BF2S Forums If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?

Pug wrote:

Depends on your definition of winning.

Charlie Sheen would say yes

like I said, the objective would be to topple the government, and make the "official" army surrender. We're not talking about nation building here.

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2012-01-16 14:14:15)

I don't think they'd be a pushover, but if we threw enough bodies and money at it, we'd probably be successful.

I think with the ammount of unmanned equipment we have and long range capabilities and our military intelligence (<--- Oxymoron) we could definitly take them. Given you always need boots on the ground I think we could pick them off with our tech then send in our boys. But I don't really wish that to happen at all.

Iran is 3 times larger than Iraq and has more than double the population.
There wouldn't be Kurdish separatists in the north to aid.

And Iran's military is worlds apart from Iraq's.
While Iran today has submarines, Iraq never fully recovered form the Iraq-Iran war.

This would be a very bad idea and very highly likely won't happen.

I believe it would be. Our fighter aircraft are a generation ahead of theirs, so is our Navy. The American F117 Nighthawks flew over Baghdad with thousands of AA rounds being fired at them randomly because the enemy had no clue where the F117s were. I doubt Iranian radar tech could pick up a couple of B2 Spirits dropping laser-guided Mk.84s on key government buildings and military complexes. Hell the bunker busters available and sheer technological advance the U.S. military has over Iran's would make it a walk in the park (too exaggerate just a little.)

Hell in WWII the U.S. broke Germany's industrial strength be bombing the shit out of all their factories. Except the losses were tremendous because the German's had radar and the U.S. were attacking in daylight when they could be intercepted by the Luftwaffe. Remove the radar, (b2 stealth bomber) and the possibility of interception (night time attack) and the U.S. could casually bomb the shit ouf of them until their industry and military complexes fall to shit.

If F22s are as radar-proof as they claim to be, we could also take out their air superiority in no-time from bases in Iraq.

Don't even get me started on how bad US M1 Abrams tanks would rape Iranian shit-tanks. Here's a list of their shit.

Without armored vehicles, aircraft, submarines, other naval vessels, and government leadership, we wouldn't have to worry about ground troops.

/armchair general

What do people with more experience than me on the subject think? Keep in mind I have no idea how advanced Iran's navy is but that isn't even an issue for the B2s, F22s, and Abrams which could all come from Iraq or even the US in the case of the B2s.

E*: That being said, I don't think we need to go to war with Iran at all, but if we do I sure as hell hope I'm in the Marines when it happens.

Last edited by -Sh1fty- (2012-01-16 15:24:47)

We could wipe out Iran's military with a quickness.
Then just leave the weakened, vulnerable government in place for a "Persian Spring" uprising.

We spend more on our yearly military budget than the rest of the world combined.
AND our troops have been fighting non-stop for the last 10+ years.
We have the equipment, we have the experience, and we have the tactics ironed out.

The only "fair" fight would be the rest of the world versus the US, in military terms.
Iran, by themselves, is a speed bump.

But, to back up a few steps..
Why in the hell would we want to go in and try to solve more Middle Eastern problems with more US forces?
Let Iran and Saudi Arabia figure out which of them is top dog, without US help.

The point of having overwhelming force on tap, is to convince potential opponents that they definitely don't want to pick a fight.
The point is not to wander about the planet with your dick hanging out, so to speak.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Conventionally, we'd absolutely destroy them.

The war wouldn't be the problem -- the insurgency would.

An Iranian insurgency would be several times worse than the ones we've had to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This

If the politicians don't start waving their dicks around and GTFO after destroying their conventional military it would be a quick victory.

Maybe it would, but then again....

Why do it in the first place?  Pakistan's far more of a threat than Iran, yet we aren't pushing them to disarm.

I think we should just keep an eye on them.  We don't need to attack them, and we need to keep Israel from doing it as well.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-01-16 15:33:59)

9/10 successful troll op

shifty why would you actually want to be in a war?

FatherTed wrote:

shifty why would you actually want to be in a war?

I'm a very helpful person, I like to help out

No but seriously somebody has to be in the military, and I am willing to do that as are many other people. If our nation got attacked or provoked or whatever by Iran it would be an honor to step up and help out.

Trotskygrad wrote:

would casualties in the initial invasion stage be less than 1000?

I'm inclined to say yes.

Initial invasion stage? Hell if U.S. RAM tech is what it's cracked out to be causalities could be below 10 for the bombers and I feel they could win the war themselves.

Why not just stay close to Iran with a few carriers and a shit ton of submarines (since enemy submarines are my biggest concern if the U.S. goes to war) to protect the carriers and blow shit up with B2s?

Why even bother with a ground invasion if intel can be gathered via satellite and UAVs which the B2s could bomb the shit out of? Lets not forget Tomahawks and the likes.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

What do people with more experience than me on the subject think?

Wasn't aware you had an military experience.