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.

 

Just what you all have been waiting for: U.S. Stages Simulated Attack On Iran

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Yep, you read and heard it correctly.
According to MENL via the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy In Iran via Atlantic Monthly Magazine, the U.S. has just completed a simulated attack on Iran.


The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran.

The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against the Islamic republic. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and comprised the easiest part of any military campaign.

The article in question

No need to ask for comments on this one, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   
And here is the Atlantic Monthly Magazine article that is referenced:
Will Iran Be Next?
Soldiers, spies, and diplomats conduct a classic Pentagon war game—with sobering results





seekerof



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
How reliable is the source Seekerof? I would have thought the US has its hands full in Iraq. I Think that Coalition forces would be faced with a similar situation once they have rolled up the Iranians as exists now in Iraq, insurgency, suicide bombings etc. I don't see any signs of a Withdrawal from Iraq and to launch an attack on Iran at this juncture would be foolishness. One job at a time. Iraq is already a drain on resources without compounding the problems by duplicating them in Iran as well.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The first link is highly suspect, and just sounds outright childish. Atlantic Monthly, however, is a magazine of which requires great respect. I am reading the second article as we speak. It's interesting to see these 'war-games' run to such great disparity.


Deep

[edit on 14-12-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I would love to see this simulation lol
pretty awesome they should of thought about this before, sounds like a good idea now only if we can see it seeker



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The Atlantic Monthly has been around since 1860 +/- there ZeroDeep. Excellent observation. Btw, "suspect" must seriously be relative and subjective, huh?

Found this:
The Project Gutenberg eBook, Atlantic Monthly, Volume 6, No. 38, December, 1860, by Various


As to the simulation, it is something that the military/Pentagon does on virtually everything. I would hate to see how many times the military/Pentagon ran simulations on the USSR during the Cold War. Incidently, the Pentagon also did a simulation on a jet liner crashing into the Pentagon, before it ever happened. I posted a topic thread on this way back, so it would be in the ATS archives.





seekerof

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
This can mean a lot or nothing, they do scenarios for every occasion. Somewhere is a war plan for invading the UK or Canada or Sweden or any other country in the world. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   
I meant the first link; the one from the Iranian studen organiziation. It's so vauge and short to make any productive conclusions.

Deep



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The Atlantic Monthly has been around since 1860 +/- there ZeroDeep. "Suspect" must seriously be relative and subjective, huh?
Found this:
The Project Gutenberg eBook, Atlantic Monthly, Volume 6, No. 38, December, 1860, by Various


As to the simulation, it is something that the military/Pentagon does on virtually everything. I would hate to see how many times the military/Pentagon ran simulations on the USSR during the Cold War. Incidently, the Pentagon also did a simulation on a jet liner crashing into the Pentagon, before it ever happened. I posted a topic thread on this way back, so it would be in the ATS archives.





seekerof



I had only seen the first link when i posted, thankyou for the link to the original story. I wasnt trying to cast any doubt on your story, just dont trust the Middle Eastern websites, either pro or anti US/UK.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
MENL said there was a possibility of US strikes on Somalia and Lebanon.
That was back in January and I haven't even seen a hint of such action.
www.menewsline.com...

It sounds plausible that they are conducting a simulated attack as they already did that a few months ago but that previous sim said there would be problems with such an attack.

I don't really trust this new version's comment:


U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and comprised the easiest part of any military campaign.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Perhaps they refer to this wargame which didn't have a good outcome for the US (see also slide show on second link):

www.news24.com...
www.npr.org...

Edit: the Iranian students made reference to the Atlantic Monthly Magazine, I am pretty sure they were refering to the above wargame.

Blobber





[edit on 14-12-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Nice link Blobber, i especially like the power point presentation and the audio commentary. From what the retired Air force adviser said in the audio an attack on Iran would be a tricky operation.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Janus]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Most excellent link there blobber...most excellent.
Thanks for finding it and posting it.....seems to confirm the Atlantic Monthly Magazine article when it mentions "with sobering results".





seekerof



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:08 PM
link   


We have no intention of getting bogged down in stability operations in Iran afterwards. Go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly after having destroyed—rendered inoperative—the nuclear facilities." How could the military dare suggest such a plan, after the disastrous consequences of ignoring "stability" responsibilities in Iraq? Even now, Gardiner said after the war game, the military sees post-conflict operations as peripheral to its duties. If these jobs need to be done, someone else must take responsibility for them


This is a fightening snippet from the Atlantic Monthly article. Have they not learned anything from Iraq? How can the military not regard post-conflict stability as its responsibility?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The US and most other countries do war games like this all the time. Like Amuk said he even have them where we are fighting countries like the UK and Canada.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The Department of Defense has plans for just about everything. I read about these war games regarding Iran about two weeks ago.

The DoD probably even has plans in store to destroy America! LOL



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 12:46 AM
link   
doesn't it say "US 'loses' war games" ?

[edit on 15-12-2004 by persian]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join