Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iran Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Ides of March
sofa    2/13/2006 8:21:22 PM
So how does it start? (1) Naval attack on US vessel. Hazy to prove-or-not. Gulf of Tonkin retaliation start. (2) Iranian intel officer(s) in Iraq. Dramatization of people captured or bodies or documents. War on terror masters. (3) Response to border skirmish. Frequent opportunities. Establish small base within Iran for ‘defensive purposes’, which they must respond to. (4) Tank exercise deep into Syria, following terrorists, Establish small base for ‘defensive purposes’. Pressures Assad gov’t to collapse. Iran is Syrian ally and US really makes it hard for Iran to back out. (5) Osirik 2, the sequel. Israel bombs Iran. Iran retaliates. (6) US backs down, Iran dominates region, dhimmitude. Others?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
reefdiver    RE:Ides of March   2/17/2006 12:13:29 AM
My rather naive and uneducated observation is that the US would/will NOT attack in response to a military provocation but a breakdown in negotiations(aren't we already there?). I think it would/will be done in a surprise and massively decisive air-campaign. The US will not show the massive troop build-ups on the ground to tip off Iran. There will be no invasion of Iran although there would no doubt be incursions. Just follow the military procument rags - all PGM are being ordered in quantity. Another post elsewhere mentioned knowledge that JDAM's are rolling off the Missouri assembly lines at 1 every 5 minutes. There are large orders for JSOW, JASSM, ATACMS, HARPOON etc. Not many of these are needed in Iraq these days. I believe the US would have to initially destroy, not the nuclear facilities, but the entire defensive and offensive infrastructure of Iran. In the first waves, I would look to see the entire Iranian air force and navy, including submarines, disappear along with most missile batteries and command. I would think later waves would deal with not only the nuclear facilities, but also with missile production facilities, but these could be done at leisure. With control of the air, the US could keep Iran weak for years... More interesting will be what the effect on the entire world will be if this happens. It can't possibly be good...of course the same thing could be said for doing nothing.
 
Quote    Reply

sofa    RE:Ides of March   2/17/2006 12:53:45 AM
I doubt US would 'just attack'; but rather think that the US would enjoy a 'cover story' for historical purposes. So I'm trying to get creative and anticipate the eventual "PR story". About the progress of the war: Little buildup visible to public is necessary. Some forces and pre-positioned equipment already in theater, and more can flex in a low-vis fashion. Visible ramping up can take place during inital bombing. But location and composition of nuclear facilities seems to necessitate sustained boots on the ground at numerous locations, including urban centers; which will have to be supported furiously by overwhelming air. Boots on the ground in any proud country will necessarily enrage strong nationalistic pride. Very bad. Very Bad, but mission dictates constraints. No long term rebuilding necessary. Don't want to destroy civil infrastructure or oil infrastructure. Unlike Iraq which was a broken shell of a country, Iran is vibrant: Civil population has working social structure and economy; which just needs the oil money to kick start itself again. And no reason to empower Russian oil leverage, or create oil problems for China. Just a shame that boots on the ground are necessary, since that leads to a whole cascading set of issues, and kicks-up more dust. Longer term - 5 years - Iran is fine; but now has a grudge. In another 50 years, does everyone have nukes? Even corporations and criminal gangs? But back on topic: What might the 'cover story' be?
 
Quote    Reply

lightningtest    off topic! Sofa: In another 50 years, does everyone have nukes?   2/27/2006 8:33:40 AM
Yes - Once nuclear tech which doesn't rely on putting a critical mass together for several microseconds gets understood widely then nukes will be commodities. Disenmination of this info is unavoidable. I detect that some of the basic enabling tech is being clawed back into the secret world but this tactic is not succeeding as market forces now hold sway. Question, as I see it, is how people who harness the tech and use it for extortion/shoring up their power can be destroyed with minimal collatoral damage. For the remainder of human history. Unless the whole planet gets a political system which removes the presumption of inocence (where it exists now!), right to life (unless you endanger others) and all the other civilised ideas we presently rely on to justify our actions then the neccessary quick violent action to prosecute such experimenters will be impossible. Such a political system is neccesary in my opinion. However its ruling cliche much be removed (peacefully) periodically inorder that there own personal interest/profiteering plans don't suplant their duty to conduct rational anyisis of evidence, then order action. Cheery thoughts!
 
Quote    Reply

sofa    RE:off topic! Sofa: In another 50 years, does everyone have nukes?   3/6/2006 7:19:44 PM
OK - In your scenario everyone has nukes... Isn’t nuclear genocide inevitable? The logic changes: Those willing to use them brutally WIN. Geographical concentrations of wealth, power, population are too tempting as targets. Reasoned, thinking, tolerant societies CEASE TO EXIST. Mutually Assured Destruction only works against organized nation-states. In this scenario, where the wealthy/powerful are under constant threat of extreme loss, the 'rational choice' is to do everything to avoid that massive loss - The only way to avoid the threat is to remove it completely... sudden and complete genocide of the threatening groups. As complete as possible. It won't work completely the first time. There will be some ‘leakers’ and the first to strike massively will also take big hits. But through persistent application they will significantly improve their chance of survival for another generation or so.
 
Quote    Reply

Decimatus    RE:off topic! Sofa: In another 50 years, does everyone have nukes?   4/3/2006 9:22:19 AM
Eventually nuclear fission(volatile fission such as with Uranium and Plutonium) will be forcibly removed from planet and all weapon cappable materials with it. As soon as we work out cheap energy, such as fusion, we will be able to completely outlaw conventional nuclear reactors upon replacement. After we get rid of all fissile materials it will be a matter of finding and removing any other technologies and materials that could be easily used to flatten cities. I don't think we will have to worry about nuclear weapons for the rest of mankind's history(unless they end mankind that is), but they will pose a significant threat for the next 100 years probably. A few hundred years in the future might see threat from rogue groups and hyper velocity mass drivers threatening space colonies and planets.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics