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.

 

Iran Can Win a War Against the U.S. with Help From Syria & the DPRK

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Deliverer, I think I know a little bit about what it means to be a professional soldier. I am just letting you know that with a volunteer army you need to pay close attention to the morale of the troops. The problem isn't getting the soldiers to be professional and do thier jobs, it is a question of retention, pure and simple.

Not every soldier is a grunt. The Armed Forces really don't have much trouble recruiting and retaining the combat arms guys, its those mid career soldiers in technical fields that are getting close to the 10 year decision point. Once you reenlist to go past 10 years in you are going to do the full 20 years until retirement because you have so much already invested in your career.

If you are a 25 year old soldier with 5-7 years in and you have to decide between staying in the military, facing an endless cycle of 1 year deployed away from your family, returning to the States for 10 months then going back to the big sandbox for another year, its not easy to stay in. Especially since you spend 3 of those 10 months in the field, training up for your next deployment.

Ok now take that same soldier and tell him that he is going to be spending 3 years away from his family. That soldier won't have a family when he comes back. That soldier won't reenlist. Give that Soldier some technical training that will allow him to get a job paying twice as much as he makes in the Army and there is no way he will reenlist.

Now if all those soldiers start leaving the military because they are deployed for multiple years at a time, you have a leadership crisis. All of a sudden you have no E5's and E6's, you start fast tracking E4's to make up the difference and the quality of our military goes right into the crapper. Who is going to fill in the gaps of experience that those junior NCO's left? As a leader you rely on those junior NCO's to get the job done. You can not recruit experience. These soldiers are irreplaceable.

The fact is, with out a Pearl Harbor, without concentration camps, the American people won't accept long deployments. Even without a single loss of life, the strain on the soldiers will be unbearable without a strong justification for the war.

Bottom line, the US would kick those country's collective butts, but there has to be strong justification to keep a soldier away from his family for more than a year.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Deliverer, I think I know a little bit about what it means to be a professional soldier. I am just letting you know that with a volunteer army you need to pay close attention to the morale of the troops. The problem isn't getting the soldiers to be professional and do thier jobs, it is a question of retention, pure and simple.


Our soldiers are willing and able to do a lot more then they are asked.


If you are a 25 year old soldier with 5-7 years in and you have to decide between staying in the military, facing an endless cycle of 1 year deployed away from your family, returning to the States for 10 months then going back to the big sandbox for another year, its not easy to stay in. Especially since you spend 3 of those 10 months in the field, training up for your next deployment.


We shouldn't even allow our soldiers to have wives and kids.


The fact is, with out a Pearl Harbor, without concentration camps, the American people won't accept long deployments. Even without a single loss of life, the strain on the soldiers will be unbearable without a strong justification for the war.


All of these cultural problems can be taken care of easily in any number of ways.

America could become a militaristic society far more powerful than anything this world has ever seen in a relatively short period of time.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Deliverer you clearly know absolutely nothing about the military. I have come to the realization that there is no point in discussing this with you. Oh yeah, and I have arbitrarily decided that flight attendants, doctors and coal miners should not be allowed to have wives and children.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Anyone who has studied the history of professional armies would find that they didn't have families. It was one of the reasons Rome saw a decline in their own soldier's quality in their later years after allowing marriage and families.

Soldiers are not normal people. They can not be compared to civillian jobs as you've tried to do.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Now you are comparing the Roman Army to a modern army, ridiculous. Soldiers ARE normal people. I am a soldier. What I have stated in this thread is drawn from my experience in the US Army. I know what I am talking about. I didn't read it in a book, I have experienced it. Do you deny that the US Army is a professional army? I am telling you what is going on NOW in the Army. Deny it if you must, but what I say is true. Soldiers are just people. We put up with a lot because we chose this profession, but if you abuse us for no reason we won't want to do it any more.

One year deployments are fine. If you want more than that you will get it too, but if there isn't a damn good reason soldiers will begin to question why they tolerate so much only to be taken for granted.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by Soldier]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Now you are comparing the Roman Army to a modern army, ridiculous. Soldiers ARE normal people. I am a soldier. What I have stated in this thread is drawn from my experience in the US Army. I know what I am talking about. I didn't read it in a book, I have experienced it. Do you deny that the US Army is a professional army? I am telling you what is going on NOW in the Army. Deny it if you must, but what I say is true. Soldiers are just people. We put up with a lot because we chose this profession, but if you abuse us for no reason we won't want to do it any more.


I never said some of the things weren't going on, I said they shouldn't be, and could easily be corrected.

Matters of military, like with politics, and human nature have changed very little over the years. Rome can be completely compared to America. America should strive to have the same great military Rome did. It's completely possible.

The problems you talked about are merely cultural ones. I could list the a million answers to the problems if you'd like.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Matters of the Military HAVE changed greatly over the years.

The discussion is whether or not the US could defeat those three countries all at the same time. The answer is YES. No problem.

The US could not occupy all three at the same time. We could totally destroy all three countries, but right now, at this point in time, the military is not large enough for that task.

To do it there would need to be a draft or an event along the lines of a Pearl Harbor that would drive enlistment. Or to restate what I have been saying all along "a damn good reason". You need something to build up the Army. That will take an event that affects the average American's sense of security.

You cannot judge America's response to CURRENT events on some hypothetical "militaristic state" that you think the US can turn into overnight. With the current state of the US military, the US cannot occupy those countries.

By the way, if you have a solution for the Army's retention problems, there are some General Officers in DC that would like to hear about it.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Matters of the Military HAVE changed greatly over the years.


Life to the average soldier has not changed. The basic tactics have not changed. The nature has not changed.


The US could not occupy all three at the same time. We could totally destroy all three countries, but right now, at this point in time, the military is not large enough for that task.


It doesn't take a large army to conquer or occupy if done properly. It only requires a simple policy of rewarding your friends greatly, and bringing hell upon anyone who causes you problems. If there's a Fallujah, we whipe if off the map. We dont' spare anyone. That will send a clear message to everyone else.


You cannot judge America's response to CURRENT events on some hypothetical "militaristic state" that you think the US can turn into overnight. With the current state of the US military, the US cannot occupy those countries.


A military state isn't needed to occupy those three countries.


By the way, if you have a solution for the Army's retention problems, there are some General Officers in DC that would like to hear about it


You start from the base of your society, which is education. We need a stronger education system in which our children are taught how to be good citizens. This is where we really could use a look back at the old Roman Republic.

There are other ways which would sound drastic. We have millions of kids who are put up for adoption. Honestly, we could raise these kids from birth to be simply soldiers. It'd be a lot better then the fate they have now.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
None of your ideas are feasible.

None of them take into account the actual state of the world as it currently is.

The American people would not tolerate the type of system/military that you propose.

The way things are NOW, the US could not occupy all three of those countries at once. NK alone would be a nightmare. You will say that South Korea could handle the occupation, and I say they could not. But what do I know, I've only been there and worked with the S. Koreans.

The indescriminate killing of civilians in a Muslim country would result in a war between all muslims and the US.

Your tactics don't work anymore. There is mass media now. If we did what you suggest, the world would turn against us. The US cannot take on the entire world.

You have a very myopic view of the world. You aren't taking into account second and third order effects that result from the actions you suggest.

And your plan for recruiting won't help the Army NOW.

Life for the average soldier HAS changed greatly from Roman times you just wouldn't know. Life for the average soldier has changed greatly just in the past 30 years.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Soldier]

[edit on 10-3-2005 by Soldier]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

None of them take into account the actual state of the world as it currently is.


Slow change slips by unnoticed.


The way things are NOW, the US could not occupy all three of those countries at once. NK alone would be a nightmare. You will say that South Korea could handle the occupation, and I say they could not. But what do I know, I've only been there and worked with the S. Koreans.


America was doing a fine job of occupying North Korea about half a century ago with a military not even a fraction as capable as the one we have now.


Your tactics don't work anymore. There is mass media now. If we did what you suggest, the world would turn against us. The US cannot take on the entire world.


Right. The world is going to rise up against us...and do what, exactly? Destroy their own economies by cutting ties? Try and challenge us militilary when they can't even move their troops to meet us?

Muslim nations attacking us...I doubt it. The Muslim world has used that threat for centuries, and it rarely ever amounts to anything. How often do they actually come to each other's aid when facing a real threat? The only time I know of them coming together to fight a threat was Israel when they were sure they could crush it, and there was no risk to their own rule.

These nations will do nothing because they'd be scared they'd be next.

The media can report whatever it wants. It could be sold to the American people. We've done things far worse then what I'm suggesting in past wars. If it meant saving troop lives, or theirs, especially in a war they started, the American public would have no problem.


And your plan for recruiting won't help the Army NOW.


We don't need it now. We'd need it to go on some global conquest, but certainly not for Iran, North Korea and Syria. The people in those nations have been subdued by cruel dictators for centuries. They've been conquered throughout history without much problem. We're perfectly capable.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Well at least A Q Khan that is, unfortunately Musharraf pardoned & continues to shield him from international investigators.But a far graver concern of mine is Khan likely delivered the big one for the Saudis as well, which will unfortunately remain another "blanked out" page on mediagency's tell-a-whopper until another day of horror.


When Khan was arrested in February 2004, a Dubai-based businessman said he had been the middleman for some of the Pakistani scientists transactions, including with Iran.



The now-disgraced Khan has been under house arrest since authorities discovered his participation in a nuclear black market last year. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pardoned him and has kept him away from international investigators.

"He had given centrifuges to Iran in his individual capacity and the government of Pakistan had nothing to do with this," Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told CNN Thursday



When Khan was arrested in February 2004, a Dubai-based businessman said he had been the middleman for some of the Pakistani scientists transactions, including with Iran.


Wrath of Khan



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Well at least A Q Khan that is, unfortunately Musharraf pardoned & continues to shield him from international investigators.But a far graver concern of mine is Khan likely delivered the big one for the Saudis as well, which will unfortunately remain another "blanked out" page on mediagency's tell-a-whopper until another day of horror.


Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both under America's influence.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The American people will not support a war where the United States indescrimately kills civilians. American soldiers do not want to go around flattening cities, killing women and children.

If we did that, the world would cut us off. Thier citizens would demand it and the US can no longer survive economically isolated from the world.

Deliverer, when exactly and for how long, did the US occupy North Korea?

I think you need to do some travelling, get some exposure to other cultures around the world and learn how the world really works. Maybe you could join the military too and then you'll understand how the US military works. You need to mature out of this "My dad can beat up your dad" attitude and realize what can be done and what can't. You are operating in the hypothetical, you need to cross over into reality.

Iraq as a nation hated Sadam. A small minority supported him and they are still killing our soldiers everyday. North Korea as a nation LOVES Kim Jong Il. They have been brainwashed. It is just like Japan during WWII. An invasion of N Korea would be like Iwo Jima time ten. We had to Nuke Japan and get the Emperor to publicly surrender and tell the people not to fight in order to occupy Japan.

Currently the US could destroy Iran, Syria and North Korea. The US could not occupy all three. The US could roll in, destroy the armies and leave, but could not occupy.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both under America's influence.


Musharraf is that's why I singled out Khan as the rogue component, not willing to compromise their incentive$ or their F-16s:


Over the next five years, Pakistan will get at least US$1.5 billion in defense aid from the US as part of a $3 billion aid package. An announcement made at IDEAS 2004 suggests where some of that money is going to be spent: Pakistani officials revealed that the US is ready to reverse its longtime opposition to selling new F-16 fighter jets to Islamabad. The chief of the Pakistani air force told a journalist that Washington wants to provide the F-16s, in part, to help Pakistan fight Islamist extremists in the tribal areas in the northwestern part of the country, though anyone in strategic business should know that if ever these aircraft were used in combat they would be used against India.


www.nuclearpolicy.org...

but the House of Fraud is another matter, I'm not convinced in the slightest regarding this f(r)iend.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
You point out a rogue scientist who is under house arrest to show that Pakistan isn't loyal...?

As for Saudi Arabia, their government is tied in with America's. They are too unpopular, and rely on American weapons to stay in power. They can not betray us. They've also spent a lot of effort fighting terrorism in their own country. These guys are hated by Al Qeada for a reason...



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They're there for long term strategic purposes, not for anything immediate. Most are just where they are because they were left there at the end of the Cold War. Russia isn't capable of invading Western Europe on short term notice anymore, so there isn't exactly an immediate reason to have 70,000 troops in Germany. Same with the troops in Japan. The troops in Korea could have been removed decades ago, as the South Korean military has become more then capable of handling the North. We leave them there simply in case there's a war we have an excuse to enter. We have no real reason to do the fighting, though.

Yes your troops are there to keep political balance, your willing to politicaly and militarily unbalance the world over 2 countries?



No one else has even flown against poorly trained pilots in actual war.

What about us?
Or do the argentines or the iraqi's not count for us?



Our carriers can operate well out of Iran's range. It's more than enough to have appropriate air cover for a defensive role. If we were playing offensive, we could take as long as we want to just bomb the hell out of Iran well out of their range.

There is no "range" to speak of, refueling gives near unlimited range.



There's a huge difference between a well guarded carrier and an immovable radar site.

Not really, if the carrier moves to escpae the CAP and its birds in the air are screwed because there is no where to land and no planes can be launched.



If you're fighting a war, reality is that a few lucky shots aren't going to do anything, and you're in a very good position. You're basiing this argument off of some idiotic idea that the number one goal is to prevent loss of life. You're talking about minor wars we've seen in the past few decades, not true, all out war.

In reality the objective of war is to protect our way of life, our way of life is looking after life.
There were more than, a few lucky shots being fired at the troops.



Offensively they don't. Defensively they are very limited. No one in the world could face America heads-up.

What?
Air to sea missiles capable of sinking ships as big as a destroyer easily arent dangerous and I'm not talking about sunburns.
Yet again your baseing your arguement of "no one could face us" on the idea of a straight battle, wars dont work like that.



A mortar doesn't have the accuracy, range or firepower to do damage to ap lane. These aren't just lined up in a row right near a little fence for them to eye-up and shoot at.

So shrapnel into the planes engines isnt dangerous?
The shots dont even need to destroy the planes, just kill the ground crew.
Also mortars are quite accurate......


They've been unable to do it. They've never gotten near any of our major equipment. There's a large difference between sneaking in one guy in a crowded messhole where Iraqis are normally around, and getting an Arab in a base in Germany. Not just in the base, either, but getting near million dollar pieces of equipment.

Your makeing out the USAF to have unbelievable protection.
Hell even just a stinger while the plane takes off is enough to take them down.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Yes your troops are there to keep political balance, your willing to politicaly and militarily unbalance the world over 2 countries?


Political balance? That doesn't even make sense. South Korea doesn't need our troops. They are capable of fighting the North on their own. They lose no ground if American troops leave. The troops in Germany serve no purpose right now. Russia has no borders with Germany. They have dwindling influence in the former satallites. There is absolutely no threat, or political purpose.


What about us?
Or do the argentines or the iraqi's not count for us?


How many of your pilots were actually involved with Iraq? Argentina was so long ago, and so small a conflict that its not even worth mentioning.


There is no "range" to speak of, refueling gives near unlimited range.


They don't have in-air refuelling, and even if they did, they don't have any bases outside their own country.


Not really, if the carrier moves to escpae the CAP and its birds in the air are screwed because there is no where to land and no planes can be launched.


I don't think planes are going to have much trouble catching up with a carrier...They can operate a good distance away.


In reality the objective of war is to protect our way of life, our way of life is looking after life.
There were more than, a few lucky shots being fired at the troops.


If there more then a few you'd have more then a few hundred dead, you'd have thousands.


What?
Air to sea missiles capable of sinking ships as big as a destroyer easily arent dangerous and I'm not talking about sunburns.
Yet again your baseing your arguement of "no one could face us" on the idea of a straight battle, wars dont work like that.


You don't even make sense. Try putting sentences together in a coherent manner...

On the ground, Iran could not match us, or come even close. Carriers don't have to even go anywhere near Iran. It's not necessary.


So shrapnel into the planes engines isnt dangerous?
The shots dont even need to destroy the planes, just kill the ground crew.
Also mortars are quite accurate......


Where is someone going to get a clean shot on any plane, or anywhere near where they are stationed? They aren't getting near a runway. A mortar does not have the range. They'd have to get inside a base to do that, and they don't have that ability.


Your makeing out the USAF to have unbelievable protection.
Hell even just a stinger while the plane takes off is enough to take them down.


They have nothing capable like the Stinger (they certainly wouldn't have any in high number, or people in enough numbers to cause any significant damage to our airforce), and even if they did, they'd have trouble getting in range, and actually having enough vision to see it...



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Our soldiers are willing and able to do a lot more then they are asked.

We shouldn't even allow our soldiers to have wives and kids.

All of these cultural problems can be taken care of easily in any number of ways.

America could become a militaristic society far more powerful than anything this world has ever seen in a relatively short period of time.


No it couldn't. Soldiers are people first. I think my aunt should be able to have kids and am damn glad my grandfathers had their children too.

American soldiers are already giving a lot and they have been for some time. What else do you want them to do?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Sure, we had the allies, but they were losing the war until we came in and saved their asses (coughFRANCEcough haha). Adolf Hitler had arguably the greatest conventional war machine in history, and we defeated him.

I hate to break up your little dreamworld or whatever the hell it is your living in kwints but it wasnt the americans that won that war, it was the brits, america just came in at the last minute and cleaned up the mess.


Now do you honestly think that NK, Iran and Syria could even coexist to coordinate SUCCESSFUL attacks on US troop positions?

And why not? Maybe someday youll wake up and realize that america isnt invinsible.


There's no way in hell Syria, Iran, and NK could defeat the USA in a war.

Maybe not but they could put up a good fight and if they had a couple more countries on their side then they would have a chance.


Our economy is HELPED by war.

In the long run all war does is waste money.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

It's kind of hard for three isolated nations that don't even share borders to form an alliance. When war breaks out, those nations will be able to offer each other nothing but maybe moral support.

So you think america can have allies from halfway across the world but its impossible for any middle eastern countries a few hundred miles away from each other form an alliance?


And a guerilla force would do what, exactly?

Alot more than any military attack from a country with a weaker military.


You could never really harm America with solely guerilla warfare militarily or economically.

I dont think you could be more wrong on that, surprise is a geurilla tactic, for every 1 geurilla that dies if hes lucky he can take down at least 2 americans.


The last thing you want is America backed by the entire modern world.

Well if you think thats ever gonna happen all i can say is keep dreamin.



Americans talk tough but cry like a baby when it hurts. Our soldiers are nothing compared to the DPRK morally.

I couldnt agree with you more, in my opinion every iraqi extremist is worth 3 american soldiers mentally.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join