I'm confused, are you saying we Nuke them, or they nuke us?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not without a second Hiroshima/Nagasaki.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
America would murder them in a conventional war, but I don't think we can afford a second Insurgency.
Top officials have made much of Iran's achievements in being able to maintain and manufacture sophisticated military aircraft or other equipment despite US sanctions against it.
America, controlling your armies since WWII. All of you yanks in this thread make me laugh.US sanctions against it.
We nuke them. It's an interesting option, but would attract all kinds of bizarre attention. However, I'd find it hard to believe in that method unless they hit us or someone else first (provided they'd even detonate), provided (should they use missile deployment), they could get past an angry pre-emptive Israeli strike.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
I'm confused, are you saying we Nuke them, or they nuke us?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not without a second Hiroshima/Nagasaki.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
America would murder them in a conventional war, but I don't think we can afford a second Insurgency.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-17 16:29:19)
Amazing when living in a desert can do to a man
fix'ddoug1988 wrote:
Amazing what living in a desert can do to a man
I'm too lazy to do so, but just pretend there are a few pictures of Minuteman III and Trident missiles here. Throw in some Ohio-class submarines, B-52s, and B-2s for good measure.
Yep, they sure are powerful...
On a slightly more serious note (though the above is still serious)... what the hell is he on? If we REALLY wanted to, we could level Iran. We'd have to indiscriminately kill every single person there, but we'd be able to do it.
Yep, they sure are powerful...
On a slightly more serious note (though the above is still serious)... what the hell is he on? If we REALLY wanted to, we could level Iran. We'd have to indiscriminately kill every single person there, but we'd be able to do it.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-04-17 16:37:42)
No sgtslutter , it is when they live in a desert , not what , lolSgtSlutter wrote:
fix'ddoug1988 wrote:
Amazing when living in a desert can do to a man
Last edited by doug1988 (2008-04-17 17:04:08)
Not to mention that the area most protected by SAMs and AAA in history was??? Baghdad, Iraq; circa 1990. Fat lot of good it did them. How much have they improved and how much have we?S.Lythberg wrote:
lol SAM's...IRONCHEF wrote:
Who cares who has more planes or the best topgun pilots? SAMs are what matters. If they shoot down a plane, we adapt and get more careful, if they shoot down 10 planes, we restrict flights over more dangerous air space, they shoot down 20 planes...we stop flying and resume missile flights. They never have to fly a plane. I don't predict we'd take control of their airspace because we'd NEVER knock out their AA network. No UAVs, no bombers, no fighters, no recon would last very long.
We'd just be chucking missiles from their borders..they'd nuke our carrier fleets...
Ok, I'm being a little too optimistic for them and I realize it. I guess I'm just doing it because most people foolishly think they're some ragtag group of stone throwers with no organization to carry out realistic warfare. They're most definitely not, despite the clown-like/monkey-like appearance of their leader and his psychotic speeches.
those things are mediocre at best, especially 70's era soviet leftovers.
thousands of SAM's were fired during the Korean and Vietnam wars, and accounted for only a handfull of lost aircraft.
that, and our heavy bombers fly higher than the maximum altitude for SAM missiles and fighter patrols.
In the event of a war, Iran will get dominated in the skies.
watdoug1988 wrote:
No sgtslutter , it is when they live in a desert , not what , lolSgtSlutter wrote:
fix'ddoug1988 wrote:
Amazing when living in a desert can do to a man
I think its safe to say /fucking arguement.imortal wrote:
Not to mention that the area most protected by SAMs and AAA in history was??? Baghdad, Iraq; circa 1990. Fat lot of good it did them. How much have they improved and how much have we?
LOL!
Iran would be levelled within a week!
Iran would be levelled within a week!
Massive airstrikes with blocking positions at the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border LOCs. No ground invasion.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
The question is, if America were to go to war with Iran, would it be a "Kick the piss out of their Military, then leave" thing, or would we treat it more like OIF? America would murder them in a conventional war, but I don't think we can afford a second Insurgency.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
huh? I assume you meant massive Iranian airstrikes? Doesn't that take a lot for granted? Such as Iran actually having an airforce once the USN and USAF get into the game? Cruise missile attacks can take out every Iranian airfield within days, and any plane that does take off can be taken down. The Air Force has the best current air combat record, excepting (maybe) the IDF Air Forces.FEOS wrote:
Massive airstrikes with blocking positions at the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border LOCs. No ground invasion.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
The question is, if America were to go to war with Iran, would it be a "Kick the piss out of their Military, then leave" thing, or would we treat it more like OIF? America would murder them in a conventional war, but I don't think we can afford a second Insurgency.
I think it can be taken for granted that the US would control the air in days; weeks at most. And once the US controls the air, it is all but over. It may take a while, but it is done. Control of the air makes it much easier to take control of the ground.
Oh, and I agree with a previous post. If it is a smash-and-run (just beating down the Iranian military, destroying the capitol, and demolishing Iran's infrascructure, then the US would win, hands down. If the goal was to stay in the country and try to maintain control of the country for months or years to come, that is a whole different story. The US is not made for that kind of conflict, as has become obvious from the current conflict in Iraq.
If it ever came down to it, the US would crush Iran. It would be a difficult war, but it would be silly to compare it to Vietnam. However, their current ability to design and build their own jets is quite worrying.
And Vietnam...imortal wrote:
Oh, and I agree with a previous post. If it is a smash-and-run (just beating down the Iranian military, destroying the capitol, and demolishing Iran's infrascructure, then the US would win, hands down. If the goal was to stay in the country and try to maintain control of the country for months or years to come, that is a whole different story. The US is not made for that kind of conflict, as has become obvious from the current conflict in Iraq.
Those are the only significant similarities between Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Once again, the US is occupying a foreign country full of people who hate the US and people who are unable to stay in power without US support.
Adamnfiefbei or however you spell it is not that stupid, in fact he knows just what he is doing.
Just as Hitler knew damn well the Jews weren't hurting a damn thing. Just as Amgkhjghbu knows the Holocaust happened.
Just as Hitler knew damn well the Jews weren't hurting a damn thing. Just as Amgkhjghbu knows the Holocaust happened.
...again with trying to force similarities. The comparison breaks down in a lot of areas.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
And Vietnam...imortal wrote:
Oh, and I agree with a previous post. If it is a smash-and-run (just beating down the Iranian military, destroying the capitol, and demolishing Iran's infrascructure, then the US would win, hands down. If the goal was to stay in the country and try to maintain control of the country for months or years to come, that is a whole different story. The US is not made for that kind of conflict, as has become obvious from the current conflict in Iraq.
Those are the only significant similarities between Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Once again, the US is occupying a foreign country full of people who hate the US and people who are unable to stay in power without US support.
First, Iraq is not FULL of people who hate the US. Most of them are happy the US got Saddam out, but just wish we would leave and let them conduct their own affairs. Most of the 'insurgents' fighting the US in Iraq and not even Iraqi.
In Vietnam, China and Russia were supporting North Vietnam, the NVA, and the Viet Cong.
In Vietnam, The US goverment would intervene, and decalare a cease fire in efforts to bring North Vietnam to the table for diplomatic talks. North Vietnam would take these opportunities to rearm. If allowed a free reign, the US military could have militarally crushed North Vietnam several times over.
However, I will grant you one similarity. The civilian peace movement, supported by the media, tried every tactic they could to undermine the war effort.
I will also grant you this one, as a freebie: In all of history, no professional army has ever defeated a guirilla force over broken terrain.
I believe you misinterpreted his post. FEOS was saying how a US war would go down. We would demolish them with air strikes, and not even send in a ground force.imortal wrote:
huh? I assume you meant massive Iranian airstrikes? Doesn't that take a lot for granted? Such as Iran actually having an airforce once the USN and USAF get into the game? Cruise missile attacks can take out every Iranian airfield within days, and any plane that does take off can be taken down. The Air Force has the best current air combat record, excepting (maybe) the IDF Air Forces.FEOS wrote:
Massive airstrikes with blocking positions at the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border LOCs. No ground invasion.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
The question is, if America were to go to war with Iran, would it be a "Kick the piss out of their Military, then leave" thing, or would we treat it more like OIF? America would murder them in a conventional war, but I don't think we can afford a second Insurgency.
I think it can be taken for granted that the US would control the air in days; weeks at most. And once the US controls the air, it is all but over. It may take a while, but it is done. Control of the air makes it much easier to take control of the ground.
Oh, and I agree with a previous post. If it is a smash-and-run (just beating down the Iranian military, destroying the capitol, and demolishing Iran's infrascructure, then the US would win, hands down. If the goal was to stay in the country and try to maintain control of the country for months or years to come, that is a whole different story. The US is not made for that kind of conflict, as has become obvious from the current conflict in Iraq.
Aren't they still waiting for a new set of spark plugs for their old fleet of F-14s?
Don't get me started again on the fucking F-14's ...Reciprocity wrote:
Aren't they still waiting for a new set of spark plugs for their old fleet of F-14s?
As I mentioned previsouly, the US has the capacity and the infrastructure to crush Iran, but the political climate is as such that such a swift and decisive strike would likely not come and Iraq would be repeated over again with respect to half ass pussyfooting around any real commitment.
This is not meant to support or defy any presense so much as present the position of, "If you're going to do something - fucking do it"
Oh, if I misunderstood, then I appologize. Just take my post as additional proof of the effectiveness of airpower. However, I think there would be a ground component, if only to enseure the destruction of the area before moving on.Major.League.Infidel wrote:
I believe you misinterpreted his post. FEOS was saying how a US war would go down. We would demolish them with air strikes, and not even send in a ground force.imortal wrote:
huh? I assume you meant massive Iranian airstrikes? Doesn't that take a lot for granted? Such as Iran actually having an airforce once the USN and USAF get into the game? Cruise missile attacks can take out every Iranian airfield within days, and any plane that does take off can be taken down. The Air Force has the best current air combat record, excepting (maybe) the IDF Air Forces.FEOS wrote:
Massive airstrikes with blocking positions at the Iraqi and Kuwaiti border LOCs. No ground invasion.
I think it can be taken for granted that the US would control the air in days; weeks at most. And once the US controls the air, it is all but over. It may take a while, but it is done. Control of the air makes it much easier to take control of the ground.
Oh, and I agree with a previous post. If it is a smash-and-run (just beating down the Iranian military, destroying the capitol, and demolishing Iran's infrascructure, then the US would win, hands down. If the goal was to stay in the country and try to maintain control of the country for months or years to come, that is a whole different story. The US is not made for that kind of conflict, as has become obvious from the current conflict in Iraq.
I hope that faggot president dies.
Ever hear of Atefah Shaaleh? She is one of many examples of human rights abuses commited by fundamentalist Islam. I hate Fundamentalism, it only does harm to the advance of the human race. The people of Iran need to fight back, the problem though is that only gays and women are the ones who are opressed.
Ever hear of Atefah Shaaleh? She is one of many examples of human rights abuses commited by fundamentalist Islam. I hate Fundamentalism, it only does harm to the advance of the human race. The people of Iran need to fight back, the problem though is that only gays and women are the ones who are opressed.
yeah, just like iraq, eh? Iran should be even easier huh, mountainous country probably 6x the size of Iraq, a million or so actual trained military, and when conventional warfare turns to guerrilla warfare, all our success in iraq and afghanistan mountains can apply to Iran...cuz yeah, we smoked out osama bin laden and his buddies just like promised...5 years ago.Pubic wrote:
LOL!
Iran would be levelled within a week!
Sure, Iran will be taken out.
oh wait, do you mean nuked? so yeah, we nuke and kill several million people and really make good friends out of the rest of the world who'll love us for doing that!
ok, seriously pubic, do you honestly think the USA could take control of Iran...ever?
apparently, with Iran, taking control isn't an option. It's about annihilation. Bomb them until their economy breaks down, and leave them near-dead. Shouldn't take that long, and whoever builds laser-guided bombs for the US military will make a good buck from it, too.IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, just like iraq, eh? Iran should be even easier huh, mountainous country probably 6x the size of Iraq, a million or so actual trained military, and when conventional warfare turns to guerrilla warfare, all our success in iraq and afghanistan mountains can apply to Iran...cuz yeah, we smoked out osama bin laden and his buddies just like promised...5 years ago.Pubic wrote:
LOL!
Iran would be levelled within a week!
Sure, Iran will be taken out.
oh wait, do you mean nuked? so yeah, we nuke and kill several million people and really make good friends out of the rest of the world who'll love us for doing that!
ok, seriously pubic, do you honestly think the USA could take control of Iran...ever?
As long as the installations where nuclear material is processed are destroyed, I am pretty sure the current administration doesn't really care about "taking control" of Iran. That way, at least the american tax payer won't have to pay for rebuilding....
oh, and as far as the OP goes, we all know that the iranian pres is a show-off, and loudmouth. This is pure propaganda, and has nothing to do with reality. I mean, what else is he supposed to say ? "sorry, folks, our economy is failing, and I am a lunatic on pain medication" ?
He is a politician, and as such, he'll say whatever needs to be said to keep the people happy, and convince them that everything is A OK.
From that point of view, he ain't much different from GWB, btw.
You've contradicted yourself here Schuss.B.Schuss wrote:
apparently, with Iran, taking control isn't an option. It's about annihilation. Bomb them until their economy breaks down, and leave them near-dead. Shouldn't take that long, and whoever builds laser-guided bombs for the US military will make a good buck from it, too.
As long as the installations where nuclear material is processed are destroyed, I am pretty sure the current administration doesn't really care about "taking control" of Iran. That way, at least the american tax payer won't have to pay for rebuilding....
Your second point obviates the argument in your first (and is far more accurate). If only the nuclear installations are taken out, then Iran isn't annihilated, their economy is intact, and the country isn't anywhere near "near dead".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular