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 goals were different in Vietnam and that was a ground war.
The goal in Iran should be to merely cripple them militarily and economically while destroying the infrastructure of their society. All of that can be done with missile attacks and air strikes.
The prospect of that clearly has you shook so even you know it to be true even if you won't admit it.
Exactly!
The #1 Objective in Iran is to remove their nuclear capability, #2 is to eliminate their terrorist activities.
If Iran does not come back to the table to negotiate a solution to their nuclear weapons ambitions. And we know they won't do that because they are hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons to bolster their international terrorism efforts and wipe Israel from the face of the Earth.
Killing Iran's Top Terrorist was a brilliant chess move by President Trump because it forces Iran to make a Severe Response (read military) instead of only a Measured Response, and this would give President Trump the justification to also use military force, another Shock & Awe.
No need for boots on the ground as most attacks will be carried out from a stand-off position by cruise missiles. For example: just one boat - the USS Florida (SSGN-728), an Ohio-Class nuclear ballistic missile submarine converted to a cruise missile submarine, is positioned safely offshore, and she has a lot more than 52 targets programmed into her arsenal!
Once the USAF and Navy have taken out Iran's piddly air force and sporadic air defenses, we would make a last effort at diplomacy with Iran to disassemble their nuclear weapons efforts. And then, if they still refuse, we could take out their fortified underground nuclear facilities, and also their oil fields and refineries. This would achieve Objective #1, and cripple them economically so that they could no longer fund further terrorist activities.
It may finally get their conservative populace to rise up against the extremist Ayatollah and replace him with a more civil and moderate government.
Why are people glamouring for war with them if there is no issue?
Please make an effort to hone your reading comprehension skills.
End-game, all-out ground invasion war is only necessary if the enemy has the capability and demonstrated willingness to do it to you (e.g. Nazi Germany).
Short of that, the objective is perpetual low intensity war.
Humans have been doing that since year one, and it's certainly been the case for the past several decades.
Please make an effort to hone your reading comprehension skills.
End-game, all-out ground invasion war is only necessary if the enemy has the capability and demonstrated willingness to do it to you (e.g. Nazi Germany).
Short of that, the objective is perpetual low intensity war.
Humans have been doing that since year one, and it's certainly been the case for the past several decades.
No problem.
Why would they seek end-game?
So why did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither had the capability to invade us. Why didn't we just track OBL and do a raid like we did in Pakistan 2011? Why all that mess of exchanging gun fire with a bunch of goat herders in the Hindu Kush?
I'm spreading what I think is the truth. I have too much self respect to sprout nonsense just because I think it helps my side. My side is to pull out of the ME, and if Iran then comes and attacks us on our soil, I will vow their destruction to every last Irani but now they're in the right! And I will say it.
All of this is a response to sn Iranian attack on American soil and all it did was get you to spread Iranian propaganda... so let's just say I have my doubts about literally every part of that statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Well, I did bomb damage assessments after B-52 attacks during the Vietnam war. Many parts of north Vietnam looked like the dark side of the moon. If the hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosive the US dropped on Vietnam didn't bring those folks to their knees, it's likely not to work on Iran either.
Again, the goal was different. When doing those damage assessments, what would you say their economic capacity was?
The goal in Iran isn't "winning hearts and minds" or "stopping the spread of communism", it would merely be to cripple them economically and militarily and that's an easily achievable goal through the sky.
Well, I did bomb damage assessments after B-52 attacks during the Vietnam war. Many parts of north Vietnam looked like the dark side of the moon. If the hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosive the US dropped on Vietnam didn't bring those folks to their knees, it's likely not to work on Iran either.
One of the segments on the Ken Burn's series on Vietnam showed the relentless bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and the relentless efforts to rebuild the trail.
Bombs fell all day. Then at night, Vietnamese people would be out with shovels, rakes, and baskets repairing the the trail. They were prepared to do this for generations.
Does anyone actually believe the Iranians are any less determined?
Absolutely it does. Crush their economy and after they burn through the rest of that Obama money they won't be able to fund their global terrorism network anymore even if their next government is just as bad.
On top of that, China and Russia likely move into the power vacuum and seek to make the country profitable for them which would mean a more stable, friendly government.
There's no need for a long engagement in Iran, the damage can be done quickly and with few to no casualties on the US side. The Iranians know this so don't be shocked if they don't pick suicide.
On which corner of the pentagram does your office occupy?
Last edited by Frank DeForrest; 01-07-2020 at 07:26 AM..
All of this is a response to sn Iranian attack on American soil and all it did was get you to spread Iranian propaganda... so let's just say I have my doubts about literally every part of that statement.
Again, the goal was different. When doing those damage assessments, what would you say their economic capacity was?
The goal in Iran isn't "winning hearts and minds" or "stopping the spread of communism", it would merely be to cripple them economically and militarily and that's an easily achievable goal through the sky.
And I have doubts about where you are getting your information.
It's been said since WWII and repeated found true that except for using nukes, it's impossible to win a war through air power alone. The war is not won until you can stand a 19-year-old with a rifle uncontested anywhere on their soil.
Iran has a vast capability of absorbing losses, as the Iran/Iraq war demonstrated.
But I don't know why people seem to think that Iran's response will necessarily be militarily symmetrical.
More likely, Iran's response will be in one or both of two asymmetrical methods:
1. Grinding, frequent militia attacks on US forces in Iraq.
2. Technological attacks (system hacking) on any of the many vulnerable infrastructure computer systems in the US, which they have been shown able to do. Moreover, Iran's ally Russia is also able to launch technological attacks on US infrastructure.
Yes, they would seek out our weaknesses and exploit them, like anyone with half a brain would do. We had a massive advantage in firepower in Vietnam, and even though we even had boots on the ground, the enemy was still able to exploit our weaknesses, and were able to withstand our air-power in the North where we had no boots on the ground.
The American public hates casualties, even modest ones, and this especially true when people don't know why we are engaged in the first place. The Vietnamese said we can kill 20 Vietnamese, and they kill only one American, but the American public don't care about the 20 Vietnamese, they only care about the one American. This proved true, and the public opinion turned against the war as the casualties mounted. Once we engage, every American anywhere in the world becomes a target, and casualties will start adding up.
So why did we invade Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither had the capability to invade us. Why didn't we just track OBL and do a raid like we did in Pakistan 2011?
I agree that the ground invasion of Iraq was a colossal unnecessary mistake, the status quo would have worked fine.
Actually reinforces the argument, doesn't it.
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.
