I have bad news for Israel/Jew haters

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Israel Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: I have bad news for Israel/Jew haters
Zhukov 8/16/2008 1:59:12 AM

According to the updated Armed Forces of the World Database of land power (military power minus naval power) Israel with land power score of 2098 is the 4th most powerful army and air force in the world. ISRAEL has world's highest ratings in 2 of the 3 most important categories: experience 9 (no other country has that a value), and 9 for leadership .It is tied for second in for quality and quantity of military equipment 8 (only the US has a higher score). Another very impressive statistic is Israel maintains the fourth most powerful army/air force with an annual military budget which is only of a small fraction of the military budgets of top six land powers. Other than the US, Israel is topped only by China whose population is 200 times that of Israel's and is barely edged out by India whose population is very close to 200 times larger than Israel's population. It's mind boggling.It's the equivalent of a country with a population of 1.5 million having an army and air force as powerful or nearly as powerful as the US Army and Air Force. The fact that Israel's naval is not very powerful on a global scale is immaterial because Israel has no conceivable need for a navy more powerful than it currently possesses. Israel packs a land power score of 2100 in a country the size of New Jersey. There is no place in the world with such a concentration of military power. Since concentration of military assets is key to effective military action,if I were a commander of a large military force, Israel would be the last place I'd attack. For those, who dismiss Israel's victories over their Arab neighbors, Egypt's army and air force are now as powerful as those of France. It shows the insanity of those who actually believe Hezbollah defeated Israel militarily. Speaking of insanity ,the President of Iran now seems even more insane.While he continues to insanely threaten to wipe Israel out, he is provoking an apocalypse for Iran. As Anthony Cordesman wrote in his analysis of the results of an all out war between Israel and Iran, Iran would suffer up to 26 million dead and totally cease to exist as a functional entity while Israel would lose at most a 10th of it's population and definitely continue as a fully functioning nation. For the sake of the Iranian people, please have your President committed to a psychiatric hospital as soon as possible. LOL

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

theBird 8/17/2008 4:07:49 PM

Someone ought to send these results to John McCain and anyone else who seems to think that Israel needs to rely on the US to protect itself from Iran and other miscretants in the middle east! The only reason they use terrorists so much is that they tried to wipe out Israel in fair fights (they only outnumbered them about 10 to one!), and got spanked time and time again until they figured out this wasn't a good plan!

Quote Reply

battar Can you catch a cockroach 8/17/2008 4:34:33 PM

...with an M1A1? or AH64?

Never mind counting the tank tracks and afterburners. Show me a standing army that can defeat a terrorist organization. And that is the enemy.

One of the reasons Moslem resort to terrorism is that it is the only way they can tilt the balance in their favour. If they tried conventional tactics they would be wiped out before lunch.

The real threat of the Iranian monkey/president is not that he will build a nuclear bomb, but that he will hand over fissile material to Al-Qaeda or Hezballah. And then all hell could break loose. Can you imagine a world in which in-Laden carries a suitcase with 4 kilograms of U-235, enriched only a few percent? It might not go off with a mighty bang, but it could set geiger counters beeping all over Manhattan or the London underground. Maybe the noise will wake the Eurowimps out their sleep.

Quote Reply

Zhukov 8/17/2008 8:15:04 PM

For any terrorist organization to truly be a threat to a particular nation, they must have the assistance of another nation. As suggested , if or when Iran developes nuclear weapon capability they could use a terrorist proxy . This is a point that is missed when Bush is criticized for invading and removing Saddam Hussein. Al Qaeda is no longer a threat to the US IMHO because nations that supported them are now occupied by US troops : Iraq and Afghanistan. I know it's debatable how much support Saddam Hussein actually provided Al Qaeda but the point is 2 of 3 actual or potential supporters are now in no position to help Al Qaeda. As for Iran, they have US troops on both their eastern and western border and are very vulnerable to a US naval attack. I doubt in the present situation Iran would be willing to provide much support to terrorists for another 9/11 type attack on US soil. So Iran is pretty much neutralized as far as being a threat to provide a nuclear weapon to terrorists to use against the US. Of course, they still could provide such support but they would be provoking an invasion by the US which is much more possible now that there are substantial US troops on Iran's border. So the way neutralize terrorist is to cut off support they require from nations. Terrorists are very unlikely to be able , at least at present to be able to possess a nuclear device on their own. For example , Syria has been providing Hezbollah with anti aircraft missles. A Syrian general who directed this process was assassinated probably by Israel. If Israel felt threatened enough by Hezbollah they could punish Syria to the extent necessary to stop them from providing further assistance. The principle that to neutralize terrorists you must eliminate or neutralize those that direct the terrorists has proven successful. It was used successfully by Israel to stop the intifada and by US forces in Iraq.

Quote Reply

theBird 8/17/2008 8:18:46 PM

Standing Armies may not be great at stopping terrorists, but the same isn't true of law enforcement agencies. Criminals also don't carry arms openly, try to blend in with the population and operate in small cells, but that hasn't stopped cops from taking them down. Maybe we can use the same law enforcement tactics to nab the terrorists?

Quote Reply

Thomas Fighting terrorists 8/17/2008 9:31:26 PM

I think we should consider the terrorists ability to fight in military formation.

Whenever they try, they get licked with serious casualties.

To claim that terrorists have success by using roadside bombs, meat bombers and what have you, is missing the point!

There is a reason why armies of the world tend to be organised and trained rather similarly: If you need to use force, there are rather sharp bounderies for effectiveness. The denial of military organisation and tactics to terrorists is in itself a success, as this denial per se limits the effectiveness of terrorist activity. Just think what destruction a single battery of 155 howitzers could do to Israeli towns in the hands of terrorists. They have homemade squibs - they are nasty enough - but nowhere in the league of well aimed and quickfiring artillery.

Having denied the terrorists the military dimention - we have as such reduced soldiers to deterrent - which is quite an achievement. The real struggle is from then on primarely a police job.

In this context there has been considerable success. After 9-11, Madrid and London, there has been lots of arrests, some convictions, but most significantly no real terrorist acts in western nations (Turkey being an exception). The policework is not only an ex-post investigation of obvious acts - a lot of it is socalled preventive talks: A couple of flat feet liberally sprinkled with corns have a talk with potential terrorists, telling the idiots what they are getting involved in. Telling them that they are under surveillance - recruiting them as informers. It might not lead to arrests or convictions, but a terrorist act prevented when it is only a pipedream is infinately preferrable to the mayhem of a bomb in a railroad station.

Quote Reply

Ezekiel Building Israel's blue Navy 8/18/2008 2:11:41 AM

"The fact that Israel's naval is not very powerful on a global scale is immaterial because Israel has no conceivable need for a navy more powerful than it currently possesses."

I still stand by the argument, that Israel with a strong Naval force would be able to offer more of a strategic/tactical punch in a war, by being able to what it needs to do, whioch is take a battle as quickly as possible from their territory to the enemies. The Navy provides the mobility and power projection to accomplish the goals that Israeli airforce has by itself. I haven't heard as of yet a compelling argument to the contrary other then...it is too much money for Israel to afford (i disagree), that it doesn't have the threats which require such threat perception (no one knows the future, but Egypt, Turkey, now Russia and Iran must or should be considered within an Israeli naval strategy). As far as where these boats would go, the meditaranean isn't the only theatre israel has access to, don't forget Israel does have a naval port in Eilat which takes one into the straights of Tiran which leads into the red sea, which then can brings us to the Gulf of Aden, which is an out;let to the Indian sea, and once in the Indian ocean the Arabian sea ain't that far away.....An israeli Navy would definitely have enough ewater to play in!

Quote Reply

jastayme3 8/25/2008 11:35:08 PM

Terrorism has a weakness, that it depends on influencing the wills of others rather then

on rendering their will irrelevant. Israel cannot be destroyed by terrorism simply because both the

State and the People are in firm agreement that it should continue. Those times terrorism has worked is when it is

used against an opponent who can be convinced that the cost of defeat is less then the cost of continued violence.

This really is not the case when the concession demanded is national suicide.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 8/26/2008 3:37:22 AM

The purpose of the military in counterterrorism is in punitive actions large and small, special forces, and in providing backup to police and intell.

Much of it's place is to deter or punish foreign sponsership.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious 8/26/2008 11:22:56 AM

Law enforcement can only work in areas where the law has control. Without that, you will have as much luck arresting Taliban terrorists in Wazirstan, or Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, as you would ticketing Russian tanks for parking violations in Georgia. Only armies can create that control, therefore, in a world where havens for terrorists exist outside the rule of law, the military end of the Counter-Jihad is essential.

SGTObvious

Quote Reply

jastayme3 9/14/2008 12:37:39 AM

The problem is that terrorism hides between the thin border between crime and war. And we really

can't afford to let that be a safe haven for the sake of juristictional clashes between police and millitary.

Both have a place in counterterrorism.

Quote Reply

1 2