Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
An idea came to me the other day when i was designing a scenario for a wargame on my computer. I dont know if any of you have heard of Super Power (called Global Power outside of the US) but it can be interesting for seeing the world from the strategic viewpoint of often ignored nations.
I know this post will be a little long, but I love to put out these scenarios and at least some of you have shown interest in the past, so just this once I wont wait for someone else to start the topic.

I had the game set up true to life, with US forces occupying Afghanistan and Iraq. The goal I set for myself was to militarize over the course of one year and launch an invasion of both neighboring countries as well as Kuwait.
Predictably I lost, but the scenario triggered som thinking and have me the idea that Iran could be a legitimate threat, especially as a pawn working in the interests of a greater cause, such as an secret pact with China.

Iran is very different from Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran has the geographic position to deny the US access to the Persian Gulf, as well as the cruise missiles to back it up.
Unlike Iraq, Iran will not be invaded through an open desert, but over a mountain range, or else by amphibious assault.
Unlike Iraq, Iran has an opening to launch a first strike against a large number of US Troops who are not optimally prepared to resist the invasion.
Unlike Iraq, Iran would likely have ballistic missiles capable of attacking the Suez Cannal by the time such a war took place.
In short, Iran could hit America hard and it would probably take 6 months to 1 year for America's retaliation to be prepared.

Phase 1, days 1-30: A barrage of cruise missiles and a few conventionally armed ballistic missiles soften American airpower in Iraq and Afghanistan and destroy key supply depots. A large scale invasion of Iraq follows immediately, in conjunction with a smaller offensive into Afghanistan. Iranian civilian vessels are armed with cruise missiles and surface to air missiles are deployed throughout the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Mediterranean to lay in wait for American reinforcements. Kuwait is to be invaded once American troops in Iraq are eliminated.

Phase 2, days 31-90: Iran blockades the Persian Gulf creating an oil embargo on the United States as well as reduced production over all. China secretly pays for oil in weapons and massive technical assistance with a crash nuclear program intended to between 1 and 5 bombs by years end.
The American buildup of forces in Turkey and Saudi Arabia begins. The American strategy is to make a 3 pronged attack, from Turkey to Iran, through Iraq to Southwest Iran, and across the Gulf into Southeast Iran. An eastern front from Pakistan is not possible because false-flag terrorism from China escalates tensions between Pakistan and India to a critical point.
As US troops move through the Suez Cannal, Iran launches conventional ballistic missiles, damaging the canal system and blocking it with the wreckage of several large ships. The Americans must now take additional weeks to either await clear passage or to pass around Africa.
American or Israeli aircraft attack Iran's ballistic missile sites, taking heavy losses against Chinese-provided radar and air defense systems but destroying many air defenses and Iran's known ballistic missiles.
Iranian sleeper ships take a heavy toll as American ships enter the Red Sea. Although Paul Van Ripper's use of this tactic in a wargame before Iraq has increased force protection and softened the effectiveness of this tactic, the Americans do not truly expect such a large scale attack so far from Iran. The attack kills up to 20,000 troops and 200 pieces of hardware. Although not enough to stop the attack, it forces up to 1 month of delay as additonal troops and equipment are sent.

Phase 3, days 91-150: Although American forces in Turkey are assembling on schedule, US forces bound for Saudi Arabia have been heavily delayed and have taken heavy losses. Iran makes regular probing attacks on the Turkish border, supported by cruise missiles and gas attacks. Incindiary munitions delivered by cruise missiles take a heavy toll on Ankara and Incirlik. Turkish forces demand an active role in the war now and are moved to the border to prepare for their part in the invasion of occupied Iraq.
While American forces in Saudi Arabia are understrength, Iran invades. They take heavy losses but are successful and capture a small amount of undamaged US hardware, most of which is secretly sold to China for reverse-engineering.

Phase 4A, day 151: Iran has obtained nuclear weapons and reveals this to the world. Iran offers peace terms

Phase 4B, days 151-180: Iran does not yet posses nuclear weapons, or posses them yet believes they can defeat America in battle. With the Saudi Theather closed and the sudden willingness of the Turks to fight, the American attack into Iraq and Northern Iran begins early. Iranian troops in Southern Iraq and Saudi Arabia withdraw into Iran, destroying oil wells as they go. The Iranians concentrate their defense in the mountains of Western Iran.
This is the first time since Korea that an organized and professional foe has resisted America on constricted and unfavorable terrain. The Iranian defenses easily deflect the initial attack through the mountains. America quickly secures Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and extends the lines of battle along the entire Zagros range, probing for a weakness. At this point there is yet another opportunity for Iran to force peace before meeting with disaster, if they have the bomb.

Phase 5, days 181-270: Despite heavy losses, the Iranians hold the front line for the first month or two by concentrating defenses on favorable terrain, reinforcing their positions adequately, and emplacing reserves to counter-attack any breakthrough. Eventually an American breakthrough destabalizes the front. The war will be over within a month of this breakthrough unless Iran has nuclear weapons with which they can force peace.

Phase 6- the unthinkable- days 271-278: Iran announces their possesion of nuclear weapons and that they are prepared to launch on Turkey and perhaps other NATO countries. They use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the American breakthrough and demand a peace settlement immediately, or else they will nuke remaining US positions and launch on Incirlik, Ankara, and Istanbul, Turkey- as well as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beer-Sheva, Israel. China immediately notifies the US state department that this crisis will not be an excuse for them to make a nuclear conquest of the arab world, and that "there is potential for escalation"...
God only knows what would happen.

Conclusion: Although Iran is no match for the US Military, their geography is favorable if they can develop the proper resources to take full advantage of it.
In order to upset the United States, Iran must do the following:
1. Produce a sizeable quantity of Medium Range Ballistic Missiles.
2. Acquire a VERY large quantity of cruise missiles and equip them with sufficient guidance systems to be used on a broad scale against advancing ground forces as well as naval threats.
3. Acquire sufficient sonar and torpedo technology/hardware to control the Straight of Hormuz (Persian Gulf) and Northern Arabian Sea in the face of US Submarine threats.
4. Enter into agreements with modernized militaries to train first-rate officers and improve the tactical ability of their military at all levels, especially small unit level.
5. Acquire a large volume of modern air defenses and at least a small number of modern aircraft and well trained pilots to ensure competent defense of their own airspace.
6. Develop the range and precision of their artillery to exploit their Western mountains to the fullest extent as a defensive asset.
7. Secretly complete or acquire at least 3 nuclear weapons, and prepare themselves to produce more within 6 months of initial hostilities against any major power.
8. Make arrangements to sign a strategic alliance with China and North Korea immediately at the end of the war.

It is my opinion that with extensive military spending and cooperation with China, N. Korea, Pakistan, and perhaps Russia, Iran could be prepared for hostilities against the United States within 1 year at the earliest and 2-3 years at the most.
It would be impossible to conceal development on this level, but the nations involve could argue in the UN that they are merely insuring their own sovreignity in the face of US Aggression.
Niether US nor Iraqi citizens will stand for the deployment of troops necessary to counter this scenario by non-diplomatic means prior to the outbreak of Iranian aggression.

If Iran had the means to negotiate a peace terms, using nuclear weapons as leverage after fighting well against neighbors and perhaps US troops (although Iran will probably want nukes going in, and will sue for peace before the American invasion) then I believe the terms would come out something like this:

1. Iran could advance their western border, perhaps even as far as the Tigris, taking control of much Iraqi oil and Shiite areas, with the US forced to acknowledge this as reparations for the US-backed Iraq-Iran war. US military forces in Iraq would be strictly capped by the treaty.

2. Kuwaiti independence would be restored under their Emir and minor reparations paid to Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait would be appologized for as necessary to denying America a military base against Iran. The number of US Military forces based in Kuwait would be strictly capped by the treaty.

3. Afghan independence would be restored with new elections to be monitored by only UN security council members who did not participate in the war (France, Russia, China). American troops would be barred from Afghanistan by the treaty and required to pay "aid money" (reparations) in acknowledgement of their responsibility after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Civil war would likely result, with Pakistani and Iranian intelligence assisting a new Taliban regime.

4. Saudi Independence would be restored with UN monitored elections- member of the House of Saud having been executed as American puppets during the war. The election of a somewhat anti-American regime would be likely. American military presence in this holy land would be entirely banned by treaty.

5. A de-militarized zone in Eastern Turkey and Northern Iran would be established, and US military presence in Turkey would be strictly capped by treaty.

6. Iran would sign (and probably violate) treaties ensuring free access to the Persian Gulf.

This resolution is devastating for American oil supplies and foreign policy in the Gulf. America would be forced to greatly reduce its energy consumption while accelerating its transition away from an oil economy (which already must end soon due to Peak Oil).
After American troops had withdrawn from the region, a nuclear attack against Iran's nuclear weapons would be almost certain and followed by a return to war unless Iran signs a strategic alliance with China.




posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Iran couldnt blockade US ships...they dont have the numbers nor the firepower....and I'd hope the US would be smarter then launch a ground war...Im assuming the US was mainly attack from the air...which wouldnt be much of a fight...If Iran and China went full force at the US w/o the US getting help from Britian, Australia, Italy....etc....then yes...MAYBE an upset could occur...but otherwise...highly unlikely...



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Great post, Vagabond. Well-researched. Although I do agree with the other guy that Iran cannot protect against a naval invasion.

I think iran wants American forces to enter Iran, because they's where our forces would be weakest.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
well,

First, we chinese will not be actually involved in the fighting; that's for sure. But we will supply arms as well as diplomatic support to the max.

Second, Iran is very well armed and supplied by many countries and its own indigenous military industry is much more advanced than Iraq ever was. They make their own tanks, as well as some of their own fighters. They also have a rather mature missile force.

Third, Iran was never weakened like Iraq was due to Gulf War I and the US doesn't really have any excuse to invade Iran. If Iraq War II is a diplomatic and PR nightmare, just think what and how the rest of the world would respond if the US invades Iran without any legitimate excuse.

Fourth, the Iranians are extremely proud people and they would not chicken out and or desert. Durng the Iran-Iraq war, they fought against all the odds in the world and withstood Saddam's onslaught supported by most of western nations and russia, including biological weapons given by the US.

Bottomline, it won't be a cake walk and the US will probably pay dearly if it decides to invade iran.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Haha, this is a joke right? Our B-2 base in Diego Garcia is well out of range of Iranian missiles, and well within range for the B-2 to run bombing missions full throttle. Logistics also come to mind. The US, when it fights wars, fights them half way around the world ie. Iraq, Yugo, WWII, Iraq (again), Vietnam, and Korea. It is able to mantain a constant supply of troops, food, and ammunition. Would the Iranians in their own country be able to afford such methods?

Phase One: Once Iranian military provokes the US, it will be the first such instance that a government has ordered it's military to attack US service men since Pearl Harbour. The US will quickly mechanize itself and quickly on the advantage by having two large concentrations of troops and air power on BOTH sides of Iran. In Diego Garcia B-2's will immediatly begin to bombard the Iranian strongholds, sparring no expense (these meaning we will most likly go back to the Patton and MacArthur days of bombing tactics which included HEAVY amounts of civilian casualties. You think civilian casualties are horendous in Iraq, wait till a nation provokes the US in the manner you are suggesting. Not to mention there are large concentration of US troops in Japan and South Korea and a host of B-2's in Guama just iching for deployment the second something like this happens.

Phase Two: There is no way the Iranian Navy can compete with any US Aircraft carrier or sub. What are the Iranians going to blockade the Persian Gulf with, the iron clad steamships they have? You are assuming way too much that the US is not going to respond immediatly, and you assume that any provoking of US forces by Iranian military will not gain the US any significant allies such as the UK, Austalia, Netherlands, and maybe even France, Germany, Japan, and hell who knows the Russians might take offense to this, they share the Caspian Sea with Iran do they not?


Phase Three: So it has been 3-4 months and the US has done nothing to counter the Iranian attack?


Phase Four-Five: Wait, now you say it will take the US nearly a half year to counter Iranian actions? Even more laughable. How long did it take the US to mobolize its forces in the Pacific when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour? That was over 50 years ago, we are much better at mobolizing our troops on a quicker time schedule and not only that we are right next to the enemy in this case.

Phase Six: Geography, the US wouldn't send in ground troops first, they would simply bombard the Iranian strongholds and supposed facilities and storage units for WMDS to sh!t. There probably wouldn't be too much to go in with ground troops and conquer. You are still assuming that the US is inept and will not mobolize its forces after having a barrage of Misssiles launched upon its forces.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
how much oil is enough for US oil companies?

I heard new alternative energy resources have been fully developed already. But until they sell out all the oil, the government won't release it.

The best way for iran to avoid attack is to steal that technique and public it for free.

chenny and gwb then have no interest about mideast anymore.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
It is a rare day on which Hawkssss and I agree, but that day is here indeed. I think I might point out (since I'm sure my many typos in the original post created doubt) that I am an American, in fact a borderline neo-con American, and a former Marine. So I'm not some rabid anti-American- I just thought I'd say that now before somebody shows up to accuse me.

Anyway, I would like to offer a response to the accurate points made by Addix and Monica. Although America has a formidable airforce- indeed probably the best in the world- airpower simply can't stop Iran. Addix says it wouldn't be much of a fight, and I believe his point is that Iran would get slaughtered. I also say that it wouldn't be much of a fight- it would be more like a slap-fight. Airpower still can not replace the man on the ground.

American aircraft carriers would be endangered by Iran's missile forces, as well as by the clever and very dangerous tactic of disguised warships armed with advanced missiles. American airpower would not even begin to approach the enormous concentration which was brought to bear on Iraq in 1991. Even in 1991-92, an Iraqi commander was quoted as saying "At the start of the war I had 63 tanks under my command. After 60 days of air attacks I still had 55. After fifteen minutes against the M1A1, I had no tanks." My point is that American air attacks, while extremely effective in their own limited field, are not in any way the primary weapon of United States military might. A nations military could be attacked by the USAF every day from now until the end of the world, and that would be acceptable losses, as long as that nation continued to buy hardware and expand on the ground.
Furthermore, the USAF would fly entirely from Turkey, Italy, and perhaps Greece in this war. In addition to increasing the time required for each sortee, it would create a corridor in which Iranian air defenses and fighter aircraft could be concentrated, making the initial airwar very dangerous for America, although I must offer the concession that after a few weeks or months, American airpower would gain limited air superiority by sheer weight of numbers.
Think about this though: the most current variants of the Su-27/Su-30 are good matches for the F-16, as are their Chinese domestic variants (dubbed J-10 I believe?). I promise that if nobody beats me to it I will research those aircraft as well as F-22 and post the "tale of the tape" for you. If China/Russia provided Iran with a significant number of these aircraft and trained the pilots to a standard equivalent to American "top gun" programs, the Iranian airforce would give the USA something it hasn't had since WWII- a real live dog-fight where either side could win without the benefit of superior numbers. (I'm sure all you airforce guys are just watering at the mouth for the chance to be the first American fighter ace since the 3 who did it in Vietnam, but pay attention, because this is serious stuff.)
Not only that, but the Chinese and Russians have the technological and industrial capability to provide Iran with alarming amounts of air defenses. I know that Iraq had some top-of-the-line technology, but it also had a lot of 1st and 2nd generation soviet AAA blazing away at the night sky blindly.
With Iran controlling the vast majority of mid-east oil, China and Russia would have every reason and opportunity to flood Iran with SA-10 and equivalent weapons as well as military advisors to run them- we're talking about 2 missile batteries being deployed for every 1 the USAF can destroy in the early part of the war. And dont think that the Chinese and Russians are afraid to send "military advisors" against the Americans. In Korea and Vietnam a lot of American pilots reported shooting down an inordinate number of blonde or red-haired "Asians".

Anyway, that whiskey I had earlier is starting to kick in (I say this so that Grady and Westpoint can joke to me that it shows) so I'm going to retire before I say something stupid.


Originally posted by Hawkssss
well,

First, we chinese will not be actually involved in the fighting; that's for sure. But we will supply arms as well as diplomatic support to the max.

Second, Iran is very well armed and supplied by many countries and its own indigenous military industry is much more advanced than Iraq ever was. They make their own tanks, as well as some of their own fighters. They also have a rather mature missile force.

Third, Iran was never weakened like Iraq was due to Gulf War I and the US doesn't really have any excuse to invade Iran. If Iraq War II is a diplomatic and PR nightmare, just think what and how the rest of the world would respond if the US invades Iran without any legitimate excuse.

Fourth, the Iranians are extremely proud people and they would not chicken out and or desert. Durng the Iran-Iraq war, they fought against all the odds in the world and withstood Saddam's onslaught supported by most of western nations and russia, including biological weapons given by the US.

Bottomline, it won't be a cake walk and the US will probably pay dearly if it decides to invade iran.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Maybe I am wrong but I was under the impression that
Iraq already has a missile capable of intercontinental
travel that is why it is such a big deal if they build a warhead
and even if they do not in the past we hve sold them missiles
capable of long range travel.

In saying all this if I am wrong please correct me
if not then Diego Garcia is well within the range of
Iranian missiles. It's not like there trying to fight us with just
RPG and AK's

geo



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The missiles we sold to Iran during Iran Contra were Hawks- which is a type of anti-aircraft missile.
America has never sold ballistic missile technology to Iraq or Iran that I am aware of (although I would be infinitely intrigued if anyone could prove that we did).

Iran is in the process of developing ballistic missiles of its own. Although many news sources have failed to report this particular detail, they appear to be N. Korean No Dong missiles (No Dong II?). I noticed this because Fox News displayed a satellite picture in which one item was labeled "possible No Dong missile stand" and another was labeled as another kind of missile. I'm pretty sure it was not the N. Korean Taepo Dong, but it could have been. (As I recall, one of the variants of Taepo Dong can reach Hawaii, or come very close to it. If I am right, Taepo Dong I was fired over Japan a few years ago, and Taepo Dong II or III can hit the US. Somebody please remind me.)
I am also relatively sure that Iran has been accused of developing a domestic ballistic missile. I do not recal the name but will hopefully find time to research and post additional information in several of my current threads soon.

My scenario calls for largescale use of Iranian ballistic missiles in a conventional role (requiring accurate guidance systems and dozens if not hundreds of missiles) so my point was that a large inventory must be compiled and that the technology should be improved as much as possible- not that they lacked them and needed them.
As for warheads, you may or maynot be aware that the payload, or "bomb" part of the missile is what is called a warhead. The development of a nuclear warhead would be VERY important obviously, and the development of the most efficient incindiary, gas (both lethal and non lethal, for diplomatic reasons), and conventional warheads would also be of obvious benefit to Iran. Incindiary and non-lethal gas warheads are probably most vital for research (non lethal gas is important because it requires infantry to remain in MOPP gear without the obvious implications of using lethal gasses.)



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Making a nuclear weapon is not hard if you have resources of a big country like Iran. Now making that nuke fit into the small package of a warhead to fit on a ballistic missile thats were it starts to get complex.

My question for this scenario is that if Iran starts shooting off ballistic missiles at US troops. Whats to stop the US from assuming they have nuclear warheads or other WMDs on those missiles Iran is shooting and having the US respond as if it was a nuclear attack.

I dont think if they see all these missile flying out of Iran they are going to assume they are all conventional. That action alone from Iran might get a nuclear response from the US.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Frosty Frosty Frosty do you know how many of 1000 nato planes that attcked Serbis in 99 were shot down uhhh? The U.S. Gov has kept then secret from U.S. news agencies, 388 Nato planes were shot down, including 2 B2's here the 411, on May 20,1999 a U.S. B2 bomber serial number AV-8 88--0329 Spirit of Missouri was shot down (Thanx to Russki Tech of course) over Surcin, Yugoslavia this was reported by Greek magazine "Ilustrovana Politika" in thier June 1, 1999 issue Here's a link if you can read Greek www.aeronautics.ru... The Russian news Itar-tass, and Tanjug reported it also if you can read Russian here's the linkS www.aeronautics.ru... heres Tanjug's site www.aeronautics.ru... Oh and by the way This IS what IS about to happen in Iraq by Iran read the historical document on the destruction of the USS Stark in 1987 by IRAN!! joevialls.altermedia.info...

[edit on 5-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Oh and by the way This IS what IS about to happen in Iraq by Iran read the historical document on the destruction of the USS Stark in 1987 by IRAN!! joevialls.altermedia.info...

[edit on 5-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]


I believe the site mentioned that it was the Iraqis not the Iranians who shot the USS Stark.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
...388 Nato planes were shot down, including 2 B2's here the 411, on May 20,1999 a U.S. B2 bomber serial number AV-8 88--0329 Spirit of Missouri was shot down ...

Bahahahahahaha...


So nice of the Serbs to repair all those aircraft and return them to us!



(actual number NATO planes downed: 2)


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Bahahahahahaha...


So nice of the Serbs to repair all those aircraft and return them to us!



(actual number NATO planes downed: 2)


The previous post was an exaguration but to say 2 planes were shot down is not exactly accurate either.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Well Sep, trot out your evidence. This subject has been covered already, and the only credible evidence is for the F-117 and the F-16. If you have anything new to add, please bring it out.


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I didnt follow the war, and I am no expert on it. I just read a few of the statments from the Yogoslavian Generals and most of it probebly is garbage but I dont think they would exagurate it that much. My best guess would be that etween 10-30 planes have been shot down. The NATO says only two have been shot down, but the Generals from other side say diffrently. Here is a link:

www.aeronautics.ru...

If I were to guess I would say both sides are lying but that just might be me.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Lol, that's the same source Siberian Tiger gave. Sorry, but Venik is not considered a credible source, even by most Russians.

I am afraid you will have to do a little better than that...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I fully intend to rip Frosty a third hole to speak from (he's already using something significantly lower than his mouth) but first I want to answer ShadowXIX who made a much better point.
In short, America will not retaliate against MRBMs which are not aimed at American nuclear facilities until they impact because it is not unheard of for ballistic missiles to carry conventional payloads.
In both wars against Iraq there have been attacks by Scud B and Al Hussien SRBMs which were belived at the time (and in some cases really were) armed with chemical weapons. America never retaliated in kind.
It is likely that Iran could make gas and incindiary attacks, in clear violation of international law, without suffering a response in kind unless these tactics made it utterly impossible for America to win conventionally. Even if these tactics resulted in a sudden defeat, America would likely not retaliate if already beaten, simply because there was nothing to gain but plenty to lose politically. As stupid as it may seem, Iran would almost be able to go to the UN and say "America is picking on poor defenseless peaceloving Iranians" right up until they had driven the last nail into America's coffin. Thats just how things are when everyone gets sick of you calling yourself "the last super power".


Originally posted by Frosty
Haha, this is a joke right? Our B-2 base in Diego Garcia is well out of range of Iranian missiles, and well within range for the B-2 to run bombing missions full throttle. Logistics also come to mind. The US, when it fights wars, fights them half way around the world ie. Iraq, Yugo, WWII, Iraq (again), Vietnam, and Korea. It is able to mantain a constant supply of troops, food, and ammunition. Would the Iranians in their own country be able to afford such methods?

Meanwhile, back on Earth, distance is still a disadvantage, the Iranians are by no means in the grips of a famine, and as long as they like rice and small amounts of chicken the Chinese would never let them be.



Phase One: Once Iranian military provokes the US, it will be the first such instance that a government has ordered it's military to attack US service men since Pearl Harbour. The US will quickly mechanize itself and quickly on the advantage by having two large concentrations of troops and air power on BOTH sides of Iran.

I have already stipulated that Afghanistan would be invaded at the outset and Pakistani cooperation would be minimal thanks to the assisstance of China. The lack of pakistani cooperation would mean that no US heavy assetts such as tanks could ever reach Afghanistan, and even troops would have to violate Pakistani airspace to be dropped in. The US would have to go to war with Pakistan first if they wanted to take Iran form both sides. I'm so glad to see that you didn't read my post, or else I'd have to take you seriously.



In Diego Garcia B-2's will immediatly begin to bombard the Iranian strongholds, sparring no expense (these meaning we will most likly go back to the Patton and MacArthur days of bombing tactics which included HEAVY amounts of civilian casualties. You think civilian casualties are horendous in Iraq, wait till a nation provokes the US in the manner you are suggesting.

I'm calling the DEA- you are obviously on crack if you think that the US is going to intentionally massacre civilians in a nation as outmatched as Iran. Such an act would DEMAND internatonal intervention, and the Chinese would have a blank check to move any amount of their own airpower, pilots, and airdefenses that they wanted into Iran.



Not to mention there are large concentration of US troops in Japan and South Korea and a host of B-2's in Guama just iching for deployment the second something like this happens.

Yeah that's a great idea. Let's just pull everyone out of the Pacific and tell North Korea to sit still while we go fight Iran. I'll call my buddy Kornflakes tomorrow and ask him if he's itching for a war too. Last time I checked he is only in South Korea because he thought the uniform would get him laid, and he can't wait to get out of the Army before he has to go get shot at.



Phase Two: There is no way the Iranian Navy can compete with any US Aircraft carrier or sub. What are the Iranians going to blockade the Persian Gulf with, the iron clad steamships they have?

First of all, Iran has a large supply of Silkworm cruise missiles if I recall correctly. Furthermore, landbased airpower, even if less advanced than the enemy carrier airwing, is a real threat to a ship, which in and of itself should keep the US out of the Persian Gulf or Northern Arabian Sea. It does not take a destroyer or a nuclear submarine to fight a naval war either. Small patrol boats and diesel submarines supported by the proper sonar equipment and armed with a sufficient supply of torpedoes can hold a small area of coast easily, especially when a straight or other form of choke-point exists.



You are assuming way too much that the US is not going to respond immediatly, and you assume that any provoking of US forces by Iranian military will not gain the US any significant allies such as the UK, Austalia, Netherlands, and maybe even France, Germany, Japan, and hell who knows the Russians might take offense to this, they share the Caspian Sea with Iran do they not?

1. It takes 3-6 months for America to plan, prepare for, and launch an invasion even without being attacked in transit. The Iranian strategy I have outlined concentrates on a strategy of delaying American deployments by attacking them at sea using a tactic which was HORRIFYINGLY SUCCESSFUL (in fact the entire US invasion force ended up at the bottom of the gulf in that pentagon excercise) in a wargame prior to the invasion of Iraq. The Pentagon didn't learn either- they just tied General Van Ripper's hands so that he couldn't embarrass them anymore, and finally he quit because they weren't learning anything from him.

2. France disagrees with American foreign policy and wants to see America embarrassed. Germany is not culturally focused on the outside world and is slow to fight when Prussians aren't in charge. The Netherlands simply does not have the necessary size to affect this scenario appreciably, nor would they have any stake in this war. Japan only sends token forces with America to lend the appearance of internationalism and they do it because of American oil-blackmail. Australia is a fine partner to have but they'd taken even longer than America to mobilize large forces to Turkey because of their location and the avenues which Iran makes unavailable. The UK would almost certainly give assistance but they have been factored in because the wars in which American deployment time was 3-6 months were all fought with UK cooperation.
Yes, Russia would help- they would be helping the Iranians by murdering everything America tried to do in the UN and selling food and any other necessities, possibly even weapons to Iran. Russia is certainly not afraid of Iran but is certainly peeved by America meddling in former soviet republics such as Georgia and Azerbaijan- which would likely come to an end as the result of this war.



Phase Three: So it has been 3-4 months and the US has done nothing to counter the Iranian attack?


It took 2 or 3 months to counterattack Afghanistan when they had no appreciable regular military and a friendly rebel group which controlled part of the country. We also had an ally on their border to help us, which we dont have in this case. It was not stated, because it was not important, that the airwar would have been going on for all of these first 4 months, but it would be far less productive than past air campaigns because Iran is not quite as bass-ackwards as Iraq, and would have heavy support from China in terms of hardware and training.



Phase Four-Five: Wait, now you say it will take the US nearly a half year to counter Iranian actions? Even more laughable. How long did it take the US to mobolize its forces in the Pacific when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour?

At the beginning of WWII America had been anticipating hostilities from Japan and had been preparing for quite some time. Even still it took 8 months. Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7 1941. A relatively small force of 10,000 Marines landed on Guadalcanal for the first US offensive of WWII on August 7, 1942. Anyone who wishes to debate successfully must always remember never to ask a question without knowing the answer- learn that now and I'll embarrass you less often.



That was over 50 years ago, we are much better at mobolizing our troops on a quicker time schedule and not only that we are right next to the enemy in this case.

We aren't right next to them in this case. Actually, from California, where I live, I'm almost exactly 180 degrees longitude from Iran. If I were on the same latitude as Iran, there wouldn't be anywhere in the world I could go to get further away.
You are probably referring to our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, which only means that a large number of our troops are sitting in Iran's back yard, spread out around a bunch of cities and inadequately supported for open war. For Iran to overrun our forces in Iraq (which they MAY be able to do even right now, with a little luck and a lot of planning) would devastate our military capabilities. Think about it- we have so many troops in Iraq that we'd have to start a draft to keep them there for a long period of time or to start even a small fight anywhere else. What if they all DIED? We wouldn't be fighting anybody for a while, even with a draft.



Phase Six: Geography, the US wouldn't send in ground troops first, they would simply bombard the Iranian strongholds and supposed facilities and storage units for WMDS to sh!t. There probably wouldn't be too much to go in with ground troops and conquer. You are still assuming that the US is inept and will not mobolize its forces after having a barrage of Misssiles launched upon its forces.

I'm not saying we wont mobilize, I'm saying that it will take months to complete the mobilization. I am also sticking to the fact that even against the WORST airdefenses imaginable airpower never gets more than 10% of the job done.
And how are you gonna bomb WMDs you can't find? The last time America tried to fight a war from the air alone all they blew up was a couple of pharmaceutical companies and a Chinese embassy.
And what do you propose that America will do to protect all of these airplanes? What stops a car load of Iranian teenagers from driving over to the air base and beating up all of the pilots with a baseball bat?
GROUND TROOPS! That means that a serious air war can't start until a sufficient ground force is in place to defend them. We can fly a few sortees, but no shock and awe.




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by engineer
Lol, that's the same source Siberian Tiger gave. Sorry, but Venik is not considered a credible source, even by most Russians.

I am afraid you will have to do a little better than that...


First of all, Sep said that he didn't think the Serbs would exagerate that much. I have 3 syllables for you- Baghdad Bob. He was that Iraqi information minister who claimed US forces were cut off and surrounded all over Iraq. My favorite part of that whole war was when a reporter asked an American officer about those statements and the officer pointed in a certain direction and said "Maybe you should ask him, his office is over there- but I dont think he's there."

Also, I'm not sure at all, but we're not talking about the same news source which reported that 12 M1A1 tanks and over 20 assorted IFVs were destroyed by rebels in Fallujah are we? I'm actually pretty sure that was a chicom source, but I dont really follow foreign propaganda too closely- I just laugh about it when our domestic propaganda channels (aka the news media) show it to us.


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant