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 - Iraq war 2

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
There as been much debate on ATS about a Iran - US war.
If Iran wants to lanuch a premptive strike against the USA they would invade Iraq with ground,air and naval forces.
Irans forces would be working directly with the insurgenys.
Heres how I see it panning out.
The England and Australia would fight along side the USA.
Due to distance from the middle east it would take quite awhile for Australian forces to reach the middle east not counting the forces that are already in Iraq.
No doubt the SAS would return to Iraq and RAAF F-18s would return to the region .
The USA would be be in a no win situation in order to defend Iraq they would have to pull forces out from other fronts Afghanistan would be the big loser.
Iran - Iraq 2 could trigger off a chain of events with US troops leaving South Korea and Japan a second Korean war might begin.

I think the end result would be the end of democracy in the Middle East the US dosnt have enough ground troops to defeat Iran at best some half baked political settlement would be reached (e.g gulf war 1) the worst case would be a war on two fronts Iran occupying Iraq and Nth Korea invading its neighbour destabilising the region.

Would Australia pull its forces out of Iraq to defend South Korea?
I think New Zealand would send forces to defend South Korea not sure if we would send troops to Iraq you have to look after you own backyard first.

I dont want another China vs USA thread if your going to say that the US would wipe the floor with Iran please gives reasons. Better tech isnt a reason you have to explain how the tech will win the war.




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This is exactly the reason the USA or Israel won't launch a pre-emtive strike on Iran in order to hinder their nuke development, the US is very dependent on it's air-force, Iran is so close to US bases in Kuwait and Iraq that it can send a barrage of short-range ballistic missiles and long range artillary rockets on the air bases, once they knock those soft targets off balance, the coalitions 180,000 troops will be facing off against 1,000,000 Iranians who will have domestic support in Iraq, the outcome would be disaster.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
What happens when the US loses advantage though, and it starts to recognize the threat to its assets in Europe and the MIddle East?

Probably a small tactical nuclear weapon in Iran.

You cant expect the US to allow the loss of US soldiers from a preemptive attack. I dont think they would play nice and fight conventionally. I think they would take off the gloves.

I just cant see the US fighting fair in a preemptive attack.

If the US decides to invade Iran or dismantle its WMD capability, then they might use conventional weapons and not mass murder.

Thats my opinion.

I think we would launch ICBM's and retreat if our positions in Europe and the Middle East was compromised.

Just like the US, I dont think Iran can stop missile bombardment.

But who knows maybe the US has an ace up its sleeve and can deter missile attacks totally from Iran and a preemptive attack would never really work for Iran.



[edit on 25-3-2005 by Ritual]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
All the U.S. and Israel have to do is not only take out the Iranians nuclear facilities and plants but also their missile sites and their air bases, In one big air strike. I think using the U.S. naval jets and our stealth bombers along with Israeli fighters, and our tomahawk cruise missiles it could be done.

Then even if Iran manages to get some of its fighters up they will be shot down. Then once we have air superiority over Iran they cant invade as their troop formations and tanks would be decimated by our air power. The U.S. might not stop all of the missiles and artilleries but I think we can get most of them with our missile batteries. And we can find and destroy the areas in Iran where they are launching these short range missiles.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The only thing I have to say here is that Iran would struggle to deploy more then 200,000 men in Iraq. They would have no number advantage.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
If iran would do a preentive strike like right now the coalition would be in trouble. The airforce would suffer a reasonable number of losses. Ofcourse in time the iran airforce will be taken out. The coalition ground forces which already have a hard time would face way more coordinated attacks. I can see the coalition ground forces loose at least several hundred men during the first day thanks to the sudden attack at theire bases by aircraft, missels and ground forces. In time the irani offensive will grind to a halt because of theire older equipment. Irani firces will be driven out and possibly back into iran. If they conquer iran whole then they would have to pull out of allot of countries except perhaps south korea and afganistan if they didnt already. the following guerilla war will be several times as hard as the current war.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   
What everyone seems to "forget" about on these forums are, in reality - THE FACTS:

The Iraqi insurgency loses countless men each day, hell, the OFFICIAL Iraqi military lasted all of 2 weeks against the U.S.

I believe the number of U.S. deaths is at 1,500. THAT IS NOT THAT MANY.

We lost millions in WW2, and the U.S. did not collapse.

1,500 losses, though sad, is not a military tragedy - believe me. We have hundreds of thousands of soldiers to use, and people are crying that the U.S. is going to fall or is "losing" because we lost 1,500 men?

No. We are not losing.

We may lose more in Iran - but how many more? Maybe 10,000. STILL, that is NOT that many.

=/

-wD



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
If iran would do a preentive strike like right now the coalition would be in trouble. The airforce would suffer a reasonable number of losses.


If Iran dose a preemptive strike on our forces, the gloves would come off and small tactical nuclear missiles would start raining down on Iran.
Remember the last time a country attack the United States with preemptive strike? Well it did not turn out pretty for them (Nagasaki & Hiroshima).



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Remember the last time a country attack the United States with preemptive strike? Well it did not turn out pretty for them (Nagasaki & Hiroshima).


You cant compare WW2 to any premptive strike by Iran its like comparing apples to orangers.



Probably a small tactical nuclear weapon in Iran.


Would the US nuke Iraq the country there trying to rebuilt ?
Its a no win situation if you nuke Irans forces in Iraq you ruin any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the population.
Nukes are an option against Iran but nukes are out of the question in Korea.

How would American air power be brought into the conflict if there bases have destoryed?
The USN flat tops would be almost be Irans No 1 targets.
When was the last time the USAF was in a dogfight?

In 1992, Iran and China negotiated a deal for Iran to recieve a fleet of 70-ton Chinese patrol boats with Styx antiship missles. In 1993, Iran bought two Russian Kilo-class submarines and eight mini-submarines from North Korea. All done in an effort to rebuild after the Navy was nearly destoyed after the Islamic Revolution, Iran continued to purchase foreign weapons systems.

What naval vessels remained in 1987 suffered from two major problems -- lack of maintenance and lack of spare parts. After the departure of British-United States maintenance teams, the Iranian navy conducted only limited repairs, despite the availability of a completed Fleet Maintenance Unit at Bandar-e Abbas; consequently, several ships were laid up. Lack of spare parts also plagued the navy more than other services, because Western naval equipment was less widely available on world arms markets than other equipment.

Irans navy may still face a shortage of spare parts but the problem may have been sovled in part by buying russian equipment. Iran could cut off the worlds oil supply causing another set of problems. Note Mini-submarines could cause real havoc .

s of 2001 the regular Iranian navy was in a state of overall obsolescence, and in poor shape because they have not been equipped with modern ships and weapons. Iran's three destroyers are over 50 years old and are not operational. The readiness of the three 25-year-old frigates is almost non-existent, and the two 30-year-old corvettes do not have sophisticated weapons. Ten of 20 missile-equipped fast attack craft have limited operational readiness, and four of them are not seaworthy as of 2001. Only 10 Chinese-made Thodor-class craft are operationally reliable. The four 30-year-old minesweepers are obsolete, lack seaworthiness, and do not have a mine-sweeping capability. Iran has many amphibious and auxiliary ships, but these are superfluous to requirements and are used purely for training personnel. Iran's ten hovercraft are old and used sparingly.

source

That last paragraph dosnt quite add up Im sure there would be a shortage of spare parts for older equipment but surely newer patrol boats wouldnt face the same shortages? Why dosnt Iran prouduce its own spare parts?
I also doubt the Kilo-class subs are limted to mine laying why would you go to the expense of buying a Sub when surface craft can lay mines?



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

You cant compare WW2 to any premptive strike by Iran its like comparing apples to orangers.


Yea, one was against a real enemy that could actually hurt us. The other is just a joke.


Would the US nuke Iraq the country there trying to rebuilt ?
Its a no win situation if you nuke Irans forces in Iraq you ruin any chance of winning the hearts and minds of the population.
Nukes are an option against Iran but nukes are out of the question in Korea.


Why would we nuke Iraq? Iran could not get ground soldiers into Iraq. There'd be nothing to nuke. Besides that, Iranians would be moving through mountains and desert. We don't have to nuke near any city.


How would American air power be brought into the conflict if there bases have destoryed?
The USN flat tops would be almost be Irans No 1 targets.
When was the last time the USAF was in a dogfight?


Iran could not destroy American airbases. They'd have to hit Kuwait. It would take a great deal of accuracy, which I highly doubt Iran's ballistic missiles have. They can not attack our fleet. We could have more in range in a few hours, anyway. We have bases all across Europe. We can send bombers from America.


In 1992, Iran and China negotiated a deal for Iran to recieve a fleet of 70-ton Chinese patrol boats with Styx antiship missles. In 1993, Iran bought two Russian Kilo-class submarines and eight mini-submarines from North Korea. All done in an effort to rebuild after the Navy was nearly destoyed after the Islamic Revolution, Iran continued to purchase foreign weapons systems.


And America has been training to face all of that for the past half century. The difference is we were looking to be facing a competent enemy, who had great numbers.


Irans navy may still face a shortage of spare parts but the problem may have been sovled in part by buying russian equipment. Iran could cut off the worlds oil supply causing another set of problems. Note Mini-submarines could cause real havoc .


Iran could not cut off the world's oil supply. They could hold off their own oil, which would only be hurting their "allies" (a term used loosely). The West doesn't get its oil from Iran. And if Iran did that, they'd be screwing their own economy. You don't seem to understand that Iran can afford to launch an offensive operation into Iraq already.


That last paragraph dosnt quite add up Im sure there would be a shortage of spare parts for older equipment but surely newer patrol boats wouldnt face the same shortages? Why dosnt Iran prouduce its own spare parts?


Iran can't produce its own spare parts. Military equipment isn't easy or cheap to make, and Russia and China are only willing to give a small amount of support to have some reach into the region.


I also doubt the Kilo-class subs are limted to mine laying why would you go to the expense of buying a Sub when surface craft can lay mines?


Because surface craft would be found and destroyed far easier. Iran probably lacks the capabilities to deploy all of their equipment, let alone attack America's navy.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   


Yea, one was against a real enemy that could actually hurt us. The other is just a joke.

A joke like the insurgenys in Iraq?





Why would we nuke Iraq? Iran could not get ground soldiers into Iraq. There'd be nothing to nuke. Besides that, Iranians would be moving through mountains and desert. We don't have to nuke near any city.


You are forgoting that the after affects would be felt in the urban areas.



Iran could not destroy American airbases. They'd have to hit Kuwait. It would take a great deal of accuracy, which I highly doubt Iran's ballistic missiles have. They can not attack our fleet. We could have more in range in a few hours, anyway. We have bases all across Europe. We can send bombers from America.[ /quote]

Airbases arent small targets the USA may be the most advanced military in the world but countries like Iran arent living in the stone age.



Because surface craft would be found and destroyed far easier. Iran probably lacks the capabilities to deploy all of their equipment, let alone attack America's navy.


Mines can be layed by aircraft also the mines may be layed before the outbreake of war. Airpower dosnt win wars by it self If a two front war breakes out the USA wont have enough ground troops to drive Iran out of Iraq and defend South Korea. Iran navy wouldnt be able to fight the USN for long periods of time however they do have means to disrupte the flow of oil thou the Persian Gulf . Iran only needs to hold off the USN to it has a foot hold in Iraq.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 25-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The Kilo-class submarine utilizes the water-drop shape and a T-shaped stern rudder. The 636 type are 72.6 meters long, and 9.9 meters wide, giving a length-breadth ratio of 7.45. They can dive to 300 meters and have a water displacement of 30,760 tons. Underwater, they have a speed of 17 knots. The personnel on board total 52, and the submarine has am endurance at sea of 45 days. It has reserve buoyancy of 32 percent, and a dual- level hull structure. It has six 533 mm torpedo tubes, 18 53-system homing or wire-guided torpedoes, 24 AM-1 underwater mines or eight SA-N-5 "Arrow" standby anti-aircraft missiles. It has passive infra-red guidance and is equipped with boat hull active/passive search sonar and active attack sonar.
source


Other then a shortage of Spare parts a lack of training would probaly be the undoing of Irans Kilo class however they would still be a threat even if it is only for a short time.
They could cause the USN problems early on in the conflict you cant rule out the USN suffering loses. If Iran was to invade Iraq they wouldnt leave anything on the sideline.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
In a departure from my usual policy in these threads, I'm not going to lecture at length about exactly what could/would happen.

I will simply name a few crucial factors which I believe every scenario should take into consideration.

Things working for the US:
1. Iran can't just teleport the entire Revolutionary Guard into Iraq. They have to mobilize forces, prepare their logistics, and move a couple hundred miles through mostly mountainous terrain. This affords the US a certain amount of preparation/reaction time.

2. Iranian equipment and doctrine is 45 years old and 60 years out of date (that's what you get for siding with the Soviets). Although theoretically potent against American forces in certain applications, these forces will be presenting themselves piecemeal, in the open in the face of a great deal of firepower. Even a small American force could inflict significant damage on these forces while they were advancing, and as such not properly prepared and coordinated to defend themselves.

3. If Iran seizes the initiative against America, Turkey will be compelled as a NATO member to help us if we should need. it.

Things that work for Iran:
1. The Persian Gulf will be closed during this war- period. The United States can not run the risk of sending major assets into the gulf when they're not 100% sure that Iran hasn't got a couple of sunburns that haven't been destroyed yet. Without Turkish cooperation, it would be virtually impossible for America to put significant reinforcements in Iraq.

2. American forces in Iraq are not tailored to defend the nation against Iranian aggression. They would be in dire want of additional armor especially.

3. Iran has the missile forces necessary to inflict significant damage to American emplacements in Iraq and the surrounding region (assuming that these missiles are accurate enough to strike specific targets such as pilot's barracks).


So I think that the crucial factor in this discussion basically comes down to a discussion of America's ability to rout an extremely large Iranian force by virtue of agility and tempo in the face of being momentarily cut off from certain kinds of outside support.

I also think the insurgent factor is a little overblown. They simply can't help Iran accomplish the most vital goal of their effort, which is to conduct their advance competently in order to achieve concentration of forces and defeat the superior but much smaller American units whereever and whenever the engagement may take place.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Xpert, the insurgents ARE a joke to U.S. military forces with regards to conventional fighting. It's a little bit difficult though to fight insurgents that killl everyone and everything against them, when you're trying NOT to kill the Iraqi civilians.

In an all-out battle, the U.S. Army would mow through pretty much any Middle-Eastern Army. This was shown with the first Gulf War and to some extent with this second war. The insurgents fight like organized street gangs do, however, and since there are civilians everywhere, you can't just bringi n tanks and heavy weaponry and start firing on buildings and into crowds.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

A joke like the insurgenys in Iraq?


The Iranian military going head to head with America's in the field would be a bigger joke. In case you didn't know, we could keep up what we're seeing in Iraq for eternity. We have no problem replacing the casualties we are loosing. Not to mention the attacks on our troops are in decline. The security forces are improving. The Sunni insurgents may even be working on giving up.

We've captured and killed a few hundred thousand of these guys. That's in a GUERILLA WAR. Do you realize how impressive that actually is? Our military has shown that even with the cut in funding seen in the 90's, it is still just as deadly as ever, and maybe even better than ever.


You are forgoting that the after affects would be felt in the urban areas.


I highly doubt setting off a bomb in the middle of the desert would have any effect on the surrounding areas. One or two would be harmless. The only thing America may have to worry about is political fallout from using nukes.


Airbases arent small targets the USA may be the most advanced military in the world but countries like Iran arent living in the stone age.


Iran is a nation that doesn't even have satellites. And while an airbase isn't small, they are defended by the best missile defenses in the world, and the Iranian missiles probably aren't all that accurate. They are also located in other countries. Does Iran really want to fire on Kuwait, Turkey, or Europe? That would drag those nations and their military strength into the war, something Iran can not afford.


Mines can be layed by aircraft also the mines may be layed before the outbreake of war. Airpower dosnt win wars by it self If a two front war breakes out the USA wont have enough ground troops to drive Iran out of Iraq and defend South Korea. Iran navy wouldnt be able to fight the USN for long periods of time however they do have means to disrupte the flow of oil thou the Persian Gulf . Iran only needs to hold off the USN to it has a foot hold in Iraq.


The troops we have in Iraq are sufficient to fight the Iranians. As for North Korea, they would never attack the South, for the simple reason that the South is at least their military equal, and I'm being very conservative when I say that. South Korea would probably whipe the floor with the North. Americans are no longer needed to fight that war.

Besides, America has 500,000 men in just the army, and about another 100,000 in the marines, and they are the most deployable forces in the world.

As for mines, we have our navy already stationed in the Gulf. We are probably monitering the entire area 24/7. If Iran started laying mines, we'd know.


Other then a shortage of Spare parts a lack of training would probaly be the undoing of Irans Kilo class however they would still be a threat even if it is only for a short time.


When has Soviet equipment in the hands of muslims ever been useful? Why would Kilos be any different then Iraqi MiG-29's, or T-72's?


They could cause the USN problems early on in the conflict you cant rule out the USN suffering loses. If Iran was to invade Iraq they wouldnt leave anything on the sideline.


I'm about 99% sure that there wouldn't be any losses to our navy.


1. The Persian Gulf will be closed during this war- period. The United States can not run the risk of sending major assets into the gulf when they're not 100% sure that Iran hasn't got a couple of sunburns that haven't been destroyed yet. Without Turkish cooperation, it would be virtually impossible for America to put significant reinforcements in Iraq


I'm really sick of hearing about Sunburns. Iran most likely does not have any. At most a few. They are not some ultimate weapon, and can be defended against. Do you honeslty think America's navy is so incompetent that a third rate power like Iran could stop it? What exactly do you think America is going to do with their navy in any large scale conflict? Have it sit on the sidelines?


2. American forces in Iraq are not tailored to defend the nation against Iranian aggression. They would be in dire want of additional armor especially.


This has confused me every time you've said it. We went into Iraq fighting a war. What happened to all the equipment we entered with? I don't think we pulled it out. With all the tension with Iran, wouldn't you think we've only been adding armor just in case?


3. Iran has the missile forces necessary to inflict significant damage to American emplacements in Iraq and the surrounding region (assuming that these missiles are accurate enough to strike specific targets such as pilot's barracks).


I have yet to see any reason these would be any more effective than Iraqi scuds were. They have ballistic missiles for long range attacks. I doubt they have been made for anything but intimidation, and carrying nukes/chemicals.


I also think the insurgent factor is a little overblown. They simply can't help Iran accomplish the most vital goal of their effort, which is to conduct their advance competently in order to achieve concentration of forces and defeat the superior but much smaller American units whereever and whenever the engagement may take place.


The insurgents are small in number, and only in isolated parts of the country. I'd say they'd be virtually useless.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   


The Iranian military going head to head with America's in the field would be a bigger joke. In case you didn't know, we could keep up what we're seeing in Iraq for eternity. We have no problem replacing the casualties we are loosing. Not to mention the attacks on our troops are in decline. The security forces are improving. The Sunni insurgents may even be working on giving up.


What are you smoking ? Can I have some?
GUERILLA WARFARE isnt Americas strong point insurgents are running riot in Iraq.




I highly doubt setting off a bomb in the middle of the desert would have any effect on the surrounding areas. One or two would be harmless. The only thing America may have to worry about is political fallout from using nukes.

Do you have any idea what the after affects of nuclear explosion are?

Missile defenses cant be 100% accurate 100% of the time.

Recent events have shown that American Intel isnt great its quite likely that a build up of Irans forces could be missed till its to late.

Would the allies notice if Iran starts mine laying? There not going to put a flag up you know.


The troops we have in Iraq are sufficient to fight the Iranians. As for North Korea, they would never attack the South, for the simple reason that the South is at least their military equal, and I'm being very conservative when I say that. South Korea would probably whipe the floor with the North. Americans are no longer needed to fight that war.


North Korea has the advantage in terms of sheer numbers they could get a foothold in South Korea. North Korea could lanuch missiles at targets in Japan.



Besides, America has 500,000 men in just the army, and about another 100,000 in the marines, and they are the most deployable forces in the world.

That Dosnt change the fact the is still a shortage of manpower.




I'm about 99% sure that there wouldn't be any losses to our navy.

Thats a nice but very navie point of view.



The insurgents are small in number, and only in isolated parts of the country. I'd say they'd be virtually useless.


Your telling groups of insurgents operating behind american lines would be useless? They would cause havac ! Heres a taste.
1 Supply Iran forces with Intel.
2 Attack allied troop colums.
3 instead of targeting poilce stations they would blow up bridges mine roads e.t.c

[edit on 26-3-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:21 AM
link   

What are you smoking ? Can I have some?
GUERILLA WARFARE isnt Americas strong point insurgents are running riot in Iraq.


Running riot...? I'd ask what you're smoking, but sadly I know you are sober. We've killed or captured over 200,000 of these guys. We've lost 1500 men, including those killed in combat. Probably about half of htose were friendly fire cases, and not actual deaths caused by insurgents.

The Sunnis seem to also be considering surrender.


Do you have any idea what the after affects of nuclear explosion are?


Do you? Nukes have been detonated many times. The world has did not come to an end.


Missile defenses cant be 100% accurate 100% of the time.


They don't have to be.


Recent events have shown that American Intel isnt great its quite likely that a build up of Irans forces could be missed till its to late.


You have no clue what you're talking about. You are trying to compare tracking small terror cells, or knowing whether a nation has WMD's, to seeing if they are building up hundreds of thousands of men, or laying large numbers of mines in the Gulf. Those are both overt operations. We have satellite plans going over Iran. We have satellites. We have our navy in the region. We've had special forces get into Iran.


North Korea has the advantage in terms of sheer numbers they could get a foothold in South Korea. North Korea could lanuch missiles at targets in Japan.


North Korea's military isn't even that much large. It isn't as well equipped or trained, either. The South Koreans have a good combat record. And what would North Korea get by firing at Japan besides bringing other nations into the war? The last thing they want are Japanese troops coming into the war.


That Dosnt change the fact the is still a shortage of manpower.


We have just 150,000 men in Iraq. We have no shortage of manpower. We still keep 30,000 in South Korea, 30,000 in Japan, and 70,000 in Germany, not to mention huge amounts stationed all over the rest of the world.


1 Supply Iran forces with Intel.


These guys can't even cooperate with each other. How are they going to cooperate with the Iranian government?


2 Attack allied troop colums.


They've tried attacking American troops in Iraq. They've failed, and taken heavy losses. They can not fight American troops heads up. They can't infiltrate American bases.


3 instead of targeting poilce stations they would blow up bridges mine roads e.t.c


This is simply absurd. They can't blow up roads or bridges. Doing that would hinder the Iranians more than Americans, anyway. We aren't the force that needs to move across the country, Iran does.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer you dont understand GUERILLA WARFARE give someone an Ak-47 and you have an insurgent.
You have think the targets I gave you were examples the targets would change depending on the tactial situation for example the insurgents might target US supply dumps.

If theres no shortage of manpower why are people getting letters in the mail telling them to report years after they have finished there honable service?

Dont you get it? satellites have there limteds during gulf war 1 Saddam hid scud missiles from US satellites.

Its amazing how groups will coperate when they have a mutual self interest and mutual thrid party.

How far do you have your buried in the sand ?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I'm really sick of hearing about Sunburns. Iran most likely does not have any. At most a few. They are not some ultimate weapon, and can be defended against. Do you honeslty think America's navy is so incompetent that a third rate power like Iran could stop it? What exactly do you think America is going to do with their navy in any large scale conflict? Have it sit on the sidelines?


Of course I'm not suggesting that the American navy will be stopped or defeated by the Iranians, nor am I claiming the Sunburn is a superweapon. I am simply recognizing that it is a threat, that they would likely be able to inflict casualities on our navy, and that would probably be considered unacceptable. America can't go losing an aircraft carrier or a ship full of Marines to Iran- it would be a tremendous embarassment.

America would simply play this war smart- we'd stay out of the gulf until we controlled Iran's Persian Gulf coast. It's not a major problem for a defensive war in Iraq because Turkey will have to help us, but why do you think we're gunning for Syria before Iran when Iran is the one working on the bomb? We need Syria as an overland route to Iran in case Turkey decides to sit out of an American attack on Iran.
This is not a new theme in naval war- that's why navies have light infantry forces (Marines) assigned to them. Ships can sink- coastal installations don't. Ships are at a disadvantage against certain landbased forces and therefore the Navy must sometimes secure strategic ground to ensure safe operations in a region.




2. American forces in Iraq are not tailored to defend the nation against Iranian aggression. They would be in dire want of additional armor especially.


This has confused me every time you've said it. We went into Iraq fighting a war. What happened to all the equipment we entered with? I don't think we pulled it out. With all the tension with Iran, wouldn't you think we've only been adding armor just in case?


Try as I may and try as I might I can't find the numbers online. All I can offer is that I've heard that even tankers are finding themselves being employed in dismounted roles these days. It does make some sense- tanks are just great big bullet magnets that tear up roads and cause collateral damage when you try to use them in urban peacekeeping.

We've got our rotation going- 1st armor and 1st cav are sometimes sitting out while 3rd Infantry is in. 1st Infantry is out while some reserve unit from New York is in. The rotation creates natural ebbs in the composition of the American force, or at least it seems it would have to.

The invasion of Iraq was about 2 years ago now- it's not like they're just sitting there ready to hit Iran every bit as hard as they hit Iraq. They're spread out babysitting a bunch of civilians all over the country, and with the rotation program I don't see how the armored force could possibly be steady. (Although it really irks me that I can't find the numbers to prove it, so if you find numbers that say I'm wrong, I'm more than open to them.)

The force in Iraq is by no means a sitting duck, but they aren't poised to go to war with Iran either- they're playing policeman for a bunch of terrorist pricks.



3. Iran has the missile forces necessary to inflict significant damage to American emplacements in Iraq and the surrounding region (assuming that these missiles are accurate enough to strike specific targets such as pilot's barracks).


With regard to the searsucker cruise missiles (arab silkworms) and Scud-Bs i suppose I'm inclined to agree. But I dont know what all is in their aresenal either (i am pretty sure they've got No Dong and Taepo Dong ballistic missiles from Korea- I don't know if we've ever even seen those in action to know what they can do. Then we also have to remember that Iran, although not wealthy beyond dreams, did not spend 10 years under crippling sanctions like Iraq did before the war. There is reason therefore to suspect that Iran could have afforded upgrades to their stuff. Also, Saddam didn't launch that much at us. If the Iranians have more they can basically saturate a larger target area.

I'm not trying to walk Siberian Tiger's line and say that America is doomed to be smitten by the mighty Iranian Camel Cavalry, even though 3 Russian boyscouts could conquer Iran. I'm just saying that it's better to over-estimate the enemy than to underestimate them. Fight smart and you don't get humiliated.




The insurgents are small in number, and only in isolated parts of the country. I'd say they'd be virtually useless.


At least we have a high level of agreement on something. Iraqi insurgents are to useful military assistance as Dan Quayle is to reliable administration of school spelling bees.

I wouldn't exactly say that it's a small number in solated parts of the country though, mainly because that isolated part of the country happens to surround the capital, and there are obviously enough of them that they scare the living hell out of the authorities. You know why is it that in Los Angeles if "insurgents" call the police station and say we're coming, LAPD would be all too happy to greet them, but in Mosul the police run away? That's why I don't buy into the idea that the insurgents are way off on the radical fringe with no support from the common Iraqi. There's an old question to the effect of, "why don't the bad guys hang the good people instead?" Well in Iraq they do- because they're the stronger force- maybe the larger one.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Uhh... maybe I’m missing something but Iran has Iraq to the West which is occupied by the U.S. and Iran has Afghanistan to the East which has you guess't it U.S. troops in it. We could launch jets, bombers from Afghanistan.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join