It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could Iran pull off a military upset against the US?

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
US is relying too much on China, look at your house, I say at least 60% of the stuff inside your house was made in China.



lololol,read my siggie




posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
As you and I seem to approaching a bit of an agreement on what things may be possible and which things almost certainly are not, I won't be replying to your whole post this time.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
"Stoploss" would work fine. It's a self-imposed rule, anyway.

I do not believe that extensive stoplosses for infantryman would work in the long term, especially in the absence of "major combat operations". What would you do if somebody altered your contract after 4 years of hard and faithful service and told you to stay in Iraq for no reason and be apart from your wife, children, etc?
A lot of people would just run away. A lot more would use drugs to get out- who cares if you have to do a few months time- most people dont even do the time actually. I personally would take it upon myself to get out by anymeans necessary and go on a terrorist killing spree against whatever class of people I blamed (politicians and general staff).



I guess I'm not the type to believe in a broken people. The different groups really aren't so different. If we can bring some economic and social freedom, the tension won't last.

The Sunni insurgents want a theocracy under the Mullahs like Iran and Afghanistan. The Shi'ite minority feels that it must supress all Sunni to protect from those radicals. Moderate Sunni are probably not going to step up and take charge because they're being terrorized from both sides and are in danger of branding themselves as American pawns. They have not yet displayed the will to fight. When the insurgents say they're coming to fight, Iraqi police run away. That is not the demeanor of a winning side in a revolution.
Americans won their independence because when a superior force called them out they answered the challenge as best they could- such as their attack on the British march to against armories at Lexington and Concord.
Israelis won their independence by moving into a completely hostile land and arming themselves against both a world power and a majority population already in place.
Prussians under Frederick the Great maintained their independence by throwing themselves at each coalition attack as hard as cleverly as they could.
Nobody ever ensured their survival by showing fear in front of the enemy, but the Iraqi people have lived in fear for so long that I'm not sure they've got anything else in them, at least not for this generation. This is a 20 year mission- Iraq should be a protectorate of the United States, NATO, or the United Nations for at least the next 20 years, but modern western culture simply wont stand for that.


Again I'm afraid i accidentally deleted the quote from you, but in regard to China's economy I do not know how much free cash they can make in their budget. Even if they could divert enough cash from other programs to fund the war without borrowing, yes it would be a desperate measure. I do not believe that China would persue such a course unless the considered it not only advantageous but VITAL to their economic future. If that were the case though, a western front with Pakistani and iranian assistance is precisely where they stand to gain the most and risk the least. To war against the middle east, America, India, and Turkey is far better than to war against Japan, Australia, UK, America, etc.
They say that if war is the answer, the question must have been stupid, and I marginally agree with that, but if China finds itself having to face a stupid question, then attacking West is the answer.


It depends on which act is more destabalizing at this time. It might be easier for both America and China to simply work out agreement.

Agreed. China can make or break an ally and it is therefore best that the United States peacefully resolve the question of predatory economic practices from China and work together as allied superpowers. Such an alliance, if they mutually assist eachother through Peak Oil instead of destroying eachother will be the focus of geo-politics for the next 100-500 years. On the other hand, if China and America become enemies, one will perish, and the other may very well be so weakened as to live out the next century or more playing second fiddle to the European Union.


A capitalist China or Russia could very well beat America.

Disagreed, although a softening from communism to socialism could be advantageous. The command economy takes maximum advantage of China's tremendous population. A capitalist China with a large middle class would result in unacceptably high unemployment. Command economy strengthens their national infrastructure and trade GREATLY- but only if managed correctly. It also trades the wealth of some to protect the livelihood of most. Communism isn't for everyone but it is definately for China because they are a highly populated industrialized nation, exactly what Marx had in mind.



And China's time all really depends on whether you believe Peak Oil will come soon, or later. If later in time, it benefits China. America's main power relies on its dominance of oil. If Peak oil struck soon, the economy would suffer. Controlling the oil is a huge asset. However, with something like hydrogen power, the Middle East loses much of its importance. A capitalist China would surpass America's economy, and then they get the military strength to beat our own. The incentive to stick with America would be gone.

The timeline for Peak Oil can theoretically be predicted by a Bell Curve. Things should get progressively worse over the next 20 years and by 2050 we're looking at a complete meltdown of oil economies unless the transition to hyrdogen, nuclear, or other sources is almost completely finished. The true variable is who handles the situation better.
In my humble opinion China's current expansion of its economy represents an advantage. They are still building so they need to build a nuclear/hydrogen based economy. They need to start now as well. The earlier a nation transitions the less expensive it is for them.
America on the other hand has to operate and maintain- even perhaps expand its oil economy while making the transition away from it. America also has some long-term economic problems getting ready to blow up in our face. For a great many reasons, the decades long fuse of the peak oil crisis does work to the advantage of China.




Our stealth planes give off little to no heat.

We have devices that will detect a human body so I am confident devices can be developed which would help you pinpoint an aircraft once you arrived in that area. As I have mentioned a rough fix on stealth aircraft can be obtained by the distubance it creates between two radar stations- this is essentially a very primitive PCL it sounds like. Such systems were used during world war II to detect when and in what direction fighters should be scrambled. By using a wide array of stations oriented in different ways the position of the aircraft could be narrowed down sufficiently to determine its course and target and scamble fighters equiped with an improved thermal viewer- if one were developed in time.



PCL would seem the only reliable way to take care of stealth, if anyone figures out how to use it. Basically, it just detects disturbances in radio waves. When a stealth plane passes, it would send the waves off in weird angles, or absorb some. If you get a picture of this, you find the plane.
That's interesting. I didn't realize the concept was being seriously researched, although I had heard the idea discussed as a remote possibility.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

China has a command economy therefore it will not collapse without the US. But on the otherhand, US is relying too much on China, look at your house, I say at least 60% of the stuff inside your house was made in China. Your desks, your chairs, your TVs, your cameras, your tools, your CDs, your cd holders etc etc. Without China, America would go into a decade long economic recession from the American companies lack of ability to find cheap labour, good quality and large quantity thats comparable to China. If China freeze all American Assets in China then all your companies basically lost all their investments for nothing and would be basically crippled. All dollar stores would be crippled, Walmart would be bankrupt, resource prices would triple and things like that.


If American companies pulled out of China, their economy would collapse. They need to sell us those products more then we need to buy them. We don't really buy anything from China that essential. America can survive without China if war broke out. China may find it more difficult at this time.


I believe that the statement of Chinese economic advantage here is exagerated. China and America are MUTUALLY reliant and neither can separate from the other without severe consequences.
A command economy does not cure all ills, nor is it an advantage which China alone can harness. Both nations could save themselves by government intervention, but still China would lose consumers and America would lose suppliers.

American companies would take a severe blow if China were to sieze their assets, but our government would undertake unprecendented defecit spending to bail them out and we would move our interests to India and Mexico, and spend the next 200 years slowly paying down the damage done by this event. Through our centralized banking system and federal regulations of business we too have a mild form of command economy in times of crisis.

China, although they would lose a very large market for their goods, could turn to the European union as a trading partner because the strength of the Euro is advantageous to China as a large exporter. The catch to this is that with American currency weakened and American companies rushing to create new markets it is possible that some Europeans (especially Britain, Italy, Turkey) would prefer to trade with America because they must realize that the undervaluing of the Yuan would create a dangerous trade situation such as America currently faces with China.

The result is that an economic war between China and America would make the European Union, Mexico, and India exceedingly wealthy while slowing Chinese economic growth to a virtual standstill and setting America decades behind where they currently are economically.


On a side note I believe that such an action would be considered an act of war. America's likely responses are a preemptive invasion of Iran and assassinations of Chinese allies in the Pakistani government while moving troops to India and carriers to Taiwan. I can not say who would win such a war with certainty, but I believe that as punishment America's intentions- if able- would be to create independence for Taiwan and Tibet and to subvert the government of Pakistan to our side. This would cut off Chinese sealanes to Europe and force the Chinese economy to rely on transport through Russia, which is economically unstable and may attempt to impose high duties on commerce then.
China could retaliate by invading Japan and South Korea however they would not have the support from the Russians to go furthern than that.

The Russians actually profit from China being placed in a position of weakness and would have every motive to help put China down and initiate trade and consume American technological goods now that the American dollar would be weakened by the situation and the Euro would become too strong for Russia to buy from Europe.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

I do not believe that extensive stoplosses for infantryman would work in the long term, especially in the absence of "major combat operations". What would you do if somebody altered your contract after 4 years of hard and faithful service and told you to stay in Iraq for no reason and be apart from your wife, children, etc? A lot of people would just run away. A lot more would use drugs to get out- who cares if you have to do a few months time- most people dont even do the time actually. I personally would take it upon myself to get out by anymeans necessary and go on a terrorist killing spree against whatever class of people I blamed (politicians and general staff).


Many soldiers being held over are still under contract, they're just being deployed longer then they were originally told. At least, that's what I believe the situation is.

I believe many of our troops could understand the situation if it were explained to them, as well.


Nobody ever ensured their survival by showing fear in front of the enemy, but the Iraqi people have lived in fear for so long that I'm not sure they've got anything else in them, at least not for this generation. This is a 20 year mission- Iraq should be a protectorate of the United States, NATO, or the United Nations for at least the next 20 years, but modern western culture simply wont stand for that.


Social and economic freedom may well be all that any Iraqi needs to change their mind. They have no taste of freedom. Right now, what do you they really have to fight for but empty promises made by America?

Many have joined the Iraqi security forces. I believe elections can inspire them to go further.


Disagreed, although a softening from communism to socialism could be advantageous. The command economy takes maximum advantage of China's tremendous population. A capitalist China with a large middle class would result in unacceptably high unemployment. Command economy strengthens their national infrastructure and trade GREATLY- but only if managed correctly. It also trades the wealth of some to protect the livelihood of most. Communism isn't for everyone but it is definately for China because they are a highly populated industrialized nation, exactly what Marx had in mind.


I fail to see how capitalism would result in a high unemployment rate. It hasn't anywhere else its been used. It seems the more socialist/communistic the economy, the higher the unemployment. Europe would be a nice example. China's current economic situation is a result of loosening government control, and getting closer to capitalism.


The timeline for Peak Oil can theoretically be predicted by a Bell Curve. Things should get progressively worse over the next 20 years and by 2050 we're looking at a complete meltdown of oil economies unless the transition to hyrdogen, nuclear, or other sources is almost completely finished. The true variable is who handles the situation better.


Well, there are plenty who would argue Peak Oil has already hit. If Peak Oil hit when you say it would, I doubt the damange it will do would be nearly as severe. The longer it takes, the less dependent on oil we are.


In my humble opinion China's current expansion of its economy represents an advantage. They are still building so they need to build a nuclear/hydrogen based economy. They need to start now as well. The earlier a nation transitions the less expensive it is for them.
America on the other hand has to operate and maintain- even perhaps expand its oil economy while making the transition away from it. America also has some long-term economic problems getting ready to blow up in our face. For a great many reasons, the decades long fuse of the peak oil crisis does work to the advantage of China.


If Peak Oil is already here as some say, or is approaching within the next decade, the advantage would go to America. We still have the more advanced military. We have the control over the oil reserves. We've stored away a nice supply of our own to wage war. I'd say we could secure oil reserves in the Middle East quickly in a dire situation.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Wow this thread is the best thing I've read on ATS in a long time, its kept me up till three in the morning.

Vagabond your posts in this thread have demonstrated a level of sophistication currently unmatched in my opinion in any of the previous America Vs. threads. I was nervous clicking on this thread thinking it was just going to be another anti-american thread with pictures of iranian "superweapons" that look like they were made back in the cold war or another American Military lovefest consisting of posts on how we'll beat our enemy into submission with daisycutters and MOABs ( a weapon of rather dubious comabt usefulness in in my opinion by the way). Boy was I wrong... Way above worthy in my opinion

I intend on looking into this SuperPower game it looks quite interesting.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Peak Oil is a scam to get western Europe and U.S.A. (not just America) to pay more money, there is no Peak oil, just like when this pupet of the jews (Bush) came to power in 2000 all of a sudden we have a "ENERGY CRISIS"
[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:04 AM
link   
jrs;djgfklrejgklsfdjlkfdjgsiodjg

[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Well, could the Bush policy of wanting to drill in Alaska and gaining more control over the oilfields in the Mid-East aims to be a solution that postpones the oilpeak at least for american oilcompanies?

The term oilpeak was not invented by green environmentalists but by some geological expert working for Shell i believe...

I think that when it really comes to it, America can find ways to do without the oil or cheap chinese goods, the thing is that certain american companies have too much money invested in oil and/or asian outsourcing, they lobby heavily in Washington for other solutions so that they themselves don't have to make the challenging switch. The kind of solutions that are not kindly in other countries.

But, the oilpeak, while can be postponed, by grabbing a larger piece of the pie for yourselve, ultimately in a few decades you will be faced with it anyway, but by that time nuclear fusion should be (FINALLY!) commercially availlable, come to think of it, Me critisizing Bush was wrong, he is the most forward looking person since Nostradamus!

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

[edit on 13-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   
You Amerikkkanas are funny to us Russki's you guys always forget the very important parts to events/or things 1. There are no such things as Chinese products, those are all just American Products just being built by the Chinese thats all, if U.S.A. decided to pull all of it's Products out of China they would "QUICKLY" be just as they were when Moa took over.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
You Amerikkkanas are funny to us Russki's you guys always forget the very important parts to events/or things 1. There are no such things as Chinese products, those are all just American Products just being built by the Chinese thats all, if U.S.A. decided to pull all of it's Products out of China they would "QUICKLY" be just as they were when Moa took over.

[edit on 13-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]


So what you are stating is China is owned by America? WOW this is funny. China acts as a supplier of products to the rest of the world. Not the companies in China which build stuff for America are American companies. Read more man, cuz the last post simply did not make sense.

P.S. What is MOA.



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   

as posted by COWlan
P.S. What is MOA.


Mao Zedong. The Moa was spelled wrong in the post you say this from.




seekerof


[edit on 13-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 13 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Many soldiers being held over are still under contract, they're just being deployed longer then they were originally told. At least, that's what I believe the situation is.

I'm afraid not. The dictionary definition of a stoploss is an order which prevents certain military occupational specialties from doing the following things:
1. Changing MOS. 2. Leaving due to EAS (End of Active Service).
Once in a while a stoploss is no big deal- before Afghanistan there was a stop-loss on drill instructors because most of the drill instructors were BEGGING to go to Afghanistan. In this case however we are extending enlistments without a declaration of war/state of emergency- something that wasn't even attempted during the high-water-mark of military BS (Vietnam). It could be argued that the stoploss is simply making use of the inactive reserve tenure to which every serviceman has agreed to be subject after the end of his active service. The problem with this arguement is that the inactive reserve does not exist so that the president can push on with a war so unpopular that we can't find a few thousand people willing to fight it. The purpose of the inactive reserve is to allow America to double its number of trained troops instantly in the event of major conflict by recalling troops discharged in the previous 4 years. In short, the stoplosses are not only a sign of a serious manpower problem, but they are an abuse of the trust and loyalty which our troops give us which causes a serious morale problem.


Social and economic freedom may well be all that any Iraqi needs to change their mind. They have no taste of freedom. Right now, what do you they really have to fight for but empty promises made by America?

Many have joined the Iraqi security forces. I believe elections can inspire them to go further.


I suppose i would be ignorant to simply write off this point as impossible, so I will leave it standing, however I personally am not convinced that the people who are willing to change their minds will have the moral strength to hold out against the hardcore religious fanatics. It is important to remember that the majority of that region/cultural group (muslims in the middle east) live under the oppression of fundamentalist minorities.


I fail to see how capitalism would result in a high unemployment rate. It hasn't anywhere else its been used. It seems the more socialist/communistic the economy, the higher the unemployment. Europe would be a nice example. China's current economic situation is a result of loosening government control, and getting closer to capitalism.

My reasoning, although it does not stem from any formal education in economics beyond highschool courses, is that a capitalist system will generally lead to higher wages for fewer employees. Under communism the government can find something for everyone to do and balance the pay however it need be balanced to make it work. Chalk my error up to taking theoretical economics over the practical.


Well, there are plenty who would argue Peak Oil has already hit. If Peak Oil hit when you say it would, I doubt the damange it will do would be nearly as severe. The longer it takes, the less dependent on oil we are.

Allow me to clarify. We have hit the peak of the bell curve, so it can be said that we have passed Peak Oil. It does not "hit" if you will until decades after peak. Let's suppose that we hit peak oil in 2000 (just for the sake of round numbers). Oil production in 2020 would mirror oil production 1980. Oil production in 2050 would mirror that of 1950. 2080 would mirror 1920, etc. The problem is that demand would still have continued to increase. This means that from the year of peak oil (presumably already happened or just about to happen) supply will continuously shrink while demand continues to grow, resulting in a price meltdown which can not be offset with increased production as it always was prior to peak oil.
This is what makes it necessary for nations to get with the program early on converting away from oil economies, because it takes energy to make the conversion, and energy is going to get more and more expensive if the Peak Oil model is accurate.

Let me take a second to respond to Siberian Tiger also because I was somewhat offended by his statement that Peak Oil is some kind of Zionist plot that was invented by Bush. The theory that supplies follow a bell curve is decades old and accurately predicted the patterm of US domestic supplies already. Although the "prophets of doom" who emerge with every scarry situation may very well be wrong about Peak Oil meaning the end of the world (the doom-preachers are ALWAYS wrong so far), that doesn't mean that Peak Oil is not a real problem which must be dealt with.
Last but not least, Bush does not benefit from Peak Oil in any way. Most of his family and friends are wealthy because of oil and must now work very hard to ensure their continued prosperity through this change. Israel could be in big trouble too, because we aren't going to need a friend in the middle east anymore when the oil game is over. Israel may very well be on their own economically and militarily in a VERY islamic part of the world when America is off of oil.


If Peak Oil is already here as some say, or is approaching within the next decade, the advantage would go to America. We still have the more advanced military. We have the control over the oil reserves. We've stored away a nice supply of our own to wage war. I'd say we could secure oil reserves in the Middle East quickly in a dire situation.

As I began to explain, we have 20-50 years before oil economies become completely inferior according to the Peak Oil theory. War may not be inevitable. If this scenario proceeds peacefully then China is in a position to transition off of oil as fast if not faster than America, unless America avoids the mistake of thinking military dominance of oil supplies can defeat the need to make a quick switch off of oil. In other words, America's military ability to dominate oil may keep America on oil when the right move is to do what China is positioned to do- go to nuclear, hydroelectric, hydrogen, etc.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
A thread in the WoT forum got me thinking about Israel's considerable airpower and brought something to mind for me.
If Israel took an early role in the war, it is likely that Iran would be defeated.
Unlike American forces in the region, Israeli ones can not be immediately overrun. Israel is fully prepared for defense against its neighbors so its airforce will make their own fate in the air instead of being overrun like American forces in Iraq would be.
The Israeli Airforce may very well be unmatched in the world. They have more serving aces than any other nation and during one of their several conflicts with Syria they succeeded in gaining air superiority over the most densely defended airspace on Earth. Not even Moscow's air defenses were as dense as those they overcame in Syria.

Now I maintain that airpower alone does not win wars, but this does change things. Iranian forces invading Iraq will not have such good air defense as those in Iran where they already have airbases and where they have already organized their SAM batteries. This means that Israel has an outstanding chance to hinder the Iran's crossing of the Tigris river by destroying bridges and concentrating on the defense of any fords. Israel's distance from Iran allows them a certain level of security from missile attacks, and as I understand it they posses sufficient theater missile defenses to protect them from ballistic missile threats.

Israel would face surprisingly little retaliation in my estimation. Syria would almost certainly attack them but Jordan sat out the last war and recent improvements in relations betwen Israel Jordan and Egypt suggest to me that those nations would not attack Israel on behalf of Iran. Iran is not home to holy sites such as Iraq was. Iran is really a boogeyman to much of the arab world too- Saddam was basically protecting Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle east from Iran from 1980-1988, which is part of why he felt he was the rightful leader of that part of the world and set out to conquer it in 1991. Last but certainly not least, Iran is going to lose this war and everyone knows it. That is a big factor in the arab world. Syria and Jordan only got into the 6 days war after Egypt falsely claimed to have routed a significant part of the Israeli army. When everyone knows that the US is on the way into town with a lot of pissed off Marines, I think everyone except Syria would stand down and let Israel help America out in Iraq, and Syria can't slow Israel down for more than 2 weeks. After that Israel is free to send whatever troops they can spare and plenty of supplies to help the Americans hold the line until reinforcements arrive.

If we want to explore a real twilight zone scenario, since we are considering what local nations might do, I think that Jordan and Egypt might actually go to the aid of Saudi Arabia (while keeping scrupulously away from Israeli and American forces.
I am in no way sure about that part but here is what I see: Iran is coming in to conquer everyone in sight and impose fundamentalist Islam on everyone- not something that these nations are sure to enjoy. Both of these nations have been working their butts off to patch things up with Israel (perhaps to help the cause of Palestinian statehood) and here comes Iran to start a war with Israel and if they lose they'll mess everything up for the Palestinians. Egypt is in a position to one day make a claim to a spot on the UN Security Council. Nigeria has already raised the issue of African representation, but Egypt is far better qualified to be the one. There are a lot of small motives here to help stop Iran- the only question is if the governments can remain in power while backing a US/Israeli war on Iran.
The answer: they didn't mind working with the infidel in 1991 did they?

I'm not so firm on my ideas in this post- just tossing out a new angle for consideration.


Sep

posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The Vagabond, I think you forgot about the people Iran suports around Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic jihad and Fatah might have some influence. I am not sure what they are armed with but I was under the impression that they are well armed, so they might pose a challenge to Israel if Israel sent most their planes away.

*Edit*: OK, I found an article which is two years old but according to Sharon, Hezbollah currently has 10000 short range missiles.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

[edit on 15-12-2004 by Sep]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I do not mean to seem dismissive because I am always the first one to tout the ability of a mean little underdog, but I am not convinced the the various terrorist organizations around Israel can be any threat in a conventional military sense.
The terrorists lack the proper organization, training, and modern hardware to route an invading Israeli force, and a guerilla war will not work because Israel does not have to occupy Syrian cities. All Israel has to do is crush the Syrian army and control the roads through the country to open an avenue to help their American allies in Iraq.

10,000 missiles sounds really intimidating, but you have to think about more than just the numbers. They have to aim these things and launch them, then they have to do a good job of hiding those things again so that Israel wont blow most of them up before they are fired. Afterall, 10,000 is a big number if they all can be fired and score hits. If I could blow up 10,000 targets I could almost certainly bring any nation in the world to its knees, at least temporarily. So why have the terrorists not done it, except for the knowledge that these 10,000 missiles aren't the game-breaker that they sound like.

Israel has pretty much gotten used to the constant attacks by religious extremists who buy Russian Weapons from Chinese patsies like Iran with Saudi money, and Israel has gotten used to handling it since they already know that France, Germany, and most of the UN really is pulling for the terrorists. How much worse could Hizbollah really make things for Israel when you consider their situation in those terms?


Sep

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I do not mean to seem dismissive because I am always the first one to tout the ability of a mean little underdog


That is very good.



I am not convinced the the various terrorist organizations around Israel can be any threat in a conventional military sense.


You have the right to your opinion


The terrorists lack the proper organization, training, and modern hardware to route an invading Israeli force, and a guerilla war will not work because Israel does not have to occupy Syrian cities.


They are actually fairly orgonized and have some good training. A guerilla war might work, if the group hides in the Arab population of Israel. I think I read somewhere about Iran having some influence on them and had managed to recruit a few of them for spying on Israel. But again I am not sure.


All Israel has to do is crush the Syrian army and control the roads through the country to open an avenue to help their American allies in Iraq.


Controlling the roads will not be easy, to say the least. The Iraqi army has been crushed for some time and Americans are there in the name of freedom but they are still being attacked b the locals. I dont think the Arabs are going to treat Israelis any better than the Iraqis, but the diffrence is that the Iraqis are not well trained or armed while the terrorist groups are trained and armed to some extend.


10,000 missiles sounds really intimidating, but you have to think about more than just the numbers. They have to aim these things and launch them, then they have to do a good job of hiding those things again so that Israel wont blow most of them up before they are fired.


Very true, they had around 20 years of finding places to hide them.


Afterall, 10,000 is a big number if they all can be fired and score hits.


Even if half or even a quarter of them hit, they will cause some harm.


If I could blow up 10,000 targets I could almost certainly bring any nation in the world to its knees, at least temporarily.


I wouldnt go as far as bringing them to their knees, but they would cause some harm.


So why have the terrorists not done it, except for the knowledge that these 10,000 missiles aren't the game-breaker that they sound like.


Maybe because they have not been provoked or they are waiting for heir suppliers and supporters to give them the green light. Iran wouldnt support them so much if they just started bombing Israel randomly with 10,000 missiles.


Israel has pretty much gotten used to the constant attacks by religious extremists who buy Russian Weapons from Chinese patsies like Iran with Saudi money,


That is not quite accurate. Saudi Arabia does not support Hezbollah in anyway. Iran and Syria fund, train and arm them. And they have not gotten used to these attacks because I dont recall being missiles launched into Israel by diffrent groups in large numbers.


Israel has gotten used to handling it since they already know that France, Germany, and most of the UN really is pulling for the terrorists. How much worse could Hizbollah really make things for Israel when you consider their situation in those terms?


They could make things much more than they are.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sep


They are actually fairly orgonized and have some good training. A guerilla war might work, if the group hides in the Arab population of Israel.

Your statement is correct, and so is mine. We are talking about different things. You are accurate in that the terrorists know how to move, communicate, coordinate, and attack. They know what they're about when they get into a fight and they are able to use these skills to make problems within Israeli borders.
On the other hand, they can not field a conventional army to prevent Israeli forces from advancing into other nations and helping against Iran. If they attempted to field such an army, their troops would not have the training to mount a strong defense.


Controlling the roads will not be easy, to say the least. The Iraqi army has been crushed for some time and Americans are there in the name of freedom but they are still being attacked b the locals.

But America is doing exactly what Israel should not do- occupying cities. Insurgents can make it very hard to control cities, but it wouldn't take too many troops to carve out a "no-go zone" around major highways and airports to allow Israel to operate against the Iranians in Iraq. If Israel is willing to do the insurgents do anything they like, but kills everyone who goes near their routes, they can lock them down easily. Also, Israel is not above the use of landmines. They are used to being unpopular and they have shown a historical willingness to do what it takes to win, so why not?


Very true, they had around 20 years of finding places to hide them.
Sounds like a waste of 20 years to me. Once you fire a few the Israelis know where they are coming from, and you can't just spread them out to 1000 different locations unless you have 1000 launchers to go with these missiles. (I'm assuming we're talking about Kaytusha Rockets- i'll check out the stats on that weapon momentarily and edit this post to see what its capabilities are. I'm pretty sure the range of the weapon would further restrict where it could be hidden and employed.



Even if half or even a quarter of them hit, they will cause some harm.
Very true, but damage is acceptable. If they can't keep the Israelis from delaying the Iranian invasion of Iraq then they haven't done enough damage.


Maybe because they have not been provoked or they are waiting for heir suppliers and supporters to give them the green light. Iran wouldnt support them so much if they just started bombing Israel randomly with 10,000 missiles.

Suppose that you had 10,000 missiles and somebody was pushing you around, killing your leaders, invading your cities regularly, etc. Why wait until Iran gives you the green light? Imagine what you could do to a government with 10,000 missiles man. You could pretty much burn their capital to the ground, complete with the government inside.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

I'm afraid not. The dictionary definition of a stoploss is an order which prevents certain military occupational specialties from doing the following things:
1. Changing MOS. 2. Leaving due to EAS (End of Active Service).
Once in a while a stoploss is no big deal- before Afghanistan there was a stop-loss on drill instructors because most of the drill instructors were BEGGING to go to Afghanistan. In this case however we are extending enlistments without a declaration of war/state of emergency- something that wasn't even attempted during the high-water-mark of military BS (Vietnam). It could be argued that the stoploss is simply making use of the inactive reserve tenure to which every serviceman has agreed to be subject after the end of his active service. The problem with this arguement is that the inactive reserve does not exist so that the president can push on with a war so unpopular that we can't find a few thousand people willing to fight it. The purpose of the inactive reserve is to allow America to double its number of trained troops instantly in the event of major conflict by recalling troops discharged in the previous 4 years. In short, the stoplosses are not only a sign of a serious manpower problem, but they are an abuse of the trust and loyalty which our troops give us which causes a serious morale problem.


What exactly is the end of Active Service? Is that the end of their total contract?


I suppose i would be ignorant to simply write off this point as impossible, so I will leave it standing, however I personally am not convinced that the people who are willing to change their minds will have the moral strength to hold out against the hardcore religious fanatics. It is important to remember that the majority of that region/cultural group (muslims in the middle east) live under the oppression of fundamentalist minorities


The people have tried to overthrow this radical minority multiple times in Iraq. Saddam simply had modern military weapons at his disposal.


My reasoning, although it does not stem from any formal education in economics beyond highschool courses, is that a capitalist system will generally lead to higher wages for fewer employees. Under communism the government can find something for everyone to do and balance the pay however it need be balanced to make it work. Chalk my error up to taking theoretical economics over the practical.


America has a far higher GDP per capita then any European nation. Most of our poor states beat out Europe with their socialist policies.

In a capitalist nation its actually better to pay workers more simply because they are the consumers. If they have no money, its no good making the products in the first place.


Allow me to clarify. We have hit the peak of the bell curve, so it can be said that we have passed Peak Oil. It does not "hit" if you will until decades after peak. Let's suppose that we hit peak oil in 2000 (just for the sake of round numbers). Oil production in 2020 would mirror oil production 1980. Oil production in 2050 would mirror that of 1950. 2080 would mirror 1920, etc. The problem is that demand would still have continued to increase. This means that from the year of peak oil (presumably already happened or just about to happen) supply will continuously shrink while demand continues to grow, resulting in a price meltdown which can not be offset with increased production as it always was prior to peak oil.
This is what makes it necessary for nations to get with the program early on converting away from oil economies, because it takes energy to make the conversion, and energy is going to get more and more expensive if the Peak Oil model is accurate.


I'm talking about serious oil problems by about 2015, which is certainly possible. China is in desperate need for any energy they can get. That means grabbing for existing sources, and not inventing new technologies. China isn't going to have any alternatives, and America controls the major oil reserves with a powerful military. We could keep it for ourself, and force the compliance of many nations.

The main disagreement seems to be timetables. Peak Oil could very well cause serious problems a lot sooner then you think. It could also come a lot later.


If Israel took an early role in the war, it is likely that Iran would be defeated.


I personally don't trust them. They've been selling weapons to the Chinese for years behind America's back. If the Chinese ever gave weapons to Iran, some of it was probably only obtained thanks to contributions from Israel.

I'd doubt most nations would work with Israel as you say. Many of the governments are already unpopular. Egyptians don't seem to care for the developing relationship with Israel. Jewish armies marching into an Islamic nation could very well inspire many Iranians to fight, as well as turn Iraqis and other Muslims in the region.

I just can't see the governments in the region risking it. During the Gulf War the Israelis never got to retaliate against Iraq after being attacked because the Muslim nations would have taken offense. They couldn't give troops because they wouldn't have directly cooperated with Israel.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
To answer the topic, yes Iran has the ability to upset the US. They can with a real probability shut off the Persian Gulf.

Iran has 3000 EM-52 mines, Yakhonts, Sunburns, their home built Shahab-3, lots of Silkwurms, a fleet of of fast Katamarans, approximately a dozen mini-subs and many more nasty stuff.

See also this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The US can win, but with a lot more sacrifices - also because Iran is mountainous.

Blobber


Sep

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Suppose that you had 10,000 missiles and somebody was pushing you around, killing your leaders, invading your cities regularly, etc. Why wait until Iran gives you the green light? Imagine what you could do to a government with 10,000 missiles man. You could pretty much burn their capital to the ground, complete with the government inside.


Well, firstly because Iran has quite a few troops in Lebonon looking after the missiles and Iran has the location of every missile. Iran funds them, trains them and equipms them. If they turn against Iran, they have 10,000 missiles and that is it. After they finish with the missiles they are sitting ducks for the Israeli army which will get alot of intelegence from Iran for free. Hezbollah knows that without Iran they are nothing, that is why they wait.




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join