilots (which I assure you, the Israelis are) is a no win situation for these Aircraft. Ok, no chinese made aircraft were in Iraq, but most of their stuff is chinese made copies of Soviet sytems.

Without a nuclear warhead and delivery system, Iran is not a military threat to Israel, even if the US did not intervene. In a convential strike against Israel, the Iranians would kill less civilians than Hamas does with it's rocket attacks.
 
Last edited:
I have to disagree, the most likely way to ensure Iran does not get "the bomb" is to blow the bastards so far back that they will think the stone-age is modern technology.

They are barely above that level now. As someone recently said, Iran is not part of the Axis of Evil, they are part of the Axis of Medieval! :duel

Iran presents a military threat to the US similar to that of Iraq, which is to say none.
 
Last edited:
I think what I find the most interesting about this is that the people who say they are pro-Israel and want to attack Iran somehow don't comprehend that Israeli civilians will end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Since Iran cannot attack the US directly, they will attack US military bases in the region, but will also attack Israel as well. This won't be a normal attack, it will most likely be sustained for as long as possible and the opening salvos may be quite hard. Israeli civilians will most likely end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Thus, I must ask the people who want Iran to be attacked: Do you think it is worth it?

Most of the people polled in Israel say they are opposed to an attack on iran without US backing.
 
Back to the topic of Bunker Busters.... Israel might or might not need to buy them from USA after all...they have developed their own , they are the MPR-500 missiles, hope they are enough to do the job.




I am not watching a video called "penetration capabilities! :shock:
 
Of course not. Only when we have shared interests like preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.

yes, we both would prefer to not have a nuclear-armed Iran.

that doesn't mean that if we refuse to support Israel's idea of how to prevent it, that we no longer support Israel.
 
yes, we both would prefer to not have a nuclear-armed Iran.
But why? Iran hasn't started any wars. They have not attacked anyone. Iran is a peaceful country and their people pro-Western society - sure their government saber rattle but that's because they are a small scared little country surrounded by the U.S. in Afghanistan and until recently Iraq. Israel has been nothing but antagonistic towards Iran, for nothing other than paranoia about being attacked. Israel and you should be supportive of Iran's use of peaceful nuclear power and they've said over and over again they are NOT creating weapons, and there is no evidence of them creating weapons, nor is there evidence that they have a method to deliver weapons even if they had them.
Why then do you prefer Iran not to have peaceful nuclear power? Do you not others in the ME to prosper? Having Iran on an equal economic footing as other nations in the world may help in setting negotiations and peace talks where each can set aside political differences and move towards a peaceful future. Surely you can see that and want that don't you?

that doesn't mean that if we refuse to support Israel's idea of how to prevent it, that we no longer support Israel.
Of course not.
 
But why? Iran hasn't started any wars. They have not attacked anyone. Iran is a peaceful country and their people pro-Western society - sure their government saber rattle but that's because they are a small scared little country surrounded by the U.S. in Afghanistan and until recently Iraq. Israel has been nothing but antagonistic towards Iran, for nothing other than paranoia about being attacked. Israel and you should be supportive of Iran's use of peaceful nuclear power and they've said over and over again they are NOT creating weapons, and there is no evidence of them creating weapons, nor is there evidence that they have a method to deliver weapons even if they had them.

While US intelligence sources indicate that Iran is not building a bomb, the IAEA has uncovered evidence that Iran is thinking about it. Iran has been testing nuclear detonators at Parchin (until they recently moved them out), and had in their possession plans for a nuclear warhead from A.Q. Kahn (probably the world's most infamous nuclear proliferator).

A civilian nuclear program in Iran is perfectly cool. And no one is complaining about that. A military nuclear program is not acceptable, especially given Iran's penchant for worldwide terrorist support. Iran's belief that Israel is "a cancerous tumor that must be cut, and will be cut," makes Iran's intentions with regard to nuclear arms very ominous and worthy of alarm.

Even so, now is not the time for an attack. Obama has rightly held back, and insisted on the same from Israel. I doubt that he will supply bunker-busters to Israel at this time, but that may change. Obama is right to let Iran be the center of attention and have its 15-minutes of fame, but after that Iran needs to sit down for serious and sincere negotiations. If they continue to use talks as a stalling tactic, as they have in the past, Israel may get those bunker-busters after all.
 
I think what I find the most interesting about this is that the people who say they are pro-Israel and want to attack Iran somehow don't comprehend that Israeli civilians will end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Since Iran cannot attack the US directly, they will attack US military bases in the region, but will also attack Israel as well. This won't be a normal attack, it will most likely be sustained for as long as possible and the opening salvos may be quite hard. Israeli civilians will most likely end up being killed if Iran is attacked. Thus, I must ask the people who want Iran to be attacked: Do you think it is worth it?

Far more civilians would be killed if a nuclear weapon is detonated in Tel Aviv. I say we take the lesser of the two evils and make sure the greater of the two is never achieved. You don't even realize that Israel attacking Iran's nuclear capability, is actually saving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranian lives. Because if a nuclear weapon is detonated in Israel, the nuclear retaliation would practically wipe Iran off the map. So to protect Israeli and Iranian civilians, I say let the bombing commence!

And eagle, we've played this game already. They've stalled for years, they have no interest in negotiating and the IAEA says they are pursueing a nuclear device in at least some capacity. I say the time to act is now. God speed Israel, you have my support.
 
Last edited:
Far more civilians would be killed if a nuclear weapon is detonated in Tel Aviv. I say we take the lesser of the two evils and make sure the greater of the two is never achieved. You don't even realize that Israel attacking Iran's nuclear capability, is actually saving hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranian lives. Because if a nuclear weapon is detonated in Israel, the nuclear retaliation would practically wipe Iran off the map. So to protect Israeli and Iranian civilians, I say let the bombing commence!

And eagle, we've played this game already. They've stalled for years, they have no interest in negotiating and the IAEA says they are pursueing a nuclear device in at least some capacity. I say the time to act is now. God speed Israel, you have my support.

Well if you're going to use that excuse far more people will die of a WW3 than if we just nuke the entire middle east. Should we take your logic seriously as well?
 
Back
Top Bottom