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.

 

Simultaneous invasion of Iran and Syria possible?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
does the U.S. launch a singular air campaign first, or do we utilize shock-and-awe and have a combined air/land invasion?


I would say launch a massive singular air campaign first. Striking from a distance is such a huge advantage it has to be used IMHO. Knock out as much of their airpower, missile batteries, ground forces and communication networks as you can before any land invasion. You might not be able to win a war with convential airpower alone but you can definitely soften up a military to a great extent with it.

Ive heard some people claim the US hides behind the long arm of Technology, Darn right we do!. Our enemies would do the same thing if they could. Only a moron wants a fair fight in war.




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I would say launch a massive singular air campaign first. Striking from a distance is such a huge advantage it has to be used IMHO. Knock out as much of their airpower, missile batteries, ground forces and communication networks as you can before any land invasion. You might not be able to win a war with convential airpower alone but you can definitely soften up a military to a great extent with it.

Ive heard some people claim the US hides behind the long arm of Technology, Darn right we do!. Our enemies would do the same thing if they could. Only a moron wants a fair fight in war.


Exactly. Rules of war are an oxymoron, the guy who goes against the rules wins.

How long the air campaign should be? 43 days like the Gulf War?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
How long? Thats hard in my opinion to speculate on. The 43 day Gulf war air campaign might not be a bad ballpark estimate. There might be more targets then in that war but we also use alot more precision weapons then we did back then so that may compensate for that.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Exactly. Rules of war are an oxymoron, the guy who goes against the rules wins.


Mind if save this quote? It might come in handy in one of those US torture threads.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Exactly. Rules of war are an oxymoron, the guy who goes against the rules wins.


Mind if save this quote? It might come in handy in one of those US torture threads.



Nothing I write is under copyright. You can use, save, distort at your will.


Personally, I'm against torture, simply because I would never want to be tortured. But I can't complain - it's just war. There's no wrong or why.

Any thoughts on the thread, though? Here's a chance for us to reconcile.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by sweatmonicaIdo]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The US could, IMHO, relatively easilly invade both nations if it wanted.

The US has well over 2 million service men available to it right now, and about 67 million males of military service available in a draft, with under 150,000 in Iraq.

CIA Fact Book

This of course is not to mention the supreme technological edge the US would enjoy. Taking the nations would be easy.

The hard part would be the back lash in the Muslim world, and even the world at large. China and Russia wouldn't be too happy about the US invading Iran, and Europe would probably cry foul as well. Holding the nations for long periods of time would be very taxing on our economy, and would likely cause a lot of political problems domestically.

IMHO, it is a lot more probable that the US and Isreal simply use a few well planned airstrikes to take out Irans nuclear sites. Syria has been playing both sides (the US and Islamic extremists) and likely wouldn't be a target.

IF either nation is invaded, it would be because they counter attackd the US and/or Isreal after the airstrikes on Iran.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
AMM,

Well, let's assume that we are invading both Iran and Syria and the draft is not activated - at least at the outset of the war.

This is what gets me. We currently have 1.4 servicepeople in the Armed Forces. In order to invade at least Iran, we'd need at least 600,000 troops. This would mean for a dual-invasion force, it would require almost the entire U.S. military. However, the ally in Israel provides a superb "bat in the order," so to speak, so that brings the force requirements down considerbly, as Israel has one of the best militaries in the world. Not to mention we'd have the Iraqi military availiable, although their effectiveness would be quite marginal.

Given this, how many troops would the U.S. actually need to commit?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
AMM,

Well, let's assume that we are invading both Iran and Syria and the draft is not activated - at least at the outset of the war.

This is what gets me. We currently have 1.4 servicepeople in the Armed Forces. In order to invade at least Iran, we'd need at least 600,000 troops. This would mean for a dual-invasion force, it would require almost the entire U.S. military. However, the ally in Israel provides a superb "bat in the order," so to speak, so that brings the force requirements down considerbly, as Israel has one of the best militaries in the world. Not to mention we'd have the Iraqi military availiable, although their effectiveness would be quite marginal.

Given this, how many troops would the U.S. actually need to commit?


Well, to start off, I personally don't think Isreal is a realistic partner in an invasion, simply because politically, IMO it would cause more problems then it would be worth. You have to think that the US will take a lot of heat and calls for Jihad as it is. With Isreal involved, you risk having huge problems in Iraq, and afghanistan, plus an uproar in Saudi Arabia which would be very bad.

Frankly, I don't think we need their help anyway, so why risk the consequence.

Also, I think you over estimate the number of troops we need.

There were what, about 150,000 in Iraq?

So say 375,000 for Iran. Another 100,000 for Syria.

Where I think Isreal could REALLY help is as a boarer patrol. In Iraq, we have a huge problem with boarder jumping and suplies coming in from Syria. With the Syrian government taken out, you'd have effectively cut of the Insurgents supply routes. Isreal would further help in containment. So in that respect, we would help our cause in Iraq.

To take Iran and Syria, while also occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, would take up a good half of our military. I don't think it's the smartest move at this juncture.

If anything, I would limit it to Iran. Syria, for all of the problems they cause, don't pose close to the same threat as Iran. For me, invading them would be like taking a Barret .50 out to shoot the rabbit that eats your plants. It's over kill for the problem, and gradual escilation seems like a better way to deal with them.

Iran on the other hand is close to becoming a nuclear power, and also sits on vast ammounts of oil. Their leadership is very anti-american, and they also fund terrorism.

It just seems like Iran is the only one "worth" invading, and even then, it isn't what I would do - I'd just take out their nuclear sites.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Okay, I made a very crude map of the Syrian Theater of Operations, showing the operational ground invasion plan:

external image

II MEF would invade the exposed beachheads to the west, while south of them, Israeli forces would blitz across the Israel-Syria border and head straight for Damascus. On the northern front, the 173rd Airborne Brigade would parachute just above the Marines in the mountainous region and head further down south from there. Then to the east, the 1st Infantry Division would strike downward and be responsible for capturing most of Syria. To the east, New Iraqi Army forces would spearhead from the north and south, with the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment in between them.

This is, of course, with constant air support and warship support from the Mediterranean for the Marines.

Any thoughts?

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Assuming the draft solves the bulk of the problems I outlined eailer how is the US going to afford to pay for the occupation of Syria and Iran ?
The role of Iraqi forces would depend on political decisons made by the Iraqi government, the security situation and if Iraq still exists as a state.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This is what gets me. We currently have 1.4 servicepeople in the Armed Forces.


I like your thinking goin into all this, but I think this might just be a typo on your part...you said 1.4 (guessing million) , but that is just in the Army, not the Armed Forces as a whole. Just didn't want you underestimating our strength



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brohaculo

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This is what gets me. We currently have 1.4 servicepeople in the Armed Forces.


I like your thinking goin into all this, but I think this might just be a typo on your part...you said 1.4 (guessing million) , but that is just in the Army, not the Armed Forces as a whole. Just didn't want you underestimating our strength



Yes, I mean 1.4 million. And I wouldn't be underestimating, as pilots, sailors, etc. don't necessarily count as troops on the ground (except Marines).



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Assuming the draft solves the bulk of the problems I outlined eailer how is the US going to afford to pay for the occupation of Syria and Iran ?
The role of Iraqi forces would depend on political decisons made by the Iraqi government, the security situation and if Iraq still exists as a state.


Even without the draft, Israeli and Iraqi forces would be more than sufficient to occupy both Iran and Syria. Not to mention mercenaries and defense contractors would ably do the job.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Sounds good if we had the cold war type military force; Very larger number of troops, which we do not have. Another thing is we also have N. Korea to think about they would love for us to spread even thinner than we are so as not to be able to support S. Korea in the event of a North invasion of the South. While it does sound good in theory it is highly improbable.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX


The US was able to fight two much more powerful opponents at the same time and win Japan and Germany. Sure Russia helped out alot with Germany as a second front but they didnt do squat with Japan. They declared war on Japan after the US dropped two atomic bombs on them





hey man....USA didn't won the ww2 alone. The war with Germany was a lot harder than the war with Japan. And in the "European war" in each 4 battles 3 were between Russia and Germany. And besides in the west front USA had the help of England, Canada and other countries.

In the time USA dropped the bombs, Japan was without navy and air force but the army was almost intact. The battle for the main japanese island was going to be very dificult and millions of Americans would die.
And besides the English helped in the war against Japan. USA didn't fought alone in the pacific war.

You are watching many American movies, and American documentaries.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The US was able to fight two much more powerful opponents at the same time and win Japan and Germany. Sure Russia helped out alot with Germany as a second front but they didnt do squat with Japan. They declared war on Japan after the US dropped two atomic bombs on them


Actually, it's the other way around. We helped the Soviets with the Second Front, as they were facing (and defeating) the majority of the Wehrmacht. And the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was pretty damn massive - they used millions of men.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
SOmeone posted the ammount of war material the US gave the Soviet Union to continue their fight against the Germans in another thread. It was massive, and I do mean massive in the true sense. The Soviet Union really only had one distinct advantage over the Germans, and that was manpower. Their casualties were huge, If I'm not mistaken, the most in the war.

[edit on 12/13/2005 by ludaChris]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
US and British/Commonwealth help to the USSR was largely logistic. Trucks, food, boots, etc, which help the Russians to move about, not to fight. This enabled the Soviet Union's heavy industry to concentrate on weapons. The tanks we sent over (proportionately speaking quite few overall) were very unpopular, because they sucked next to the Russian tanks. The T34 was one of the best tanks of the war, capable of being upgraded massively, while the Stalin 2 tank was likewise extremely good. As for planes, the MiGs and Illushins (I can never spell that right) were also very good.
The Soviets didn't want the Churchills, Valentines and Shermans that were sent over. Don't forget that the Germans called the Sherman the Tommie Cooker, because it blew up when hit.
Yes, the Soviets suffered massive losses - the worst of which were earlier in the war, when Stalin was calling the shots and appointing brainless morons who were good at flattery and slogans but who were pants at being generals. Once Zhukov took over more of the planning, this changed. Look at Kursk, or the destruction of Army Group Centre, during operation Bagration in June 1944, for a better idea of Soviet capabilities. Their advantage wasn't just numbers - and remember that they were also suffering from the start of manpower shortages by the final advance on Berlin.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by Darkmind]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You have to think that the US will take a lot of heat and calls for Jihad as it is. With Isreal involved, you risk having huge problems in Iraq, and afghanistan, plus an uproar in Saudi Arabia which would be very bad.

But the invasion of three major muslim states in as many years might do that anyway.

So say 375,000 for Iran

Why would iran really require more, let alone twice as much? The Revolutionary Guard isn't any better than the Republican Guard no? The region would be anarchic, but then again thats how a lot of large empires operated anyway.

Syria, for all of the problems they cause, don't pose close to the same threat as Iran

Assuming that syria doesn't take the invasion of iran as a sign that their days are up. The possiblity of them launching a chemical weapons attack on the US while the Iran invasion is just getting underway might in and of itself warrant going to war with them at the get go.


xpert
how is the US going to afford to pay for the occupation of Syria and Iran ?

Just steal their oil. In a situation like this, we're probably talking WWIII. The middle east is going to be completely destabilized at a minimum anyway, someone's going to have to extract process and sell that oil.
I can't imagine the iraqis invading iran or syria. At best they might work to suppress rebellions within iraq.


swampcricket
e also have N. Korea to think about they would love for us to spread even thinner than we are so as not to be able to support S. Korea in the event of a North invasion of the South

Nukes prevent that. And if they don't prevent it, they solve the problem once it arises.


ludachris
The Soviet Union really only had one distinct advantage over the Germans, and that was manpower.

From what I've picked up, lots of people think that the soviets had the better generals and abilities, just were strongly lacking in resources. The nazis sent their best troops to fight on the soviet front, and rotated out worn down groups to fight on the anglo-american front.


But lets all not digress too much into WWII. Things are different now. No one would be supporting iran and syria like the US supported the Soviets.

In terms of this hypothetical war, a big issue is what is the objective. If its to destroy the two states, then it'd be 'easy'. The US is a superpower and destroyed the Iraqi state, which was the 'other' regional power, in the course of days. Iran isn't going to be any different. Heck, the Revolutionary guard will probably melt away knowing that they dont' stand a chance and try to organize an insurgency.

This might be a good oppurunity to organize the kurdish groups in northern iraq. Supposedly the kurds are originally from iran, I don't know if they have any kurds there still, but perhaps a lure of a "Greater Kurdistan" can be dangled before them to get them to particpate in the war, perhaps they can tie up the insurgency while the US groups can fortify within the cities and run the oil fields. Whats it matter if insurgents run some of the towns and countryside? Let them attack out of the mountains in guerilla tactics every once in a while, the US'll still have the cities and oil, and they certainly won't be building any nuclear plants as guerillas, nor will they be sending many weapons to palestine while this is going on too, or helping out any insurgents in iraq, for that matter. Hell, the US'd control a swath of territory from central asia right into the indian and mediterranean seas, they're not going to be able to organize across an entire continent without supportive states (likesay, syria and iran).



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Even without the draft, Israeli and Iraqi forces would be more than sufficient to occupy both Iran and Syria. Not to mention mercenaries and defense contractors would ably do the job.


Why do you assume the Iraqi government would allow its forces to take part in such a action?
Nygdan they had the same plan for Iraq pay for the occupation with oil revenues. But they soon found this wasnt viable due to the security situation and the after effects of the Iran-Iraq and two gulf wars. Syria and Iran would be the same by the time US ground forces reach the sites in question I doubt the means would still be available to steal oil.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join