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.

 

We would probably win a War with Iran, But it may not be that Easy! :VIDEO:

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I was just surfing youtube today and came across this video of Irans military forces and technology from 3 Years ago.

For the record, I am an American, and am against any war whatsoever what with innocent people dying and all.
But in a "hypothetical" war with Iran, I think the US would face some moderate resistance, (excluding the use of nuclear weapons by either side)

Heres an interesting tid bit I found, it explains that Iran has been technologically independent for almost 20 yrs, making all their own weapons, planes, vehicles. Besides all the new planes, they have completely overhauled all their older F-14s and other planes given by their (at the time) allies.


Tehran launched an arms development program during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war on Iran, to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and fighter planes. Yet, Iranian officials have always stressed that the country's military and arms programs serve defensive purposes and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country. Iran displayed the first squadron of Saeqeh (Thunderbolt) fighter jets produced by its defense industries in an air show staged during military parades on September 22.

The large air show was aimed at displaying the defensive power of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also, the Iranian defense ministry showed its latest products, including high-tech Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and missiles defense systems as well as different types of Shahab - including Shahab1, 2 and 3 - and Sejjil missiles in the military parades late in summer.

english.farsnews.com...

Take a look at this video, if I didn't know any better id think this was a montage of Russia or even the US, based on how developed some of this technology looks. Especially if you look past the 2 min mark, you can see some advanced looking computerized AA turret, just like we have on our US ships, and also a next gen looking jet as well.


What do you guys think? Would the US just be able to stroll in and take over or are they gonna have some problems capturing Tehran? Comments? Questions?


edit on 29-11-2010 by GeminiSky because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
i cant watch the video but what you see just might be a small amount of what they have. Might have that same thing but times it by 1,000. It will be hard fight but we would win. what we took germany in 1-1/2 years and Japan in 4. Those were big armys and germany out teched us a bit.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


"We would probably win a War with Iran"

Sorry, even without nukes the U.S. wouldn't stand a chance in an unknown environment versus people that don't fear death. You just can't compare Iraq with Iran.

Seriously, technology is not everything.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Why would we want to?

Let them take out israel, let the middle east go back to the people who lived there before WWII and not 2 thousand years ago, and then we only have to worry about N.K.

Even with no israel, Iran poses no threat to the US.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Jeanius because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
That video flashed the same photo of a trainer aircraft atleast 10 times. Plus some drawings of boats....

IRan has no Air Force or Navy. All they have is a bunch of missiles.

They aren't smart enough to turn their crude oil into gasoline.
Atleast the North Koreans can make planes out of wood, which does offer some stealth capability because of the material.

The only reason we are going after IRan is because they are a fuel source for China.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
That video flashed the same photo of a trainer aircraft atleast 10 times. Plus some drawings of boats....

IRan has no Air Force or Navy. All they have is a bunch of missiles.

They aren't smart enough to turn their crude oil into gasoline.
Atleast the North Koreans can make planes out of wood, which does offer some stealth capability because of the material.

The only reason we are going after IRan is because they are a fuel source for China.


Really? did you read the OP?

They have been producing their own aircraft, and ships (includind subs) for nearly two decades. So thats not considered a navy or air force?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I certainly hope we dont get the opportunity to find out, either way.
There's been enough bee hive kicking going on, and I'd imagine that if it doesnt stop, sooner or later someone is going to get stung.
These wars/conflicts/actions seem to be the only sure waiting form of employment for US youth anymore dont they?


Politically, it's been in flux for quite a long time now,
there's been alot of troubles 'brought into' the area, alot of chaos created.
Whenever I hear 'nukes' brought up, I always wonder if much thought would be put into the after effects experienced by those downwind, and how well would that dose of radiation be overlooked?
Someone pops a nuke and contamination travels into and onto neighboring friends or foes, I'm going to guess that the 'friends' list would get shorter, very quickly.
We cant kill everything we dont like or disagree with.
edit on 29-11-2010 by HappilyEverAfter because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2010 by HappilyEverAfter because: sp/add



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kemal
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


"We would probably win a War with Iran"

Sorry, even without nukes the U.S. wouldn't stand a chance in an unknown environment versus people that don't fear death. You just can't compare Iraq with Iran.

Seriously, technology is not everything.


haha im sorry did you just explain to me the typical Japanese solider and environments in the pacific theater in WW2.... I think you did. good point..... NOT



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Here is a video that should be seen if anyone hasn't seen it.

www.youtube.com...

Fast forward to 4:39

Embedding temporarily escapes my mind.

Its a masonic hand symbol on the Iranian President.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Quickfix because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

edit on 29-11-2010 by HappilyEverAfter because: T&C cleaned



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Define war?

The US has no need to invade Iran, so take that off the table.

Take away their "nuke" and "missile" programs and Iran isn't a threat to any country that doesn't share a border with them.

If Iran masses it's forces to attack a neighboring country, it would be noticed easily and then could be attacked.

If done correctly, it would be a simple matter to reduce Iran's infrastructure to some thing resembling the Stone Age.

Iran reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church. It loves to shoot off it's mouth, but when someone punches them in the mouth, they go whining to the courts (or in Iran's case the UN).

Just a few thoughts.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
In an all-out Congressionally-Declared full-on actual 'war-effort'?

Simple answer:
It'd be over before they knew what hit them.
Massive pinpointed air, naval and rocket strikes on all military, manufacturing, communications and infrastructure-related 'assets'.

It'd be akin to the age-olde adage of, "if a man can't stand, a man can't fight" - take 'em out at the knees, their underpinnings.

While I really don't see that actually coming to fruition anytime soon (and hopefully Never will), even though they do possess a rather formidable force, with regards similar-size nations/states military capabilities, budgets and technologies...

... if it were ever come to an actual all-out, do or die, throw everything you got at them-type scenario (even short of using nukes) ... the next day or so's dawn would show quite the debilitated and neutralized nation, incapable of posing a threat to near anyone for quite some time afterwards.

NO ... that's not a mine's bigger mindset or thought process ... just the facts, the way it is/would be.

Again... let's hope we never have to realize, see or experience such in the first place.

[edit: to add]
Iran, Iranian peoples pose no threat to others, much as is the case with the majority of the world's populace ... it's our governments that are typically the source/cause for such

edit on 11/29/2010 by 12m8keall2c because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Iran is also working on two or three new jets.

Here are two i found very interesting. As far as i know they are just drones for the time being.

First one seams to look like a stealth fighter, the other one looks like a stealth fighter bomber!








posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
After the declaration of the "Mother of All Wars" I remember the liberal media trotting out any and everyone that would say it would be an unbelievable amount of American deaths. We killed them wholesale, it wasn't even a contest. Do you remember in all the tank battles? We lost not a single tank. The aimless firing at F117 Stealth Fighters over Baghdad as they dropped payload after payload on strategic targets? Remember the Highway to Hell? Remember the soldiers hungry, barefoot, and shell shock surrendering in mass?

This is the same country that had a 8 year war with Iran ending in a stalemate. Iraq was the equipment test for the war with Iran. It will continue to be wholesale slaughter if it happens.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad better just get into his spider hole asap when the bombs start falling. SF will take out the radar, we will quickly control the sky then it's is soon over. Lets just hope someone is smart enough to just get rid of the nuke problem then leave and forget about that chunk of sand before the gorilla fighting starts, ending where we are now in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Lets just hope none of this happens.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
i cant watch the video but what you see just might be a small amount of what they have. Might have that same thing but times it by 1,000. It will be hard fight but we would win. what we took germany in 1-1/2 years and Japan in 4. Those were big armys and germany out teched us a bit.


To be fair reagerding Germany mate! you have to remember that when America entered very late in the war, German military had already been heavily decimated by the former Soviet Union on the Russian front. The Third Reich was defeated primarily by the Red Army.

(By measure of manpower, duration, territorial reach and casualties, Eastern Front was as much as four times the scale of the conflict on the Western Front that opened with the Normandy invasion)

Most of Germanys war resources (soldiers and war material/equippment) went to the Eastern Front where they were lost.

Over 80% of the Wehrmacht's World War II casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front - It was by far the deadliest single theatre of war in World War II

militaryhistory.about.com...

German material losses on the eastern front were also huge representing over 70% of artillery, tank and truck losses.

The biggest turning-points of the war was the battle of Stalingrad the winter of 1942-43 and the battle of Kursk the summer of 1943.

Around 10,600,000 soldiers from the Soviet military died in the 'Great Patriotic War' against Germany on the Eastern front.

On the eastern front approx. 4 million german soldiers died. So the biggest losses of the German soldiers and war-material were indeed on the Eastern front.

Eastern Front Casualties World War II

The Germans were well beaten already by the time the African/Italian and Normandy landings and the allied bombings took place.

What is more correct though is that The United States helped early on and provided the large amounts of very important leand-lease military equipment and leand-lease aviation fuel deliveries both to the Allies and the Russian which also made the total victory possible for the allies in the end. The Americans made it possible.

But the myth that America won the war 'Single-Handedly' in Europe is just propaganda from American school textbooks, history revision and is nothing more than American delusion of grandeur.


It was a joint effort - end of story!



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


FAIL, and no, I haven't. Take Afghanistan as an example. Want more? Iraq, Turkey, Chechnya. These places are one of the hardest to conquer.

Since these places are made of partly big mountains and stuff you will never, I repat, NEVER get to win the war since they will be able to hide anywhere, and they know how to use the guerilla warfare very well. Fact, not fiction.

And, oh, USA used 2 nukes back then if you didn't know.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I think they're waiting for a Republican president to come to office before they attack Iran, otherwise there is no reason why they wouldn't have done it yet. Israel wants them to do it and even took out some more nuclear scientists but the US isn't budging. I'm thinking AIPAC doesn't like Obama much for this reason and the settlement issue.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GeminiSky
 


My knowledge on military capabilities is somewhat limited and therefore I can only offer what I do know or at least what I consider should be brought into the picture here.

It's likely that there could be US intervention if Iran somehow afforded capability of full uranium enrichment, but it also depends what sanctions are in place [NATO and UN] and what contraventions have occured. I say 'intervention' because I simply do not believe the US would be ''allowed'' to declare all out war with Iran. If US soil itself was hit by a missle directly from Iran, or at least from a body representing the Iranian government, then of course, that would be a different matter, but look at it sensibly.

A member on this forum, Soshh, is far more qualified and experienced to confirm this than I , but from what I understand it's not the counter-threat or miltary asset capability that makes Iran dangerous, it's the geo-physical challenges and terrain that poses the single greatest problem for the mobility of opposing ground troops and convoys etc. It's very similar to Afganistan, who even to this day, look very likely that they'll not be outright defeated. They are vastly well equipped by pockets of insurgents and other military outfits dotted practically everywhere across the country and that places them with a significantly greater advantage.

US capability is far beyond comparison with anything Iran could offer, but as I say, Afganistan continues to pose the precise same levels of difficulty in trying to neutralise their numbers. I simply don't think it would be a case of winning, and if it was, to what extent? Nuclear exchange? I severely doubt it.
edit on 30-11-2010 by BAZ752 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
As I said before, the US has no need to get into a ground war in Iran. An air war would be easy to win. Iran is heavily vested in Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) that require a radar network. Take down that network and Iran is wide open. The only questions to be asked is "How fast do you want to take down that network?" and "How many people are you willing to lose doing it?".

If you have the time to take it down slowly it can be accomplished with minimal losses. You start by launching a large strike (B-52s) aimed at the Iranian border, in the mean time you have Hellfire equipped Predator drones go in at low levels. When the Iranian radar come up to guide the SAMs, the Predators blow them away. If the Iranian Air Force comes up to play, you have some F-22s and F-15s in with the bombers. In the mean time your E-3 is sitting a 100 miles back managing the air to air battle. The bombers don't even have to drop their bombs, you just keep picking off the radars. If the Iranians don't turn the radars on then they can't attack the bombers. With JADAM the bombers never have to get into range of Anti-Aircraft Artilliary. Keep this up for a few months and the skies will be open over Iran, then you can reduce it's infrastructure at will.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
It is so annoying how people who make decent videos always feel the need to ruin them by having HORRIBLE back ground music playing in the vids.

Much better on mute, thats for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join