It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by ressiv
Lets see, the system was designed to shoot down incoming missiles and aircraft doing better than 500 knots, oh sure a speedboat doing 55 knots will be a great challenge while the system spits out a 1,000 rounds in 20 seconds. You bet.
The U.S. neoconservative agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet - The New Pearl Harbor
by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.The Bush administration has covered up and ignored dissenting Pentagon war games analysis that suggests an attack on Iran's nuclear or military facilities will lead directly to the annihilation of the Navy's Fifth Fleet now stationed in the Persian Gulf. Lt. General Paul Van Riper led a hypothetical Persian Gulf state in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games that resulted in the destruction of the Fifth Fleet. His experience and conclusions regarding the vulnerability of the Fifth Fleet to an asymmetrical military conflict and the implications for a war against Iran have been ignored. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are currently aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in it attacking the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. They are ignoring Van Riper's experiences in the Millennium Challenge and how it applies to the current nuclear conflict with Iran.
What if Iran's hardline leadership emerges from the current confrontations at home strengthened and emboldened? If so, the nuclear issue will be back with a vengeance. And three recent war games focused on the Iranian nuclear weapons issue suggest that the prospects for halting the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons are not good.
The games -- conducted by highly respected Western think tanks -- explored various strategies for preventing the Iranian nuclear threat from becoming real. The results, unfortunately, were uniformly negative. Given that these were serious games played by serious people, officials who deal with the nuclear problem as a matter of real policy would be wise to seriously consider their implications
Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by crustas
Iranian leadership changes after a short bloody war and new Iranian leaders pickup the pieces.
Originally posted by mistafaz
reply to post by moffandrew
Of course the US will need a "comprehensive land campaign" in order to make any headway in a war with Iran, but the trouble isn't going to come from the Iranian Armed Forces proper but afterward from insurgency and guerrilla style tactics, which is an entire different discussion.
The Iranian Army can not stand a fighting chance against the US forces. Remember Iraq in 2003 with their "elite" Republican Guard? Several weeks and we were rolling into Baghdad tearing down the military and government (worst idea ever BTW). The fact is that Iranian forces haven't fought a standing army since the Iran-Iraq War and have since only had to deal with incursions of Kurdish rebels who are not exactly a comparable force to the US.
These "debuts" of Iranian military advancement I see as sad last ditch efforts by the Iranian government to try and show the world that they have "something" to use against any invading forces. They know Israel is pissed about the reactor and any strike by them is going to bring the US en masse behind them. You know as a country that your up to your neck in [snip] if you have to show your hand because you know any invasion would be devastating.
"maybe that is just me? Put your military in the trenches without the technology, see what happens buddy!!