AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6410|what

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.
https://i.imgur.com/lvGLJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6932|Canberra, AUS

Shahter wrote:

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.
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.
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?

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
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7032|Moscow, Russia
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.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

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.
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.
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?
Yes. Destroy the shore facilities that support those fast boats. Without fuel or maintenance, they become a non-issue.
“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
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6730|Kakanien
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
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6989|Cambridge, England
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.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5730|Ventura, California
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.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5615|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:

rape Iran to the stone age.
Why do you want that to occur?
"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
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5730|Ventura, California
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.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6754

-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.
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6757|so randum
thats more arousing than a girl for you isn't it
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5730|Ventura, California

13urnzz wrote:

-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.
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?
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.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

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
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.
“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
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6730|Kakanien

-Sh1fty- wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

-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.
so, let me see if i understand you correctly. the U.S. only needs to precision bomb Iran and all the problems would disappear?
It worked well in WW2
precision bombing in ww2? lol

besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
rdx-fx
...
+955|6848
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.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6757|so randum
you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.

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
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6448|Roma

FEOS wrote:

Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.

Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Beside the point.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5730|Ventura, California

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

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?
It worked well in WW2
precision bombing in ww2? lol

besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6448|Roma
Was a pretty big ball ache considering the USA managed to destroy German supply lines and factories. All on it's own.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

PrivateVendetta wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.

Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Beside the point.
Sorry. I was going off this:

Teds wrote:

you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Emphasis added.

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
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5615|London, England

-Sh1fty- wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:


It worked well in WW2
precision bombing in ww2? lol

besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.
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.
"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
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6448|Roma

FEOS wrote:

PrivateVendetta wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dresden was the Brits, IIRC.

Firebombing at night because they didn't want to fly during the day.
Beside the point.
Sorry. I was going off this:

Teds wrote:

you see dresden is a fine example of precision bombing in WWII becausaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Emphasis added.

Just so used to you blokes taking shots at us 'murkins.

And it supported your "not just the US" argument, btw.
Gotcha. My argument was directed at the misdirected Shiftykins
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6730|Kakanien

Jay wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:


precision bombing in ww2? lol

besides, ground invasion from east and west and not carpet bombing decided ww2 in europe
Without logistics nobody can fight a war. Ground invasion wouldn't have meant squat without destruction of German supply lines and factories.
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.
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 it
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6448|Roma
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)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard