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: 9
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I've read through post after post on this topic, and a large number of people seem to have a few misconceptions that I'd like to try and clear up if possible. I'm going to list them in bullet points to make it easy on the eyes. Also, take the time and let them sink in.

The degree to which Russia is "helping" Iran can be measured both by the number of Sunburn missles covertly delivered on mobile platforms, and in the mutual defense pact signed by the two nations. If the American fleet is foolish enough to trespass with the intent to use force on the Iranians, the last thing those poor sailors will see will be several squadrons of shiny new attack jets packing Sunburns (armed with tactical nuclear devices) swooping over the mountains, already close enough to fire before they're spotted. Simultaneously Haifa, Jerusalem (other cities too?) will be wiped off the face of the earth, or more accurately baked to glass, by the very same missles launched from different positions on the Iranian border. The great thing about these new missles..nobody will even know they were used. Our fleet will vanish into heat and light, Israel will be transformed into a glass bottomed crater, and both Iran and Russia will be able to shrug and deny everything to the international community.

The US Navy is the core element of any US invasion, without it we are essentially powerless to affect the Middle East. The Aircraft carriers may be the jewel in the crown of America's armed forces, but they won't be very impressive after they're reduced to heat and light in the aftermath of a tactical nuclear strike. We won't be able to throw so much weight around after that.

Even if we deployed the F-22's en-masse or the stealth bombers, the strategic planners would find few soft, visible targets available. Any bombing campaign in Iran will face the same hurdles as Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, there just aren't enough good targets. It would only serve to waste more money and increase the Iranian advantage.

If the US deploys cobras and warthogs, they will learn quickly that Iran is in possession of more surface to air missles that any other country in the middle east. oops. Their ak ak leaves a lot to be desired in terms of radar performance, but in case anybody's checked recently, our radar sucks too! cobra mist? huh? Even when it works, it don't, some are fond of saying.

I also hope we don't rely too much on our sattelite platforms, because the best countermeasure to our multi-million dollar technology is plentiful in Iran -- Rocks! Rocks go into Rockets. Rockets go into space. Sattelites come down (pretty..).

The command structure for US forces is pretty tight, few holes, except for one glaring problem. It relies heavily on communications and real time orders. This, along with a supply line stretched thin, will provide a tempting target for saboutage. Until our military uses widespread quantum communications, from briefing room to battlefield, there are no guarantees.

Lastly, but definitely not leastly (heh heh), the citizens of Iran would be defending their homeland against hostile invasion, which means their morale will be higher than that of our poor, misused troops, who will be faced with the agonizing prospect of yet another unwinnable war in the desert of a foreign land.

In summary, attacking Iran would be a very large mistake, a bigger mistake than attacking Iraq even, or Vietnam for that matter. Our military commanders know this, which is why they haven't suggested it. This country is more likely to go to war with Saudi Arabia, or Canada, than it is with Iran.

Was this first post sarcastic enough? I've got a lot of bottled up angst since I've read a lot of stuff here and never been able to reply before.




posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Excuse me... I didnt know they where decommissioned after GW1, thought, necessity drives development... If we felt we needed-need them we would have them.

There are NO minesweepers i have researched this , if anyone in the US navy can confirm this it would be handy.


Anyway, youre whole mine plan is faulted by 2005. This is the reason...

Note the bottom bit, if the funding isnt increased then you can turn the lights on this, remember one ship in 2005 isnt going to help in a war.


And as I said, cruise missile and attacker strikes would deal a lethal blow to most, if not all of those systems... No matter what body of water we where to operate from Im sure the people running the show are a bit more knowledgeable on the matter and wouldnt place the ships within striking distance.

The cruise missiles have a huge area to cover, unless the US has satalites to cover the whole of iran then i dont see how they will find them.
The US marine force there the now is in strikeing distance, they can sink anything in the persian gulf and anything up to 200km range , which is the fireing range, now add to that a fighter jet increaseing the range, or a ship.


This is one of the reasons for A2A refueling... Heck, place it a few hundred miles off coast and let the Airforce with refuelers do the initial strikes.

The airforce can be brought down with many diffrent types of weapons, the US navy is vunerable as soon as they enter or approach to land troops.
The war cannot be won by airpower alone.
The sunburn is soo good the US military has it aswell, did you know that?


You guys undermine our military far too great. To actually think that a small percentage of what you guys propose in this thread is possible is nonsense.

We are discussing what a soldier should be told, also vagabound is an EX-marine are you saying he has no right to question why or how he served?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
America has billions of gallons of oil stored away. We could hold out for a few months if we had to. It probably would not get to that, though.

A few months of restricted oil would not work.


The whole idea of our navy being left as sitting ducks for Iran is laughable. Given the time Vagabond's scenario gives Iran to build up, America would have a good idea of what they were planning. We'd never leave our navy in range of attacks like this.

Dude your navy already is IN range.


I'd think our navy is more defended then Vagabond seems to suggest with his posts, as well. It just seems like common sense. We know what the nations in that region could do. Would we really send our entire navy out their to be crippled so easily? Of course, I don't know enough about naval warfare. I don't care enough to go do the research required.

The sunburn was designed to defeat the latest systems and can do that, believe me.
The only sure way to stop them is point defense lasers or metal storm. Other wise you have to risk your ships being able to react in less than 30s to an incomeing missle, basically instead of haveing 150s to take the missile out you have 30.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
US military doesn't have Sunburn, or Onyx missles. They have other missles based on the same chassis using different technology. The sunburn and onyx have two apparent advantages, and many whispered about "secret modifications". One is the ramjet engine technology, the other is the "smart" maneuverability. Also, these things fly fast as hell, make no sound, ride 5 FEET OFF THE GROUND and acheive critical velocity in 1/100th of a second generating something like 1 million pounds per square inch of pressure in a sphere. Hence, only heat and light remain. That's just beefy, and I don't think there's any evidence to the contrary. America tried for a long time to buy Sunburns, but Putin wouldn't sell them.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
[edit on 23-12-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
well Sunburn is pretty bad, but you also got to worry about these stealthy bastards, Iran has them along its coast as well, and i reckon they are better than the sunburn.

www.bharat-rakshak.com...

but hey, dont worry, when all your little boats are lying at the bottom of the Gulf, you can just sit at home and chill out like everybody eles.




posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT


We could bomb the places they used to be anyway. Like I said, if Iran spreads their missiles out in small areas for hiding and surprise ops those will be safe. Communications and exposed assets still pay, but that is only a softening blow- not meaningful until a signifcant American force is in place to attack the weakened Iranian forces.


It's called real time intelligence... Something being really expressed with the advent of UAV and stealthy UAVs.


If you think we have the resources in place in Iraq to monitor the movement and hiding of hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles in small groups 24/7 from the beginning of Iranian buildup until the outbreak of war, then I would understand how you believed UAVs could help open up the naval road to Iran. Otherwise I maintain that Iran can conceal enough weapons to make a good defense of its coast.




What is so complicated about mid air refueling? A hose, a tanker, and a fighter with refueling piping... They still dont have it and it take more then a few $$$ to acquire a force capable of it. Few, if any fighters can actually be fitted with refueling capabilities after production. The money would best be spent on AK-74s and whatnot.

There is nothing like an army full of AK-74 equipped grunts against an enemy that has total air and naval superiority, but I'm still going to say that equipping a aircraft for mid air refueling would be more useful if they intended to make first strikes against American positions in the region at the outset of the war. If they were willing to lose enough planes and if they did a good job of prepping the battlefield with missiles, they M-I-G-H-T even manage to hit Incirlik.




You would be a complete fool to suggest that these basses arent on the highest of alert, have potential CAP missions assigned, and have SAM batteries in place...

As was already brought up earlier in this thread, SAMs operating against modern aircraft and trained pilots are batting about .001 in modern warfare. 1 kill for every 1000 SAMS launched.
If a base is subjected to missile strikes which destroy runways and fuel supplies thus limiting the ability to put up new aircraft, the base can be taken by approaching from 2 directions. Fighters in the air persue the first wave seen, which turns and runs, and now they are out of position to stop the next wave, which makes its raid and also escapes.

I'll also say for deliverers benefit that I'm not talking about B-2 bases. I know that the B-2 generally operates from CONUS (although if memory serves we do have them at Guam and Diego Garcia, but I could be talking about a different aircraft). My point is if Iran is faced with a "use it or lose it" situation for its airforce (which it will be), it can bleed American fighters in the region with first strikes and make the air war very low intensity during the initial invasion of Iraq.



With mid-air refueling these carriers can operate from wherever the hell they want to. These carriers arent that vulnerable either. It's harder to take one out then it would be to take out a temporary land base. In the case of Americas assets, its next to impossible.

I'm glad you gave some supporting evidence for that or else I might have doubted you. The wargames carrier out by the pentagon before we invaded Iraq showed 2 things: 1. They think a carrier can be sunk (along with the rest of the US fleet in the region). 2. America is too cocky to keep it's carriers out of harms way, simply because putting them closer allows many more sorties. Even after Van Ripper handed the Navy their arse in that excercise, they still chose to operate from the gulf.
Last but not least, the need to refuel in midair is a weakness because 1. It requires support from a land-based tanker which somewhat restricts options. 2. It reduces the amount of sorties you can fly. 3. It represents an opportunity for the enemy to attack you while you are weak (low on fuel, plus protecting the all important fuel tanker).



besides the lack of ability to bring arms against such a mighty fleet one doesnt have the intel of where the CBG(S) are headed and where they are...

Thank god that Iran doesn't have even one single airplane, exocet, or silkworm in its arsenal. I am doubly thankful to god for his blessing of teleportation whereby the US fleet will at no point enter a fixed point such as the Suez Canal. I'm am thankful that the Russians would never dream of doing something to hurt America, such as telling Iran where their satellites have located the US fleet. Above all I'm thankful that Iranians are a bunch of ignorant ragheads who would never think to persue American aircraft back to their carrier at a distance. For all of these things, I praise God. Long live HIS chosen people- the USA, who shall never be harmed, Amen.




Fact is that once we gain air dominance (shouldnt take more then a few days) then we sweep the place over and over with SEAD flights and maintain a 24 hour presence of B-52, and attack capable aircraft to be vectored when UAV and other intel gathering equipment pick up a target... You would be amazed if you would actually take a look at the weapons that our forces have in the development stage. These will set us in the ranks far above any country and ensure our military superiority continues.
Sadly for youre stories, our technology is only getting greater by the month...

I guess you're right. Within a couple of weeks there wouldn't even be an Iranian army. Just look at how well this massive intelligence and airpower machine is locating and killing Iraqi insurgents, just like it anhilated the Taliban without ground troops, and just like it routed the Iraqis in mere days with no ground forces in 1991. Ooops, it historically takes months of US air superiority just to weaken the enemy, and then we still need a large ground force. I'm not saying that we haven't got a great military, I'm just saying that we can't walk over anyone anywhere in a short timeframe.
What do you think the whole point of the FCS is, except to remedy the very real problem that we are not capable of effectively dealing with a crisis on short notice?
Now I know our technology is improving- especially in terms of what we could theoretically do if we had the equipment. On the other hand, we can't even seem to secure armor for humvees. No matter how far our technology advances, there is no way in the immediate future that American airpower will be able to compensate for the long deployment time of heavy forces.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The degree to which Russia is "helping" Iran can be measured both by the number of Sunburn missles covertly delivered on mobile platforms, and in the mutual defense pact signed by the two nations. If the American fleet is foolish enough to trespass with the intent to use force on the Iranians, the last thing those poor sailors will see will be several squadrons of shiny new attack jets packing Sunburns (armed with tactical nuclear devices) swooping over the mountains, already close enough to fire before they're spotted.

Although this is theoretically possible, I believe Russia would prefer to see Iran defeat America using conventional weapons if at all possible. If nukes are used, there is a 50/50 chance of Iran getting nuked back, and there goes Russia's best friend in the Middle East. Tactical nuclear weapons would only be used if conventionals failed.



Simultaneously Haifa, Jerusalem (other cities too?) will be wiped off the face of the earth, or more accurately baked to glass, by the very same missles launched from different positions on the Iranian border.

Strategic nuclear attacks on a third party as part of the first strike? I think that is almost certanly not going to happen. The expectation will be for Israel to save its nukes until it is directly threatened because Israel knows of these sunburns and will not launch first. Deterrence will keep Israel out, and the need to maintain deterrence against America means that Irran can't start a strategic nuclear exchange unless it's absolutely vital.



The great thing about these new missles..nobody will even know they were used. Our fleet will vanish into heat and light, Israel will be transformed into a glass bottomed crater, and both Iran and Russia will be able to shrug and deny everything to the international community.


Nobody will know these things were used? You mean that if America declares war on Iran, and then Israel and the American fleet vanish in a blinding flash of light, that nobody will even be a teensy bit suspicious?
I think it is obvious that America would give a full retaliation on Iran. The single nuke theory applies to most nations who have MAD capabilities on one another, so I believe we would not hit Russia directly, only Iran.
If nuclear weapons are used and America can't win with conventionals, America will nuke Iran back with interest. I wouldn't expect America to occupy or rebuild either- I think we'd grab a small slice of their country and give it to our Iraqi puppets and leave the rest of the country to its own devices.



The US Navy is the core element of any US invasion, without it we are essentially powerless to affect the Middle East. The Aircraft carriers may be the jewel in the crown of America's armed forces, but they won't be very impressive after they're reduced to heat and light in the aftermath of a tactical nuclear strike. We won't be able to throw so much weight around after that.

I agree but I don't believe its safe to do this. Nuking forces in the region gets you slapped back. if you nuke US CBGs all over the world it's going to have Russia's fingerprints on it (because Iran doesn't possess that range) and then Russia is facing a strategic response.



Even if we deployed the F-22's en-masse or the stealth bombers, the strategic planners would find few soft, visible targets available. Any bombing campaign in Iran will face the same hurdles as Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, there just aren't enough good targets. It would only serve to waste more money and increase the Iranian advantage.


I agree with this in a conventional war. If the war went nuclear then we'll do it the easy way- with our own nukes. If the war went TOO nuclear Russia might get some too- but Russia knows this and Russia is far too smart to go that far. Russia and China both will back America's rivals as much as they can without going far enough to ruin things. That means VERY little if any nuclear exchange.



If the US deploys cobras and warthogs, they will learn quickly that Iran is in possession of more surface to air missles that any other country in the middle east. oops. Their ak ak leaves a lot to be desired in terms of radar performance, but in case anybody's checked recently, our radar sucks too! cobra mist? huh? Even when it works, it don't, some are fond of saying.

I agree that slow and heavy attack platforms like those will not be able to be employed until America has had air superiority for a few weeks at least. (If the iranians are smart they will keep batteries hidden and not go hot until the good targets show up).



I also hope we don't rely too much on our sattelite platforms, because the best countermeasure to our multi-million dollar technology is plentiful in Iran -- Rocks! Rocks go into Rockets. Rockets go into space. Sattelites come down (pretty..).

1. Launching a rocket into space isn't quite as easy as it looks. It takes time, investment, and technical assistance. Russia would basically have to do it all by themselves for Iran.
2. If you're talking about killer satellites, I think they are ever so slightly more advanced than rocks, although one American idea for a killer satellite system against missiles was called "brilliant pebbles".



The command structure for US forces is pretty tight, few holes, except for one glaring problem. It relies heavily on communications and real time orders. This, along with a supply line stretched thin, will provide a tempting target for saboutage. Until our military uses widespread quantum communications, from briefing room to battlefield, there are no guarantees.

This would slow American reaction and reduce coordination- a definite advantage which would allow the enemy to sieze the initiative if he still had a coherent fighting force of his own.
On the other hand, America forces would still know the situation and their responsibilities for the immediate future and would be able to quickly hammer out a slow but effective means of communication and command by courier until comm was restored.



Lastly, but definitely not leastly (heh heh), the citizens of Iran would be defending their homeland against hostile invasion, which means their morale will be higher than that of our poor, misused troops, who will be faced with the agonizing prospect of yet another unwinnable war in the desert of a foreign land.

Honestly, if the Iranian citizens ended up fighting on their home soil it would mean we had already won. Iran's only hope is to crush us early and force a settlement before we can strike back.

Also I dont believe the morale of American troops is what you suggest. My friends who have come back from Iraq have had it up to here with the Iraqi people- one of my friends who is still there has pretty much decided that he's going to shoot anyone who looks at him because he'd rather be a war criminal that a casualty. Those who have had tours extended or been the victims of stoploss (i dont know any personally) are probably frustrated with the administrations planning. I dont think -anybody- believes that either the Iraq war or a prospective Iran war is unwinnable, and in the face of an Iranian first strike I hardly think the troops could be called mis-used. Morale would be fairly high just out of eagerness to avenge those who had been killed in the surprise attack.
The Vietnam War was a disaster for both sides. If Iran wants to really win they don't want to imitate Vietnam- they want to fight a strong manuever war in which they have the initiative and they control the tempo.



In summary, attacking Iran would be a very large mistake, a bigger mistake than attacking Iraq even, or Vietnam for that matter. Our military commanders know this, which is why they haven't suggested it. This country is more likely to go to war with Saudi Arabia, or Canada, than it is with Iran.
Was this first post sarcastic enough? I've got a lot of bottled up angst since I've read a lot of stuff here and never been able to reply before.

Attacking Iran would go infinitely better than being attacked by Iran, and I do believe that it could work out IF we took them seriously. The problem is that we certainly didn't take Iraq any more seriously after Van Ripper humiliated the pentagon in the runup to Iraq.

The key to taking Iran is to make a first strike from Iraq with little dependence on naval power and reduced dependence on airpower. A mechanized force could sweep down Iran's southern coast easily and open the door for forces moving through the Zagros from Iraq. There would be losses- this isn't Iraq, no two ways about it. The war is definately winnable though so long as Russia doesn't decide that it's time to start WWIII and as long as America is uncharacteristically careful about not disrespecting the enemy's ability.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 04:26 PM
link   

If you think we have the resources in place in Iraq to monitor the movement and hiding of hundreds if not thousands of cruise missiles in small groups 24/7 from the beginning of Iranian buildup until the outbreak of war, then I would understand how you believed UAVs could help open up the naval road to Iran. Otherwise I maintain that Iran can conceal enough weapons to make a good defense of its coast.


We watch the Taiwan straight almost constantly. I think our satellites moniter it 12 times a day. Now, I'd say we watch Iran even more. If they started a military buildup with so many of our assets nearby, we'd increase it even more.


There is nothing like an army full of AK-74 equipped grunts against an enemy that has total air and naval superiority, but I'm still going to say that equipping a aircraft for mid air refueling would be more useful if they intended to make first strikes against American positions in the region at the outset of the war. If they were willing to lose enough planes and if they did a good job of prepping the battlefield with missiles, they M-I-G-H-T even manage to hit Incirlik.


Mid air refueling isn't as simple as you think The Chinese don't even have it yet. I'm also a bit confused. Even if Iran had the capability, what could they do with it? They don't have any bases outside of Iran.


As was already brought up earlier in this thread, SAMs operating against modern aircraft and trained pilots are batting about .001 in modern warfare. 1 kill for every 1000 SAMS launched.


This may not be a fair assessment. Those SAM's most likely didn't have well trained troops operating them. It can play a huge factor. Plus, SAM technology was fairly young at the time.


I'm glad you gave some supporting evidence for that or else I might have doubted you. The wargames carrier out by the pentagon before we invaded Iraq showed 2 things: 1. They think a carrier can be sunk (along with the rest of the US fleet in the region). 2. America is too cocky to keep it's carriers out of harms way, simply because putting them closer allows many more sorties. Even after Van Ripper handed the Navy their arse in that excercise, they still chose to operate from the gulf.
Last but not least, the need to refuel in midair is a weakness because 1. It requires support from a land-based tanker which somewhat restricts options. 2. It reduces the amount of sorties you can fly. 3. It represents an opportunity for the enemy to attack you while you are weak (low on fuel, plus protecting the all important fuel tanker).


We probably haven't moved our carriers from the region because no one really threatens them right now. Iran's the most powerful Arab force, and they couldn't attack America at this time. If Iran started a massive military buildup, we'd move them.


I guess you're right. Within a couple of weeks there wouldn't even be an Iranian army. Just look at how well this massive intelligence and airpower machine is locating and killing Iraqi insurgents, just like it anhilated the Taliban without ground troops, and just like it routed the Iraqis in mere days with no ground forces in 1991. Ooops, it historically takes months of US air superiority just to weaken the enemy, and then we still need a large ground force. I'm not saying that we haven't got a great military, I'm just saying that we can't walk over anyone anywhere in a short timeframe.


The Taliban and the insurgents aren't like a normal army. They didn't fight in the open. They weren't an army on the move. Neither was Iraq during the first Gulf War. An Iranian army trying to invade would be right in the open. They'd be extremely vulnerable.


What do you think the whole point of the FCS is, except to remedy the very real problem that we are not capable of effectively dealing with a crisis on short notice?
Now I know our technology is improving- especially in terms of what we could theoretically do if we had the equipment. On the other hand, we can't even seem to secure armor for humvees. No matter how far our technology advances, there is no way in the immediate future that American airpower will be able to compensate for the long deployment time of heavy forces.


We can't deploy infantry as fast as we'd want, that's what FCS is about. Our aircraft are still capable of reaching anywhere in the world in short notice. They're perfectly capable of at least providing us protection in case of any offensive military action against us.

We do have several rapid reaction forces that can get anywhere in the world within 48 hours, as well.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

We probably haven't moved our carriers from the region because no one really threatens them right now. Iran's the most powerful Arab force, and they couldn't attack America at this time. If Iran started a massive military buildup, we'd move them.



IRAN IS NOT ARAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean this kinda shows how much info some people have



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

IRAN IS NOT ARAB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mean this kinda shows how much info some people have


You know, it was a technical mistake, but at the same time, there's little difference between calling them Arab or Persian. It's just a technicality. It's a way for Iranians to feel superior. The Persians occupied all of the Middle East. The same blood would probably be going through all of their veins.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Iran and about half of Iraq are persian yes?

Generally siding with Isreal against the arabs in the past I guess it's quite offensive.

Like calling an Indian a Pakistani?



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I don't believe Pakistani is a race. It's a nationality.

As I said, "Persians" and Arabs have been mixing blood for centuries upon centuries.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Although the distinction may seem petty, it is generally a good idea to recognize whatever somebody believes themselves to be. Even when racial distinctions are blurred (although they do exist in this case), cultural distinctions still exist. No sense in creating a racial arguement by calling somebody something they dont want to be called.


Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
We watch the Taiwan straight almost constantly. I think our satellites moniter it 12 times a day. Now, I'd say we watch Iran even more. If they started a military buildup with so many of our assets nearby, we'd increase it even more.

Monitoring a sea lane for a limited number of large assets like ships has very little to do with the ability to track the location of hundreds or thousands of smaller assets which can be stored indoors on a 24/7 basis. If you can't keep eyes on target for a very large volume of missiles 24/7 you will lose track of them and not be able to target them when the war starts. I would be shocked if we had the ability.



Mid air refueling isn't as simple as you think The Chinese don't even have it yet. I'm also a bit confused. Even if Iran had the capability, what could they do with it? They don't have any bases outside of Iran.

I would like to reiterate that China probably doesn't have it because it is not a priority- they have a large airforce, most of which isn't equiped for it anyway, so why invest in the tankers and all yet? If it were a priority it would only be a matter of cash, engineering, and welding for the most part.

Your question about what Iran would do with it is valid, but I have an answer. Take a route out to sea, refuel there, then turn North- that should give them plenty of range to strike Turkey.
If by some miracle they still have an effective airforce after their first strike and wish to operate against Turkey they can refuel over Iraq, allowing them to operate from a somewhat safer location- Iran.


This may not be a fair assessment. Those SAM's most likely didn't have well trained troops operating them. It can play a huge factor. Plus, SAM technology was fairly young at the time.

An interesting point, but now the anti-Iran side is getting it both ways. If modern SAMs with well trained operators are effective then America can't gain air superiority as easily as we have assumed. If they really are obsolete then Iran can attack Turkey.



We probably haven't moved our carriers from the region because no one really threatens them right now. Iran's the most powerful Arab force, and they couldn't attack America at this time. If Iran started a massive military buildup, we'd move them.


Iran can destroy every American ship in the gulf right now if they chose to. Their airforce may suck, but even the Argentine airforce was good enough to make a 1 way trip into missile range and deliver their exocets against the British. They have Silkworms ready to rock and roll in massive quantities, and IF they are in direct control of the sunburns they can nuke the US fleet.


The Taliban and the insurgents aren't like a normal army. They didn't fight in the open. They weren't an army on the move. Neither was Iraq during the first Gulf War. An Iranian army trying to invade would be right in the open. They'd be extremely vulnerable.

The Iraqi army in 91 WAS out in the open. They were an army first on the move and afterwards still in the field and exposed. It took months to achieve 10-20% losses as opposed to total victory by ground forces in a mere 100 hours. Airforces just dont do it except as a supporting instrument.


We can't deploy infantry as fast as we'd want, that's what FCS is about. Our aircraft are still capable of reaching anywhere in the world in short notice. They're perfectly capable of at least providing us protection in case of any offensive military action against us.

Just to be sure I understand- we can move an airforce, supporting personel and logistics, air defenses, and sufficient defensive forces anywhere in the world in under a month and use that to project so much force that it can turn back an invading army?
I can't -prove- this to be wrong, but I strongly disagree and it would take significant examples to convince me otherwise.



We do have several rapid reaction forces that can get anywhere in the world within 48 hours, as well.

Yes, but significant quantities of armor and artillery are another story. If you can't project a large and well rounded combined arms force you are in for a very messy war. This is what makes it such a big deal to develop tanks which can be transported by air and "rockets in a box" type artillery.
We wont be completely protected against the prospect of attacks like the one I am suggesting until a large and rapidly mobile combined arms force exists.
I'm looking forward to the day that we can drop 1 or more heavy divisions anywhere we please in 3-7 days, but it's not here yet.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Although the distinction may seem petty, it is generally a good idea to recognize whatever somebody believes themselves to be. Even when racial distinctions are blurred (although they do exist in this case), cultural distinctions still exist. No sense in creating a racial arguement by calling somebody something they dont want to be called.


I couldn't care less what Iranians want to be called. It's just their foolish nationalistic pride. They have no problem taking the credit for anything those Arabs did when they happened to be under a "Persian" empire.


Monitoring a sea lane for a limited number of large assets like ships has very little to do with the ability to track the location of hundreds or thousands of smaller assets which can be stored indoors on a 24/7 basis. If you can't keep eyes on target for a very large volume of missiles 24/7 you will lose track of them and not be able to target them when the war starts. I would be shocked if we had the ability.


We seemed to catch the activity on the Iraqi border, as well as take plenty of pictures of the Iraqis tearing down missile sites.


I would like to reiterate that China probably doesn't have it because it is not a priority- they have a large airforce, most of which isn't equiped for it anyway, so why invest in the tankers and all yet? If it were a priority it would only be a matter of cash, engineering, and welding for the most part.


I don't know whats really changed about China's demand in the last few decades, but they plan on having mid air refueling in a few years. I just doubt they'd have waited so long if it were so easy.


Your question about what Iran would do with it is valid, but I have an answer. Take a route out to sea, refuel there, then turn North- that should give them plenty of range to strike Turkey.
If by some miracle they still have an effective airforce after their first strike and wish to operate against Turkey they can refuel over Iraq, allowing them to operate from a somewhat safer location- Iran.


This would be risky. It would give a long time for interception, I'd imagine. Plus, Iran would still be powerless to attack our airfields in Europe.


An interesting point, but now the anti-Iran side is getting it both ways. If modern SAMs with well trained operators are effective then America can't gain air superiority as easily as we have assumed. If they really are obsolete then Iran can attack Turkey.


Iran could attack Turkey, but they'd probably find themselves pissing off other nations in the region. Muslim nations have shown they'll side with America when one of their neighbors shows agression towards other Muslim nations.


Iran can destroy every American ship in the gulf right now if they chose to. Their airforce may suck, but even the Argentine airforce was good enough to make a 1 way trip into missile range and deliver their exocets against the British. They have Silkworms ready to rock and roll in massive quantities, and IF they are in direct control of the sunburns they can nuke the US fleet.


They could do that, but afterwards they'd be screwed. Without launching the attack on our troops in Iraq, and our airfields, nothing stops America from swiftly retaliating.


The Iraqi army in 91 WAS out in the open. They were an army first on the move and afterwards still in the field and exposed. It took months to achieve 10-20% losses as opposed to total victory by ground forces in a mere 100 hours. Airforces just dont do it except as a supporting instrument.


The Iraqis had months in Kuwait. I think they took some precautions. Either way, tens of thousands of Iraqis were killed in the bombing, regardless of equipment loss. Out of 200,000, that's not bad, especially when considering we were also bombing many targets in Iraq.

I would agree that airpower can not win an actual war, but I think the losses to Iran's infantry would greatly increase America's chances of repeling an invasion force.


Just to be sure I understand- we can move an airforce, supporting personel and logistics, air defenses, and sufficient defensive forces anywhere in the world in under a month and use that to project so much force that it can turn back an invading army?
I can't -prove- this to be wrong, but I strongly disagree and it would take significant examples to convince me otherwise.


I didn't mean that. I just mean that we can bomb anywhere we want at any time. We could reach anywhere within hours. I doubt Iran's air defenses could do much to stop B-2 bombers attacking their troops trying to cross the Iraqi border.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Vagabond -

Before I launch into my argument, lemme first say I agree with much of what you say. I'm only bringing up the stuff I disagree with. About the Persian Gulf, I stated my case, so I'm not going to repeat it. New issues:

1. Ease of dispersement, concealment.

Concealment works for tanks, helicopters, mortars, small-arms... but not modern fighter-planes, and not cruise missiles, at least not the Sunburn type. Modern fighters need generators and fuel tanks on the ground, and a straight, 1-km long load-bearing concrete runway, with no debris around to be sucked in on takeoff and landing. That's not easy to hide. (By contrast, C-130s and C-17s are specifically designed for rough takeoff and landings) To be effective, Sunburn-type missiles need radar-queing, fire-control systems, and support team and equipment. Sure, you can hide that, but it's not effective to devote that much infrastructure to one missile. The still need to be deployed in batteries, so the missiles can share the support structure.

2. US Recon.

Remote sensing is very powerful. US spyplanes could tell a decoy airplane from a real Russian bomber based on the heat left on the airplane, or even the heat from the pavement from the exhaust plume - from 8 hours ago. Take thermal images of highways three times a day, and you'll know the location of concealed airplanes, assuming they can takeoff from highways.

AWACS can track planes from takeoff to landing. If Iranian planes take to the air, it will be easy to take them out. Easy. Like you said, did you read Red Storm Rising? Now the OODA loop is 30 minutes, rather than 3 days. JDAM from B-2, a cruise missile.

3. B-2

I know I've put a lot of importance on the B-2, but its not really about the B-2, its about the ability to destroy a target with impunity. Cruise missiles can do it too, but, like I said, they are not cost-effective. JDAM at 50000 USD, cruise missile at 2 million. The US has the capability to deliver 500lb bombs to 100 targets every day, based on the B-2 alone. Every vulerability the US has, the Iranians have as well. The US can bomb railroad crossing, fuel dumps, radars, heck, they can bomb oil wells and power plants. 100 targets, every day. Use the small-diameter bomb, and the target count multiplies.

"Ingenuity" won't down a B-2 bomber. Please tell me exactly how you think the Iranians will do it. Unless they figure out a way to sabotage air force bases on US soil, it won't happen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

On the other hand there are things I hadn't considered the first time around. Chief among them is the power of Iranian tube artillery. Usually, the US will be able to silence enemy artillery with counter-battery fire, but if the US is short on supplies, the Iranian army, modeled on the Soviet army, will be able to use their artillery to their full effect. That will mean more casualties for the US. Push back my scenario schedule one week, and have the US temporarily retreat to southern and western Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, far from uprising against the US the Iraqis will be fighting a guerilla war against the Iranians. I had forgotten about the Iran-Iraq war. The Iraqis will be helping the US however they can, whenever they can.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The problem is that if Iran makes a move into Iraq then the oil will be stuck there, No oil = No machines for war = another Vietnam. And,with all the B-2s flying, the Americans will be paying a lot more tax. The cost of war alone is already enought to deter Bush from going into Iran.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Bush won't enter Iran simply because there's no reason. That government won't last as it is for long.

As for oil, America has a lot stored away for a rainy day. America's economy would take a hit, but we could manage for a few months.


Sep

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I couldn't care less what Iranians want to be called. It's just their foolish nationalistic pride. They have no problem taking the credit for anything those Arabs did when they happened to be under a "Persian" empire.


First: I dont care if you dont care about us, we are Persians we always have been and we always will be no matter what people like you say. It is true we are nationalists and are very proud of it.

Second: Can you list what the Arabs did that we claim? Some of the greatest poets, warriors, generals, kings, planners and doctors were Persians and no-one has the right to say other wise.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:53 AM
link   

First: I dont care if you dont care about us, we are Persians we always have been and we always will be no matter what people like you say. It is true we are nationalists and are very proud of it.


You know, Babylon is in Iraq. Iran is just a nation that happens to inhabit some of the same area as the Persian empires did.


Second: Can you list what the Arabs did that we claim? Some of the greatest poets, warriors, generals, kings, planners and doctors were Persians and no-one has the right to say other wise.


The Persians were a great empire. I'm not arguing that. There were many great achievements.

I really don't care to argue this. I was more or less being stubborn when I responded on this in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join