I posted yesterday a scenario in which one of the basic assumptions was a little unpopular here.

The scenario was that Iran goes nuclear and Israel is ready to go in if we don't.

I fully admit to buying my professor's line: the US cannot militarily 'take care' of a nuclear Iran by ourselves.

Many here disagreed.  Please explain....  If I ask for more details or explanations, please don't be insulted.

Quoted: It looks like we'd pretty much have to drop everything in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay extra special attention to Iran, but it probably could be done.

I don't think so.  With our modern AF there is alot we can do from the air for a long amount of time.  It wouldn't be offensive but would be definitely defensive and could buy us as much time we needed until we get ground troops ready..  I truly think that one of the reason we went into Iraq was to later deal with Iran.

Sgatr15

Quoted: It looks like we'd pretty much have to drop everything in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay extra special attention to Iran, but it probably could be done.

You can see that we are geographically isolating Iran.  Nothing happens by accident in politics.

My ideal scenario for taking care of Iran avoids direct warfare.

They got into their current situation because of the Islamic Revolution.

The general citizenry of Iran seem prime for a counter-revolution.

In my thinking, we would facilitate the will of the Iranian people, who tend to be pro-America and anti-mullah.

Quoted: Quoted: It looks like we'd pretty much have to drop everything in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay extra special attention to Iran, but it probably could be done. Will IRAN be willing to use it nukes on it's own soil to hit us? possibly but their casulaties would be enourmous along with ours. As for coventional forces, IRAQ was a far superior army to what iran has IMHO. We rolled through them like exlax through a duck. Sure we would be strained in 3 theaters but i do think it could be done. mike

Just funny seeing that together

Quoted: I posted yesterday a scenario in which ...

... Where is the link?

nobody likes me

I think the Israelis are going to deal with Iran sometime after our election.  Iran with a nuclear capability is not a situation we can tolerate.  They may not use it, but they will almost certainly hand one off to a group that will.

This how we do it.  We sit down with Iran at a quiet neighborhood restaurant.  After a while, we excuse ourself to go to the restroom.  Unknown to Iran, one of our friends taped a gun to the back of the toilet.  We come back out with the gun in our pocket.  Before we sit down, we suddenly face Iran and give them 2 shots right through the noggin.  We then drop the gun and walk calmly out of the restaurant.  

Quoted: nobody likes me

... Yeah but where is your the thread with the poll in it? You know, the one where the voters spoke

Iran's terrain is VERY different from Iraq. It's very mountainous and easily defensible. IIRC they also have a decent airforce.


Also, Russia would start up another cold war before they'd let us go into Iran.

Israel din't order all those bunker busters for nothing, it will happen and Israel will start it.

it cracks me up how kerry can stand on stage with the president and say right into the camera that Bush ignored the gathering threat of iran because he was pre-occupied with iraq.

anyone who believes that is an asshole and needs to look at a map. Americans are so geographically challeneged they probably think iran is thousands of miles away. i havent seen one good regional map on TV ever....

the truth is: depsite their harsh rhetoric the iranians are shaking like a hound dog shitting a peach pit. we've got them surrounded with 1/3 of our military on their west border and another 1/3 on their east border.

Quoted: Israel is ready to go .

Please.

Get real.


Fly  a few sorties, yes. War?? Not a chance.

As I initially said about Iraq - its PRIMARY benefit was for Israel. And as I originally said, it likely would be the reason Bush loses the election, if he does. (My basis of support for the Iraq war is the poke in the eye we gave the UN)

If Kerry does win, NOTHING will happen in Iran beyond a few possible Israeli sorties.

If you look at the Iranian demographics, you would stop thinking about the feasability an attack.  Their population is mostly below the age of 30 and they could field millions of soldiers.  Also, Iran suffered 1 million casualties in the war with Iraq and still DIDN'T LOSE.  They used to send human waves across minefields just to clear the mines.  

Remember China and the Korean war?  Invading Iran would be that all over again.

If Israel is allowed to go there, well, get ready to be drafted.

Quoted: Iran's terrain is VERY different from Iraq. It's very mountainous and easily defensible. IIRC they also have a decent airforce. .

Planes and cruise missiles are not bothered by terrain… and the Iranian airforce is a joke!

Andy

Quoted: We rolled through them like exlax through a duck.

Best analogy ever.

Yes we could take out Iran, but I would like to see the "insurgency" in Iraq crushed before we commit to another large scale offensive. Iraq would first need to be relatively secure prior to any assault or we would have the same problem. The same terrorists would just pick up and move to Iran once we had crushed their military.

Still, I don't think there are any outside factors that could influence the final score between Iran and us. Iran 0/US 1

Amazing, isn't it, how every time we are told of these mideastern armies and their combat prowess, weapons, mother of all battlesmentality, battle hardened troops, all arabs will come to their aid, blah, blah, blah, when it comes "fish or cut bait" time they are all shit?

The following thread was beaten to death on a very similar topic:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=277210&page=1

I was trying to point out that it will not be as easy as most say it will.... and that bombing Iran could also be counter productive to our interests.  My evidence for saying so can be found below.

Consequences of an Attack on Iran

Global Consequence of Iran's Aquisition of a Nuclear weapon

Iran's Bomb

Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Challenge

Checking Iran's nuclear Ambitions(Chapter 7 especially)

Quoted: I was trying to point out that it will not be as easy as most say it will.... and that bombing Iran could also be counter productive to our interests.  The my evidence for saying so can be found below. Consequences of an Attack on Iran Global Consequence of Iran's Aquisition of a Nuclear weapon Iran's Bomb Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Challenge Checking Iran's nuclear Ambitions

There is no permanent fix to the Iranian Nuke problem.
But like Israel's strike on Iraq's Osirik Nuke facility, it can push their ambitions back for years.
Like Iraq, that might be long enough for Iran to change regimes. I think your link:
Consequences of an Attack on Iran
...makes this case.

Serious Bunker Busting, even nuclear Bunker Busting air attacks could destroy much of Iran's Nuclear capabilities.
They need not be invaded or occupied.
Unlike Iraq, Iran has not expressed any imperialistic desires, so they don't necessarily have to be toppled and occupied.
But they HAVE threatened Israel AND the US.  That is a no no.

Eventually, such a nuclear horro WILL occur.  One of these countries will get a nuke, and either the US or Israel, or someone else is going to be hit.
Everything must be done to prevent this, but if that can't be, it need to at least be postponed.

the link also makes the case that we would need perfect intel in order to actually have an effective strike against Iran's nuclear program. If there are redundant facilities... and there surely are if the Iranians aren't stupid... then it will do no good to take out the overt part of their program... leaving the covert program still intact with full or near full capabilities still in place.

As the war in Iraq showed... our intel cannot be relied upon... hence we have a huge problem.

True.
But inaction will net an equally bad result, if not  worse.

You NEVER will have perfect intel, therefore you can't wait for perfect intel in order to act.
If anything, it just means that the strikes would also have to be "redundant", as well as robust.

Planes and cruise missiles are not bothered by terrain… and the Iranian airforce is a joke!

Andy

Never underestimate your enemy, north vietnamese airforce as well as the NVA is weak compared to the US forces but the outcome of the war was not what we expected it to be.

LRRPS.

Actually, that the Iranian Airforce is decent, would only mean that they might have the hubris to be in the air.
NO airforce other than The Brits, and MAYBE the French/Germans/Russians could keep their aircraft in the air against us.
They just don't have the avionics, the stealth, or the air to air range.

Quoted: True. But inaction will net an equally bad result, if not  worse. You NEVER will have perfect intel, therefore you can't wait for perfect intel in order to act. If anything, it just means that the strikes would also have to be "redundant", as well as robust.

Agreed... its just people here think because our military is so superior... it will be a walk in the park. Couple of bunker busters... couple of B-2, F-117, and  B-52 over flights, combined with a few sub launched tomahawks, and say good bye to the mullahs program. Its not that straight forward or simple. And most don't appreciate the consequences that this could cause. I was just trying to give a fuller picture on this situation.

I have written several papers on the subject and monitor the ongoing events closely

It'd be a mess.  A great, big, steaming pile of sh*t for anyone involved.  

On the other hand, you have to ask yourself if you believe sanctions will ultimately deter the Iranians from developing the their own "bomb" and, if it doesn't, what the problem will look like then?

The Israeli's spent 50 some odd years teaching the Arabs that threatening them and ACTING on those threats was very expensive in men and equipment.  Being able to make those threats and hold the population of Israel hostage to the whims of whatever imam or mufti has his finger on the button that day has got to be the closest thing to a wet-dream those people allow themselves.

In my opinion, I would say that the United States would be better off if Iran had a internal revolution.
There are 65,000,000 Iranians.

True.

But a nuclear detonation in Israel, or (God Forbid) the US, is something that must be avoided, AT ANY COST.
How to avoid this cannot be the reliance on agreements with Iran.
Therefore some sort of attack, or Iranian regime change, MUST happen.

The Arabs know, that once they have nukes, EVERYTHING changes.

Quoted: I posted yesterday a scenario in which one of the basic assumptions was a little unpopular here. The scenario was that Iran goes nuclear and Israel is ready to go in if we don't. I fully admit to buying my professor's line: the US cannot militarily 'take care' of a nuclear Iran by ourselves. Many here disagreed.  Please explain....  If I ask for more details or explanations, please don't be insulted.

Your thesis is based upon a false premise:  The United States does in fact have the resources to engage Iran successfully.  We simply have yet to tap it.   WRT "taking care of a nuclear Iran", that is easily within the reach of our military.  All you need is the will.

IF, our National Command Authority decided to eradicate the nuclear threat that Iran posed to the United States for example, all it would take is one Emergency Action Message to one deployed Trident submarine with a target set update.  If a launch order were to be sent, Iran would cease to exist.  Extreme?  Yes.  Out of the realm of possibilities?  No.  That said, there are lots of options in between extreme pacifism and waiting on the UN, as Monsieur Kerry would want, and all out eradication of Iran in a nuclear holocaust.

This talk about us being "overextended" is a lot of folderol.  The truth is we are not overextended...in fact we are not THAT stessed now.  We now have thousands of men and women back home from their inititial deployments to the sandpile, reconstituting, training, repairing their gear and preparing to go again.  We civilians are sitting on our fat asses, enjoying life, going to the game, playing with our kids, checking out the latest movie and in general, living our lives as if nothing else mattered.  We act as if any disruption to our daily lives is the end of the fucking world as we know it!  As a nation, we are not [yet] fully engaged...and I fear that because of that, many among us retain a certain detachment to this war and the consequences if we don't complete it successfully.

From a historical standpoint, our guys have not spent that much time overseas in a combat theater.  IF we had to, they could spend a hell of a lot more time in combat overseas.  Trust me, our fathers and grandfathers did it in World War II and Korea.  It was nothing for a sailor or Marine to spend over two years deployed to the Western Pacific, assaulting island after island during the march to Tokyo.  One of the biggest mistakes our military EVER made was to restrict our deployments to Vietnam to 13 months and then send in replacement piecemeil.  Stupid idea.  In this war, our losses have been, again, taken in a historical context, miniscule.   Those who bewail our rising casualties HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE what real casualties are!  DO A BIT OF RESEARCH PEOPLE!  During the last real World War for our very survival, like the war we are currently in, we lost THOUSANDS of soldiers, sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coasties EVERY DAY all over the world.  You want to talk QUAGMIRE?  Think Guadalcanal...say October of 1942...just before Halsey relieved Ghormley.

All this gloom and doom is a lot of BS.  This country has great resilience and is fully capable of winning this war, INCLUDING knocking the shit out of Iran and North Korea.  Can it be done overnight...easily...without casualties?  NO!  Should it be done?  ABSOLUTELY!  We can't wait for the despots or the despotic oligarchy to set the agenda.  We can't wait for them to decide when and where they should attack us.

This is a very dangerous world we live in now.  Either we wait until the enemies of freedom loving men attack us [with a nuc] or we kick his door in and remove his ability to do so.  I for one am all for option two.  I'd not like to see a mushroom could rising over an American community.

BTW...your liberal professor is full of shit and clearly without any real knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the United States Military.  Further, he/she is a lousy student of geopolitics and military history.  

LWilde:  28 year retired military;  DoD consultant and currently university faculty.

<<Monday mornings...gotta love 'em!>>

Quoted: True. But a nuclear detonation in Israel, or (God Forbid) the US, is something that must be avoided, AT ANY COST. How to avoid this cannot be the reliance on agreements with Iran. Therefore some sort of attack, or Iranian regime change, MUST happen. The Arabs know, that once they have nukes, EVERYTHING changes.

Iranians are not Arabs.  That said...many ARE Islamofacists.  Otherwise, your argument is rock solid sound.

Iranian AF a joke? Weren't they trained by USAF up in Wilmington OH(old Clinton County AFB,now DHL/Airborne).How many MiG-29s do they have?Any Su-27 fighters? How many F-4Es/F-14As still flying? I would think they would have scattered their nuke facilities so they would'nt end up like Iraqis.

Quoted: Quoted: True. But a nuclear detonation in Israel, or (God Forbid) the US, is something that must be avoided, AT ANY COST. How to avoid this cannot be the reliance on agreements with Iran. Therefore some sort of attack, or Iranian regime change, MUST happen. The Arabs know, that once they have nukes, EVERYTHING changes. Iranians are not Arabs.  That said...many ARE Islamofacists.  Otherwise, your argument is rock solid sound.

Yes, I know..
But this isn't just about the Iranians.
When we say the Arab/Israeli Conflict, we are including the Iranians.

fuzed airburst 100 megeton detonation above Tehran...problem solved.    Hope they got 2,000,000spf sunblock around.  

Quoted: Iranian AF a joke? Weren't they trained by USAF up in Wilmington OH(old Clinton County AFB,now DHL/Airborne).How many MiG-29s do they have?Any Su-27 fighters? How many F-4Es/F-14As still flying? I would think they would have scattered their nuke facilities so they would'nt end up like Iraqis.

Most of the US trained pilots bought the farm in the Iran/Iraq War. The f4's are antiques, the F14's not much better, they have a bunch of superannuated ex iraqi soviet junk

F-4D/E / RF-4E PHANTOM 65

F-5E/F TIGER II 60

F-14 TOMCAT 50

F-7 (China J-7) 25

MiG-29A/UB 50

Su-24MK 30

Mirage F-1 25

MiG-23 FLOGGER 15

Rough translation of 'Iranian Air Foce' ……… Airborne Targets for USAF/USN fighters


Article discussing a preemptive strike on Iran on Globalsecurity

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: IF, our National Command Authority decided to eradicate the nuclear threat that Iran posed to the United States for example, all it would take is one Emergency Action Message to one deployed Trident submarine with a target set update.  If a launch order were to be sent, Iran would cease to exist.

WORD!…

Andy

The entire Iranian armed forces are a joke when compared against the United States.

Iran with a nuclear weapon is another kettle of fish.

Quoted: Quoted: It looks like we'd pretty much have to drop everything in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay extra special attention to Iran, but it probably could be done. You can see that we are geographically isolating Iran.  Nothing happens by accident in politics. My ideal scenario for taking care of Iran avoids direct warfare. They got into their current situation because of the Islamic Revolution. The general citizenry of Iran seem prime for a counter-revolution. In my thinking, we would facilitate the will of the Iranian people, who tend to be pro-America and anti-mullah.

We probably see a repeat of the opening phases of Afghanistan. Special Forces aiding the locals in the formation of a movement to overthrow the Ayotollahs. Events in A-stan and Iraq would actually calm down as the Iranians would be too be busy with their own problems to foment as much trouble with Al-Sadr and Hekmatyr.

Use the Trident! Thats what I would have done in regards to osama and his band of shitheads!Just the mere threat woulda scared the taliscum to give him up,oh yeah,and BTW,talishit,you're out too!

Quoted: fuzed airburst 100 megeton detonation above Tehran...problem solved.    Hope they got 2,000,000spf sunblock around.

The largest weapon (officially) currently in our inventory has a 9 megaton yield.

Quoted: The largest weapon (officially) currently in our inventory has a 9 megaton yield.

nope, we got Cincinnatus.  

Quoted: Quoted: The largest weapon (officially) currently in our inventory has a 9 megaton yield. nope, we got Cincinnatus.

This is true.

I'm good for at least 10 megatons, and if I have a few drinks, maybe 11 or 12.

here we go again!!!!!
1.  B-2s and F-117s strike priority and radar targets ( priority means means Iranian installations near Iraqi border and troop armor and air units AND GOVERNMENT FACILITIES )
2.  F-15s and possibly the F-22 in limited numbers sweep the skies clean over Iran then attack those same priority targets again.
3.  THERE WILL BE NO INVASION!!!!!!!  NO GROUND UNITS IN IRAN only a small massing in key areas on the Iraqi border in key areas
4.  MOST IMPORTANTLY LOOK FOR A DECAPITATION STRIKE

Quoted: Quoted: fuzed airburst 100 megeton detonation above Tehran...problem solved.    Hope they got 2,000,000spf sunblock around.   The largest weapon (officially) currently in our inventory has a 9 megaton yield.

it's the THOUGHT that counts...just nuke their asses, okay!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The largest weapon (officially) currently in our inventory has a 9 megaton yield. nope, we got Cincinnatus.   This is true. I'm good for at least 10 megatons, and if I have a few drinks, maybe 11 or 12.

Oh my god he's got a sense of humor - THANK GOD!!!!!!!
I call you a duchebag and you go Puritan on my ass, I call you a weapon and you laugh it off.
Damn Marines are wierd.

The subversive way:  Encourage and help organize the student protests, while at the same time surreptitiously causing severe problems with the infrastructure that supports the states response to such protests (communications, computer networks, roads).  Stage incidents that make it look like the Iranian government went "over the line", to help galvanize the student uprising, and to draw down international condemnation, increasing international pressure on the ruling mulahs to hold REAL democratic elections.  While doing all this, throw a monkey wrench into the relationships that they have with their traditional allies, making their support system weaker.  At the right time, help the Iranian students pick a "leader" with whom they can all associate and that they will follow.  

What is forgotten sometimes is that we destroyed the (then) 4th most powerful military in the world in spite of having to drag all our stuff half way around the world and stage it on a relatively small front. In liberating Iraq and Arghanistan we now have the ability to base large amounts of stuff and people on two relatively large fronts (read more tactical/strategic options). Iran has only glimsed the true EW capability of our military. This combined with complete air superiority would make Iranian C3I untenable and would allow the US to achieve a rapid victory. The key is to not think of any action as an occupation but as a liberation.

CW