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.

 

A few thoughts for those who think engaging Iran militarily would be disastrous for America

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 

THAT'S RIGHT, LET'S SHOOT OUR WHOLE WAD ON ANOTHER MIDEAST DUMP. WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME? UH, NOTHING I GUESS. JOIN UP, GO FIGHT OVER THERE, HAVE A GOOD TIME.


[edit on 24-9-2007 by pc is here]




posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I don't know about winning the war, but turning their country to the stone age without nukes is very likely.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by amfirst
I don't know about winning the war, but turning their country to the stone age without nukes is very likely.



Huh?



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 


Its not about our strentgh we are spread to thin and do not have the Ground force capable of another occupation. Of coarse we could air strike the crap out of them, but thats not the point. Iran is a threat and they do need to be delt with, but that does not give us the right or logistics to start another war. right now is not the time. We should be fighting them with embargos and the UN not brut force. And frankly I don't want to be drafted becuase our president thinks he is a military strategist, and sees an occupation as a solution.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The US hardly win wars, except for Japan, so I guess u got to bomb the crap out of them until they say mercy, but that means killing innocent people. In today age, that wouldn't make us look good, so unless we bomb and keep bombing without a conscience then we may have a chance.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   
I as usual have a question. According to what I read from information on WMDs posted by the FAS, bunker buster bombs have to penetrate aproximately 265 feet of surface material before they can be detonated without throwing irradiated material into the air. Is everyone ready to irradiate the Middle East? Remember Chernobyl? I am tired of the hypotheticalities of a war anywhere particularly with Iran. We are not betting on a boxing match here. We are seriously contemplating our futures. Even if the U.S.A. wins, they lose. Catch 22. Think about what will happen morally to the few civilized people left after the economic repercussions of this. Thankyou.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
If we do invade Iran, There better be no bs, no mistakes, and none of this politically correct garbage. Bomb, get in, kill all resistance, take the oil (not buy it from a conquered nation), and move on- who's next? No occupation, just conquest and cheap oil for the American people. Shock and Awe!! When we're done, Israel can have the land to expand



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Military speaking, I don't see were this notion that we need to engage Iran armies or attacking them with nukes come from.

The objective has to be define first, either get rid of the nukes facilities, or get rid of nukes facilities and regime change, in neither of those nuclear weapons need to be used.

Those bunker buster get the job done, they might have to bomb the same target more than once but is achieveable. That why they do damage assesments after a strike, and those strikes can be launch from subs, UAV's and stealth airplanes minimizing casualties.

Now if the objective is regime change also that might be more complicated but achievable also.

The ones that think that aircraft carriers are going to be sitting ducks for Iranian torpedoes don't really have a clear idea on how the Navy employ it forces or resources, an aircraft carrier won't even come close to an area that would represent a threat, That's why they travel in fleets, and the SEALS and Navy pilots would be busy keeping the coast and waters safe.

The question that I pose is how Iran is going to deploy is forces with out being detected? there not going be a way for them to do that, how they going to resupply its forces once roads and other supply routes are cutoff? There could be simply a scenario were the U.S. Just bomb then to submission like Kosovo or first Gulf War.

Of course they could aim for Iraq and Israel with there missiles, but that will be at the beggining of the conflict and the U.S. could deal with those for 2 or 3 days, once air superiority is achieved those are easy target. As far as coming into Iraq with a large group of troops, expect those to be detected by UAV's and dealt with.

The way I see it, a war with Iran would look like pretty much the same as the first Gulf War, Iraq at that time had the best air defenses provided it by Russia, the best tanks provided by Russia, and it last them 22 days or so of sustain bombing nothing of that was standing.

Now the question becomes do we go in with troops? That will be the big problem IMO, I would say no, but if you don't go in you just have the same as in the first Gulf War, leave them to fight them a later day.

Again I'm just giving my take, not advocating in the use of force. But all this talk that Iran has the best military that money can buy is just nonsense.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
If we do invade Iran, There better be no bs, no mistakes, and none of this politically correct garbage. Bomb, get in, kill all resistance, take the oil (not buy it from a conquered nation), and move on- who's next? No occupation, just conquest and cheap oil for the American people. Shock and Awe!! When we're done, Israel can have the land to expand


Sorry for quoting the entire post but everything in this post is shocking to humans. I hope you are being sarcastic.




quote from Bunch
The ones that think that aircraft carriers are going to be sitting ducks for Iranian torpedoes don't really have a clear idea on how the Navy employ it forces or resources, an aircraft carrier won't even come close to an area that would represent a threat, That's why they travel in fleets, and the SEALS and Navy pilots would be busy keeping the coast and waters safe.


They wont be using torpedoes, they will be using anti-ship missiles. Some very good ones too.

Here is an idea! Lets not do a first strike on another country that has not attacked any of us or our allies! Lets us put our white hats on again and stop being the evil empire!



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
Militarily, technologically and economically the combined might of the United States and it's freedom loving, democracy defending allies are an invincible force that no foe or group of foes on Earth could withstand.


freedom loving, democracy defending? Do you see what is happening in this country? We have terrorists in US universities terrorizing students with tazers.

Regarding the national debt... Don't worry guys we can just nuke the rest of the world, so we won't have to pay them back.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Wizard_1988]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


Torpedoes, anti-ship missiles all of that don't serve you of nothing if you don't have the means to deploy them, I heard someone saying earlier that this things could be fire from the back of a truck! Really? And that truck would not be spotted and destroy?

All I'm saying is that in a real war scenario, Iran might cause some damage but there is NO realistic chance of them beating the U.S. military, heck I don't even know if they could beat the British, Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Saudi, Indian militaries in my military against yours showdown.

BTW as I already said, I'm just analyzing this within the military aspect of this, not the political, ethical or moral side, of course I'm not advocating war, and just trying to see or explain what the scenario will look like.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Hello all I am a noob to ATS I have been reading the forums for a long time yet just recently became a member I am a service member and this topic caught my eye because its actually an often discussed topic among my peers

I am going to say I totally agree with deesul69 and every single man and women I have ever met in the service does as well. The main problem in Iraq is rules of engagement and the fact that we are following them and the enemy are not. Our hands are tied in Iraq, have you ever tried to fight with your hands tied? One shot in the wrong direction even if your being shot at and whammy court marshal there goes your life. Iran's anti-ship weaponry is well known and the very first thing that would be done by Americas military would be to target those because our carriers are a major player in any air campaign against Iran so if we loose them we loose a large percent of our air power and we are not going to let that happen. If Russia will not step in because without involving nukes they don't stand a chance. Everyone keeps going on about nukes but face it as someone on here mentioned earlier its called MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. No modern country will use nuclear weapons on another country with nuclear weapons unless they are trying to commit suicide. It does not matter who strikes first everyone dies. period. China may have a billion or more people but as i said earlier the rules of engagement are whats holding our military back, if we stopped following the geneava convention and threw everything we had at China their losses would be so staggering in a way the human race has never before witnessed. Do not underestimate American firepower because it hasn't been to full throttle since WW2, but we still have it.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch

Torpedoes, anti-ship missiles all of that don't serve you of nothing if you don't have the means to deploy them, I heard someone saying earlie that this things could be fire from the back of a truck! Really? And that truck would not be spotted and destroy?


What if they are hidden in a bunker underground that only would be revealed at the moment of firing? How about on a civilian ship in the gulf? A fishing vessel? A modified 747 that looks like a regular airliner? Someones house? Someones garage or pole-barn? A building that looks like a restaurant?

I just wanted to point out you are not thinking.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by squirrelmasta
Do not underestimate American firepower because it hasn't been to full throttle since WW2, but we still have it.


We were at full throttle in ww2 because we stopped manufacturing machines for the civilian sector and everything was going to the war effort.

Short of retooling our manufacturing base and turning it into a war machine and instituting the draft we are nearly at full throttle right now.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


I understand your point, but please understand mine, Iran might cause some damage, but has no chance of wining in combat with the U.S. military, the U.S. Generals knows what they have, they probably know where is it too, we have Awacs, as soon as they turn they radars on we are going to be there in 5 minutes that what air superiority is all about.

Is not going to be a flawless fight, but the end result is going to be the same.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Bunch]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:16 PM
link   

We were at full throttle in ww2 because we stopped manufacturing machines for the civilian sector and everything was going to the war effort.


Industry wise yes we are near capacity but firepower wise we are not, during WW2 we could also pound a city into dust and then move in shooting everything that moved. We are not allowed to do that anymore. It doesnt matter whether or not you have a stick or a laser-railgun-death-ray gun if your not allowed to use it its not very useful.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FaxMachine
I can guarantee that all your carrier groups would sink in the first day, this is well known fact that all military strategist agree on. I would like to see your patriot system's trying to fight against superior Russian missile tech (Also proven fact that russians are far ahead with missile tech).

I'm waiting this war really badly, i'm sorry i feel this way and it is quite brutal and idiotic i must say. I just can't wait to see USA getting hurt.


You have to love these anti-Americans out there, no sense at all, at least no common sense. What military strategists? Show me the stories where that statement is fact. When you say all military strategists you just prove your incompetent. PROVE IT! I dare you to prove that statement. All I need to do is find one analyst and your wrong. Be careful what you say. People making statements like that should not be allowed to post things on here.

Ignorance is catching! Your spreading your disease with every word you utter.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by squirrelmasta

Industry wise yes we are near capacity but firepower wise we are not, during WW2 we could also pound a city into dust and then move in shooting everything that moved. We are not allowed to do that anymore. It doesnt matter whether or not you have a stick or a laser-railgun-death-ray gun if your not allowed to use it its not very useful.


As true as your statement is, it goes both ways, if Iran decides to engage in a guerilla tactics only war, it will be a matter of time between command and control structures become so degraded that they won't even know what's going on, not to mention supply routes going dry eventually starving themselves and you know what happen when Iraqis soldiers were left to starve because supplies routes were decimated in the first Gulf War, they started to surrender by the thousands, and if they decide to fight in the open it will decimated more quickly.

Iran had two really bad options to decide, may be a combination of the two but at the end is only going to prolong the inevitable, meaning defeat.

Does anyone here really thinks realistically that Iran has any chance to defeat the U.S. in a war?

And I want to repeat myself again I just discussing the military aspect of it. The war scenario itself as horrible as it might be I think is worth discussing.

I just look at all the possibilities and as much as I look I don't even think it will be much of a fight unless we decide to go with the regime change crap, meaning putting troops on the ground. That will mean another long occupation and we all know how that goes.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The last post was very sarcastic. It seems if I put a post like that up first, it scares off some of the crybabies. They gasp and turn off the pc to watch a lifetime special. Iran will be no problem for the American military. Iran's defenses will most likely fall within 3 days, pretty much as American war planners state. It may take a little longer, maybe give it a week, but we probably won't have to break too much of a sweat. In reference to an earlier post, about anti-ship missiles, The US carrier groups (not to mention the entire US Military network) have the best radar and defense systems known to man (they're completely automated). Not to mention the directed energy weapons that can burn anything Iran can launch right out of the sky. These are talked about all the time on Discovery/History/Military channels. If these defenses are talked about on national telivision, what do you think their true capabilities are, or the capabilities of the classified systems which haven't been used, or disclosed yet? Iran doesn't even have the infrastructure to refine their own oil, yet you beleive they stand a chance militarily against the mighty USA? Occupation after war and the international repercussions will be the major issues the US will have to face after engaging Iran. It's being said that North Korean materials were shipped to Syria, and with Iran and Syria's relationship, Maybe Bush isn't full of crap. These nations have hated and plotted against the US for years, and it's finally all coming to a head. Hopefully diplomacy will make a comeback and work.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
fweshcawfee, I think it is you that are deluded, and caught in the moment of neo-conservative diatribe. But that won't last very long. Bush's failures will ensure the Republicans are defeated in the next elections.

I am not anti-American, far from it, but you fail to see the whippings America has taken since the end of WW2. Vietnam, Bay Of Pigs and most recently Iraq. You deliriously suggest that the war in Iraq has been won but you are ignorant of the fact that whilst a second rate army was defeated there, America is left in an absolute quagmire. Deaths and maimings to your soldiers are an absolute waste, with no goal that can be acheived, and $3 Trillion of money that America doesn't have, absolutely wasted, for yet again, no desired result.

See the truth for what it really is. Iran's army is much more capable than the rag-tag misfits of Saddam's feddayin. Iran has missiles that can put your aircraft carriers to the bottom of the Persian Gulf and they are willing to sacrifice a million men and women to stave off an invasion, even if it only means killing 5 000 opponents.

Iran cannot win a war against Israel/USA, but it sure as hell can do a large amount of damage. Remember these people in Iran are fighting under the supposed jurisdiction of God and they will fear nothing and will not fear losing material wealth.

America is the one with all to lose, especially if China and Russia oppose military action. A precluded war between the USA and China/Russia would see the destruction of America. America relies too much on satellites. They are the eyes, ears and heart of the American military. Put them out of business and America is left to fight a war blind. It becomes logistically incompetent.

Russia is becoming wealthy again. It has all the infrastructure in place to build up a modern offensive military. They are the Kings of research and development. China are the Kings of manufacturing. You have them working side by side and you've got one ominous enemy.

America will need to be close to the UK, Australia, Israel, Germany and Japan. Because as much as I hate to see it, a new Cold War will take place soon. You can see it happen progressively now, bit by bit. Without the assistance of these nations in the future, America will not be the dominant power that it is today I can assure you.

I hope that once Hillary Clinton gets elected as the next President, sanity can return to America's foreign policy, and she undoes the damage that the clowns of the Bush Administration has caused.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join