BREAKING Israel launches preemptive attacks against Iran (US bombs Iran)...

[crimsonaudio]

BREAKING:

The U.S. Air Force flew at least 8 C-17 military transport planes from Europe to the Middle East early this morning.

According to reports, the U.S. is moving THAAD and Arrow-3 interceptor missiles to Israel to help it defend against Iranian ballistic missile attacks.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935678910231933383

 

[Huckleberry]

Trump caution on Iran strike linked to doubts over ‘bunker buster’ bomb, officials say

Exclusive: The likelihood of a successful US strike on the Iranian nuclear facility buried deep underground at Fordow is a topic of deep contention, defense officials say

www.theguardian.com

Trump caution on Iran strike linked to doubts over ‘bunker buster’ bomb, officials say
Exclusive: The likelihood of a successful US strike on the Iranian nuclear facility buried deep underground at Fordow is a topic of deep contention, defense officials say

 

[crimsonaudio]

FWIW, an Israeli client just posted this:
"Since the war started, Iran has launched over 1,000 drones, all of which have been shot down and caused no damage. They have also shot 445 rockets at Israel. 90% have been shot down. 45 have impacted and caused billions in damage, over 2,000 wounded and 24 killed.

Of those wounded almost all of them are civilians. All those killed were civilians.

This is of course not surprising at all. All our enemies - hamas, hezbollah, Iranian regime, houthis - are driven by extreme religious zeal with little value for human life. Israeli attacks in Gaza do cause terrible loss, yet Israel is not targeting civilians, but on the contrary - the comparatively low 3:1 or even possibly lower civilian to combatant casualty ratio is proof the IDF is attempting to limit civilian casualties (this number is based on casualty numbers from both Israel and hamas and is a logical middle ground). Meanwhile fake news sources like CNN and the Guardian continue to report with no evidence that the IDF is gunning down Palestinians looking for food, despite ample video evidence to the contrary. They cite "experts" who "prove" the IDF didn't blow up terror tunnels under gaza hospitals despite hamas admitting they were there.

We are witnessing perhaps the most extreme gaslighting ever.

It's hard to blame those of you who hold mixed feelings, or complete animosity towards Israel. You're being brazenly lied to by voices you should be able to trust...

Anyway... Rant over for now."

 

[dayhiker]

3/1 is a low civilian to combatant casualty rate? Does he mean that or did he get the ratio backwards?

 

[Tidewater]

3/1 is a low civilian to combatant casualty rate? Does he mean that or did he get the ratio backwards?

It is not clear which he means.

 

[dayhiker]

It is not clear which he means.

With the way it's worded I would interpret it as 3 civilians per 1 combatant. Hopefully it's just worded backwards and they really mean 3 combatants per 1 civilian.

 

[crimsonaudio]

3/1 is a low civilian to combatant casualty rate? Does he mean that or did he get the ratio backwards?

In urban combat settings, the civilian casualty rate is quite a bit higher.

• Sources like the Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) suggest that at least 74% of identified fatalities are civilians, giving a civilian-to-combatant ratio of 2.8:1 or higher. Some estimates from this source go up to a ratio of 9.6:1.
• Israel's military has claimed a ratio of approximately 1:1, meaning one civilian death for every fighter killed. However, this claim has been criticized, and some observers suggest the IDF may categorize military-aged men as combatants.

 

[Tidewater]

FWIW, an Israeli client just posted this:
"Since the war started, Iran has launched over 1,000 drones, all of which have been shot down and caused no damage. They have also shot 445 rockets at Israel. 90% have been shot down. 45 have impacted and caused billions in damage, over 2,000 wounded and 24 killed.

Of those wounded almost all of them are civilians. All those killed were civilians.

This is of course not surprising at all. All our enemies - hamas, hezbollah, Iranian regime, houthis - are driven by extreme religious zeal with little value for human life. Israeli attacks in Gaza do cause terrible loss, yet Israel is not targeting civilians, but on the contrary - the comparatively low 3:1 or even possibly lower civilian to combatant casualty ratio is proof the IDF is attempting to limit civilian casualties (this number is based on casualty numbers from both Israel and hamas and is a logical middle ground). Meanwhile fake news sources like CNN and the Guardian continue to report with no evidence that the IDF is gunning down Palestinians looking for food, despite ample video evidence to the contrary. They cite "experts" who "prove" the IDF didn't blow up terror tunnels under gaza hospitals despite hamas admitting they were there.

We are witnessing perhaps the most extreme gaslighting ever.

It's hard to blame those of you who hold mixed feelings, or complete animosity towards Israel. You're being brazenly lied to by voices you should be able to trust...

Anyway... Rant over for now."

It seems what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I do honestly believe that the IDF is not aiming at Palestinian civilians.
I also believe Hams is hiding military targets inside/underneath otherwise protected targets (which renders those otherwise protected targets no longer protected)..
I further believe Iranian aim stinks.
But, ultimately, if Iran is aiming at IDF military targets and missing, then that is one of the tragedies of war, just like when the IDF aiming for Hamas individuals/facilities yet killing Palestinians civilians in the process.

On the other hand, if Iran is deliberately targeting civilian targets (and that can be proven), then that is a violation of the LOAC.

 

[dayhiker]

In urban combat settings, the civilian casualty rate is quite a bit higher.

• Sources like the Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) suggest that at least 74% of identified fatalities are civilians, giving a civilian-to-combatant ratio of 2.8:1 or higher. Some estimates from this source go up to a ratio of 9.6:1.
• Israel's military has claimed a ratio of approximately 1:1, meaning one civilian death for every fighter killed. However, this claim has been criticized, and some observers suggest the IDF may categorize military-aged men as combatants.

That makes sense for urban. Thanks.

 

[Tidewater]

With the way it's worded I would interpret it as 3 civilians per 1 combatant. Hopefully it's just worded backwards and they really mean 3 combatants per 1 civilian.

The ratio is not part of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), just the intentions of the targeting power.*
If it is three civilians to one military casualty or three military to one civilian is not really the question in LOAC terms. Whether the shooter was deliberately aiming at civilians is the question and did the targeting power consider the likely civilian casualties in judging whether striking the military target was worth the collateral civilian casualties. That is really all proportionality requires.


* I guess it has value in comparing two situations or the actions of two different targeting powers. "Is Country A being more proportionate than Country B?"

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I think you are right. Dirt is the friend of those in targets and 300 feet of dirt is a lot of protection.
Sending in humans is no guarantee either. First, it is probably hard to even get in the facility.
Then, they is probably a quick reaction forces not far away. (In a lot of Middle Eastern countries, the army undertaking a coup is the main threat, so army units normally have no ammo and are not authorized to move in the event of an attack. They have to be told to move in the event of an attack). This creates a window of opportunity. Israel's. conventional bombing probably greatly reduced that window, because the political leadership in Tehran see the Israelis are serious, so the risk calculus has changed.
If the Israelis were going to send in humans, it would have been much better to have done that before the conventional bombing, so the regular peacetime Iranian procedures would still be in effect at Fardow.

It's anecdotal and I have no way of verifying it, but I heard on the news a day or so ago that the mountain is actually composed of very hard rock. That's even worse than dirt, usually...

 

[75thru79]

It's anecdotal and I have no way of verifying it, but I heard on the news a day or so ago that the mountain is actually composed of very hard rock. That's even worse than dirt, usually...

Piece of cake. Haven't you watched Top Gun - Maverick? We just send in a bunch of hotshot pilots with a laser pointer and a bomb, fly in, drop the bomb and then do a 180 degree climb to avoid the side of the mountain.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Israeli officials tell The Times of Israel, that they expect a decision on joining the war against Iran will be made by the United States in the next 24–48 hours, with another official stating, “The expectation is that they join, but no one is pushing them. They have to make their own decision.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1935742070297120813

 

[Elefantman]

Piece of cake. Haven't you watched Top Gun - Maverick? We just send in a bunch of hotshot pilots with a laser pointer and a bomb, fly in, drop the bomb and then do a 180 degree climb to avoid the side of the mountain.

Then after that, sneak onto one of their air base and go for a joy ride in one of their old F-14.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I am absolutely not understanding why being involved in this mess even entered Trump's mind..

How do our national interests benefit, and what is the end game here?

I honestly have no clue.

 

[some_al_fan]

It's anecdotal and I have no way of verifying it, but I heard on the news a day or so ago that the mountain is actually composed of very hard rock. That's even worse than dirt, usually...

It was built inside the existing cave and nobody knows whether map of the cave/reactor that Israel might have is accurate or not.
Yeah, special forces might be the only way to attack (after trying bunker busters), but Iran is most likely ready for it. It can get bloody.

 

[some_al_fan]

I am absolutely not understanding why being involved in this mess even entered Trump's mind..

How do our national interests benefit, and what is the end game here?

I honestly have no clue.

Our only goal could be to destroy reactor and prevent Iran from getting nukes. It is in our interests. Don't know whether this goal is achievable or not

Regime change should not be our goal and if it then it is guaranteed to fail

 

[crimsonaudio]

I am absolutely not understanding why being involved in this mess even entered Trump's mind..

How do our national interests benefit, and what is the end game here?

I honestly have no clue.

If they're continuing to work towards building nuclear weapons, that would be cause. They can NOT be allowed nukes. And burying a lab under 300' of rock, only admitting it existed after western intelligence discovered it doesn't sound like someone trying to make fuel for nuclear power plants.

Beyond that, Iran is primarily THE reason the ME has been in turmoil over the last 70-ish years. Not the only reason, but a big player.

Neither of those are enough to make me want to get involved, but there are practical reasons that the destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities and the destruction of the clerical leadership could be beneficial long term.

That said, as @81usaf92has posted there's little guarantee removing the pinhead leadership won't be even more disastrous than their current situation wrt peace. As proven time and again, our foreign policy decision makers really don't understand the typical middle-eastern mind.

 

[81usaf92]

I am absolutely not understanding why being involved in this mess even entered Trump's mind..

The same reason it’s entered Netanyahu’s mind… they have became extremely unpopular lately and they are playing the “war card” to boost popularity.

How do our national interests benefit, and what is the end game here?

It doesn’t. Because he can’t decide on what he wants out of it. First it’s nukes, then it’s the regime, then it’s nukes again, then it’s something else. Both him and Netanyahu have seen what a moronic mess they have stirred up and are trying to not be the 2nd coming of George W Bush after they finally realize what a war with Iran is going to ultimately be. There is a reason both the United States and Israel haven’t actively tried to fight Iran since the 1970’s and we are seeing the reason.

I honestly have no clue.

Neither do they but they are going to Leroy Jenkins it anyways.

 

[81usaf92]

If they're continuing to work towards building nuclear weapons, that would be cause. They can NOT be allowed nukes. And burying a lab under 300' of rock, only admitting it existed after western intelligence discovered it doesn't sound like someone trying to make fuel for nuclear power plants.

Beyond that, Iran is primarily THE reason the ME has been in turmoil over the last 70-ish years. Not the only reason, but a big player.

Neither of those are enough to make me want to get involved, but there are practical reasons that the destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities and the destruction of the clerical leadership could be beneficial long term.

That said, as @81usaf92has posted there's little guarantee removing the pinhead leadership won't be even more disastrous than their current situation wrt peace. As proven time and again, our foreign policy decision makers really don't understand the typical middle-eastern mind.

To most Americans, Iran is billed as a bunch of primitive medieval Muslims in a backwatered desert dune trying to get a nuke. However it’s a fairly modern culture and society not much unlike Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The problem is that their government is a very backwards state. It’s living off of the movement of the 70’s revolution. The reason it still exists is because their government current Ayatollah was a huge figurehead in the revolution and understands how the original kept power. His successor won’t have that distinction.

My point is that within the next 15 years, Iran is likely to have a new government because their current regime is no sustainable past the current leader. So in theory, Netanyahu is correct in that killing the Ayatollah would end the regime within hours. However, you risks either an immediate military takeover or an immediate civil war amongst factions vying for control. The former threatens our safety and interests far more than the regime as is has ever done. Because the military will most likely push to target Saudi and UAE ships and ports and put the nuclear program in hyper drive in a matter of days. The latter is probably the worse of the two likely scenarios. A regime change is better when it happens on its own. I don’t think we should do it for them.

My worry about this conflict is where will Israel say “we are happy with what we have achieved here” and be done with it. Because it’s increasingly looking like they won’t be able to destroy the nuclear program like they wanted even with US bombs. What is very concerning is that the Defense Minister and Netanyahu have made several threats on the Ayatollah’s life and are desperately looking for any means to declare victory in a conflict that probably ends without either side achieving what they set out to do.