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.

 

US Military analyst states what is needed to Invade IRAN !

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Just somethin I came across via rense.com that I thought you guys might find interesting. McInerny states the follwing which is just a small exerpt from



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.


Pretty bloody scary eh? He also goes on to say that if the US Military machine only aerial bombs Irans nuclear facilities there would be no way of verifying their destruction, almost necessitating a ground invasion to confirm destruction aswell as to supress any sort of terrorist counter attack.

Hold on to your tush, we're going with Bush.

Do you think the American people will allow him to pull this one off, knowing that it could more realistically bring the war and destruction to the US's front door than Al-Qaeda evber could?

Melbourne_Militia

mod edit:
Quote Reference (review link)
Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ** (review link)
Please use this in future to cut down the length of your link, as long url's can alter the width of the page.
Or alternatively you can use: [url= www.urlhere.com] link name here[/url]
A good walkthrough to explain in more detail is www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">ATTN: Image Size Guidelines

[edit on 25-4-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
agree it will take an combined massive air and naval strike to take out TEHRAN's "known nuclear sites"

but..... the key to all of this is the "US intelligence" on were exactly everything is?

there still is a large # of "unknown" underground bunkers and factors to play in before anything goes down

the US have stated that TEHRAN's program is highly complex and is spread over 2,000 sites of layers and layers installations to were if one is taken out another can take its place

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
)

in 98 the US launched air strike against a certain grumpy old man and missed most of its marks, they played for it in 2001. try again in 02 and the book is still out

if your going take out TEHRAN, just make you do it right the 1st time!, and not just go in half cocked!

because you don't want 2 know what will happen if they miss.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
It's impossible that they could wipe out all of the installations in 2 days. Even in 2 days, Iran can launch major strikes against Israël and american interest in the middle-east hours after the first strike. Their military are ready so they would react really fast, they would help the Iraq resistance to fight the american invader.

And also the simulation of an attack of Iranians installations predicted almost 3 millions of iranians deads... if nothing occurs after... so with the clash of Iran/Israël/USA, there would be at least another 1 million deads and if nukes goes off... we can only hope for peace or no-reaction from others nuke-armed countries.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Do we really want to start throwing nukes around like dodgeballs? I dont and i sure as heck hope there arent a lot of people that do.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Please have a look at this paper written by Professor Paul Rogers of The Oxford Research Group, titled 'IRAN: Consequences of A War'
They also did a paper on the possible outcomes of an Iraqi conflict and were quite accurate. The possibilities they show for Iran can be certain possibilities, and all of them seem to be a lose-lose situation for everyone all around.




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...


Just shouting for nuking people or even invading can make us pay a price 20x what it would be worth if it actually happens. Its not going to be as simple as it may appear to be even if we (USA) are superior in certain areas. If you are complaining now about Gas prices, imagine if the price goes to 10.00 a gal or 15.00 a gal. Who then will be the victor? Not us! Maybe EXXON will have a trillion dollar profit year with those kind of numbers. They are stockpiling oil just for the occasion Im sure! At 3 year old prices! We can be set back to horse and buggy days again. Imagine how much it will cost to ship a package? Go on vacation? Those 99.00 one way fare sales will be a thing of the past. No more 50.00 to fill your tank! 200.00 easy. Truckers that deliver your food , Bakers that deliver your bread, farmers that use machinery to gather their crops, all will raise prices just to pay for gas and fuel. Even propane will shoot sky high since that too is trucked around....a barbecue for 100.00 for a tank of propane may not be too far off. Think with your head and not with your fists and guns on this.


Pie



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

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.


agree

my intend was not 2 compare IRAQ 2 IRAN really and i agree for the most part that IRAN would be a much more of challenge(nightmare
) and would require more man power than i stated

i only said 250,000 in an joking manner as a starting ball park figure because really no ones at this point and because also some US war planners had been quoted of stating that, that would be the # needed 2 go in successfully 4 invasion in IRAN



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Let's not forget.. that in 1991 we heard many MANY stories of these 'legendary' bunkers Saddam Hussein had, hiding his dangerous chemical weapons and his nuclear facilities.. I don't recall actually getting any evidence of them. And when the second gulf war came, the WMD's they were supposed to find weren't there either. Personally, I won't believe anything about the middle east that comes from the Western media anymore. I believe Iran's leader is a dictator and wants a war with the US and Israel yes, however the US always plays up the threat to seem 'urgent' to get what they want, with their current Uranium enriching process Iran can't have nuclear capabilities for at least a decade. Unless russia helps them substantially, I suppose that makes them terrorists as well?

Because if we're to call anyone who's against the US an enemy, well before long they'll have 90% of the world as enemies.

Nuclear war is bad, very bad, conventional war is bad enough.. but how a civilised person would even contemplate using a nuke is beyong me. Just check out Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, massive areas of the earth where no one can go anymore. Not for another 10000 years anyway.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Melbourne_ Militia what part of melb you from mate. Im a western suburbs boy myself (Footscray) live up on the gold coast now days though



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I agree the terrain is difficult for armor but thats all the more better for terrain masking which increases the surviveability of conventional AC not to mention it makes altitude gaps in radar coverage.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Actually,

Combined Arms enabled Armor did very well in the first 8-10 weeks of Saddam's campaign. After which he pulled a Dunkirk and sat still until Tehran could organize the IRG response.

Iran has a mountainous interior but it's borders, especially on the East are not particularly difficult to penetrate and it's coastal plains are so channelized that it becomes almost impossible to move forces into a blocking position to prevent a rollup action.

Add to this that the Iranian's lost some 50-60% of their conventional forces in their foolish 1980's overcommitment to PGW-I and have /only replaced/ about 35% of that loss. And they become easy to view as a paper tiger growling for all they are worth until they can come up with the systems to leverage their nuclear saber rattling into reality.

Such is is the truth behind a 20 BILLION dollar expenditure on foreign arms purchases from 1996-1999. And a 600 MILLION dollar equivalent thereafter to 2003.

The only thing the Arabs (or Persians) respect is power. And it has been our weakness in Iraq that has substantively destroyed that perceived image as The Righteous Indignance of a nation consumed with rage over 9/11.

NEVER underestimate that 'presented face' value of intimidation.

Myself, I also think junior is vastly overstating the amount of effort needed to destroy Iran's capabilities -as a function of- leadership.

Because if you pop the Iranian Parliament _as it sits_ and then tell them /after/ Bushehr fires up that they have 5 days to begin dismantling it or you will splatter the region with fallout, they will be in a decap position from which further Mouse-Roars FOCUS of command doctrine will be very hard to summon.

THAT in turn being the key to destroying /Iran's Image/. As an 'old power' forced to kneel in humility by her own actions in disestablishing that capability which she sought usurp a younger one with.

Myself, I have always known that Iran is the true money'd source of terror in the Middle East and beyond and has been since 1982 at least. I believe that doing nothing (which is effectively what 'diplomatic means' appeasement is about in a world where hostile outside powers willing to trade in hard currency for just about anything is the norm) will not lead to peace, only a perception that Iran can take the 'next step' (past Nuclear Shahab) towards probably evicting the USN from the region.

OTOH, I don't see Iran as being detoothed by simply obliterating her missile force (the easiest to see and reach). I see her going towards unconventional nuclear delivery and then 'daring us' to prove (isotopically) where it came from.

The question then becomes whether NOT attacking the overt means of nuclear force will prevent proliferation of nuclear arms to the terrorist world. And frankly, I don't see U.S. being any safer for want of restraint. If only because of the writer's own admission of 'governmental mutability'.

Hmmmm...

1. IRG PCI Minute Men.
Cum Git Sum. As long as suitcase nukes are not in the mix, they will do nothing but lose. Indeed, I would prefer to see the Iranians try-try-try and fall on their noses as an overt act against a neutraly postured USN fulfilling an offshore CSAR and sanctuary airspace function (as a decoy effort at most). Armilla Worked. Earnest Will Worked. Any /successful/ attack on Iranian shipping should be responded to in-like-kind with direct attacks on her oil production. Along with isolation from China and Russia by the most brutally physical interdiction.
2. Terrorist Attacks.
1 will get you 100. 10 will get you 1,000. Additively and Summatively. (Civillian for Civillian deaths). The only way to deal with animals is to destroy the home-and-hearth by which they generate logistic viability anyway and we certainly owe noone 'mercy' as they have come to see it as weakness. Let 9/11 not be forgotten by those who cheered.
3. Oil Costs.
Will be the real determinator of our Foreign Policy. It doesn't pay Iran to attack West Gulf interests because this puts her at risk of isolation repudiation by fellow Muslims. And because once we hit 100 bucks per barrel, we have nothing left to lose in mowing them like grass.
4. Initial Death Toll/Sortie Statistics.
I figure closer to 500 or less in a series of raids by 50-60 aircraft and 150-500 CM in a distributed package system more akin to El Dorado Canyon or (initial) Allied Force efforts than anything remotely similar to Desert Storm.
5. Surprise.
Not necessary. Air doctrine is built on rolling waves of jamming and border-crash tease plays that maps the EOB (go to war frequencies etc.) and desensitizes the threat response curves as a function of sortie generation. Especially with limited coastal depth, killing the IADS could occur over /days/ of lofted-missile ramp up. Before ever the first aircraft went over the beach. Indeed, such could be the very best form of "Ready, Set, DIE!" hard diplomacy.


KPl.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
We will go where AIPAC and PNAC want us to go. There is no allowance from the American public for any of this. We are a steered power now. Perle, Wolfowitz , Kristol and Feith just flick the "Bobblehead Bush" and the controlled media nods in agreement.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
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?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   

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?

Well, here is a good strategy, how about everyone go hybrid and boycott OPEC?

OPEC's greatest power is oil, if people stop buying oil from them, guess what happens? The middle eastern countries part of OPEC go back to being the desert scenes that they always were.

Stop importing oil from OPEC, OPEC goes down. OPEC's purpose is basically to use oil as a factor to control the western world, I say, be more responsible, buy hybrids, that way America and her allies can supply their own oil, they don't need OPEC. And America is one of the largest suppliers of oil in the world. Although this is overshadowed by how much we import.

Now prices will not go that high because oil will be in shortage, prices will go that high because companies want people to think that their is a shortage, that way the less people use gas, the more there is for later. Conservation. Money controls America. As president Coolidge put it "America's buisness is Buisness".

It really is all very simple, it's just that 95 percent of the American public refuses to accept the simplicity. They want an alternative, they want to continue living their fullfilling lives the way they are, nothing wrong with it, but there is a time when you do need to move on. Change now, is the most important thing. Just keep in mind, there are ways.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

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.


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!



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
hahahaha and couple this thread with the one were special forces have been said to be operational inside Iran and this is starting to smell like trouble.... and trouble smells like burning Iran...... wow talk about making me salivate with joy!!....not.

OK they have a nuke, they need to get that nuke, so why not use the goose and gander method? whats good in a threat to Israel is good for use on Iran...at least it would be very very very short war.

Click....

BOOM....

Finished.....

Click..... BOOM....just to shut syria up....



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

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!


No you don't.

The only countries to have a 'No first use policy' regarding the release of nuclear weapons are India and China.

If both stick to it and simultaneously maintain a balance of conventional strike capability, the chances a nuclear showdown or even any high intensity, long duration conflict are almost none. Weapons of mass peace!



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
In regards to the comment concerning Oil from Iran, since the US does not get a drop of oil from Iran I fail to see how this is a direct threat to the US. If anything it is a threat to China, and other nations that do get their oil from Iran which would raise costs which in turn would make oil prices go up everywhere. SO that said yes that is a weapon to use against the US, but it would also go against everyone else as well, including hurting Iran.

Now as for any fighting, if you are talking about a straight up conventional war, the US is far superior to Iran, and the US would win. But we should also discuss what would constitute a win for the US. Obviously occupation of Iran is not needed. The US does not need to occupy all of Iran to win a war with Iran. We need to take certain key points and hold them, and use our overwhelming Air Power to and long range artillery and other weapons to hold back any attacking forces. The US also would likely target the mullahs, after all they hold the power in Iran, Armanass is just a loud mouth figurehead. Take out the leadership which isn't really all that popular in Iran, and limit the civ. losses, and a change in Govt. becomes an opp. for the reformers in Iran to take charge.

As for the terrain of Iran, sorry guys but there is no terrain in Iran that we don't have in the US. Plus we have trained troops in europe and they have moutains there as well. So I do not worry so much about terrain being some major obstacle.

Right now I think the smartest thing the US could do, and with Bush in office it most likely won't happen, but the US should prepare for war, get all our systems in place and everything ready to roll, but not take any action. Let the EU push what they want in the UN, and let sanctions be imposed, and then wait for Iran to make the first miltary move. If they attack first, then it helps the US. I mean there are many in the US who recall 79 and if Iran is the aggresor, just like Saddam was in 91, then there will be more Public support for another war.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join