Iran-Israeli Conflict Thread

Cooper said:
Tel Aviv hasn't been wiped out, but it's hardly business as usual there. Israel has been shaken to its foundations for the first time in its existence.
Click to expand...
If that was the only claim then I wouldn't be pressing hard on it. I'm rather pressing hard on the claim before about how there's "next to nothing" by morning after the night bombardment IIMT was referring. The former claim ("hardly business as usual there") is within the realm of possibility while the latter claim ("there may be next to nothing left by tomorrow morning") is so out of that realm that it's a sign of mind that is seriously unmoored from reality due to as the kids like to say - "not touching grass".

Just to reiterate, IIMT was claiming that there is nothing left "as of right now" - as in at the moment he was making the post. He's trying to retroact and said Iran had backed off but in his original post he had claimed that the damage had already been done and that targets had been wiped off the map.
 
Wutang said:
If that was the only claim then I wouldn't be pressing hard on it. I'm rather pressing hard on the claim before about how there's "next to nothing" by morning after the night bombardment IIMT was referring. The former claim is within the realm of possibility while the latter is so out of that realm that it's a sign of mind that is seriously unmoored from reality due to as the kids like to say - "not touching grass".

Just to reiterate, IIMT was claiming that there is nothing left "as of right now" - as in at the moment he was making the post. He's trying to retroact and said Iran had backed off but in his original post he had claimed that the damage had already been done and that targets had been wiped off the map.
Click to expand...
There is massive damage in Tel Aviv. When Iran was shooting their smaller stuff and getting big hits, you could see the damage. Then Israel blocked all information getting out, arresting people who took pictures and videos, and then Iran started to hit them a lot harder.

The just backed off, being wise, and only showing what they felt they had to show, including one ICBM, as a warning. Very smart of them, big win by Iran.
 
It_Is_My_Time said:
There is massive damage in Tel Aviv. When Iran was shooting their smaller stuff and getting big hits, you could see the damage. Then Israel blocked all information getting out, arresting people who took pictures and videos, and then Iran started to hit them a lot harder.

The just backed off, being wise, and only showing what they felt they had to show, including one ICBM, as a warning. Very smart of them, big win by Iran.
Click to expand...

Tel Aviv is a sprawling metropolis. Let's assume there are 60,000 city blocks in the metro area (100 blocks per square mile times about 600 square miles). Let's assume 200 missiles have actually impacted in Tel Aviv (I think this estimate is high).

I think even the biggest missile really only causes damage in about a 1 city block area. By these calculations, I think there are still about 59,800 undamaged city blocks remaining. Only about 0.3% of the city is damaged. Most people are completely unharmed by this war, although a larger number may be worried about getting hit and may be seeking bomb shelters on multiple occasions.
 
Wutang said:
If that was the only claim then I wouldn't be pressing hard on it. I'm rather pressing hard on the claim before about how there's "next to nothing" by morning after the night bombardment IIMT was referring. The former claim ("hardly business as usual there") is within the realm of possibility while the latter claim ("there may be next to nothing left by tomorrow morning") is so out of that realm that it's a sign of mind that is seriously unmoored from reality due to as the kids like to say - "not touching grass".

Just to reiterate, IIMT was claiming that there is nothing left "as of right now" - as in at the moment he was making the post. He's trying to retroact and said Iran had backed off but in his original post he had claimed that the damage had already been done and that targets had been wiped off the map.
Click to expand...

Iran does have the means to lay waste on Tel Aviv, they can land several hundred missiles on that target in a longer war of attrition where their missile stocks vastly outnumber Israeli/US interceptor stocks. That is the bottom line here.

The fact that we're not likely to see that chain of events now is a credit to Trump. Very good analysis by Gilbert Doctorow, who thinks that Trump preempted an Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear installations by conducting the conventional B2 bombing run:

 
Thomas More said:
Tel Aviv is a sprawling metropolis. Let's assume there are 60,000 city blocks in the metro area (100 blocks per square mile times about 600 square miles). Let's assume 200 missiles have actually impacted in Tel Aviv (I think this estimate is high).

I think even the biggest missile really only causes damage in about a 1 city block area. By these calculations, I think there are still about 59,800 undamaged city blocks remaining. Only about 0.3% of the city is damaged. Most people are completely unharmed by this war, although a larger number may be worried about getting hit and may be seeking bomb shelters on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
Correct, it would take a lot of missiles to truly flatten Tel Aviv. But their people are not going to stick around and fight, that is the opposite of who they are. Rebuilding infrastructure and getting them to move back will be a long and tall task. Had Iran kept hitting them, who knows how bad it could have gotten.
 
It_Is_My_Time said:
Correct, it would take a lot of missiles to truly flatten Tel Aviv. But their people are not going to stick around and fight, that is the opposite of who they are. Rebuilding infrastructure and getting them to move back will be a long and tall task. Had Iran kept hitting them, who knows how bad it could have gotten.
Click to expand...
You've gone from "There is almost nothing left", to "There is massive damage ", to "Think of how bad it could be if there was a lot of damage sometime in the future".
 
Cooper said:
Iran does have the means to lay waste on Tel Aviv, they can land several hundred missiles on that target in a longer war of attrition where their missile stocks vastly outnumber Israeli/US interceptor stocks. That is the bottom line here.

The fact that we're not likely to see that chain of events now is a credit to Trump. Very good analysis by Gilbert Doctorow, who thinks that Trump preempted an Israeli nuclear strike on Iranian nuclear installations by conducting the conventional B2 bombing run:

Click to expand...

This is pretty much what I've been saying.

It delegitimizes the need for the war to continued.

Israel was going to escalate. Trump came in with the hammer in an effort to remove the justification for any future engagement.

Having been shot at by Houthis... I'm not a fan of the Iranians government and couldn't give a shit if they have a regime change organically........ But I don't support blood and treasure and the resulting Civil War that always happens when we prop up one side over the other.
 
Thomas More said:
Tel Aviv is a sprawling metropolis. Let's assume there are 60,000 city blocks in the metro area (100 blocks per square mile times about 600 square miles). Let's assume 200 missiles have actually impacted in Tel Aviv (I think this estimate is high).

I think even the biggest missile really only causes damage in about a 1 city block area. By these calculations, I think there are still about 59,800 undamaged city blocks remaining. Only about 0.3% of the city is damaged. Most people are completely unharmed by this war, although a larger number may be worried about getting hit and may be seeking bomb shelters on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

It would take around 200-300 missiles to turn the city of Tel Aviv into ruins. Your argument about the suburbs boils down to nit-picking.

AI Overview

The city of Tel Aviv, including Jaffa, has a land area of 52 square kilometers (20 square miles). While Tel Aviv is the second largest city in Israel, it's considered relatively small in size, making it easy to navigate.
Click to expand...
 
Thomas More said:
You've gone from "There is almost nothing left", to "There is massive damage ", to "Think of how bad it could be if there was a lot of damage sometime in the future".
Click to expand...
I don't know what is left, I know they got hit hard and Iran backed off. I'm not sure what the point of all this is, that Iran was even wiser and was thinking further ahead than I realized? Yes, I admit Iran is more impressive than I realized. This was a big win for Iran. Probably best to focus on this thread, now this has gone over 4 or 5 posts now.
 
It_Is_My_Time said:
I don't know what is left, I know they got hit hard and Iran backed off. I'm not sure what the point of all this is, that Iran was even wiser and was thinking further ahead than I realized? Yes, I admit Iran is more impressive than I realized. This was a big win for Iran. Probably best to focus on this thread, now this has gone over 4 or 5 posts now.
Click to expand...
The point is that the entire city is still there, with only a few damaged buildings which hardly matter. You definitely are trying to make it sound like they've been damaged significantly, but it's obvious that damaging 0.3% of the city is not significant.
 
Cooper said:
It would take around 200-300 missiles to turn the city of Tel Aviv into ruins. Your argument about the suburbs boils down to nit-picking.
Click to expand...

Besides having only a fraction of the area of the full metro area, the actual city of Tel Aviv has only about 10% of the population of the metro area. So, it is true that if you ignore most of the area, and ignore most of the people, and you assume that all the damage is concentrated in this one spot, then the local damage in that area could be worse.

It would still only amount to about 200-300 city blocks being damaged, so almost everything else would remain intact and continue as normal. This is not what I would call "into ruins".


Edit: By the way, the same is true of Tehran and Iran generally. The damage to the city will be trivial. It might be that Israel can damage certain high value assets around the country, including possibly key oil facilities. However, the 1000s of square miles of residential areas sprawling around the Iranian cities will barely be impacted. I'd be surprised if 10 square miles of Iranian residential area is damaged.
 
Thomas More said:
The point is that the entire city is still there, with only a few damaged buildings which hardly matter. You definitely are trying to make it sound like they've been damaged significantly, but it's obvious that damaging 0.3% of the city is not significant.
Click to expand...
You don't know what is or is not there. No one does, the images that have come out are very bad, but we don't know the extent of the damage. Again, this should be dropped, it has been discussed and explained and is taking from the thread.
 
It_Is_My_Time said:
You don't know what is or is not there. No one does, the images that have come out are very bad, but we don't know the extent of the damage. Again, this should be dropped, it has been discussed and explained and is taking from the thread.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the city is flattened? What is your best guess of the percentage of buildings destroyed, and the percentage that are partially damaged? You seem very confident there is a lot of damage. Surely you can come up with a ball park estimate?

Would you say it is closer to 0.1%, or closer to 30%?

If you say there is absolutely no way of knowing at all, in any way whatsoever, then why do you keep saying the damage is high? If you are certain the damage is high, give us a wild guess estimate of what you think the reality is.

Logically speaking, a few 100 missiles can only mean a few hundred city blocks that are damaged, which is inconsequential.
 
Thomas More said:
Besides having only a fraction of the area of the full metro area, the actual city of Tel Aviv has only about 10% of the population of the metro area. So, it is true that if you ignore most of the area, and ignore most of the people, and you assume that all the damage is concentrated in this one spot, then the local damage in that area could be worse.

It would still only amount to about 200-300 city blocks being damaged, so almost everything else would remain intact and continue as normal. This is not what I would call "into ruins".

Edit: By the way, the same is true of Tehran and Iran generally. The damage to the city will be trivial. It might be that Israel can damage certain high value assets around the country, including possibly key oil facilities. However, the 1000s of square miles of residential areas sprawling around the Iranian cities will barely be impacted. I'd be surprised if 10 square miles of Iranian residential area is damaged.
Click to expand...

The whole argument of city core vs suburbs/metro is a waste of time. If Manhattan (with only 19% of the pop. of NYC) is bombed, who cares if Long Island and Queens are unscathed?

Message board nit-picking/waste of time.
 
Cooper said:
The whole argument of city core vs suburbs/metro is a waste of time. If Manhattan (with only 19% of the pop. of NYC) is bombed, who cares if Long Island and Queens are unscathed?

Message board nit-picking/waste of time.
Click to expand...
If Long Island and Queens are unscathed, who cares about a little damage to Manhattan? It hardly matters. Even most of Manhattan would continue with business like normal from a couple hundred tiny warheads. They'd clean up the rubble in a day, and then call in construction crews to repair the damage, and move on with business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top