They only need that radius if there's a chance of the enemy having such weapons in the area, or being able to bring them within range before you evacuate. Otherwise, you're into a 'Soviet divisions going into Afghanistan together with all their GBAD weapons' scenario, defending against a non-existent threat because it's habit.
Iran Invasion soon ?
- Thread starter GG20DELTA
- Start date
the concerned
Active Member
How long would it actually take to respond to a threat like a raid to capture a airbase .I don't think you could retake that base in less than 24 hrs maybe more against a dug in enemy with modern guided weapons.by then you would have air support on your side lets face it israeli f-16's with the latest a2a weapons that they have would literally walk over the Iranian airforce. In exercises against the US the Israeli airfoce has done very well often being the more aggresive foe and claiming more victories than the US did against them.
No we do NOT need to forget about these 2 countries because the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan offers us very important lessons as to what not to do and what to do, in the future. What makes you think that the situation with Iran it will be as simple as using only military action and that this military action will lead to the desired results? What happens if things get beyond that and the Middle East gets more unstable as a result of military action, which over a period effects the rest of the world, who is responsible and what actions should be taken then?
So we take action against every country that makes similar remarks about Israel or just the ones that might have a nuclear arms programme running? With regards to your statement that ''we shouldn't just wait around and see if they have the ability to carry out their threats'' - using this logic why on earth didn't we occupy North Korea back in the 1990's?? What makes Iran so different, because they share the neighbourhood with a country called Israel, or perhaps because they are 'islamic'? Perhaps, instead of continuing to demonise Iran and seeing things from a western-centric perspective , we should try and get to the root cause of the problem. Maybe then we could actually see positive results that would benefit the world.
Perhaps the U.S. could offer some security guarantees to ALL countries and not just Israel, then perhaps we wouldn't be having so many decade long problems in the Middle East?
Last edited:
Beatmaster
New Member
No, thats the thing here, if the US or Israel is going to have some sort of military action against Iran then they automatically sign up for the rebuild of Iran as well.
Because bombing Iran and destroying its war capability will automatically mean that you will have to remove the regime.
If not then Iran can and will call upon its population to wage war from east to west.
Keep in mind they have done this against Iraq with great success in the past.
Anyway my point here is a war against Iran will force the west to seriously damage Iran into submission anything before that will only make matters way more difficult.
However after forcing Iran into submission it will mean that you need to stabilize the nation and do it fast.
The simple reason for this is that rebel groups and other warlords, religious leaders and so on....will take over the nation which will turn Iran into something a 100 times more difficult then Iraq and Afghanistan ...not to mention how incredible difficult it will become for Pakistan as they will be overrun with extremists.
Lets put aside the question here who is right and who is wrong (Iran or Israel) but lets focus pure on the possible military action on its own.
Israel does have the capability to successfully strike a few targets i got no doubt.
The second sortie will make things a lot more difficult as by that time Iran has activated its defense grid and readied its troops.
So Israel will encounter a lot of anti air (Old or not its still shooting rockets and bullets)
And by that time when Iran does probably activated its strategic long range missiles and the first missiles will hit Israels industrial and residential places.
Next to the fact that military bases in a 3000 miles range will be targeted (or are planned to be targeted)
After the Missiles have hit vital places in Israel as retaliation of the strike done by Israel, Israel will call upon the US to bail them out..its that simple.
The moment the first US airplanes take off, Iran will probably lash out against bases and obviously on Israel by hitting Israeli urban places and military points next to the US bases in the region who are prime to be hit by Iran conventional missiles.
Lets assume that Iran uses for this at least 50% of their total conventional missiles and that out of those 50% at least 20/30% actually hit their target, then this would cost thousands of Lives and will damage both US and Israeli assets severely.
And what about the fact that Iran might launch their whole conventional arsenal?
Infact its save to say that the first 5 days after the hits on Iran, Iran can do ALOT of damage in a 3000+ miles range and both US and Israel would be unable to stop it.
After those 5 days US troops will be ready to retaliate and more forces will arrive in the region to help bombing Iran into Submission which will not work by air alone. As ground operations will be needed plain and simple.
And the casualties from that both military and civilian will be HUGE.
Also Iran will have by that time contacted their rebel groups who will do serious damage to western assets.
Congratulations you just forced yourself into another 10 years of fighting, you just dropped world economy back into problems and you just gave every rebel in a 5000 miles range a perfect new reason to bomb you and you gave them 66 million new recruits.....Not to mention that Iranian weapon stockpiles will be open for public sale (Free of charge)
And ill personally bet that those stockpiles will be generously filled with weapons that rebel groups only can dream from.
Its like putting a kid in the middle of "Playmobil & Lego" factory
* Note: Those weapons might be not as state of the art like the west is use to play around with but from the receiving point of view it does not matter if you are being shot by a 30 years old normal bullet or a brand new gun with heat seeking bullets and rockets.
Guys wake up, its not a question whether the US can win.
Its against what prize? Both economically and human lives.
And finally everything that the international community has done to try to bring stability and peace to the middle east in the past 30 years will fly out of the window.
This all MAY force the US into a massive war to control the region where the numbers rival the Vietnam war and will cost another 5+ trillion to the US tax payer and will make the US economically bankrupt (or near to it)
So it does not matter anymore who is right or wrong, the best thing to do for the west and specially Israel is to avoid this war in the first place....
But hey you know what?
If the war hawks want war...sure go ahead bomb the crap out of everyone and do what you got to do.
But please...do not come cry later when it proves to be...lets say "costly"
Personally i want to see Israel and US talk them self out of this one: What if the really big possibility that during the war it turns out that Iran did tell the truth and that the program is or was indeed be peacefully, as they said it would be? And that they did honor the NPT treaty.
Ill bet that: Pakistan, India, China and Russia will LOVE that.....and I am sure that it will please the EU as well.
And what about Turkey? who will see their borders be overrun by Iranian civilians.
I am sure that it will make diplomatics a lot more interesting for decades to come.
Also there is a real risk that the international community will probably demand the US to redraw and abandon its bases in the middle east or they might perhaps lend a hand by trowing them out.
I am 100% sure that the US does not want to go there.
Simple said the US can get away with a lot but this one? NO
If the US was right about Saddams program and WMD's and If Israel would have a clean record as a peaceful nation things might have been different and would give the US more leverage to order/stop Iran from having a program.
Not saying it would but it might as lots of the motivations that Iran has are purely based upon that and would vanish.
And even if it turns out that Israel and the US where right about Iran the after effects will still be difficult and hard to explain.
Then again Iran cannot win this war but they will sell their skin at maximum prize.
Now that was sarcastic...
Seriously guys this is just one scenario and i hope i am wrong, but i cannot help the fact that this scenario has been painted down nearly 10 years ago by left wing and right wing people....so perhaps it would be in everyones interest to just calm down and finally start talking because the alternative is in none's interest.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more. Surely after Iraq and Afghanistan, we would already have learned a few lessons. A lot of statements being made by certain people and organisations remind me of the run up to the war in Iraq. I find it ironic that despite all the talk about peace and stability, that certain countries are actually contemplating on military action to deal with nukes that Iran might or might not be producing. Shouldn't we focus all our energy on dealing with existing problems rather than risk making an already unstable region more unstable? IMO, the U.S. under Obama is in no rush and is not eager for military action at this stage but it may be dragged into it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-will-drag-us-into-war-with-iran-7579420.html
Last edited:
Well, they would need at least a battalion to have a chance of taking the base back, and those are battalion level supporting fires … Your troops are going to be there for at least 3 hours, more like 5 or 6, before those fighters refueling and take off again. Troops within 60km should be able to react in time. So yes, it is a big maybe.
And the autocannon based GBAD weapons are VERY useful in an Afghan invasion scenario. They are the only ones designed with enough elevate to engage enemy troops on a steep mountain side above you.
Don’t see why the US would have to strike Iran as long as the warheads stayed conventional. Iran does not have that many weapons that can reach Israel, and a 250 to 500 kg warhead does not do that much damage (yes, I know these warheads are not insignificant, but the public will realize they are better than the alternative). Iran does not have that many missiles that can reach Israel, and the Israeli anti-missile defenses will eliminate many of them. Obama (or whoever is the President at the time) could just say that they brought it on themselves, and keep the US out of it.
It would be much more troublesome if Hezbollah got involved, but they recently stated that they would stay out of it. Makes sense, if Iran was hitting Israel with missiles using conventional warheads and Hezbollah did the same it would make Hezbollah a convenient target to distract the Israeli public by invading Lebanon.
The real question will be if Iran attacks US units in the area directly. Given the Israeli’s almost certainly cannot pull this off without at least US tanker support and the constant diatribes against ‘the Great Satan’ the mullahs may feel that they don’t have any choice, but if they do that opens the gate for heavy US follow up attacks. This may hinge on how much of their propaganda the leaders, the majority of whom seem to lack an understanding of the world beyond their borders, actually believe.
America is the definition of democracy which means that the leader requires the support of the population, the head of the country has to protect Israel to keep the politically important and quite large Jewish community happy (Of course I would never generalize so not all but I am quite certain the majority of the Jewish population consider the safety of Israel a very important subject). Israel will undoubtedly consider this and so coming into American "election time" they should (for there own agenda not mine per say) strike which will leave all American political parties forced to be "pro-war" with Iran to gain or keep those votes.
America can't stay out of this conflict if it turns into one.
America will also in my opinion not fight this potential war as they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, They will not try to occupy the country they will simply bomb it and starve it until the white flag is raised.
Beatmaster
New Member
I hate to burst your bubble but according to many online sources:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran's arsenal of missiles
MissileThreat :: The Threat from Iran
Iran Missiles
Just to point out a view.
The Iran danger if its uses its conventional missiles is a heck more dangerous then you might think.
Also you might wanna ask yourself the question if 250/300KG warheads are really TNT....they could be some kind of bio/chemical agent tipped warhead.
Also the figure of 250k warhead is incorrect:
Shahab 3
Country: Iran
Associated Country: North Korea, Pakistan
Class: MRBM
Basing: Road mobile
Length: 16.58 m
Diameter: 1.38 m
Launch Weight: 17410 kg
Payload: Single warhead, 1,200 or 800 kg
Warhead: Nuclear, HE, chemical, or submunitions
Propulsion: Single-stage liquid
Range: 800-1300 km km
Status: Operational
Source
Info shahab 4
In regards to Obama he said himself during the last meeting (One week ago) and i quote:
We will always have Israels back, and we will give unconditional support to the security and defense of Israel.
It has been broad casted over like 100 news stations.
Short said if Israel hits and Iran strikes back in any way shape or form the US will be drawn in.
Another thing is that Israeli air defense is great i give them that and i am sure that it will perform greatly and save many lives.
However the system never has been tested against missiles like the Shahab specially not in mass numbers.
So either way its save to say that Irans arsenal will be able to score some serious hits.
Also you have to realize that there is a really big option that Iran might lash out against bases closer to home.
So one can say this one can say that but fact remains Irans conventional arsenal is something to seriously worry about specially because Iran can mass produce them (And probably is doing atm) so estimated numbers from 3 years ago will not be accurate anymore as back then its was believed that Iran did have 300 S-3 missiles and ill bet that that number has increased dramatically because they know that this war is going to start sooner or later so preparation from their part seems VERY likely, specially because their Airforce is crap, Their main army would only be able to put up a good defense so the only way they have to hurt Israel directly is by those missiles.
Think about it....
Hezzbolah has indeed said it would stay out of a fight, however its save to say that if Iran makes a serious call to the Hezz HQ they will get all the support they need.
Analists from around the world have said that Hezz is just hiding and waiting for the right moment as they have done in the past. So taking their word for granted is dangerous enough as history does show us.
In regards to those mullahs who do not seem to know how the world reacts beyond their borders it is save to say that the west does not know how the world works inside the Iran borders either...
US war game foreshadows Israeli attack on Iran:
Obama Promises Bunker Busters To Israel If Netanyahu Delays Iran Invasion Until After US Elections
Last edited:
Beatmaster
New Member
Starving 66 million people? Good luck with that.
The aim is not to push Iran into submission but to stop its nuclear program and the only way of doing that is by using ground forces.
If the US tries to starve and mass bomb Iran it will only make Iran rethink and accelerate a nuclear program, only this time they may choose to make the bomb itself.
And if they wanted to they could as they have very deep caves who are very well protected against anything.
Also Iran is well aware how effective the US airforce is, they have seen it twice in Iraq, 1 time in Kuwait (Against Saddams invasion force) and they have seen it in Afghanistan for over 8 years.
I think we can reasonable assume that Iran did stock up needed supplies to last for while.
Sources from around the world indicate that Iran is building extra assets to support their program both above and below ground just to make sure that a few air strikes cannot stop the program not to mention that key sites are hardened are are in the process of being hardened.
I agree with you, I am a little bit bad at communicating, I did not mean truly starving the country I meant starving the regime as in creating a situation where the country would simply say" you know what, we don't need nuclear power that badly, please let us operate normally again".
Also what I meant to imply is that the war will not need ground forces to hold the entire country or mass regions. I meant destroy the nuclear sites/programs with proxy assault teams, paratroopers mass bombing etc etc and set the country back a few years. Destroy its entire air + assault capability. Take away the option of killing Americans like in Iraq and Afghanistan where most died driving from point A to point B rather than conventional battle, if Iran have no enemy to kill they have no other option but to negotiate terms. It should not be another attempt at a "hearts and minds" campaign bound to fail, no interaction (of course there would need to be a tiny level of it but you get the drift) with the general populace is my suggestion. Be the Devil so internally they will cry out to make the regime stop the devil. Falklands war (old one) type scenario.
Why should there be an invasion and rebuilding? What is proposed in a raid (more like several), not an invasion, the purpose of which is to buy time for the regime to fall apart due to its own internal weaknesses, not force it into submission. Don’t think Iraq, but Libya or Syria.
And if it disintegrates into a bunch of warring statelets, so much the better. Sure, some of them will ally with al-Qaeda, but Iran already has (off and on), so it changes nothing.
Sure, they fought a bloody stalemate with Iraq for 8 years that would have passed for the Battle of the Somme, but with less mud. But that was when the regime was new and still (relatively) popular. The shine is off now. Besides, look what happened when the Israeli’s hit Assad’s reactor, a little breast beating and now they are staging a popular revolution.
Besides, which way do they attack. Go west to Iraq and you just drive them back into US hands. East and invade Afghanistan, same result. South to Saudi Arabia, again you would just drive them closer to the US and NATO. Or they can attack Pakistan, that would make India (and probably many in the US) very happy. North and you hit no one of consequence, then Russia.
Run a massive terrorism campaign? The world is not a tolerant as it was a couple years ago, don’t expect far. Just look at what has happened in the last couple weeks.
Blocking the Straits is probably the best of a bunch of really bad moves, and it will get Iran hammered on by just about everyone.
Only the ones foolish enough to think the US government could be dumb enough to think they could invade and take Iran on their own.
the concerned
Active Member
Could you honestly say that having missiles overflying soverign soil like kuwait or saudi arabia would not provoke a retaliation and if some mad mullah decided to use even chemical warheads against israel then surely that would provide israel the justification of using their nuclear weapons aginst iran. You can't say its ok to use one type of weapn of mass destruction and not use another. I wonder how many US citizens live in Tel aviv using anything other than conventional warheads would guarantee the complete destruction of Iran
Actually the US can just say some words in support of Israel and do nothing. A couple hundred missiles with HE warheads can kill some Israeli’s, but they are hardly a threat to Israel’s existence. The US support in Desert Storm was to keep Israel out of the fight. In this scenario Israel is already in the fight, so there is nothing that needs to be done.
Correct.
Using bio/chemical agent would crystallize support against Iran, results would probably be worse than a nuke (bio/chemical agents are nasty, but not as terrifying to the general public as a nuke). A real TBM.
No, he said that Israel will have US support, not that the US would go to war on their behalf. Politicians can parse words better than the devil.
Correct. But not enough to seriously endanger Israel.
Yes, I believe I alluded to that. The problem for Iran is that moves it from a proxy war with Israel to an open war with the US, and probably the rest of the Persian Gulf states as well. The decision to do so will be political one, and may ignore military realities in favor of domestic political considerations.
The Iranian military is not stupid, they are building the best that they can. But it is enough to discourage an attack on Iran, not to win an offensive war.
The Iranian ground forces don’t look that much different from Saddam’s in operation Iraqi Freedom. They lack the mobility to be able to stop a thrust by US/Coalition forces, but can make any attempt at an occupation a bloody shambles using guerilla tactics.
But the decisions are be made by politicians on both sides who do not, and maybe don’t want to, understand the differences.
If Israel is under bombardment from Iran and Hezbollah joins in they become the enemy that Israel can reach and punish. The Israeli politicians would love it because it would the Army overrunning Hezbollah and Lebanon would distract the public frustration at the Iranian missiles that they cannot strike back against. Believe it or not, Hezbollah could actually be doing Israel (or at least the parties in power) a favor by attacking.
Agreed.
Like many, you forget the fact that though part of the population are against the President of Iran, most would unite in the face of military strikes. As it is, a very large part of the population believe it is Iran's right to continue with the programme for peaceful purposes and see the attempt by the West and Israel to subdue Iran as smacking of double standards and hypocrisy, and as another example of centuries long Western meddling in the region.
When exactly did Iran ever 'ally' itself with AQ???? Both are bitter enemies for a variety of reasons. Even the most hawkish of pro-war hawks in APAIC and Capitol Hill, who convinced a lot of people that Osama and Saddam were best mates, have never accused Iran of being an AQ ally.
And if Iran ''disintegrates into a bunch of warring statelets'' we will be looking at more upheaval and instability in the Middle East, which would be contrary to Washington's claims of wanting a stable Middle East.
Which works very well in theory and may sound in well in simulated war games at the Pentagon but in practice might turn out differently.
History shows that the unity generated will be a short lived phenomena, only lasting a year or two, possibly less, after the attack. Only if there are enemy occupation troops available to provide a focus will it last longer and grow.
History also offers a few examples that will contradict your statement. Irrespective of historical examples, the fact remains that the majority of Iranians, will not look too kindly to their country being bombed, and understandably so, given that Iran did not initiate hostilities. The result may well be increased support for the Iranian leadership.
Last edited:
completely taken out of context.....