Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Dunno,
I think the US probably has a EMP bomb nowadays it could fly over tehran and drop..




posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by RussianScientists
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.

I don't know about short and swift, but I think you're right in saying we'll almost certainly have to look at taking control of some inland airports. The sheer scale and size involved here doesn't leave much for options. Ask Jimmy Carter how all that works...and range for aircraft hasn't significantly changed since the rescue mission in Iran went bad. I suppose we'll probably have to take some ground to secure enough area for tankers to at least operate pretty deep inland.

The problem is...Iran has 3 complete S-300 PMU/1 systems that they used to reverse engineer and build their own "enhanced" version of. I seriously doubt it has superior features to the Russian versions they acquired through Belarus and a couple other deals but there is no reason they couldn't reproduce it. That has a 90 degree launch angle which gives a 360 degree engagement capability out to 150-200 Kilometers.

The Radar, if replicated...(and they are capable of it)...tracks 100 targets at those ranges at the same time. It's not an earth shattering capability to us, but it sure will be in facing it by an enemy we're fighting.

All of which, I understand, is at or superior to the specs of the Patriot missile systems. The kicker is, the system is deployable within 5 minutes and is a sealed system with almost 0 field main't required. It was designed to be highly effective, yet idiot proof for a low trained army.

Iraq had nothing remotely like it...and whatever Libya had, wasn't used effectively, if at all. I really wish I could agree about Iran being a push over...but no nation of over 70 million people could be called easy and Iraq had been strangled by sanctions for 10 long years. Iran hasn't had anything like that to deal with when Russia and China are very close friends in all ways. They've lacked nothing to make whatever they've wanted to make all this time, for this fight specifically.

I believe the United States have finally found an enemy who will fight back and fight like they really intend to do something more than annoy us with the attempt. This one may really hurt.
edit on 16-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
No war can be won from the air alone. History has proved this. You can do lots of damage, but there has always been a point where boots are needed on the ground. This certainly wont be any walk in the park and if we are stupid enough to go to war, Iran will fight back to the death. This is their country and will unite the people behind their leadership.

My fear is this willl be the beginning of a much larger conflict, possibly even ww3.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Interesting...tho you STILL think in terms or World War 2.

Before anyone can predict how a war / military action against Iran will be, there have to be set some boundaries.

1.no nuclear weapons used.
2.no third parties involved (Russia, China, Israel, Syria, Hezbollah etc).
3.no terror attacks in EU , US or Israel linked to Tehran, Hezbollah, Syria.

If any or all af the above takes place, NOBODY can predict anything less then a World War.

There is the 4th point, which might or might not be considered : US boots on the ground.And i mean tens of thousands of troops, not special forces, CIA, etc.

Now, starting from point 4, if US does not want to invade Iran (and its the highest probability), Iran will be simply obliterated, geology or not.Tomahawk missiles (even many will be shot down by SAMs) will destroy iranian radar capabilities, and after this the bombing campain will be devastating (Iranian air forces are simple jokes and AAs from 60's cannot hit above 8-10 km- most US fighter-bombers are flying way above 10 km).

About the drone that was shot down...i believe anyone with more than 1 working neuron have to admit, logicaly, that that drone was a just a bait to give the iranians the feeling that they are somehow good at shoting dosn stealth drones.Out of THOUSAND of drone sorties over Iran, only ONE was shot down.This alone should tell anyone that is was a "mistake" (read bait).

Suicide patrol boats...yep, they will die, but will die before hiting any US vessel.Gattling guns will do the job before those boats will be any close to a carrier group.

So, if there will be no boots on the ground, US will score a clear victory by devastation ONLY.What will be after this, nobody knows :the iranians might topple the regime or might strenghten the regime.

But , if the need of boots on the ground arise, the geology have nothing to do with this.Iran is NOT Iraq, of course.
However, after they AA and radar systems are destroyed, what exactly stops special forces to get control of 4-5 airfields and then paratroopers sent to those airbases and then tanks and other military equipment?
Remember, once the air is won by US, the iranian tanks and infantry troops will be bombed to hell and back before they can try to get back those airfields.

It will be a much harder war, but by no means Iran have any chance at all to win it, IF ITS ONLY US vs IRAN.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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!



Think little submarines instead of ww2 Naval Mine.

My brain continued working on this last night while I was sleeping. You could own the entire strait this way. Leave your little drone submarine bombs in place and give them random programming to move around under the surface of the ocean at the same depths as tanker hulls. Then ships coming and going need to request permission to move in and out so that the drones can be given a signal to submerge to clear the path.

That should control most traffic bigger than a dingy.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Recollector
 


Regional politics - You don't want to leave the Iranians so incapable that they can't protect themselves from the Sauds. You really don't need the Sauds deciding they want to own Iran too.

Cutting the difference between devastation, and leaving them with the ability to turn away another group in the area.

Russians have no reason to get involved. They have reasons to pretend to want to get involved.
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Thank you, Wrabbit, for an extremely detailed post that makes it clear why the Third World War the majority of ATS is dreaming about will never happen. Kudos to the other posters who have shared their strategic insight. The only course of warfare that the United States can pursue against Iran is economic. This is what they have been doing. The hope is that rising prices, deteriorating infrastructure and a lack of economic opportunities will lead to popular rebellion. Iran has an election coming up. Let's see what happens.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


What about Georgia ?

Do you think it can be used as a landing zone for a 1 way flight from the gulf by USAF?

You mentioned the distance that the weapons systems and their combat range are capable of. I know there was a thread on ATS about the hospitals being built in that region. The region can/might also be used as a refuelling station(under special agreement with Georgia President) for the back home trip for the fighter jets bound for the gulf onboard a CVN or other bases around Iran.

LINK1
LINK2
edit on 16-2-2012 by hp1229 because: add link



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 

That is a an interesting possibility to consider. In a strictly short term, raid type sitaution..Yeah, I could see where Georgia might be convinced to turn the other way while American and Israeli strike aircraft touch and go for fuel and rearming. Perhaps a few days of this? Possibly... Of course, where are the aircraft launching from? The Black Sea would be the logical spot.



(Source: Stratfor Naval Deployment Map, currently available free to the public)

The problem is..this appears to be gearing up for action soon, and as the map above shows, the Navy is 100% focused on the Southern coast of Iran and the Hormuz straight. We have one out there piddling around the Pacific which could join the party and free one to move to the Black Sea...but it doesn't seem to be the thinking. In fact, out of 11 Carrier Battle Groups, we only have 2 fully operating and a grand total of 3 that aren't tied up in Home Port or off line in main't cycles entirely. It's almost as if someone deliberately took the Navy out of this fight entirely.

There is also another major problem. Putin isn't our friend...by ANY stretch of the imagination. He made it pretty clear to Georgia the last time they worked close with us in their little civil dust up, that Russia and America are choices Georgia has to make....and Russia is the one that sits on their border. I wouldn't blame them for saying no...and I'd say there is 0 chance of Georgia supporting U.S. efforts for a long term, sustained operation.

edit on 16-2-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Sanctions have limits, and despite what your and my diplomats are saying those limits have pretty much reached much near their useful end.
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
nice thread and well thought out. I too feel that a war with iran is not going to be a easy trip.
you can't really compare iraq and afghanistan with iran.
if found this on youtube about the B2 Stealth Bomber
www.youtube.com...
we been having this bomber for quite some time now and ofcourse the Nighthawk's
i don't wanna know what else the airforce has in stock.
i remember when they killed bin laden they were using stealth choppers that i never heard of, so who knows
i hope we dont go to war. its something nobody needs right now.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think an entire country of people is never an easy thing to fight.

From my understanding of Iran they seem like a country that won't roll over and take it from the U.S. though...



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
That said, heres how i think it will go.....
There will be a speedboat incident where suicide speedboats will try to ram the Hormuz patrol group .......
This will be a false flag attack run by mossad who will finance and set up the whole thing....al CIAda can supply the bodies.....
The attack will be beaten back with some loss on the allied side....perhaps a frigate or maybe even a smaller boat than that....
Still, this will be seen as causus belli,and the scrap will unfold from there......i guarantee you that the tactic of massed missile attacks will be used on the fleet.....There are Syrian Yakhontz anti ship missiles to take into account too and the Iranis have at least a modified sunburn, and maybe they have their own versions of other types too.....as well as a deadly torpedo of russian design called the shkvaal this torpedo makes the Irani subs very dangerous if not taken out quickly....but the torpedo itself can be surface launched from fast boats too.....aircraaft launches of exocette type anti shipping weapons cannot be discounted either....and they do not have to get to a very close in range....
This is no trifling weapon, and is manned by Russian advisors at present because they were just delivered recently.....You will see the fleet either triumph over the irani technology with high tech of their own, but if their systems do not perform as advertised, or the iranis have a few advanced missile we dont know of....
The fleet may come acropper early in the fight....with the navy landing and taking planes off of the land bases instead, and the rest of the fleet launching Tomahawks like no tomorrow.....
As for running the straits.....well i think they either will be effectively blocked early on, or they wll be lined with anti ship and anti aircraft weapons of all types except the ss 300s which will be at the nuke plants and maybe Teheran or the eyetollas house....
No matter what happens to the nuke plants, it is the Iranian anti ship and aircraft capability that has to be eliminated immediately it starts....Once the anti aircraft missile batteries are at least plotted if not destroyed, they will begin to concentrate bombing on selected targets....
I would be totally expecting the old Buffs to be the workhorses of the bomb hauling aircraft once more....
B2s will be used for the creamiest and most important hits,as well as the stealthy first strikes...
But the Buffs (B52s) be flying nite and day in all weathers .........
Fighters and fighter bombers will be the anti ack ack sniffing dogs for the packs, and they will shoot anti radar missiles at the first sqeak of any radar......
Regardless of the airpower, eventually there will have to be boots on the ground to at least secure nuclear materials,or confirm total destruction down inside the Fordo plant and others which have deep sections....
Barring any unforseen calamity, the campaign should last maybe three months if the Iranis have nothing but imitation weapon systems...(intelligence here would be an asset, but we dont have much really)
What devilish schemes the enemy may have hatched in the decades long run up to the conflict, theycertainly are not sharing....Their steath flying boats look hokey but may be effective in the right circumstance....
Suffice it to say, they have the money, and the operatives, to do any number of out of country,(out of theater even)attacks.These may be of mixed strengths and purposes, but will most assuredly be where they feel they can do the most damage to the war efforts. or the civilian will to persue hostilities....counting on a tet offenseive to defeat the civillians like in vietnam....
The situation, once the first action ensues, will have the potential to expand rapidly to include anywhere in the world as part of the battle zone.....
The upshot with this type of warfare is its very unpredictability .......

so i make note, but no predictions here......got many ideas though.....from germ war to suicide subway bombers to industrial attacks on refineries etc...
perhaps all of above....

The Missile which iran salvoes against foriegn countries, will be the calling cards for the targets to enter the conflict as well....The saudis will strike the iranis from their own bases, and will have the advanced jets to do it....equal to ysreals anyway....
But i feel they will remain neutral militarily if not hit by iran(no law against more ffs though....dont rule them out)
As will most other of the smaller arab nations untill drawn into the fray through attacks on their soil....either terror or military...
Incirlik will likely be a big jump off for the Buffs, but they al;so can fly from all around the country and tierra Del Fuego hereinafter TDF ok?

The Saudis have the most holy sites in the Islamist religion bar the temple mount....its possible that the Iranis may not try to attack them at first....

so much for the kick off, where it goes after the first salvo is anyones guess.....not even the experts dare call this one...thats why no war as yet.....
edit on 16-2-2012 by stirling because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


Iran has ballistic missiles that can target The US fleet 1000km away.

Iran wouldn't use small boats to ram a US ship. Iranian small boats carry missiles with a rage of 200km.
That false flag would never work.

If the conflict really heats up, The US fleet would be way outside the 200km range. Remember the air craft carrier left the strait just before Iran had their exercise. Because the US cant risk a ambush.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 



Sanctions have limits, and despite what your and my diplomats are saying those limits have pretty much reached much near their useful end.


The objective is not necessarily regime change; preventing Iran from effectively projecting power in the region is. So long as Iran keeps making threats they cannot back up, their credibility is tarnished. The danger is that they will attempt to save face by making a dramatic gesture. They must understand that such a gesture will be met by precisely the amount of force necessary to render it futile. It's a delicate balancing act.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I am also of the mind "no boots on the ground".

the Russians words were that an attack on Tehran is an attack on Moscow. I interpreted this to mean that they would finger point and huff and puff for an air campaign and special forces to take out the nuclear facilities but would not actually get involved



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Aeons
 



Sanctions have limits, and despite what your and my diplomats are saying those limits have pretty much reached much near their useful end.


The objective is not necessarily regime change; preventing Iran from effectively projecting power in the region is. So long as Iran keeps making threats they cannot back up, their credibility is tarnished. The danger is that they will attempt to save face by making a dramatic gesture. They must understand that such a gesture will be met by precisely the amount of force necessary to render it futile. It's a delicate balancing act.



Who needs regime change?

Actually, I'd like to see the current regime carry on after having their problematic ventures removed.

The long term psychological effect isn't as inspiring as regime change, and is likely slightly toxic.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
I am also of the mind "no boots on the ground".

the Russians words were that an attack on Tehran is an attack on Moscow. I interpreted this to mean that they would finger point and huff and puff for an air campaign and special forces to take out the nuclear facilities but would not actually get involved


If Russia meant this they would have sold the Iranians the S300 for defencive purposes regardless of the sanctions. Russia would have sold them the SU 35 and SU 34 as well.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
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.



I can't wait to see the responses. I wonder do I have any popcorn?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I'm not an expert in military logistics or anything, but I follow things and politics enough to make some informed guesses.

I would imagine an American aerial attack upon Iran would come from three fronts. I can see forces coming from the sea to the southern targets, forces coming out of Afghanistan to attack eastern targets, and forces coming out of Georgia to attack northern targets.

I don't know how many people saw this but Georgia was recently upgraded in status to a NATO aspirant state, something I have a hard time believing was an accident. I imagine the overflight will go through Turkey.

I would expect strategic special forces assets will be inserted 48-72 hours prior to the attacks with two primary goals: 1) neutralizing the maximum number of missile defense batteries and command structures and 2) identifying and potentially eliminating high value nuclear production facilities. Frankly, I imagine they'll have an all-star team from western nations to get these done.

Once that is completed, I think it gets interested. I don't see the Iranian military as a threat or an obstacle, frankly. I think the United States' bigger problem would be political. An invasion would be extremely wasteful and beyond the desires of either our domestic audience or the Iranians. A better strategy would be a well-timed uprising in Iran, coupled with special forces support against the police thugs who basically keep that city under control by fear.

I would actually argue against attacking military units to the greatest extent possible within security concerns, as I believe regime change would be a sensible goal for an intervention of the scope that the troop movements seem to indicate.

I do not think it would be hard to break the leadership, but this has to be more of a precision attack than anything else, if it is to succeed. The alternative is to destroy all the facilities as a setback, and hope that destabilizes the regime enough and get out of dodge. But frankly, I see that as the more dangerous option.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join