posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 08:53 PM
Having those forces available certainly allows for a wide range of options.
Still, I believe my point remains valid. Here are some of the requirements for just one possible primary objective:
1- Air strike to destroy nuclear facilities.
To do this we need the following:
= suppression of enemy air defenses, requiring strikes on radar sites, radar control sites, airfields, command and control centers, SAM sites, AAA
= attaining air superiority - at least locally; strikes on airfields, munition storage sites, fuel storage sites, C&C centers; direct air-to-air
engagements, and support to a-a missions
= ensuring adequate targets identification - supposedly done prior to initiation of the air campaign, but would need updates as new information
becomes available and BDA is updated - preferably as close to real-time as possible
= targets strikes - multiple attack formations, at a large number of required target sites, ensuring safe ingress-egress procedures, while all
aircrews utilize the proper attack ammunition and strike procedures, carried out under significant duress, while maintaining IFF procedures to avoid
friendly fire incidents across the attack theater of operations
= protection against retaliatory measures, including:
** surface-to-surface attacks against A) carriers and support armada, B) friendly forces in neighboring areas, C) regional friendly sites,
including cities, oil storage depots, dams, oil transfer sites (ground, shore-to-ships, and seaborne targets, such as supertankers loaded with oil, D)
attacks on Israel, to attempt to broaden the scope of the conflict
** air-to-surface atttacks - same targets, but from aircraft, ranging from attack formations to individual aircraft on near-suicide missions
** seaborne attacks from surface warships, fast-attack boats, submarines
** terrorist attacks, in the immediate region, but possibly even using any cells located anywhere in the world, just for the purpose of
attempting to broaden the horizons of the theater and to "pay back" the attacking countries, and any nations felt to be supporting the attack
All of this is what I can come up with off the top of my head. The real thing would be far more complicated than my limited discussion of an attack
scenario. After the attack, there will have to be follow-on attacks, if nothing else but to prevent future retaliatory strikes by Iran. If it is not
successful, you start all over and do it again.
After completing all of this, we then would have to deal with all of the anti-American feelings, rhetoric, and political fall-out that would
inevitably be produced by such an air campaign.
It is easy to say things when talking together or writing on the Internet, but it is a whole different matter when you start discussing the strategic
and tactical considerations for this type of air campaign.
Getting back to my main assertion: you don't start something like this without having a clear-cut primary objective.