Who would win the war? need your help :)

For the people who insisit that the US troops are stretched thin.........total US forces number around 2.3 million (active), Right now you see the National Guard stretched thin...no other branch is 'stretched'.

Another note: In 1990 Iraq had the world's 4th largest military......we all know what happened to that.......

Most importantly.......it's not the people of Iran that's the problem, it's the fact that the government is run by 7 (or is it 9) mullahs. Nothing happens without their say-so. Irans president answers to them.

Prior to this new 'elected' president, Irans culture was very westernized...now they are starting to loose what 'freedoms' they had.....I see a possible overthrow of Iran from the inside.

Other wise.......it would be no contest........I'm not saying the US wouldn't have any losses......I'm sure we would, but the US is on the forefront of technology and have the best trained military in the world.

Russia & China would not get involved (directly)....it would be more like afganistan in the '80's....a war between the US, China & Russia...but using other players.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by ferretman2]

This might seem like a silly question, but how exactly do you win? WHAT do you win?

You roll into Iran, kill a whole bunch of their Army regulars, maybe some civilians by accident, and also a lot of American soldiers.

You stop Iran from pursuing nuclear technology, at the cost of how much money and lives? You somehow GUARANTEE that your country will now be safe from any Iranian aggression for how long? A year? Two years? Ten?

And after this invasion, everybody just shakes hands and claps each other on the back and goes back to their wives and children?

You say, "Well we've protected ourselves from a possible nuclear attack from Iran by invading them before they got the bomb, so now everything is hunky-dory?"


So, exactly how does that NOT tell other "fence-sitting" countries that if they want to avoid U.S. invasion they need to get nukes ASAP, and maybe keep them secret.

I just don't get it, I guess. To be afraid of Iran when nobody else in the world but Israel is (as they probably should rightly be), seems alarmist and maybe a little cowardly.

So if anybody can define how the USA can actually "win", and what that metric is based on, I would be happy to hear it.

-j

"If the goal was to take over and then occupy Iran, id say any opposing force would lose, as every occupation in history has ultimately failed. "

We are still in Japan, right?
Germany too I beleve, so occupation can be successful, yet I do agree that it is a hazardous proposal at best.
The best option is to simply bomb them into the darkages. (I dont mean nukes)
Then if they act up, do it again.
The more bombs we use, the more we need, the more we need the more people go to work and the better the economy is.
No I'm not saying go to war because of that. Just showing one side to the equation.


I think the US would win hands down if the Liberals would let us. That is the question as now there is so much anti-war, anti-american sentiment that the pressure on the Gov. is tremendous.
If the Democrats get into office, we will do nothing and then pay the price with more death and bombings.

The reason we would is at stated previously, simply, technology, and resourses.

America
1.More land = more people= more people in the army than Iran.
2.We have better war tech and more nukes.

Originally posted by Shooter_99
America
1.More land = more people= more people in the army than Iran.
2.We have better war tech and more nukes.

Quantity will never beat quality.

Just imagine if there had been three machine gun nests on Napoleon's side at Waterloo, he would have taken a lot more down with him, you know?

Iran has a weapon that will beat the US every time, religious extremeism.

Once Iran sees that the US is going to do anything, they could just pick up the phone and half way across the world, a guy could walk into a restaurant and blow it up. Suicide bombers are the best guided missles. They have almost unlimited range, are accurate to whatever you want them to be, and can be "armed" with just about any payload. Biological suicide bombers would be the worst, because they could just walk back to a kitchen, spit in a hundred people's food, and go from there.

I don't see that either would win a war. If I had to choose the one that would benefit more, I would choose Iran in the long-term. It would be helped to rebuild just like Japan and Germany were after the US bombed the living snot out of them in WWII, and 30-40 years later, Japan had an economic boom, and is now a powerhouse in electronics and cars. And Germany is fairing just as well, at least I think they are. I'm not saying that Iran would be just like them, but it could be a similar situation.

That's saying if we were to even handle Iran as nothing more than a hot potato, tossing it to the UN to say "Here ya go! Time to prove that you are worth all that money." Now I'm not saying the UN is worthless, but that it really has not done what it was meant to do, prevent war.

I know I know to much to ask when you have us Americans pushing the trigger button, but the UN really needs to get a backbone, and start saying no, and (man I can't believe I'm saying this) threaten the US with censoring or worse, booting out of the UN!

The US has become too much of a powerhouse in the world, and we really need to realize this and start diffusing some of this power throughout the world. Just imagine if ET were to come and blow up the US, that would put a kink in people's plans.

Yeah, I am sure that that will never happen though, cause the US supplies a great deal of money and troops for them.
----

As for the occupation of Germany and Japan. Let me put it simply, the world WANTED us to occupy Germany, to keep them from making another comeback. As for Japan, it was much the same story, except the world pretty much didn't care, so by not saying anything, they endorsed it.

Iraq (and Iran for that matter would be) is a different sotry altogether. Sure there are many countries that are ok with occupation, but there seems to be just as many that are against it.

At least that is how I see it.

[edit on 4/25/2006 by Sir Solomon]

Originally posted by Sir Solomon
Quantity will never beat quality.

Just imagine if there had been three machine gun nests on Napoleon's side at Waterloo, he would have taken a lot more down with him, you know?

Iran has a weapon that will beat the US every time, religious extremeism.

[edit on 4/25/2006 by Sir Solomon]

What if you have Quality and Quantity?

Who is to say that the U.S. doesn't have the three machine guns in your analogy right now if it came down to knock down drag out take no prisoners warfare?

Fanaticism only gets you so far. The Japanese were quite fanatical by the End of WWII, what did it get them?

Good question DigitalGrl. I would just add, how many ways can we prevent war with Iran or any other nation?

Originally posted by pavil
Fanaticism only gets you so far. The Japanese were quite fanatical by the End of WWII, what did it get them?

Ok, get this. Japan is an island. Iran isn't. Japan was attacked by a new "wonder weapon" that broke the will of the government after almost a year of bombing raids before. Iran wouldn't be so easy a nut to crack because it has it's own oil, has borders with many other countries, allies across the middle east (if not with governments than with the people), and has the terrain that would prove to be a thorn in any invader's side.

If Iran wanted to attack a base in Iraq (or Afghanistan) that was being used to attack Iran, they could just send a suicide bomber across the border. Sure, it's not the fastest way to do something, but it does have a good chance to succeed when the US can't guard two borders (Iraq and Afghanistan).

Fanaticism in this case (Iran not being an island, but instead a continental country) is an asset that can and will be used, and anyone that doesn't see that as a problem, well, I'll just stop there.

I'm not saying that a war with Iran couldn't be won by the US. I'm just saying that Iran would have to be nuked to the point where nothing could live there, and I don't think anyone would be that stupid (no not even Bush) as to nuke one of (if not the number one) the top oil reserve countries on the planet.


[edit on 4/25/2006 by Sir Solomon]

Originally posted by ferretman2
For the people who insisit that the US troops are stretched thin.........total US forces number around 2.3 million (active), Right now you see the National Guard stretched thin...no other branch is 'stretched'.
[edit on 25-4-2006 by ferretman2]

Our National Guard isn't so green anymore now is it ?

So what's the Active Duty up to while our National Guard is holding down the fort in Iraq ?

Iran
1. Nukes
2. Radicals

USA:
1. Superior Weaponary and Technology
2. Highly trained soldiers

If we're talking about Iran invading the USA - Iran would be lucky to get close to the boarder.

USA invading Iran would be difficult, but not impossible. Casualties would probably be around 50,000 assuming they invaded Iran.

As for nwomi's post you are wrong for the following reasons:
1. Iran DOES NOT HAVE nukes.. yet.
2. Radical muslims only work well in an insurgency playground. Army on army the radicalism does not matter because the US troops will see an enemy combatant and shoot. Rather than a civillian with a hidden bomb in his car or under his shirt.

It will be a messy war but but the USA is the likley winner. Iran may have the terrain etc but terrain is no match for a stealth bomber or a highly trained spec ops team. I think Air power and special ops teams are all the US and Israel are likley to use. It will get thier job done. Possibly even an assasination of the President of Iran would come into play.

Its a funny question because I cant actually see a war being fought in any traditional sense. We have learned from Iraq that the Insurgencies like to fight a dirty battle that involves suprise attacks over a stretch of time.

Iran wont ever stop squeeling like Iraq but when it comes to taking over the country of Iran i have my money on the fact that it wouldnt take longer than a month. The US has its problems, but the military is INCREDIBLE

[edit on 26-4-2006 by nephyx]

The answer is clear as night and day. If america went to war with Iran I think the winner is obvious. The U.S. would make sure any bomb dropped would win the war, no doubt in my mind. However I dont see the world surviving for more than 10 years after the first nuke is dropped. So the answer is NO ONE wins.

Ok, get this. Japan is an island. Iran isn't. Japan was attacked by a new "wonder weapon" that broke the will of the government after almost a year of bombing raids before. Iran wouldn't be so easy a nut to crack because it has it's own oil, has borders with many other countries, allies across the middle east (if not with governments than with the people), and has the terrain that would prove to be a thorn in any invader's side.

Iran has ZERO refining capacity, that’s right ZERO. They IMPORT refined products (gas, diesel, kerosene.) so despite their oil, they couldn’t sustain a conventional conflict nor could they sustain a shutdown of the SOH. Not that they could do it though.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by El Tiante]

If I were planning a war against the US, I wouldn't even bother building any kind of refineries or anything, because those are among the first targets for US bombs.

I'm not saying it would be at all that simple. Japan had little to no refining capability by the end of the war, yet they were still training citizens to charge and dive under tanks with hand grenades.

Oil doesn't have to have anything to do with the war for Iran. It would be insanity to try to mount an armored defense with US A-10s, Predators, and Apaches running around. For Iran the smartest would be to have built massive underground tunnels, just like the Japanese did on the islands like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Now building a tunnel system through the whole country would be insane, but if you built them at strategic points, you would make it hard on the US military to move forward without sustaining heavy losses.

And we all know that the American public has no stomach anymore for heavy losses, or losses in general it seems. Iran should use this to their advantage. The longer, bloodier defense they put up, the harder it will be to keep up American support, which is, imo, actually almost non-existant as is. People aren't caring whether Iran has nukes, we are caring more for oil to curb our "addiction".

Our National Guard isn't so green anymore now is it ?

So what's the Active Duty up to while our National Guard is holding down the fort in Iraq ?

Good Question........

The national Guard is being used as they would in the states (if they were called upon).

The Amry, Marines and soforth are used to attack and destroy....not police work.

I would not be surpurised if there is a secret build up of forces in Iraq, Afganistan and Turkey for a potential conflict with Iran. Those forces along with the navy to the South and the Air force in every location would literally have Iran 'cut off' should hostilities occur. Let alone any other nation which is invloved. Currently France, Germany, Russia & China are not happy with Irans actions....though I see China abstaining from any SC vote....Russia may decide to 'ally' with the west on this one.

One has to remember that alot of southern russian territories have large muslim populations and with Iran having nuclear weapons it could threaten Russias control.
Russia was not happy about losing the western block nations and I think they'd be more reluctant to lose more.

I have to disagree with you Ferretman2 russia stated that they will not make any choices right now until there is proof :

news.bbc.co.uk...

Russia will not support sanctions against Iran unless the IAEA provide evidence that there is a weapons program.

But i do agree with you that america is preparing a "plan" to invade Iran from Afghanistan,Iraq and Turkey if they ever need too.

But we must also be prepared for the Iranians cutting american forces off i would be very surprised if Iran didn't have "sleeper" cell type guerilla/commando's in Iraq and Afghanistan and other surrounding countries armed with heavy man portable weapons such as rockets, mortors, Shoulder launched surface to air missiles, Anti tank rockets (RPG's), Wire guided anti-tank missiles, Shaped charge mines, Anti-tank blast mines etc...

They could easily target bases/bareks in surrounding countries with mortor,rocket attacks causing massive casulties.

Also about America having it's airforce in surrounding countries I think America would have to use Aircraft carriers for air support becuase i belive Iran will hit the runway's in surrounding countries with its long range missiles especiallythe one's cluster warheads to damge the runway's making them unuseable.

The american's i belive will try a marine invasion from the bottom of Iran with marines and special forces if they actually try to inavde and send jungle/mountain warfare troops from the mountain region that conects Iran to Iraq from Iraq and i belive they will use "blackhawk" and other helicopters for fast troop transport across the mountain region unless Iran places Rapiers in the mountain region set to IR and EO passive detection to take care of the helicopters and uses calymore mines in the mountain region to stop mass troop invasion through the thick and heavy forests.