Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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 Oh and by the way This IS what IS about to happen in Iraq by Iran read the historical document on the destruction of the USS Stark in 1987 by IRAN!!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


B-2's shot down? Ha, the only stealth aircraft ever shot down in US possesion is the F-117, the least of the stealthiest. www.globalsecurity.org...
www.centennialofflight.gov...


Oh, the Russians say it wa shot down. And then what, they returned it to us? You'd think by now, if the Russians had heard there was a downed B-2 they'd be all over it salvaging it and taking it back to study. A little info on the Politika "a becon for nationalist propoganda" www.ex-yupress.com... Even the Russian aeronautic page gives no official date (there is no year included).

Taken from the Russian site: "April 4 On April 4, exactly at 3:27AM one, possibly two USAF F-15 fighter jets were shot down" It was my general understanding that the F-15 had never been shot down.




posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Wait wait wait. We HAVE to violate Pakistani airspace to deploy troops in afghanistan? There's no way we could go over Iran though I imagine it could be suicide. Then again how did the troops get there in the first place, did we violate Paki airspace then? Still you are assuming way to much that the US wouldn't within, say a months time begin to bomb Iran. I am not talking about GROUND INVASION! I am talking about a bombing run. If the Iranian's were constantly attacking US forces with missiles (as you have said for over a months time), you think it would take 3-6 moths to plan a counter to move the troops out of the way of the missiles and then begin Bombing? Is that what you are saying? It took 2 months(56 days from 9/11), Oct 7 for the US to begin bombing Afghanistan, and that was against a group of terrorist, this will be against a nation's military. Though I suppose we won't have to go through the same proccess to verify who attacked us. I still don't think the Iranian Navy could hold up.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
What about the iranian oilfields? Wouldn't the usa retaliate immediately by bombing them, hitting where it really hurts, in the wallet, ????

Also it could be that Washinton has communicated to Teheran that Iranian attack on Saoudi oilfields is TOTALLY INACCEPTABLE (just like china and Taiwan matter), in other words the usa government would feel free to use tactical nukes and other WMD if Teheran really messes with the corporate interests....

In that case it makes a lot of sense for the Iraninians to have some nuclear deterrance as well to make this option less attractive for the Americans, not that they have the delivery system to retaliate on an American city, but certain American corporations would be pissed of if the Saoudi oilfields where radioactively contaminated.

Things could get really messy for both sides, the war doesn't look very attractive....Iran would be thrown back to goat trading economy and usa citizens would have to trade the SUV for an economical korean minivan


[edit on 5-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:31 PM
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...


Who cares if it isn't credible? The truth is the Iraqis struck the U.S.S. Stark.

Of course, you would never believe that...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I kinda see it like football. Any team can be beat on any given sunday.

What does a win look like to you?

In war is there a winner?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:57 PM
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


2 B-2s shot down which would cost more then a aircraft carrier, man talk about propaganda thats classic:


And they picked the Spirit of Missouri as one
Which was used on the first and fourth nights of the Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Why not just say they sunk a couple carriers while your at it.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   
The Vagabond thanks for the response to my question you made a good point.

Another thing I thought about is what role Israel would play in such a conflict I cant really see this happen and Israel not getting involved in it. And they can hold there own as a middle east power.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
If Israel got involved things would get ugly quick. Whatever allies we have in the region, would go away and the Iranian infantry/bomber contingent would triple in weeks from arabs of all types coming in to fight. In short we might as well write off Israel and the persian gulf if it happens, because we don't have a big enough population to sit on the whole region militarilly for 10 years minimum. As far as the oil comment voiced earlier, no we americans don't have enough oil, which is why we are using yours first while sipping off of our domestic supplys haha!!! And you know what there is nothing OPEC or china can do about it lol!!



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

Originally posted by astral_ice
If Israel got involved things would get ugly quick. Whatever allies we have in the region, would go away and the Iranian infantry/bomber contingent would triple in weeks from arabs of all types coming in to fight. In short we might as well write off Israel and the persian gulf if it happens, because we don't have a big enough population to sit on the whole region militarilly for 10 years minimum. As far as the oil comment voiced earlier, no we americans don't have enough oil, which is why we are using yours first while sipping off of our domestic supplys haha!!! And you know what there is nothing OPEC or china can do about it lol!!


Really? I thought Venezuela and Mexico and Canada could harbour US oil supply if the Saudis were ever attacked and oil production ceased. If we felt like it, and could wipe out enviromentalist concerns, we could begin drilling for oil in the arctic and great lake reserves in full production within 4-6 years and become very sufficient on our own oil. Maybe I was mistaken.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
In response to the point about America being tempted to use tactical nuclear weapons: it means impeachment for the president who does it, probable removal from the UN Security council and crippling international sanctions. Make no mistake, if America goes around nuking every 3rd world mudhole that grows a backbone the world would be HAPPY to sell their resources to China instead of America, and China would be glad to pay for them, just to take us down. I'm not saying G-dub won't do it; I'm saying he had better not do it.
In the end I have to agree that a nuclear deterrent is vital to Iranian success in this scenario, because Iran can not stave off conventional defeat for more than 8-12 months without using nukes to force a peace agreement.

In response to the idea that America can do entirely without middle eastern oil: yes but still no.
1. If we went cold-turkey on Saudi oil and had to find new supplies, we would already be in a severe recession if not a depression by the time oil was flowing at full supply again.
2. The nations that would still trade with us would have a local monopoly and could rape us till we bleed.
3. The nations that would still supply us may have the resources, but may not have the stability. You may or may not be aware of the political problems, general strikes, and guerilla resistances which are common problems in much of South America.
4. It takes energy to make energy. Due to the Peak Oil situation America needs to begin consuming more energy in order to produce the new hardware to run a non-oil based economy. New factories to build new types of vehicles, new power plants, new fuel depots for the new vehicles, and I'm sure I'm missing plenty. For America to just break even on its energy supply is to ensure that we are behind the curve getting off of oil. The nations which get off of oil early will become extremely wealthy. The ones which take too long will no longer be industrialized nations, or will become client states to wealthier nations.


Now look Frosty, I'm not just being a jerk because thats how I am. I have reached a high boil because thats what happens to me when some kid watches a few hours of "shock and awe" on TV and tries to tell me that I dont understand how war is waged. I love this stuff and I study compulsively. It gets under my skin when somebody who doesn't know his stuff writes me off as if I were an idiot.

Troop transports are easy targets and slow movers. They can't be sent over Iranian air defenses and so airborne insertions will not be the solution.
We can not violate Pakistani airspace. We need their permission like we had when we went of Afghanistan. To help ourselves to Pakistani territory would be to slap China in the face, and then Iran would be the least of our problems.

I have also already told you that I know bombing will start immediately. It will be slow and will initially be able to come only from Italy, Diego Gracia, etc. The number of aircraft available will be limited. Advanced airdefenses and aircraft provided to Iran by China could pose a serious challenge to American airpower as well. Even a heavy bombing campaign for 3 months can't do even 10% of the total job, and this would NOT be a heavy bombing campaign.
Heavy bombing can only come from Turkey, only after large amounts of aircraft and logistical support have been moved there, and that can only happen after large ground forces have been emplaced to prevent Iran from over-running our airbases and saying "All of your bases are belong to us!".
This will take months, and even then bombing is only 10% of the solution. A ground invasion is the only way to win.



If the Iranian's were constantly attacking US forces with missiles (as you have said for over a months time), you think it would take 3-6 moths to plan a counter to move the troops out of the way of the missiles and then begin Bombing? Is that what you are saying?

You seem to have a very hard time grasping the concept of deployment time. I have already explained to you that the deployment of groundtroops is vital to any hostility, even for an intense airwar. It takes months to plan, make diplomatic arrangements, make logistical arrangements, activate reservists, load equipment, ship equipment, reroute shipments in response to enemy harrassment, replace hardware destroyed in transit, and deploy a full and combat ready force (they dont all get off of the same boat you know).
Afghanistan took 2 months even when we had cooperation of a bordering nation, the enemy posed no offensive threat, the enemy was in the midst of civil war, and there was little or no diplomatic, economic, or military consequences for the action.
Iraq 1991 took 6 months even with the cooperation of several bordering nations, the participation of almost every military force in the region, international agreement with out goal, and the relative weakness of the enemy, who had just finished fighting an 8 year war that ended in a draw, and the easy terrain of the enemy nation.
Iran offers more challenging terrain, widespread international opposition to our actions, a more modernized military with support from an emerging superpower, the ability to cut off oil supplies to America as we deploy, and the ability to make the first strike which would destroy a very large portion of deployable US forces. Iran will also likely have nuclear weapons in this scenario. It would be no surprise at all if America took 6-8 months to commence hostilities, and it would be no surpise if intial attacks on Iran were defeated either.

The Iranian Navy doesn't have to "hold up" either. All they have to do is sneak one big shot in on us using civilian craft sailing under false colors and packing cruise missiles. You say it wouldn't work- the Pentagon KNOWS that it works because General Van Ripper sank the entire US invasion force in the wargames before Iraq. They could definately "hold up" in the Persian Gulf too. The Straight of Hormuz allows American submarines to be kept out, landbased aircover keeps surface ships at a distance, and small but fast patrols boats can do almost everything that larger surface ships can do.


[edit on 5-12-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 04:57 PM
link   
In a word NO they cannot if the definition is classical warfare where their forces are overwhelmed by superior arms.

If your definition is based on the US suffering losses while attacking and overwhelming their forces then thats cutting hairs.

I have enough confidence that the US Navy and Air Force can strip the teeth from any Iranian defence in a determined attack to say that air superiority will be quickly achieved.

From that point onwards the Iranian military would be open to an unceasing attack that would decimate any offensive capability whatsoever.

The facilities supporting the military and WMD programs would be systematically eliminated to the point that no threat to another country would exist.

We did not surge our carriers for nothing last summer - it was to prove a point.

The point being if we want to have an instant airforce at a given countries doorstep very quickly we can without established airbase's in existence.

B-2's can project massive and deadly accurate bombing from CONUS or Diego Garcia, B-52's can do the same with a long loiter time over the battle area.

Cruise missiles can pave the way for the manned bombers against point air defence installations.

There is no doubt in my mind that an air war would in fact be successful.

The question becomes one of political connotations when considering the Iranian peoples reaction to this action - if it persists to a point of abject and unneccessary slaughter then the average Iranian could be turned against us in a major way that has future ramifications.

If on the other hand air operations are tailed back to only neccessary and protective levels once initial targets are eliminated then I can see a severly weakend Iranian mullacracy in imminent danger of overthrow from within whereby the US could provide air interdiction and logistical support.

I do not in any way see a land warfare action coming in Iran, what I do see is a beefing up of the Iqaq Iranian border region in order to prevent retaliatory strikes by Iranian forces against US forces based there.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
In a word NO they cannot if the definition is classical warfare where their forces are overwhelmed by superior arms.

If your definition is based on the US suffering losses while attacking and overwhelming their forces then thats cutting hairs.


I believe I have explicitly stated that Iran can not accomplish total victory. Niether could the North Vietnamese though. The reason that the ability to not only inflict losses but prolong the war is not considered splitting hairs is because when the losses become unacceptable then Iran can offer peace terms which America would be inclined to accept but which ultimately change the balance of power strongly in Iran's favor.



I have enough confidence that the US Navy and Air Force can strip the teeth from any Iranian defence in a determined attack to say that air superiority will be quickly achieved.

With all respect, it is not confidence that allows them to strip the teeth from an enemy. If modernized aircraft, air defenses, and training were introduced to Iran's military in large quantities, combined with a strategy designed to minimize America's ability to project airpower, the bombing would be reduced to acceptable losses.



From that point onwards the Iranian military would be open to an unceasing attack that would decimate any offensive capability whatsoever.

Please refer to my conversation with Frosty in which I pointed out what a small part of total casualties are inflicted by airpower even in the most successful airwars in history. 10% attrition of selected units only does not decimate any offensive capability- it hardly even blunts the tip of the spear.



The facilities supporting the military and WMD programs would be systematically eliminated to the point that no threat to another country would exist.

Three points to make here: 1. Concealment. 2. Hardened facilities. 3. Use them before you lose them. Remember how long it took to stop the Iraqi Scuds in Desert Storm? Iraq wasn't half the challenge Iran would be.



We did not surge our carriers for nothing last summer - it was to prove a point.

Yes, it proved that we can quickly move them into range of Iranian cruise missiles for the worlds largest turkey-shoot. Paul Van Ripper has already proved that 60 years of under-employment has taken American surface forces out of touch with reality and that said forces are riding for a fall.



The point being if we want to have an instant airforce at a given countries doorstep very quickly we can without established airbase's in existence.

The aircraft carrier's primary role is to provide airpower at sea for employment against the enemy Navy. The modern employment of the aircraft carrier as a mobile airfield is extremely dangerous and depends highly on the impotency of the foe.



B-2's can project massive and deadly accurate bombing from CONUS or Diego Garcia, B-52's can do the same with a long loiter time over the battle area.

Agreed, but without the high volume of sortees provided by nearby landbased fighter/bombers they simply can't get the job done.



Cruise missiles can pave the way for the manned bombers against point air defence installations.

To a certain extent, but only if you can maintain naval operations within range of the targets, which could be difficult in the face of enemy cruise missile attacks launched from unforseen places.



There is no doubt in my mind that an air war would in fact be successful.

Although successful I believe it would be slower and less important than the typical media-fed American would believe.



The question becomes one of political connotations when considering the Iranian peoples reaction to this action - if it persists to a point of abject and unneccessary slaughter then the average Iranian could be turned against us in a major way that has future ramifications.

If on the other hand air operations are tailed back to only neccessary and protective levels once initial targets are eliminated then I can see a severly weakend Iranian mullacracy in imminent danger of overthrow from within whereby the US could provide air interdiction and logistical support.

I do not in any way see a land warfare action coming in Iran, what I do see is a beefing up of the Iqaq Iranian border region in order to prevent retaliatory strikes by Iranian forces against US forces based there.


That is why my scenario calls for an Iranian first strike to overrun Iraq at all costs, causing a manpower and airbase crisis for the planning of the American retaliation. It is considered gospel in modern military thought that to take the initiative and control the tempo of a manuever war is the key to success. Furthermore, a beefing up of the Iraqi border can not take place to prevent such an Iranian invasion because neither the Iraqi nor American citizenry is prepared to accept such deployments so long as Iran has not been undeniably and overtly aggressive with intent to invade.

As I have said, initiative and tempo is everything. You strike first, putting the enemy on his heels and driving him outside the realm of the scenarios he has planned and rehearsed. You drive him out of the theater and begin setting the field against him for when he returns. You harrass and delay and attrit by all possible means as he returns, then you attack from the beginning, not allowing him a foothold. If he can not set foot in the theater, you have won. If he grows weary, you have won. If you have earned his respect and now have additional threats to use as leverage, you can negotiate a limited victory.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Something a lot of you seemed to have forgotten is that in Iran, EVERYONE fights. That's just how patriotic, nationalistic, and united they are. So you can talk all you want about Iranians ground forces would be decimated, but you're gonna have to come up with a better war plan to deal with an entire population.

This was a strategy by the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War and the Iraqis were totally stunned by it. So the U.S. really has only two alternatives - don't go to war, or drive the Iranians to extinction.

We're looking at you Phoenix and Frosty. Waiting for response...



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Something a lot of you seemed to have forgotten is that in Iran, EVERYONE fights. That's just how patriotic, nationalistic, and united they are. So you can talk all you want about Iranians ground forces would be decimated, but you're gonna have to come up with a better war plan to deal with an entire population.

This was a strategy by the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War and the Iraqis were totally stunned by it. So the U.S. really has only two alternatives - don't go to war, or drive the Iranians to extinction.

We're looking at you Phoenix and Frosty. Waiting for response...


Phoenix chimes in - I personally know expatriots that totally disagree with your assesment in whole and in part.

These are people that communicate on a regular basis with family members in Iran - they tell a very different story.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I dont know any Iranians but the picture I have gathered from paying a moderate level of attention to the news is that Iranian youth are not on board with the mullahs. Remember when the religious radicals had to go around beating the crap out of pro-democracy students some years back?

Everyone claims that their whole nation will fight tooth and nail for every building, and nobody has delivered on the promise so far. Japan may have- but they never got the chance.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

I believe I have explicitly stated that Iran can not accomplish total victory. Niether could the North Vietnamese though. The reason that the ability to not only inflict losses but prolong the war is not considered splitting hairs is because when the losses become unacceptable then Iran can offer peace terms which America would be inclined to accept but which ultimately change the balance of power strongly in Iran's favor.

Thats assuming Americans will fall for that propaganda trap once again, I think not.


With all respect, it is not confidence that allows them to strip the teeth from an enemy. If modernized aircraft, air defenses, and training were introduced to Iran's military in large quantities, combined with a strategy designed to minimize America's ability to project airpower, the bombing would be reduced to acceptable losses.

The Iranian airforce is not renowned for prowess but for decrepence, Where are they to obtain these equal aircraft on such short notice? Thatsd a very big IF supporting your proposition if I do say so myself.


Please refer to my conversation with Frosty in which I pointed out what a small part of total casualties are inflicted by airpower even in the most successful airwars in history. 10% attrition of selected units only does not decimate any offensive capability- it hardly even blunts the tip of the spear.

Historic comparisons do not equate to the current capabilities of the US arsenal. Even comparisons with the Gulf war I pale in comparison.

Three points to make here: 1. Concealment. 2. Hardened facilities. 3. Use them before you lose them. Remember how long it took to stop the Iraqi Scuds in Desert Storm? Iraq wasn't half the challenge Iran would be.

Conventional forces are sitting ducks without air superiority, this has been known since early in the second WW war. Once these conventional forces are decimated then the US may take out the rest at its leisure.


Yes, it proved that we can quickly move them into range of Iranian cruise missiles for the worlds largest turkey-shoot. Paul Van Ripper has already proved that 60 years of under-employment has taken American surface forces out of touch with reality and that said forces are riding for a fall.

Thats assuming we leave this capability in place and the Iranians achieve complete surprise, neither is likely nor plausable. Consider if you know of the threat then so does the Navy who has counters to this threat


The aircraft carrier's primary role is to provide airpower at sea for employment against the enemy Navy. The modern employment of the aircraft carrier as a mobile airfield is extremely dangerous and depends highly on the impotency of the foe.

The Aircraft carrier is to project power, this is why they have bomber wings and electronic warfare A/C to bust through defence's land or sea. The foe in this case will be toothless in a few hours and will present little long term threat.


Agreed, but without the high volume of sortees provided by nearby landbased fighter/bombers they simply can't get the job done.

Up to 600 A/C on round the clock sorties backed by heavy bombers based in Diego Garcia is enough to get the job done. If more are required its a matter of deploying one or two more flat-tops to the theatre. Remember these are battle groups not lone carriers.


To a certain extent, but only if you can maintain naval operations within range of the targets, which could be difficult in the face of enemy cruise missile attacks launched from unforseen places.

Adressed earlier.


Although successful I believe it would be slower and less important than the typical media-fed American would believe.

The Iranian people are the wild card and you know it.



That is why my scenario calls for an Iranian first strike to overrun Iraq at all costs, causing a manpower and airbase crisis for the planning of the American retaliation. It is considered gospel in modern military thought that to take the initiative and control the tempo of a manuever war is the key to success. Furthermore, a beefing up of the Iraqi border can not take place to prevent such an Iranian invasion because neither the Iraqi nor American citizenry is prepared to accept such deployments so long as Iran has not been undeniably and overtly aggressive with intent to invade.

Thats a fine strategy for Iranian attrition, within hours of such a move (probably before with surveilliance activities) our forces would have a turkey shoot in this event.

As I have said, initiative and tempo is everything. You strike first, putting the enemy on his heels and driving him outside the realm of the scenarios he has planned and rehearsed. You drive him out of the theater and begin setting the field against him for when he returns. You harrass and delay and attrit by all possible means as he returns, then you attack from the beginning, not allowing him a foothold. If he can not set foot in the theater, you have won. If he grows weary, you have won. If you have earned his respect and now have additional threats to use as leverage, you can negotiate a limited victory.

And I'll admit that is good strategic thinking for past wars with an opponent that is not the US, in this case it is the US who has now written the book on manuever warfare and if you think the Iranians have the equipment, communications, trained military and airpower to back up your strategic thinking.........more power to you........I believe you are decieving yourself on their capabilities..................but I havn't a clue why.

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
600 aircrafts. Say 80 aircraft per CVN which they are not if you consider the electronic jamming crafts, the awacs and the logistic supports. Thats 7.5 CVN's. America doesn't have that many CVN's in the pacific. And if some how they get all the CBGs there, that would leave a big opening for North Korea to attack and for China to take Taiwan and quiet a lot of other issues.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Iran is literally just 100 KM maybe even less, to the Saudi Arabia Oil pipe line. One missile and it'll cripple US economy by sky rocketing oil prices. Then you'll be talking about 200 dollars for 100 litres of oil.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Your points are well taken and I must stress my agreement that Iran is not perpared at the present to even attempt such a move against America.

The aim of this scenario was to consider the implications of China using Iran as a puppet. This is where the large volume of advanced equipment and the training support to create a professional modern military force come from. I didn't just assume that Iran would wake up one day and say "OK, we're going to be a professional military from now on".
Is the scenario likely- of course not. Is it remotely possible- yes if America isn't watching its arse.

I can concede the unlikliness of the scenario, I can concede the EXTREME lengths Iran would have to go to in preparation, and I can concede that the war would be mutually costly.

I could even call the Iranian invasion of Iraq a questionable outcome, however I strongly disagree that it is a turkey shoot waiting to happen because of the unfavorable deployment of US forces, the numerical superiority of the Iranian forces, and the logistical strength the Iranians enjoy while fighting close to home.

I do however believe that there is a bit of a superman complex to overcome in these America vs ______ threads which always come up. The American military must get in touch with the fact that they have not been tried against an adequate conventional military since 1953, and that our hardware might not be as good as it looks on paper when pitted against a real threat in unfavorable situations.

I maintain that that American aircraft carriers can be targeted and hit by cruise missiles or even ballistic missiles if the proper technological advances are acquired and the proper volumes are employed. The only fullproof protection for an aircraft carrier is to stay out of range of landbased fighters or missiles because the enemy can saturate a carriers defenses and destroy it without ever exposing themselves to the carrier airwing. The idea of a carrier as a floating airfield for employment against capable defenses was flawed at best even during WWII, and that was before cruise missiles had worsened the force protection situation for carriers.

We can bicker back and forth all day about the capability of aircraft and the security of aircraft carriers and I really doubt that we would come to an agreement. All I can do is simply ask you why it is, if carriers are inassailable fortresses from whence issues a unilaterally decisive level of firepower, why do we sill send troops and tanks and artillery anywhere?

These incredible military machines you are heralding as the instant doom of any foe could not even subdue Fallujah. The Marines had to do it. Nothing wrong with that I guess- there's just something special about sending in the Marines- you could bomb me a thousand times before an attack by the Marines seemed preferable. All the same, the airpower couldn't do it.

And these things have never been tested under serious fire. We have no idea about the effectiveness of our equipment, tactics, and doctrine in a serious war. In this respect there is a definate analogy of the current situation to WWI. We, and in fact much of the world, have not yet fought a major war with the new technology and if we had to do so would likely learn a great many lessons in the hardest possible ways.

As for the Vietnam parallel- I'm not talking about prolonging the war for a decade until America gets sick of it. I'm talking about bloodying the nose of a nation that is accustomed to rapid and stunning victory. This instills doubt and subjects the nation to several troublesome predicaments- especially a loss of face in front of allies and foes alike. This frustration may make it possible for blackmail to succeed where it would almost certainly not succeed if the US were not first "humbled".
Suppose you've never been beaten in a fight, and I come up to you in a bar and say get the hell out, and you can see that I have a knife on my belt- you might call my bluff because you are pretty tough and I haven't had the guts to make a move.
Now suppose I walked up, beat you senseless by surprise in front of everyone, then pulled out my knife and said get out. You're embarrassed, you're hurt, you're scared, and it seems less likely that I'm bluffing, so you leave.
Thats what I'm talking about here. I honestly dont think America can cope with defeat. We're not used to it at all. We've only had it happen once and when it did it pitted our society against the military and kept us out of wars for about 20 years.


Sep

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I dont know any Iranians but the picture I have gathered from paying a moderate level of attention to the news is that Iranian youth are not on board with the mullahs. Remember when the religious radicals had to go around beating the crap out of pro-democracy students some years back?


Iran was about to start a second revolution in 1980, there was talk of coups, revolutions etc... But when Iraq attacked, well we all know what happened.


Everyone claims that their whole nation will fight tooth and nail for every building, and nobody has delivered on the promise so far.


Check Iran-Iraq war. The only people who didnt fight were the MKO who the US supports.





new topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join