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: A strike on Iran nuke sites will be a cake-walk -- so what's the problem?
HYPOCENTER    8/29/2006 4:36:31 PM
All over the news I hear and read the U.S. military is “overstretched” and that destroying Iran’s nuke sites just can’t be done or will be too difficult and cause tons of friendly deaths so we might as well forget it… blah blah blah… with the usual “military is overstretched” song. What I don’t understand, is why people can’t understand that U.S. troops would never be involved in taking down Iran nuke sites. US troops would never see an Iranian soldier, ever. The military solution to the Iranian nuke problem is a 100% Air and Naval campaign with no troops ever used for anything. The solution to Iranians nuke problem plays directly to our strengths: applying overwhelming air and naval power. U.S. air power would easily destroy Irans fighters and bombers, as well as anti-air radar installations and missile sites. The now safe air-power can bomb the hell out of every nuke site known or suspected with near impunity. Simultaneously, I would put a Naval blockade around Iran and warn them that any Iranian warship that is not in port by xxx time will be sunk. This includes Iranian subs as well, all of which would be shadowed by U.S. hunter-killers just waiting for the command to sink. I’d be half tempted to sink them anyway, because once you take down their military force you effectively bankrupt them beyond what any UN sanctions could ever do. The time and money needed to rebuild ships, subs and jets would really set Iran back. So much so, they wouldn’t be able to continue their Nuke plans…. At least that’s the theory anyway, and I believe it would work, since it effectively dismantled the USSR in much the same way. Taking down Iran’s nuke program does not involve, and wouldn’t NEED ground troops of any kind. Iran would definitely try to retaliate by declaring war and invade either Iraq, Afghanistan or both. A ground war is what Iran would want, and would be the Iranian strategy to turn public opinion in their favor by framing the American military effort as a quagmire. A few other nations would follow suite. Confronting Iranian ground forces would be simple. Their effort would be futile since we can see enemy troop movements with satellites and U.S. airpower would simply zap anyone who crosses the border well before they get deep into either region. The desert is big and takes a long time to cross, they wouldn’t stand a chance. Anyone who thinks troops will/would ever be sent to Iran in any attempt to dismantle its nuke program needs a brain transplant. Militarily, it would be a cake-walk. There really is no way the U.S. can go wrong here. It’s just not possible.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Nanheyangrouchuan       8/29/2006 10:25:06 PM
1.  Airpower may not be enough to sufficiently shut down the operation, and the air defense gear the Iranians have is far better than what Iraq had.

2.  Iran may only get a few planes, but it can easily shell the Saudi oil fields to pieces and shut down the strait of hormuz.

3.  Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk, but certain civies in the White House decided to put on some velcro stars and play general.  Iraq is no longer a cakewalk.
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       8/29/2006 11:14:42 PM

1.  Airpower may not be enough to sufficiently shut down the operation, and the air defense gear the Iranians have is far better than what Iraq had.

2.  Iran may only get a few planes, but it can easily shell the Saudi oil fields to pieces and shut down the strait of hormuz.

3.  Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk, but certain civies in the White House decided to put on some velcro stars and play general.  Iraq is no longer a cakewalk.

1) I can't imagine something that we couldn't take out with air. Can you give me an example? As far as Iranian air deffense goes, I have no idea what they have but whatever it is i'm sure it's no match for stealth.

2) This is where the Navy comes in, the sea lanes would be kept open -- but why would Iran want to bomb civillian Oil Tankers from their neighbors? That would turn the rest of the middle east governments against them. Oil prices will double or triple no matter what, no stopping that I'm afraid.

3) The invasion of Iraq _was_ a cake-walk. The _occupation_ however, was not. Big difference there. We wouldn't be occupying Iran, no boots on the ground in Iran means none of the problems in Iraq.

 
Quote    Reply

Tiber1       8/30/2006 1:23:01 AM




1.?? Airpower may not be enough to sufficiently shut down the operation, and the air defense gear the Iranians have is far better than what Iraq had.

2.?? Iran may only get a few planes, but it can easily shell the Saudi oil fields to pieces and shut down the strait of hormuz.

3.?? Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk, but certain civies in the White House decided to put on some velcro stars and play general.?? Iraq is no longer a cakewalk.


1) I can't imagine something that we couldn't take out with air. Can you give me an example? As far as Iranian air deffense goes, I have no idea what they have but whatever it is i'm sure it's no match for stealth.

2) This is where the Navy comes in, the sea lanes would be kept open -- but why would Iran want to bomb civillian Oil Tankers from their neighbors? That would turn the rest of the middle east governments against them. Oil prices will double or triple no matter what, no stopping that I'm afraid.

3) The invasion of Iraq _was_ a cake-walk. The _occupation_ however, was not. Big difference there. We wouldn't be occupying Iran, no boots on the ground in Iran means none of the problems in Iraq.



1. Sites under hospitals and schools. Sites buried 100'+ underground with multiple entrances. Combinations of both? 2. The strait is narrow enough that Iran could attack from land with man portable weapons. How do you prevent 5-10 guys with a missle launcher or a small howitzer from attacking a tanker? Not like tankers are small or maneuverable. Guys in zodiacs, mines, UAVs, etc. Israel was never able to stop the missile attacks, nor would we able to stop all the attacks. Just one attack, even if that one was not successful will shut the strait. Lloyds would never allow a tanker to risk the transit. Gas is going to go up, but an attack would cause the price to double over night. Looking at the latest Israeli/Lebanon war, we'd be looking at 2-4 weeks of war. The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve has about 30-35 days worth of oil. The other 25 major powers claim to have about 90ish days each. An attack could/would most likely wreak the world economy. Plus, I'm sure Iran would still be selling oil to China for top dollar and I'm just as sure China & their 1 Trillion dollars of US T-Bills would not take any attacks on said oil kindly. At $130+ a barrel, we might even help Iran end up with a financial gain from any attack. The American economy is about the most vulnerable to an oil shortage in the world. We are a commuter society. We drive SUV's and pick-up trucks 20-30-40-100+ miles round trip to work each day. We ship our food thousands of miles across highways. If gas jumped to $5-6+ a gallon, how many lower and middle class people would not be able to afford to go to work the next day? Who would clean? Cook or wait your tables? Repair anything? Look around your own job site, how many of the most important people to your business' daily life are paid minimum wage or close to it? Not the CEO's or others who 'think' they are their companies??? lifeblood, but the ones who get their hands actually dirty with real work. The secretaries who are the only ones who actually know were and how everything works; the ones who do the grunt work at any company in the mail room, answering phones, etc; the warehouse workers. Also, most of the Arabian governments are already against Iran, but their citizens would eat Iran???s ???defense of Islam against the American Crusaders??? BS up. 3. With their deep under ground bunkers and hidden sites, there would have to be some boots on the ground. Either raids to blow the tunnels and/or troops hiding in the bushes with target designators. Even Delta boys screw up or get unlucky once in awhile... Dead soldiers and the rest of the world really really really hating us cause we've collapsed their economies would not a happy electorate make. Roughly half the county is already against the war in Iraq as it is. Attacking a new county most of them couldn't place on the right continent on a map and putting them out of work would not be the smartest domestic political move ever made. IMHO both parties would be rushing to impeach just to hope and pray they don't get kicked out or impeached themselves this coming Nov.
 
Quote    Reply

Tiber1       8/30/2006 1:25:29 AM




1. Airpower may not be enough to sufficiently shut down the operation, and the air defense gear the Iranians have is far better than what Iraq had.

2. Iran may only get a few planes, but it can easily shell the Saudi oil fields to pieces and shut down the strait of hormuz.

3. Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk, but certain civies in the White House decided to put on some velcro stars and play general. Iraq is no longer a cakewalk.


1) I can't imagine something that we couldn't take out with air. Can you give me an example? As far as Iranian air deffense goes, I have no idea what they have but whatever it is i'm sure it's no match for stealth.

2) This is where the Navy comes in, the sea lanes would be kept open -- but why would Iran want to bomb civillian Oil Tankers from their neighbors? That would turn the rest of the middle east governments against them. Oil prices will double or triple no matter what, no stopping that I'm afraid.

3) The invasion of Iraq _was_ a cake-walk. The _occupation_ however, was not. Big difference there. We wouldn't be occupying Iran, no boots on the ground in Iran means none of the problems in Iraq.



1. Sites under hospitals and schools. Sites buried 100'+ underground with multiple entrances. Combinations of both? 2. The strait is narrow enough that Iran could attack from land with man portable weapons. How do you prevent 5-10 guys with a missle launcher or a small howitzer from attacking a tanker? Not like tankers are small or maneuverable. Guys in zodiacs, mines, UAVs, etc. Israel was never able to stop the missile attacks, nor would we able to stop all the attacks. Just one attack, even if that one was not successful will shut the strait. Lloyds would never allow a tanker to risk the transit. Gas is going to go up, but an attack would cause the price to double over night. Looking at the latest Israeli/Lebanon war, we'd be looking at 2-4 weeks of war. The United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve has about 30-35 days worth of oil. The other 25 major powers claim to have about 90ish days each. An attack could/would most likely wreak the world economy. Plus, I'm sure Iran would still be selling oil to China for top dollar and I'm just as sure China & their 1 Trillion dollars of US T-Bills would not take any attacks on said oil kindly. At $130+ a barrel, we might even help Iran end up with a financial gain from any attack. The American economy is about the most vulnerable to an oil shortage in the world. We are a commuter society. We drive SUV's and pick-up trucks 20-30-40-100+ miles round trip to work each day. We ship our food thousands of miles across highways. If gas jumped to $5-6+ a gallon, how many lower and middle class people would not be able to afford to go to work the next day? Who would clean? Cook or wait your tables? Repair anything? Look around your own job site, how many of the most important people to your business' daily life are paid minimum wage or close to it? Not the CEO's or others who 'think' they are their companies??? lifeblood, but the ones who get their hands actually dirty with real work. The secretaries who are the only ones who actually know were and how everything works; the ones who do the grunt work at any company in the mail room, answering phones, etc; the warehouse workers. Also, most of the Arabian governments are already against Iran, but their citizens would eat Iran???s ???defense of Islam against the American Crusaders??? BS up. 3. With their deep under ground bunkers and hidden sites, there would have to be some boots on the ground. Either raids to blow the tunnels and/or troops hiding in the bushes with target designators. Even Delta boys screw up or get unlucky once in awhile... Dead soldiers and the rest of the world really really really hating us cause we've collapsed their economies would not a happy electorate make. Roughly half the county is already against the war in Iraq as it is. Attacking a new county most of them couldn't place on the right continent on a map and putting them out of work would not be the smartest domestic political move ever made. IMHO both parties would be rushing to impeach just to hope and pray they don't get kicked out or impeached themselves this coming Nov.
 
Quote    Reply

Tiber1       8/30/2006 1:27:13 AM
SOB. It WILL NOT take my formating. It WILL NOT allow me any to have any breaks or returns. Plus, you can't preview anything to see how it looks. Sorry about the crappy formating... =(
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       8/30/2006 2:14:53 AM

We would have to have boots on the ground until a stable government took shape.

And if Iran shut the strait, the US might want to cut their pacific bound pipelines to strangle them.

But this conflict would be very, very ugly and might trigger global recession.

US consumers would be able to go to work, but that is it.  No Christmas shopping, no vacations, dining out occurs (when it occurs) at cheap, mom&pop operations and take out.

 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       8/30/2006 2:19:43 AM
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics