Why Iran should be worried!

[hollywood]

what ells is there to say about all this what do you realy think is going on in this world of war and oil tell me my friend

 

[Waylander]

Is it just me or is somebody else also a little bit irritated by the number and style of the posts by hollywood occuring on mass in the last hours?

@hollywood
No offense man, but what do you want to tell us? All your posts are rather marginally related to defense discussions.

 

[Todjaeger]

My friend i don't think you see the bigger picture. attacking iran causes war. the US does not have significant numbers to hold their own in afghanistan and iraq. the iranian military is the largest military in the world. it has reserves of 11 million. think about it. i'll just throw out a number of how many troops the US has in the middle east that could be used to hold the line at the borders of iraq-iran and afghanistan and keep the country together. say...200,000. the US has a huge tech advantage, but it would not be able to hold its' own against 11 million. especially with the increase of terrorist activities. sure the air force can perform a large number of bombing runs, but the advent of war with iran would cause the rest of the middle east to join if israel joines (which is very likely). and considering most of the middle east would go against the US it would lose all its air bases there. so wihtout air power and no troops we would be kicked out pretty quickly. obviously once the US starts going it take back its lost land and more, but i don't think that the US wants to spend the time and money and manpower doing this when it can use diplomacy.

Okay, a couple of things here. For starters, I have serious doubts that Iran has the largest military in the world. I believe China (PRC) does, once one starts factoring in such things as reserves, paramilitary forces, etc, though Vietnam might actually be ahead. If one does some checking on the claim of 11 million paramilitary troops, that figure becomes cast in doubt. More likely claims put it between perhaps 300k-1 million available to be called up. See this Globalsecurity link. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

Keep in mind the total population of Iran is approximately 69-70 million. 11 million paramility, in addition to the estimated 1 million regular and reserve forces would mean that nearly 20% of the population would be available to serve. I liken the claim to such a large force, to the claims by Saddam Hussein after the conquest of Kuwait that Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world. The stated figure was approximately (IIRC) 10 million. That was about half the total population of Iraq, or virtually every male in the country.

Also, I seriously doubt that if armed conflict erupted between the US and Iran, that the US would attempt to occupy Iran. Between the large, most likely very hostile population and the rather difficult terrain, the US would have a difficult time maintaining control. With that said, it would be possible for the US to maintain control of select areas, and certainly able to conduct strikes in areas not under it's control.

As for other states in the Mid-east joining Iran against the US, who knows. While the US isn't necessarily popular in the area, a nuclear-armed Iran might find itself equally liked...

Hopefully, it won't ever come to this though.

-Cheers

 

[Rish]

Okay, a couple of things here. For starters, I have serious doubts that Iran has the largest military in the world. I believe China (PRC) does, once one starts factoring in such things as reserves, paramilitary forces, etc, though Vietnam might actually be ahead. If one does some checking on the claim of 11 million paramilitary troops, that figure becomes cast in doubt. More likely claims put it between perhaps 300k-1 million available to be called up. See this Globalsecurity link. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/basij.htm

Keep in mind the total population of Iran is approximately 69-70 million. 11 million paramility, in addition to the estimated 1 million regular and reserve forces would mean that nearly 20% of the population would be available to serve. I liken the claim to such a large force, to the claims by Saddam Hussein after the conquest of Kuwait that Iraq had the 3rd largest army in the world. The stated figure was approximately (IIRC) 10 million. That was about half the total population of Iraq, or virtually every male in the country.

Right sorry just checked the site your right its 11 million in the paramilitary. thanks for the correction.

Also, I seriously doubt that if armed conflict erupted between the US and Iran, that the US would attempt to occupy Iran. Between the large, most likely very hostile population and the rather difficult terrain, the US would have a difficult time maintaining control. With that said, it would be possible for the US to maintain control of select areas, and certainly able to conduct strikes in areas not under it's control.

If you look back at my post i never said they would, but that they could if they wanted to. my whole point was that the US would not want to waste it's energies occupying another country because occupynig iran would be like occupying iraq. they would be stuck fighting insurgents with discontent back home.

 

[Todjaeger]

Right sorry just checked the site your right its 11 million in the paramilitary. thanks for the correction.

If you look back at my post i never said they would, but that they could if they wanted to. my whole point was that the US would not want to waste it's energies occupying another country because occupynig iran would be like occupying iraq. they would be stuck fighting insurgents with discontent back home.

To be honest in my view the US wouldn't be wasting it's time occupying Iran. I don't think we could, even if we wanted to. As bad as the situation is now in Iraq, I believe trying to maintain control in Iran would be even worse, given the following differences.

1. Population is three times larger (roughly)
2. The terrain is less conducive to mobile forces.
3. The ethnic population is much more homogenous
4. The existing history between the US and Iran/Iranian population.

Then there are all the factors stemming from the existing deployments and operations in Iraq now, like use of equipment, reduction in numbers available for deployment, money, etc.

Never mind whether it would be a good idea or not. As I wrote earlier, hopefully it won't get this bad/far.

-Cheers

 

[old faithful]

what ells is there to say about all this what do you realy think is going on in this world of war and oil tell me my friend

...Er excuse me Brigadier sirnfloorl: , but you spelt else incorrectly!...jeez! any one can be a General in the USAF nfloorl:

 

[Scorpius]

nuking Iran will be harming other countries in the area,like Pakistan and Afghanistan,won't it?

 

[Rish]

nuking Iran will be harming other countries in the area,like Pakistan and Afghanistan,won't it?

IF you mean harm pakistan and afghanistan in terms of environmental cost then it depends on how big the nuke is. smaller tactical nukes won't cause radiation to be a threat, the bigger ones which probably would not be used could impact them depending on how clsoe the bombing is to the border. Economically it could impact them due to the influx of refugees coming into their countries (due to fears of more strikes) or the rising of oil prices, but other then that nothing. radiation doesn't travel far and dissapates quickily so its not much of a threat. the bombing would cause fear in their and neighboring countries, but thats about it.

 

[Tasman]

nuking Iran will be harming other countries in the area,like Pakistan and Afghanistan,won't it?

I feel pretty confident that the US could inflict severe damage on Iran's infrastructure and nuclear weapon producing capacity without ever having to resort to the use of nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Todjaeger
To be honest in my view the US wouldn't be wasting it's time occupying Iran. I don't think we could, even if we wanted to. As bad as the situation is now in Iraq, I believe trying to maintain control in Iran would be even worse, given the following differences.

1. Population is three times larger (roughly)
2. The terrain is less conducive to mobile forces.
3. The ethnic population is much more homogenous
4. The existing history between the US and Iran/Iranian population.

I agree with what you say. I think attempting to do so would make Iraq look like a picnic and it would be unnecessary. The object of any US attack would surely be to remove Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons. That would not, IMO, require occupation.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

...
1. Population is three times larger (roughly)
2. The terrain is less conducive to mobile forces.
3. The ethnic population is much more homogenous
4. The existing history between the US and Iran/Iranian population.
...

Right on the others, but wrong on number 3. Iran is far more ethnically diverse than Iraq.
Iraq is 80% Arab, & 75% of the Arabs (60% of the total population) are Shia.
The CIA factbook reckons Iran is -
Persian - 51%
Azeri (Turkic language) - 24%
Gilaki/Mazandarani - 8%
Kurdish - 7%
Arab - 3%
Others - 7%
There's a considerable degree of mixing, & these proportions are disputed, but even so, there's no doubt Iran has great ethnic diversity.

Iran has less religious diversity than Iraq, as most of the ethnic minorities are Shia. Only about 10% of the population is not Shia (ca 9% Sunni, 1% non-Muslim), & the Sunnis are concentrated among the Kurds, Turkmen & Baloch minorities.

 

[contedicavour]

I fear nobody can do much about Iran's nuclear installations, short of using tactical nuclear weapons or short of starting an impossible conventional large scale invasion ...
Only solution is enhancing ATBM capabilities for naval and land based assets.

cheers

 

[Mardini]

The situation back in 1982 was very different. Iraq at that time was already fighting the Iranians, and Saddam Hussein was sensible enough not to open up another front to the East with a more powerful adversary, one armed with nukes. Thats why there were no retaliation. This time the Iranians are expecting just such an attack on their nuclear installations and they might have prepared for that.

Bravo Khairul Alam

Always remember Iran is not another Iraq, they will be an entirely different story. They wouldn't be a bump in the road like Iraq, as one person once said before the invasion, they will be a mountain, and a mountain that hits back.

 

[Scimitar]

hey ive been reading some previous posts and there has been talk that if iran gets nukes there will be a military imbalance in the region, what I want to know is that how is that possible? Keeping in mind iran's rival is israel and israel has nukes wouldn't the militarly imbalance be balanced if iran also had nukes?

 

[Tasman]

I fear nobody can do much about Iran's nuclear installations, short of using tactical nuclear weapons or short of starting an impossible conventional large scale invasion ...
Only solution is enhancing ATBM capabilities for naval and land based assets.

cheers

Why wouldn't the USAF or USN be able to destroy Iran's nuclear installations with conventional weapons?

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

If you bury your facilities deep enough into the mountains you get problems with normal bunker busters.
For sure not all parts of the programm are that well protected but some vital parts are saif to be in the mountains.

 

[eckherl]

If you bury your facilities deep enough into the mountains you get problems with normal bunker busters.
For sure not all parts of the programm are that well protected but some vital parts are saif to be in the mountains.

That would cause some head aches for us, this is one of the reasons we are concerned in regards to North Korea, everything is buried in mountains and below ground.

 

[Tasman]

That would cause some head aches for us, this is one of the reasons we are concerned in regards to North Korea, everything is buried in mountains and below ground.

From what you and Waylander have said that certainly raises the stakes and I can see why Iran would be worried. It would also establish a new precedent because even though the West relied on these weapons to keep Soviet armoured forces at bay during the Cold War no country has actually used nuclear weapons of any kind operationally since 1945. I can just imagine the reaction of some groups if this happens! :shudder

Cheers

 

[Jet]

military presence in Gulf builds, Iran's leader talking tough

The United States sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf this week - the second to deploy in the region - a buildup that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.

In an apparent reaction to the deployment, Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy. I also think its time to kick some iranean asss

 

[Waylander]

That would cause some head aches for us, this is one of the reasons we are concerned in regards to North Korea, everything is buried in mountains and below ground.

Jup, what I have read about the bunker systems of North Korea is really impressing.
In my eyes these facilities effectly hamper the use of air power and artillery. You may send some bunker busters into them but I really doubt the air force is able to really touch these bunker systems and fortified positions with significant effect within the short time window to they have to neutralize the NK arty before it levels Seoul.

But we are going off-topic.

As to having facilities buried inside the mountains.

There is a reason for the russians intending to use SS-18 ICBMs with a single 25mt warhead with hardened penetrator nose to hit facilities like NORAD or Raven Rock Mountain in case of war.

 

[radiosilence]

The United States sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf this week - the second to deploy in the region - a buildup that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.

In an apparent reaction to the deployment, Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy. I also think its time to kick some iranean asss

If only it was as easy as some here think it is.

So this is how the war game turned out: with a finding that the next American President must, through bluff and patience, change the actions of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited. "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

link