Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Iran won't be easy to fight....Geography.

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
There are many reasons why Iran will be one of the most challenging places America has ever comitted forces to fight. There is the fact that, by comparison, Iraq had less than half the population and Afghanistan was pretty much deserted. 73 Million people is nothing to scoff at. However, there is a more pressing reason that sets Iran apart from anywhere else and it's a very big one. Literally. VERY BIG.



Now first, I would note the pure topography of the nation. Iraq and the rest of the region is pretty flat by comparison. It's like cross country hiking Kansas compared to trying that across Colorado. In Iraq, we didn't have to play the game with choke points except where bridges were concerned. Roads?? We have GPS. Who needs roads on a battlefield these days? .....unless it's endless sets of mountains for hundreds of miles. Err... Now that isn't working very well.

Additionally, those mountains represent the ultimate nightmare for Surface to Air missile traps which could exist down every valley. Iran isn't populated by backward dolts who have the very basic education level. These guys launch their own satellites successfully into orbit. Repeatedly. They're primitive satellites but I'll bet such folks can manage to arrange a network of SAM sites with that kind of dream of a map to work with. I'll even bet they work..as advertised at least a fair part of the time.

America has chosen to have VERY VERY high tech airplanes, but not very many OF them compared to other fighting powers. I hope that wasn't a bad mistake in this fight.

Next is the real deal breaker for all but the Strategic Bombers. Oh..and they seem to have managed to tweak our stealth at least once...so the B-2 should have a hell of a ride in and out.

Tehran to the Gulf Waters = 418 Miles x 2 - 836 Miles for the round trip.
Tehran to the Afghani Border = 531 Miles x 2 = 1062 Miles for the round trip

F-15 Range = 3,400+ miles if configured as a flying gas can / 1,000 Nautical miles for combat operations
F-16 Range = 2,620 miles in gas can config / 340 Miles for combat operations
F-18 Range = 500 Nautical Miles
F-117 Range = 1,250 Miles in gas can config / 765 Miles for combat operations (this one at least gets there!)
AH-64 Apache Range = 1,180 Miles in gas can config / 300 Miles for combat operations

Obviously, the B-52, B-2 and other toys we may not know about have plenty of range...although not so much in the way of good fortune for deep penetration across extremely hostile airspace. That should be interesting...when rescue is simply not happening for anyone because we can't even GET there in something fit to land and pick a guy up.

Now of course, all this is simplified greatly if Iraq would agree to allow us back into our old bases with the full load out of offensive aircraft for sustained operations across the border into Iran. Umm.. Yeah.. I doubt that happens. So.... The only other option is Turkmenistan. Russia isn't going to be real friendly to them if they allow us to set up shop with full, sustained combat operations less than 100 miles from the soil of the Russian Federation. So..that isn't likely either.

Nope...since Obama pulled us out of Iraq BEFORE hitting Iran, it makes this insanely difficult by sheer logistics alone, to what it could have been until very recently. That isn't the only 'lay of the land' problem though. There is this:



And people thought Iraq had tribal issues... That isn't the only issue in that direction though. Will our guys even speak the language? Now I hope everyone who has served long enough in Afghanistan to learn Dari and Pashto to a functional level didn't think they were done. They'll be badly needed in Iran. It's a land of many languages. Yet Again. Ohhh joy...





So basically, Iran is not impossible but it's absolutely *NO* pushover or milk run the way Libya and both Iraq and Afghanistan were in the early phase of taking and securing the nation. The aftermath is a whole different thread..but I'm simply looking at the initial move to occupy.

Oh..and that will be needed.

If ANYONE thinks Iran is going to take a thumping like Saddam did occasionally or Libya did by Reagan, they're delusional. Iran is set and ready to kick this into a regional war at the first opening. If we go, as a nation, it's all the way or nothing. Our enemy in this war won't have it any other way...and won't allow us to either.

I sure hope those in power have thought all this through very carefully..and Obama is following the advice of his military leaders. America hasn't kicked a hornets nest like this one since Korea..and NO ONE on our side wanted that nightmare. This war is damn near by choice.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Adding to your section about B-2 bombers, the Iranians brought down a stealth drone. Our stealth drone. This is a good post S&F.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Well thought out and well presented.

But I'm sure that there will be those who chime in soon enough sayin' the US or Iran will kick butt.

I like the thought that you put into this. Once again, well done.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dadank
 


That is what he was refering too.

But then again, maybe we wanted them to have it.

Nefarious purposes, ya know?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I would like to know why you think that there will be anyone on the ground in Iran?

Geology is still important, sure. I can't see what reason there would be to put many boots on the ground, or what use a full scale war would be?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Excellent reference point from a geostrategic point of view. I can see Pentagon planners scratching their heads over this one. This is a much much more tactically different situation, but I suspect that the B-2s would not have any trouble getting through. Even if the B-2s get through they would get wised up to the fact that they were coming through and possibly try to set up some sort of counter. They do not have the best Russian sam systems which is a major problem, but using geography to their advantage they could set up nice traps.

Here is another language map

edit on 112929p://2America/ChicagoWed, 15 Feb 2012 23:35:58 -0600 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
You are over-thinking.

All we need is to take out their leader(s)...its not our goal to level and destroy Iran, neither the Iranian people.

One precise strike in one bunker COULD (could!) be all that's needed. A long-term, Iran wide war is not desired or needed. I know it's wishful thinking...but anyway...
edit on 15-2-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
I would like to know why you think that there will be anyone on the ground in Iran?

Geology is still important, sure. I can't see what reason there would be to put many boots on the ground, or what use a full scale war would be?

There are two reasons why I think troops on the ground will be necessary. First, it's about the only way the air war will be possible over that terrain and those distances. Even Iraq had extensive use of special operations forces in both the 1991 war and 2003 to locate and either spot/paint the target for others...or have the option of doing something about it. Additionally, the reason we didn't need more of those ground operations in Iraq was the very effective use of the Apache gunships. Documentaries on those are fascinating. They just hide behind a ridge or some other terrain feature and pop up just long enough to fire on the AAA or SAM site them pop right back down. Safe and Sound....and pop goes the bad guy without ever knowing what fired. As I noted...the Apache and other helicopters which America relies on SO strongly are up against an impossible problem. They literally can't get there from here and back out again for reaching the population in the North.


The Second major reason is just as basic and just as impossible to get around. Iran has been watching for the last 10+ and really..the last 20+ years while we've thumped on their neighbor, Iraq. Then we stomped Afghanistan and gave them another front row show right on their own borders to examine U.S. forces in combat...and how they might counter it. They've had all that time to build up for this and create a military geared for THIS fight. Which they have. What direction have they gone? Not Air force....and not really Army, although they nearly match our own combined forces for raw manpower and will exceed it with Obama's planned cuts. No..Missiles is what they have put their vast oil fortunes into developing, building and mass producing with THEIR OWN domestic arms industry. Iraq couldn't make their own..they bought arms. Iran makes quite a bit of their own high end systems..so anyone can just kinda guess at how much of what they really do have.

I don't know how old you are in reference to 1991, but scud hunting back then was a nightmare for U.S. forces and probably a point of endless humor for Saddam. He could pretty much pop them off whenever the mood struck him...and we couldn't seem to find them. This, in a flat desert and a much smaller nation. Someone has to go knock out those missiles....because Iran won't be Libya. They'll be firing them.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
But all those reasons are why you wouldn't need to go to ground except in a very limited fashion.

The population is settled, and infrastructure is apparent. You aren't looking to control the beehive. You are correct that Iran isn't Iraq (the second time), and it isn't Afghanistan.

The worker bees will be nicely redirected in a way that Iraqi and Afghanis could not be.

Remove the parts of the hive that are problematic, and let the bees rebuild.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
EMP Tehran - disable comms.
Send in dozens of lightweight drones broadcasting signatures for jets - waste Irans SAM sites
Send in some B2's to pound Irans bases and Military
then send in the jets to destroy the iranian facilities.

No need for troops.But.. you would also need the navy to saturate the coastline with heavy shelling to eliminate all ground based antiship missiles.
Use the apaches to hit suicide boats..
Then all you need to worry about are the missiles being lobbed at Europe, Iraq, Israel and Bahrain..

But if we get to that stage.. im pretty sure Iran would just use some sort of nasty chemical to hit the Americans where it hurts the most..

They'd probably launch on Saudi oil fields too..

bad bad bad days ahead



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

Well, I'll tell you what... You and Flexy123 both make about the same point for making a very targeted and truly surgical move against the leadership as opposed to war. Now I'm not sure if you meant direct assassination of the leadership of Iran, but I believe Flexy did..and I've got absolutely not problem with that. I've even been a vocal advocate for it, numerous times as a very real alternative to war that will kill 10's of thousands or..like Iraq...more when all is counted and done. Why kill a % of a population when a handful of individual men are really the target all along?

I just don't think Obama has it in him to go all assassin about this, especially when it would require the assassination of the Ayatollah himself. Ahmadinejad is just the front guy in their system...so killing him wouldn't change things by itself. It'd probably make them much worse, actually. Unless the entire top tier was taken out...and I just don't see it happening from this President and Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


For the suicide boats, couldn't one go improved WW2 and have versions of droned water mines?

Then you don't need about the mines being a problem afterwards if they don't get used up in the Strait. Set them to blow or to "come home." They could be programmed to keep away from your own signatures.
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I seem to have inherited from the Simpson's the some of the same personality traits as General Blood and Guts, so I appreciate the want to go until they stop twitching.

I also have some of the traits of my less savoury surgical assassin ancestors.

However, I'm ignoring both of those trait sets and suggest that hitting infrastructure is far more useful in this case. The facilities that are a problem, and support infrastructure. Iranians are more "modern" and that trait is useful because they are likely to refocus on not letting their country bleed out. Unlike Iraqis and Afghanis who are willing to be profoundly stupid for the sake of being stupid, and then revel in creating extra stupidity.

Civilization - actually a strategically useful trait.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   
If war does come with Iran, I highly doubt the US or Israel are even going to consider an occupation like Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather blow up what is considered high value targets and as much else as they can and leave. Like you said, geographically this is one tough situation for planners to solve, but it's not so bad if all you're gonna do is use aircraft, cruse missiles and perhaps special forces to pound the enemy down as fast as possible. With all this said, I don't think a war with Iran is necessary at all and it's just Israel wanting to get rid of any "threats" to it's country, but then again Israel is the biggest threat to the whole region.

And if Israel goes bats**t crazy and nukes them, well then I will safely say the world is going to change dramatically.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


haha, bags not being the technician who has to retrieve one that 'came home'..
I'd rather be a mine disposal officer!




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Wrabbit, I always enjoy your posts (you are one of my favorite members even when we disagree) and I am impressed with this thread. I have no doubt that the US could easily cripple Iran's military, but I think a prolonged fight would indeed be more difficult than the two quagmires of late. I am unsure what control or strategic capability we will have via Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we will be a bit closer at some points than the Gulf, but it will still stretch out lines farther.

Either way, I do not want Iran to become a nuclear power, and I do not believe that Russia or China would actually use an attack by the US against Iran as an excuse for WW3. Many people fail to realize that while we owe China a rather large debt, we are also one of their largest consumers. China fighting the US would destroy China. Russia really is a non issue. They have nukes, we have MAD. They are becoming more and more irrelevant. Fightin another war with us would completely cripple Russia.

Dude I meant to write alot more but I went out for a cig, some other stuff happened, now I don't remember so REPLY BUTTON!



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


The only way to do an EMP on a nation would be to use nuclear weapons which is no no. All other emp devices are local and dont get much range.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Iran may be larger than the other countries, but a few strikes in the right areas and their airports become US Airforce occupied airports. From then on, the flights will be short and swift.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 

I appreciate the reply. Mutual on reading the threads by the way.


There is another aspect....(and isn't there always in that region)...that people don't seem to be considering with regard to Russia and where they have some real serious strategic interests in what happens here. It goes far beyond simply being another nation near their border that we take by force into the Western sphere of influence. Although their annoyance with that shouldn't be underestimated for non-military payback down the line somewhere. It's Natural Gas.

Russia is the main line supply to a few of the smaller European nations and is a major factor for the supply of Europe in general. That translates to a very serious chunk of revenue for the Russian government and they aren't exactly their old Soviet selves with rubles to burn.

This relates to this situation in Iran because Iran is the 2nd largest production center for natural gas in the world. They have proven reserves around 5x's larger than the United States and only a bit under Russia. Again, you're wondering how this relates or why any of this matters more now than it ever has.... Well, here is why:

(this is a report from July 2011, by the way)

AMMAN, Jordan—The oil ministers of Iraq, Iran and Syria Monday signed a preliminary agreement for a $10 billion natural-gas-pipeline deal, the official Iranian News Agency IRNA and other Iranian media reported. The document was inked in the Assalouyeh industrial region located in the southern province of Bushehr by Iranian oil minister Mohammad Aliabadi, Iraq's oil minister Abdul Kareem Luaiby, and Syrian counterpart Sufian Alow, the agency said.



Iranian officials have said Iran is producing some 600 million cubic meters of gas a day, of which only 37 million cubic meters are exported. Tehran also aims to extend the pipeline to Lebanon and the Mediterranean to supply gas to Europe, they said.

Iran has been approaching its allies in the region such as Iraq and Syria to export its gas after western firms have pulled out of Iran's lucrative energy sector because of international dispute over Tehran's nuclear program, which the West and the U.S. suspect is aimed at producing nuclear bombs.
Source

Here is a snapshot of the pipelines for the region.



and if you go Here you can explore the larger map that pic comes from with a zoom down to pipe line capacities and port/refinery data across the entire region. Library of Congress is better than Google.


Now, generally speaking, Russia has no reason to feel put out or the least bit concerned about this pipeline. Iran is more than just a client state, they are a little brother in some ways for support and assistance Russia invests. No one sees Russia out building nuke plants for everyone else eh? However, that all changes...if the U.S. or Western nations grab Iran. We already have sufficient influence over Iraq....and well, Syria is also on the hit list, isn't it?

Who needs the insanely expensive Afghan pipeline project that never worked out anyway? Syria, Iraq and Iran have already mapped out, surveyed and planned a pipeline infinitely better than the Afghan one was proposed to be. A little scaling up is required for Western ideals of capacity to make a proper pipe to the Med, but those are little details when all 3 nations the pipe crosses are under Western control.

So....Russia suddenly has not a client state running a pipeline out to make a little cash, but the American and European powers backing, if not owning a new pipeline that FINALLY delivers a route from the Caspian fields to the Med and what Russia has as THEIR natural gas market. The proposed one links up from the gulf..but a quick look at the map shows it all interlinks in the Iranian pipeline network, so one is about the same as the other if Iran is controlled.

Sorry to make this reply as long as the OP... LOL..... I have directories of stuff on Iran I just can't find the time to get properly sorted and put together for more. I've been meaning to have a series of threads along these lines..but shoot.. 24hrs in a day and I need at least 30.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Aeons
I would like to know why you think that there will be anyone on the ground in Iran?

Geology is still important, sure. I can't see what reason there would be to put many boots on the ground, or what use a full scale war would be?

There are two reasons why I think troops on the ground will be necessary. First, it's about the only way the air war will be possible over that terrain and those distances. Even Iraq had extensive use of special operations forces in both the 1991 war and 2003 to locate and either spot/paint the target for others...or have the option of doing something about it. Additionally, the reason we didn't need more of those ground operations in Iraq was the very effective use of the Apache gunships. Documentaries on those are fascinating. They just hide behind a ridge or some other terrain feature and pop up just long enough to fire on the AAA or SAM site them pop right back down. Safe and Sound....and pop goes the bad guy without ever knowing what fired. As I noted...the Apache and other helicopters which America relies on SO strongly are up against an impossible problem. They literally can't get there from here and back out again for reaching the population in the North.


The Second major reason is just as basic and just as impossible to get around. Iran has been watching for the last 10+ and really..the last 20+ years while we've thumped on their neighbor, Iraq. Then we stomped Afghanistan and gave them another front row show right on their own borders to examine U.S. forces in combat...and how they might counter it. They've had all that time to build up for this and create a military geared for THIS fight. Which they have. What direction have they gone? Not Air force....and not really Army, although they nearly match our own combined forces for raw manpower and will exceed it with Obama's planned cuts. No..Missiles is what they have put their vast oil fortunes into developing, building and mass producing with THEIR OWN domestic arms industry. Iraq couldn't make their own..they bought arms. Iran makes quite a bit of their own high end systems..so anyone can just kinda guess at how much of what they really do have.

I don't know how old you are in reference to 1991, but scud hunting back then was a nightmare for U.S. forces and probably a point of endless humor for Saddam. He could pretty much pop them off whenever the mood struck him...and we couldn't seem to find them. This, in a flat desert and a much smaller nation. Someone has to go knock out those missiles....because Iran won't be Libya. They'll be firing them.


I strongly disagree with this.

It's 2012; Our technology is, according to Moore's law (and reality), approx. 2 ^5 (or 16) times more advanced.

We have the biggest military budget in the world by FAR; something like the next few countries combined don't even come close to American military spending.

Your post ignores this. You also should look up all the different bombers, fighters, and in general Air Force

Here is what a US - Iran war will play out.

1- After positioning aircraft carriers in the region (already have one or more), starting a "shock and aw" campaign; Using Air Force and Navy U.S. will have waves after waves after waves of the most advanced aircraft in the world dropping "smart" ordinance i.e. gps (and such) guided munitions. As for recon, thats what drones are for. Big woop Iran caught one American drone; That has NOTHING to do with the fact that countless drones have already provided all the needed intel and more

2- 24 - 100 hours later, access whats left.

3- After accessment will be made, it will be decided that the name of the county will be slightly adjusted from Iran to

I Ran






top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join