TonyKing wrote:
United States vs Iran
* Scenario *
"All right fellahs, lunch-time is over! John, Dan and Jason hop into your F-15's and deliver these precision bombs to them boys over in Iran. Make sure you give the Nuke Plants a double dip. Oh yeah you will get some help from David and Cain from the Israeli airforce so play nice!"
* Obama goes Live saying "Nation is at war" *
3 Hours later...
* Obama goes Live saying "We've Won" *
Thats about it. Iran has no chance with their backward tech (Compared to US and Israel). USA and Israel have no interest in sending ground troops to Iran because that would be a battle they would lose. Taking down Irans nuke plants however is nothing short of target practice.
Could they re-open the Strait, though? That's the only question worth considering here. How can they ensure its security without actually having ships there?Shahter wrote:
there are many ways for usa to play this with no carriers getting anywhere close to iran at all - not before it's safe to do so anyway. b2's alone would rape anything iran has with just about complete impunity.Spark wrote:
This thread is fascinating.
Because I'm pretty sure the last war scenario the Pengtagon did with a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz ended very badly for the US. Big, unwieldy carriers entering a narrow, strait. Iran responds by swarming with littoral ships. Carrier and associated forces are dead within five minutes (or something along those lines).
Protracted war ensues which neither side can afford but where the US has much more to lose.
Or at least that's what I've heard.
Last edited by Spark (2012-02-20 04:01:43)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
when did "security" of anything get into this? the question was "If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?" the answer to that is "no", usa can easily turn iranian military into dust - without entering the fucking strait if they decide to do it that way.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Yes. Destroy the shore facilities that support those fast boats. Without fuel or maintenance, they become a non-issue.Spark wrote:
Could they re-open the Strait, though? That's the only question worth considering here. How can they ensure its security without actually having ships there?Shahter wrote:
there are many ways for usa to play this with no carriers getting anywhere close to iran at all - not before it's safe to do so anyway. b2's alone would rape anything iran has with just about complete impunity.Spark wrote:
This thread is fascinating.
Because I'm pretty sure the last war scenario the Pengtagon did with a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz ended very badly for the US. Big, unwieldy carriers entering a narrow, strait. Iran responds by swarming with littoral ships. Carrier and associated forces are dead within five minutes (or something along those lines).
Protracted war ensues which neither side can afford but where the US has much more to lose.
Or at least that's what I've heard.
“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
i know, not really on topic...
"Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes"
"The possible outlines of an Israeli attack have become a source of debate in Washington, where some analysts question whether Israel even has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian retaliation"
"Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said flatly last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task"
"Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that “we don’t have perfect visibility” into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks aren’t that serious,” he said"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world … itary.html
"Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes"
"The possible outlines of an Israeli attack have become a source of debate in Washington, where some analysts question whether Israel even has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian retaliation"
"Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said flatly last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task"
"Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that “we don’t have perfect visibility” into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks aren’t that serious,” he said"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world … itary.html
I like how everybody is trying to goad Israel into it. "Yeah im sure they would but they aren't capable" lol. I hope they do, will make things exciting over there.
Do they have the resources to pull it off?
Also I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks B2 Spirits would rape Iran to the stone age.
Also I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks B2 Spirits would rape Iran to the stone age.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Why do you want that to occur?-Sh1fty- wrote:
rape Iran to the stone age.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
thats more arousing than a girl for you isn't it
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
It worked well in WW2 and the first and second gulf wars. I'm not saying all the problems would disappear, but if things came down to war we could take out their important infrastructure and supplies for their military. If they don't have water, food, ammunition, factories, etc. there isn't much they can do.13urnzz wrote:
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I wouldn't be surprised if Arab countries in the region turned a blind eye or even cooperated with Israel on an Iranian strike. They dislike Iran only slightly less than they dislike Israel.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
i know, not really on topic...
"Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes"
"The possible outlines of an Israeli attack have become a source of debate in Washington, where some analysts question whether Israel even has the military capacity to carry it off. One fear is that the United States would be sucked into finishing the job — a task that even with America’s far larger arsenal of aircraft and munitions could still take many weeks, defense analysts said. Another fear is of Iranian retaliation"
"Michael V. Hayden, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, said flatly last month that airstrikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program were “beyond the capacity” of Israel, in part because of the distance that attack aircraft would have to travel and the scale of the task"
"Still, a top defense official cautioned in an interview last week that “we don’t have perfect visibility” into Israel’s arsenal, let alone its military calculations. His views were echoed by Anthony H. Cordesman, an influential military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of potential risks, but Israel may know that those risks aren’t that serious,” he said"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world … itary.html
“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
precision bombing in ww2? lol-Sh1fty- wrote:
It worked well in WW213urnzz wrote:
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
It really should be an Iran vs Saudi Arabia pissing match.
Funny how Israel and the US always seem to get trolled into doing all the heavy lifting for the Kingdom of Saud.
Funny how Israel and the US always seem to get trolled into doing all the heavy lifting for the Kingdom of Saud.
you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.
Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
“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
Beside the point.FEOS wrote:
Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.
Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
precision bombing in ww2? lol-Sh1fty- wrote:
It worked well in WW213urnzz wrote:
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?
besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Was a pretty big ball ache considering the USA managed to destroy German supply lines and factories. All on it's own.
Sorry. I was going off this:PrivateVendetta wrote:
Beside the point.FEOS wrote:
Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.
Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Emphasis added.Teds wrote:
you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Just so used to you blokes taking shots at us 'murkins.
And it supported your "not just the US" argument, btw.
“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
Except production actually increased throughout the war, despite the bombing. Yes, moving from the factory to the front became more difficult, but not impossible. See: Battle of the Bulge. Air power alone has never, and will never, win a war by itself.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
precision bombing in ww2? lol-Sh1fty- wrote:
It worked well in WW2
besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Gotcha. My argument was directed at the misdirected ShiftykinsFEOS wrote:
Sorry. I was going off this:PrivateVendetta wrote:
Beside the point.FEOS wrote:
Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.
Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.Emphasis added.Teds wrote:
you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Just so used to you blokes taking shots at us 'murkins.
And it supported your "not just the US" argument, btw.
strategic bombing was a lot like the partisan movement in ww2: a pain in the ass for the germans but by far not decisive. there's actually a lot of scientific studies on that topic that prove itJay wrote:
Except production actually increased throughout the war, despite the bombing. Yes, moving from the factory to the front became more difficult, but not impossible. See: Battle of the Bulge. Air power alone has never, and will never, win a war by itself.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
precision bombing in ww2? lol
besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
Decisive in stopping their invasion westwards, not so much for getting it to do all the work for our invasion.
Last edited by PrivateVendetta (2012-02-20 12:39:40)