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.
Link
What would an effective military [attack on Iran] look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.... This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points.
Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. A B-2 bomber, to give one example, can drop 80 of these 500-pound bombs independently targeted at 80 different aim points.
This force would give the coalition an enormous destructive capability, since all the bombs in the campaign feature precision guidance, ranging from Joint Direct Attack Munitions ... to laser-guided, electro-optical, or electronically guided High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles ... for suppression of Iranian surface-to-air missiles. This array of precision weapons and support aircraft would allow the initial attacks to be completed in 36 to 48 hours.
Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
a ground invasion would be possible "if' the US wasn't already committed elsewhere(an invasion in IRAN would take a ground force of 250,000+ to be successful something the US do not have at their disposal unless they go 2 the extremes an issue the draft )
This briefing paper, written by our Global Security Consultant, Professor Paul Rogers, provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive.
An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further.
www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk...
Executive Summary
An air attack on Iran by Israeli or US forces would be aimed at setting back Iran’s nuclear programme by at least five years. A ground offensive by the United States to terminate the regime is not feasible given other commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be attempted. An air attack would involve the systematic destruction of research, development, support and training centres for nuclear and missile programmes and the killing of as many technically competent people as possible. A US attack, which would be larger than anything Israel could mount, would also involve comprehensive destruction of Iranian air defence capabilities and attacks designed to pre-empt Iranian retaliation. This would require destruction of Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities close to Iraq and of regular or irregular naval forces that could disrupt Gulf oil transit routes.
www.iranbodycount.org...
Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
a ground invasion would be possible "if' the US wasn't already committed elsewhere(an invasion in IRAN would take a ground force of 250,000+ to be successful something the US do not have at their disposal unless they go 2 the extremes an issue the draft )
The U.S. had a force of over 250,000 men when they attacked Iraq in the First Iraq War. That was certainly sufficient for that war but we're talking about attacking Iran. I don't believe for one minute that you can equate Iraq's army with that of present day Iran. Furthermore, Iran is a country five times the size of Iraq and the terrain and climate are far more varied than Iraq.
To carry out a land invasion of Iran would probably require far more men than the 250,000+ you suggest. Furthermore, as Iran's terrain is far more mountainous, you can consider that armour would not be able to play as great a role as it did in Iraq -- a country whose desert plains were practically designed for large armoured assaults.
A ground assault into Iran would be a tacticians nightmare and, as such, any ground forays into Iran would certainly require far more consideration than they obviously gave to the Invasion of Iraq.
Originally posted by Wembley
Now let's just put our shiny toys down for a minute.
Iran's biggest weapon is oil, which is also the US's biggest weakness. Unless you deal with that, the rest is futile.
How many friends will the US have in OPEC if an attack goes ahead? How much can you afford for a barrel of oil?
Originally posted by Laxpla
I would say, pull out of Iraq, screw them. I would make it look like Iran laucnehd a nuke, so we can just nuke them.
Originally posted by urmomma158
You double posted just to let you know. Nuke em?!?!? Dont we have a no nukes first policy i say we nuke them lightly (ACM 129's) just to give ema sample hehehehe!