This Day in History

Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet

  #1  
Old 04-22-2006
Mk23 Mk23 is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 320
Default Well, I've just backed off on my stance on Iran

I really don't think we should go after Iran in the immediate future anymore.

It had only recently come to my attention that Iran used suicide bombers in /conventional/ warfare situations in the Iran-Iraq war. Iran had raised hordes of untrained, and even unarmed 'soldiers' in the Iran-Iraq war, who's sole purpose was to soak up the ammunition from the Iraqi units before the Iranian regular military would follow. And it didn't take too long for them to start mixing in suicide bombers in these human waves.


Going by the IED attacks and suicide bombings happening /now/, we're nowhere near prepared enough to protect our investments in Iraq and Afghanistan against the scale of suicide attacks Iran is capable of sending. I'm by no means saying that our guys are not doing a good job against these. I think they're doing a great job, but it's just not realistic that they'd be able to adequately protect our investments in schools, utilities, etc. against a full scale suicide campaign from Iran.



Iran still needs to go. No question about it. But right now, the risk to our recent investments in that region is one hell of a damper on the strategic value of a full strike campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-22-2006
Kthulhu's Avatar
Kthulhu Kthulhu is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 203
Default

Iran has a little more than two and a half times as many people as Iraq. I suspect it might have a better military than Iraq did (post-Gulf War), and it might also have a better support infrastructure (I'm pretty sure Iran isn't under the same sanctions that Iraq was).

Regardless of the suicide bombers, Iran probably wouldn't be a cakewalk. And if the people don't have ready access to AK-47s and RPG-7s now, you can bet the Iranian government will make sure they do at the first sign of invasion.

Outside of a multi-nation blitzkrieg, Iran is probably best dealt with diplomatically. And even then, we all might want to prepare for the possibility of Iran's nuclear gambit paying off.

If the world ends, then the world ends.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-22-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

You're both wrong.

As someone with ties in the region, let me explain a few things:

#1 Yes, Iran has used human wave attacks before, much like North Korea or the Soviet Union, only even more insane than those two. This is nothing new.

#2 Just because they know how to use human wave attacks and suicide bombings does not make them impossible to deal with militarily. Such suicide attacks work well when the side using them is on the defensive, but on offense it's pointless.

#3 Irans air defense net can be dealt with, and their airforce is a joke, making control of the skies easy. Saddam did not have this advantage in the Iran/Iraq war, and that one of the reasons why the suicide attacks were so effective.

#4 Iran is not in a good position right now militarily. They could face an invasion on three fronts and airborne operations behind their lines.


The best way to deal with Iran? An airstrike, backed by military containment.

All of Iran’s nuclear operations can be halted from the air. Note I did not say destroyed, I said halted. Some of the facilities are buried far too deep for conventional weapons [about 500 feet below ground, with several layers of concrete and composite armor], that means we can't destroy them short of a ground assault or tactical nuclear strike. Both of those are possible, but would rather be avoided.

But just because you cannot destroy something does not mean you cannot deny your enemy access to it.

Any underground facility must have entrances and air shafts, and these are pretty easy to locate with our current technology. In phase one, you simply bomb these into oblivion, so that there is no way for Iran to access their nuclear programs without months of unearthing.

Then comes phase two, a massive air-dropping of mines and automated defense systems around the area, probably on the order of ten million air dropped mines per site [maybe serveral times that number], both anti-personnel and anti-tank, and not forgetting a few automated air defense systems to keep helicopters away.

This could all be done in a single night by the USAF and USN.

It would be a more hazardous mission for the USAF than normal, since it would involve non-stealthy aircraft [B-52s to deploy the mines, F-15s, F-16s and F-18s for CAP/SEAD], but it could certainly be done.


F-117s and a few F/A-22s would clear the path of SAMs, AAA and EWRs. B-2s would be the second wave and take out the tunnels, B-1Bs, B-52s, F-15s and F-16s would be the third wave for mining and escort for same, mixed in with a massive collection of drone targets.



Now, after this is done Iran will be set back at least a decade when it comes to nuclear technology. Needless to say they won't take kindly to us smashing their toys, and I'd expect a declaration of war from them. For this reason the Afghan and Iraqi borders with Iran would need to be heavily guarded, we'd need to increase the number of troops in both locations to be effective.

The Strait of Hormuz will need a stand-off USN presence to keep the Iranians from causing problems there... The USAF fighters and medium bombers used in the strike should be re-based in Iraq and Afghanistan to be used against any counter attack. Mining the Afghan and Iraqi borders with Iran should be kept in mind, should they cause too many problems.

I'd also deploy our entire A-10 fleet to Iraq and Afghanistan... Nothing stops the advance of outdated enemy armor and trucks like a flight of warthogs.

In the end, it's the only option that does not result in a madman gaining access to nuclear weapons, while at the same time being realistic with regards to United States military and political abilities.

Last edited by UZI4U : 04-22-2006 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-22-2006
Kthulhu's Avatar
Kthulhu Kthulhu is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 203
Default

Hmm....sounds doable. Although I don't like the idea of millions of mines being deployed. Sounds like a long-term nightmare to deal with.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-22-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kthulhu
Hmm....sounds doable. Although I don't like the idea of millions of mines being deployed. Sounds like a long-term nightmare to deal with.

You forget that Irans important nuclear research sites are way-the-hell out in the middle of nowhere. Thus I don't see any civilians getting hurt unless they're very, very stupid [not my fault... It's called evolution].

We could drop some leaflets and warning signs along with the mines, just in case some civilian does wander fifty miles through the desert and hasn't heard that the fourth Gulf War just started... Beyond that and it isn't my fault.

Most US mines currently have remote or automated self destruct systems so they can be removed when no longer needed.

I don't like mines too much myself either [but I certainly consider them a needed tool], but it's that, or a tactical nuclear strike, or a ground attack, or just letting this nutcase get his hands on bottled sunshine.

I'll take the mines over the other three options.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-22-2006
Kthulhu's Avatar
Kthulhu Kthulhu is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 203
Default

Well, hopefully some sanity will carry the day in talks and military action won't be needed. Not holding my breath, but hey, hope's cheap.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-22-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Sanity carrying the day in the Middle East?!?

I hate to be a realist... But that hasn't happened in human history.

Hope is a good thing... I just plan ahead for when that hope is smashed to bits, because that's what usually happens.

Last edited by UZI4U : 04-22-2006 at 11:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-23-2006
Kthulhu's Avatar
Kthulhu Kthulhu is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 203
Default

I was being facetious about hope being cheap. It actually costs $5 . Having a sense of humor about the world is beyond value, though.

Cheney's nap is actually a pretty apt metaphor for US-China relations, though :mad:. We're in blissful dreams (well, the moneyed bigwigs making their cash are at least, and they're the ones who matter) while China is just working up steam to cripple, if not sink, our boat.

There is one positive indicator - clashes between police and the Chinese underclass seem to be increasing every year. Maybe there will be a second revolution, this time for improved human rights...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-23-2006
Bacon Guy's Avatar
Bacon Guy Bacon Guy is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: i pwn n00bs
Posts: 309
Default Dude, Are you huffing?!?

Take your "All religions have had such-and-such" relativist codswallop someplace else...

And knowing a couple of nice, or even "hot" Iranians doesn't mean the Iraniacs aren't governed by a bunch of millenialist madmen!

And perhaps you can name a more important thing to go after than the guys issuing the "Death to USA!" and "Death to Israel!" shit every day.

And if you say "Osama Bin Laden", I'll smack you.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-23-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Durden
Aren't there more important targets to consider other than Iran?

Care to make a suggestion?

Quote:
My dead Daddy's girlfriend was from Iran, and her ex-hubby Iranian. Both very nice people, daughter totally hot!

And notice something funny? They left Iran, that in and of itself should tell you something.

Quote:
Human history is filled with illogical and irrational choices made due to religion.

Hence why we can't allow a religious nutcase advised by Imams who invented the Islamic concept of suicide-martyring to have nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Once you free your mind from religion, a whole new perspective can be realized.

If you can get Ahmadinejad to stop thinking in religious terms, more power to you. Until then, the adults will make contingency plans to keep him from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Quote:
Kthulhu, hope is not cheap, it is cheapened by war-mongers and hate-mongers.

Until you get your head out of your arse and wake up to the fact the world is not filled with unicorns and pink bunnies, you should stand aside and let those who understand reality deal with the worlds problems.

Quote:
These are the people in charge of our country:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/21/cheney-takes-a-nap/

So Cheney decided to catch up on some snooze while the press was yapping to some idiot in the next room. You can go better than that.

Last edited by UZI4U : 04-23-2006 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SecurityArms.com 1995 - 2009