It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 Oh and by the way This IS what IS about to happen in Iraq by Iran read the historical document on the destruction of the USS Stark in 1987 by IRAN!!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]
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...
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
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!!
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?
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 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.
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...
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.
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]
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?
Everyone claims that their whole nation will fight tooth and nail for every building, and nobody has delivered on the promise so far.