Funny- Interesting Iranian War Scenario

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
siberian tiger always makes me want to laugh
im a jewish american and am
proud to say that i will be VOLUNTARILY enlisting in the marines. see you on the battlefield




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by weirdo
Its not the quantity of deaths but the impact on everyday life.Iranians as are the Iraqis used to death on there streets.Americans however are not so prepared.The pressure on your govt to stop fighting in far away countries bringing death to your streets could force the victory.


Americans not used to death on the streets? That's funny. What country has the highest murder rate in the world? Probably us, or at least we're close. Not something to be proud of, but what are you thinking making that statement?


You dont have the highest murder rate but the highest gun related murder rate. Iran used to (thier not that bad anymore most people are misinformed) to have stoneing, beating, lashing, electrical shock, stravation, hanging, gutting anf variouse other things, and lets be seriouse, do you thinkt he Iranian goverment Especially the SAVAK during the revolution gave out death quotes at the end?

Not to mention the million iranians killed suring the Iaq ivasion right after iran was under Islamic control, im pretty sure that we have seen more deaths (and deformities from Mustard gas and other Chemical weapons Saddam had curtesy of U.S.A) then the U.S has letatly, please let me know how many people you know who have been killed by a random attack or have been deformed from chemicals. And by know is meen you actually knew not knew of.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by zi2525]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Amuk, don't dignify the petty nation bashing with a response. I'm sure siberian just loves it when you treat his BS about the all-might AK as if it were valid enough to need refuting.

Now I happen to be intensely interested in military and political affairs. I predicted problems in South America the minute Goss was named to head the CIA, I was talking about Venezuela more than a month before Fox News picked it up, and I suggested an alliance between Russia and India before BRIC came about. Take it or leave it, but here are my most likely scenarios for Iran's future.

1. America relies on CIA and special ops to develop local resistance in Iran over the next 1-2 years while training Iraqi troops. Over time Iran will determine that they are not under threat of invasion and it is unlikely they will make a preemptive attack on our navy. Assuming there are no hang-ups, such as an escalation in possible limited intervention to Venezuela or Russian troop deployments in Iran, America will attack. Barring certain eventualities which I outline later, America will probably be very successful against Iran.
2. Due to budget issues, domestic politics, and outside deterrence, especially if Iran should become a partner in BRICS, America may not invade, but will settle for airstrikes or covert action against Iranian nuclear facilities. This would not be America's first option because of American interest in Caspian Sea energy reserves, not to mention the importance of Bandar e Abbas as an alternative route for pipelines from Turkmenistan if Pakistan should take a stand with BRIC or if security in Afghanistan should fail. Bush's Saudi friends would obviously prefer that their rival across the gulf be taken down also.
3. Israel hits Iran all by their lonesome and then the Iran nuclear issue takes a backseat to Venezuela and other areas. Iran can launch a few missiles in retaliation but they'll get worse than they give if they want to trade blows that way. They can't spontaneously commence an effective invasion, so no worries there- if they tried it they'd inflict American casualities in the 3 or 4 digit range and be soundly routed. Iran can only make a good show of invading Iraq if they plan and PREPARE it in advance and initiate hostilities and a time of their choosing.
Forget about the false-flag op on our carrier- Israel lacks the technical means. Good false flag ops are usually terrorist in nature because its much harder to trace a person, especially one who is not captured.


As for the strategic/grand-tactical consideration of a war between Iran and America:
Access to the Persian Gulf is only an issue for a US invasion. If Iran initiates hostilities then Turkey has very little room to refuse America use of airspace and passage on the ground as a member of NATO. Furthermore, if Iran were to conduct a full invasion of Iraq we must not dismiss the possibility of America and Israel telling Jordan and Syria "gangway or sickbay" (meaning get out of the way or get hurt).

For Iran to initate hostilities and be successful they must upgrade their missile forces for accuracy (silkworms and the arab knockoff searsucker are highly suspect after their performance under Saddam's control). Everything hinges on Iran taking Basrah and/or Mosul in the first week. After that America will be reinforcing with a great deal of light infantry and it will become doubtful that Iranian forces can get across the Tigris. If they cross the Tigris this war could mean casualties for America in the 5 digit range and although America would eventually win it would leave America gun-shy. If they can't cross the Tigris the Iranians will be lucky as heck if they managed to make an orderly retreat. For the most part they'd find themselves getting caught and making their last stand just outside the mountains- and after a few stunning defeats they'd start surrendering. If I had to really get detailed I'd say the major battles of such a war would be fought at Mosul, Basrah, East of Arbil, Adaban, and Ahvaz, and by that time the Iranians would be pretty well broken.

For America to invade Iran they first need to build Iraqi forces to support them against potential Iranian preemption when the buildup for invasion begins. We'll need to withdraw from the Persian Gulf with most of our fleet and we will be depending on Turkish support for the war. If we get that, it's an easy war. We head straight for Tehran in the North and let the Iranians come to us in the South so that our tanks can butcher them in the open instead of laying seige to Adaban and Ahvaz. This war would be a dead-ringer for Iraqi Freedom- same thing all over again. We can't be dismissive of Iranian capabilities but there is no reason to doubt the outcome of the war so long as we fight smart.

If Turkey didn't play ball, then this becomes one of those really fun scenarios for arm-chair generals, but a real nightmare for the pros.
To be completely honest I have no idea how the pentagon would respond, although it seems to me that a small surprise airborne/amphibious operation on Bandar-e-Abbas would be the answer to opening up South Eastern Iran for for the insertion of forces in addition to those already operating from Iraq.


Seems like I'm forgetting something else I'd meant to get into, but this is ranting enough for now, and I'm ready to go do whatever it is that I do when I'm not online.
I will point out quickly though that Iran's F-14s have been seriously overblown. Iran hasn't had compitent support for training, maintance, or upgrade of those aircraft in years, and whatever they may be worth it is extremely doubtful that they will last long against American pilots.
Modernized air defense are nice, but the question is do they have them in depth? History has proven that isolated pockets, even in high density, of modern surface to air missiles are not sufficient. The effectiveness of broad and redundantly thorough coverage over a broad area might be higher, but I haven't got all the numbers memorized, so I have no idea if Iran has the assetts to present such a challenge to our pilots. In short- no disrespect to Iran but suggesting that they will simply trounce the US is a gross over-simplification of extremely specific scenarios in which they would not win, but at least lose respectably.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
Werido

Do you honestly think sucicide bombers in America would make us melt and quiver?


Or the more likely outcome of Americans howling for blood and not being to damn concerned over whose it was?

Did 9-11 cause us to curl in a ball and whimper? What do you think a hundred of them would do?


No l don`t believe they will make you curl up and whimper anymore than Israel is, but unlike the Israeli`s you do not no where your enemies are.If you were to ask any civilian who is or has lived under the threat of terrorism you will get a mixed reaction of anger and fear.Again maybe there plan is to cause instability between countries or to ruin the American economy.Everybody no`s that when the American financial markets get a cold the rest of the world sneezes.
We all need to find a soloution to the problem to be able to overcome it,the problem is the American leadership is blind to this fact and is incapable of listening,as you guys have shown in your posts that is one of the reason there is anti American attitude.If it isn`t your way it a no way,maybe one day on hear someone from America will write hey theres a thought maybe you are right



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
The only part that is wrong is the jews using SS-22's (Russia has not sold any to them nor will we) they will use thier own home made cruise misslies, any ways here's the article it's funny judicial-inc.biz...

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]


Not funny at all. IMO Iran has nuclear weapons and the first action in response to the bombing will be to reduce Israel to ashes. The nuclear bomb could come from NK as well.

I think the document does not consider a lot other factors, e.g. China, Russia, EU (except allies).

The only ways to stop this are:
1. Nuke Iran
2. Assasinate Iran leaderhip now, e.g. Israel style
3. Nuke Israel



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by WisdomMaster
Not funny at all. IMO Iran has nuclear weapons and the first action in response to the bombing will be to reduce Israel to ashes. The nuclear bomb could come from NK as well.


It is almost certain that the only nuclear weapons in Iran are under the control of Russian forces, and those would be the SS-N-22s. When you have the bomb you're supposed to wave it in somebody's face and say back off- not keep it a secret and wait for the enemy to corner you into a cataclysmic nuclear war. Believe me, when Iran gets the bomb they're gonna make sure everybody heres about it, and they'll probably get more than a little bit belligerent about it.
Why does everybody just love to talk about Israel getting "reduced to ashes"? I swear people word their posts carefully to make sure they get to say something like that. Humanity really needs to get over the nuke worship- they've become a modern sun-god, but like any sun god, they are powerless to help us.



I think the document does not consider a lot other factors, e.g. China, Russia, EU (except allies).

In all fairness, China, Russia, and the EU have very nearly proven that they aren't going to cowboy up no mater who we invade. They'd probably be smart to put a separating force in front of us and try to have us stop, but so far they haven't shown that sort of will to resist. I dont think the article was realistic, but I do believe that most nations will sit this war out.


The only ways to stop this are:
1. Nuke Iran
2. Assasinate Iran leaderhip now, e.g. Israel style
3. Nuke Israel


OK, call me a chicken-sht commie coward if you must, but I really think we should try diplomacy first. I'm aware that there are certain groups in America who have no clue what that means, so I'll explain.
Diplomacy is when instead of just beating somebody up, you go find out what the other guy wants and tell him what you want and try to make a deal. If that doesn't work you try to buy him off. If that doesn't work you threaten to beat him up. You exhaust every resouce before actually beating him up, because it's a lot easier if he just gives up without a fight.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
About 90% are wrong when it comes to your "analysis" on how the war in Iran will go.

The only way for the U.S. to win in Iran to kill ever last member of their 69,018,924 population. In other words, the U.S. must drive the Iranians to extinction to win.

Who here wants that? Gimme a hoo-ah!



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
NOW SWEET Monica thats the smartist analysis about what would have to be done to win in Iran I heard,I have relised these Americans really believe their CNN that tells them the Iranians want a Change I have come to the conclution that the American people will only learn the hard way= TOTAL COMPLETE defeat in the Middle East and trhe 3 world war with Russia.CNN MSNBC, CNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC,FOXNEWS all are telling the same thing white house says so these are NOT INDEPENDANT News Agencies, but at the top are controlled by same group. BY the way vagabond go back and read my postes you are confusing me with some one eles I never wrote about AK.47's.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
About 90% are wrong when it comes to your "analysis" on how the war in Iran will go.


Ah wonderful, another attritionist here to apply the Vietnam equation to modern manuever warfare. Let me explain something about defeating larger forces my friend: you don't actually have to kill them all.

Even if Irans entire population were armed, equipped, trained, organized, and fielded as an army, which it won't be, US forces can defeat them without directly engaging them all by destroying or capturing points of critical weakness. Once you have one a single major battle and caused a break in the enemy lines you are able to attack key assetts in his rear area.
If you control key roads and the air route you control the enemies ability to get food, fuel, and ammunition to his forces. If you destroy the enemy's artillery his remaining forces become one-dimensional and much of their capability to resist. If you destroy the enemy command and control network a militia force degenerates into a mass of normal people who don't know what to do. By "fighting them where they aren't" it is possible to defeat very large forces with relatively little blood shed.

So, America and Iran go at it, a considerable part of the Iranian military is destroyed at Adaban and Ahvaz, and with the support of airpower America begins making its way rather easily through the Zagros towards Tehran.
America begins to enounter overwhelming civilian resistance and are questions about the need to enter and clear the cities in a costly urban campaign. Instead, the rear guard of American forces surround major cities, guard major roads, and control access to food, water, fuel, ammunition etc. As America completes its route of the Iranian military, US forces begin to enter the cities in a manner reminiscent of Najaf. A lot of Iranian citizens die, some innocent and some not, and the Marines come out relatively unscathed.
Let's face it, we've all heard this Baghdad Bob crap before, but the truth is that civilian populations can only harrass an occupying force. There are very few modern examples of civilian forces successfully routing an invader. It has happened from time to time in the past, but the growing disparity between military and civilian weapons, especially in terms of indirect fire, has left militia forces badly outmatched, not to mention the high level of training and professionalism in modern armies.

You can doubt me all you want, it's a common mistake. I tend to be right when it comes to matters of war though, and as I said before, Iran is going to be on the wrong side of an impressive trouncing unless they manage quick upgrades to their missile forces, outstanding logistical organization, and a surprise attack before America begins building up additional forces in Iraq. I'm a huge advocate of the capabilities of small, under-estimated forces and I see Iran as a threat, but let's keep it realistic. Iran is not trained and equipped to do the things it needs to do to win.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
this is the first thong that will happen www.vialls.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The Vagabond.

Have you ever thought that your views are wrong.Sure you may be able to win a debate,using intelligent writting come accross as all knowing,but that doesn`t amount to jack in the big picture.
People are anti American for this reason it is impossible on this site to have a disscussion with Americans as they are so narrow minded.This causes an arguement instantly which ultimatly reduces the point of a Disscussion Site!!!!! please learn to discuse issues and open up to other views rather than impose your view point on people who disagree.This is not Iraq and you are not the President.


TPL

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Whats the terrain like in Iran? I heard it's more mountainous than Iraq. How would that effect the war on the ground?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   
well hes right, i mean iran was stronger in the iran-iraq war and almost lost so i doubt they can challnge our forces anymore than iraq did.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   


Let's face it, we've all heard this Baghdad Bob crap before, but the truth is that civilian populations can only harrass an occupying force. There are very few modern examples of civilian forces successfully routing an invader. It has happened from time to time in the past, but the growing disparity between military and civilian weapons, especially in terms of indirect fire, has left militia forces badly outmatched, not to mention the high level of training and professionalism in modern armies.



Please give us details of campaigns that American forces have successfully beaten and caused to surrender?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
NOW SWEET Monica thats the smartist analysis about what would have to be done to win in Iran I heard,I have relised these Americans really believe their CNN that tells them the Iranians want a Change I have come to the conclution that the American people will only learn the hard way= TOTAL COMPLETE defeat in the Middle East and trhe 3 world war with Russia.CNN MSNBC, CNBC,ABC,CBS,NBC,FOXNEWS all are telling the same thing white house says so these are NOT INDEPENDANT News Agencies, but at the top are controlled by same group. BY the way vagabond go back and read my postes you are confusing me with some one eles I never wrote about AK.47's.


Iranians do want a change. They just don't want American imperialism doing it for America.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weirdo
The Vagabond.
Have you ever thought that your views are wrong.
Sure you may be able to win a debate,using intelligent writting come accross as all knowing,but that doesn`t amount to jack in the big picture.
People are anti American for this reason it is impossible on this site to have a disscussion with Americans as they are so narrow minded.


Hogwash. Your statement is a gross over generalization. This narrow minded American you're talking to is the one who started the thread on a possible Iranian upset of US forces several months ago, and I was heavily applauded in that thread by several pro-American moderators. People get very defensive when you start nation bashing, but in a reasoned discussion many of us are open to realistic consideration of possibilities.
I also object to the idea that I use intelligent writing to come across as all knowing.
As for the idea that I simply use skilled writing to come across as "all knowing" 1. I don't claim know even close to everything- I just know a few things that the average joe would have no reason to study. 2. I correctly analyze and sometimes forecast news events 1-2 months ahead of the mainstream media and have date-stamped ATS posts to prove it, so it's hard to write me off as some fool who has a way with words.



This causes an arguement instantly which ultimatly reduces the point of a Disscussion Site!!!!! please learn to discuse issues and open up to other views rather than impose your view point on people who disagree.This is not Iraq and you are not the President.

I didn't threaten to send the Fascisti to arrest you for disagreeing did I? I didn't impose my views on anyone. I asserted my views strongly so that they may be considered as part of this discussion. Nobody has to accept my analysis, but given my knowledge and my record, it does carry some weight with some members who know me.
You claim that engaging in an arguement is detrimental to a discussion site, but what is an arguement but a passionate discussion of opposing viewpoints? So long as an arguement is based on reason rather than simply being an ideological impasse, it can be fruitful. I have had my views changed by arguements here on ATS. I was a neocon when I came here, I had misconceptions about certain historical events as well as about present affairs. Fruitful arguements have made me a more moderate and balanced thinker, have educated me about the past, and have given me new insights to the present, and at the same time the value of many of my views has become better appreciated by others. Don't get mad at me for thinking Iran can't man-handle America, present a reasoned case for your disagreement.


In response to your request for lists of campaigns that American forces have caused to surrender, I will ask for clarification first. In light of the quote from my previous post you chose, you seem to be asking for examples of civilian insurgenices which America has defeated, is this correct?
Obviously insurgencies do not surrender en masse as an army does, however they have proven incapable of producing militarily appreciable results, even in Iraq in the face of a ridiculously mismanaged war effort driven by the Rumsfeld DoD, which seems minimally concerned with force protection.
If we are instead discussing the ability of US forces to cause middle eastern armies to surrender, then ample demonstrations have been given in Iraq, both in 1991 and in 2003. Additionally, the ability of Western militaries versus the outdated soviet style forces employed by most middle eastern nations has been shown by Israel's handling of Egypt and Syria in the Six Day War.


Sep

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
well hes right, i mean iran was stronger in the iran-iraq war and almost lost so i doubt they can challnge our forces anymore than iraq did.


Iran's army was disbanded a few months before the Iran-Iraq war, how were they stronger exactly?



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   


2. I correctly analyze and sometimes forecast news events 1-2 months ahead of the mainstream media and have date-stamped ATS posts to prove it, so it's hard to write me off as some fool who has a way with words.


Maybe if you worded this sentance "I have analyzed and forecasted news events 1-2 months before the mainstream media" you would not come accross as so listen to me l am right l am the expert blah blah blah this site is not for ones ego trip.




I asserted my views strongly so that they may be considered as part of this discussion. Nobody has to accept my analysis, but given my knowledge and my record, it does carry some weight with some members who know me.


See you are not satisfied in simply stating your points and allowing others to come to there own conclusion.



You claim that engaging in an arguement is detrimental to a discussion site, but what is an arguement but a passionate discussion of opposing viewpoints?




Don't get mad at me for thinking Iran can't man-handle America, present a reasoned case for your disagreement.


I don`t get mad as l don`t have an overwhelming need to prove any points l make a correct.
I don`t believe Iran could defeat the US in a conventional war.The US is not stupid there aren`t going to fight somebody that could threaten America in that sense.
The way that the Middle East is going could lead to a conflict that as yet to be experianced in the past.



In response to your request for lists of campaigns that American forces have caused to surrender, I will ask for clarification first. In light of the quote from my previous post you chose, you seem to be asking for examples of civilian insurgenices which America has defeated, is this correct?


Simple any conflicts which has resulted in the US invading,conquering and resulting in a better future (Not in the American idea of better) for the people of that country.



Obviously insurgencies do not surrender en masse as an army does, however they have proven incapable of producing militarily appreciable results, even in Iraq in the face of a ridiculously mismanaged war effort driven by the Rumsfeld DoD, which seems minimally concerned with force protection.


It is possible that the Iraqi`s have planned the situation we see today.Saddam was doomed from the beginning as were his army, had they stood there ground and fought a conventional war.The publics opinion of the US is not great at the moment.Who no`s what is in the future regarding China.You could be walking into the spiders web without realising you are too weak to get out.



If we are instead discussing the ability of US forces to cause middle eastern armies to surrender, then ample demonstrations have been given in Iraq, both in 1991 and in 2003.


There isn`t peace in Iraq it isn`t over yet.



[edit on 12-2-2005 by weirdo]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
First of all Siberian I do owe you an apology and a correction. The idiocy regarding the horrible toll that would be taken by subway shootings and such came from Wierdo.
Also, don't take this as a criticism, but it would be a tremendous help to everyone if you could summarize the content of links you post.

As for the most recent link you've posted about how Iran controls the exit from Iraq- I believe that the author has made a mistake by completely ignoring the capabilities of US forces. Anything can be made to sound possible if you focus on only one force. Look at thermopylae. If you focus on the immense power of the several hundred thousand persians, you'd probably think that even 100 modern troops could not hold them off. Yet a mere handful of Spartans numbering only in the hundreds made a 3 day stand against that huge force.
Iranian weapons are potent, however their number and ability to be delivered must be weighed, as must the limits of their effects. The exocets for example can sink our forces in the gulf and deny us a naval exit for a while (although the ability to deliver these missiles will be greatly hindered because the Iranian airforce can not endure beyond the initial 2-4 weeks of this war, to be EXTREMELY generous, and nor can their submarine forces.)
Iran lacks the ability to shut down reinforcement and resupply by air however. This makes it extremely likely that US forces can hold the Tigris River and await reinforcement via Turkey (unless Turkey would like to get kicked out of NATO and lose any hope at EU membership), alternately reinforcements could be landed via Israel and come through Jordan.
Since this scenario is posed as a war on Zionism an Israeli incursion must be assumed. Israel is capable of routing Jordan in mere days and thus opening a corridor between Iraq and Israel through which American reinfrocements could advance, or through which US forces could retreat and thereafter start with Syria and fight their way back to Iran gradually. In so many words, America is only isolated for offensive purposes. In the face of Iranian aggression the necessity of cooperation from our allies will create alternative routes to Iraq.
If Iran performs brilliantly they can cause American casualties in the thousands or tens of thousands as I have said, however the issue will never be in doubt. After a few dark weeks in the beginning American forces will almost certainly overwhelm Iran, barring monumental stupidity on the part of American commanders combined with incredble genius on the part of Iranian officers.
So only one contention of the anti-semetic propaganda website you presented remains: will Russia resort to the use of nuclear weapons in defense of this failed action? I sincerely doubt that Russia is prepared to go nuclear with America just to support a failed gambit with their Iranian pawn. What could they stand to gain from it?



Originally posted by TPL
Whats the terrain like in Iran? I heard it's more mountainous than Iraq. How would that effect the war on the ground?

The Iraq-Iran border is defined by the Zagros Mountains. They span the entire border and present a series of mountain passes running East-West into Iran. There are three of these routes across the border which are supported by major highways, one in the North between Mosul and Maragheh, one in the North-Central area which takes a somewhat indirect line between Baghdad and Bakhtaran, and one that runs between Basra and Adaban/Ahvaz. In the North the highways let out into a North-South Highway which then offers 5 routes East towards the central Iranian Platea and Tehran, the Iranian Capital. In the South the mountains are set back from the border and there is open ground which houses the cities of Adaban and Ahvaz, and some Iranian military forces. A narrow strip of open ground runs the southern coast as far as Bushehr where Iran is building a nuclear reactor, then the coastal plain narrows very significantly between Bushehr and Bandar-e-Abbas, which is as the straight of Hormuz controlling the Persian Gulf.

A war over this terrain being fought out of Turkish territory would be reminiscent of Afghanistan and would rely on special forces and infantry with artillery support. Weather would be a factor in the effectiveness of airpower and armor would be less effective than it was in the open desert of Iraq.
Armored forces would likely be dedicated to the South in an effort to push down the coast and secure the Straight of Hormuz so that naval access to the Gulf is restored.
The less defended, less populated, and more direct route to Tehran runs out of Western Afghanistan, through a desert which lies behind the Zagros Mountains, but there are no major highways nor noteworthy settlements in this area which would complicate logistics somewhat.

Thanks to Iran's geography the war would move slower and indirect fire would be extremely important. American troops would likely take increased casualities in the hundreds, maybe low thousands unless they were extremely careful in their recon and recieved adequate air support for taking out Iranian artillery before advancing through constricted terrain. The inability to quickly mass forces would also make America more vulnerable to counter-attacks, although it is likely that America's advantage in battlefield awareness and indirect fire would make these counter attacks very costly and minimally effective.
The biggest implication of this terrain is that America would be less likely to "just get lucky" if we followed what I call "Rumsfeld Doctrine" by sending too few troops with two little support. It is absolutely imperative that the pentagon impress the challenges of the terrain upon Rumsfeld before such a war. If it is fought properly it will not be a problem for America. If it is fought the Rumsfeld way it could in fact be the disaster that America bashers love to suggest.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The idiocy regarding the horrible toll that would be taken by subway shootings and such came from Wierdo.



I never stated Iranians attacking people on the underground with AK would kill large numbers of people.I was pointing out there would be a psycological victory resulting in Americans feeling vunerable to attack at random anytime anywhere.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join