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.

 

U.S. vs Iran??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I don't see why everyone seems so sure the U.S. will plow over Iran. Remember Iraq everyone? Yes I know our history books tell us that we kicked butt in the past, but that was then and this is now.

For one, we are not the only ones with nukes anymore. Even though Iran might not have them yet, I'm sure an accomidating country will lend theirs if given the opportunity. I mean think, if you're China or Russia, what do you have to lose by lending them a nuke. Its not like it leaves evidence of its country of origin behind.

Secondly, we cannot win the kind of wars we are currently fighting on foreign soil. World War II was the United States' last real global victory. Why? Why were vietnam and korea disasters? Why all the problems in Iraq and Afganistan? Winning the war in Europe was easy because all you had to do was defeat the military enemy. The people were just so glad to be rid of them. In this war we are engaged in, you have to defeat the enemy government, and then you have to deal with the citizens that hate you for blowing up their whole country. Don't let the government trick you into believing Iraqi's are glad to have Saddam gone, and welcome us with open arms. IF this were the truth, then the resistence wouldn't have so many eager reinforcements.

Looking back on history, all major empires fell in one way or another because they stretched themselves too thin, and coudln't thereby protect the empire as a whole. We're getting too big for our britches. I wish Bush would settle down so I don't have to learn Russian, Chinease, or some other language sometime in the next 15 years.




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:08 AM
link   
America would find it very dificult if they decided to attack Iran, at the first sign of trouble syria would probably come in behind iran and the iranian suporters in iraq would very likely rise and start a real cival war putting presure on what troops we had there, then you have countries like libya, egypt, saudi, turkey ect all who would be very unlikely to watch a islamic nation like iran being pwned.

basically if america did attack then there is a real chance of it esculating into WW3



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219
I wish Bush would settle down so I don't have to learn Russian, Chinease, or some other language sometime in the next 15 years.



One reason that Bush -- or whatever president is in power -- might be flex American military power is because it could possibly the last opportunity for the US to do so. It is not that difficult to foresee China overtaking the United States technologically and militarily in the next one hundred years, possibly sooner. With this in mind, the U.S. is, most likely, positioning itself for the future -- a future where the Chinese call the shots economically, militarily and, even, philosophically.

Don't dismiss the idea that you might have to learn Chinese. Personally, I would consider it a necessity to do business, travel or even exist in the not too distant future.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
China can't exist without us. We're a major trade partner to them. I'm sure they wan't to take us down but it's too risky for them. They know they'd suffer major amounts of lives lost, damage done, and hits to their economy. Not to mention major military losses. You people want to say China may over take us because their advancing economically and militarily, yeah, they are, but so are we. There's a reason we spend 500 billion dollars a year on our military. They just need to settle down and realize who the only world super power is.

As for Iran, they'd get wiped off the face of the planet pretty damn quick if they tried something. If they nuked anybody, they'd find themselves back in the stone age. No need for regime change, no need for occupation. Just one quick strike will end it all. They need to watch who their dealing with. And by the way, Turkey is an allie with us. They helped draw up plans to attack Iran, just so you know.

I'm sick of you people trying to be different and just create debate and say oh well we shouldnt mess with china or no we shouldnt mess with iran..just stfu..we're the most powerful country. end of discussion.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
I think you're delusional. The world community is not going to accept a so called wiping out of Iran like you think. By the way, how many nukes do you think it would take to put them back in the stone age? What would that do to neighboring countries? Your idea of American supremecy is just far fetched. This invincibility idea you and others seems to have is so false.

Oh, and for the record. I'm not just trying to create debate. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion. Your idea of us being the most powerful country is garbage. Yes we are still the super power, but we don't operate with just total free recklessness like you believe that we do. We would have consequences of our actions just as much as Iran would. There's no one that wants to see any country use a nuclear warhead, and you can bet we'd pay for it too even if they hit someone else first.

There's many countries that would like to see us go down. Let's not give a reason for that to happen.

mod edit: removed quote from previous post

[edit on 25-8-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I dare them to try and bring us down because I gaurentee you we could take out any country. Am I saying we wouldnt suffer damage? No. But we could take out anybody. Let's see who's our main challengers. Would anybody in Europe do it or would they even stand a chance? No way. Japan? No they have no nuclear weapons yet and even if they did, they wouldn't use them on us. Middle Eastern countries don't have the capability yet. If anybody in the middle east even came close it would be Iran. Israel couldn't and wouldn't take us out. Anybody in Africa? Ha, that's a joke. South America? Again, a joke. Canada Mexico? Lmao sure. North Korea? Not yet capable of hitting us. Any other asian countries outside of China and Russia? No. Australia? No. So that leaves us China and Russia, typical suspects.

Russia has diminished their military spending to 19 billion dollars a year. Their radar systems are out dated. Their nuclear arsenal is out dated. ACTUAL Russian military experts say that in 10 years time, if Russia continues on it's current path, the United States would be able to wipe them out completely with little resistance from Russia. Their still being emo about the fall of the USSR apparently.

So that leaves China basically. China is pretty much our main supplier of goods, which, in return, boosts their economy. If we go down, that hurts them. Sure they could get it else where but they'd still take a hit. Now, in the case of war..China doesn't have the naval capability to make a firm stance outside our borders. Little naval capability that far away means little air force. They would have to rely on ICBM's which cant reach our northeastern cities. So what you got here my friends is domination by us. We win.

mod edit: removed nested quote(s)

[edit on 25-8-2006 by sanctum]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Many experts agree that China will surpass the U.S. military in 25 years.

And I'm sorry to burst ur little dreamworld bubble Princess, but in a recent statement, the U.S.'s Asian Allies have stated that the U.S. CANNOT win a war against China.


China can't exist without the U.S.


LOL! China IS NOT 100% relied on the U.S. as most people would like to believe. The world's largest market would be hurt, but it won't collapse without the U.S.

Where do people get these ideas that China cannot exist without the U.S.? I mean seirously... I can't even believe people here on ATS can even come up with such ridiculous statements.


Both nations would suffer tremendously if it came down to war.


HOWEVER, why in the world would China or Russia help Iran fight off the U.S.A? Sure there are a few reasons, but most of you seem to forget the CONSEQUENCES. When you really think about it, the consequences of fighting the U.S. GREATLY outnumber the benefits.





[edit on 25-8-2006 by k4rupt]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219
I mean think, if you're China or Russia, what do you have to lose by lending them a nuke. Its not like it leaves evidence of its country of origin behind.

It does leave evidence. Blast radius, delivery system, and the grade of materials use can all leave signs. Plus, if Iran doesn't have tha capabilitly to build at the time of a strike, it will be obvious that they got it somewhere else.

They have everything to loose. We still have 1000s of nukes.

What does scare me though is that China has stated that any act to disrupt there natural resources will be seen as an act of war. China gets a VERY large amount of oil from Iran, and I wonder how they would look at the prospect of the US controlling that oil too. But I don't think they would supply the Iranians with any nukes, because they have no modivation for us to takeover/destroy Iran.


Secondly, we cannot win the kind of wars we are currently fighting on foreign soil. World War II was the United States' last real global victory. Why? Why were vietnam and korea disasters? Why all the problems in Iraq and Afganistan? Winning the war in Europe was easy because all you had to do was defeat the military enemy. The people were just so glad to be rid of them. In this war we are engaged in, you have to defeat the enemy government, and then you have to deal with the citizens that hate you for blowing up their whole country. Don't let the government trick you into believing Iraqi's are glad to have Saddam gone, and welcome us with open arms. IF this were the truth, then the resistence wouldn't have so many eager reinforcements.

Looking back on history, all major empires fell in one way or another because they stretched themselves too thin, and coudln't thereby protect the empire as a whole. We're getting too big for our britches. I wish Bush would settle down so I don't have to learn Russian, Chinease, or some other language sometime in the next 15 years.

There is many reasons that empires fall, it is important not to over simplify, and then equate dissimilar situations when examining history.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I hate these my war toys are bigger than yours arguments, but I heard an interesting tidbit on the radio today that might make it clearer just how powerful the US military is.

A single Ohio class submarine carries 24 trident missiles, each armed with 8 tactical nuclear warheads. Each warhead has it's own guidance system and can be sent to individual targets. That's 192 nuclear warheads in a single submarine, that can be positioned in any ocean without detection. The US Navy has EIGHTEEN Ohio class submarines. That's only about one quarter of our nuclear arsenal..

We're not just a super power, we're a super duper power.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I hate these my war toys are bigger than yours arguments, but I heard an interesting tidbit on the radio today that might make it clearer just how powerful the US military is.

A single Ohio class submarine carries 24 trident missiles, each armed with 8 tactical nuclear warheads. Each warhead has it's own guidance system and can be sent to individual targets. That's 192 nuclear warheads in a single submarine, that can be positioned in any ocean without detection. The US Navy has EIGHTEEN Ohio class submarines. That's only about one quarter of our nuclear arsenal..

We're not just a super power, we're a super duper power.


Ohio's carry strategic nuclear weapons, not tactical



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
u.s. v iran come on now, both sides have learned from the iraq debacle what the future battlefield will be. if you do not have air supremacy you must adapt to insurgent warfare. iran is smart enough to realize that they will be bombed back to the stoneage, every part of their infastructre will be destroyed. their best strategy would be to draw the enemy onto the ground where they will be able to inflict maximum damage. even better would be to draw the u.s. army into a protracted war as in iraq. the u.s. on the other hand has learned from iraq (hopefully)that you can totally destroy a country but can never tame a culturally different population. best case scenario would be to nuke the entire country and let bygones be bygones even though that is not morally correct by todays standards. nobody can stand toe to toe with the milatery might of the u.s. iran knows that the battlefield will be on its turf . so why not inflame the whole middle eastern region. to keep the hands of the u.s. and her allies full. it is in the best interest of both country's to avoid a face to face battle. although top people on both sides countinue down the path to war.


MBF

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wgatenson

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219
I mean think, if you're China or Russia, what do you have to lose by lending them a nuke. Its not like it leaves evidence of its country of origin behind.

It does leave evidence. Blast radius, delivery system, and the grade of materials use can all leave signs.


I read somewhere that they can determine the reactor and even the time/batch that the uranium or plutonium was made.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
lol

Like the U.S. could just nuke Iran and be done with it. Yeah right. Like someone already mentioned, the U.S., doesn't matter if it's a super power, or a super duper power, doesn't do anything it wants without support from other countries. I highly doubt anyone, esp. in Europe, are going to agree to having Iran "wiped off the map". lol

Yeah, the European Union (the other super power besides the U.S.) is going to stand by and watch that happen. lol

lol lol

lol

[edit on 8/27/2006 by The Crow]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
lol

Like the U.S. could just nuke Iran and be done with it. Yeah right. Like someone already mentioned, the U.S., doesn't matter if it's a super power, or a super duper power, doesn't do anything it wants without support from other countries. I highly doubt anyone, esp. in Europe, are going to agree to having Iran "wiped off the map". lol

Yeah, the European Union (the other super power besides the U.S.) is going to stand by and watch that happen. lol

lol lol

lol

[edit on 8/27/2006 by The Crow]


lol lol lol lol

lol lol lol

lol lol

lol

lol lol

lol lol lol

lol lol lol lol

lol im saying lol lol look lol lol its lol funny lol

lol lol

lol



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
lol

It just isn't the same when you do it. Sorry, pal.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakeolsen2219
I don't see why everyone seems so sure the U.S. will plow over Iran. Remember Iraq everyone? Yes I know our history books tell us that we kicked butt in the past, but that was then and this is now.


I think the major fighting would be from the air, much like in the Balkans. I don't think we would send in ground troops until we had a sufficient international force behind us.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
lol

It just isn't the same when you do it. Sorry, pal.


That's true lol

Anyway,
If US used a nuke in the middle east the rest of the world would be pissed. And I don't know how much support they will get if they decide to attack Iran. I think most countries are getting tired of supporting US invasions by now.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
America is not going to nuke Iran. Ever never. America just wants regime change. Particularly a regime that refrains from genocidal threats.........hopefully.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   
It is not in the US best interest right now to attack Iran for any given reason, right after the fiasco of Iraq.

US will let Israel do the deed . . . and If Iran fight back . . . something that they will be in their right to do so against an aggressor . . . then US will be able to step in to help but only in that order.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   


For one, we are not the only ones with nukes anymore.


It's not just having a nuke but also the means to deliver one. The truth is any country would be foolish to attack us. While Kim Jong-il is working the bugs out of his Taepodong-2 missile it would be lucky to be able to hit Hawaii from North Korea. In the meantime, we have missiles that can be lunched by Nuclear powered subs and warships which can hit any target on the planet. Not to mention the fact that the USA has military bases all over the world which is a huge strategic advantage.

The reason we have so much trouble in Iraq because our troops are trying to spare certain folks while killing others. There are many different factions and the war has effectively turned into a suicide bombing guerrila street fight. We are never going to win such a war and no country ever could.

We would be much better off turning to diplomacy and really solving this israeli-palestinian conflict once and for all.




Looking back on history, all major empires fell in one way or another


This is very true. I'm amazed at how many americans can't seem to comprehend this fact. The USA is not forever. When it's all said and done the USA might go down in history as a capitalistic state which helped to facilitate a global gov't. That is probably the best case scenario actually.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join