Friday, May 5, 2006

Iran getting ready for military conflict

As much hilarious as this serious interview with the Iranian Army Chief of Staff is, it is also showing us that the regime knows the US threat is serious and that they may be next target of the US military.

General says in this interview: "U.S. military power is only 20 or 30 percent of what is portrayed and 70-80 percent of it is psychological warfare."

Translation: "We have only seen 20 to 30 percent of the U.S. military power so far and I look like an idiot serviceman for sure."

He reminds me of lovely Baghdad Bob though.

Back to serious business, it is necessary to say that I do not advocate a military intervention in Iran for various reason, but the regime is dead serious about its nuclear weapon programs and they are also preparing to get ready for a near future military conflict with the west over the nuke issues.

Having said that, the recent issue of Combat Aircraft magazine has an indepth coverage of the Iranian air force readiness in wake of a military invasion which is very interesting.



The current Iranian government has put the entire country on the verge of destruction and failure and the only way out this situation, is to have a REGIME CHANGE in IRAN ASAP!

8 comments:

Amir said...

Which one of the their nuclear weapon programs are you talking about? The one that MeK has discovered? The one that the US officials suggests? or the one that IAEA has not yet discovered?

Winston said...

Doesn't matter which one, but actually ALL you mentioned!

The regime's nuclear program must be STOPPED and its resources should be spent to serve the well-being of the poor Iranians.

Anonymous said...

IRAN:
The first effect of a nuclear explosion in the air is an intense flash of light, as quick as a lightning flash but a thousand times as bright. It is accompanied by a powerful pulse of heat radiation, sufficient to set fire to light combustible material out to a distance of fourteen km., and to paint or wood at half that distance. There is also an intense pulse of X-rays, sufficient to be lethal at a distance of three km.; in fact that would be a rather small factor, since people that close would all or nearly all be killed by the blast that follows. Immediately after the flash, a "fireball" forms in the air and rises for several seconds, blindingly bright and radiating much heat. On a clear day or night, people up to eighty km. away who happened to be facing that way, or who turned their eyes to look where the flash came from, would be temporarily or permanently blinded. Within ten km. of "ground zero" (which is the point directly under the explosion) all parts of the body exposed to the flash would be burned deeply into the flesh. Superficial burns would be caused at greater distances, out to fifteen km. at least. Clothing that caught fire would cause many more burns. The weather conditions prevailing, and the time of day the bomb exploded, would both influence the degrees of damage. For example, the radii for skin burns and blindness would depend on the weather. Mist or fog reduces the range of the heat and light rays; on the other hand, darkness dilates the pupils of the eyes increasing the probability of severe eye damage from the flash.
Starting at the same instant, but travelling more slowly (like the sound of thunder following a lightning flash) is an enormously powerful blast wave. It would destroy even reinforced concrete buildings for a radius of two km., and ordinary brick or timber frame houses out to eight km. Major damage to houses would extend out to fourteen km., and windows would be broken at twenty or thirty km. People at a distance, if they realized what had happened when they saw the flash, would have a few seconds to lie down, or even to dive into a ditch or hollow, before the blast hit. Within three km., almost everyone would be killed, either directly by the blast or by collapsing or flying masonry. At eight km., it is estimated that about fifty per cent of people would be killed by the effects of the blast. Immediately following the blast wave would be hurricane force winds, first outwards from the explosion, and many seconds later inwards to replace the air that went out. Within four km., the wind would be of tornado force, six hundred km./hr., sufficient to drive straws into wooden utility poles or glass splinters into people, but of course over a much wider area than a tornado. People in the open would be picked up and hurled into any object strong enough to be still standing.
Many fires would have been started by the first flash. Burst fuel tanks, gas mains, and collapsed buildings would provide more fuel, and it is likely that confluent fires would cause a "firestorm". This is when coalescent fires cause sufficient updraft to form their own wind, blowing inwards from all sides and thereby increasing the intensity of the fire. The temperature even in basements and bomb shelters rises above lethal levels, and all available oxygen is used by the fire. The wind blowing inwards is of gale force, so that even strong uninjured people would have difficulty walking or trying to run outwards away from the fire.
A nuclear explosion, as well as giving off a great pulse of radiation at the time, leaves everything in the vicinity radioactive. In the case of an "air-burst" as just described, most of the radioactive products would be gaseous, or completely vaporized, and would rise with the fireball and come down slowly, if at all. There might be a rainstorm containing radioactivity, as there was at Hiroshima; and the rubble within a kilometre or two of the ground zero would be radioactive. This might hamper later rescue efforts, and affect the very few survivors from that central area, but would not be a major factor. In any nuclear bomb explosion, a large fraction (a minimum of one-third) of the original fissile material (plutonium or U-235) does not get destroyed. This would result in widespread contamination, increasing the late risk of cancer for those who survived ten to twenty years. (These amounts of plutonium and uranium would have no immediate toxic effects.)
If the bomb exploded squarely over the centre of a city, no rescue services within the area of major structural damage would be able to function. All down-town hospitals would be destroyed, and there would be no electricity, water, or telephone communication in the area served by city utilities. Rescue services from outside would be hampered by impassable roads and the central area of severe damage would be inaccessible. The number of injured in the peripheral area would be so great that emergency services of surrounding cities would be completely overloaded, as would be any surviving suburban hospitals and all the hospitals of neighbouring cities. Even to be seen by a doctor and given analgesics, the injured from one city would need to be distributed among all the hospitals of Iran. The destroyed city would be radioactive. Decisions to attempt rescue work would depend first on a survey of the area by a specialist team with appropriate protection, and then on a policy decision as to how much radiation the rescue teams should be permitted. Willingness of the team members and their unions to accept the risk would be the final factor.

John said...

Anonymous (above) much of the "information" you have listed is so ambiguous as to be completely meaningless. How can you talk about the level of radioactive residue when you have not indicated whether we are dealing with a fission or fusion device?

How can you talk about flash injuries and combustion when you have failed to indicate a yeild for the device you are referring to?

How can you make the assumption that a firestorm will occur when the ignition of a firestorm depends on several variables. How could we possibly have any idea if these variables are even close to being met when you have not even stated where your (hypothetical) TARGET is?

Why do you assume any target attacked by a nuclear weapon (whether the weapon is American, Iranian, or Israeli) will be a city? The weapon could just as likely be a military base, a group of warships, an airstrike against incoming aircraft ect. A first strike against a civilian center is certainly the LEAST effective use of a nuclear demonstration.

You posting is good propaganda. It contains just enough truth to be convincing to anyone who doesn't challenge it. Also it contains enough misleading statements, half truths, generalizations and emotional triggers to make certain that people accet the statement without examining it closely.

Amir said...

Hello Winston,

I am not an appologist for the Mullahs. Also I am not a believer of whatever I am told. I process my raw input data myself, logically and fairly. At the same time, I challenge those whose views may be biased. This way I improve my way of thinking. Having said that, I sometimes criticize my raw input data. This nuclear issue is not excluded.

The reason I wrote that comment was to mention that "Iran having nuclear weapons program" is not a fact. My opinion has nothing to do with mullahs or anyone else. It is my own conclusion.

You think that the regime's nuclear program must be stopped and I respect your opinion. But you need to make your argument credible. Quoting "nuclear weapon programs" without talking about its accuracy makes your argument weak.

winston wrote:
Doesn't matter which one, but actually ALL you mentioned!

The regime's nuclear program must be STOPPED and its resources should be spent to serve the well-being of the poor Iranians.

Btw, dont try to be an apologist for the regime.

You better know that the Mullahs you defend seek nuclear weapons

Winston said...

No Nukes for Iran until the Mullahs are gone!

Amir said...

No nuclear bombs ever.

Winston said...

I dont care about OTHERS having Nuclear things. But NO to any thing nuclear (even peaceful) for the Mullahs of Iran.

Freedom and prosperity for Iran, then Nuclear energy.

We have other priorities, and nukes is not one of them. At least not in the top ten list of priorities for Iran

1- Removal of the regime
2- Freedom and Democracy
3- Drug Addicts & Street Kids and prostitution problems should be solved
4- Free Secular Education for all
5- Cities must be strengthened for quakes
6- Taking care of retirees
7- Taking care of farmers
8- Taking care of historical monuments
9- Tourism industry
10- Building more refineries
.
.
.
.
101- peaceful nuclear energy