British Military Planning for Iranian Strike? [Archive]

SAMXXV

4th Nov 2011, 11:14

I find all this posturing by US/Israel/UK very odd. The fact is that Iran's centrifuge manufacturing "factory" is several hundred metres under a mountain (funny old thing). It is nigh on impossible to destroy - though the entrance could be blocked forever....

The only way of destroying it is by dropping a several hundred Megaton nuclear bomb - the ramifications (& severe loss of innocent life) would be huge. However, Israel is willing (& capable) of throwing a few small Kiloton nukes into Iranian facilities. That is the likely scenario in a few months time IMHO. Israel is being threatened & can only be reigned in by the US for so long.

Scenario - Israel launches a multiple nuclear rocket attack, followed up (definately) by fighter attacks (flown without permission over other nation's sovereign airspace). USA immediately says it supports Israel. UK follows suit. UK can only contribute 1, possibly 2 nuclear submarines with about 48 Tomahawks to hit air defences/airfields. France, with it's awesome naval/air force/nuclear capability decides (as they would) to stay well out of this conflict.

The US ends up sending waves of B1/B2 bombers direct from the USA/RAF Fairford & pouring in ground troops, abandoning Afghanistan/Iraq et al. In the mean time (48 hours?) Iran has launched multiple "Jericho" missile attacks (They are not known to have accurate guidance systems!!) on all neighbouring country's. Plus umpteen suicide bombers.

Rather than spend the $BILLIONS in this scenario, why can' Israel & the USA recruit a few of the Muslim/Islamic suicide bombers who blow themselves up DAILY in the Middle East to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear facilities for the provision of several $MILLION for their families? Pure economics. There are thousands of mad relgious ragheads who can be turned by enormous amounts of cash.... Simples:rolleyes:.

Tourist

4th Nov 2011, 12:16

SAM

How old are you?
Seriously?

"However, Israel is willing (& capable) of throwing a few small Kiloton nukes into Iranian facilities. That is the likely scenario in a few months time IMHO"

So you honestly believe that the "likely scenario" is nuclear war in a few months time.

Oookaaayy.........

Can I also assume that you have built a bunker and wear a tin hat "to stop them reading your brainwaves"

Did they probe you one night?

"There are thousands of mad relgious ragheads who can be turned by enormous amounts of cash.... Simples"

"enormous amounts of cash" is probably one of the things least likely to turn a "mad relgious raghead"

Edited to just say:

On a previous thread I was rebuked by the mods for calling Sam a retard. I just want to state for the record that I am not calling Sam a retard. Others might say that. You might very well say that, but I couldnt possibly say that.

Is that clear?:p

Flyingblind

4th Nov 2011, 12:29

The UK thinking of joining an attack on Iran?

Iran is not Iraq, its a vastly larger Country with a vastly different populace. The Israelis and others know this and why dinner jacket etc are still there. Time will tell.
Dinner jacket has on countless times that any Country that strikes Iran would receive massive retaliation in response - he further warned that Iran has the ability to retaliate against any hostile aggression.

Lets just put this in financial perspective for a moment:The failings of the financial system in the US/EU/UK has severely strained the UK purse,

As a result, the UK Government is reducing expenditure at all levels - save for MP's Moat cleaning Expenses etc,

You are downsizing your military asset base at an alarming rate,
The UK's ability to control/influence offshore economic/political matters is degraded as a consequence,
The UK Government is yet to understand - or effectively articulate to the general public (who, incidentally pay the MP's bills) the strategic ramifications and long term strategic implications to the UK MOD's cost cutting.
The perception of this weakness to foreign hostile Governments and their possible advantageous short term actions (Argentina's renewed claim to the Falkland Island's and the recently found off shore resources as an example) based on their sensing the UK's current military weakness in developing a timely response, may be a good example.
With the reduction in UK's Military capacity and demonstrated economic weakness, is it possible that the UK's MP's etc have totally lost the plot when it comes to recognising that the (New) UK's place in the world has reduced and the UK's ability to host/participate in yet more costly overseas campaigns is demonstrably at odds with servicing the domestic EU/ debit?

airpolice

4th Nov 2011, 12:31

Tourist:

But if you did say it, which you did not, I would agree with you, but of course I am not saying it either, since you didn't say it again, and, I suspect, you are still not saying it again, even now.

Although you are not saying it, I suspect that if you were saying it, you would be as confident and correct as you were the first, and only, time you said it.

So there we are, We've both not said it about him. So that should clear it up for the mods. Anyone else want to not say it?

glad rag

4th Nov 2011, 13:55

In reply to the OP.

No.

SAMXXV

4th Nov 2011, 14:00

Tourist spouted forth:
""SAM

How old are you?
Seriously?

"However, Israel is willing (& capable) of throwing a few small Kiloton nukes into Iranian facilities. That is the likely scenario in a few months time IMHO"

So you honestly believe that the "likely scenario" is nuclear war in a few months time.

Oookaaayy.........

Can I also assume that you have built a bunker and wear a tin hat "to stop them reading your brainwaves"

Did they probe you one night?

"There are thousands of mad relgious ragheads who can be turned by enormous amounts of cash.... Simples"

"enormous amounts of cash" is probably one of the things least likely to turn a "mad relgious raghead"

Edited to just say:

On a previous thread I was rebuked by the mods for calling Sam a retard. I just want to state for the record that I am not calling Sam a retard. Others might say that. You might very well say that, but I couldnt possibly say that.

Is that clear?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif "

1. I'm 12.
2. Yes, I'm a "retard".
3. Yes - Israel WILL chuck a few tactical nukes into Iran within the next 12 months. I certainly would, given their absolutely enormous military might (compared to the 3rd world UK) & the threats Iran has made to Israel over the last 8 years.
4. The US would never publicly back an attack by Israel on Iran, but would would certainly help with ELINT from Cyprus (U2/TR1) & supplying high yield warheads (watch this space over the next year or so...).
5. The US would wish to draw in as many European/Middle East Nations as humanly possible. That would equate to only the UK & possibly Quatar. No other Mid-East nation within missile range of Iran would be daft enough to support a war that could turn nuclear. India (but not Pakistan) might help out.
6. Sadly, It is inevitable that Iran's nuclear facilities MUST be destroyed soon. However, the same should also be said of Pakistan, the REAL hotbed of world terrorism, who for some obscure reason, the Worlds Press ignore.

7. Watch this space for a strike by Israel on Iran within the next 6 months - or less....:rolleyes:

Finningley Boy

4th Nov 2011, 14:01

SAMXXV,

I've got it by Jericho! You're not a former R.A.F. Officer at all! Instead, you are the editor of the Sun!:ok:

FB:)

sidewayspeak

4th Nov 2011, 14:05

Madtv - Apple I-rack - YouTube

SAMXXV

4th Nov 2011, 14:09

Finningley Boy said:

"
SAMXXV,

I've got it by Jericho! You're not a former R.A.F. Officer at all! Instead, you are the editor of the Sun!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

FBhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif "

Got it in one:ok:

airpolice

4th Nov 2011, 14:09

SAMXXV Wrote:

1. I'm 12.
2. Yes, I'm a "retard".
3. Yes - Israel WILL chuck a few tactical nukes into Iran within the next 12 months. I certainly would, given their absolutely enormous military might (compared to the 3rd world UK) & the threats Iran has made to Israel over the last 8 years.
4. The US would never publicly back an attack by Israel on Iran, but would would certainly help with ELINT from Cyprus (U2/TR1) & supplying high yield warheads (watch this space over the next year or so...).
5. The US would wish to draw in as many European/Middle East Nations as humanly possible. That would equate to only the UK & possibly Quatar. No other Mid-East nation within missile range of Iran would be daft enough to support a war that could turn nuclear. India (but not Pakistan) might help out.
6. Sadly, It is inevitable that Iran's nuclear facilities MUST be destroyed soon. However, the same should also be said of Pakistan, the REAL hotbed of world terrorism, who for some obscure reason, the Worlds Press ignore.

7. Watch this space for a strike by Israel on Iran within the next 6 months - or less....:rolleyes:

I've made a note in my diary to check on Iran at the start of May, just in case it gets blown off the map by the IDF, but that fails to make the evening news.

airpolice

4th Nov 2011, 14:10

FB, you are at least half right in your assesment of Sam, and I know who the editor of the Sun is.

Finningley Boy

4th Nov 2011, 14:15

But airpolice,

He's just admitted his guilt!?:confused:

FB:)

hval

4th Nov 2011, 14:20

@Sidewayspeak,

Apposite and funny. Thank you.

airpolice

4th Nov 2011, 14:21

FB, Ignore SAMXXV, He's a retard.

I'm not offering that as my opinion, I'm not even repeating Tourist's opinion on the subject, I'm repeating what SAMXXV claims.

That being the case, I don't expect to read any nonesense from Mods about me calling SAM a retard, I'm not.

I'm just pointing out that he is, or at least claims to be.

Sam also claims to be a former RAF Officer and to be 12, I think it's all testicles.

Unchecked

4th Nov 2011, 14:44

Whatever any nation that has the hump with Iran would do well to consider is the impact any hastily-planned operations upon it will have on the ongoing Afghan operation - with many hundred thousand Western troops based within spitting distance of not just nukes, but most of their conventional armoury too.

pr00ne

4th Nov 2011, 14:46

SAMXXV,

....is not only misguided, inaccurate and rather offensive, but to casually call Iranians 'ragheads' shows a huge lack of understanding of the middle east in general and Iran in particular. He is also weird in comparing and contrasting the military strength of the UK to Israel and coming to the bizarre conclusion that the UK by comparison is a third world power.

Heh SAMXXV, I suppose you would be happy to call any Sikh winner of the Victoria Cross, of which there are a goodly number a Raghead would you? Would you do that face to face with their relatives?

Weirdo..

Finningley Boy

4th Nov 2011, 14:48

FB, Ignore SAMXXV, He's a retard.

:ooh:Ok, right what was I doing..mutter, ah yes, think I'll make some toast...

FB

cazatou

4th Nov 2011, 15:38

I think that the Russians and their neighbours would have very strong opinions if anybody started firing off nuclear weapons at Tehran. A brief look at the proximity of Tehran to the Iranian/Former Soviet border would show why.

Roadster280

4th Nov 2011, 15:58

Even if the Iranians gain nuclear weapons, the threat to the US of anything other than a smuggled suitcase nuke is minimal. However, the threat to Israel is much greater, and such a tiny country could not withstand more than a couple of nuclear strikes. The Israeli desire to remove or at least diminish the threat is the bigger security concern IMHO.

Army Dinner Jacket certainly knows that if he nukes the US just once, (and possibly even Israel), he, and his country will be cease to exist within the hour. Let him get the bomb, it will do him no good.

Waddo Plumber

4th Nov 2011, 16:07

Sam, "Iran has launched multiple "Jericho" missile attacks (They are not known to have accurate guidance systems!!) on all neighbouring country's."

How does Iran get to launch Israeli missiles?

SAMXXV

4th Nov 2011, 16:15

Pr00ne said "
SAMXXV,

....is not only misguided, inaccurate and rather offensive, but to casually call Iranians 'ragheads' shows a huge lack of understanding of the middle east in general and Iran in particular. He is also weird in comparing and contrasting the military strength of the UK to Israel and coming to the bizarre conclusion that the UK by comparison is a third world power.

Heh SAMXXV, I suppose you would be happy to call any Sikh winner of the Victoria Cross, of which there are a goodly number a Raghead would you? Would you do that face to face with their relatives?

Weirdo.. "

Hilarious sir. I don't "casually" call Iranians "Ragheads" - because that is what they are - an illiterate bunch of animals (in general - I have known just a few intelligent men).

What in hell causes you to mention the Sikh's & VC's? Irrelevant!

Yes, the UK is an irrelevant military power TODAY - & probably for the future. France is a nuclear nation with several A/C Carriers, a mighty Air Force. They have the French Foreign Legion (feared worldwide - much more than the SAS/SBS).

The UK has bugger all today. Most of our weapons (airborne & submarine launched) are at the beck & call of Uncle Sam - who is almost bankrupt. We have absolutely no airborne nukes (WE177) since the good 'ole USA forced us into paying over £1,000,000 each for every one of RAF Marham's HAS's to have an underground nuclear storage facility in 1996 - that was scrapped 2 years later. I know because I was the crypto custodian then....

We have reasonably competent aircrew. The Navy are frightened to arrest/execute Somali pirates & are happy to have "fast boat crew" taken prisoner by the Iranian "Navy". Dare I mention our army (Of whom I am immensly proud).

In essence, I doubt if anybody awarded the VC would claim to be "brave" - they just happened to be covering their own arse at a time convenient to their immediate commander & politician's back home.

This will cause imflammantary remarks - but so be it - the truth.

Nobody that I have known ever wanted a "gallantry" award. Most tried to avoid it. Most awards were purely political, with no thought for the individual.

Ciow....

hval

4th Nov 2011, 16:24

Have been looking at remote psychological assessments of Ahmadinejad. they are quite interesting.

He is, apparently, a fanatical paranoid.

Characteristically, these personalities harbor intricate fantasies, make extravagant claims, fabricate stories to enhance their self-worth, and endow themselves with illusory powers. In their own minds, they are inspired leaders, talented geniuses, holy saints, or demigods, perceiving themselves as righteous saviors standing up to the evils of the universe. Behaviorally, these personalities present as smug, arrogant and expansive, with an air of contempt toward others. In the face if adversity, delusions of grandeur constitute their chief coping mechanism.

The major political implication of the study is the inference that Ahmadinejad is relatively impervious to influence by diplomatic or economic means and not conflict averse, which heightens the risk that he would be psychologically inclined to use military force with minimal provocation to counter perceived threats to regime survival.

The analysis has been carried out remotely so can not be relied upon. Many analyses say the same as above. The above comes from Here (http://www.immelman.us/news/profile-of-mahmoud-ahmadinejad/).

I have a question or two for you. Do you think Ahmadinejad has been good for Iran? Why?

A final question. How much influence does Ahmadinejad have over the Revolutionary Guard?

cazatou

4th Nov 2011, 16:25

SAMXXV

I would point out that only 3 Persons have been awarded a Bar to the Victoria Cross - 2 of those Persons were Medical Officers and both were awarded the Bar Posthumously.

PS How many times have you been to Iran?

Unchecked

4th Nov 2011, 16:32

Could it be related to Really Annoyed ? His Dad, perhaps ?

SAMXXV

4th Nov 2011, 16:43

Cazatou said:

"I would point out that only 3 Persons have been awarded a Bar to the Victoria Cross - 2 of those Persons were Medical Officers and both were awarded the Bar Posthumously. "

WTF? what relevance has that comment to the posts?

I leave this forum now. Let's see what happens between now & May 2012. Armageddon by Israel I forsee.....:eek:

cazatou

4th Nov 2011, 16:46

Unchecked

RA would have had him put down!!:ok:

PS Sam obviously does not read his own posts!!

Type1106

4th Nov 2011, 16:49

Now he's gone................is he for real?

Sorry - WAS he for real?

Unchecked

4th Nov 2011, 16:52

And RA was occasionally funny !

TEEEJ

4th Nov 2011, 17:43

Analysis of the Iranian nuclear programme by the Institute for Science and International Security

Institute for Science and International Security › ISIS Reports with Imagery › Iran (http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/imagery/category/iran/)

From

Institute for Science and International Security (http://www.isis-online.org/)

Institute for Science and International Security › Countries › Iran (http://isis-online.org/countries/category/iran/)

http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/New_Satellite_Imagery_of_Iranian_Nuclear_Sites_on_Google_Ear th_11October2011.pdf

Latest report from ISIS

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/Carlson_Iran_deal_4November2011.pdf

glad rag

4th Nov 2011, 17:54

So, the plan is for Iran to develop the bomb then either

1. Lob a few at Israel via irbm etc

Or

2. Give a couple to Hamas and hope that once in possession they follow the game plan.

Right. :hmm::hmm::hmm:

As has been debated before, it is the LOSS of singular nuclear capability in the region that Israel fears, NOTHING MORE.

:ugh:

500N

4th Nov 2011, 18:58

I am glad I didn't hit "enter" after typing up a response to SAM.
SAM, you are a WOFTAM.

unchecked
"any hastily-planned operations" ???????

The US has plans written for a number of scenarios related to Iran.

Remember Gulf 1, weren't Central Command exercising (war gaming) one of them at the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait ?

The opposition inside Iran is obviously similar to other nations but seems to have been "crushed". If this could be re started and the change come from within, it would be good, however I think the Council may not allow it and crush them again.

.

The Old Fat One

4th Nov 2011, 19:01

I find it somewhat incomprehensible that anybody on this forum who has stood up to the troll (SAMXXV) would be admonished by the mods. Trolling is banned on all three internet forums I frequent..at least I thought it was. Racism however, is banned in the UK by law. If it is going to tolerated in any fashion on Pprune I guess it's time to move on.

Getting back to topic, while his argument is framed with all the knowledge and logic of the 12 year old he claims to be, I regret one cannot be equally dismissive of his conclusions. There are a great many Nuclear Proliferation Analysts who believe the world is moving inexorably towards a 1962 type scenario...only with slighty less rational types with their fingers on the trigger.

Nuclear exchange in the next six months...unlikely.
Nuclear exchange in the next ten years...distinct probability.

500N

4th Nov 2011, 19:22

Deleted by OP (SAM is not worth responding to a second time).

jindabyne

4th Nov 2011, 19:24

Agree Old Fat One

I do not consider SAMXXV to be either a retard or a troll. But he clearly has a significant mental problem. Not only because of the content of his posts, but more significantly that he considers it acceptable to submit them in the first place. He has clearly succumbed to whatever illness with which he is afflicted either since leaving the RAF, or it was a reason for having to leave. His highly offensive personal remarks on a recent thread caused him to be banned from that thread: I hope that the Moderators will see fit to ban him from here permanently.

Unchecked

4th Nov 2011, 19:34

500N

I'm sure they do have a plan - i just hope that that the progress made in Afg is not compromised by the fact it is very close to the action. Likewise that in Iraq.

parabellum

5th Nov 2011, 06:51

the French Foreign Legion (feared worldwide - much more than the SAS/SBS).

Just in case you decide to come back SAM, where on earth do you get these half cocked ideas from?
The Legion is a highly respected fighting force, comparable with British RM Commandos, USRangers, Australian Commandos etc. The only part of the legion that could, perhaps, in part be compared to the SAS/SBS is their Pathfinder unit. You cannot compare apples with oranges.

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 00:07

If you ignore the comments about ragheads the Foreign Legion, and VCs, the the rest of what SAMXXV is probably reasonably accurate
Within its own regional context, the Israeli armed forces DO make ours look limited. OK, their forces are aimed against their immediate neighbours while ours pretend to global aspirations, but look at the facts
Something like 350-400 front line F-15 and F-16 aircraft.
Something like 1600 main battle tanks with a similar number of older models in reserve...
An entire population trained to use weapons
Indiginous nuclear design and build capability
How do we compare??

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 00:16

and for those thinking an Israeli strike on Iran is unlikely, the Jewish press seems (at least in some quarters) to be gearing up its readership for something dramatic

Israel Air Force conducts drills for long-range attacks - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-air-force-conducts-drills-for-long-range-attacks-1.393325)

U.S. military official: We are concerned Israel will not warn us before Iran attack - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-military-official-we-are-concerned-israel-will-not-warn-us-before-iran-attack-1.393834)

Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies' history - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-joint-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878)

Looks like pre-emptive psych-warfare postings to me

mrmrsmith2

6th Nov 2011, 00:42

sorry but "SAMXXV" sounds sin to me, and you lot that shoot him down will be the first too be in any bunkers if no already in them, yes he said " raghead " oh so what he;s un PC, and so what.. You lot are the biggest laugh going......

Finningley Boy

6th Nov 2011, 02:42

Ok mrmrsmith, I'll bite.

Its not so much that SAMXXV is inarticulate and derogatory as that he is misinformed and perhaps needs to do a little bit of growing up. Like many people on here, I don't know who he is, nor, I'd imagine does anyone else. His claims to have served in the R.A.F. may well be true, but certainly if he held a commission, it strikes all the more that he may be misleading us somewhat, based on his manner and style of posting.

A lot of what he says comes across as an ignorant drunk at the Bar rant. Rather than attempts to bring carefully observed points to the attention of others.:}

FB:)

A2QFI

6th Nov 2011, 05:22

Some the laughter you hear is probably directed at your lamentable spelling and punctuation. "Sam is sin" - yes, probably!

The Old Fat One

6th Nov 2011, 09:22

yes he said " raghead " oh so what he;s un PC, and so what

It is not "un PC [sic]; it's racist. If you support comments like that, then you too are racist.

jindabyne

6th Nov 2011, 09:44

Oh no, another that is let out occasionally by the white coats. Over time, the RAF certainly had its share of weirdos, so I suppose they're bound to appear here from time to time.

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 10:03

Yet again you're collectively missing the key point of what was said. It matters not a whit to the strength of SAMXXV's argument whether "raghead" is offensive or not.
What DOES matter is the correctness and comparison of the UK forces with those of the Israeli's, and his assessment of just how capable - or otherwise - the UK forces are. From where I'm sitting he looks right on the money.

For what its worth I'm sure most of you have been around the military long enough to be aware that many of our servicemen DO think in terms of ragheads, towelheads, camel jockeys and such like, and no pious whining is going to change that.. You don't need to read more than a couple of military autobiographies to realise that....

Tourist

6th Nov 2011, 10:56

No james, the key point of what he said is that there will be nuclear war in the next few months involving large amounts of US troops on the ground in Iran.

Willy-waving about relative military size/capability is merely a very small aside in SAM's lunacy.

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 11:11

well, given the way the Jewish / Israeli press appear to be heating the debate over a pre-emptive Israeli strike it wouldn't surprise me if someone starts chucking nukes around in the next twelve months. The press and government leaks appear to be preparing the Israeli public for such a strike, and could be seen as psychological warfare "warnings" to Iran. However I can't see much chance of large numbers of USA troops involved:: there won't be time to lift them in. Things will develop too quickly

Trim Stab

6th Nov 2011, 12:32

I am not at all convinced that Iran has deployable nuclear weapons. It may well be the case that they are close to being able to construct a first generation nuclear weapon, but it not necessarily the case that it is sufficiently small and light to be deployable. The necessary technology to miniaturise a nuclear warhead is very difficult to develop. I hope that before we make a pre-emptive strike, there is some informed debate about the realistic danger of Iranian weapons and that we don't glibly launch an attack based on another "dodgy dossier" of ill-informed and incomplete and paranoid intelligence data, stirred up to a frenzy by ignorant tabloid press.

In a wider context, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty needs to be renegotiated. It is absurd that Israel - a non-signatory - is allowed to keep nuclear weapons simply because it did not sign the treaty, whereas Iran is threatened with pre-emptive strikes for being in breach of the treaty. Moreover, the "haves" have not lived up to their side of the treaty - namely to disarm - whereas the "have nots" such as Iran are threatened with attacks because they may not have stuck to their side of the treaty.

Finally, there will never be any peace in the Middle East until the Israel-Palestine situation is resolved, and that means putting substantial pressure on Israel. Trying to blame Iran for regional instability is a red-herring.

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 13:07

Then its best to stop them before they DO get it. As the saying goes, get your retaliation in first. Better to prevent them developing nuclear warfare capability, than try to deny it to them afterwards
As to your implied suggestion that we should be looking at disarming while hostile parts of the world are building up their nuclear capabilities, that is just plain stupid. We have an advantage, and we should strive to keep it. We've partially disarmed already by withdrawing the WE177 family of weapons. That in itself was a mistake and sent the wrong signals
Suggesting that the west "have not lived up to their side of the treaty" is just left-wing sophistry
And as for "Trying to blame Iran for regional instability is a red-herring.", thats just total bunkum. Israel may some pretty repugnant racial practices, but they are NOT the primary target of Irans's export of Islamic terror. The whole west is their religious, moral, philosophical and military enemy. And they are dedicated to the Islamisation of the west

wub

6th Nov 2011, 14:24

I thought SAMXXV was an oddball until I googled the words of Psalm 25 and found "Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted " and "Deliver Israel, O God, from all their troubles!"

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 16:18

I'm sure SAMXXV really refers to 1 Samuel 25, rather than the psalms.
Interesting reading: it comes across as the Jews (as personified by David) indulging in a bit of a protection racket
See 1 samuel 25 NIVUK - David Nabal and Abigail Now Samuel died - Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20samuel%2025&version=NIVUK)

Trim Stab

6th Nov 2011, 16:58

Then its best to stop them before they DO get it.

Yes, but if we bomb too early, without accurate intelligence and fully debated justification, then we risk unifying the Iranian people behind Ahmadininjad for little real gain. Getting the timing right is crucial.

As the saying goes, get your retaliation in first.

And look where that got us in Iraq...

As to your implied suggestion that we should be looking at disarming while hostile parts of the world are building up their nuclear capabilities, that is just plain stupid.

I didn't propose that at all - just pointing out that the NNPT is dead, just another example of western hypocrisy and double standards in the eyes of the rest of the world. If I was an Iranian, I would certainly want nukes, given Israel's history of aggression towards its neighbours.

but they are NOT the primary target of Irans's export of Islamic terror. The whole west is their religious, moral, philosophical and military enemy. And they are dedicated to the Islamisation of the west

Where's your evidence for that? Ever been to Iran? Ever even met an Iranian? That is a gross generalisation and extrapolation from some very flimsy observations.

jamesdevice

6th Nov 2011, 17:34

"Yes, but if we bomb too early, without accurate intelligence and fully debated justification, then we risk unifying the Iranian people behind Ahmadininjad for little real gain"
I'm sure the intelligence is there, otherwise the leaks suggesting the attacks would not have ben placed in the press. As for "fully debated" - that equals "give them time to get prepared"...

"And look where that got us in Iraq..."
Because the campaign was under-resourced, uncertain in its aims and misled. You invade a country, its people are enemies unless proved otherwise - and should be treated as such

"Ever been to Iran?"
No
" Ever even met an Iranian? "
Yes, quite a lot actually. Many of them refugees from the mad ayatollahs hit men.
"That is a gross generalisation and extrapolation from some very flimsy observations. "
Generalistion, yes. Gross, no. Flimsy no. Its based on many hours of conversations with muslims of many shades of belief, both Iranian and other. And while they may disagree on the religious doctrine of the need to Islamise the western world, they DO agree that that is the belief of the Iranian ruling elite

Alexander.Yakovlev

6th Nov 2011, 20:34

James,

Having travelled Iran extensively after the RN lads got nabbed, shame on you chap. You really have a shallow and uninformed view of the country.

Yours aye.

500N

6th Nov 2011, 20:50

"And they are dedicated to the Islamisation of the west"

We see this comment all the time but it came home to me the other day watching a program on the Elections in Tunisia, the first of the Arab spring countries.

Yes, some in these countires want Sharia law as the basis for all and Islam to be the only basis for how people live BUT it was clearly evident, now that people can speak out in public that a lot of people view the above as going back to the same type of life under the old regime. And it wasn't just women who were saying these things.

So I think in all these countries, you will see a lot of internal strife if and when any democratic elections are held.

My father did many trips to Iran before the Revolution and has always said Iran and it's people are great. I think the majority would prefer much more freedom. It's the hierarchy that is the problem. Just look at the protests a few years ago.

Just my HO.

dead_pan

6th Nov 2011, 21:03

The country just needs the right kind of nudge to send it the way of Libya, Tunisia etc. A military strike by Israel et al would risk uniting the country behind its leadership.

Perhaps Saudi could be persuaded to intervene? I mean, they've got all of that nice new & shiny hardware.

racedo

6th Nov 2011, 21:45

Perhaps Saudi could be persuaded to intervene? I mean, they've got all of that nice new & shiny hardware.

You mean like the assistance they have offered to Afghanistan over the years..........

Hajj is on at the moment so things quiet this week.

Trim Stab

7th Nov 2011, 05:19

I'm sure the intelligence is there, otherwise the leaks suggesting the attacks would not have ben placed in the press. As for "fully debated" - that equals "give them time to get prepared"...

If the "intelligence" is "there", then how comes some people are advocating bombing Iran's centrifuges?

Uranium hexflouride centrifuges are not the crucial technology required to creat a deployable nuclear weapon - the real key technology is the advanced mathematics and electronics needed to design and build the thyristors needed to generate critical mass from a small enough amount of Uranium 235. I've not seen any credible claim that Iran has acquired the necessary thyristor technology, nor even got close to it.

Bombing the centrifuges would be about as useful or as logical as bombing aluminium smelting works in Iran, on the grounds that aluminium is a component of a bomb casing.

Leaving aside the technology arguments, I am also not convinced that there is any real prospect of Iran using nuclear weapons unprovoked. Clearly Israel wants us all to believe that this is a possibility, but what real evidence is there for it? Ahmadinijad often makes provocative statements, but these are largely for internal consumption. The reality is that he does not uniquely control the Iranian military, and there are pleny of wise heads in the background who realise that if they were to deploy a nuclear weapon they personally, their families, and most of Iran would be instantly wiped out by a massive unified attack from USA, UK, France, Israel and possibly even Russia.

Ironically, the country that is most likely to launch a first-strike nuclear attack is Israel, because they know that they would not face any retaliation from the West. Given that possibility, it is hardly surprising that there is widespread support in Iran for acquiring a nuclear deterrent themselves.

rh200

7th Nov 2011, 05:54

USA, UK, France, Israel and possibly even Russia

Two out of five ain't bad.

Russia no hope, Frogs sorry barely can stop my self laughing, POMs not likley, Yanks maybe depends what the state Of Israel is after the first strike, I would think they would probally spend to much time talking about it wonder how it would effect the polls, then strike some half baked backwater with next to no importance.

Israel if able to would most likely let rip.

Ironically, the country that is most likely to launch a first-strike nuclear attack is Israel, because they know that they would not face any retaliation from the West

I'll think you'll find their secret policy will be that they are only for an armagedon like scenario. That's one of the nudge nudge wink wink reasons they are kept so well armed by uncle sam.

ACW599

7th Nov 2011, 05:58

>thyristors needed to generate critical mass from a small enough amount of Uranium 235.<

This seems doubtful. In electronic engineering "thyristors" are commonly used semiconductor switching elements quite closely related to transistors. Might you have meant something else?

allan907

7th Nov 2011, 06:58

'Ere. I was permanently banned for a while (yes, I know that's nonsensical but it would appear that a change in the rules allowed this persona back) for using the term "raghead" even though it is, as has been pointed out, in common use within the armed forces and appears in virtually every book that covers middle east unrest.

And now....
There are thousands of mad relgious ragheads who can be turned by enormous amounts of cash
...gets a free kick.

I wants me money back :{

500N

7th Nov 2011, 07:49

"Leaving aside the technology arguments, I am also not convinced that there is any real prospect of Iran using nuclear weapons unprovoked. Clearly Israel wants us all to believe that this is a possibility, but what real evidence is there for it? Ahmadinijad often makes provocative statements, but these are largely for internal consumption. The reality is that he does not uniquely control the Iranian military, and there are pleny of wise heads in the background who realise that if they were to deploy a nuclear weapon they personally, their families, and most of Iran would be instantly wiped out by a massive unified attack from USA, UK, France, Israel and possibly even Russia."

It is interesting to see him get rebuked every so often after he has come out with one of his statements.

In some ways, I think Iran as a whole would be better off with someone who is slightly less inflammatory.

In regards to the discussion of the use of the term RH, I am as non PC as anyone and use similar words but I can understand why it shouldn't be used on a public forum, especially when we know that posts have been quoted in the media in the past.
.

jamesdevice

7th Nov 2011, 08:59

"Uranium hexflouride centrifuges are not the crucial technology required to creat a deployable nuclear weapon - the real key technology is the advanced mathematics and electronics needed to design and build the thyristors needed to generate critical mass from a small enough amount of Uranium 235. I've not seen any credible claim that Iran has acquired the necessary thyristor technology, nor even got close to it.

Bombing the centrifuges would be about as useful or as logical as bombing aluminium smelting works in Iran, on the grounds that aluminium is a component of a bomb casing."
But the key point is that you can find identify and target a suite of centrifuges. They need a large building, power supplies, and a supply of uranium (which can be tracked remotely).
Also, you don't HAVE to have the special thyristors (I've forgotten the proper name) in a nuclear bomb - there are other ways of initiating the explosion timing. And even if you did need them, thy could be smuggled from China or elsewhere.
The centrifuges would be a large detectable target, loss of which would be critical to the program

ACW599

7th Nov 2011, 11:39

>special thyristors (I've forgotten the proper name)<

If the reference is to high-speed high-current high-voltage switching, the device is likely to be a krytron or sprytron. Both are related to the thyratron, which is the vacuum-tube precursor of the thyristor.

Krytrons and their derivatives are subject to fairly stringent export control.

SAMXXV

7th Nov 2011, 12:11

Perhaps the "V" force doubters & even the 1980's Tornado crews should understand.

I was the nuclear strike controller during 1988-1991 at Laarbruch. I had access 24/7 to ALL the nuclear targets during that period. The current Government could not give a poo as to their previous UK Government's intentions.

I'll now expect a "black ops" strike on myself in the next 24 hrs .

As all of the RAF German based RAF Tornado crews realised, there was no way they could reach the USSR & return without AAR. They accepted that. Each RAF Germany crew was given a target in Poland or Checkoslovakia & they trained for a nuclear bomb drop on most of those friendly cities.

I spent 2 years as an operations officer at Laarbruch & had a lot of night shifts looking at the (two man control nuclear) RAF targets. Each & every target during the 80/90's was a Polish, Chech or otherwise friendly city. The target information for each & every one of the 48 Tornado's gave a specific detail of exactly what kiloton (90, 300 or 900kt nuclear bomb was required to kill "x" thousand (or hundreds of thousands) in the major cities of Eastern Europe. Soley because the RAF could not possibly reach mother Russia. The idea was to create a nuclear vacuum between the USSR & N.Germany (as it was in 1990).

That was the sad case of, even then, a ridiculous BRITISH government, of wasters, just like today, who have never had to hold down a simple job such as a turkey inseminator, bricklayer, etc. etc.

So. For you who wish to identify me, I have made it very, very easy, & made it extremly easy for the USA to do what they want to...:ok:

spectre150

7th Nov 2011, 12:30

TMI = Too Much Information

I am sure when I left the Tornado Force I had to sign something that said I would not divulge the sort of detail in SAM25's last post :rolleyes:

cazatou

7th Nov 2011, 12:40

So much for "Positive Vetting".:ugh:

SAMXXV

7th Nov 2011, 15:07

Yes, I signed the Official Secret's Act in 1981. Yet since then an enormous quantity of Labour & Tory politicians, who have NOT been "positive vetted" - & just accepted by successive governments as being "kosher" have been made privy to the UK's nuclear "secrets".

As these successive governments have made/leaked our nuclear intentions sincethe late 1980's, I feel no need to hide the UK Government's intentions during the 80's of nuking Poland, Checkoslovakia & many other countries to stop a USSR invasion through Europe.

There are many, many ex Tornado crews who know this. Every RAFG Tornado pilot/Nav had to go to Mission Planning & memorise their primary strike mission.

Every Maxeval/Taceval had a final "nuclear strike" launch where the 48 crews would fly an "equivilent mission" low level within N. Germany.

NATO always "won".:oh: But they wouldn't now. Our French EU/NATO "compatriots" have more air/naval/ nuclear firepower than the rest of Europe in total.

The French keep quiet about what they have.

There is an old saying - "I walk quietly but carry a big stick" -Shoe Lin.

Let's see what happens with an extraordinarily weak coalition government composed of public schoolboys who haven't even been abused in their own beds.....;)

cazatou

7th Nov 2011, 15:29

jamesdevice

I would think that SAMXXV derives from 25 Sqn in the days when it operated Bloodhound Surface to Air Missiles.

SAMXXV

7th Nov 2011, 16:24

Yes sir. I spent a very enjoyable 5 years as firstly the Flt Trg Off on 25 Sqn, Then 18 months on 85 Sqn (horrible as MOD were spending over £2 million on a waste of space upgrade to turn anologue radar displays into colour digital displays that didn't work). Our only decent 80 mile low level to 80,000ft UK defensive SAM system was scrapped in 1991 because of the cost (minimal) of replacing the 4 solid propellant boost rockets on 300+ missiles. Very sad as those systems were very effective - especially when jammed. Nothing of their capability will ever be comissioned again to defend UK airspace.

How are the Gulf War 1 US supplied Patriot's doing for Israel? I suspect that as we speak the USA (Raytheon) are updating those systems as a matter of urgency.......... (The algorithms were cocked up in GW1 resulting in an RAF Tornado loss).

CIOW

Tourist

7th Nov 2011, 17:34

"The algorithms were cocked up in GW1 resulting in an RAF Tornado loss"

You are not even very knowledgable in your own area of "expertise", are you.:rolleyes:

Trim Stab

7th Nov 2011, 17:52

Also, you don't HAVE to have the special thyristors (I've forgotten the proper name) in a nuclear bomb - there are other ways of initiating the explosion timing. And even if you did need them, thy could be smuggled from China or elsewhere

Except the bomb would then be the size of small car, and undeployable except by low-level C-130, overland, or by ship - ie would never get anywhere near a strategically useful target. And no, you are utterly wrong that they could be smuggled from China or indeed anywhere else - substantial diplomatic and intelligence resources are devoted to preventing that possibility.

I'm looking forward to reading the imminent UN report. Interesting to read today that Russia (having no doubt already read the report) are already strongly vetoeing a pre-emptive attack.

SAMXXV

7th Nov 2011, 18:35

Tourist stated:

"You are not even very knowledgable in your own area of "expertise", are you.:rolleyes: ".

Tourist, I would like you to publicly state why you doubt the facts. I attended TLP course 91/4 from 10/6 to 5/7/91. I was the UK SAM specialist on that course. Whilst I was there the Dutch Patriot Controller on the course received a signal. He was immediately recalled to his battery & told me that his Patriot system needed a new software update from the USA - directly as a result of the shooting down of the UK Tornado..

It's public knowledge since 1991.........:ugh:

cornish-stormrider

7th Nov 2011, 18:52

I call Walt and I want my five pounds....

I have never read such a load of tripe - and I thought I was one of the resident tin foil armadillo wearing nutters.

Sam, either you have travelled far and much or you spout a crock o ****e.
If you had travelled far then you would know better - I shall now add you to my ignore list.

Goodbye you dopey chimp

Tourist

7th Nov 2011, 19:09

SAM

Sometimes people get excited about their own importance in the whole scheme of things.

This happens most regularly to those promoted beyond their capabilities in my experience.

read this

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/32E5E281-139A-4674-978C-2E6DD999BDAD/0/maas03_02_tornado_zg710_22mar03.pdf

Your quote "The algorithms were cocked up in GW1 resulting in an RAF Tornado loss" rather fails to understand basic causality and the importance of one link in a very long and depressing chain.

Tourist

7th Nov 2011, 19:27

SAM

I've only just noticed that you are talking about a Tornado shoot down in 1991 when you were on TLP, and not the 2003 Patriot fratricide.

Really?

Can you send me a link to info on the 1991 accident, I feel the need to learn more but can't seem to find any info.

jamesdevice

7th Nov 2011, 19:47

ACW599
Spot om - Krytron is exactly what I was thinking of. But I kept getting "Kryten" after watching too much Red Dwarf.....
As to Chinese export restrictions - I wouldn't set great credence on controlling anything from there. They manage to easily evade controls on chemical precursors to WMD. Shipping a few electronic components around should be easy for them

Trim Stab
If you're talking about an implosion bomb then yes you are probably correct.
However if you are talking of a gun design, and especially if you don't bother with a secondary stage then it should be possible to build something deployable, though admittedly of a lower yield. Remember, they don't need to build something elegant:: anything that works, even if its low yield and dirty, is good enough

Just This Once...

7th Nov 2011, 19:57

So a Tornado gets shot down in 2003 by a Patriot missile and a Dutch Patriot operator gets an update in 1991 as a direct result of an accident that is yet to happen...

...ok, really in tinfoil hat territory now...

jamesdevice

7th Nov 2011, 20:03

Googling indicates that in 1991 a Patriot Battery launched at a coalition tanker, but the missile crew realised the error and aborted the (auto-launched) missile in flight
There are several references to the 2003 Tornado being the first Patriot aircraft kill, so I suspect SAM is getting the two events muddled

Tourist

7th Nov 2011, 20:05

Just this once...

Surely you are not suggesting.......
that SAM is not entirely at one with the truth?

Perhaps he is just not a believer in temporal linearity?
Who am I to mock the beliefs of a retar....

Sorry, It won't happen again....

p.s. Jamesdevice, muddled is a very kind term for a "TLP attendee" who was there at the time....

"Tourist, I would like you to publicly state why you doubt the facts. I attended TLP course 91/4 from 10/6 to 5/7/91. I was the UK SAM specialist on that course. Whilst I was there the Dutch Patriot Controller on the course received a signal. He was immediately recalled to his battery & told me that his Patriot system needed a new software update from the USA - directly as a result of the shooting down of the UK Tornado.."

500N

7th Nov 2011, 20:53

SAM

"It's public knowledge since 1991.........:ugh:"

Please enlighten us with some links.

manccowboy

7th Nov 2011, 21:34

jamesdevice

7th Nov 2011, 21:45

" the rest of what SAMXXV is probably reasonably accurate
Within its own regional context"

Can I modify that by saying that what he'd said up to that point was probably reasonably accurate. What he's said since sounds like bollocks

rh200

7th Nov 2011, 22:05

Except the bomb would then be the size of small car, and undeployable except by low-level C-130, overland, or by ship - ie would never get anywhere near a strategically useful target.That would be okay for terrorists, smaller the better but trucks just as good in a pinch.

Strategic is relative, for terrorists a city is a strategic target.

That said would the Irainans be the first to deploy if they had the capability? Only if they could get in a good knock out punch that would stop Israel from responding on a large scale with their nukes. You might find one ore two responses might be regarded as okay.

The question is what would the west do? If Iran did launch and take out major Israeli citys what would the response be. Well if it was all finished in short order, the thought is that we are going to wipe out Iranian citys after the fact, you would be mistaken. The worst case retaliation might be to take out military infrastructure.

Now considering that is obvious then most of the important Iranian forces would most likely not be some where obvious.

The end result, major Israeli city's gone, their defence capability reduced, and Iran with a severe bloody nose, and the hero's of the Islamic world.

AnglianAV8R

7th Nov 2011, 22:27

Over simplification. The islamic world is very divided, particularly between the nations on opposite sides of the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Saudi Arabia and friends are ruled by a different sect to the bunch from which the Iranians hale. Then there is the rumour of Israeli military aircraft seen landing at a Saudi airbase... Pre-positioning supplies? Add to that, the reports of Saudi authorities agreeing to Israeli aircraft transiting their airspace enroute to Iranian targets. Unholy alliance? No, not when Iran is agitating opponents of the regime and threatening the dynasty and certainly no more unholy that the UK and USA jumping into bed with komrad Stalin.
Sadly, it's probably a matter of when? rather than if? Sod all to do with us, but I expect more decent British lives will be wasted in yet another pointless war. Good for business though, for some.

parabellum

7th Nov 2011, 23:10

and that means putting substantial pressure on Israel. Trying to blame Iran for regional instability is a red-herring.
It wasn't Israel that threatened to push Iran into the sea, it isn't Israel that fires rockets at it's neighbours.

A nuclear device the size of a small car would fit easily into a container, a ship claiming to take supplies to Gaza, intercepted by Israel and taken to an Israeli port where a suicide crew detonate it, mission accomplished?

Usually Israeli intelligence is pretty good and it is likely they get information directly from Iran's nuclear facility. An awful lot of Iranians have never hated the Jews but they certainly hate the current administration. Yes I have lived in Iran.

500N

7th Nov 2011, 23:20

parabellum

Wouldn't Radiation sensors pick it up before it even got to port ?

(and as you say, that is if of course it actually made it onto a ship in the first place).

Where is SAM, he seems to have gone very quiet !
.

jamesdevice

7th Nov 2011, 23:48

from todays online Tehran Times
What is behind the rhetoric about war on Iran? - Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4319-what-is-behind-the-rhetoric-about-war-on-iran)
The emphases are mine

"it is clear that a military attack on Iran cannot be a viable option for Israel. There are a number of good reasons to rule out the possibility of such a strike.

(1) They know that a strike could not stop Iran’s nuclear program (which they claim would be the purpose of the strike), but it would justify Iran’s drive to acquire access to various types of weapons to defend itself.

(2) Even Israeli and U.S. strategists, who believe that the strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program, say that the strike would only set back Iran’s program for two years, and thus it would not be worth the trouble to start a war with Iran.

(3) Any attack against Iran would strengthen Iran’s national cohesion, and the Iranian people would call on officials to give a firm response to the Westerners. As a result, no one in Iran would support the opposition groups anymore, dashing the Westerners’ hopes to overthrow the Islamic system through providing support to the opposition.

(4) Iran has shown that it is totally prepared to counter any military threat and is capable of involving regional and extra-regional countries in any possible war, so they know that any act of adventurism against Iran would be dangerous and that the stakes are high.

(5) U.S. and Israeli intelligence and military officials do not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is their number one threat. They know that the Arab Spring is a much greater threat to their interests. "

Warped thinking from the official Iranian Government mouthpiece

rmac

8th Nov 2011, 04:25

FWIW regarding the discussions of Nuclear targeting of Eastern European cities and a suggestion that we should have some shame regarding this, since 1994 I have been closely associated with quite a number of former military and security types from former East European regime and had come, during the 1990's to understand the following;

1. The regimes in place were rather enthusiastic about supplying troops and military capability in support of their soviet allies.

2. One retired 2* who I worked with, had personally been involved in driving HGV vehicles through western europe gathering targeting information for soviet nuclear strikes.

Things may have changed and we are all friends now, but 20 years ago it was very very different and its wrong to assume that the population of eastern europe was a supplicant mass held hostage by the soviets.

However, despite the above counter argument to SAM's empathetic stance with the eastern europeans, I also happen to think that Israel is the most dangerous nuclear loose cannon around at the moment. A couple of years ago I was present at a conference where it was realistically postulated that Israel is the only nuclear power (pakistan and India included) where the technical possibility exists for the military to authorise a strike without referral to the politicians, that makes them very dangerous I believe.

500N

8th Nov 2011, 04:32

"2. One retired 2* who I worked with, had personally been involved in driving HGV vehicles through western europe gathering targeting information for soviet nuclear strikes."

If they hadn't have done that, I would have been very surprised and the military leadership should have been sacked. After all, it would be basic intel gathering which the west does as well.

Re Israel, if they were left alone and didn't have rockets dropped on them all the time, then I think they and the whole place would quieten down.
They just happen to have the will, the means and where with all to retaliate and they do so stop upsetting the beast.

PTT

8th Nov 2011, 05:32

Re Israel, if they were left alone and didn't have rockets dropped on them all the time, then I think they and the whole place would quieten down.Well if they moved back to the pre-67 borders rather than continuing to expand aggressively then I suspect they'd have fewer rockets dropped on them ;)

The whole thing is a quagmire of history which can be traced all the way back to Hitler (and that Godwins the thread!).

rmac

8th Nov 2011, 07:03

But the point being 500N, some of those poor friendly East Europeans were happily helping their Soviet Allies to tee us up for a nuclear strike of their own, which very much puts them in the game and makes them a target dont you think ?

And regarding PTT's comment, does anyone think that Israel would be quite so boldly aggressive if big brother US wasn't standing so closely behind them ?

rh200

8th Nov 2011, 07:22

Well if they moved back to the pre-67 borders rather than continuing to expand aggressively then I suspect they'd have fewer rockets dropped on them

Do you really think that would be the case? The Islamists don't want a Israeli pull back, they don't want a Israel. There will always be a reason for them to do it, if they can't find one they will make one.

foldingwings

8th Nov 2011, 08:08

I've tried to stay away from this thread but, yet again, have been encouraged by a.n.other to respond to the ramblings of SAMXXV as I too was in Germany, on Tornados, in the late 80s, albeit at Bruggen. I also did 2 tours at Laarbruch on Buccs in the 70s. All 3 tours involved sitting on QRA(S) and, whilst Staneval at Bruggen, I was also the station WST Supervising and Training officer.

Most of what SAMXXV states in Post 76 is utter bollocks; he states it in a manner suggesting that only the RAF(G) crews were involved in a potential nuclear holocaust.

Being the nuclear strike controller meant only that you were an aircrew bod on a ground tour, as a station ops officer, given the task on that day of being the man on the radio who released the R-Hour Launch. Since all the target information was held in a secure TS vault that could only be accessed under the '2-man principle' and only by those entitled he could not, as he states, have had access 24/7 to ALL the nuclear targets. I doubt he even actually saw a route map or IP-tgt map!

Targets where? I don't think so! In all the years sat in QRA in Germany, on both Buccs and GR1s, I don't ever recall having to go that far east to hit my Strike targets. All the missions planned were lo-lo, so reaching the Oder was a tad tricky! To have gone hi-lo-hi would have been suicide! I recall that the missions had an RTB leg (nobody asked the obvious question!). The Bucc, with its internal bomb-load, went further than the GR1, which served only to replace the Bucc and so took over the former's targets when it arrived in RAFG in 1993. Most of the targets were much closer to home for both. Indeed, on the plan, many would have already been struck by ICBMs by the time we would have got there!

Lonely night shifts studying targets on behalf of the crews - I don't think so! He may have rehearsed his lines and studied the launch sequence plan but looking at targets and even knowing which country they were in rather than their precise location - he's dreaming!

I could be wrong, of course, he may have been a senior station executive (who would still have been obliged to adhere to the 2-man principle) but I doubt it given his admitted experience on Bloodhounds and his role in Laarbruch Ops - both tasks usually reserved for below average JO aircrew who could, in those days, be retained in the service to undertake mundane aircrew-related ground tours!

Retard, I don't think so, unless you mean in the QWI context of High Drag!

Be like me - stop reading his drivel - you'll only end up mad like he is!

Now jinda, stop encouraging me over this walt!

Foldie:{

500N

8th Nov 2011, 08:12

rmac

Understood.

re "And regarding PTT's comment, does anyone think that Israel would be quite so boldly aggressive if big brother US wasn't standing so closely behind them ?"

IMHO, yes, I think post 1945 they determined that they were not going to be kicked around any more and instead would fight back with a lot more determination in the future - which has been shown.

Now, they might not be as technologically advanced as they are without the US but I would say that they are pretty resourceful and would have come up with a similar solutions to achieving the same goals - possibly via the Russian equipment or by doing what China is doing.

I also agree with rh200. Just like Hitler, it wouldn't have mattered if all Jews were Blue eyed with blond hair, they were still Jews to be got rid of.

Just my HO

Trim Stab

8th Nov 2011, 08:55

Do you really think that would be the case? The Islamists don't want a Israeli pull back, they don't want a Israel. There will always be a reason for them to do it, if they can't find one they will make one.

Wrong - Israel can have peace treaty with all its neighbours if they pull back to 67 borders - see 2002 Arab League Peace Treaty.

Arab Peace Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative)

SAMXXV

8th Nov 2011, 08:59

Folding wings said "
I've tried to stay away from this thread but, yet again, have been encouraged by a.n.other to respond to the ramblings of SAMXXV as I too was in Germany, on Tornados, in the late 80s, albeit at Bruggen. I also did 2 tours at Laarbruch on Buccs in the 70s. All 3 tours involved sitting on QRA(S) and, whilst Staneval at Bruggen, I was also the station WST Supervising and Training officer.

Most of what SAMXXV states in Post 76 is utter bollocks; he states it in a manner suggesting that only the RAF(G) crews were involved in a potential nuclear holocaust.

Being the nuclear strike controller meant only that you were an aircrew bod on a ground tour, as a station ops officer, given the task on that day of being the man on the radio who released the R-Hour Launch. Since all the target information was held in a secure TS vault that could only be accessed under the '2-man principle' and only by those entitled he could not, as he states, have had access 24/7 to ALL the nuclear targets. I doubt he even actually saw a route map or IP-tgt map!

Targets where? I don't think so! In all the years sat in QRA in Germany, on both Buccs and GR1s, I don't ever recall having to go that far east to hit my Strike targets. All the missions planned were lo-lo, so reaching the Oder was a tad tricky! To have gone hi-lo-hi would have been suicide! I recall that the missions had an RTB leg (nobody asked the obvious question!). The Bucc, with its internal bomb-load, went further than the GR1, which served only to replace the Bucc and so took over the former's targets when it arrived in RAFG in 1993. Most of the targets were much closer to home for both. Indeed, on the plan, many would have already been struck by ICBMs by the time we would have got there!

Lonely night shifts studying targets on behalf of the crews - I don't think so! He may have rehearsed his lines and studied the launch sequence plan but looking at targets and even knowing which country they were in rather than their precise location - he's dreaming!

I could be wrong, of course, he may have been a senior station executive (who would still have been obliged to adhere to the 2-man principle) but I doubt it given his admitted experience on Bloodhounds and his role in Laarbruch Ops - both tasks usually reserved for below average JO aircrew who could, in those days, be retained in the service to undertake mundane aircrew-related ground tours!

Retard, I don't think so, unless you mean in the QWI context of High Drag!

Be like me - stop reading his drivel - you'll only end up mad like he is!

Now jinda, stop encouraging me over this walt!

Foldiehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

Sorry old pal but you are deluded. If you remember so well you would realise that the Laarbruch WOC had the Mission Planning cell downstairs with their "Vault" containing all the current "Int". Upstairs was Stn Ops. There we had the dreaded SCARS2 steam driven telegraphic system fed by both SACEUR & No 10 (Read HQSTC or "War Office" as you may).

Upstairs the 24/7 Ops Officer had "2 man control" access to several 6ft cabinets containing TS & UK/US Eyes Only documents, each fitted with two combination locks. The Ops Officer (me) memorised one combination & another Ops Officer had the combination for the second lock. These cabinets contained (amongst other things) a folder with detailed planning/targeting/timing/navigation/defrag timings etc. etc. for every one of the Laarbruch GR1's. Because we had to try & remember umpteen safe combination's, every one in Ops had the second (not theirs) combination written down. - Is that a surprise?

We also had a cabinet that required 2 keys to open it. One key was held by the on-shift Duty Ops Off, the other was held by the duty Cpl (downstairs). That cabinet held the SACEUR & HM Government authentication codes for a nuclear release. This cabinet was also opened almost nightly by SACEUR setting off a "test" message on the SCARS2 teleprinter - usually at 0200hrs due to a bored operator.

In conclusion, you may have the best of intentions with your limited knowledge of what actually happened at a nuclear strike base. The crews knew nothing - other than studying their personal single target during their 3 year tour.

And, yes, every one of the 48 crews at Laarbruch had a different target to drop their vastly different kiloton nukes on - with the MOD planners defining exactly how many friendly people would be instantly killed - It ranged from 100,000 to 300,000.

That said, it is thankfully behind us in the UK - until Israel decides to nuke Iran in the coming months..........:confused:

Oh & thank you for your kind comment that I was failed aircrew. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually asked my boss (Tony Thornthwaite AKA TTT) to be given the position of conventional attack controller (ask John Broadbent - OC XV Sqn) which meant that on a 5 day Taceval I worked my arse off for 5 days rather than just looking after the 5th day nuclear strike launch.....

PTT

8th Nov 2011, 10:07

Do you really think that would be the case? The Islamists don't want a Israeli pull back, they don't want a Israel. There will always be a reason for them to do it, if they can't find one they will make one.Well I have to say that I am impressed at your ability to discern the real intentions of entire religious groupings. Perhaps you should be working for MI6 or the CIA as an analyst? You clearly have impressive sources of information to which none of us have access.
That was sarcasm (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm), btw. Just like your own post was rhetoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric).

In answer to your question, yes I do. See the link given a few posts above. If you refuse the veracity of those intentions then you are effectively stating that there is no solution other than war, in which case you can go fight it yourself.

rh200

8th Nov 2011, 10:48

Well I have to say that I am impressed at your ability to discern the real intentions of entire religious groupings

Actually I don't, that would as bad as condeming any other group on the actions of some. Islamists is usually a generlized term for the more radical. In this case how you define the percentages is up to you.

But I would make a failrly uneducated guess that there are more Islamic people who would like to see Israel gone than there are that don't. In fact I think the last statement is commonly called no sh!t Sherlock. Some of the mild people may put up with Israel, but unfortunitly the percentage of ones who won't is way to large.

Tourist

8th Nov 2011, 11:50

SAM

You asked me about my knowledge of the Tornado crash, but you seem to have gone quiet on the subject.

How so?

Is it because you have been caught walting, per chance?

cazatou

8th Nov 2011, 12:12

Tourist

I think he has an appointment with the SIB.

PTT

8th Nov 2011, 12:19

rh200,
You sayActually I don't,and then you do:
there are more Islamic people who would like to see Israel gone than there are that don't

Islamists is usually a generlized term for the more radicalNo it isn't -> Islamist - definition of Islamist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Islamist)
And if it was (or if that is your as-yet unstated definition of it) then your reasoning would be entirely circular. You'd basically be saying "hardline radicals want hardline radical policies to succeed" - I believe that one really does come under the category named for the exclamation aimed at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation.

I would make a failrly uneducated guessYou said it. Perhaps a bit of information would be preferable to "uneducated guesswork" when trying to discern whether "the percentage of ones who won't is way to [sic] large"?

foldingwings

8th Nov 2011, 13:13

Oh bother, he's back!

OK OK, SAMXXV, you may have had more access than I suggested but you still haven't changed:

a) my view of your rants (on threads various).
b) my view of your aircrew ability (I didn't say failed - I said below average; and 'working your arse off' for 5 days in a bunker doesn't make you any greater, better or above average over aircrew on operational flying tours who were actually really working their arses off and having to fly as well, often under difficult conditions in AR5 !)
c) or denied your over-exaggeration of where the targets actually were!

Finally, as Staneval, I was the Night Force Commander in the bunker and so, without bragging, bull****ting or trying to impress had rather more knowledge than you might think or I have displayed; but then I too have signed the Official Secrets Act and now, 5 years retired, do (and will continue to) abide by it - unlike you!

Foldie:ugh:

cornish-stormrider

8th Nov 2011, 13:27

Game, set, match, championship, cup, dais, wave, smiling girls, photographers and 15 mins of fame to Foldie.

I still want my five pounds

Pontius Navigator

8th Nov 2011, 13:38

with your limited knowledge of what actually happened at a nuclear strike base. The crews knew nothing - other than studying their personal single target during their 3 year tour.

This statement is probably inaccurate.

If crews held QRA, on the UK model, each sqn would have had all crews capable of covering one or two high priority QRA targets.

If a crew was on leave was their target uncovered or did crews cover a seondary target? Again, on the UK model all crews covered a secondary target - that made 3 SACEUR targets.

I know that RAF F4 covered GAF F104 targets and the timings were hard to achieve given the F4s slow speed :). That would suggest they had more than one secondary target.

Did they have any UK independent targets?

As for actual targets, in 1974, at Cranditz, we studied a particular RAFG target. What we did not have of course was the knowledge that it was a nuclear target nor did we have the DMPI and we did not have the tracks and timings.

Knowledge of the targets did not require a rocket scientist. What was really TS was the routing and timings.

For all SAM's undoubted expertise it is clear that he too did not have the big picture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the case of Iran the targets will be well known to both sides and routes and timings will be the critcal secret.