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.

 

How would a war against Iran be fought?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
My thread title says it all.

Should we invade Iran, how many forces would we use and how would be invade Iran? My guess is we'd used a sea invasion, Afghanistan, and Iraq, giving us three ffronts.




posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 05:28 PM
link   
no,

If we do-hope we don't, it will be only missles and bombs-imo.

We don't have the man poweer for the 2 wars we are in now, not enough men for a third one.


Sep

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I really doubt a war against Iran will happen. US has too much to lose in the Middle East an the Pesian Gulf right now.
If there is a war, I would recomend to the US to pull out of the Gulf before it does so, because Iran has some (very suprisingly) advance cruise missiles, both domostically made and Russian imported. Ground invasion is out of the question. 8 million trained militia and 1 million troops, isnt the kind of enemy I would like to fight with.
The only weakness Iran has is in the air. US can destroy the air force of Iran in a week or two, with some casualties. But again no war can be won strictly using the air force. The airforce, can bomb nuclear plants in Iran, but I wouldnot recomend that either, simplly because US has too much to lose. The troops in Iraq can be hit very hard. There are alot of angry tribes in Iraq, with no weapons. Iran can arm them. There are also alot of terrorist cells all around the world, they can do alot of damage. Israel could be hit very hard with the missiles that Iran has in Lebenon. Also all the US bases in the middle east are in the reach of shahab 3. Iranian scuds, can reach anywhere in Kuwait and Iraq. But the worst that can happen is in the sea. Iran can stop the flow of goods (oil) in the gulf very easily. There is a bottle neck in the gulf where 25% of the world oil passes throught it. If Iran controls that tiny bottle neck, Iran controls the world economy. They can also hit other refinaries in the region, causing permanet damage to every one including themselves. As I said before America has too much to lose, over something that isnt worth it.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 03:16 AM
link   
We could put Sadaam back in power and then give him chemical weapons to use on the Iranians.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep
I really doubt a war against Iran will happen. US has too much to lose in the Middle East an the Pesian Gulf right now.
If there is a war, I would recomend to the US to pull out of the Gulf before it does so, because Iran has some (very suprisingly) advance cruise missiles, both domostically made and Russian imported. Ground invasion is out of the question. 8 million trained militia and 1 million troops, isnt the kind of enemy I would like to fight with.
The only weakness Iran has is in the air. US can destroy the air force of Iran in a week or two, with some casualties. But again no war can be won strictly using the air force. The airforce, can bomb nuclear plants in Iran, but I wouldnot recomend that either, simplly because US has too much to lose. The troops in Iraq can be hit very hard. There are alot of angry tribes in Iraq, with no weapons. Iran can arm them. There are also alot of terrorist cells all around the world, they can do alot of damage. Israel could be hit very hard with the missiles that Iran has in Lebenon. Also all the US bases in the middle east are in the reach of shahab 3. Iranian scuds, can reach anywhere in Kuwait and Iraq. But the worst that can happen is in the sea. Iran can stop the flow of goods (oil) in the gulf very easily. There is a bottle neck in the gulf where 25% of the world oil passes throught it. If Iran controls that tiny bottle neck, Iran controls the world economy. They can also hit other refinaries in the region, causing permanet damage to every one including themselves. As I said before America has too much to lose, over something that isnt worth it.


I disagree completely. Sadam was able to fight with Iran for 8 years, so the both militaries were app equal. But US had no problem to defeat Sadam, even in GW1. The Iranian air-force and the potentionaly dangerous Iranian weapons (Kilo subs, Sunburns) will be disabled in first days of war. Also you are forgetting about the modern informatinal warfare. The 1 million troops are useless when they recieve no orders what to do. The only reason that Iraq was able to coordinate it's defense during GWII was because Iraq TV was not disabled. US will not do the same mistake again. BTW their armoured forces are also crap and the Abrams would deal with them quickly in open desert so their army will probably end like Iraq army defending town centers without any info from command or other units.
The only way how could Iranians hurt US army is to attack Iraq forces before there is enough troops ready for invasion. This may bring them some sucesses, but the US public would be pissed off so they would go to war even more intensively. So they will loose sooner or later.
BTW there is no need to occupy Iran like Iraq, it is multinational (only 50% are Persians) state so it can be easily divided into national regions.


[edit on 31-10-2004 by longbow]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
We could put Sadaam back in power and then give him chemical weapons to use on the Iranians.

LOL Amen brother. Hey that sounds familiar.. Let's even sell them the crop spraying helicopters they would need to disperse the chemicals. Better yet, let's sell Iran weapons at the same time, then use the money we make on that deal to fund a terrorist organization in South America.


Sep

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Sep
I really doubt a war against Iran will happen. US has too much to lose in the Middle East an the Pesian Gulf right now.
If there is a war, I would recomend to the US to pull out of the Gulf before it does so, because Iran has some (very suprisingly) advance cruise missiles, both domostically made and Russian imported. Ground invasion is out of the question. 8 million trained militia and 1 million troops, isnt the kind of enemy I would like to fight with.
The only weakness Iran has is in the air. US can destroy the air force of Iran in a week or two, with some casualties. But again no war can be won strictly using the air force. The airforce, can bomb nuclear plants in Iran, but I wouldnot recomend that either, simplly because US has too much to lose. The troops in Iraq can be hit very hard. There are alot of angry tribes in Iraq, with no weapons. Iran can arm them. There are also alot of terrorist cells all around the world, they can do alot of damage. Israel could be hit very hard with the missiles that Iran has in Lebenon. Also all the US bases in the middle east are in the reach of shahab 3. Iranian scuds, can reach anywhere in Kuwait and Iraq. But the worst that can happen is in the sea. Iran can stop the flow of goods (oil) in the gulf very easily. There is a bottle neck in the gulf where 25% of the world oil passes throught it. If Iran controls that tiny bottle neck, Iran controls the world economy. They can also hit other refinaries in the region, causing permanet damage to every one including themselves. As I said before America has too much to lose, over something that isnt worth it.


I disagree completely. Sadam was able to fight with Iran for 8 years, so the both militaries were app equal. But US had no problem to defeat Sadam, even in GW1. The Iranian air-force and the potentionaly dangerous Iranian weapons (Kilo subs, Sunburns) will be disabled in first days of war. Also you are forgetting about the modern informatinal warfare. The 1 million troops are useless when they recieve no orders what to do. The only reason that Iraq was able to coordinate it's defense during GWII was because Iraq TW was not disabled. US will not do the same mistake again. BTW their armoured forces are also crap and the Abrams would deal with them quickly in open desert so their army will probably end like Iraq army defending town centers without any info from command or other units.
The only way how could Iranians hurt US army is to attack Iraq forces before there is enough troops ready for invasion. This may bring them some sucesses, but the US public would be pissed off so they would go to war even more intensively. So they will loose sooner or later.
BTW there is no need to occupy Iran like Iraq, it is multinational (only 50% are Persians) state so it can be easily divided into national regions.


Saddam was able to fight Iran for 8 years because he had the backing of the two super powers and the war was totally funed by the Saudis and Kuwaitis. They could fight because Iran just got off a revolution and had killed every general and every good piolet Iran had. They had American equipment but no engeneers to maintain the equipment. Still in 1986 Basra the second biggest Iraqi city was falling. Iraq was being invaded from both sides and Saddam would not have existed in 1987 if it wasnt for the chemical weapons provided by the French, the rockets and spare arts provided by the Russians, and the undeclared war in the sea.

The kilo subs that you mentioned will be destroyed, but the thing that will bug the nevy most is the midget subs and the fast attack boats equped with unjammable cruise missiles. There are every where and are very hard to take out. The Sunburns you said will be destroyed. That I have to disagree with. During GW1, the US was not able to destroy even oneof the mobile Scud launchers. But that didnt concern the Americans because the Scuds were not accurate enough to have military effects. Now Iran has mobile cruise missile launchers that are dead accurate. I think that might pose a problem to the navy. The Abrams are strong and are by far superior to the Persian tanks, but dont under estimate the Iranian anti-tank, missiles.You also said something about dividing Iran. There is absolutly no chance of that happening. The fact is that Iran does have diffrent races, but all the races love Iran and are pround Iranians. A good example of this could have been seen in the Athens olympics. One of the Iranian weightlifters who was named Hossain Rezazadeh, the strongest man in the world, who is a Turk, was offered $10 million to join the Turkish team. He refused. So you see it doesnt matter if we are from diffrent races, we have lived together for thousands of years and we respect each other and love our country. If the US tries to divide our country, the will face some very serious retaliation by all the Iranians.

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Sep]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I don't believe we are over stretched right now. Afghanistan is becoming more stable and self sufficient everyday. Iraq despite popular belief is going well for the most part. If and when the military leaders running the war in Iraq ask for more troops they will be sent. But I believe Iraq will begin to become more stable just like Afghanistan is. We are training Iraqis to protect their country and as that project progresses we will see improvement.

We don't need to invade Iran right now. We are still very early in the diplomatic process and I don't think the situation has escalated to that point yet. We could fight a war in Iran in the next 6 months or so but if we want to reduce civilian casualties and our own troop casualties then we need to have more of a pull out from Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is getting to the point that we can free up quite a few troops but Iraq still needs more time and work.

But in the event we do free ourselves up a little and there is a break down in the peaceful solution we could handle Iran no problem. We would quickly establish air superiority and from there the ground war should be fairly simple. The Iranian military is much more organized than that of Iraq so they would be much easier to locate and destroy quickly. So I think the invasion would be more difficult than that of Iraq or Afghanistan but the ground war would be much easier after the initial invasion. Iran is a terrorist haven and there would certainly be a flood of terrorists coming into the country to fight US forces so it would be somewhat difficult to maintain the peace. But I don't think it would be as bad as Iraq.

The only problem is the large amount of WMDs in Iran and nuclear material that we have to worry about. We would have to launch some sort of special forces operation to protect nuclear sights and prevent the wrong things getting into the wrong hands.

I don't think this would happen anytime soon. I think our time would probably be better spent in North Korea if we were going to war. Now I'm not warmongering here. I'm just saying that I believe North Korea is more threatening than Iran. Since they have nuclear weapons with the range to hit the US and a nutjob ruler. But a war with North Korea would be much more difficult than Iran or Iraq. But post war N. Korea would probably be much easier.

[edit on 31-10-2004 by imas]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
longbow you are right about communications.

We could have flown over Iraq and flipped the switch and sent them back to the stone age. But we didn't want to do things like wiping out the power. We were concerned that things like that would turn the civilian population against us. But the bombing knocked out most of the power anyway so we should have just done it.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sep

Saddam was able to fight Iran for 8 years because he had the backing of the two super powers and the war was totally funed by the Saudis and Kuwaitis. They could fight because Iran just got off a revolution and had killed every general and every good piolet Iran had. They had American equipment but no engeneers to maintain the equipment. Still in 1986 Basra the second biggest Iraqi city was falling. Iraq was being invaded from both sides and Saddam would not have existed in 1987 if it wasnt for the chemical weapons provided by the French, the rockets and spare arts provided by the Russians, and the undeclared war in the sea.

The kilo subs that you mentioned will be destroyed, but the thing that will bug the nevy most is the midget subs and the fast attack boats equped with unjammable cruise missiles. There are every where and are very hard to take out. The Sunburns you said will be destroyed. That I have to disagree with. During GW1, the US was not able to destroy even oneof the mobile Scud launchers. But that didnt concern the Americans because the Scuds were not accurate enough to have military effects. Now Iran has mobile cruise missile launchers that are dead accurate. I think that might pose a problem to the navy. The Abrams are strong and are by far superior to the Persian tanks, but dont under estimate the Iranian anti-tank, missiles.You also said something about dividing Iran. There is absolutly no chance of that happening. The fact is that Iran does have diffrent races, but all the races love Iran and are pround Iranians. A good example of this could have been seen in the Athens olympics. One of the Iranian weightlifters who was named Hossain Rezazadeh, the strongest man in the world, who is a Turk, was offered $10 million to join the Turkish team. He refused. So you see it doesnt matter if we are from diffrent races, we have lived together for thousands of years and we respect each other and love our country. If the US tries to divide our country, the will face some very serious retaliation by all the Iranians.


You are maybe true about the Sadam backing, but I still don't think that defeating Iran would be more difficult task than Iraq.
I could take longer time because Iran is bigger but it will be not more difficult.
BTW sunburns are hard to find, but don;t forget they have also much shorter range than balistic misilles like Scuds. IMO it is also not important to have Navy in the Gulf, because today US has air bases in Iraq and Afganistan. So I think Navy would be operating in Indian ocean. I don't know if all races are so proud to be Iranians (Kurds for example) but i think if they will be put before the prepared thing (independence) they would not say no
.
BTW I don't think the full war with Iran is something that's need to be done, I don't think they supported BL, the only problem is nuclear program.


Sep

posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Sep

Saddam was able to fight Iran for 8 years because he had the backing of the two super powers and the war was totally funed by the Saudis and Kuwaitis. They could fight because Iran just got off a revolution and had killed every general and every good piolet Iran had. They had American equipment but no engeneers to maintain the equipment. Still in 1986 Basra the second biggest Iraqi city was falling. Iraq was being invaded from both sides and Saddam would not have existed in 1987 if it wasnt for the chemical weapons provided by the French, the rockets and spare arts provided by the Russians, and the undeclared war in the sea.

The kilo subs that you mentioned will be destroyed, but the thing that will bug the nevy most is the midget subs and the fast attack boats equped with unjammable cruise missiles. There are every where and are very hard to take out. The Sunburns you said will be destroyed. That I have to disagree with. During GW1, the US was not able to destroy even oneof the mobile Scud launchers. But that didnt concern the Americans because the Scuds were not accurate enough to have military effects. Now Iran has mobile cruise missile launchers that are dead accurate. I think that might pose a problem to the navy. The Abrams are strong and are by far superior to the Persian tanks, but dont under estimate the Iranian anti-tank, missiles.You also said something about dividing Iran. There is absolutly no chance of that happening. The fact is that Iran does have diffrent races, but all the races love Iran and are pround Iranians. A good example of this could have been seen in the Athens olympics. One of the Iranian weightlifters who was named Hossain Rezazadeh, the strongest man in the world, who is a Turk, was offered $10 million to join the Turkish team. He refused. So you see it doesnt matter if we are from diffrent races, we have lived together for thousands of years and we respect each other and love our country. If the US tries to divide our country, the will face some very serious retaliation by all the Iranians.


You are maybe true about the Sadam backing, but I still don't think that defeating Iran would be more difficult task than Iraq.
I could take longer time because Iran is bigger but it will be not more difficult.
BTW sunburns are hard to find, but don;t forget they have also much shorter range than balistic misilles like Scuds. IMO it is also not important to have Navy in the Gulf, because today US has air bases in Iraq and Afganistan. So I think Navy would be operating in Indian ocean. I don't know if all races are so proud to be Iranians (Kurds for example) but i think if they will be put before the prepared thing (independence) they would not say no
.
BTW I don't think the full war with Iran is something that's need to be done, I don't think they supported BL, the only problem is nuclear program.


The sunburns was just an example, Iran has around 2000 balistic missiles including scuds and most are mobile launched and hard to find. You said having navy in the gulf isnt important, the fact is that the troops need suplies and the best and only way of getting the supplies to them is through the gulf. Also dont forget the oil, US needs their navy in the gulf to secure the ships, pipe lines, etc..., you said you are going to use the air bases in Iraq and Afghanestan, every inch of both the countries is in the reach of Iran's ballistic missiles. Even as far back as Israel is not safe, so I dont think the US airforce is going to land billions of dollars worth of air planes in reach of Iran's ballistic missiles. And as for the race thing, Saddam Hussain thought the same thing, giving independence to the Arabs in the south of Iran. He thought that if they had an oppertunity to join the Arab world they would grab it with both hands. Now we all know how wrong he was. The civilian Arab population of Khoozestan put up a great fight with no weapons and finally through them out. As for the Kurds, good luck trying to give them land in Iran. I think they are below 5% of the population, they are mostly Turkey's and Iraq's problem not our's.

[edit on 31-10-2004 by Sep]



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
I don't think they supported BL, the only problem is nuclear program.


Bin Ladin isn't the only terrorist in the world. We have declared war on terrorism. That includes all terrorist groups. I just hear that alot. People ask what it has to do with bin ladin. There are other terror groups that need to be destroyed.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
What really scares me is the fact that we are at our limit with troops now in such a small scale war. What would have happened if we had to invade or were attacked by a much larger country? And God forbid a 3rd world war. Our tecnology can only take us so far. Our manpower is very short these days.


Cipher6



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Cipher 6

I agree our military was stripped down in past years which is why I supported Bush in 2000. Al Gore would have just stripped our military down even more.

But I don't think we are at our limit. The war barely even effects our lives here at home. In the first two world wars the effects really hit home. Alot of people say we are stretched to our limit but these are really just baseless claims. We have tons of untapped resources waiting at home for the big man to say the word. We are fine.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Wow, no wonder they say we don't support the troops. Geez, you all make it sound like America servicepeople are expendable assembly-line creations!!!

This kind of attitude is what's gonna get our troops killed. We think we can just throw soldiers, but no, as a military commander, you always have to play it so there will be no casualties (even tho it might be inevitable).



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Wow, no wonder they say we don't support the troops. Geez, you all make it sound like America servicepeople are expendable assembly-line creations!!!
This kind of attitude is what's gonna get our troops killed. We think we can just throw soldiers, but no, as a military commander, you always have to play it so there will be no casualties (even tho it might be inevitable).


You can think whatever you want about me. I guess if I say we are doing fine that means I don't care about our troops? Don't put words in my mouth. Oh I suppose if I say we are overextended than I do care? You gotta be kiddin me. We're fine militarily and just so you know I am speaking tactically.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 03:10 PM
link   
speaking ,as a nonbaised party , your military is fine gd training, gd equip and good overall performance. your military killed the enemy and didnt do too bad at it, that was the job asked.
there are a few faults in the military but that is the same everywhere.
though your tactical position is worrying, enemies at home and abroad.
most of your marines are in iraq.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I am sorry to say this but Iran war would be to good for USA. Their troops are already spread to thin. Also Iran is not Iraq. Iran was a former ally of USA and they are in a much better position to fight a war. Also they is alot of Russians and others in Iran building the nuclear reactor. If USA invades Iran, the first thing they will have to do is destroy the nuclear reactors. Well that means killing other nations citzens. It would bring way to much instablity to that region too.

Out,
Russian



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Their troops are already spread to thin


Yes,their troops are spread too thin.And,their only reason to invade Iraq was WMD's,which they didn't have.The people have lost trust in the US government,It will take quite a while to get the people to support their government.And,Iran has nuclear reactors and all sorts of rather modern things,it would be way different from Iraq,which only had WWII tanks
and not very well armed guerrilas
.A full scale war in Iran would be nasty and prolonged.And,they already warred with Iraq and Afghanistan in the middle east,with terrorism as the reason.A war with Iran would bring insability,as Russian said.



posted on Nov, 1 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   
.
.


Originally posted by Russian
I am sorry to say this but Iran war would be to good for USA. Their troops are already spread to thin. Also Iran is not Iraq. Iran was a former ally of USA and they are in a much better position to fight a war. Also they is alot of Russians and others in Iran building the nuclear reactor. If USA invades Iran, the first thing they will have to do is destroy the nuclear reactors. Well that means killing other nations citzens. It would bring way to much instablity to that region too.

Out,
Russian


This is all very true. My question is, what is Russia's stuborm motive to build this reactor for Iran anyway. Iran has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They have no strategic incentive to spend so much money on an unneeded energy source. It is clearly indisputable to every country in the world, except they claim, Russia herself, that this Iranian reactor is being built to get the spent fuel for military use.

Now, putting myself in their mindset (as best I can), I can see, especially from the "no nuke Iraq" vs "several nukes North Koria" analogy, why Iran wants to so feverishly pursue their goal of becoming a nuclear power.

What I don't get is why Russia wants to make Iran a nuclear power.

Do they have a desire to create a powerful Iran to extend Russia's power and influence over the middle east and oil supplies, vacariously through Iran? If so, do they really think they can keep Iran on a leash?

Or is Russia just so deperately cash strapped that they'd be willing to arm one nation with the nuclear power that could one day be used against them? (even if only for use as leverage/blackmail)

.
.

[edit on 1-11-2004 by Chris G]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join