Iran Adds New Fighter to Air Force

[sabra]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2083533&C=mideast

Iran Adds New Fighter to Air Force

Iran on Sept. 6 said it has developed a new warplane named “Thunder,” which it described as similar to the American F-18.

The fighter is “similar to the F-18 fighter jet, but it is more capable and has been manufactured domestically,” the commander of the Iranian army General Attollah Salehi was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

Iranian state television reported that the jet “is able to fire rockets and also to drop bombs and is equipped with an advanced radar system.

”The fighter jet Saegheh (Thunder), after successful military operations and accurately firing air-to-surface rockets in the Zolfaghar Blow maneuvers, came into the service of the Iranian air force today,” the report said.

The air force, army and navy have been showing off their capabilities and new hardware for the last month in the Zolfaghar Blow war games, which come amid mounting international concern over Tehran’s nuclear program.

[seriousstan]

1. Actually an upgraded F-5

Televised pictures indicate the new plane is a modified F-5 fighter jet - a U.S.-made aircraft that was supplied to Iran before the Islamic revolution in 1979 that led to a break in relations between Washington and Tehran.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-09-06-voa7.cfm



http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-5.htm&h=422&w=632&sz=30&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=8fXhR09oIqt-cM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DF-5%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-51,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN

[Roy]

4. Does that means ......

that it was a super good thing that Bush was unable to bait Iran onto the Lebanese conflict?

[Sterling]

7. No, not sure why you think that anyway.

This plane will be extinct in the first hours of any war with Iran. The pretext for that war will not be Israel but Iran's nuke program. At the rate the dip shit running Iran is going he will not have many friends left to complain when we bunker bust his ass.

[Roy]

39. My thinking was... with the IDF being surprised...

about the weapons that Hebollah introduced. It would have been worst with unknown fighter aircraft being introduced into the carnage. Isn't war always a bad place to be surprised by weaponry of those you are fighting. Except for those not in harms way, I'm sure.

I really don't know much about the mess in these areas, but, I am surprised that after all the recent events that the attitude that in any future conflict the U.S. would just win it & end it with just the wave of a hand.

[hogwyld]

106. Who's going to be left to shoot them down?

After all of the Russian and Chinese SAM's obliterate our aircraft?

[xyzpdq_us]

108. only if they can "see 'em"

Even the 20 year old F117s can still do their thing if their missions are planned out properly. We have drones that can fire guided missiles. The F22 Raptor is supposed to be pretty stealthy too. A lot of their SAM sites are fixed, and would be easy targets for submarine launched Tomahawk conventional cruise missiles. We have four Trident subs being fitted out to carry bunches and bunches of Tomahawks.

The Silkworm anti-ship missiles are another story. If they were to launch a bunch of those all at once at one of our carrier battle groups, there could be a lot of dead Americans.

[hogwyld]

119. Yeah, but with no bases nearby, their capability is limited

It's a long flight from Diego Garcia, and Europe will want to stay out of this, so those bases will be "off limits" so to speak. I don't care how good of a pilot you are, fatigue is a good equilizer. The Silkworms you mentioned would reduce our mighty carrier fleet to a bunch of artificial reefs.

[LastDemocratInSC]

125. What about the Aegis systems installed on most Navy ships?

Aegis systems are designed for close-in kills when all other systems have failed.

How do you see Silkworm missles working against the Aegis system, or vice versa?

[hogwyld]

137. Aegis systems are only on smaller ships

Such as the Ticonderoga class cruiser and the Burke class destroyer. The main advantage of Aegis is it's ability to track many targets at long range. It's strength is not missle defense. The Phalanx gatling gun is the last line of defense by basically putting up a wall of DU rounds at around 3500-4000 rpm.

[krispos42]

151. Actually, it is missile defense

The Ticonderogas have 122 vertical launch tubes. A hell of a lot of them hold Standard surface-to-air missiles. The Ticos have 4 terminal-homing radars for the semi-active Standard missiles and can therefore be terminally guiding in 4 missiles at once while simultanously using a datalink from the ship to control a couple of dozen more Standards in flight.

In a massed cruise missile or aircraft attack a swarm of Standards are launched. As the flight of Standards approach their targets under remote control from the ship, the 4 fire control radars illuminate the first four targets for the first four Standards, which are in their last few seconds of flight. The first 4 missiles home in on the reflected radar energy and either hit or miss. Regardless, the four radars switch and illuminate the next four targets for the next four missiles.

In addition to the Standards, which the newest models are reported to have a range of between 100 and 200 nautical miles, each vertical launch cell can hold a quad-pack launcher of Sea Sparrow missiles, which are shorter-range and more manuverable SAMs.

Even closer it comes down to the CIWS Gatling guns, which fire tungsten armor-piercing penetrators at the rate of some 4,500 rounds per minute.

A couple of Ticos or Arleigh Burke-class destroyers can defend an entire task force. Aegis was developed to fend off attacks by massed Soviet bombers launching cruise missiles against carrier task forces or merchant convoys.

Oh, and those vertical launch tubes can also carry Tomahawks and anti-submarine rockets. The Ticos are a pretrty sweet ride.

[hogwyld]

160. OK, I'll take your word on that, but, what about the Sunburn

And Silkworm sea skimming missles? Doesn't Iran have some submarines as well? Well, no matter how bad things get for us, we can always make Persian glass right? Besides, Iran can go to asymetrical warfare, of which we are not too good at.

[Pavulon]

215. Sunburn

was developed jointly between a russian defense company and a us defense contractor to be a test drone for us weapon systems.

put better the missile was built for us to test against.

Iran has no submarines that pose any threat to us naval ships.

Iran would lose any conventional war, badly.

<standard disclaimer, this is not a call for war, only a statement on a hypothetical situation>

[krispos42]

241. No air defense shield is 100%

And those sea-skimming supersonic cruise missiles are definately harder to hit, so the percentages go down even more. Even sinking one supertanker would be both an economic, environmental, and political disaster. not good!

And if Iranian armored columns start moving on Baghdad, what happens then? It is a given that our air power would take a steep toll, but can we stop them? I sure as hell don't know.

[Pavulon]

245. Soviet like

That would be the worst case scenario for them. That is what we train to do.
If they are going to move in columns they might as well just shoot themselves in the head.

GW1 shows the effect of air power over armor. The majority of our air assets are idle. They are not flying thousands of sorties a day dropping mines, anti tank weapons, and high explosives.

None of it is good. I am not advocating here, just taking a realistic look.

Neither "side" gains in a shooting war.

[krispos42]

247. The worst thing they could do is fight Soviet-style

It's been fifteen years since the collapse of the USSR, but half of our hardware (or more) is still orienteated towards Soviet-style tactics, and much of the senior commanders cut their teeth on Warsaw Pact tactics. Old reflexes die hard, right?

By sneaking missiles on fishing ships and using other irregular tactics they may well be more sucessful than a straight-on attack. For example, an Iranian sub stalks a 3rd-party vessel of some kind, say a Saudi fishing trawler. From the area of the trawler, the Kilo fires a subsurface-to-surface missile at an aircraft carrier. The missile is shot down by the task force's SAMs, then the Americans attack the ship they think attacked them, the innocent trawler. Now Saudi civilians are dead, there is an international incident, and the Pentagon enacts severe restrictions on weapons use. Now that works enirely to Iran's advantage, especially as part of a larger stragegy.

How about launching cruise missiles out of a cargo aircraft? You can do that as well. You don't even need a bomber. Just put a parachute pack on the missile and roll it out of a cargo door. The missile hangs suspended nose-up, floating down gently, until it launches, exactly like launching from a vertial-launch cell on a warship. Something that our Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke-class warships have in abundance. Wouldn't it suck if we shot down an Iranian airliner full of civilian because the Iranian military sneaked a Silkworm into it's cargo hold and shoved it out the back door? Oops, that wasn't an F-4!

Iran can't take us on militarily. The best way they can silence our weapons is to have our own chain of command do it for through politics. Now, with this hardheaded and bloodthirsty administration, that might take a while, but it a good path to follow. And this Iranian president may be crazy, but he might be crazy like a fox!

A godd reading on this subject, as well as domestic terroristm in general, is "The Enemy Within", by Larry Bond. It's about ten years old, but still a good read.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Here's a pic:

It does resemble the F/A-18...

[Sterling]

6. This plane looks like something from the 60's

Who are they trying to kid? They make there own tanks? So the fuck what. I am sure the suck as bad as this throw back to bygone era of a "super fighter' they just rolled out. They can't actually think this is frightening the US? Maybe it is for domestic consumption for Iranians? Maybe it makes them feel better? It won't help them when war comes though. Those planes and tanks will be death traps for anyone trying to use them against us.

[sofa king]

33. Well I'll be.

It is an F-5, only with a twin tail. That should make it slightly more survivable, but the control surfaces on that tail are surprisingly small.

The F-5 was good enough to keep Val Kilmer and Tom Cruise busy for a couple of hours, but that might be this thing's greatest liability: Navy fighter pilots practice against F-5s all the time.

Perhaps not coincidentally, just a couple of weeks ago I saw three F-5s flying low over Arlington, in the middle of all that "sheiks on a plane" hoo-ha that was supposed to scare you into voting for the Dark Side. Maybe our guys were taking a closer look at them, in case they run into something like them in the near future.

Edit: I might as well say it here, rather than below. This plane isn't designed to take on the Americans toe to toe; the Iranians are not so crazy as to think they can do that. No, this is a pretty nifty little defense fighter designed to go after ground attack planes, hit and run style. Iran is a big country with hundreds of widely separated primary targets. These things are small and ludicrously overpowered, so they can likely operate from highways, and maybe they even have zanier ideas like launching them off of dams or rolling them down mountains or threading the needle between craters on the runway--who knows? So what you do is hide one or two of them under highway overpasses or wherever, wait for something to come by, then dash off and chase the intruder down before they can be intercepted themselves.

They don't even necessarily need to hit their target if they can chase it into the operational range of a SAM battery, or throw off the intruder's approach to the target long enough to burn off its fuel. It's a little higher-tech and performance than the MiG-21, and parts should be easily available on the world market (or direct from our own unscrupulous contractors, as recent disclosures have shown).

If they're lucky, they might even be able to set it down again before it's intercepted--probably not if the Israelis and the Americans are ganging up on them. But it might be a one-for-one asset that can shoot something down before it goes down itself--and no modern air force can withstand much attrition before it becomes unwise to continue bombing. With all those hundreds of targets, this little bastard suddenly becomes a headache: Do you have to escort every single bombing mission now? Do you have to confine your bombing to nighttime operations? Do you have to make them a target priority and send Green Berets tromping through every valley trying to find them like SCUDs? If they're shooting them out of cannons (a joke) or otherwise launching them in ways where safe return is unlikely, are the pilots kamikazes who will head out for the Gulf looking for a carrier to smash into when the interception mission is done? I don't know, but I'll bet some poor Lieutenant Colonel at the Pentagon has been staying at work late figuring it all out.

[Psephos]

258. A typical Sofa King post: informative and insightful. Thanks. n/t

[MADem]

3. That's odd, they have a missile by the same name

Iran News Sep 4th, 2006 - 00:49:19
Page One > Iran News

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Iran tests short-range missile
Aug 20, 2006
Associated Press


Iran on Sunday test-fired a surface-to-surface short-range missile a day after its army launched large-scale military exercises throughout the country, state-run television reported.

"Saegheh, the missile, has a range of between 80 to 250 kilometers (50 to 150 miles)," the report said. It said the missile was tested in Kashan desert, about 150 miles southeast of Tehran, the capital.

Saegheh means lightning in Farsi.....Iran is already equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Last year, former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological breakthrough for the country's military.....After decades of relying on foreign weapons purchases, Iran's military has been working to boost its domestic production of armaments.

Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane, the government has said. It announced in early 2005 that it had begun production of torpedoes.


http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_17326.shtml

[Sterling]

5. This is too funny.

Iran really is run by people even far more stupid than those in charge here. mAybe DUers who know nothing about military affairs will be impressed by this but I doubt anyone who knows shit about this kind of stuff will get more than a chuckle out of this.

Iran needs to stop talking so much shit. These new planes and "super weapons" they are talking about will not be a factor in any war with the US. The best they can hope for is to do what the Iraqis are doing which is get the shit kicked out of them during the "war" and then make occupation very hard for us. I doubt though that we will actually invade Iran. It is more likely we will bomb them on a regular basis until there is no longer a threat of a nuke program coming out of Iran.

[orwell]

8. The best thing the Iranians...

...or any other nation could do is to give up ala the Soviet Union and watch us choke on our own ego and military arrogance. As we spend ourselves into a sinkhole, armed to the teeth with the latest weapons in search of a badguy, the rest of the world can develop really useful technologies such as non-fossil fuel based power, manufacturing technologies that emphasize waste stream utilization and management, high speed information infrastructure available to all citizens, state of the art single-payer health systems.

The US will be marginalized into second world status with a collapsing currency and rising external and internal deficits, and a decrepit political and social structure, as have all great empires who achieve global domination.

Sometimes, being on top means that there is only one way to go...

[okieinpain]

47. bravo, bravo....

[MGD]

84. We're becoming a third world country with a first world military

and, in the end, we'll be left with nothing but our "big stick" to solve our problems. That can't lead to anything good.

[nolabels]

190. In other words...........

WHEN THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM IS A HAMMER,
EVERYTHING YOU ENCOUNTER OR GETS IN YOUR WAY LOOKS JUST LIKE A NAIL

http://www.ethics.org.au/things_to_do/ethics_workout/holistic_ethics/article_0148.shtm

[Rex]

142. Yeah but 'kicking their asses' or 'bomb the shit outta them'

sounds so much more manly. :eyes:

[The Stranger]

9. Saddam pulled the same shit and his country was invaded.

In some kind of freakish machismo, he played along with the war-mongering, hate-mongering, torturing, murdering Neonazicons until he was invaded and the truth shown to the whole world.

Is this some kind of model airplane Iran is talking about? They cured AIDS, developed nukes, and now have developed and produced a space age jet fighter?

[JohnyCanuck]

10. And other observers are not quite so sanguine

about the possible consequences of a bombing campaign.

The Next Phase of the Middle East War

by Michel Chossudovsky

September 4, 2006

SNIP

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile attacks using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a "Chernobyl type" nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.

Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation.

NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey.

Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with

China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above)

In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters.

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060904&articleId=3147

[okieinpain]

48. and in other words, exactly what osama bin laden wants. this is

exactly what he wants.

[ronnie624]

127. Very interesting essay.

The fourth paragraph contains a link to an article which is also an informative read.

Thanks so much for the link.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Oh, I know a thing or two about military affairs.

And I know any military action with Iran by the U.S. would be a disaster for the U.S. military.

And I know this sable rattling is a natural consequence of Bush bullying Iran.

[NeedleCast]

14. Why?

Why do you believe this?

As an ex-military member who is pretty well versed on the subject, I don't think Iran has any combat platform capable of taking on anything we've got. Iraq said the same thing in 1991 and we proved pretty soundly that having lots of old weapons does not make you a super power. It's more than just the hardware...it's the training as well.

North Korea also has some very advanced soviet fighters. Want to know what they do with them? Nothing. They sit in bunkers because the NKs don't have the technical knowledge or part to fix them if they break them. Their pilots have nearly no airtime with the platform. If you gave Lance Armstrong and Rush Limbaugh the same bicycle and tell them to race I know who I'm betting on!

Sound to me like more bluster from Iran. Blame it on Bush bullying or whatever, it's just so much more dangerous rhetoric that makes the world a less safe place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Iraq?

Iraq. It was and is an utter disaster for the U.S. military. And Iran's got a whole lot more teeth than Iraq.

We haven't got the best military in the world, we've got the most overpriced military in the world, and it's not doing much good in closing the IED gap.

North Korea would be a disaster, too. If you consider a nuclear engagement and tens of thousands of U.S. troops instantly overrun a disaster. I would.

[NeedleCast]

18. I thought

we were talking about an air war, my bad. I guess my argument would be that Iran's air-force and air defense is not capable of taking on the US. Control the skies and you don't have to invade to "win." For the US, ground wars are dumb. Why fight on the enemies turf?

I agree that an invasion of Iran or NK would probably end in the same situation you have in Iraq. I think we'd win the conventional war pretty convincingly, only to find ourselves mired in another Iraq.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. And you suppose...

Iran's just going to sit there and fight an air war?

[NeedleCast]

24. So they would do what?

Invade Iraq or Afghanistan? We're pretty far out into speculation land now. Its possible I guess. Their ground forces would fare about as well as the Iraq forces did in a conventional war. They don't have armor that can effectivly take on ours. You control the skies, you control the war. Rommel knew this as far back as WW-II.

U.S. forces control the air it very much limits what Iranian ground forces can do on any large scale.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Launch missles at Israel.

Big stuff too, not Katyushas.

Launch stuff at our bases in Iraq. Take out naval vessels in the gulf. Have Hezbollah start another ground war in Israel. Destroy much of our petroleum infrastructure. Get Syria involved. Possibly get other ME states involved.

You know, disaster type shit.

"You control the skies, you control the war."

Yeah, well, maybe that worked for Rommel. But we've got control of the skies over Iraq, and we certainly don't have control of that war.

[ConcernedCanuk]

43. we've got control of the skies . . we certainly don't . control . that war

.
.
.

The whole phrase

"we've got control of the skies over Iraq, and we certainly don't have control of that war."

That's it in a nutshell . . .

100's of BILLIONS of dollars and thousands of Military lives lost -

and I have to mention that little thing called "collateral damage" which means that tens of thousands of innocent civilians were massacred in this invasion

Y'all got to get on the ground eventually . .

Saddam knew that he couldn't defeat the US in an air war

So he cached small arms all over the country

And they are still killing the US Military . .

No wonder people are calling it Iraqnam

Warmongers should study History

"My Pet Goat" don't cut it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. The thing is...

if I didn't know any better, I'd say this was a repeat of WWI, where all of the military "experts" thought that fifty year old Civil War era strategy would work.

But the simple fact is, everybody knew that Iraq was going to be a quagmire before it ever started.

[ConcernedCanuk]

68. Apparently, the chimp in charge didn't care . . . But ya gotta think a bit

.
.
.

The USA now has OVER A DOZEN bases in Iraq -

Hospitals, schools be damned . .

The USA has got a major toehold on in the Middle East - and are as close to Russia and China as Cuba was offensively in the sixties - -

Saddam had a major underground stronghold - bunker systems that could support thousands of people - and roads from the airport to Baghdad that supported 2-way traffic for 14 miles -

There was a wee blip about it in 2003 -

all of a sudden

no more info

I actually seen a schematic (on-line) AND actual photos of the underground system between the airport and Baghdad . .

I wish I hadda saved them

The PNACers wiped them off the net -

So guess who's got them now?

It ain't the Iraqis

And IF Saddam had wmds down there

The USA is keeping it for themselves

Count on it . . . .

[Megahurtz]

238. Interesting.....

:think:

[hack89]

50. A different kind of war perhaps?

Control of the air was certainly critical in Iraq during the capture of Baghdad. And the Taliban could certainly give you an opinion on the effectiveness of air power on massed troops. It was only when the war shifted to guerrilla war did air power lose its effectiveness.

A war with Iran will not be a guerrilla war - it will be a conventional war that the US air force and navy was built to fight. If the Iran military hardware is not mobile and well hidden it will not survive the first strike. All their radar sites, command and control sites, air fields and fixed missile site will be gone within hours.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Yup.

Sounds like a cake walk to me.

:eyes:

[hack89]

52. I didn't say cakewalk..

but as long as we don't actually invade Iran, we could batter them with relative impunity. Their air defenses are old and spread thin, their planes are few and obsolete. They would suffer a horrible price.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Oh, it's a "new kind of war."

That's got to be a cake walk if you ask me.

In fact, wasn't that Donald Rumsfeld's exact words? "A new kind of war?"

Why, we'd be stupid not to attack.

:eyes:

[hack89]

56. I don't agree with Rumsfield ...

I just don't think that Iran can counter our air power. If we keep our ground forces out of it, I can't see where they would have the opportunity to inflict massive casualties on us.

[hoboken123]

101. Outside of snarkiness...

Do you have a point?

You're conceding the original poster's point, that Iran's main defenses wouldn't survive any engagement with the US.

But they may win a guerrilla war? That's all you're going with?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

256. My main point's in the OP.

Military action against Iran would be a disaster for the U.S. And I've not conceded anything.

[leveymg]

150. You can see across the Straits. Iran's ASMs are well-hidden.

The only question is, will the Straits will be closed for weeks or months or years, depending upon what happens in the rest of the region and the world. And, expect a lot to happen in a lot of places for a long time.

This isn't a good idea.

[happyslug]

107. Waste of Missile, launch them at the oil port of Saudi Arabia

Knock out that port, 5-10% of world wide oil just disappears. Europe, Japan, China, India, will go ANYWHERE To buy oil to supplement their Strategic Oil Stocks. Knock out Kuwaiti and UAE Oil you have a free for all for oil.

While I suspect the US would use its Strategic oil Reserve to support the US Attack on Iran, Iran just has to survive the 90 days or so the US has in oil reserves and then the US Military will have to cut back operations do to lack of fuel (and that presumes that Bush denys any of the Strategic supply stocks to domestic use, something I doubt will happen).

If I was Iran, that would be my target, not Israel.

[IronLionZion]

29. about that...

The Nazis had overwhelming air and ground superiority in WWII and that's why they bombed the UK like every day but could not invade on the ground. The Desert Fox was absolutely brilliant, but the Nazis still lost the war.

Who controlled the air in Vietnam? Didn't we bomb every inch of that country?

[hack89]

55. Modern air power means that it is impossible to ..

mass conventional forces. The combination of pervasive around the clock surveillance and precision weapons means that a massed attack equals massed targets.

The Germans did not invade because they could not extend their air superiority over the channel and control english air space.

[Oggy]

162. It was our Navy that actually stopped the invasion

The Germans did not have anything like the same capabilities, it would have taken another 5 -6 years to build up their navy to a level to challenge and as a consequence any invasion force would have been wiped out.

[HannibalBarca]

209. Thats true

I remember reading that a top admiral in Hitler's Navy was assured that there would be no engagement with England for at least several years as this was the time necessary to build sufficient naval forces to match or indeed surpass the British fleet. Thankfully, some would say, when it came to military tactics and strategy Hitler wasn't the fastest bullet out of the gun and the rest is history.

[hack89]

255. True to a certain extent ..

except that the British Navy was learning the dangers of operating without absolute air superiority - the Channel was a still a dangerous place to operate. These lessons were later hammered home by the Germans off Crete and the Japanese off Malaya (Prince of Wales). The RAF and RN were mutually dependent on each other.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

257. Untrue.

Hitler gave up his ambitions to invade England by spring of 1941.

The English deserve full credit.

Followed next by the Soviets, who finally defeated them.

[Jed Dilligan]

232. Didn't Rommel lose?

I don't think any war has ever been won without infantry occupying land.

[Name removed]

233. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

234. Yes

not really much of a war though. After posting I remembered that the Sultanate of Zanzibar was subdued entirely by British naval guns sometime in the 19th century (world's shortest war).

NATO still had to move in on the ground in Kosovo; there wasn't resistance because there wasn't resistance... Meaning the people left after the bombing welcomed the peacekeepers, or at least didn't have the will to fight them. I don't think this is ever the case in a real war.

I guess you could argue that air power ended WW2 in the Pacific, but nuking is a whole different category. We'd been conventional bombing the Japanese for a long time without results.

[Radioactive]

70. First response from Iran would be to bomb Israel

and I believe Israel would take an absolute hammering from Iran and perhaps be forced into using Nukes. This isnt Iraq, this is a whole new ball game, one you and me wont want to play.

[martymar64]

207. The scenario that would doom a US adventure in Iran

The Sunburn and Yakhonts anti-ship missiles could prove to be the arrow in the US's achilles heel. The Iraq/Iran theater is predicated on the supply line provided by the one or more carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, in addition to land based command and control in Qatar and Kuwait (both within the Persian Gulf). The Iranian coast abutting the Persian Gulf is mountainous, a perfect hiding place for missile launchers. Using subsonic Exocets (also in the Iranian arsenal) they could sink a tanker or two in the Straits of Hormuz, closing off the Persian Gulf of all traffic. The carrier group(s) would be trapped in the Gulf, sitting ducks for supersonic Sunburns and Yakhonts missiles. The Phalanx and Aegis platforms have not be shown to effectively counteract these ASM's. Also once the Persian Gulf is cut off, so too will be our ground troops in Iraq who are dependent on supplies shipped via the Persian Gulf. One can safely assume that the CENTCOM base in Doha, Qatar will be rained on by surface to surface missiles from across the Gulf, in addition to refineries in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai and the UAE. What happenes on the ground would be anyones guess, but I would think that this scenario would be accompanied by attacks on US troops by the Shia militias in Iraq and an invasion by Iranian ground troops, that could number in the millions. Any US victory would be Pyrrhic at best, at worst it could be our own version of Stalingrad and Dien Bien Phu all rolled into one ugly little package. I haven't even covered the economic implications of the closing of the Persian Gulf indefinitely or the International responses. They won't be pretty either.
Bottom Line: Attacking Iran is a BAD idea.

[Sterling]

37. So you think these 'new' toys Iran has are actually a threat?

Explain plz.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Nope.

Frankly, I think, given guided missle technology, that fighter jets are pretty much obsolete. Theirs and ours.

The real threat is people who think Iran is a pushover.

[INDIA]

59. "Frankly, I think, given guided missle technology,"

"that fighter jets are pretty much obsolete"

That is just so incredibly wrong I don't know what to say. You are really talking out your ass on this one.

What do you think the most effective platform is for launching guided missiles? DING! DING! Yeah, fighter jets, no kidding.

...Unless you were talking about surface to air missiles making jets obselete. In which case you would ALSO be wrong. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Mmhmm.

Well, we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on all sorts of stealthy new high tech fighter jets. In fact, they totally ROXOR11!1!! the hell out Iraqi jets ZOMG!

Funny thing is, they're not terribly effective, are they?

Oh, and they weren't terribly effective at taking out Hezbollah rockets... Or Iraqi scuds... or...

[INDIA]

67. How can I state this clearly?

You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.

"Well, we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on all sorts of stealthy new high tech fighter jets. In fact, they totally ROXOR11!1!! the hell out Iraqi jets ZOMG!"

Since WWII, air to air combat has been incredibly rare. That doesn't mean that jets are "obsolete", your original claim.

"Funny thing is, they're not terribly effective, are they?"

Ever see pictures of the "Highway of Death" leading back to Baghdad in Gulf War I? They were so effective they had to be called off as to not turn world opinion against us.

"weren't terribly effective at taking out Hezbollah rockets... Or Iraqi scuds... or..."

Actually, they are very effective at taking out scud sites. As for katusha rockets? Too small and too mobile, there isn't a weapon in existence that can effectively take them out. But then again, Katusha rockets are one of the least effective weapons in existence, so I guess it evens out.

I'd be willing to argue that tanks and naval vessels are the ones who have been made obsolete, BY FIGHTER JETS.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. ...

"Since WWII, air to air combat has been incredibly rare. That doesn't mean that jets are "obsolete", your original claim."

And what are fighters for? Well, they're they're to protect bombers. And what are bombers there for? Well, they're their to blow up targets. And bombers are certainly obsolete. Now, you could make a case for jet fighters serving the role of close air support. Fine. But for last 46 six years air power's been vastly over-rated. Why? Because it turns a profit for the military industrial complex.

"Ever see pictures of the "Highway of Death" leading back to Baghdad in Gulf War I? They were so effective they had to be called off as to not turn world opinion against us."

Sure. And world opinion was against us because there was a cease-fire and those Iraqi columns were retreating back to Iraq. So I suppose if the enemy is out in the open and not shooting back, and you've got ample time to plan the whole thing, then yes, I suppose jet fighters are pretty effective.

:eyes:

[Sterling]

129. Jesus man, just stop.

It is embarrassing to even have to read how ill informed your opinion on this subject it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

253. Ha!

The person who thinks Iraq was and is a cakewalk is telling me I'm misinformed.

So tell me why, Sterling. Tell me why I'm wrong.

[Tesha]

195. Billions of dollars on hi-tech jet development but we're still using A-10s

We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on hi-tech jet
development but we're still using good old A-10 Warthogs
to blow up those Canadian terraists.

Air superiority seems to mostly be a way to funnel billions
of dollars to a few select defense contractors.

Tesha

[Sterling]

261. Because A 10's are actually still useful

one of the best planes ever made. They are not however our most state of the art air defense aircraft. And the versions we use now are considerably more high tech than those used during Nam.

The A 10 is a great asset to our air force but you seem to be confusing the role the A 10 plays in our "package" of air combat assets.

A 10s are great for killing tanks and land based forces. They are not meant to protect our forces from air attack.

The Iranian plane is obsolete in it's supposed role of air to air combat. Once the A 10 is obsolete we will replace it with a new model. The best Iran can do is copy our outdated crap.

[hogwyld]

262. Uhh, right... hate to pop your bubble...

But A-10's were not in Vietnam: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008078

And the new Iranian superjet could be the latest in air superiority. It is an unknown capability at the moment.

[Sterling]

128. Yes wrong, and wrong for the wrong reasons as well.

Not only wrong because they don't know jack about military affairs but wrong because they hate our own country so bad they WANT to be right. It's truly sad. I have been here since after 9-11. I think Bush is the worst thing to happen to the US in my lifetime.

Yet somehow I can still see that the people running Iran right now are far worse and more dangerous.

I don't think the Iranians will play nice if and when we get a Dem in office. Does anybody really think that would be the case?

[hogwyld]

139. If a Dem were in office

We would have nothing to fear as our foreign policy would be 180 degrees from what it is now.

[Sterling]

143. Really, do you actually think that is true?

Which of the leading Dem's stood in W's way when he wanted his war? McKinney did, I love her, but most Dem's shit on her on a regular basis, so I won't hold my breath expecting the policy to change fundamentally in regards to ME policy. If anything I think a Dem would put more effort into the war, in an effort fuck it up less than W. But become the peace party? Hardly.

What will the US policy toward Iran's nuke program be? Plz explain.

[hogwyld]

154. Well for one thing

The Dems would have had a much better policy of negotiating first, shooting last as opposed to the current junta. The Dems want to set a date for a pull out, which is more than the endless conflict over there now. As for the nukes of Iran, so what? Nk has them, pakistan has them, India has them. We have absolutely no business running around as the world's policeman and trying to impose our vacant values on anybody.

[MGD]

86. We're already on the verge of one military disaster

And, if history is any indicator of the future, we'll make it worse by expanding the theater of operatiions into neighboring countries. We have already bloodied Iran once, we will do it again I predict.

[Tesha]

197. Maybe in the long run, maybe this is good for world peace.

> We're already on the verge of one military disaster. And, if history
> is any indicator of the future, we'll make it worse by expanding the
> theater of operatiions into neighboring countries.

Look at it this way: Maybe in the long run, maybe this is good for
world peace. If the world's mightiest super power is revealed to be
a sham, a Potemkin village, a country that has smashed and bloodied
its military might against the immovable rocks, maybe the world will
be a safer, saner place without America the Great standing astride it.

Tesha

[razors edge]

12. perhaps this is just iranian

dis info to lull an enemy into a sense of security, while we concentrate on destroying old perked up f-5s, they target our carriers with a couple hundred missiles, overwhelm the aegis guns and send our carriers to the bottom, leaving our planes looking for a new roost minus their support and personnel.

what if russia or china has supplied them allot more sam's than we know about, its a big desert and strategy can go a long way to beat technology.

[NeedleCast]

15. Don't need carriers in the straight

Or anywhere in theater for that matter.

Lets go to the map! We've got land bases in Afghanistan and Iraq now. Iran sits between these two countries. No need for carrier based aircraft.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. How do you plan on getting fuel to those bases?

[NeedleCast]

20. Make a longer trip

Logistics would suck, but it's possible. Fly it in in tankers if you have to.

Worst case scenario is keeping carriers at standoff range and using more air-to-air refueling and less payload to extend range of attack aircraft.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. A longer trip where?

On the ground? Because guerillas will have the ground.

Fly gas in on planes? Yeah, those logistics would suck.

[Sterling]

38. "Because guerillas will have the ground.' Really?

You seem to want the US to lose so bad you are willing to believe some serious bullshit, sorry.

An 'open war' with the US is doomsday for just about any country. And no the insurgents in Iraq and AG will not be able to stop us from refueling. Insurgents fight from hiddy holes and flee when attacked. In order to effect our air war they would have to come out in the open and then die.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Sterling, it's because I don't want the U.S. to lose...

that I'm against the war in Iraq and nonsense talk about war in Iran.

I want the U.S. to lose? Honestly?

If I wanted the U.S. to lose, the first thing I'd do is support pointless wars that they have no way of winning. Iraq, for example. We're losing Iraq, and we're going to lose totally, for the simple reason that there's nothing to win in Iraq.

And yes, guerillas will control the ground in Iran, the same way they control the ground in Iraq.

[hack89]

57. Let them control the ground in Iran.

it would be purely an air war - no need to invade.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Mhmm.

And just an air war is going to do what now?

[hack89]

61. Show them the real cost of their nuclear ambitions

to their country and economy. Destroy the vast majority of their air force and navy. Destroy their entire military infrastructure and defense industry. Destroy as many nuclear installations as possible.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Ah, yeah.

The problem is, now that they've got enriched uranium, they can go ahead and centrifuge it just about anywhere, completely safe from airstrikes.

And then, instead of having Iran with nukes and some diplomatic relations with, you've got an Iran with nukes that now has a perfectly valid reason to detonate a nuke in any American city.

So that doesn't make a lot of fucking sense, now does it?

[hack89]

65. Why would they commit suicide?

So that doesn't make a lot of fucking sense, now does it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. It doesn't make a lot of fucking sense...

to realize that when you invade another country and your military vastly outclasses theirs, that they're going to be desperate enough to launch suicide attacks.

Honestly, are people to dumb to have known this was going to happen? Because if they were, they must have forgotten:

1. 9-11

2. Vietnam

3. Kamikaze attacks.

4. How our own country greatly honors soldiers who've gone on suicide missions.

[hack89]

69. It would mean the end of Iran.

I meant suicide as in - the US will turn iran into a sheet of glass if they nuke one of our cities.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Ah, MAD.

Now the thing about MAD is, it doesn't work too well if one of the countries is currently being destroyed anyway.

[razors edge]

121. what if they just

get tired of shit talk like your's and pack 2000 dirty bombs with the material we gave them, send them back return to sender, distribute well, and watch america's financial melt down?

but wait, they could have done that twenty years ago, how many countries have we spread du over while they have sat on that ability?

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[razors edge]

120. what if their nuclear ambitions

don't include weapons, unlike israel who has never signed the npt, refuses inspections, and is in many times more violations of un sc resolutions than saddam?

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

155. So tell me

How many countries has Israel invaded? Iran? Israel is clearly the bully on the block. If Iran get nukes (a long time away if ever) then it will be a level field eh?

[razors edge]

158. so,

then i'm now responsible for the care and safety of israel?

[hogwyld]

189. Bingo!

Israel's a big boy. They can take care of themselves. We need to quit being worldcop, and focus all of our resources on fixing this nation.

[razors edge]

117. then what?

[Sterling]

141. I too was against the war in Iraq.

I don't believe Iraq was close to getting nukes, I don't think they were much of a threat militarily after the 1st GW.

On the other hand the religious extremists running Iran are a different sort. you can say ' but look at our fundies' but they really don't compare. I do agree that their rhetoric alone is reason enough to take them at their word as the dipshit said this week. I don't really want to wait and see if they are just kidding after the get a few bombs made.

[razors edge]

115. tell it to the viet cong

die mabee, loose?

[OregonDem]

74. Why? Iraq is full of gas that we would use.

n/t

[INDIA]

21. You're right!

If the US and Iran ever went to war, Iran would kick our ASS!:crazy:

Just curious, what military experience or knowledge do you have to back up these assertions?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Oh, just common sense.

But you've convinced me, India3.

Iran's going to be a cakewalk. Why, they'll probably welcome us with flowers.

[NeedleCast]

25. Quite a bit

Six years spent in the army. Studied lots of history. Quite good general knowledge of military capability.

Iran would not kick our ass.

[Trajan]

36. While I respect your knowledge of this subject matter ....

And while I dont quite respect the strident militarism of one particular, 'bunker busting' war monger up there (^^^^^^) .... You cannot dismiss some of the possible ramifications of such 'speculations' ...

Sure: Iran would lose their air force almost immediately .... but that isnt their 'strength' ...

How are they strong ? .. two important facts:

1) They have a large standing army, in situ ... on the ground troops with decent weapons and artillery ... and on their own turf ....

2) They can move that army across the border, into Iraq ....

What say I ? .... Hear me out ....

The US Military is at whatever level of strength they are in Iraq ... what is it now ? ... 146,000 soldiers ? .... At that level of strength: they can barely control the population centers as it is .... they have nearly zero control of the field outside of the cities, and other than 'superior air power', they have not found a means to effectively counter anti-US forces ..... They are under constant, asymmetrical attack in that field, without any clear method of turning back those attacks, except through attrition and loss ....

Iran has no air force worth considering for longer than a few hours, BUT they have many many soldiers to field .... IF those Iranian military forces were to move into the Iraq theater, it would cause bedlam to US strategy in Iraq .... US forces would have to move to counter the incursion, without any clear immediate objectives, other than to try to stem the flow into the theater ....

Since there are only 146,000 US forces in Iraq, and they are already stretched to the point of near ineffectivity, ANY movement from their positions in Iraq, presumably from stations where they are necessary, would leave gaping holes in the force structure required to maintain order in Iraq ....

IF Iran were to move fast enough in Iraq, they would completely disrupt US plans in Iraq, whereas the anti-american forces in Iraq would feast on their sudden fortune .... We would be in a shooting war, in a land far away, against a stronger (on the ground) foe (Iran could conceivably field 500,000 soldiers in short order) ... all while giving up their long held positions in Iraq ....

... with bullets flying into their backs AND their faces ....

We could conceivably lose Iraq ....

OUR huge advantage of airpower and 'bunker busters' would have nearly zero effect in this scenario ....

This is not a good scenario for the US Military ..... They have been hamstrung by the intrasingence of the civilian military leadership at the Pentagon, who decided they would fight this war 'on the cheap' ...

Sure: we have a superior military, the best in the world ... but that advantage means little if the bulk of that forces is either tied down in withering conditions (where they are undermanned), and where the bulk of necessary reinforcements are nowhere to be found ....

Sure .. our superior air power would stem some of that flow, but due to the large force differential, they could not stop it all ... Iran would have an opportunity to gain large tracts of land; to insinuate itself into the Iraq theater .. and cause US generals huge grief as they try to adapt without loss .... They could move into the North, and draw Turkey into the conflict .. (Turkey has already violated the border many times on various amti-Kurd sorties) .... US forces would be busy chasing after Iranians (and Turks) in Iraq, and therefore unable to charge into Iran ... even if it wanted to .... Iraq could be split in two or three pieces .... We would be out of position, fighting two foreign states, possibly drawing other states in, .. all while letting control of Iraq slip away ....

And even IF Iran were stymied : They could retreat back to the home field .... and wait ....

Would the current forces in Iraq chase them into Iran ? .... IF they cannot batten down Iraq, who could imagine them entering Iran, and securing a 'beachhead' ? ... We could lose Iraq AND NOT gain Iran ....

Absolute bedlam would ensue under this scenario .....

I swear ... the people at the Pentagon dont seem to have a sane bone in their noggins ... All this sabre ratttling has racheted up the ante, and it could be we have nothing but bluster and bluff in our hand ....

Sure .. we could annhilate Iran .... but would we ? ...

Speaking of history ... Iran is ancient Persia ; a state of great military tradition .. surely this fact is not lost on the saner heads in the Pentagon command structure : but Shinseki and his ilk left years ago .... and the others stifled by that act, or are simple yes-men ........ would sane voices be heard ? ...

Nor is the history of a once great nation lost on the Iranians themselves, who seem to be feeling their oats of late ...

Au contraire, mon frere .... we have MUCH to worry about regarding these 'speculations' ...

THIS much we know:

1) Iran will do something ... something that they CAN do ...
2) They have already been in Iraq ... surely there are some in Iran who want another chance ...
3) They could strike, and retreat, without much pain ....

Air power, or bunker busters .. cannot stop such a gambit, which would at least ruin US plans for war-on-the-cheap in Iraq, and force the US to pump MUCH greater forces into the area .. just to keep Iraq .....

Rumsfeld's Neocon strategy is a farce .....

This speculation is quite realistic ....

It cannot be lightly dismissed ...

[Sterling]

40. "They can move that army across the border, into Iraq "

And that army would cease to exist as fast as it crossed the border. What you describe is best case scenario for the US military. Fight Iran out in the open. Invading Iran would be a bad idea, not the actual war but the occupation, but I doubt a land invasion will happen.

I am amazed at some of the completely ignorant opinions here on military affairs sometimes.

[Trajan]

42. Your self imposed bubble ...

is impenetrable .... I wont even bother .....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Really?

How are they supplying Hezbollah, then, if they can't move across borders?

[INDIA]

62. Yeah...

A mass movement of troops during open warfare (in the middle of the desert no less) is the same thing as a shady underground movement of rockets during peacetime.



:eyes:

Before you falsely claim so, I'm not advocating an armed conflict with Iran, I'm just realistic about the strength of our military. Claiming the US military isn't the most powerful in the world is incorrect. Period.

The difficulties we have faced in Iraq would be much worse for any other military force under identical circumstances. If you have an enemy that is willing to carrry out suicide attacks, hide among civilians, and purposely kill civilians to achieve their aims, you WILL have casualties.

Just curious, if not us, who do YOU think has the world's strongest military?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. China.

"If you have an enemy that is willing to carrry out suicide attacks, hide among civilians, and purposely kill civilians to achieve their aims, you WILL have casualties."

Well, Jesus fucking Christ, maybe somebody should have thought of that before hand, huh?

[INDIA]

73. China, although spending huge amounts of cash on its military...

Will not be comparable to the US military for another 20 years or so. Maybe you think largest = best?? And I actually attended a presentation at the Capitol on the Chinese military, so I know what I'm talking about.

And yes, of COURSE we should have thought of the impending (disastrous) guerrilla war before we invaded Iraq. Going to war with a country and occupying a country are two entirely different animals.

Actually, going back to my earlier comment, maybe another military force like China WOULD have an easier time in Iraq since they would be much happier to disregard international standards of ROE. The Iraqi army seemed to keep peace, because they were willing to kill and imprison hundreds of thousands.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Generally, yes.

Take, for example, Germany versus the Soviet Union.

Do you suppose we're the best because we spend the most money on the fanciest toys?

"they would be much happier to disregard international standards of ROE"

Oh, we don't seem to have many problems with that. They said the same thing back in Vietnam too. "Oh, if we just took our gloves off, it'd be over by christmas." It was full of shit then, yoo.

[INDIA]

77. Compared to

the practices of just about every other military power of the past hundred years?(USSR, Russia, Japan, N. Korea, N. Vietnam, Nazi Germany) We're boy scouts along with GB, no not even that, we're cub scouts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Uh huh.

"The Iraqi army seemed to keep peace, because they were willing to kill and imprison hundreds of thousands."

Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed.

[INDIA]

79. Oh I forgot...

The US is ALWAYS the most evil. My bad, thanks for setting me straight.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Hmm.

Strawman.

Right on time, too.

You know, you could be doing this at any internet message board. Why post this crap here?

[INDIA]

82. Because you are commenting on a subject...

you obviously have a poor understanding of. It annoys me frankly, and instead of sitting in passive agreement I'd prefer to tell you where you're wrong. Things like "who has the more brutal military" are debatable, although anyone with half a brain can see the diff between Saddam's regime and the US military(which many DU family members are apart of) Things like "Fighter jets are obsolete because of missile technology" are not debatable, they are wrong. Saying the US doesn't have the worlds strongest military is wrong. Saying China has a more powerful military than the US is wrong. Claiming Iran could move across the Iraqi border easily because they can ship rockets to Lebanon is wrong.

I don't like it when people are "aggressively wrong" as my dad used to say.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Ah ha ha.

Here you are apologizing for the Iraq war, and poorly too. I'm mean these are really amateur arguments. "oh, you want the U.S. to lose; you must think the U.S. is the worst country in the world." I mean this is the sort of shit twelve year olds post on forums about Nickelodeon cartoon.

And you claim I've a poor understanding.

Sheesh.

"although anyone with half a brain can see the diff between Saddam's regime and the US military(which many DU family members are apart of)"

Anybody with half a brain can clearly see that the Iraqi people are considerably worse off under the Bush regime, then the Hussein regime. And don't pull this innane shit about "supporting the troops."

"Things like "Fighter jets are obsolete because of missile technology" are not debatable, they are wrong."

Yet we've debating it, haven't we? And despite how you keep saying "I'm wrong," you've yet to show me how. What good is the F-117? The F-22? The JSF? I mean besides looking cools and making Lockheed a lot of money? As far as I can tell they're only good for launching... oh... guided missles. Shit, kid, Iranian planes could do that.

"Saying the US doesn't have the worlds strongest military is wrong."

Yet, somehow, we're losing a war to a group of insurgents with AKs and explosives.

"Saying China has a more powerful military than the US is wrong."

Put the Chinese military and the U.S. military in a small room, let them duke it out, and my money's on China.

"Claiming Iran could move across the Iraqi border easily because they can ship rockets to Lebanon is wrong."

How? Cause you don't like the consequences?

[INDIA]

85. Yep! Just pretend you didn't post all that misinformation above.

Maybe you can still edit it?

And you failed to respond to my accusations that you are dead ass wrong on the above subjects, which tells me all I need to know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. If I'm dead ass wrong...

how come I was the one who was right about Iraq, and you were so terribly wrong?

Doesn't that just tear you up inside?

[INDIA]

88. Did I ever say anything like that?

NOPE! Nice try though!

I don't recall us ever having any conversations before the Iraq invasion about whether it would go well or not. Care to refresh my memory? Care to continue the argument that "missiles make jet fighters obsolete?" :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. Shit, kid.

You're apologizing for the Iraq war now.

Sure. Let's continue with the jet fighter argument. See above.

[INDIA]

90. Explain to me in DETAIL...

How any of my previous posts have apologized for the Iraq war. Feel free to quote me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. LOL

How about the 3rd grade level argument about "Oh, you must think the U.S. is the worst country in the world" argument?

Frankly, India3, a quick search of your comments at this site reveals quite a lot of apologizing- from the rape of that 15 year old Iraqi girl, to the invasion itself.

No surprises, really.

[INDIA]

97. You call it "apologizing"

I call it realistically asserting that 99.9% of soldiers and Marines are not jackbooted thugs and killers. I stand by it. I don't ever recall defending the war, but I do recall calling people out on their bullshit.

And how the hell do you search comments? Is that a donor only function? I'm flattered you find me so interesting!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Apologizing is the technically correct term.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1573819#1580353

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1459478

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=708497#708538

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2224127#2225210

I'd rather just call it genuine, old-fashioned bullshit.

Not that I think you actually believe it. As evidenced by when you get confused with the rhetoric and contradict yourself.

Not that I think you actually support the war, itself, I think you're only doing it because Bush started it.

[INDIA]

102. First of all...

creepy. Didn't know you could search other posters past comments.

Second of all, I read all my comments and see none of them supporting the war. I see criticisms of Islamic fundamentalists, (which is largely absent on DU IMO), criticism of Shiite/Sunni sectarian violence(which yes, is a result of the invasion, but does not absolve blame to the two warring parties), and sarcastic criticism of the comparisons between Saddam's secret police and US forces, which I hold in high esteem.

[Sterling]

130. I called it. The Iraq war.

The 'war' was a cake walk. The occupation was and still is a disaster. Seems rather obvious. The only variable was if the Iraqis would reject the US as it's over lord or not and that was not a tough guess IMHO.

The person you are arguing with is extremely confused and should really lay off the aggro tone. Even on a subject you know about you don't need to come off so desperate. You are right this person is aggressively wrong.

[Trajan]

118. Iran has sheer numbers ....

it wouldnt be 'easy' .... but is there enough killing force, with enough command to properly direct that force, and NOT run out of bullets while men still stream out of Iran ? .... You cannot guarantee complete annhilation of Irani military columns ... not in their turf ....

The border is a long one .... We do not have enough manpower to police the entire border ..... so HOW could every movement be countered ? .... There are already complaints of infiltration by Iranian elements into Iraq .... have they been stopped ? ... why do you insist Iran will march into the jaws of death in nice little, neat, easily seen and killed columns, when it could instead sneak over a porous border and embed within the countryside ? ..... WHO will stop them ? ..... OUR Military has its hands full, thank you .... Air sorties will NOT kill but a few ..... to say that it will be easy to kill all possible Iranian incursion forces is a foolhardy claim ...

Really: the name calling is a sign of weakness .... a sign of fear .....

WHY resort to ad hominem attacks if you have the superior argument ? ....

I see your assertions as weak and unsubstantiated .....

[Pavulon]

224. We killed

30,000 (or more) people in iraq in a column using air power.

Air power has a vast capability to cripple and kill people in massive numbers.

Our air resources are idle. Mines prevent people from moving over land. We have tens of millions of them that can be scattered from the air.

[daleo]

114. Cub scouts that nuked two cities

Cub scouts that firebombed a half dozen more.
Cub scouts that killed 2 million Viet Namese.
Cub scouts that massacred fleeing troops on a Highway of Death.

[hogwyld]

104. Is this the same "intelligence"

that said Hisbollah wouldn't last 10 minutes against Israel? China, due to it's proximity, could shut down the Straits of Malacca in indonesia, and we'd be in a world of shit. They've got modern weapons, and something we don't have, an unlimited supply of troops. Don't delude yourself into thinking that we're still a superpower.

[Oggy]

174. More importantly

China could say Oooh lets sell all our Dollars and screw the US so they haven't got any money. (after all they are your bankers).

[hogwyld]

179. And the way this junta has been winning friends

we'll have the entire global community out to cut us off at the knees. We'd be so down in the dumps, we wouldn't be able to scratch a snakes ass with a ladder.

[krispos42]

153. Bush didn't know about the different sects in Iraq until Jan 2003

two months before we invaded. Once he did, he didn't change his plans.

The administration did think about it, if not Bush then the intelligence community and the military. It simply didn't matter because all information must conform to the PNAC plan. The informmation will either fit, be MADE to fit, or made to disappear. That is what Cheney's 10-man personal intelligence team did over in the the Naval Observatory. They had a bunch of deadblow hammers and spend hours a day hammering puzzle pieces that didn't fit into place.

And yes, there is a huge difference between attacking and occupying. When Bush was strutting around on the Lincoln in May 2003, we was actually right. "Mission Accomplished". Complete subjegation of all branches of the Iraqi military, occupation of all aspects of Iraq, US military in charge of all civil affairs. Well, not total 'cuz the Kurds were still their own, but pretty close.

We won that in six weeks. What we fucked up on was being an occupying authority. Arrogance, incompetence, an inordinate faith in capitalism, and general ignorance turned an occupied nation into a buzzing behive of unemployed angry people with plenty of captured ordinance and arms and 135,000 targets to hit.

China does have a large military. But infantry and patrol boats are cheap and plentiful. It's the building and learning all the new toys that gets expensive. Worldwide logistics isn't cheap, for example.

[Trajan]

113. This is not about breast beating ...

This is about tactics and strategy ....

Technologically superior forces can be nullified by excellent tactics, especially those with poor leaders favoring ideology over pragmatism ....

The GREATEST ARMY IN THE WORLD .... is not losing in Iraq ... but it is not 'winning' .... NO ONE can say the effort in Iraq has been a strategically satisfying victory by any stretch of the imagination ...

Considering that Iran DOES have superior forces to those found in Iraq, we can presume, in a linear estimation, that it would be MORE difficult to 'win' Iran .... IF we entered Iraq with insufficient forces to succeed (which MANY agree is the case), how on earth could they redirect upon Iran without degrading the Iraq effort even further ?

Considering that our forces are 'bogged down' in Iraq, any disruption of that effort cannot have a positive effect on our chances of keeping order in Iraq ....

So; EVEN if Iran were forced to retreat ... The vacuum left in Iraq by US forces engaging Iran might be enough to tip the country, and its still nascent government, over on its ear ....

NO ONE IS SAYING that the US Military is NOT the strongest military force in the world .... But I am saying that it COULD lose Iraq, and Iran, if it doesnt do it right ....

So far .. it isnt ....

[bronxiteforever]

54. China and Russia won't let us go near Iran

"U.S. officials have been increasingly uneasy as China has signed major deals with Iran, Sudan, Burma and Venezuela, all countries that have strained relations with the United States.

While the Bush administration tries to build international pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70 billion long- term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran government."

China gets 13% of her oil from Iran and no country can make that up.If her oil is threatened China will become mean really fast. China is behind the scenes protecting Iraq and we can't do a damn thing about it.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ScreamingMeemie]

152. Many people, my family included, would find your post offensive.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[bronxiteforever]

157. Iranians are not arabs

They are Persian

[hogwyld]

163. Not only will China and Russia come to Iran's defense

You just know their itching to give the Iranians some of their newest and best weaponry to "test" against the U.S. They would love nothing better than to see us dismally lose another war, and to hasten the collapse our country. After we get our asses spanked so badly, we will have no friends, allies, or sympathy.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

167. So you don't think Russia and China wouldn't relish

Giving the global bully a big black eye? You don't think they would want to protect THEIR interests? Dream on yourself.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

172. And look what the Soviet equipment did to us in Vietnam

It would be another war of attrition, of which we are bound to lose.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[razors edge]

123. stragety

iran knows our ground and air abilities, do we really know theirs?

[razors edge]

124. ignorant?

where exactly did you serve as a successfully strategist, I assume that is the case, otherwise history is replete with the vanquish of your sort.

[INDIA]

248. "where exactly did you serve as a successfully strategist"

was that sentence in english?:shrug:

[razors edge]

126. i don't remember

any middle eastern country loosing 3000 citizens to intelligence failures recently'.

[Sterling]

133. Glad to see you are so impressed with 9-11, nice one.

It really does not say that much for ones military prowess to suicide yourself into a bunch of unarmed civilians, but if that kind of thing gets you off, enjoy.

[TheWatcher]

147. I am amazed at the raging erection some seem to have for us

to go to war with Iran.

Now, carry on with the "Our dicks are so much bigger than theirs it's not even funny" discussion.

It's actually kind of interesting.

[hogwyld]

196. Some of these people have serious issues of inadequacy

In the past 50 years, our military is 1-4-1. GWI won, Vietnam, Somalia, Current Iraq, and Beirut were lost. Korea was a tie at best. But the way some are bragging, our military is 99-0. Hell, the world might as well just lay down and submit to us! :nuke:

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

200. I was trying not to embarrass the military

I wouldn't exactly call the above credible opponents! That's like Tiger Woods against some weekend hacker. Do you really want to brag about Grenada? Panama? Sheesh, talk about scraping the bottom...

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sofa king]

41. Let me add to that.

If Iran can talk Hezbollah and Syria into bucking up, too, suddenly the IAF has priorities closer to home, and we're back to an American-only bombing campaign in Iran. (This is almost certainly why the Israelis took the trouble to wreck Lebanese infrastructure far outside of Hezbollah's control--to prevent the Syrians from moving through Lebanon and around the Golan Heights). Similarly, Dostum ain't got jack shit without the USAF backing him up in Afghanistan, and now with the Israelis busy, the Americans have to rob Peter to pay Paul. And what if Pakistan nuts out at the same time, or worse, decides to drag the Indians into it? And if the rest of the 'Stans go crazy? Now you've got a forty-division war with five divisions in-theatre and maybe five more on the way--if you've got the fuel and shipping and air transport to move them there--wherever "there" is since Iraq won't be the safest place to start staging troops.

All that in turn might hamper the opium harvest, which would throw off the CIA's income and damage corporate profits worldwide, which combined with a guaranteed temporary halt of all oil shipments out of the Persian Gulf and a possible semi-permanent cutoff of both Iraq's and Iran's oil would send the world economy into a tailspin since world production is barely meeting demand as it is. The Wahabbis might smell blood in the water and decide now's the time to cash in the Carlysle Group, shutting down Saudi Arabia's Red Sea exports as well, and then Hugo Chavez has a certain incurious monkey's cojones in hand as well. China will use the excuse to bag Taiwan, that's almost a certainty, and then you have to watch the entire high-tech industry curl up in a ball, and now some of your spare parts are coming from a very angry neutral-at-best party.

Yeah, it could all go south real fast if they're not careful, and caution is not one of the hallmarks of this administration. I fully expect them to do it, and soon.

[razors edge]

122. they don't get it

even after vietraq, i don't type worth a shit and im getting tired of idots. good luck.

[MGD]

93. 3 words: Operation Praying Mantis

we already kicked their ass once.

[hogwyld]

105. Remember, any conflict with Iran

will also be against Russia and China. They wouldn't exactly be throwing stones at us as I'm sure they are getting some top notch equipment, and they'll be defending their home turf. Do you honestly think we are still a military superpower? you'd have about a billion people itching to take us down a few pegs.

[HMonk]

109. Pakistan and/or India could side with them aswell...

Russia and China are members of the S.C.O. (Shanghai cooperation organisation) and Iran have been invited to join along with Pakistan and India if they join together.

http://www.sectsco.org/html/00958.html

From wikipedia

Origins
The Shanghai Five grouping was originally created April 26, 1996 with the signing of the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai by the heads of states of Kazakhstan, the People's Republic of China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. April 24, 1997 the same countries signed the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in a meeting in Moscow.

(snip)

Future membership possibilities
Among other nations of the wider region, Mongolia became the first country to receive observer status at the 2004 Tashkent Summit. Pakistan, India and Iran received observer status at the 2005 SCO summit in Astana, Kazakhstan on July 5, 2005. All four nations have applied for full membership to the organization.

(snip)

The SCO has also encouraged India to join the organization, saying that they would properly consider a membership application should it decide to join the group. <15> Indeed, Russia has been said to support Pakistan's membership only if India joins at the same time <16> -- given the disputes between the two nations this scenario parallels the simultaneous entry into NATO of Greece and Turkey. So far India has not made an official membership application, but has unofficially made its interest in joining known.

(snip)

Relations with the West
Though the declaration on the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization contained a statement that it "is not an alliance directed against other states and regions and it adheres to the principle of openness", most observers believe that one of the original purposes of the SCO was to serve as a counterbalance to the United States and in particular to avoid conflicts that would allow the United States to intervene in areas near both Russia and China. Many observers also believe that the organization was formed as a direct response to the threat of missile defense systems by the United States, after the United States reversed course in its nuclear policy and began promoting National Missile Defense.

More:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

This could also in part explain the nukes for mangoes.

[hogwyld]

116. Very good information. Thanks for sharing

Despite what some of our testosterone fueled members might think, I don't believe we are prepared to take on 30% + of the worlds population.

[HMonk]

146. No problem.

Glad you found it informative.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWatcher]

148. Oh Sterling, I don't see what you're so worried about

W and the Neocons are in control of everything, and like you seem to, they want War with Iran too.

Trust me, they will do everything they can to get you your war with Iran.

Just be patient.

Don't waste your time here arguing Milatary specs with everyone, and raising your blood pressure. Afdter all we are just citizens, we have no voice or say in this.

Stock up on beer so you can watch us disintegrate the Iranian people on CNN.

:sarcasm:

[leveymg]

34. Yes. But we do need tankers in the Straits. Dozens each day.

If they aren't, expect a gallon of gas to go up, up, up.

Without boots on the ground along 300 miles of coastline, there's no way to stop the Iranians from effectively hitting tankers with anti-ship missiles from their own shoreline.

[krispos42]

235. There are ways to doit, but it would be hard

Convoys escorted by Aegis-equipped ships, AWACS, fighter patrols, etc. Also, our Stealth Fighters could patrol the coastline, dropping a laser-guided cluster bomb on any mobile launchers it finds. But this ia risky and not by any means guarenteed.

And it does not negate the Iranian sub threat, either. I don't know the geography of the Straight of Hormuz, but I imagine sinking a 150,000 ton supertanker (like the Chevron Condolezza Rice, for example) in a shallow, narrow spot may well block the deep water pathways the supertankers need. Not to mention mining the Straight.

These are all excellent reasons on why we should be TALKING to Iran, not rattling the sabre.

[MGD]

91. I disagree

The carrier group is how we export our authority and influence to the far off reaches of the globe.
Also, I am not sure how the Iraqis would respond to us using their country as a front against Iran. There would probably be some ambivalence but, in the end, I think it would complicate things immeasurably. I'm no military genius or anything but I think it would be far better to force the Iranians to come into Iraq first. A carrier group would have the ability to force such a thing. Call me old fashioned but I believe naval power is the key to any empire.

[razors edge]

95. how do you rotate squadrons into the theater and back?

the jar head's thunder pigs grab taxi on carriers, unless you know something I don't.

[Pavulon]

100. kc-135

short hops from UAE, Oman, south of the gulf of oman are well with in range of carrier based aircraft. There are plenty of routes.

[razors edge]

112. i was referring to how do the marine fixed wing

fighter attack squadrons employing F-18s delivering close air support to marine ground pounders, requiring ground support from hydraulics, metal, powerplants, communications and navigations, radar, egress, electric, ordnance, and flight line personnel, are resupplied with enough replacement parts, missiles/bombs, food, and a million other necessities for a long term offensive, to a ground based, so called friendly local strip,(yeman?) while any likely response from any adversary in the area will be to take the isolation of these locations into account and concentrate portable shoulder fired anti AC fire on resupply and medical evac. I don't think the twenty or thirty fired so far represent the full complement available in the area.

That is just one perspective of operations, if you ever spent time launching phantoms from the Philippines living in a quonset hut, with the occasional murdered marine being found in the water tower, as america's welcome was waining, you would understand it better.

the iranians aren't the iraqis, they haven't suffered 15 years of american imposed isolation from military resupply and have shown the desire to a greater role in the region. they have not spent 3 years grinding their equipment to a halt in iraq. they have the tactic support of russia and china and can reach out to tighten that support completely if attacked first by amer israel.

Bush gave iran a win in iraq and they know it. if Israel trashes their reactors, they have only to cross iraq to respond. there are not enough C-130s to to resupply our troops spread across iraq protecting oil wells. (when was the last time you heard about a pipeline being blown) Amerika would then federalize the airlines and initiate the draft. Fox will explain how we were attacked for no reason, what election?

The best Bush could do today was a preemptive strike on the Democrats over prisoner rights, he basically said "OK, we'll do it your way and when we get hit again, its your fault". The rotten smegma laden penis with a 20 Gage has worked that shit out twelve ways to sunday.

[Monkeyman]

27. I Don't think its funny I am a Vet with Family in Iraq

If we hit Iraq it only can be air power . We have no combat ready troops to go after Iran Our families there will be caught in the middle and if they hit their Nuke plants did you ever think about the fallout not funny at all

[leveymg]

32. The difference is, Iran has modern ASMs that can blockade the Straits

If you want to live with $10/gallon or more, fine, go ahead and commence bombing.

You're right about their planes, tanks and subs -- they're dead meat. But, they have hundreds of modern anti-ship missiles hidden in caves and cottages along 300 miles of shoreline. Then there are their thousand plus intermediate range ballistic missiles. If they target a few hundred of these on Israel's nuclear installations, the whole thing is going to escalate uncontrollably into a full-fledged regional and possibly nuclear war. It'll stretch out for years, and life in America is going to change. Not for the better.

This isn't going to be Iraq. It'll be Iraq time ten to times 100.

Don't think for a second that this is going to be like Iraq.

[Pavulon]

96. Iran fought

a ten year war with iraq. We dismantled iraq twice in 10 years in months.

The issue is not technology. The issue is not if we could control airspace or if we could collapse the country. Which we could. The issue is not if we could kill 30,000 people in a few hours who were moving in equipment like we did in iraq.

The issue is controlling a population. That is not a conventional war.

Not that we should be engaging iran with force. Standard disclaimer, this statement is not a argument for war. Just speculation.

[hogwyld]

103. Not only could Iran close down the Persian Gulf

They could make the air campaign completely useless. Take down the carriers, and we've got nothing. Iraq is our quicksand, and Iran could put up a wall of SAM's to make penetration nearly impossible. Remember how many planes we lost in Vietnam? I don't care how many countermeasure you have or how much superior your aircraft and pilot are, if there are enough missles flying at you, chances are, you're going down.
And once the gulf is sealed off, you are going to have a total global economic collapse. china and russia aren't going to let that stand. Are we going to just waltz right over them too? These so called military genius's here at DU have swallowed the BS from the Pentagon for too long.

[sofa king]

134. Not like Iraq at all. Try Afghanistan^100.

Imagine instead Afghanistan times a hundred, and I mean that quite literally, and conservatively.

Half of Iran is geographically more similar to Afghanistan or Korea: rugged, mountainous, with every valley observed by heights which provide plenty of cover from air power. Armored vehicles become vulnerable targets (M1A1s can't even raise the barrels of their guns high enough to see the tops of some of those ranges while in valleys).

The difference between Afghanistan and Iran is that the Taliban and al Qaeda right now are confounding the coalition forces with about a thousand guerrillas at any one place and time.

Iran, on the other hand, has 420,000 troops in uniform, 350,000 reserves, and a further one million paramilitary volunteers </pinky>.

And they despise us, I mean they really, really hate our guts. You think the Iraqis aren't happy with us? That's nothing at all compared to what these guys are saving up for us. Every last one of them knows who Kermit Roosevelt and Norman Schwartzkopf, Sr. are, while most of us never knew in the first place if we haven't forgotten about them. These guys won't roll over; to the contrary I'll bet some of them are praying that we'll try it.

Strategically, there is no way in hell that we can fight these people on the ground--but you can almost bet these moonbats are going to try, because they want to steal the oil and gas reserves along the Persian Gulf coast; if it comes down to fighting, you must control the Gulf coast all the way to the Straight of Hormuz because of the Silkworm anti-shipping missiles that can be deployed against tankers. That means they're going to have to roll over the Khuzestan and Bushehr plains and then try to grab at least a couple of mountain ranges inland to hold back an ocean of crazy-ass tribesmen out for blood--forever, or at least until the oil runs out. Once you do that, the initiative is lost just as it is in Iraq, and it will be a horrific, bloody mountain war for as long as we're willing to fight it. Think Korea after Chosin.

It's crazy. And that's why I think they're going to do it.

[krispos42]

13. They don't have to attack us to hurt us

A few Iranian bombs can wipe out oil transfer facilities up and down the Persian Gulf. Docks, pumping stations, oil wells, pipelines, piers, and tankers caught in harbor will go up in flames under cluster bombs and napalm. And a concentrated minefield in the Straights of Hormuz would eliminate tanker traffic and slow the Navy's response.

Any aircraft attemping to operate out of Iraq and possibly Saudi Arabia would most likely come under mortar fire at irregular intervals, as well as sabotage attempts, sniper fire, and RPG rockets. And the ships of our Navy would come under attack be shore-based speedboats, the kind that are real hard to see on radar.

The Iraqis have proven very creative. I have little doubt that the Iranians will be as well.

[A HERETIC I AM]

28. "I can't believe i hit him!" (Iranian mortar crew after being lucky

enough to have a mortar hit a high speed jet fighter.)
:::echoed by the sniper and the guy firing the Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) (Unguided, of course)::::


Those wacky Iranians. Best shots on the planet. It's amazing they don't command more real estate.

[IronLionZion]

30. the fastest jets in the world...

are still vulnerable when parked on the ground. Remember where we are talking about. They would have plenty of Shia sympathizers in the area.

[A HERETIC I AM]

31. Yes...while thats true, it is doubtful any American planes operating in

that region are vulnerable to such attacks. The 3 things you refer to have limited range. I don't think there is a US Airbase in the middle east that has lost an aircraft to such attacks. The ones that are/were vulnerable have hardened shelters for the aircraft.

[krispos42]

149. There probably hasn't been, but the situation is getting weird

And of course I was referring to aircraft on the ground. Once the jets are airborne, they are safe. It's the takeoffs and landings that are problematic.

It depends entirely on how things develop in the Mideast and how sneaky the Iranians get. Will they sneak special forces with some Stingers or SA-7s or SA-14s by our airbases? How about a .50 sniper rifle in the hands of someone who knows how to use it? A two-ounce slug of metal moving at over Mach one will do a pretty nice job on a radar set. Or a pilot.

When our bases have operated before against Iraq, the Saudi and other populations were not in active hatred of us. Now, with things in chaos and sectarian strive, not to mention refugees from combat and the general "fog of war", it is out of the question to sneak in a mortar or two and launch a dozen rounds at a runway just as a plane is landing? If if the rounds miss, the shrapnel (or perhaps some white phosphorus) can shred tires or be sucked up into an engine, taking a valuable plane out of action and causing expensive damage.

[hogwyld]

159. That what the "Military experts" here at Du don't understand

The insurgents, with a couple of thousand dollars worth of armament, and some desire, could completely disable our trillion dollar high tech military.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

166. That's right

That's why we can't contain an insurgency with 140,000+ troops. that's why our armour, humvees, and everything else is breaking down. We couldn't take Luxembourg right now.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

171. That is why were getting our asses kicked

In Iraq. Iran would be the same thing only 100 times worse. It's their homefield advantage.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

175. So we just bomb Iran deeper into the stone age

And walk away? Talk about pointy sticks into a hornets nest!

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

178. And you think Iran would take this lying down?

Suppose we bomb their nuke facilites, what's to prevent them from obtaining a nuke on the black market and hand delivering it to Wash. D.C? What would they have to lose at that point?

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

181. I'm sure 'ol Kim Jong Il's nuke emporium has a jihadi special

that could be sent up the potomac in a boat.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

183. How would they know who did it?

And besides, after the complete destruction of our government, Pentagon, CIA, and all the people in those institutions, the complete collapse of our financial markets, and the general anarchy that would ensue, we'd have a hard enough time finding our ass with both hands.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

185. Are these the same people that were convinced

That Saddam had WMD's? And I'm not so sure that ANY government entity would be able to soberly cope with these events. I'm not sure where the NCA or Stratcom is, but I'm sure they would feel the effects of a missing national capitol.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hogwyld]

191. Ah, but in war, the plan is usually the first victim

People can hypothesize, and plan for different contingencies, but when the real shit hits the fan, what's left? We plan for earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, hurricanes. But in the end, it's just a bunch of chaos. A nukular (*'s term) blast could put those hardened military men into a severe case of shock (n' awe). In a nutshell, nobody really knows how humans will respond to such devastation. How did the Japanese cope? Not too well if I recall, and it wasn't even an attack on their power center.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

236. they run that risk now

Bush, remember, was trying to set of a simulated nuclear bomb in Nevada. Divine Strake. Equivilent to 0.6 kilotons.

The nuclear fallout of a relalitary strike on Iran would contaminate Pakistan and India, with over a quarter of the world's population. And both have nuclear weapons, and would be really unhappy with us poisoniong everybody with, say, lungs. North Korea borders China, which has nuclear-tipped ICBMs, and South Korea, which is a major world industrial power. North Korea is also across a sea from Japan, the worlds second-largeest economy. I doubt either of those three players would appreciate having radioactive fallout on them, either.

This is getting too dicey to think about. Iran or North Korea may get taken out, but there is a real chance of wordwide economic collapse. Anarchy, starvation, mass casualties.

[Name removed]

237. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

203. Why would the Iraqi army *WANT* to occupy us?

> Right. Whatever you say. That's why the Iraqi army occupies the US right now.

Why would the Iraqi army *WANT* to occupy us?

Your comment, while a cute quip, is ludicrous.

If the point is to win the thousand years war, the Iraqis are
playing a much smarter game than we are, and there's no doubt
that they are winning the game. In a few years or decades,
we'll be gone from their country, exhausted, mentally defeated,
with about a trillion dollars drained out of our treasury (much
of it into the hands of the oil-rich countries) and our world
prestige destroyed.

But they'll still be there, going on as they always have.

In that situation, who will have won? Who will have lost?

Tesha

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

206. In other words, *YOU HAVE NO IDEA*.

> Ask Saddam Hussein.

In other words, *YOU HAVE NO IDEA*.

You just spewed it out.

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

Tesha

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

210. You're avoiding the question.

> Let's see -- We deposed their leader, destroyed their
> military, and occupied their country and we lost?

Amazing, isn't it?

But rest assured: we've lost. We just don't (all) realize
it yet.

In fifty years, they'll still be there. Will we?

Tesha

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tesha]

216. See, that's the interesting thing about wars

See, that's the interesting thing about wars: you often
can't tell what their effects really were until a long
time afterwards.

The United States won the war against the Confederate
States of America, but if you look at the distribution
of power in America today, it's clear that the same
folks who represented the CSA now have essentially
all the power in America.

Our side "won" World War I, but what we really did was
set the conditions which would directly lead to the
rise of National Socialism in Germany and thereby,
to World War II.

Our side "won" World War II too, but nowadays, Germany
and Japan are major world economic powers, arguably in
far better financial shape than we are.

Iraqnam may well turn out to be the same situation. We
clearly "won" the war (after all, our "Mission" was
"Accomplished"!), but since winning the war, *NOTHING*
has gone our way. We're breaking the back of our Army,
Marines, and National Guards, and to what end? We're
draining our treasury, and to what end? We're becoming
known as a rogue nation that condones torture.

There's no doubt that, even though we "won" this war,
we've damaged ourselves, maybe irrepairably.

Fifty years will probably tell an interesting tale.

Tesha

[enigma000]

219. But you can see the effects of losing

A CSA victory would have meant 2 (or more) states occupying the land that is now the USA. Germany and Japan are peaceful, democratic allies - not fascist global superpowers.

Of course the US is going to leave Iraq one day and the Iraqis will remain. Could it have even been otherwise? But what shape Iraq is in a decade from now is what settles win or lose: a moderate Arab state resembling something like Malaysia or Turkey, or a return to a Saddam like secular dictatorship or a theocracy.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

239. yeah, they are

Their economic indicators are stronger than ours. More personal savings, they run a good budget, they are are still a manufacturing economy instead of a finance/investment/real estate economy. We have massive debt on both a national and personal level. Easy-breezy credit cars, home equity loans, etc., mean that our great economy is built entirely on consumer credit. We actually have a negative savings rate! And out wealth flows out of our nation's borders into the hands of our enemies. Oil money funding the Middle East, manufacturing money funding China. And they they lend that money back to us, with interest. So if China decided to cash in the trillion dollars in treasury bonds they own, what happens then?

The world economy tanks. But China would come out of it better than we would, because we have further to fall from out lofty posts. Power is relative.

If you read "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips, it will scare you pretty damn well. And Phillips is a conservative!

[Name removed]

243. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[termo]

249. who is the first exporting country?

Germany, not US
but be happy, US has the biggest debt ;)

[plasticsundance]

35. An air assualt on Iran would do nothing

Bunker busting bombs do not work according to plan. In addition, Israel learned a hard lesson on the infeasibility and failure of an air assault on Hezbollah. When Israel went in with ground troops they lost 41 guys over one weekend. Iran would be a tougher nugget than Hezbollah, and with our ground troops over extended in Iraq, Iran would have fresh horses for the battlefield.

Comparing Iran to Iraq is not very wise or astute. Iraq was militarily depleted by the time of the first Gulf War due to its long war in the 80's with Iran; whereas, Iran has been building up its military means over a period of years with the help of China and Russia.

Iran could also cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran also has the sympathy of Shi'ites in Iraq, which probably already has a contingency set in case of Iran being invaded. Yeah ... attacking Iran has stupid stamped all over it. You have Afghanistan, which is a failure in military terms. You have Iraq that is a failure in military terms. You have Israel failing in Lebanon. And now you have the same bullshit talk about how our military might will get the job done in Iran. Yeah ... right. Plu-eeze.

[Pavulon]

98. USAF is not the IDF

Iran fought a 10 year standoff with iraq. Iran would "lose" a conventional war. The kind where you blow up tanks troops and anything that makes power, water, food, or moves any of the above.

Millions of people are then displaced and the country collapses functionally.

The issue is not hardware, not conventional war. Israel is not the US. Israel has no aircraft that have names with "B". We have thousands of aircraft in the area, idle.

The issue is the economic implications.

Any real war would involve europe.

<standard disclaimer, this is not a backing of war with iran only a statement of opinion>

[plasticsundance]

205. We've should have learned from Iraq

"Shock and Awe" doesn't work. The US had plenty of bombs with the name "B" in Vietnam, and it didn't bring final victory. Without bunker busting bombs that work, you're merely wasting your time. Any occupation will be met with fierce resistance. I would also suggest you take a look at the resistance to applying sanctions on Iran that is currently going on at the UN, before you start counting on other nations' assistance. Europe depends more on ME oil than the US, and they won't carelessly or recklessly play with that valuable resource.

In addition, the US has not finished business in Afghanistan or Iraq, but you're counting on this magnificent victory through military superiority. Ignoring the point in my previous post on this matter doesn't make the fact of it go away.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: Fool me once... shame on ... shame on you ... if fooled, you can't get fooled again."

guess who?


:rofl:

[Pavulon]

220. Shock and awe

did not equal the zinni plan. 400k troops to secure borders and police people. The existing formula for winning a Use gw1 for a reference.

Lets set the stage here. This is SPECULATION not a call to war.

The French have already publicly stated their willingness to use nuclear weapons. No one does that. We dont. Bush has not gone on tv and said we will nuke anyone who messes with us.

This is how any offensive or defensive war would happen. Europe would be part of a defensive war.

In the event there was a war here is how it unfolds. F-117, b2s blind iran. These are in diego now. Its soviet era systems, which we have spent 60 years training to defeat fall apart. We hold the high ground.

Its air force and "navy" are destroyed. Air based radar locates ground targets, the idle air resources blow them up. b-52s and f jets kill any gathering of people or equipment. 3000 sorties a day are flown.

Anything that moves power, food, fuel, or people is demolished. Civil works are destroyed.

Millions of people are displaced. At that point there is no reason to put people on the ground unless an occupation is required.

China and Russia have no interest in a war with the us over iran. Europe has no interest in falling under the concentric circle of a ballistic missile that can carry an iranian warhead.

There is no need to discuss nuclear war as its outcome is a given.

The reality is that the us maintains the ability to use air power to disrupt Iran's ability to move men and material. Iran has no ability to stop this.

I do not think a war with iran is going to happen. All the scenarios with oil do not account for other sources. Ignoring reality does not make change.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plasticsundance]

199. Israel didn't need a bunker busting bomb for that endeavor.

Your point is moot, and also ignores the specifices of my post. I would think a more recent example is needed as in the failure of Israel to deplete Hezbollah's military capabilities.

[Name removed]

202. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plasticsundance]

213. Watch the following animation from concerned scientists

The Nuclear Bunker Buster

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plasticsundance]

218. Here's an article from Physics Today that debunks bunker busters

But you really have to offer something substantial if we're going to have an intelligent dialogue that reciprocates. I can't do all your homework for you. Thus far, you haven't offered anything resembling a counter argument.

Nuclear Bunker Busters, Mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile

Nuclear weapons advocates in the Bush administration favor missiles carrying nuclear warheads that could be designed to penetrate the ground sufficiently to destroy buried command bunkers or sterilize underground stocks of chemical and biological weapons and yet produce "minimal collateral damage." Crucial to the debate, therefore, is an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons. How deeply, for example, can missiles really burrow into reinforced concrete? How deeply buried must these weapons be for the surrounding rock to contain the blast? Would the underground temperatures of a nuclear blast sterilize chemical and biological agents?3 This article addresses these questions and explains that the goal of minimal collateral damage falls squarely in the wishful-thinking category.

... To exploit that efficiency, in 1997 the US replaced its aging 9-megaton bombs with a lower-yield but earth-penetrating 300-kt model by putting the nuclear warhead from an earlier bomb design into a strengthened alloy-steel casing and a new nose cone. When dropped onto a dry lakebed from 12 km, the missile penetrated a modest 6 m. But even at this shallow depth a much higher proportion of the explosion energy would be transferred to ground shock compared to a surface burst at the same yield.

Were a bomb manufactured using even stronger materials and its mass increased using a dense internal ballast material--as proposed for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), for instance--penetration depths could improve somewhat. (The Bush administration requested $15 million to study this improved penetrator.) However, figure 2 illustrates that those improvements would result in only modest gains in the total depth of destruction. Near the explosion, the peak pressure of the shock wave is proportional to the bomb yield and decreases with the inverse cube of the distance from the explosion. Consequently, the destructive effects of an explosion can be expressed as a function of a scaled distance, as is done in figure 2. Most of the benefit of earth penetration is obtained from the first (scaled) meter of burial.

Still, one might want maximum depth to help contain the blast. How deeply a missile can penetrate a target depends on the mechanical response of both missile and target at high dynamic stress levels. Generally, faster-moving missiles make deeper holes; that correlation is roughly linear up to speeds approaching 1 km/s. At higher velocities, however, the correlation breaks down as materials plastically deform and erode when the impact pressure from the target approaches the finite yield strength of the penetrator: Yp ≈ ½ρtv2 (see figure 3). The impact velocity of a missile made with even the hardest steel casing must remain less than a few km/s to avoid deformation.

Taking into account realistic materials strengths, 10–20 m is a rough ceiling on how deeply into dry rock a warhead can penetrate and still maintain its integrity.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plasticsundance]

225. I offered evidence not proof

No one has proof, because the research is ongoing. Iran has most likely been consulting with China and Pakistan ... and perhaps even N. Korea. All three of these countries probably are aware at some level of the R&D going on with bunker busters and the true capabilities of such weapons. Iran has probably prepared deeply buried bunkers, since the Bush Administration has been saber rattling Iran for the past five years.

I would also remind you that you were the person that wrote back in response to the animation I provided, claiming it was nothing but supposition without you offering a counter argument to defend such a response.

As I read someone explain on another site, the problems associated with bunker busters is one of scaling up of the mass/kinetic energy of the weapon. So it's not just the penetration, but the material of the weapon doing the penetrating, which at this point would have to be a material made out of unobtainium. Unobtainium doesn't exist, since scientist use the term to refer to something perfect for their needs but cannot find in the real world.

[jmowreader]

75. If they're building these themselves, this changes things

Building, in this case, means "you start out with a roll of aluminum coil stock and end up with an airplane."

The Iranian defense industry, which now apparently makes airplanes in addition to vehicles, gives Iran two advantages. They don't have to worry about the US pressuring whoever they're buying munitions from to cut off the Iranians; and there's always the everpresent threat of the Iranians arming a terror group or the next country over.

Oh, and if the plane is any good whatsoever they can sell it to countries that have no air forces at present. Shitty airplanes are better than none at all.

I also notice that they mention the F/A-18 Hornet as their example. Hornets do a lot of close-air support work. Iranian CAS could prove the US's downfall in any conflict: the US force alignment system puts air defense assets, like Stingers, only at the division air defense battalion level. Sending guys who really have no practical way to shoot down a high-performance aircraft up against an enemy that's using high-performance aircraft against infantry cantonment areas is a real good way to lose all your infantry.

[xyzpdq_us]

110. They're F5s

They're just upgrading the airframes. They'll only be able to make and use of sell as many as we sold 'em in the 70s. They've got Russian avionics. They'll still be beholden to foreigners for parts and probably maintenance.

It's just more bluster to gain them support in the ME.

Their leader really wants to draw us into a war. I'm afraid he's going to get his wish. If things don't go well for Bush in the mid-term elections, I wonder if that will push him to act more quickly.

[OregonDem]

81. Our military wold absolutely destroy Iran's military, the problem would be

maintaining control of the nation once it government and military fell. We simply would not have enough boots on the ground to prevent anarchy and guerrilla warfare from happening (see Iraq). Iran is a large nation with 70 million people who would not tolerate being ruled over by the Great Satan they would be more than willing to sacrifice themselves in an effort to fight us in what would be a long grueling conflict. America would also be hurt economically with gas $6/gallon and would not be happy about entering into another war when the Iraq War (which would be much smaller in comparison to a war with Iran) is so unpopular. It would be better to work within Iran to try to overthrow their government, than to attack a nation who is close to getting nuclear arms and would hardly be slowed down in getting them by an invasion. I don't think Iran would use nukes against the US since we would turn their nation into a parking lot, however they might lob a few at Israel should they be attacked by the US.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

92. Anyone reminded of this:

[happyslug]

111. An updated F-5, the plane many said the US should have adopted.

The F-5 had several advantages over the F-15, first it was cheaper to buy and operate. Second if the pilot is well trained you can knock down a F-15 with an F-5. Now both planes are generally lost in such an engagement, but the price difference between both planes starts to make the F-5 more cost effective.

One of the problem the US had in Vietnam was that the North Vietnamese pilots were as well trained as US Pilots. The Viet manses pilots were flying planes a generation behind the US Pilots and playing defense (i.e. the US Pilots could take off whenever they wanted to, the Vietnamese Pilots had to engage US planes when the US decided to Attack). Even with these disadvantages the North Vietnamese was able to keep its loses in air to air combat to a ratio of 2-1 (For every US Plane shot down the Vietnamese lost two) which was a tremendous reduction from the 15-1 ratio of Korea.

At the end of Vietnam both the US Navy and Air force decided to upgrade the training of their fighter pilots in dog fighting techniques (Something downplayed in the 1960s). The F-5 was found out to be an excellent Dog Fighter and thus adopted to be the plane flown by the opposition doing these "Top Gun" type training sessions. Now at the time the US downplayed Soviet radar equipment so took out the Radar equipment from the F-5. The Pilots of the F-5 objected but the removal stood. One of the Pilots then came up with the idea of buying a Police radar Detector and put that in his plane and he would fire whenever the Detector said he had been locked on by the opposing "American" plane. With this simple technology, available in any store in the US, the OBFOR pilots were able to "shoot" down every plane thrown against them. Now each time the F-5 was also shot down, but they were more then willing to accept a 1-1 shot down ratio.

Since that time the US and Israeli has had no serious opposition in the Air. Most Arab Air Forces were NOT intended to fight but to fly over Military parades and bomb any peasants that thought of revolting against the ruling dictator. Iran is a different situation. Iraq seems to have just hired Mercenary Pilots during its war with Iran, but even with no access to spare parts the Iranians were able to hold they own against these mercenary Pilots (who are reported to have all left just before the Air War of Desert Strom began, which may explain the poor showing of the Iraqi Air Force during the First Gulf War). While Iraq has been under sanctions since 1991, Iran has been free to buy and improve its Military capability. It has kept its F-14s flying even after no spare parts could be imported from the US since 1979. The pilots seems to be well trained (But have NOT engaged anybody since the Iran-Iraq war and very limited during that war).

Before I go on lets look at the two US-Iraqi wars. The second Iraq war seems to be a fluke. The present war the Iraqis put up almost no Air Defense (for they has none) thus not much air to air combat in the present War. In the First Gulf war, the Iraqis did seems to put some planes in the air, but most were flown to Iran to save them for another day (and many were shot down trying to get to Iran). The biggest questions has been why no Iraqi Air Defense? While the US did seems to have destroyed the Iraqi Air Defense system on the First day of the Air War the question is how? I have heard a couple of reasons. First that Saddam had ordered some new parts from France just before the Start of the Air War. These parts had a bug in them that knock out the Iraqi Air defense system as the Air War Started and by the time the Iraqis found out what had happened most of their Anti-aircraft missiles and radars had been destroyed. Another story I heard was that the US Army Apache Helicopters knocked out the forward Air Radar and once that was gone the US Air Force quickly took out the rest of the System.

Either way the problem with Iraq was the destruction of the Air Defense system. Iran seems to have learned from this by adopting a multilayer Air Defense System. How good it will work I do not know. US Planes are a lot better than they were in Vietnam, but so are the Anti-AirCraft Missiles of the Iranians. Can the US destroy the Air Defense System? Can the Iranian Pilots fight against US pilots? If the Iranian Anti-air Missile system stays effective can the US operate at low attitude and what type of Low Level Air Defense are the Iranians capable of mounting. Questions Questions Questions.

As to the F-5, it is a good Dog Fighter, if the Pilot can avoid a missile lock on his plane he may be able to survive to shoot down an American Plane. The next questions is how often can this happen? If the Iranians are able to Challenge US Air Superiority they will be able to maneuver, but if they lose that ability then they best defense is one of light Infantry like what is occurring in Iraq.

On the other hand if the Iranians are able to Challenge US Air Superiority then they can provide Air Cover for their Armor Forces which may be able to stop or destroy any US invasion. If the Iranians do lose the ability to challenge US Air Superiorly then the Iranians are better off disbursing their Armor and use them piece meal against any US Invasion.

Thus the importance of this improved F-5, it may be good enough to cover Iranian Armor moves. If it is then it is a good investment by the Iranians.

[Sterling]

140. The F-5 is an ancient piece of crap compared to the newer jets.

I'm out of here. This thread is lowering my IQ.

[oblivious]

145. Good news.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

226. Au contraire.

For the price of one JSF, how many dozens of F-5s can one buy?

[Name removed]

227. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

228. Different functions?

Let's see...

The JSF is designed for close air support, longer range tactical bombing, and air to air combat.

The F-5 is designed for close air support, longer range tactical bombing, and... air to air combat.

Geez, cc488is, just how deep of a hole do you want to dig for yourself in this thread.

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

240. LOL.

And what about all those thousands of sorties the F-5 flew in Vietnam in close air support, eh?

And yes, the JSF was designed to strike things. Notably ground targets in close air support, or longer range, and other air craft.

:eyes:

Jeez louise.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

246. Oh, but I do.

I also know what "multi-role" means.

[Nimrod2005]

186. Air cover and support or none, you can bet the Iranians will be willing

to die by the millions...These people, the Shia Moslims, wrote the book on suicide bombing...etc. They love to die! Look no further than what just happened in South Lebanon against the IDF.

If we try to approach their borders, try to invade, we better have five million soldiers ready...Otherwise, their 10 million plus will simply run us over.

We think Rummy fucked up the planning for his latest war, we really can't count on him to handle what would be the real mother of all battles.

[hogwyld]

165. For all of the DU military genius'

If I recall (I may be wrong) but the last time Iran was conquered was by some Macedonian king that went by the name Alexander. Many have tried, and all have failed. I hope you remember that before saying war would be a cakewalk.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nimrod2005]

187. These people just love to die!!! nt

[enigma000]

223. I haven't heard about much about Shia suicide bombers

And from what I have read, the young population of Iran seem to have better plans with their lives than adopting standard Palestinian military tactics.

[happyslug]

192. What about Trajan in 117 AD???

He was successful, through the records seems to indicate he only took what is now Iraq, but the record is so bad it might mean all of Persia.

The Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) took Persian than Capital of Ctesiphon in 197 AD. Now Severus was more of a raid than an attempted Conquest, but you then had the Emperor Heraclius (610 - 641) who conquered Persia in 627 AD (And then promptly left it).

You are also forgetting the Arab Conquest of the 630s (A much more ferment Conquest than any of the Roman Conquest) and the Mongolian Conquest that ended in the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 AD (The Mongols attacked Baghdad after taking Persia).

They are a couple of others (I forget the name of the Seljuk Turk that was ruling Persia before the Mongolian Conquest).

All countries have been conquered at one time or another (Even what is now the US, the French did it is the 1600s military taking over the North American Continent from Quebec to New Orleans only to lose it to the British in 1763 who subsequently lost most of it to the Americans after 1776).

The Key to Persia is can it defend it depth? Can it use guerrillas war to destroy the Occupying power? This was the traditional defense against the Roman Empire, failed occasionally but more often then not successful.

[hogwyld]

194. I completely spaced on the Mongols

I even watched the History Channel special on it.

[happyslug]

251. Yes, the the Mongol taking of Baghdad spend the dome to the Crusades.

Historians do not often connect the Mongol sack of Baghdad with the lost of the Crusaders states but the connections are quite Clear. Egypt was willing to tolerate the Crusaders states in Palestine for their presented no threat to Egypt. The Mongols did present a threat. The Mamluks who ruled Egypt in 1258 watched the Mongols in present day Iraq. When the most of the Mongol army left to elected a new leader, the Mamluks entered Palestine and defeated what had been left of the Mongol Army in Syria. The Mamluks were assisted is this move from Cairo to Syria by the Crusader states who provided supplies, places to sleep and even meals to the Mamluks as they marched to Syria. Officially the Mamluks fought the Mongols by themselves but for almost 500 years Christians had fought under Moslems when the Moslems needed troops. When that occurred the Christians called themselves Moslems and no one looked real close, thus it is possible Christians fought with the Mamluks.

The real lesson to the Mamluks was the ease one could move through Palestine IF THE LOCALS LET YOU. Thus the Crusading Kingdoms could be used by the Mongols just like the Mamluks had used the Crusading Kingdoms. Thus the Mamluks decided the Crusaders had to go. Thus began the slow Egyptians removal of the Crusading States and the Destruction of the ports the Crusaders depended on for supplies and reinforcements. Notice the Mamluks did not want only the destruction of the Crusading States, they wanted the destruction of the INFRASTRUCTURE that permitted the States to exist. The Mamluks wanted a wasteland depended on Egypt for any outside supplies.

No one would rebuild these ports till Napoleon would remove the Mamluks from Egypt in the 1790s (Through the Ottomans would technically rule Egypt after about 1500, they kept the Mamluk bureaucracy to rule Egypt with). Trade was destroyed and not resumed till the Suez Canal was finished in the mid - 1800s. You still had farming and pastures in Palestine but not the intensive trade and interaction of people that was characteristic of Palestine from the days of the Roman Republic till 1258. The Ottomans took over the Area in the 1500s but ti was Shadow of its former self and the Ottomans did nothing to revive the Area (Having become even more of a Back Water with the Portuguese finding a way around Africa and coming to dominate the red Sea and Persian Gulf Trade via the Cape of Good hope as opposed to overland via Palestine.

Thus the Crusaders lost the Holy Lands by the Mongol Sacking of Baghdad and the fear that put to the Rulers of Egypt of a Mongol Invasion of Egypt.

[Posteritatis]

263. The region Iran's in has been regularly conquered/occupied

Afghanistan's the one that eats armies after they get in (most of the time). Iran's like Israel or Poland in that it's right smack on major transit routes between regions, so it's been constantly conquered and reconquered throughout history by whoever's the strongest on any given Tuesday.

Each of the old Babylonian and Persian dynasties, the Parthians, the Romans (well, sorta), the Sassanids, the early Islamic armies (whose successors held it for ages), the Mongols briefly, and if I remember correctly there was a joint Anglo-Soviet occupation of the country after WWII. (I don't know enough about the area at that time to say anything with confidence; could someone corroborate that?)

That's not to say it'd be easy or even feasible, of course, but it's certainly happened a lot in the past. There are very very very very few "this place has never been conquered for more than a few years at a time" chunks of the planet now; the only ones I can readily think of in the Old World are Thailand and Ethiopia.

[oNobodyo]

212. About those silly "old looking" jets...

One of the things that many don't realize is that airframes have long ago met their physical limits and flight envelope and that "old jets" can often do a serious number on our more technology reliant planes...Consider the trouncing that India gave the U.S twice in a row while using mig-21s, beating them 90% of the time...and those of you that tout the f117s...remember they're not standoff fighters, they aren't designed to win dogfights...and the f22s are relatively few in number...There is a good reason why the powers that be are begging to nuke Iran rather than fight them...The mission is a loser.

Irans building their own planes means one thing and one thing only...They're going to be able to field numbers (keep in mind that each plane equals x amount of weapons) and sanctions aren't going to stop them from doing it.

Personally, I'd go with diplomacy on this one and selling em records and blue jeans...

Some background...

A USAF pilot relies on the electronics within his aircraft to tilt the odds in his favor. Some of you may wonder, why just the electronics, why not the better maneuverability of its fighters? The answer is simple. While US fighters are without compare when it comes to the combination of electronics and maneuverability, when it comes to maneuverability alone, they are not always the best! In visual combat a Mig 21 Bis and Mirage 2000 could give a tough time to an F-16 or F-15C. A Mig29 will most likely out maneuver them and a Su-30K or Su-30MKI, with its vectored thrust and super maneuverability, will most certainly chew them up.

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/139.aspx

http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2005/11/did-usaf-get-beat-up-by-india-again.html

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

229. LOL

So you're saying the F-22 isn't as important as the USAF says it is.

I agree.

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jed Dilligan]

252. Informative post

Welcome to DU!

[Sterling]

260. More wishful thinking from America haters

Yes I said it. It's true. Many here hate their own country so bad they grasp at anything that they think is bad news for the US. It's lame and very shallow.

You can hate your government and still love your country and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the reality of modern warfare to plz people who are upset with Bush.

[Radioactive]

244. YouTube has videos from the recent Iran war games

do a search on YouTube for - Iran war games

[stepnw1f]

250. This Place is Crawling

with....

Re: Iran.... BIG NEo-Con WHOOPIE!

[Eclectic Man]

254. I think we have something that can defend against it.

Something like the best fighter jet on the planet.

[Andrushka]

259. What I want to know is,

what the Zolfaghar Blow maneuver is. :blush:

[saigon68]

264. What the hell is going on here ?

None of this makes much sense, there have to be almost 40 deleted posts?