Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem tinman is if Iran has nuclear capabilities, even causing a melt down of there own reactor as a line of defense. I am not sure that Ahmadinejad would not do that. We already know that the belief structure in the region promotes martyrium.
Even Saddam said with his last breath, god save Iran believing that he would be looked upon as a martyr. How ever blind that is the fact remains that it is a relevant ideology
As we learned or at least should have learned in Iraq, defeating Irans standing army is not the challenge. Its what you do with the chaos that follows that would be the challenge.
Lets face it. Irans top shelf equipment is nothing to really brag about.
Their training is questionable at best.
Perhaps what Iran should be thinking is Saddam thought his numbers offset the technology advantage. He was wrong. A 10 year slugfest between a US military and Iran's military just wouldn't happen.
Iran can't control the sea, and wont control the skies. Lacking both your ground war is doomed before the first shot can be fired. List of aircraft of the Iranian Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List of current ships of the Iranian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic Republic of Iran Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As 1 can see Irans best poses a very limited threat to what the US can field.
Once again the battle between massed armies would not last long. The true challenge would be in the chaos that followed. Much like Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think you're addressing a question which doesn't exist.
You allude to "defeating Irans standing army" and a "battle between massed armies". But no one is contemplating a ground war. NO invasion.
If there is no ground war, then how would it be "much like Iraq and Afghanistan"?
America wont attack Iran so to speak. Israel will. Debate if you will be backed by the US if you will but on the face it will be Israeli launched planes and bombs
PS love the potato peeler comment OP that had me laughing
Regardless who attacks Iran and whether or not it is "limited strikes" on its nuclear facilities, which by the way, the United States has since concluded that it could not accomplish by strikes alone.
Many people think Iran will just huddle in the fetal position and do nothing over having an aggressive nation attack them. This would be a wholly ignorant position to take on its prudence alone, let alone logically.
Sink a single tanker in the straights of Hormuz which would be easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Then there is that little matter of only 47,000 US soldiers scattered in Iraq, to which Al Sadr forces aligned with Iran's government will no longer be restrained. Iraq would at the very least in the short term, fall into chaos. Then of course Iran could launch a number of its ground to ground medium ranged Sejil-2 missiles and if upon striking Dimona, turn Israel into the next Chernobyl. Iran doesn't even need a nuke since they are sitting just down the street in Israel already. Lets not forget that Iran has acquired the SS-N-22 Sunburn (moskit) from China that acquired them from Russia. It is one of the words best anti-ship missiles that is more than capable of removing a warship, let alone a tanker or cargo ship.
The potential outcomes are many and most do not bode well for the global economy, let alone US and UN forces in the region which are already stretched thin. Israel on the other hand doesn't really give a damn about anyone but Israel and since the US guarantees they are supplied from our strategic fuel reserves, they have few immediate repercussions other than the US complaining on the back of yet another foreign aid check.
Many people think Iran will just huddle in the fetal position and do nothing over having an aggressive nation attack them. This would be a wholly ignorant position to take on its prudence alone, let alone logically.
There is no such thing as a mid easterner that will "huddle in the fetal position"
As we learned or at least should have learned in Iraq, defeating Irans standing army is not the challenge. Its what you do with the chaos that follows that would be the challenge.
This.
It was same way before Iraq, people talking about they had the 5th largest air defense network and several kinds of advanced Russian surface to air missile and that hundreds of tanks and oh no they've got MIG-29s the classic air show crowd pleaser etc.
Iran's military would be overrun and scattered, it is as poster mentions... what to do afterwards.
It was same way before Iraq, people talking about they had the 5th largest air defense network and several kinds of advanced Russian surface to air missile and that hundreds of tanks and oh no they've got MIG-29s the classic air show crowd pleaser etc.
Iran's military would be overrun and scattered, it is as poster mentions... what to do afterwards.
Yet we are still in Iraq and have been mopping up for nearly a decade.
Besides, hard to compare Iraq and Iran, as Iraq had 10 years of crippling sanctions prior to our invasion, not to mention the prior conflict in which we inflicted massive losses upon an extended army which was in the middle of a campaign.
Iran has been planning for an attack for well over a decade, it has scattered its nuclear enrichment facilities into numerous hardened bunkers. It has been buying next generation contemporary defensive weaponry, such as state of the art Moskit's, as well as learning from the tactics employed over the past decade in Iraq. Not to mention Iran has more than double the population, is four times as large.
There is a reason the United States hasn't attacked Iran, in fact there are numerous reasons, some of which I've pointed out. There is also a reason the US is begging the Israelis to think about someone other than themselves for a change.
Heck, I've played a Tom Clancy game or two on a LAN and it was just like being there and guess what, I took out a whole division of terrorist with just a lone sniper and 4 flash grenades!
An American "invasion'?????
Where do you get off on that??!! No one has even suggested an invasion. No Vietnam, no Iraq, no Afghanistan. Military action would be limited to targeted air strikes on their nuclear enrichment facilities. No land forces, period.
There's a hell of a lot of fear-mongering misinformation being thrown about here.
I understand the the US just gave Israel some 40 jets. Israel is now equipped to handle Iran themselves. Good luck but remember,that the land belongs to the victors.
For the first time, I am glad that our economy cannot handle another conflict.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
