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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.



There aren't enough troops in Afghanistan for an invasion of Iran, and Afghanistan is land-locked, so we can't put more heavy forces in there without going through Pakistan.
I don't work in the state department: for all I know maybe Pakistan would let us attack Iran from their territory, but I doubt it because that would probably tick China and Russia off, and Pakistan needs China's friendship just as badly as they need ours.

Iran is not Iraq. Our forces in Iraq could probably handle the easy part of the job- stalling out the Iranian offensive by hammering on them as they advanced. Invade Iran though? I'm less certain that the forces in Iraq could handle that completely on their own (i'm not saying it's impossible though either.) If the Iranians stood their ground entirely, which Iraq never did, I can't help wondering if the sheer logistics of destroying them all would become a problem, even if we disregard the obvious tactical considerations involved in clearing the enemy from a series of mountain passes.

If I were going to command an invasion of Iran, I'd want a massive supply of artillery operating out of Iraq, and a major airborne operation to secure their Southern coast and open the way for amphibious landings there (as well as making the Persian Gulf safe again). Large force, two fronts, lots of indirect fire- they'd fall apart.
Medium-sized force, a little bit heavy on infantry and reservists, single front- well I wouldn't be worried about losing, but I'd be nervous about casualties and about our time-table.




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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.


They could try that, but they'd get slaughtered, like every other attempt they make at attacking American forces.


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?


Because its better to use the experienced troops, who have probably seen real combat, then guys who have been the inservice a year or two.


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


This is far simpler then trying to hide mass numbers of troops, or lay mines in the Gulf. We probably didn't even know for sure how many scuds he actually had, or where they were all located to begin with. It's not hard to cover them up. They are small targets, as well. The things you are talking about don't require full details, or are just plain impossible to hide. You can not mass huge numbers of people together in the middle of nowhere and not have anyone realize it.


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.


It wouldn't surprise me if the Pentagon were so cowardly, but it certainly wouldn't be a reasonable way to conduct a war.


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.


I don't see any invasion of Syria. We've been weakening them politically, but military action is an entirely different matter.


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.


Tanks may be not needed, and so aren't used, but that doesn't mean we took them out of country. I really don't see what we'd gain from doing that. If we have a conflict coming, its with Iran. We'll probably establish a permanent base in Iraq. Why not just leave the equipment there?


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.


It works the other way, though, too. If you are too cautious, you run the same risks. It will eventually catch up to you when you are constantly holding back, as we've seen in Vietnam. The best generals in history haven't been the ones who played it safe, but the ones who take huge risks.


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.


Well, these insurgents are street gangs. They do have heavy firepower, more then what the Iraqi police forces probably have. Plus, they get ambushed a lot of the times. I don't think too many LA cops would stand their ground if they found themselves surrounded, outgunned, and outmanned.


I don't work in the state department: for all I know maybe Pakistan would let us attack Iran from their territory, but I doubt it because that would probably tick China and Russia off, and Pakistan needs China's friendship just as badly as they need ours.


Pakistan is far too easy to buy off in the short term. If we threw some military equipment there way, or even made a secret deal to provide support during a war with India, they'd easily let us have our way.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

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


Because its better to use the experienced troops, who have probably seen real combat, then guys who have been the inservice a year or two.


I'm sorry, gotta call BS on this one- for both of you actually, not just on disturbed.
1. The force in Iraq doesn't represent even 1/4th of America's total military power. Troop rotations expand that number 2 or 3 fold, which is why we have the call-ups. If there were a war, we could just tell everybody they are in for the duration, begin a draft, and field a second force even bigger than the one in Iraq while still keeping fully half of our military in the CONUS for defense.
2. We're not calling up the inactive reserve (who have finished their active contracts in the past 4 years) because they're better troops.
We're calling them up because we actually do have a troop shortage, as far as the ability to field just under 25% of our forces for several years without keeping the exact same people going back again and again. Basically we don't have a strategic troop shortage, we have a political troop shortage. Those who are being called back up are being shafted by politicians who haven't got the oysters to call for real solutions, such as increased pay (as an incentive to enlist) a small draft, or even a declaration of a state of emergency in order to legally extend the enlistments of our troops currently serving. The Inactive Reserve loophole is being used to save politician's careers- period. The Families, financial arrangements, and careers of honorable men- our veterans- are being stepped on by congressman and senators so that you and me wont get mad at them and vote them out. We ought to be FURIOUS with them over this and we ought to be voting them out in 2006, but of course most sheeple can't even be bothered to so much as write a letter to them.



It wouldn't surprise me if the Pentagon were so cowardly, but it certainly wouldn't be a reasonable way to conduct a war.

You call it cowardly, I call it defeating the enemy that kills as few of my fellow Marines as humanly possible. The one and only reason for a bloody rush into the Persian Gulf which costs us several thousand sailors and Marines and large pieces of expensive and hard to construct equipment (such as aircraft carriers) is if it is absolutely vital to prevent a larger calamity in Iraq.
Otherwise internationalism with the goal of getting the cooperation of neighboring nations so that we can safely access Iraq and Iran is fully worth while. The Persian Gulf would not be a viable route into Iraq and Iran for this conflict- there is a high probability of taking heavy losses in the effort to secure it (by capturing all of Southern Iran and securing all Iranian missile forces) and such an operation would take a little time- by the time it was complete, the men in Iraq would sank or swam on their own- afterall an Iranian invasion of Iraq would be decided in the first 1 or 2 weeks- either our boys would gut their advancing forces with skillful and precise bombardment and armored raids, or the Iranians would reach the Tigris with sufficient forces to force their way across.
I enjoy discussing these things with you man, but I'm absolutely appalled that you would call it cowardly to show due concern for enemy capabilities and take appropriate force protection measures. What the hell are our guys- bullet sponges and disposable heroes?




I don't see any invasion of Syria. We've been weakening them politically, but military action is an entirely different matter.

I could be wrong, but I am convinced, and willing to wager, that America will not attempt an invasion of Iran without first invading Syria. The same principle that makes me believe this is behind Iran's vow to assist the defense of Syria, while Syria is not sworn to return the favor.



Tanks may be not needed, and so aren't used, but that doesn't mean we took them out of country. I really don't see what we'd gain from doing that. If we have a conflict coming, its with Iran. We'll probably establish a permanent base in Iraq. Why not just leave the equipment there?

It would make sense to have it there, but is it there? I honestly don't know and can't seem to find out. It seems reasonable to me that units would keep their equipment with them though- 1st armor doesn't just come home, kick off its boots, and grab a beer. They stand down, have a training cycle, then ready for deployment again. It'll be an interesting training cycle without their tanks.



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.


It works the other way, though, too. If you are too cautious, you run the same risks. It will eventually catch up to you when you are constantly holding back, as we've seen in Vietnam. The best generals in history haven't been the ones who played it safe, but the ones who take huge risks.


I believe there is a line one must be very careful about that separates acceptible risks from gambles. A risk, if it backfires, will set you back, cause problems and endanger you. A gamble, if it fails, probably signifies the end of the battle for you. Everything in war requires risk, and if you can't live with risk you can't fight a war. Just rolling the dice that enemy weapons won't work, and putting a great big force in harms way to possibly be anhilated when it's not even necessarily required to carry out the mission- wow. That's beyond simple risk. If we're gonna do that, let's leave them alone and just gamble that maybe their nukes wont work- or that maybe they wont hurt anybody with them. I say this because the stakes for America, if we should lose a major force to the Iranians, are tremendous. If Iran sinks an aircraft carrier and a couple of troop ships, and manages to kill a couple thousand American troops, do you know how fast every tin-pot dictator is going to want to arm up and dare us to mess with him? We may as well call Pyongyang and make reservations, because if Iran makes a good show against us Crazy Kim will grow a spine too.

To assume that the Iranians are entirely incapable of defending the Persian Gulf against naval threats and try to operate a significant portion of our airpower, our supply chain, or even our route for reenforcements there could very seriously be the end of the battle for us.

General Van Riper, playing Saddam's part in wargames before that invasion, sank the entire US invasion before it ever got boots on the ground, proving that to operate large naval forces in constricted waterways close to enemy installations is an unjustifiable gamble, and that was against an enemy that didn't possess any modern missile forces. Iran has advanced cruise missiles which can definately overwhelm and possibly outright defeat defensive systems such as Phalanx- we have to devise plans for getting around and eliminating that threat- not just try to run the gauntlet and hope that they don't sink major components of our attacking force.



Well, these insurgents are street gangs. They do have heavy firepower, more then what the Iraqi police forces probably have. Plus, they get ambushed a lot of the times. I don't think too many LA cops would stand their ground if they found themselves surrounded, outgunned, and outmanned.

That's exactly the point. They've got the Iraqi police surrounded, outgunned, and outmanned. They're all over- they're prevalent enough that Iraqi police in some places wear masks.
Here in America, the bad guy wears a mask because there are a whole lot of good guys who would catch him and kill him. In Iraq, the good guy wears a mask because there are a whole lot of bad guys who would catch and kill him.
The insurgency is not militarily significant but they are hardly "small" or "isolated".




Pakistan is far too easy to buy off in the short term. If we threw some military equipment there way, or even made a secret deal to provide support during a war with India, they'd easily let us have our way.


Your assertion is every bit as valid as mine because as I said, I'm no expert on international diplomacy and I really don't know how crafty our guys can be. I happen to think that fear of India is the driving force there though, and I believe that when push comes to shove, Pakistan trusts China to protect them, not America.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

There aren't enough troops in Afghanistan for an invasion of Iran, and Afghanistan is land-locked, so we can't put more heavy forces in there without going through Pakistan.


Uhh... I never said anything about invading Iran from Afghanistan. I said that if Iran attack us in Iraq we could launch our Fighter jets and Bombers from Afghanistan ant attack Iran that way, just incase Iran attacks our bases in Iraq. I doubt they have the capabilities to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
How about Iran floods the borders with people as it once did during the Iraqi/Iranian conflict?

What would anyone do then?

Oh yeah then the "insurgency would be containable" ...........LMFAO!!!

Hell even Saddam and his chemical weapons(supplied by the U.S) couldn't even stop them......oh but wait we are different....

Go USA........

Soo unrealistic!!!!



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

You call it cowardly, I call it defeating the enemy that kills as few of my fellow Marines as humanly possible. The one and only reason for a bloody rush into the Persian Gulf which costs us several thousand sailors and Marines and large pieces of expensive and hard to construct equipment (such as aircraft carriers) is if it is absolutely vital to prevent a larger calamity in Iraq.


If troops in Iraq are being asked to risk themselves, why shouldn't sailors and marines in the Gulf? They'll be under a whole lot less risk, as well. I do not buy that there is a legitimate threat to our navy in the region, at least no more then what the British saw in the Falklands, or even what was seen in the first Gulf War.


I enjoy discussing these things with you man, but I'm absolutely appalled that you would call it cowardly to show due concern for enemy capabilities and take appropriate force protection measures. What the hell are our guys- bullet sponges and disposable heroes?


I'm for taking calculated risks, not being cautious for what really would amount to politics. Even if a carrier were hit, it most likely wouldn't go down, and we wouldn't see that many casualties.


I could be wrong, but I am convinced, and willing to wager, that America will not attempt an invasion of Iran without first invading Syria. The same principle that makes me believe this is behind Iran's vow to assist the defense of Syria, while Syria is not sworn to return the favor.


Why waste time, energy, and political power invading Syria? We can only justify so much. We are already getting everything we want out of Syria without attacking. They could not off any serious aid to Iran if we attacked.


It would make sense to have it there, but is it there? I honestly don't know and can't seem to find out. It seems reasonable to me that units would keep their equipment with them though- 1st armor doesn't just come home, kick off its boots, and grab a beer. They stand down, have a training cycle, then ready for deployment again. It'll be an interesting training cycle without their tanks.


Never being in the military, I wouldn't know exactly how equpiment managements works. It is entirely possible they come back to a base in America that has equipment to train with, and they don't have to take what they brought back.


To assume that the Iranians are entirely incapable of defending the Persian Gulf against naval threats and try to operate a significant portion of our airpower, our supply chain, or even our route for reenforcements there could very seriously be the end of the battle for us.


There are many ways to protect the fleet. We have the capability to bomb the hell out of the coast, while keeping carriers well out of range. Just destroy everything.


That's exactly the point. They've got the Iraqi police surrounded, outgunned, and outmanned. They're all over- they're prevalent enough that Iraqi police in some places wear masks.


It isn't all over the country, though. Most of the attacks take place in the same area. And they only outman the Iraqi forces because they ambush them. The security forces have to patrol. They don't have concentrated forces. The insurgents only need to keep their forces together, and make one successful attack. They aren't out there to physically destroy us, but mentally.


Your assertion is every bit as valid as mine because as I said, I'm no expert on international diplomacy and I really don't know how crafty our guys can be. I happen to think that fear of India is the driving force there though, and I believe that when push comes to shove, Pakistan trusts China to protect them, not America.


China is trying to build up ties with India possibly more than America. All that talk of the great Russian-Indian-Chinese axis comes to mind.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

How about Iran floods the borders with people as it once did during the Iraqi/Iranian conflict?


First of all what kind of numbers are we talking bout here? And do you know the terrain of Iran? These people would have to walk/run over hundreds of mile of Mountains to get to the borders. And They would be noticed by our Satellites and UAV’s long before they reach any border. And do you know how easy it is to annihilated groups of people with cluster bombs and other missiles, from helicopters or Jets.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

How about Iran floods the borders with people as it once did during the Iraqi/Iranian conflict?


First of all what kind of numbers are we talking bout here? And do you know the terrain of Iran? These people would have to walk/run over hundreds of mile of Mountains to get to the borders. And They would be noticed by our Satellites and UAV’s long before they reach any border. And do you know how easy it is to annihilated groups of people with cluster bombs and other missiles, from helicopters or Jets.


What kind of numbers? The same ones(perhaps larger) that were able to defeat Saddam despite U.S intervention. Remeber that? Oh wait you are probably too young to know wtf I am talking about.........

Once again you make the assumption that technological superiority ensures success.......

Very dangerous assumption my friend



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Well I was very young when the Iran/Iraq war was at its peak so I don't remember anything since I was young tat the time.
And Technological superiority will ensure victory as long as you use it right. It has always worked out so far.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Well I was very young when the Iran/Iraq war was at its peak so I don't remember anything since I was young tat the time.
And Technological superiority will ensure victory as long as you use it right. It has always worked out so far.


If technological superiority ensured success, then please tell me how/why the Nazi's lost?

They were technologically superior yeah? So according to your theory they should of won....what happened einstein?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
They were technologically advanced in the begging of the war but then they were loosing it. They had the ME262 but Hitler wanted to strap bombs which made it slower. And the Allies had technological superiority in some areas. But the Nazi's did not have Numbers and they did not use their technology is the right tactics. these two problems of not having sufficient numbers of planes, tanks, etc. also not using their technology tight led to their eventual downfall.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
They were technologically advanced in the begging of the war but then they were loosing it. They had the ME262 but Hitler wanted to strap bombs which made it slower. And the Allies had technological superiority in some areas. But the Nazi's did not have Numbers and they did not use their technology is the right tactics. these two problems of not having sufficient numbers of planes, tanks, etc. also not using their technology tight led to their eventual downfall.

Of course, of course...There are always circumstancess huh?

Would of should of could of...your theory is flawed, and now you have no way of denying it...give it up alreadyc
Your theory is flawed and now you try to lok for any evidence proving the contrary...pathetic!

According to you........ those with superior technology were ensured success...." right ?........."Well except if this happens or that happens"

You sound like a bad episode off of the history channel....



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If troops in Iraq are being asked to risk themselves, why shouldn't sailors and marines in the Gulf?

The troops in Iraq face virtually no risk of having their entire units slaughtered and losing billions of dollars worth of strategically valuable military hardware which takes years to replace.
The protection of our naval assetts is crucial and since it also plays a vital supporting role to the effort on the ground, the boys on the ground are better off if we operate our navy safely as well.


They'll be under a whole lot less risk, as well. I do not buy that there is a legitimate threat to our navy in the region, at least no more then what the British saw in the Falklands, or even what was seen in the first Gulf War.

Well I'm not going to argue "is not" "is so"
I went to globalsecurity.org and got the evidence for you.
www.globalsecurity.org...

The P270 Moskit is three times faster than the exocets used in the Falklands. The maximum reaction time they allow is 25 seconds, easily fast enough to penetrate Aegis- in fact that's exactly what it was designed for.
1 or 2 of these is enough to take out even a large warship such as a destroyer.
According to Global Security.org Iran got at least 16 from Ukraine, and although I can't find any really impressive sources I have been lead to believe that they've got more from Russia.
With what I know and can prove though, Iran can sink some 8-16 major vessels unless America can find these very small targets which can defend the Persian gulf from anywhere within 120km of the strait of hormuz, or from other locations up the coast.

And of course that is just the sunburns remember. They've got a pretty fair number of Chinese Silkworms/Seersuckers, and something has occurred to me about those. 1. Iraq barely launched any of those at us. 2. They used them on land, but it's really an anti-ship missile, it's active guidance would be far more effective at sea.
Those at least can theoretically be dealt with by craft equipped with Aegis or Phalanx, as long as the Iranians don't manage to completely saturate our defenses in one massive strike.

So again, it's really not practical to enter the Persian Gulf until we've secured a small landing around the Strait of Hormuz. After that it would be possible for us to skirt the far side of the Persian Gulf and stay out of their missile range just as long as we kept competent air cover, and we could reach Iraq then.
The most effective and least risky way to fight this war is simply to try diplomacy that doesn't begin and end with "you're with us or against us", and see if we can't get Turkey to grant us use of their territory, which would speed things along VERY nicely for us.



I'm for taking calculated risks, not being cautious for what really would amount to politics. Even if a carrier were hit, it most likely wouldn't go down, and we wouldn't see that many casualties.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I would not pin my war plans on sending an invasion force through a narrow straight directly next to a major enemy naval station without first securing that naval station. I also would not hang my plans on occupying a region that my own wargames told me could become a complete death trap for our navy if confronted by a reasonably clever enemy (as opposed to good old Saddam, who immediately grabbed his ankles when he saw us coming.) I think that guy spoiled us- we never should have gotten used to that.




Why waste time, energy, and political power invading Syria? We can only justify so much. We are already getting everything we want out of Syria without attacking. They could not off any serious aid to Iran if we attacked.

1. They are in the way. If we had Syria we'd have an open line into Iraq, no matter how many of what kind of missiles Iran acquired. There would no longer have to contend with the remote but extremely troubling risk of a catastrophic assymetrical attack on our naval forces.

2. I believe America will further be encouraged to go after Syria because we're not getting diddly squat of what we want from them. We want peace in the middle east, and end to terrorism, free and democratic nations in the world, etc. Syria is a major state sponsor of terror which refuses to pull out of the Bekaa Valley which is a major terrorist training ground. The president who takes out Syria and Lebanon and locks them down tight is going to be responsible for shutting off a major pipeline of weapons and personel for terrorists operating in Israel.

3. The President may believe, as some report, that Saddams WMD are in the Bekaa Valley as well. I'm not completely sure i buy this, although I do fully believe that Saddam had them and relocated them because his actions were otherwise completely irrational. If the president believes this I think it will be a major additional motive to go to Syria first.

4. It seems irrational that we have conducted airstrikes on Iran's operational Uranium Enrichment facilities if we have any intention of really stopping them. You'd think we'd percieve this as a race against the clock, but we don't seem to. I think America has secretly resigned itself to accepting a nuclear Iran. I don't understand why. I suspect that it may have to do with either Russian committments to Iran's defense or with the extremely remote possibility that Iran has recieved nuclear weapons from North Korea but is not shooting its mouth off about it for some reason.


Never being in the military, I wouldn't know exactly how equpiment managements works. It is entirely possible they come back to a base in America that has equipment to train with, and they don't have to take what they brought back.

They don't have "back up tanks" for training, I think I can say that with certainty. If in fact they left their equipment behind, it means they won't be conducting any real training and will basically be sitting around polishing their boots while they're here- no to mention that they can't be deployed anywhere else in the world no matter what happens. Sounds like it would be a great big mistake.



There are many ways to protect the fleet. We have the capability to bomb the hell out of the coast, while keeping carriers well out of range. Just destroy everything.

The strait of Hormuz makes that impossible, and then there's the little manner of finding and destroying a very small number of very specific targets. Do you remember how long that took during the Gulf War with the Scuds? We'd be better off just nuking Bandar-e-Abbas if we seriously thought that the "just destroy everything" strategy was the way to go.



That's exactly the point. They've got the Iraqi police surrounded, outgunned, and outmanned. They're all over- they're prevalent enough that Iraqi police in some places wear masks.



It isn't all over the country, though. Most of the attacks take place in the same area. And they only outman the Iraqi forces because they ambush them. The security forces have to patrol. They don't have concentrated forces. The insurgents only need to keep their forces together, and make one successful attack. They aren't out there to physically destroy us, but mentally.


It wasn't a patrol that ran away in Mosul- the police abandoned their station because they were told the insurgents were coming to get them. The police wear masks some places because the insurgency will find them and their families and kill them- not just be a threat to them in some ambush.
And that confined area where the insurgen attacks are happening encompasses all of the most populated area of Iraq. It's not like here in America where maybe there's one bad neighborhood cops won't go to.
The insurgency isn't military dangerous like i keep saying, but they are definately prevalent- if they weren't, why couldn't we leave and let the Iraqi police slowly but surely weed them out- half of them would stop fighting then anyway.
I suppose it's a minor point but I am slow to let the insurgency be under-stated because many people then take that and use it politically to justify the war in Iraq and claim that the Iraqis are happy with it.



China is trying to build up ties with India possibly more than America. All that talk of the great Russian-Indian-Chinese axis comes to mind.

Chinese participation in BRICS, in my humble estimation, will not go so far as to allow China's rival (India) to attack a nation China has long supported.
Pakistan has to be very careful to stay on the right side of BRICS, because that's the only thing that keeps them safe from India. BRICS likes Iran. That means that Pakistan should like Iran too. They'll be safer that way.
Do they really think for one minute that America will lift a finger to protect them? If Russia and China let India cut loose on them, there's no way in heck we're going over there to fight a war with the worlds third largest army which is allied with the worlds 1st and 5th largest respectively, especially when all of the nations involved have nukes.
The other thing to consider is economics. If Pakistan wants to be in a big hurry to board a sinking ship, getting in with America is the way. They'd be a lot better off to deal with 2 of the worlds fastest growing economies, both of which are right next door to them.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

According to you........ those with superior technology were ensured success...." right ?........."Well except if this happens or that happens"


He never said they were ensured success. He said that's usually how it works out. You're twisting his words around to make a rather pathetic argument. The Germans lost because of poor decisions at the top, and not because their troops or technology couldn't do the job. They were on the verge of victory, and were hit by a Russian winter. It was a matter of winter clothing more than anything.


The troops in Iraq face virtually no risk of having their entire units slaughtered and losing billions of dollars worth of strategically valuable military hardware which takes years to replace.
The protection of our naval assetts is crucial and since it also plays a vital supporting role to the effort on the ground, the boys on the ground are better off if we operate our navy safely as well.


It may take years to replace hardware, but it takes even longer to replace troops, reputation and morale. If our naval assets can't even be used against Iran when needed, they aren't worth protecting.


Well I'm not going to argue "is not" "is so" I went to globalsecurity.org and got the evidence for you.
www.globalsecurity.org...


Global Security is a good place for reliable information, but they know very little about the Sunburn. It is an untested missile. We really only rely on the word of the Soviets. I don't much faith in Soviet equipment. After all, it has performed pathetically every chance it's had. They bluffed throughout the Cold War. America has had over a decade to prepare for the Sunburn threat. Don't you think we have something that can handle it by now?


The P270 Moskit is three times faster than the exocets used in the Falklands. The maximum reaction time they allow is 25 seconds, easily fast enough to penetrate Aegis- in fact that's exactly what it was designed for.


It's faster then the exocets, but the defenses have improved a lot, as well. The British were using pretty lousy ships.


According to Global Security.org Iran got at least 16 from Ukraine, and although I can't find any really impressive sources I have been lead to believe that they've got more from Russia.


16 isn't many. As for them getting weapons from Russia, the same things have been said about Russian equipment going to Iraq and Kosovo.


With what I know and can prove though, Iran can sink some 8-16 major vessels unless America can find these very small targets which can defend the Persian gulf from anywhere within 120km of the strait of hormuz, or from other locations up the coast


Or we could just bomb the hell out of coast. I think we'll destroy most of their defenses that way.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I would not pin my war plans on sending an invasion force through a narrow straight directly next to a major enemy naval station without first securing that naval station. I also would not hang my plans on occupying a region that my own wargames told me could become a complete death trap for our navy if confronted by a reasonably clever enemy (as opposed to good old Saddam, who immediately grabbed his ankles when he saw us coming.) I think that guy spoiled us- we never should have gotten used to that.


Saddam tried to fight us the first time heads up, and failed. The second time, he decided to just drag the Americans into a long guerilla war, which was possibly recommended by the Russians themselves. He hardly just sat there and took it.

And I'm not even suggesting an invasion force right now, just air support.


1. They are in the way. If we had Syria we'd have an open line into Iraq, no matter how many of what kind of missiles Iran acquired. There would no longer have to contend with the remote but extremely troubling risk of a catastrophic assymetrical attack on our naval forces.


This isn't the days of colonialism, or a world war. How many nations will the American people want to invade? We do not have the luxury of securing aresa simply to support our military strategy against Iran, unless you think we'd invade Iran in about 5+ years. The nuke issue is the best reason we are going to have for an invasion, and that won't last that long.


2. I believe America will further be encouraged to go after Syria because we're not getting diddly squat of what we want from them. We want peace in the middle east, and end to terrorism, free and democratic nations in the world, etc. Syria is a major state sponsor of terror which refuses to pull out of the Bekaa Valley which is a major terrorist training ground. The president who takes out Syria and Lebanon and locks them down tight is going to be responsible for shutting off a major pipeline of weapons and personel for terrorists operating in Israel.


Syria will buckle soon. The pressure is growing to strong. All of the Western world is set on this, unlike with Saddam and Iraq. The people of Lebanon are also for this.


3. The President may believe, as some report, that Saddams WMD are in the Bekaa Valley as well. I'm not completely sure i buy this, although I do fully believe that Saddam had them and relocated them because his actions were otherwise completely irrational. If the president believes this I think it will be a major additional motive to go to Syria first.


Even if they were sent there, they'd most likely be gone when we invaded, or just destroyed, if they haven't been already.


4. It seems irrational that we have conducted airstrikes on Iran's operational Uranium Enrichment facilities if we have any intention of really stopping them. You'd think we'd percieve this as a race against the clock, but we don't seem to. I think America has secretly resigned itself to accepting a nuclear Iran. I don't understand why. I suspect that it may have to do with either Russian committments to Iran's defense or with the extremely remote possibility that Iran has recieved nuclear weapons from North Korea but is not shooting its mouth off about it for some reason.


Airstrikes probably wouldn't achieve much. Iran probably has hidden facilities we couldn't find.


They don't have "back up tanks" for training, I think I can say that with certainty. If in fact they left their equipment behind, it means they won't be conducting any real training and will basically be sitting around polishing their boots while they're here- no to mention that they can't be deployed anywhere else in the world no matter what happens. Sounds like it would be a great big mistake.


I'm sure we have some tanks left here in America. Probably a lot.


The strait of Hormuz makes that impossible, and then there's the little manner of finding and destroying a very small number of very specific targets. Do you remember how long that took during the Gulf War with the Scuds? We'd be better off just nuking Bandar-e-Abbas if we seriously thought that the "just destroy everything" strategy was the way to go.


I'd go for just carpet bombing everything, but I doubt that would go over well in todays world.


It wasn't a patrol that ran away in Mosul- the police abandoned their station because they were told the insurgents were coming to get them. The police wear masks some places because the insurgency will find them and their families and kill them- not just be a threat to them in some ambush.


Many of those police were probably plants to begin with. They didn't have confidence in their abilities, or really want to risk their life. There are many answers. There have still been examples where the seurity forces have gotten the job done.


Do they really think for one minute that America will lift a finger to protect them? If Russia and China let India cut loose on them, there's no way in heck we're going over there to fight a war with the worlds third largest army which is allied with the worlds 1st and 5th largest respectively, especially when all of the nations involved have nukes


Do you really think the Chinese are going to go fight the Indians for Pakistan? What do they gain, except maybe a chance to attack their rival? At the same time, they could piss off Russia, India's ally.


The other thing to consider is economics. If Pakistan wants to be in a big hurry to board a sinking ship, getting in with America is the way. They'd be a lot better off to deal with 2 of the worlds fastest growing economies, both of which are right next door to them.


I'd still prefer to go with America, the nation that will remain at the top militarily and economically for the next half century. America has kept up large economic growth for decades now. We are pretty much the only Western power that has had constant growth. You shouldn't bet against America's economy or military.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It may take years to replace hardware, but it takes even longer to replace troops, reputation and morale. If our naval assets can't even be used against Iran when needed, they aren't worth protecting.


I think you're kidding. I hope you're kidding. Are you kidding?


Global Security is a good place for reliable information, but they know very little about the Sunburn. It is an untested missile. We really only rely on the word of the Soviets. I don't much faith in Soviet equipment. After all, it has performed pathetically every chance it's had.


Half true. You have to bear in mind that most of our evidence comes from ridiculous mismatches created by fighting extremely poor enemies. During the first gulf war, Iraqi tanks were firing ammunition with steel penetrators and inferior charges behind them.
Some Soviet/Russian technology is actually not trailing very far behind America, and in certain areas they're still right there with us. The US Navy has sought repeatedly to aquire both Sunburns and other Russian missile designs since the late 90s.
Caspar Weinberger, Reagan's secretary of defense, certainly took them seriously even in the mid to late 90s. In 1995 he wrote a book called "The Next War" in which he laid out several possible dangers facing America in the future. One of them was that a reborn Soviet Union might be able to beat the US to the full production of directed energy weapons and missile defenses and then seek to pay for these weapons after the fact by bullying the rest of the world for their economic benefit.


They bluffed throughout the Cold War. America has had over a decade to prepare for the Sunburn threat. Don't you think we have something that can handle it by now?

First of all, from a weapons standpoint they definately did not bluff their way through the cold war. Apples to apples, Soviet stuff is only slightly lower quality than NATO equivalents, reflecting not a technological disadvantage but a manufacturing decision to take quantity over quality. Unlike their client states who have so commonly been defeated by Western style forces, the Soviets would have had that quantity and likely would have won a land war in Europe.
Beyond that, the single greatest problem soviet style forces have had is doctrine and organization. Their structure discourages initiative, independence, or innovation and their conscription system doesn't breed proficient soldiers or NCOs.

As for coming up with a countermeasure in 10 years: The experts say no. There have been congressional inquiries and think tank studies and all that good stuff, and the general concensus is that Aegis can't stop it and that Phalanx would fail often as well.
If I had to name the few nations that I have a serious personal dislike for, Russia would be very close to the top of it- I don't have all the much respect for almost anything they've done in the last 100 years, but they apparently make a decent cruise missile. We can't pretend their weapons don't kill people just because we find many aspects of their government and society misguided.


It's faster then the exocets, but the defenses have improved a lot, as well. The British were using pretty lousy ships.

Again, the people in the best position to know say the Sunburn is the best anti-ship missile in the world and that America's current defenses are insufficient. "Improving a lot" isn't as impressive as it sounds, considering that our old systems used to simply freeze up when presented with two many targets.


16 isn't many. As for them getting weapons from Russia, the same things have been said about Russian equipment going to Iraq and Kosovo.

And the things that were said to be there were there in both cases. Not in extreme quantities (keeping in mind that air defenses are a much differnet ball game from anti-ship missiles. You just don't need as many.)
The whole Argentine airforce during the Falklands war was something like 4 planes and 8 exocets if I recall correctly.
I don't see why it's so bloody important to you to insist that we send a fleet into the persian gulf to get several major ships sunk (which is exactly what will happen if they are attacked with sunburns) instead of approaching this war from a safer angle. (get Syria first or secure Turkish cooperation)



Or we could just bomb the hell out of coast. I think we'll destroy most of their defenses that way.

Too bad you weren't in the airforce during Desert Storm- maybe you could have solved Israel's problem with Iraqi scuds. We can't just carpet bomb their coast and hope that we happened to get lucky hit these 16 small, mobile weapons systems which could cause a couple thousand casualties and a few billion dollars in losses if they survive.



Saddam tried to fight us the first time heads up, and failed. The second time, he decided to just drag the Americans into a long guerilla war, which was possibly recommended by the Russians themselves. He hardly just sat there and took it.

Not true on both counts. On February 22 1991, Saddam offered to accept a cease fire the Soviets had proposed. We refused it but promised not to attack forces which withdrew. Many Iraqi forces began withdrawing from Kuwait and thousands of Iraqi troops deserted.
Two days later the ground campaign was kicked off by Operation Desert Sabre. Within 48 hours of first contact the entire Iraqi force was running away- not even doing so much as making a respectable effort to cover its retreat.
Saddam didn't stand to fight- he stood to stare us down. When that didn't work, everyone except the republican guard flat out ran away or surrendered- some as units, some as individual deserters.

Then in this second effort Iraqi troops did no better. Virtually nobody stood their ground until we got to Najaf, and that was hardly even a speed bump on the way to the ONLY -real- resistance in Baghdad. The Iraqis saw us coming and started getting their white flags ready immediately. There were so many of them we couldn't even process them- we just sent them home.
That is called bending over and taking it.


This isn't the days of colonialism, or a world war. How many nations will the American people want to invade?

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan- a solid wall between Russia and the middle east. Turkmenistan might make the list too, but I think we're more likely to go for a coup there. If this isn't the day of colonialism or a world war, you better go tell the Pentagon to know this stuff off, because that's exactly what they're up to.
And of course that's only if you make the mistake as viewing the war on terror seperately from other post cold war moves- then you'd have to count the former Yugoslavia as well, not to mention that we've pulled several former Soviet nations into NATO.


We do not have the luxury of securing aresa simply to support our military strategy against Iran, unless you think we'd invade Iran in about 5+ years. The nuke issue is the best reason we are going to have for an invasion, and that won't last that long.

If we made the decision to go now we could be in Damascus in 6-8 months, and be in Tehran EASILY within 3-6 months if we wanted to (i think we'd take longer if there was time, but if there's not 3 months would be plenty).
For one thing, America has the luxury of doing pretty much whatever it wants. We have made two invasions without the Security Council's consent, which is in fact a violation of international law and nobody is even thinking about standing up to us. Besides that, Syria is full of terrorists and would seem to be a very legitimate target.
If there is something America does not have the luxury of doing, it's running the risk of getting a bloody nose from anyone. If that happens Russia is going to say to themselves- hey, we've found a way to stop the Americans, and those damned missiles are going to start popping up in every hot spot around the world at bargain rates.




I'm sure we have some tanks left here in America. Probably a lot.

I'm pretty sure that we have a one tank per tank crew policy. We have a lot of tanks left here in America which other units are training with and which other units may have to take to Iraq or elsewhere.




Many of those police were probably plants to begin with. They didn't have confidence in their abilities, or really want to risk their life. There are many answers. There have still been examples where the seurity forces have gotten the job done.

So you're still denying that there is a significant insurgency in Iraq, and this is just a very small isolated group of people who are playing hell with the peace and security of that country?


Do you really think the Chinese are going to go fight the Indians for Pakistan? What do they gain, except maybe a chance to attack their rival? At the same time, they could piss off Russia, India's ally.

Between China and America, I'd say the odds heavily favor China to intervene on Pakistan's behalf. China isn't going to like a potential rival like India creating problems for a nation that serves as a link to vital central Asian resources. China and Russia have a mutual interest in peace between India and Pakistan, and neither is likely to tollerate aggression there. America's interest in Pakistan is more for the short term and Pakistan would have to be nuts not to understand that. Once we've got Iran we're not going to have nearly as much need for Pakistan and they could expect to find themselves suddenly on our hit list for nuclear proliferation.


I'd still prefer to go with America, the nation that will remain at the top militarily and economically for the next half century. America has kept up large economic growth for decades now. We are pretty much the only Western power that has had constant growth. You shouldn't bet against America's economy or military.


That's certainly not what the NIC and DIA seem to think. The National Intelligence Council says that the economic playfield is going to be level and the Chinese and Indians are going to be every bit as influential as us by 2020. 10 years ago the DIA warned that by 2006 a war between America and China would probably result in a Chinese victory- I think they were right as far as conflicts in just about any part of Asia are concerned, and once they modernize their Navy and get enough equipment built (they're already starting) we're going to have to put a little extra effort into helping the Japs and Aussies sleep soundly at night.

Not only that, but America isn't reliable. There are only 4 kinds of people who can always be sure that America is there when needed- 1. Saudis. 2. Americans. 3. Multi-National Corporations. 4. Israelis. In that order. The Pakistanis know they aren't on the list.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   


They could try that, but they'd get slaughtered, like every other attempt they make at attacking American forces.


Your posts have no creditablity. Heres one example of the joke you refer to.
info





Because its better to use the experienced troops, who have probably seen real combat, then guys who have been the inservice a year or two.


Thats a load of crap national guardsmen dont have any combat experiance but they are sent to Iraq.

Iran troop movements could be disguised as routine training.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Your posts have no creditablity. Heres one example of the joke you refer to.
info


One rocket- that is a joke. The insurgents are not military significant. They are politically for American efforts. They are domestically/politically significant for Iraq, but they have not succeded even slightly in threatening US control in Iraq, much less could they offer any appreciable help to Iran without acquiring large numbers of weapons types they do not currently have and secured a large safe area in which to make extremely substantial prepartions, similiar to what Chad did to handle the Libyan invasion (Chad proved that "technicals" armed with recoilless rifles in very large numbers can play hell with an invading force, especially in urban environments, unforunately for the terrorists, because of the lower resources and different tactical situation here that is only minimally applicable here).



Iran troop movements could be disguised as routine training.

It wouldn't work. There is no way in the world that Iran can start moving troops to the border no matter how good their excuse is, without America beginning to draw up target packages and plan for a deployment. The nice thing about an invasion is that the enemy troops are wide out in the open, and you know exactly where all their good stuff will be if you had the advanced warning to start making your surviellance.
Israeli airpower in the Six Day Smackdown and the Highway of Death during the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait are good examples of this.

I believe that America would hammer on Iranian artillery primarily so that there would be minimal support for Iranian mechanized forces, then American tanks would skirmish all the way back to the Tigris, probably taking most of the wind out of the Iranian offensive. By the time they got to the Tigris the Iranian force would be just about fresh out of tanks and IFVs, simply because American tanks are capable of engaging the outdated equipment in Iran's aresenal in numbers as high as perhaps 5:1. The Abrams has much greater accuracy, a longer lethal range, and can outfire anything newer than a T-62 by several orders of magnitude because Soviet auto loaders are only good for 4 aimed shots a minute, even when they don't malfunction- which they always do.
So they'd get into Iraq and be out of steam- they'd settle into a primarily defensive stance on the opposite bank of the Tigris or maybe even try to run back to the Zagros range. We couldn't immediately run over them and go for Tehran, but we'd be in very very little danger of a defeat. It would be a rough week for us, but unless we did something monumentally stupid we'd come out of it a few hundred troops down and no worse for wear and after a brief delay our reinforcements would show up and we could go after them.

The whole "can Iran invade Iraq" thing has to be contingent upon a massive modernization of Iranian forces. They need redundant air defenses complimented by advanced aircraft to cover their army's advance, they need modern mechanized forces such as BMP-3s and upgraded T-72s. They need to improve their logistics so they can move quickly and efficiently- in short they need a lot of expensive toys and a lot of ammunition to practice with. Until that is taken care of the best we can ask is "Can Iran kill a few hundred or a few thousand people, light some oil wells on fire, and make the president's approval rating do a nose dive before getting the holy snot kicked out of them?".
Of course even doing that would be a "victory" by most comparissons- I certainly wouldn't want to see them do that. I worry that it might lead to a once-bitten twice-shy view towards strong foreign policy. We can't afford to let that happen.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   
If the insurgents arent military significant then why hasnt the US military defeated them? I would be laughing expect for the fact allied service personal are dieing.
You have to bear in mind that Iran didnt suffer 10 years of sancations.
I argee that Irans biggest enemy is a shortage of spare parts. Of course if Iran moved troops to the Iraq border the US military will take notice however if it was to happen regualrly they might not pay as much attention.
Sometimes the US militarys ablitys are overated.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
If the insurgents arent military significant then why hasnt the US military defeated them? I would be laughing expect for the fact allied service personal are dieing.


They aren't militarily significant. That means they can kill few people and win media atention. but they are not able to seriously disurpt army maneuvers or logistics.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   


They aren't militarily significant. That means they can kill few people and win media atention. but they are not able to seriously disurpt army maneuvers or logistics.


Just because the US military is useless at counter insurency warfare dosnt mean that the enemy aren't militarily significant.
Your calling Fallujah insignificant? Do you really think the yanks were fighting a force in Fallujah that isnt militarily significant?
You do realize that the US military dosnt win wars because there american?
Your point of view dosnt show much respect towards the people that have given there lives fighting a force that "aren't militarily significant."



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join