Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:51 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?

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.


I don't like the Bush administration, but if somebody invaded my country, I would certainly fight tooth and nail for every building.

Iranians may not like their government, but they love their country and people. There's a huge distinction people always miss.




posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Okay, I finally found the plans the DoD has in store for a war with Iran. This thing is just awesome! Plans, intelligence on Iran, Order-of-Battle, everything!

Desert Promise Playbook

Students of war, forget the China, the Korean Peninsula, and Russia. Never gonna happen. Iran is a 40% chance, but it's still far more likely than a war in the Korean Peninsula. Study Iran!!!



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Look if you are being beet like this by the Republicen Guard you'll real get cloberd by Iran joevialls.altermedia.info... joevialls.altermedia.info...

[edit on 6-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 6-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 6-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 6-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Dont you give a bit too much of weight for Iran cruise missiles? I doubt US couldnt shoot down most of em and Iran wouldnt control air so its only possible way to attack US would be land cause Sea either possess much of threat in mean of victory for Iran. US outgun from long range all Iran retaliations. So Irans change would only be when invaded and land war taking place, possible artillery and other such that doesnt entirely push enemy away, only slowing em down.
Truth is i doubt US would go to Iran cause of Chinas relations between em, Iraq was already taken and it was not for good of China or Russia interest but still both of the countrys accepted it for now. Iran would probably have too big impact on US oil control over middle-east and cause more enemys for US than now really is.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
what is the name of your game?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
Truth is i doubt US would go to Iran cause of Chinas relations between em, Iraq was already taken and it was not for good of China or Russia interest but still both of the countrys accepted it for now. Iran would probably have too big impact on US oil control over middle-east and cause more enemys for US than now really is.


Infact IMHO Iran is playing a really good diplomatic game by simultanoesuly improving relations wiht countires like Russia, China, India etc...makes it real tough for the US to go in for Iran like it did for Iraq..



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
Dont you give a bit too much of weight for Iran cruise missiles? I doubt US couldnt shoot down most of em

I picked cruise missiles as the likely equalizing weapon for several reasons. 1. They are pretty hard to shoot down because they come in fast with a low altitude and trajectory. Against the Phalanx system on a naval target you would need a saturation attack, but against land targets you are pretty much ensured a hit as long as A. the missile has adequate guidance systems (Iranian Silkworms would require upgrades) and B. the target runs like hell.

2. They are far more expendable than aircraft and artillery pieces, which will almost certainly have to suffer casualties when they are used to duke it out with the USA.

3. They are versatile- deployable by land, air, or sea, and capable of carrying different payloads against different kinds of targets.



and Iran wouldnt control air so its only possible way to attack US would be land cause Sea either possess much of threat in mean of victory for Iran. US outgun from long range all Iran retaliations. So Irans change would only be when invaded and land war taking place, possible artillery and other such that doesnt entirely push enemy away, only slowing em down.

This is not entirely accurate, although I know that this is the pattern we have seen for the last 15 years in American military action. I will address your points in order:

Air: It wont be pretty, and Iran wont "win" but America can not walk all over a modern airforce with trained pilots. We've hardly fought an enemy airforce since WWII. With a shiny new airforce and SAMs, Iran can hold its own in their own airspace at first and force America to bring in a large number of aircraft to the region before beginning major operations.
Starting the war with attacks on officers housing at air bases in the region can also limit the number of pilots available to counter the initial invasion of Iraq. My point here is not that Iran can win in the air, but that they wont lay down and die like the Iraqis, who burried aircraft in the sand to keep them safe.

Sea: Iran's main weapon at sea would be surprise attacks by armed civilian craft as the Americans were approaching. They will also be able to deny America the gulf and protect a thin zone of their coast by using a large number of small craft equipped with good sonar and torpedoes. The small size, agility, and numbers of these craft make them viable for coastal defense, although Iran can not ultimately prevent US naval operations further off their coast.

Land: Iran needs to strike first and go as far as they possibly can. Waiting to be invaded was exactly what made Saddam such easy prey in 1991. Iran can do major damage by taking the troops in Iraq by surprise while they are scattered in local counter-insurgency missions, if Iran moves quickly and is coordinated. The whole point of this scenario is to fight an offensive war and drive America out of the region, then to delay a full-strength return to the theater of battle for as long as possible.



Truth is i doubt US would go to Iran cause of Chinas relations between em, Iraq was already taken and it was not for good of China or Russia interest but still both of the countrys accepted it for now. Iran would probably have too big impact on US oil control over middle-east and cause more enemys for US than now really is.


Never underestimate G-dub. There is a half decent chance we will attack Iran. If we strike first, Iran is in big trouble. To me, America's choice of targets in the war on terror looks like a pretty blatant attempt to build a southern asian line that keeps Russian and China from having unopposed access to the middle east and Africa. In the end, I believe that from Syria to Pakistan you will see American possessions and puppets.


Q

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I think there are a few other factors that would come into play here.

Earlier in the thread, the fact that Iran produces their own equipment was touted as a 'pro' for Iran.

But why is it that they do this? Because they've been under sanctions for oh, say, about 30 years. They do make much of their own equipment, only because they have had little other option. The design of Iranian equipment is largely based on old Russian designs-basically, a lot of the same stuff Iraq had, or slightly improved versions. These designs are robust, definitely enough to keep any dirthole third-world nation in power over it's populace and at even odds with any similarly equipped neighbor, but no mach for comparable modern units (this has been undeniably proven). Reliability of these units and lack of parts to repair the more advanced units they posess makes maintainability of their forces during a prolonged conflict an uncertain prospect, to say the least.

I'm certain there have been advancements made, but pitting the results of Iran's R & D and manufacturing sectors against the US would be a bit one-sided. If push comes to shove, the US is chock-full of people who would be more than happy to work 'round the clock to keep fresh top-of-the-line tanks, aircraft, etc. rolling off of the production lines. Unfortunately, war is profitable, and the US can out-capitalize anyone. No doubt the Iranian military manufacturing apparatus would attempt the same, but their facilities would be near the top of the hypothetical list of airstrike targets, and would be neutralized quickly.

The likely possibility of Iran posessing nuclear capabilities are much like a 3-year old with a hand grenade-smart enough to use it, but not wise enough to understand the danger. If Iran uses this capability, they sign their own death warrant in opening the door to equal retailiation by the US (and we obviously have the edge in nuke tech!). As for any expulsion of the US from the UN for doing so...I'd not count that as a threat either. Half of the US is already chomping at the bit to ditch the UN anyway, what with the oil for food mess and the apparent inability of the UN to perform it's intended function. If we go, over 20% of their funding goes, a conservative estimate at half of their military strength goes, and the UN will collapse. (Effectively, if not literally.)

The initial usage of nukes by Iran would, of course, open the can of apocolyptical worms, being that once one nation in that area of the world cuts loose with the nukes, there's a good chance that every other nutjob nation over there with them will also. Seems to me like there's a real "me too" mentality at work in that area of the world when it comes to nukes. This would be the real wild card-the response of other nations to this scenario. If everybody cuts loose with the nukes over there, it'll be ugly for all involved.

Earlier in the thread, it was also postulated that US forces are over-estimated, not having fought a "real" opposing army since WWII. I disagree with this. While I begrudgingly admit that our military has been understaffed and underfunded at times in the past few decades, it is still top-notch; all other militaries in the world use ours as a benchmark. Improvements have been, and are being made on a continual basis to ensure that we remain top dog. Militarily, we are decades ahead of anything Iran can throw at us. Case in point: their nuclear intentions. While their biggest aspiration is to fit a North Korean cloned missle with a primitive (but functional!) warhead, we invented nuclear technology over 50 years ago, and have been improving it ever since. The Mullahs are deluding themselves in thinking they would have a faint hope of a chance going toe-to-toe all out with the US. If anything, I'd suggest that not only are US forces underestimated, but Iranian capabilities are overestimated as well.

Insofar as the concern of the Iranian navy being able to decimate, or even deny access the the US navy--don't make me laugh. When you have even a single, let alone several, carrier groups sitting on your doorstep with you in their sites, your best bet is to find the fastest route to the other side of the continent and get there with utmost haste. I don't deny that it is a possibility that BM/CM's could inflict some damage, but it would be the military equivalent of throwing rocks at a hornet's nest. The Iranian navy would have NO chance at besting the US. Zip, zilcho, nada.

Iran's only hope of pulling out any sort of victory whatsoever (i.e. survival of the regime and/or eventual expulsion of the US) would be to instigate a war of attrition, likely using guerilla tactics such as are currently being wrestled with in Iraq. Seeing as they're the source of a sizable percentage of that as it stands right now anyway, they've already tipped their hand as to what tactics they're capable of. As time goes on, US forces are adapting to these tactics, making them less and less effective. (Case in point: jamming of IED trigger signals.)

I'm not saying it would be an "easy" war, or that there wouldn't be massive casualties incurred on both sides, as well as on civillian populations. In Iraq, the US has pushed on with this "kinder, gentler" style of warfare due to various political and PR reasons. If an all-out conflict is to happen and we take off the proverbial gloves, the outcome of such a conflict would not be in question, IMO. The US will of course always try to accomplish military goals with a minimum of collateral damage, using things like precision munitions. If it gets down to the real "nitty gritty" though, we can and will ditch this approach and let the carpet bombing begin. Other countries can underestimate the US military all they want, but the truth is that we're pulling our punches in many respects.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Land: Iran needs to strike first and go as far as they possibly can.

Bollocks. If Iran makes any moves to cross the border it's pure suicide. This is not North Africa in WW2. The US is watching Iran's every move. You cannot hide 10 divisions, and there is no such thing as the element of surprise. The US would let them get committed, then the daisy cutters would start falling like rain. Iran's entire army would be decimated within 48 hours.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I think as soon as the first Daisies fall Iran would launch missles at U.S. fleet in Persien Gulf and at U.S. Bases in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   
They might try, but it would have dire consequences. I seriously doubt they could even target the fleet, but they could target US bases and Israel.

Nevertheless, if Iran tried to move their army into Iraq, it would be destroyed. At the same time, the US would be striking targets within Iran with cruise missiles. Iran's MRBM's do not cold launch, so any indication of launch preparation means an immediate strike. The US can saturate Iran's defences with TLAM's launched from SSGN's and Skimmers.

The US doesn't operate in only one mode. While defensive ops are going on, simultaneous offensive strikes are going on also. If Iran tries to sortie aircraft at the fleet, strike AC and CM's are targeting their nearby airbases at the same time that other AC are scrambling to intercept. This effectively shortens their bingo time, because they have to either divert to other airfields further away or run out of fuel.

Iran just doesn't have the military power to effectively take on the US.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   
I have responses for both Engineer and Q here. While I appreciate the input I have to say that some of what is being said here is a little disturbing for reasons which I will point out as I go.


Originally posted by Engineer
Bollocks. If Iran makes any moves to cross the border it's pure suicide. This is not North Africa in WW2. The US is watching Iran's every move. You cannot hide 10 divisions, and there is no such thing as the element of surprise. The US would let them get committed, then the daisy cutters would start falling like rain. Iran's entire army would be decimated within 48 hours.

The fact that you consider the daisy cutter a decisive weapon reveals a tremendous misunderstanding of warfare. The daisy cutter is no more revolutionary than the napalm which single handedly destroyed the ability of the North Vietnamese to make war. *heavy on the sarcasm*.
The daisy cutter is bulky and heavy and dropped from a slow and bulky aircraft. It's great for attacking Afghan rebels who have no air defenses and are hiding in areas with lots of rocks to hide behind. It's good for absolutely nothing against any area protected by even the most primitive of air defenses.
As for an invasion of Iraq being suicide- tell me how. American forces are scattered around in local counter-insurgency operations, they do not have strong lines oriented towards Iran, they do not have as much armor and artillery as you would generally have for a conventional war, and their opponent has not been prepped for invasion by any amount of airwar. American forces will not have plans and orders in hand and will not be 100% ready. Iran will be choosing the time and place of battle. Everything favors Iran. Let's not forget that when an American military officer writes a book about war with North Korea being initiated by North Korea, the scenario almost always involves the Koreans bleeding America badly and driving us back to Pusan, just like the start of the first war.
Initiative is everything.
Surprise is also still possible. Satellites come over on a regular schedule and look straight down, plus take time to be analyzed and have intel sent down the chain of command. You probably couldn't hide 10 divisions, but you could hide A LOT about what they were doing- you could even use the satellite pass-overs as a chance to pose for the camera and decieve the enemy about your intentions.
Observe: The Chinese tell me that they are tracking American sats and that they will be looking down on the position of my reserve forces in a few hours- I order my reserves to start moving their trucks and to send a large convoy towards my Northern Flank. After the sat has passed I order the troops on my northern flank to dig extra holes, set up extra tents, and deploy some pre-built wooden vehicles. I then have most of my reserves move to the Southern flank and occupy covered positions which had been errected previously by those troops but had sat empty. The Sattelites come over again later- there is extra stuff up North, the reserves are gone, and everything looks the same in the south. The enemy assigns his units in the North priority call for artillery, so when I attack in oblique order across the whole front, giving most pressure to the South, the enemy artillery is focusing on the defense of units to the North.



Originally posted by Q
I think there are a few other factors that would come into play here.

Earlier in the thread, the fact that Iran produces their own equipment was touted as a 'pro' for Iran.

But why is it that they do this? Because they've been under sanctions for oh, say, about 30 years. They do make much of their own equipment, only because they have had little other option. The design of Iranian equipment is largely based on old Russian designs-basically, a lot of the same stuff Iraq had, or slightly improved versions. These designs are robust, definitely enough to keep any dirthole third-world nation in power over it's populace and at even odds with any similarly equipped neighbor, but no mach for comparable modern units (this has been undeniably proven). Reliability of these units and lack of parts to repair the more advanced units they posess makes maintainability of their forces during a prolonged conflict an uncertain prospect, to say the least.

This is undeniably true, and I will volunteer that you have not mentioned that their lack of funding also ensures a lack of training. Their tank crews have not fired their cannons in training nearly as many times as American ones because they can't afford to. That is precisely why cooperation with China was so vital to this scenario- the threat would not exist unless China were involved. If somebody fronts China all the munitions they need, they can train to 1st world standards for a whole year before going to war. They also need to buy modern weapons to shore up key parts of their strategy (guidance for cruise missiles, MRBMs, aircraft and air defenses). They can also buy parts and upgrades for their existing hardware and better infantry weapons (modular armor upgrades for tanks, targeting systems, anti-tank rockets, etc.). Long story short- Iran can't cut it, but they could if they were tag teaming with the fastest growing economy in the world.



I'm certain there have been advancements made, but pitting the results of Iran's R & D and manufacturing sectors against the US would be a bit one-sided.

Just a bit? Either California or Texas alone could humiliate Iran in every way if Iran weren't heavily backed from outside. I'm not crazy, i'm just trying to be fair.



If push comes to shove, the US is chock-full of people who would be more than happy to work 'round the clock to keep fresh top-of-the-line tanks, aircraft, etc. rolling off of the production lines. Unfortunately, war is profitable, and the US can out-capitalize anyone.

This isn't WWII. Weapons are far more expensive and take longer to produce. It would take a full year to build and crew a sizeable force and another 3-6 months to deploy it. America can't afford 15-18 months under an oil embargo- we would have to fight back immediately.
Also, if we do go long-term like that, the oil crunch means less airconditioning and less driving. If the economy got too bad they might have to introduce "an alternative minimum wage" in the defense industry to make sure we could keep cranking out weapons too. Nobody would be happy about this war, nobody would be happy about the draft (which would be necessary if the troops we have in Iraq were suddenly overrun), and a lot of people would blame the government for getting us needlessly entangled in the middle east and then allowing it to blow up in our face.



The likely possibility of Iran posessing nuclear capabilities are much like a 3-year old with a hand grenade-smart enough to use it, but not wise enough to understand the danger.

This comes across just a little bit racist. Deterrence is a very simple concept and I assure you that the Iranians understand it. They would hold their weapons in deterrence and probably not use them, but America would have to make concessions or risk provoking Iran to the point where nuclear war seemed necessary according to their priorities.



If Iran uses this capability, they sign their own death warrant in opening the door to equal retailiation by the US (and we obviously have the edge in nuke tech!).

Forgive me, but I almost detect an attitude of "those dang camel jockies can't hurt us, but we'll show them how white people fight a war!". If the 3 year old pulls the pin on a hand grenade, they will die but they will take everyone in the room down with them! So yeah, Iran will be a smoking crater, no doubt about it. So will Israel and Turkey, and all American troops in the region will no longer exist. Let's go- lets get 1/3 of the US military vaporized just so we have an excuse to nuke Iran.



As for any expulsion of the US from the UN for doing so...I'd not count that as a threat either. Half of the US is already chomping at the bit to ditch the UN anyway, what with the oil for food mess and the apparent inability of the UN to perform it's intended function. If we go, over 20% of their funding goes, a conservative estimate at half of their military strength goes, and the UN will collapse. (Effectively, if not literally.)


First of all, I'm one of the people who believes America should start playing hardball with the UN and eventually walk out if they dont mend their ways. I agree that going to war without France is like going hunting without your accordion. I also realize however that while the UN is no good for America, it could be very bad for us if it were left to the influence of our enemies and used as a coordinating body for economic attacks on us. Through shrewd manipulation of the UN, China could turn a war like this into the meltdown of all US foreign policy. Israel would disappear, the war on terror would be over, and China would have far more political leverage over smaller nations than we do, meaning that we'd rarely get our way over China in anything without resorting to force- and that wouldn't last long before we found ourselves in a serious war against a coalition.



The initial usage of nukes by Iran would, of course, open the can of apocolyptical worms, being that once one nation in that area of the world cuts loose with the nukes, there's a good chance that every other nutjob nation over there with them will also.

There are two nations on this planet who I believe would launch nukes without being directly launched on. America and Israel. Iran fires, Israel and America fire back, its a limited exchange, probably less than 10 nukes from each side.
The Iran launches first scenario was highly unlikely and certainly not a good option, unless China has 100% control of Iran and considers Iran expendable for the purpose of causing a political/economic disaster for America.



Seems to me like there's a real "me too" mentality at work in that area of the world when it comes to nukes. This would be the real wild card-the response of other nations to this scenario. If everybody cuts loose with the nukes over there, it'll be ugly for all involved.

The itchy trigger finger standings:
1/2. America and Israel (tied). If they can't handle you with conventionals, you're getting a suntan at midnight. It's just that simple. Only deterrence keeps them honest.
3. North Korea. They will not be taken alive. If America screws with them even a little bit it's on like donkey kong.
4/5. Russia and China (Russia a little more paranoid than China) They would do it preemptively if they had to, and would protect an ally if a fullscale attack were launched.
6. Pakistan. They might prefer to go to the button before letting India ever mess with them again.
7. India. An invasion by China or a launch by Pakistan would get India to launch.
8. France. France only nukes Tahiti and perhaps Green Peace without the full consent of the UN security council.



Earlier in the thread, it was also postulated that US forces are over-estimated, not having fought a "real" opposing army since WWII. I disagree with this. While I begrudgingly admit that our military has been understaffed and underfunded at times in the past few decades, it is still top-notch; all other militaries in the world use ours as a benchmark.

First I'd like to point out that I'm absolutely right about America not having faced a superior armed force since WWII, and not having faced a tough fight of any kind since Korea.
I will stress that I do not call America a paper tiger. I respect our armed forces and appreciate the advantage which they enjoy as one of the best drilled and best equiped forces in the world. The US military could be compared to Napolean's forces because of their exceptional training and organization for combined arms manuever warfare. This certainly does not mean that we can not be dealt with by an able management of defenses. I dont know if you have read Rifleman Dodd but the Peninsular War makes a descent analogy. The British bought time by skirmishing their way back to a well prepared position which was all but impregnable, and the French had exhausted themselves and expended great resources only to arrive at a battle they could not fight.



Improvements have been, and are being made on a continual basis to ensure that we remain top dog. Militarily, we are decades ahead of anything Iran can throw at us. Case in point: their nuclear intentions. While their biggest aspiration is to fit a North Korean cloned missle with a primitive (but functional!) warhead, we invented nuclear technology over 50 years ago, and have been improving it ever since. The Mullahs are deluding themselves in thinking they would have a faint hope of a chance going toe-to-toe all out with the US. If anything, I'd suggest that not only are US forces underestimated, but Iranian capabilities are overestimated as well.

The Germans were more advanced than us in WWII. We were more advanced than the North Vietnamese.
A nuke is a nuke- if it turns an army into glow-in-the-dark ashes it doesn't matter if its better or worse than ours.
In other fields, they can narrow the gap with acquisitions from China then overcome our advantage by tactics and logistics (not that they have more, just that we have less in theater and have a long way to move things.)



Insofar as the concern of the Iranian navy being able to decimate, or even deny access the the US navy--don't make me laugh. When you have even a single, let alone several, carrier groups sitting on your doorstep with you in their sites, your best bet is to find the fastest route to the other side of the continent and get there with utmost haste. I don't deny that it is a possibility that BM/CM's could inflict some damage, but it would be the military equivalent of throwing rocks at a hornet's nest. The Iranian navy would have NO chance at besting the US. Zip, zilcho, nada.


Prove your point please. How do we stop them? You say the key is to run away, i say the key is to sink the carriers as fast as possible. That's not throwing rocks at a hornets nest- that's setting a hornets nest on fire. If you destroy the nest, pretty soon you wont have hornets in your backyard anymore. Lets not forget, this isn't just somehting I made up. General Van Ripper humiliated the pentagon so badly in wargames that they started rigging the game against him to give him even less chance to win than Saddam Hussien did. Just google "Van Ripper" + "USS Cole" and i'm sure you'll find what i'm talking about.



Iran's only hope of pulling out any sort of victory whatsoever (i.e. survival of the regime and/or eventual expulsion of the US) would be to instigate a war of attrition, likely using guerilla tactics such as are currently being wrestled with in Iraq.


I strongly disagree. The stronger power should desire a war of attrition to wear the enemy down by brute force. The weaker power should desire a war of maneuver intending to make the larger force impotent by "hitting them where they aren't". Irans primary weapons are the surprise attack against unprepared forces, the delay of hostilities in every possible way, and the oil embargo which goes hand in hand with the delay of hostilities. Iran's greatest victrories will not even be on the battlefield. The weapons are only needed for that initial surge into Iraq, and more importantly to lengthen by several months the preparation time of US forces as well as the number of forces that come into the region (because those forces become hostages in a sense once they are in range of Iranian nukes).



Seeing as they're the source of a sizable percentage of that as it stands right now anyway, they've already tipped their hand as to what tactics they're capable of. As time goes on, US forces are adapting to these tactics, making them less and less effective. (Case in point: jamming of IED trigger signals.)

You are imagining an occupation. The guerilla war in Iraq is just gravy for Iran- a random chance to take potshots at the infidel and just maybe gain influence in Iraq. The war we are considering is not like this- it assumes not an American invasion of Iran but a well planned and prepared for Iranian offensive. If we struck first then things would go much more as you are saying.



I'm not saying it would be an "easy" war, or that there wouldn't be massive casualties incurred on both sides, as well as on civillian populations.

Inflicting massive casualties on America early on is almost a win in and of itself. If Iran can hurt the US economy, hurt US confidence, encourage US enemies, and possibly necessitate a draft, then in the 25-50-100 years scope of things they are coming out on top even if they lose. All the same, I think they could win flat out if they played their cards right and we played ours just a little bit wrong.



In Iraq, the US has pushed on with this "kinder, gentler" style of warfare due to various political and PR reasons. If an all-out conflict is to happen and we take off the proverbial gloves, the outcome of such a conflict would not be in question, IMO. The US will of course always try to accomplish military goals with a minimum of collateral damage, using things like precision munitions. If it gets down to the real "nitty gritty" though, we can and will ditch this approach and let the carpet bombing begin. Other countries can underestimate the US military all they want, but the truth is that we're pulling our punches in many respects.

I should point out that Im a US citizen and former Marine. I dont feel that i underestimate America, but I become frustrated with those who adopt a dangerous mindset believing that America need not be vigilant for potential threats, even from the least likely places. America got where it is today as an tough underdog. America will lose what it has today as a vaunted superpower.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Question, in the event of war against Iran, are the air bases in Iraq and Kuwait enough to accommodate seven Air Force wings and one Marine Air Wing?

I don't see the wisdom in stationing so far in places like Saudi Arabia (they don't even let us use their bases anymore, do they), Qatar, and Bahrain, etc.

Now, with the U.S. in control of Iraq, what will a revised invasion plan look like?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   



Here they come. Watch your six battle cruisers.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Titan007]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Wheather friends or foes of the usa government, we can all agree that the usa has the key advantage of a mighty airforce and satellites.

I doubt that it's to irans long term advantage to make a first move, but ok, Purely hypothetical:

I wouldn't try to sneak up large divisions, but instead smuggle your infantery in the coarse of months, maybe even in 2 years and have them blend in with the Sji'te civilians in Iraq, , bring a bag of euros and fake ID's to smooth things out with the locals.

The infantery is already so close, "hugging" the americans that carpetbombing is simply too dangerous for the american troops. Start a massive uprise all over the country, Tet-offensive style, blow up the pipelines and keep fighting the war on iraqi soil and around the cities,

DO NOT send tanks and artillery in there, keep them well hidden in Iran, as not to fall prey to the superior american airforce and to welcome an American landing in Iran, you wouldn't want to aim your canons at the americans before you see the white of their eyes, because it would give away your position and their long range missiles and airforce will make you pay badly.

Massively Start boobytrapping iranian ciities, roads and bridges, in other words, don't improvise afterwards as the iraqis, but have paranoia already built in. Most of these boobytraps would have to be able to be remotely detonated as to make adequate discrimination between local civilations and foreign invaders.

At the same time start harassing all oiltanker traffic, with your subs etc, don't bother harassing the american naval carriers, because they likely out of your league, just ignore them.

Oh, and some assistence from China wouldn't be bad ....

Irans oilfields would probably subjected to intensive retaliation bombings, this hits the wallet and that prospect alone could hold back the iranian clerics to start a war, they may be religious nutters, but they are not ignorant ...



[edit on 10-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titan007



Here they come. Watch your six battle cruisers.

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Titan007]


Photoshopped, I have the real photo. Its suppose to be on a dessert and with sixty people riding on a MERCEDEZ truck but an EXTREMELY old one.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:27 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...


Although I appreciate your attempt to contribute, you are forgetting one key point... the Iranians are more divided as a nation than you think. More than half the nation does NOT support the ruling Mullahs and would NOT fight the US. In fact, many regular Iranian citizens are our biggest supporters anywhere in the Middle East. Many hvae been calling for US aid in regime change. Research the subject, it will suprise you.


Sep

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Although I appreciate your attempt to contribute, you are forgetting one key point... the Iranians are more divided as a nation than you think. More than half the nation does NOT support the ruling Mullahs and would NOT fight the US. In fact, many regular Iranian citizens are our biggest supporters anywhere in the Middle East. Many hvae been calling for US aid in regime change. Research the subject, it will suprise you.


You are right in saying that the Iranians like Americans, but if the US starts a bombing campaign like they did in Iraq things could change very quickly. And also as you mentioned the students called for aid from the US (which they didnt get) and not an invasion. The only people that would call for an invasion is the MKO who is hated (more then the Mullahs) in Iran.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I am responding to Engineer and Countermeasures in this post because the points they amre are somewhat linked, especially in regards to American air superiority. Although I disagree with Countermeasures I would like to point out his bright and relevant thoughts on how Iran might wage a more defensive war. If we want to talk about how an American-instigated war with Iran would go, I think Countermeasures might be the guy to listen to.


EngineerThey might try, but it would have dire consequences. I seriously doubt they could even target the fleet, but they could target US bases and Israel.

Iran lacks surviellance sats and GPS, but can still target a ship at sea with adjustments to the guidance systems of their missiles and the use of passive sonar bouys. The possibility of gaining access to Russian satellite images is certainly not beyond comprehension either if we are considering this as a China v America proxy battle.


engineer
Nevertheless, if Iran tried to move their army into Iraq, it would be destroyed.

You have yet to support this statement. I am growing tired of responding to this same statement again and again while everyone fails to back it up in any way shape or form.



engineer
At the same time, the US would be striking targets within Iran with cruise missiles. Iran's MRBM's do not cold launch, so any indication of launch preparation means an immediate strike. The US can saturate Iran's defences with TLAM's launched from SSGN's and Skimmers.

This is precisely the beauty of the first strike scenario- that


engineer
The US doesn't operate in only one mode. While defensive ops are going on, simultaneous offensive strikes are going on also. If Iran tries to sortie aircraft at the fleet, strike AC and CM's are targeting their nearby airbases at the same time that other AC are scrambling to intercept. This effectively shortens their bingo time, because they have to either divert to other airfields further away or run out of fuel.


Countermeasures
DO NOT send tanks and artillery in there, keep them well hidden in Iran, as not to fall prey to the superior american airforce and to welcome an American landing in Iran, you wouldn't want to aim your canons at the americans before you see the white of their eyes, because it would give away your position and their long range missiles and airforce will make you pay badly.


These quotes only magnify the importance of the Iranian first strike. We all agree on several points: 1. The United States has a technological edge in almost every field. 2. The United States can bring more forces to the theater of battle than Iran in the long run. 3. The Iranians can't afford to sit there and get bombed for months like Iraq did- they have to get the Americans close and grab them by the belt buckle.
My point is that Iran should grab American by the belt buckle on THEIR TERMS instead of trying to do it against a fully prepared American force.
A rapid advance designed to deprive America of airfields in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan is vital, as is the destruction of as much American personel and equipment as can be accomplished before America has started a full-scale counter offensive.
Iran can limit early American airpower by aquiring new defenses, by launching cruise missiles (no warning) and ballistic missiles (which can be prepped for firing undetected if proper measures against aerial observation are observed) against key air assets such as pilots quarters and fuel supplies, and by drilling intensively to make a rapid advance which may include sacrificial attacks designed to penetrate American defenses and destroy air assets, even if it means the destruciton of the attacking unit.
The use of civilian craft as cruise missile carriers for a surprise attack on US Naval forces is a formidable weapon proven in excercises yet partially ignored by the pentagon simply because they were humilated and did not believe it would work. The attitude at the pentagon was "well in a real war we'd have been more careful". That attitude leads to unpreparedness and assists the success of the enemy, which fills me with confidence in the tactic. For this reason in addition to the fact that US ships in the region simply can not be armed with as many cruise missiles as the entire nation of Iran is capable of housing, Iran should enjoy a firepower advantage in the initial invasion by virtue of homefield advantage against an enemy force which is not adequately prepared for the immediate outbreak of conventional hostilities.

Try to think about what America would do if we knew for a fact that we were on China's hit list and they had 10% of their military in Mexico. Well crap, if we take the initiative and kill 10% of their military right then, plus take out their staging point so that they have to cross the pacific against our defenses, thats the way to go isn't it? I know that Iran stands less of a chance against us than we stand against China, but the situation remains similar- Offense is the emphasis of war. General Krulak's Warfighting manual emphasizes that initative and control of tempo is vital, and that the tempo of operations should only be slowed (and that means defense shoudl only by undertaken) when you are not able to immediately continue offensive operations. This is because defense produces only attrition. To fight a war of manuever and be able to overcome the enemy without paying the full cost of defeating him in head to head battle, you must attack him at the point of his critical weakness.

Now what I have just said opens up an interesting point- if Iran had the ability to maintain offensive operations against Turkey, they probably should attack Turkey. They realistically lack the ability to do this because so long as they do not do this it is possible that Turkey and other NATO members will sit out.
Let me offer a FAR OUT but interesting addition- what if Russia (restored to Communism under Putin with aspirations of regaining former size and might) declared war on Turkey by accusing them of aiding and abbetting Chechen terrorists? This starts a two-front war against NATO which begins with communists firmly in control of the middle East.

Has anybody ever read Red Storm Rising? What happens in that book- the Russians can't push across the Rhine and can't free up forces for a Southern front into the middile east, so they are doomed to run out of oil and lose. What if they had been starting in Iran with Chinese assistance though? That would have been a very different book.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan


Photoshopped, I have the real photo. Its suppose to be on a dessert and with sixty people riding on a MERCEDEZ truck but an EXTREMELY old one.



That is not my point. My point is the US has the largest navy in the world and by many thought to be the most powerful. They are not just going to sail into waters where there are cruise and ballistic missles in range, first US would take out any missle silo's in range of the fleet with air strikes, as for Iran's navy....

Originally posted by Q
don't make me laugh.






top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join