Why don't usa attack Russia or China? They are possible threath to the whole world, are they scared? It's easier to bully the small than same size, ask any schoolyard bully. I'm sick of this, something needs to be done! Where can i enlist .....

I'd just like to clarify something for people who think I'm a war mongering neocon: In one of my earlier posts, I was stating that we SHOULD NOT attack Iran, **AND** that we can't afford to. I wasn't saying money is the reason not to start another war. Fortunately somebody had the well intentioned idea of calling me a sheep and accusing me of being the source of all of America's bad foreign relations. Had it not been for them, we all would have gone along assuming I'm the devil or something.

Originally posted by jfj123

The only thing inevitable is death.

...and taxes, at least if Benjamin Franklin is to be believed.

As regards the thread title, I believe most people who say that a conflict with Iran would be disasterous for the US mean disasterous in an economical and political sense rather than purely militarily. I have little doubt that Irans military would be methodically destroyed and dismantled, although I believe it would be a much trickier proposition than either Iraq or Afghanistan provided.

The far reaching political consequences of such an action are somewhat less easy to predict however...

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Half over? We Americans saved most of Europe.

Actually most of Europe landed up in Soviet hands so putting aside who saved who that statement just isn't accurate.

You Brits while were in a good fight and I'm not bashing Brits here because they took on a tough one, You didn't even have a chance.

Britain would have bankrupt by the end of 1939 ( or 1940, i forget) with or without a war so your quite correct in stating that they could never have prosecuted a war to victory against the combined industrial might of Germany,France,Austria, the low countries, Italy and their east European allies. This is on the face of it pretty obvious.

You couldn't have defeated Germany.

And how on Earth should they have given a rather larger German population and industrial base? Even with their foreign colonies and industrial holdings the preparation for world war two simply bankrupted them...

Paton and Bradley ran over and chased the Germans right back home.

Taking a very long time and suffering heavy material losses and human casualties along the way against a largely defensive German force. The western allies would have simply failed if not for the attrition visited on the Nazi war machine by the SU and the invasion of Normandy came so late because i would in my opinion have simply failed at a earlier date.

We knocked out Germany's war making infrastructure and their will to fight.

The SU did that as the air campaign against Germany were only gaining real success against Germany proper , where the actual military goods were being manufactured, after the invasion of Normandy had started. By the time the western bomber fleets started really pounding German industry they were already running dangerously low on manpower and in fact massively EXPANDED their production in the supposed time the air campaign become really successful.

Russia moped up the rest on their front.

That is in fact what the US and Britain did in France while the SU struck the strategic blows that Germany could not sustain.

How many countries did the Allies have to run through? Allot.

Right but the territories that the SU took back from German occupation were far larger and they did this fighting the vast majority of Germany's industrial and human capacity.

How many did Russia have to push through? What maybe 4.

Maybe you should get yourself a map.

Oh and defeated Japan at the same time.

A country that lacked the ability to kill even one US citizen on the North American continent. Compared to the fighting the SU were doing they could in my opinion have taken on a few Japan's and achieved the same victory in the same time.

We might to do better to ask why the US had such a hard time prosecuting a war against a nation that had relatively little other than a large population with which to fight. To compare what the SU had to sustain while recovering from a very near defeat to what the US had to do to recover from a defeat at Pearl harbour is to admit that you have not in fact read any history books related to this topic.

Stellar

Originally posted by fweshcawfee

Originally posted by Kaliayev
Sure, America could win a conventional war against Iran. I dont think anyone would deny that.

Lots of people have denied it, otherwise I wouldn't have made this thread. Where have you been?

Maybe you aren't denying it but plenty of others emphatically have and still are.

Well, unfortunately you have been banned and so wont see my reply, but I'll write it for everyone else to see. Iran's conventional forces are, quite frankly, crap, and I wouldn't trust them to win a war against any competent foe.

But winning on the battlefield is only half the equation. This isn't the glory days of the Napoleonic Wars any more, now you have to deal with the population as well. RPG-7's, Kalashnikovs, IEDs, car-bombs and the will to fight are all you need to make any invading commander think twice about going in.

The current Iranian President is not popular. In fact, in many ways he is seen as the Bush of the Middle East. But an invasion of Iran will stoke the old patriotism. Iranians do remember the Shah, as well as the war with Iraq, had US blessing. They are, generally speaking, proud of their culture and history and their country, regardless of current politics. And while some Iranians may initially welcome an overthrow of the Shi'ite theocracy, at what cost would it be?

The Revolutionary Guard would likely remove their uniforms, create cells and walk among the civilian population while the conventional Iranian forces traded land for time. By the time US forces entered Tehran, I would expect the Revolutionary Guard to be very prepared for urban guerrilla warfare. And the longer that drags on, the more people will side with them. The longer the USA has to stay to put down the insurgency, the more it will be seen as an occupying force.

But lets take another tack. Lets assume the airstrike plan goes into effect, instead of the full invasion. OK, on one level this is safer. The Iranian air force is no real threat, despite having some cool F-14's hanging around somewhere. But if airstrikes are used, you can only destroy facilities, which are not really the problem. The scientists would likely be moved away, Iran would increase its oil output a bit and suddenly it would have brand new facilities again. So Special Forces would need to go in to either convince the scientists to defect, or to kill them.

Remember what happened the last time Special Forces went into Iran? An operation that deep in enemy territory, that complex, would have a good chance of failure, no matter how well trained the men are. Deserts are not good for choppers, for example. The division of the scientists would call for multiple teams, meaning more chance of the mission being blown. So what happens when US forces are stuck deep in enemy territory, surrounded by enemies?

Well, you could always send more men in, but then the Iranians would be preparing for that too, and before you know it, you're in a situation where you have absolutely no control over what is going on.

Attacking Iran in any way is going to cause more problems than it solves, with things as they stand. Best bet is to do nothing, wait until the Iranian public get sick of their moron President, and then deal with someone far more reasonable, in a diplomatic manner. Iran wants things, the west has things. A deal could be cut, if the offer were juicy enough.

Also, where did all this WWII rubbish appear from?

This is a wakeup call: wars are not fought like that anymore. Restructure your economy for a total war footing and you can expect an economic hammering in the international markets.

The real wars nowadays start once the conventional forces are routed. For goodness sake, this pattern has been repeating itself since Chechnya (first time around). Advances in technology allow for numerically inferior and firepower lacking forces to defeat superpowers. You could always try the Syrian method of urban warfare - bombardment until the entire city is flat - but that wont play well with the world media. Nowadays, killing civilians is a big no-no, and yet if you want to put down a popular urban insurgency, you'll have to just that.

Stopping the insurgency before it starts, just like studying the root causes of terrorism, is something that is very new and the power elites don't seem too interested in right now. But that's where the research needs to be, because otherwise the fallout from modern warfare will make wars not worth fighting, economically or in terms of human life.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Kaliayev]

[edit on 26-9-2007 by Kaliayev]

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Half over? We Americans saved most of Europe. You Brits while were in a good fight and I'm not bashing Brits here because they took on a tough one, You didn't even have a chance.You couldn't have defeated Germany. Paton and Bradley ran over and chased the Germans right back home. We knocked out Germany's war making infrastructure and their will to fight. Russia moped up the rest on their front. How many countries did the Allies have to run through? Allot. How many did Russia have to push through? What maybe 4.
Oh and defeated Japan at the same time.

Please. Go and read a history book or find some decent WW2 historical sites on the net and learn about what happened instead of posting what you think you know.

like i said idonno how many times iran wouldnt put up a good fight its the aftermath the loose weapons how thin stretched we would be in the region and the possibility that if we bombed there reactors al queada hizbullah anyone could get there hands on uranium and possibly WG uranium then that would be worse for us later on not to mention iran is friends with north korea how far can we stretch a conflict syria and lebanon might decide to get involved before they get struck and who knows who else might decide there gonna be next iran itself isnt a threat but a war with iran is a threat or at the very least a majorly complicating matter

The question isn't if we can or can't beat any country on this earth, because we can unquestionably do so. The question is can we defeat another country without , destroying the U.S. and global economy, destroying relations with other countries, going to war with multiple countries, winning with the least possible sacrifice of innocent and U.S. military lives alike. Yes, anyone who thinks anyone on earth currently can beat us in a flat out war is pretty much insane, because if we showed no humanity, we could destroy and conquer the rest of the world probably in less than a year with nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry...but that doesn't mean anything, because we will never do that unless Hitler is reincarnated as Hillary Clinton. The fact is, because we are cooperative nation in the global landscape, a war with Iran would cause us a lot of harm, both economically, politically and militarily.