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.

 

A coalition of U.S.-U.K.-France-Germany is fearsome

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
With the aforementioned countries leading the charge against Iran, one can only imagine the mass destruction and hell they could rain on both Iran and possibly Syria, if they back Iran.

So, exactly what kind of firepower could all four countries rain down? With the developments in Iran, I think we should continually update this thread with the possible Orders-of-Battle and whatever systems from the respective countries that could be used against the Iranians.




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
That would be power Iran couldnt hope to stand against. Even the juggernaut that was the Warsaw Pact at its height never wanted to test such power.

I would imagine the first assualt would be conducted with massive amounts of weapons like US tomahawk and French/British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. This would likely cripple Iran Airforce and the best part of Irans air defense. Then weapons like the B-2 would destroy remaining hardened targets. Coalition air dominance would be in inevitable.

The ground war could then be waged on two different fronts in a classic pincer maneuver never something you want to be in as a defender.

I dont really invison this ever happening on this scale. I could really see ore of a Massive airstrike with weapons like I mentioned on Irans nuclear sites if worst came to worse.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
That would be power Iran couldnt hope to stand against. Even the juggernaut that was the Warsaw Pact at its height never wanted to test such power.

I would imagine the first assualt would be conducted with massive amounts of weapons like US tomahawk and French/British Storm Shadow cruise missiles. This would likely cripple Iran Airforce and the best part of Irans air defense. Then weapons like the B-2 would destroy remaining hardened targets. Coalition air dominance would be in inevitable.

The ground war could then be waged on two different fronts in a classic pincer maneuver never something you want to be in as a defender.

I dont really invison this ever happening on this scale. I could really see ore of a Massive airstrike with weapons like I mentioned on Irans nuclear sites if worst came to worse.


Such an invasion would be highly contrevorsial, to say the least.

In my own sick mind, however, I would like to see the French and German militaries in combat. They've been out of action for a long time but they have incredible militaries.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I doubt you will get to see it, at most we'll probably see a massive Air Bombardment of Nuclear facilities and followup Spec Ops teams to confirm the kill.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I would indeed be very controversial, thats I lean more towards air strikes alone on nuclear sites which would be alot easier for people to accept and get on board with. Also that can atleast for the present accomplish what everyone wants. Iran could start building again but it would be a major set back and the world can deal with it again when the time comes.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Would the French fight?? They seem to turn tail and run at the slightest crack of firearms. Besides following the recent rioting in france, i doubt they will have much stomach for anything other than sanctions. The worrying thing is, if we get involved in military action against iran where does it end? Will Syria jump in thus draging other arabic states in? If that is the case where will Turkey stand? Muslim nation that wants into th EC. One thing is certain though, in the occupation of Iraq the western powers have the perfect springboard to launch any ops into Iran or Syria. "you had beter get messured up for your tin hat" as my grandad was fond of saying....



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The French have fought harder and in more gruesome wars than most over the last 200 years. So do you have a point besides Angloamerican frenchbashing?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I've got to say, that is a powerful force for Iran to reckon with... BUT, I can hardly see France or Germany fighting outright against Iran. They probably would help doing special ops missions but I don't think they would be part of an invasion UNLESS Iran posed a serious danger to those two nations. As long as Iran plays it's cards right and keep INSISTING (or lying) that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, I don't see France or Germany taking a huge part in an invasion.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Just stating my opinion no need to pidgeon hole my thoughts just because you dont agree with them. I just dont think if there is any military action in Iran that the French will be involved. How many troops did she commit to Iraq? What makes you think she will react any differently this time? The UN authorised the use of force in Iraq and France still would'nt commit.

Why is that "anglo-american frenchbashing"??



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I hope they (France/Germany) do not commit troops to attack Iran.
Actually I'm betting they won't.
Sanctions is the furtherest they'll go.
The fact that they didn't commit troops in Iraq doesn't display their cowardice, infact its shows much to the contrary.

UN authorised use of force in Iraq?!
When?!
Are there UN troops in Iraq??
This is all news to me..
Any links?
When did this happen?



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
UN authorised use of force in Iraq?!
When?!
Are there UN troops in Iraq??
This is all news to me..
Any links?
When did this happen?


Never let the truth get in the way of a good bit of jingoistic tub thumping.

[edit on 13/2/06 by Implosion]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Hom many UN resolutions did Iraq Not comply with? How many times was Iraq given another chance? If the Invasion was not legal under a UN mandate why have'nt the USA or Britain or any other members of the coallition been dragged before the UN for an illegal war??? I'm sure any number of countries would like to see the USA run over the hot coals... Saddam played high stakes poker and lost the lot!!! He gambled on uniting the middle east and they let him because they could not wait to get rid of him.

As for France i do not doubt that any French soldier would do his duty. They have proven themselves in a multitude of actions since the birth of their nation. What i meant was that the French government will not get involved in a military action in the middle east because IT has other interests at heart and IT has not got the stomach for the fight. Another French govenrnment may do, but this one will not.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
It was mentioned on the news in passing that the US first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would be carried out with B2 bombers based by the Indian Ocean. Second possibility, if needed would be US B2's from the east coast...



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Darkfalcon
French have sent their troops to crisis points all over the world and at the moment they have troops at least in Balkans, Congo, Sierra Leone...
Only reason they aren't in Iraq is that they didn't buy the WMD plot



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkfalcon1971
Hom many UN resolutions did Iraq Not comply with? How many times was Iraq given another chance? If the Invasion was not legal under a UN mandate why have'nt the USA or Britain or any other members of the coallition been dragged before the UN for an illegal war???


So you mean to say, that every war that occurs w/o a U.N. mandate is "illegal"?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Germany isn't allowed to station combat troops outside of Germany - its illegal under their consitution, following WWII.

It was amended for GWI, where non-combat troops could be stationed outside Germany. This allowed for a small force of medics to be attached to Allied forces in that conflict.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
But the laws have been amended since the 2nd Gulf War in 1991 and it is now possible to support security and military missions in compliance with UN, NATO and/or EU decisions. Otherwise the combat missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo wouldnt have been possible. Still the barriers are higher than in other countries.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Your kidding about Germany hopefully , we here have bigger problems then some war which the us can fight themselves if they start it.
At the moment we have big economic problems and no money what so ever for some foolhardy adventure that will be a lot worse than iraq.
To top things off our Bundeswehr is already engaged in a number of operations which leaves it thinly stretched so i dont think that we even have the capacity to send troops to iran.
And lastely we have here a coalition of the 2 big political partys and they will never agree on this issue because this would lead to a rift and probably new elections.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
What are France and Germany's power projection capabilities?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
What are France and Germany's power projection capabilities?

France has a carrier, and a good navy.
Germany....isnt so well off.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join