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 war with us wouldnt last very long

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
Difference between now and then is now the bombs will hit their targets everytime. Not to mention the huge technological gap between the US and iran.


Sorry man, I see no difference.

BOLD, see?




posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by arkansasmedic

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
Thats not even 1 percent of what the USAF and Navy can deliver.

The only thing holding them back from destroying Iran in under a week is civilian casualties.


Hmm, kinda sounds like a little Conflict that ended about 30 years ago, doesn't it.


Difference between now and then is now the bombs will hit their targets everytime. Not to mention the huge technological gap between the US and iran.
Big difference this time the war wouldn't be run from Washington DC but by the commanders in the field also now the American public supports our troops. Those two facts will significantly influence the outcome of any conflict.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
Big difference this time the war wouldn't be run from Washington DC but by the commanders in the field also now the American public supports our troops. Those two facts will significantly influence the outcome of any conflict.


Do you really believe this? Good luck man but I see ALL coming out of the White House.

The support for the troops? That has changed thank Christ but I don't see that as making much of a difference.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
United States
1.2 million soldiers in the Army
8,800 M1 Abrams
950 M109A6 Paladins
6,724 Bradley fighting vehicles
850 MLRS vehicles
2,131 Strykers
807 AH-64 helicopters
1,500 Blackhawk helicopters
55,000 HMMWV in several variants
US Army Rangers
US Army Special Forces
US Army Delta Force

US Marines
200,000 Marines
US Marine Corps Force Recon

Aircraft carriers - 12
DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class - 70
CG-47 Ticonderoga - 20
FFG-7 OLIVER HAZARD PERRY-class - 31
SSN-688 Los Angeles-class - 85
SSN-21 Seawolf-class - 3
SSN-774 Virginia-class - 2
SSBN-726 Ohio-Class - 15
LHD-1 Wasp class - 7
LHA-1 Tarawa class - 5

US Navy SEALs

US Air Force
F-15 - 574
F-16 - 2,216
F-18 - 800
F-22 - 86
F-117 - 36
B-52 - 100
B-1 - 100
B-2 - 21
C-130s- 700
A-10 - 200
Air Force Special Operations


IRAN
Iranian army - 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts)
About 2,500- T-72s,62s,55s,54s and other very outdated equipment such as BMP-1s.

Just over 3,000 pieces of Artillery

50 Cobra attack helicopters (old AH-1J)
160 or so transport helicopters

302 Fighter/Attack planes(F-4s,F-5s, 25-f-14s, F-6, F-7s, su-22, su-25k, su-24mk, MiG-29a, etc.) - only about 60 percent are combat capable

Unknown number of H-6 and Tu-22m Backfire bombers

About 70 transport and cargo planes (with no spare parts)

About 300 or so SAM pieces

Iran has no real navy.

This is the technological difference.


[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
Also, you may want to check what Iran is equipped with, not much better than Iraq.

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]


and global security have all the information on the iranian weapons systems and numbers?
and they are 100% accurate?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
LMAO at people saying look at Iraq problems you wont be able to stomp Iran etc etc

WAKE UP we only got those problems cause we not running round WW2 style slaughtering ev1 that moves, we are there as enforcers to occupy UNDERSTAND occupy that area.

NOW FOR IRAN we WOULD NOT i say NOT occupy IRAN we would STOMP and DESTROY WW2 style and slaughter anything not allied if it moves UNDERSTAND that theres a difference to OCCUPY and ALL OUT FULL WAR which would be for IRAN.

SO to cap it off again:

War in Iraq = Occupation and try be friendly to people not kill everything that moves.

War in Iran = kill everything that moves WW2 style bombing of citys etc etc, and we would not want too ccupy Iran the GOAL would be to demolish and destroy it and make it suffer put it back deacades.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by blobby]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
United States
1.2 million soldiers in the Army


Whoa, hold up there pal, where did you get this number? I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems a bit inflated. I was under the impression that China(largest standing army) had little more that a million ground troops.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
Also, you may want to check what Iran is equipped with, not much better than Iraq.

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]


and global security have all the information on the iranian weapons systems and numbers?
and they are 100% accurate?


Probably not, but I wouldnt count on them being much better.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
United States
1.2 million soldiers in the Army


Whoa, hold up there pal, where did you get this number? I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems a bit inflated. I was under the impression that China(largest standing army) had little more that a million ground troops.


Forgot to add that, I'm including the Army, Reserve, and Guard in that figure.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
"3.we have the best military the world has ever seen. "

didnt they say that about germany a while back?



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Capt DogToffee
"3.we have the best military the world has ever seen. "

didnt they say that about germany a while back?



They did say that, and they were correct. Its different when you're facing the world on all sides with a 20 million man army on one side, while on the other has another 5 million (accurate numbers?) with something like 50 thousand sherman tanks. Germany stood no chance. This war would be US vs Iran alone.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by arkansasmedic]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by arkansasmedic
This war would be US vs Iran alone.


That's another leap in logic. I seriously doubt it. You saying that Iran doesn't have allies and partners? I think that's wishful thinking.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
You can say the same about the US.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There is one very potent weapon that the Iranians (and other Muslim nations) possess, and will use at the first opportunity...
Intelligent guided-munitions with the ability to independantly select any military/civilian target, very well camouflaged, very hard to neutralize and have been proven again and again to be an extremely effective weapon in terms of material and morale destruction.

You won't find any stats or specs in Jane's or elsewhere...have you guessed yet?

The suicide-bomber!



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
There's no way defeating and invading a country as large and developed as Iran would be easy, let alone take 2 weeks - even without the terrain aspect.

IMO this is optimistic 'Rum-speak' which glosses over the realities of modern warfare - lots, and lots, of youmg men will get killed, maimed and injured by hot metal and chemicals.

BTW what is 'post-war'? When the killing stops? or self-declared 'end of major combat operations' timed to coincide with elections? More Rum-speak.

Defeating Iran (ie knocking out its power and infrastructure) would be relatively simple. Subduing it will be almost impossible.

There are two inevitable side-effects
1. 000's of US&UK dead that you and we won't tolerate
2. Disruption of the World's oil supply none of us can afford

Only someone not likely to fight could be so blase about what would be a horrible and costly war



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
First of all the tittle Iran war with us wouldn't last very long is completely irrelevant when the fact is that Iran has not wagged or is planing to wag a war against the US.

Second Iran has been in the planning to defend their borders since 2004 in which they had boosted their military forces and also they have used most of their 80% percent of their oil revenues to bring their weapons and resources up to day.

We most thank Russia for that one.

Third they are in their rights to defend themselves against any foreign aggression.

Fourth they have been watching very carefully the might of the US military and they very well know where they stand.

With all the money that US has allocated to support Iraq and Afghanistan Iran has all it's revenue at their disposal.

In order for US to weaken Iran financially it needs to impose sanctions and and stop their main source of revenue even if million of people die from hunger just like in Iraq after years of sanctions.

At the end it all comes how the rest of the international community sees another invasion or attack on yes another sovereign country in the middle east.

This time US will need all the support it can get.

Will US get that support?


[edit on 8-2-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Whoa, hold up there pal, where did you get this number? I'm not saying you're wrong but it seems a bit inflated. I was under the impression that China(largest standing army) had little more that a million ground troops.


Actually that number is understated, the US Military currently has 1.4 Million troops on active duty with another 860,000 from all branches on reserve. Which would give the US approximately 2.2 Million men if need be. And you are correct, China does have the largest standing military with approximately 2.25 Million Men.



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
It really depends on what the goal is here. If a goal for the war was to have a conventional war with Iran, seize Iran, Hold Iran, and rebuild IRan.....then your talking a decade worth of effort. You don't distroy and rebuild an entire country in a matter of months or even a year or two. This is what we are doing in Iraq, and its foolish for people to get impatient and think that a nation can be built to perfection in a matter of a year or two.
The conflict in Iraq currently is not in essence a war people!....The US military are patrolling, policing, helping re-build, and training Iraqi soldiers and police. They are dealing with an insurgency that is not the majority of the public.

As far as Iran goes. I hear many people saying that Iran will not be a cake walk because they are much more sophisticated than Iraq. They are much more prepared and have studied US military. I do agree that Iran will not be a complete walk-over like Iraq,....however,....I constantly see the US (NOT IRAN)..being the ones who are underestimated. Does the US not have the ability to plan in this scenario? Do they not have the ability to study how to deal with Iran in this scenario? Is the US not sophiisticated?
Do you think the US would just waltz into IRan unprepared without taking anything into consideration?

MARGE has a good point: The US could dwindle Iran down with sanctions before a war even took place.

I can guarantee you that if Iran has been studying the US,...the US has been studying plans for Iran for much longer and in much more detail. And the US, as most educated people know, is among the most sophisticated countries. The US would plan this out, beef up to what is necessary to accomplish the mission,...they would maneuver their pawns internationally (cause that is what a super power does) and in a CONVENTIONAL war would walk over Irans ability to fight back. The US went into the desert storm with a few hundred thousand soldiers and defeated Saddam's 4th ranked military in the world at the time. The actual war lasted a bit over a month. The US went into Iraq with 150,000 or so soldiers in the latest war with the same results. ...WHY do so many think that the US doesn't have the capability to project and plan the appropriate approch with IRan????

To those that think the US military is on its death bed in IRaq,...well, we only have 130,000 + soldiers there policing the country. Here is a link if you're curious and unaware of our actual military
en.wikipedia.org...

The reality is that the US conventionally could/ and would defeat IRan in a conventional war simular to the Gulf war in the early 90s. IF we were to stay and try to re-build.....it will be an ugly guarilla war and comprise of regional insurgency. This would take many years to handle...just like in Iraq.

Carburetor



posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Nice to see the coalition effort of UK in Iraq invasion and the coalition effort of UK & others in the Iraqi occupation is remembered and recognised [sarcasm]






posted on Feb, 8 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
As many people say, this attack would be an aerial attack. Not that Iran represents a strong opponent to the US (no country, aside from Russia or China, are relevant, competitive, matches to USA's military strenght anyways), but it's still is the arab country that has the biggest military capability, and it could defend itself quite well for some time, while it can also easily attack positions in Iraq and especially Israel.

My personal opinion is that, strategically speaking, if NATO does'nt want this war to extend and expand to something more global, then they have no choice but to make a MASSIVE air attack, aimed at annihilating most of Iran's nuclear capability and defenses. This would be USA's perfect, long-awaited golden opportunity to use the most advanced top-secret air weaponry they have, such as Aurora-class bombers, drone fighters and the TR-3B if it really exists. Such a display of mind-blowing technology would surely have big positive consequences on NATO's hegemony and their military-industrial complex.

But the problem is that they would have to attack very quickly and do it full force, with neverending bombings and intensive air raids on all crucial defense targets, for Iran is very likely to retaliate quickly to a coming attack, and with all the ballistic weaponry they have in store. Iran's President said many times that he would instantly retaliate to any attack coming from the US or Israel. He's got the means to do so, and he will do it, wether if it's firing missiles at US troops in Iraq or using nuclear weapons on a larger scale.

THe thing is that if the Bush administration is crazy enough to start such a dangerous war, I don't think it'll matter much to them to consider potential consequences on human casualties among US troops in Iraq (have they cared until now anyways??? :flame
and more globally on world peace, and this is what scares me. To their perspective, Iran is their big crossroad into succeeding to establish their New World Order and gain total control over Middle-East and Eurasia, but for the rest of the world, it's the beginning of the end.

[edit on 8/2/06 by Echtelion]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join