Bombs Over Tehran

reply to post by macman


I would also expect to see the Samp/T and other Aster systems along with their US counter parts being moved into the region to give the best protection possible to any Iranian counter measures.

If it is a surgical strike to take out only the nuclear facilities, as is most likely, there will be 6 to 8 aircraft per facility armed with non-nuclear bunker busters. Surely, no one can seriously think we would use anything nuclear in a preemptive strike even if it was tactical nukes.

reply to post by taderhold


Agreed, there is no need for Nuclear weapons.

the fella with the deus ex avatar has a very good point, but if the conflict escalates more hardware would be needed eventually, so cost would probably be an issue. then again, look at ww2 and follow the money.

I didn't think about the drones, there are stories some we're hacked by a variant of the stuxnet virus, controlled even, its not hard to forsee computers fighting for control either, which is a strange thought.

as for 'nuke it' >_> china and russia have already said 'don't beef iran', that would be the icing on the cake to say 'is that so...*press* hmhmhm' and the inevitable retaliation.

as with all war I forsee large explosions aplenty, nothing works better to distract from the main force running at your capital than big and loud in the distance getting closer in the form of cluster bombs. the stealth boats is another matter entirely, someone already said about goodies from area 51 in the horizon of ww3, they could be holding back on uberradar but you'd think they would have made cost effective improvements so far. I don't have much faith that its more than a cost effectiveness thing, the phrase is 'remember your gun was made by the lowest bidder' or something. I forget where thats from.

I doubt there would be any invasion. It would be like the first Iraq war. The US bombs them to the stone age and lets them roit for a few years trying to rebuild. Then the US comes back and clean them up while they are rebuilding.

Make them use up all their resouces is the best strategy.

Kind of like how u play video games. Early rush to destroy the base. Leave and come back, and they are more venerable than ever with no more hardware and troops. Maybe guys with pitch forks. Then u can really play with your food.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Fitch303
It's not the weapons it's the people who control the weapons. With the same power structure in place although severely crippled change will not happen. Missiles and aircraft will not get rid of military members with handheld weapons taking cover in cities and high population areas.

Who cares about change?
Dismantle their infrastructure, Radio, TV, Bridges, Hospitals, Schools, Dams, oil fields, Airports, sea ports and Rail lines etc etc.

Again,,,Why invade?

No need to physically invade to destroy a country.

Would fighting a war without ground troops actually cost us less financially or more?

reply to post by jensy

Scare tactics aside, theres not much Iran can do militarily. Iran is a relatively poor nation with small arms and almost no delivery system.

The only recourse they have is to make a plea to the World audience that the US, UK and Israel are aggressor nations hell bent on a military take over of the entire planet and are more than willing to commit mass murder in the process.

The only real means of retaliation would be a World wide divestment out of the US dollar which would in all likelihood would be the final nail in the coffin of this near dead currency, causing a financial melt down in the U.S.

That would be their best course of retaliation.

Financial WMDs. They're raving Europe as we speak and it wouldnt take much to level the U.S.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I too see that as the situation. No huge war, just quick domination of a small nation with a big mouth.

It will start with a major airstrike to make Iran light up it's surface to air missile radar systems. These will be destroyed by drones with Hellfire missiles. The airstrike will be a feint. I'd keep this up for several days at different times during the day. Iran can't afford not to honor the threat, in the mean time it will attrit their air defences. Once the SAM threat is reduced, our aircraft can roam Iran's airspace at will. I don't consider Iran's aircraft to be much of a problem since Tomahawk strikes will leave them without an airfield to operate from. This would be a good time to give the USS Nevada a workout. I don't think that it will be necessary to use nukes. Just use conventional weapons to reduce their infrastructure to where nothing moves on their roads without being attacked. Make sure that Iran knows that if there is any use of nuclear weapons, it will be returned in kind by a factor of 10. See how long it is until the Iranian people revolt. No invasion necessary.

reply to post by underduck


What I'm trying to convey is the fact that there is no need to physically invade a country to destroy it. Isolate Iran and systematically dismantle it's infrastructure. North Vietnam didn't want to negotiate a cease-fire at the Paris peace talks so the US could pull out until Nixon took the gloves off and started the 24/7 non stop Christmas bombings of North Vietnam.

At first all was fine in North Vietnam but they quickly ran out of Surface to Air Missiles and they witnessed their country being reduced to rubble. [During a planned bombing pause] 48 hours later a deal was signed.

The US never invaded North Vietnam but rather defended South Vietnam.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by jensy

 

Realistically theres not much they can do. Compared to the US, UK and Israel which has been fully armed and funded by the US, its a silly discussion.

I would argue they are less of a threat than Iraq. The first Iraq "war" lasted 100 hours (after a month of bombing). The second Iraq "war" lasted all of 21 days.

Iran, the "big bad evil empire" would probably take all of a week depending on what the axis of evil decided to do. If they want to bombard Iran from a distance, it could go on indefinitely as theres nothing Iran can do. If they decide to invade with troops, Iran might last a week?

While I agree, I have to add that Iran's response will more then likely be in the form of an EMP detonation.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I agree with the idea that it isnt nessesary. I am just trying to run through the idea of what type of attack yields what type aftermath.

If the only goal is to destroy and isolate we could probably do it without even putting a pilot into Iranian airspace. Hit the key points you mentioned in an earlier post and wait for the reaction.

I am much familiar with these threats , US and warmongers have been making to dishearten Iranian people.

To those warmongers :

We are not afraid of you.

To the fear spreaders :

Find some moral attitudes , respect those attitudes.

I edited to add these links :

We still love you American people , from Iraqis with love

I love you America - I'm serious

It is not so hard to love you !!! tell me that you love me,too

I hate to hate Americans . but there is no other way,

My recent thread :

Historical review : Failure of US Military Attack on Tabas



Have a nice time living far from battle field and in peace.

reply to post by macman


Yeah..the satellite weapons exist, they just haven't been flexed in actual warfare yet.

The kinetic kill system (rods from god) would be far more effective in penetrating bunkers than conventional bunker busters and also reduces exposure for pilots required to fly bunker buster missions.

I believe if this Iran strike does happen we will see the roll-out of the tech stuff, not just because it will be needed against a target such as Iran , but also as a demonstration and show of new force to those who may consider assisting Iran.

Cutting to the chase, the US will have to dissuade Russia and China from entering into the war in any conventional sense.

That would be achieved by flexing of technological muscle imho.

In a nutshell the US will have to demonstrate it's full potential with all it's secret toys.

This doesn't mean it will be a walkover..who knows..maybe some-one has given Iran Scalar capability.

Cosmic...

reply to post by hmdphantom

N.B: This is a discussion about strategic air power and military hardware. Leave the politics and ethics at the door.

Jensy

I just don't see it happening. The US likes to talk and condemn but I just don't see them going in on Iran. Israel is another story. They would go in guns blazing. If anything we'd play a support roll to ensure Israel didn't get attacked by other nations. You can only play a hand so many times before people catch on to the game. We used ours up with Iraq. There has to be a bigger trigger, another false flag that totally looks like Iran did something.

We sure are ramping up the rhetoric as of late though but I just don't see anything happening. Its one big global game of chess. Russia and China are only friends for check and balance purposes. They use screw you US vetoes and we use screw you vetoes as well. None of the big players care for the smaller nations. Just pawns on the global Chess board.

In reality though what are Iran's list of crimes excluding oppression of the people. What are their international crimes that requires international intervention?

Just to add, i think Iran will retaliate by attacking Oil refineries and wells in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.

It will probably attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz with mines and fast attack boats in a suicidal fashion.

Little history lesson..the first suicide bomber was an Iranian boy soldier who destroyed an Iraqi tank with explosives he carried on his back.

Once attacked the Iranians will be full on, by all means necessary.

Cosmic...

I imagine they'll start with a bit of shock and awe with a hint of special forces like RECON Marines and Navy SEALes to secure the invasion points followed by a combination of amphibious landings in the Gulf and Caspian seas. while securing the desert to the west with tanks and infantry.
With more ground based special forces like Airborne and Rangers securing the mountain passes to the east

reply to post by MrStyx


Although I am very keen to keep off politics with this thread (mods please note).....

I do have to wonder if this ramping up of rhetoric has more to do with confirmation that Iran had a role in 9/11.

The nuclear threat could be far more safely dealt with politics than intervention. The cold war was eventually brought to an end through detente rather than deterrence.

Returning to the topic at hand, I find it interesting that there has been no mention of carriers. Is this because the f-18 / super hornet do not have the ability to go up against even a modest air defence?

Jensy

reply to post by jensy


No-one's mentioning carriers because Iran has the SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-shipping missile, or to give its correct name the Raduga P-270 Moskrit.

Mach 3 high speed carrier killer.

Cosmic...