Originally posted by brimstone735
We would have to double our troop levels in both Iraq and Afghanistan, simply to overcompensate for the increased threat.
I respectfully disagree. Considering the geography of the region and Iran's logistical and fire support capabilities, they have no chance of
successfully invading Iraq if the US initiates the war by redeploying current forces along the Tigris, especially in the South, and moves in an
additional armored division and a large number of aircraft. By the time the Iranians could pull together a coherent offensive we'd be ready for them,
they'd lose most of their fire support early on, and they'd be sitting ducks for raids by American armor as they repeatedly failed to cross the
Tigris under American artillery fire. Most of the fighting would take place in Basrah, but due to our need to concentrate force in Basrah their best
chance at victory will actually be either in Al Kut or Ba'qubah, in a two pronged attack on Baghdad. Their success there will be entirely contingent
on their ability to 1. Get armor through the Zagros range without being suffering heavy casualties from American aircraft. 2. Match guts with US
Marines in urban combat. Not a promising scenario for them.
Within 3 weeks of their initial moves they'll be in full retreat (if they can) and the Highway of Death out of Kuwait will look like a cake walk
compared to what we do to them then. Our casualties will be in the thousands, there's will be in the high tens of thousands, and they will be at our
mercy, which they are likely to find considerably lacking.
We would certainly win any major war with Iran, but any battle plan that doesn't involve boots on the ground is utter and complete
For a typical invasion yes, but not to simply reduce their air, naval, nuclear, and key logistical capabilities. We have the boots on the ground for
defense, and will need to offer them reinforcements who have the proper equipment, but entering and occupying Iranian territory is patently
Besides over a 100 ZSU 23 anti aircraft batteries, the Iranians also have caches of IGLA shoulder mounted surface to air missiles.
Have you noticed how everybody we beat the snot out of claims to have the most amazing anti-aircraft capabilities? Here's a little G-2 on the
"Zeus" anti aircraft cannons- they're only dangerous when they aren't pointed at the sky. If they aren't being sold at fireworks stands in
Tiajuana, they certainly should be, because that's one of three things they are good for. (the other two are attacking tanks and light armor at close
range, and giving the gunner a place to sit.)
But, that's not your worst case scenario.
Your worst case scenario is that these disappear from their armories and suddenly appear in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Detroit.
That could just as easily happen if we didn't go to war with Iran. It's not as if there is any doubt in anyone's mind that Iran considers us an
enemy and will do what it can to harm us whenever a suitable opportunity may present itself.
And frankly who cares. You're telling me that Iran might kill a few hundred or maybe a couple of thousand people, possibly civilians. I'm sitting
here remembering that America has lost more than that in a single day's fighting, or even in a training accident, in certain historical wars where we
hesitated and let a potential adversary grow rather than nipping them in the bud.
You're also assuming that the Iranian people COULD and WOULD stand up to the mullahs, which is just the type of fallacy that landed us in the
jackpot in Iraq.
Actually that worked out quite well until we overstayed our welcome. More importantly, as I have already stated, I don't have any particular concern
for who rules Iran, just as long we eliminate the strategic threat to the Persian Gulf which Iran's nuclear, naval, and missile development
Iran has 540,000 troops, with another 300,000 in reserve. They have 1,600 battle tanks. 1,500 armored vehicles. They have 3,200 artillary
pieces. 306 fighter planes. 50 attack helicopters. They have 3 submarines.
They have 130 rockets with a range of over 150 miles, and possibly four Shahab 4 rockets, with a range of over 800 miles.
Outdated Russian hardware with undertrained conscript crews and questionable maintenance. After a week or two of fighting Iran hasn't got an
artillery piece within 40-50km of American positions, has no aircraft, no subs, and no shahab 4 missiles, and their quickly finding out, as Saddam
did, that their missiles tend to well... miss.
And while most of Irania equipment is antiquated Russian junk, your other worst case scenario involves 100,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen
spilling across the borders into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Spilling is an appropriate word, because an infantryman with inadequate artillery support usually ends up in a somewhat liquified form, courtesy of
I doubt you and I will see eye to eye on this, but I have a pretty fair understanding of military history and strategy, and the lesson is clear-
superior tactical and technical ability combined with the inherent advantage of being the aggressor will almost invariably overwhelm numerical
superiority. If there is any doubt, ask Chesty.
The 1st Marine Division versus 7 Divisions of the PLA 9th Army Group. They fought for over a month, and when the dust settled, the 1st Marine Division
was still combat effective- not one of the Chinese Divisions that had encircled them could say the same- every one of them was parted out to reinforce
other Chinese units which had not had the dubious honor of finding out how the Tuefelhunden got their nickname.