US planning Iran Stikes: Report

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What you seem to be missing here is that it's a rather complicated set of circumstances. Sure the Americans can "beat" anyone in a nice fight held in a vacuum. So what? This isn't a vacuum.

We won't be seeing Iranian fighter jets crossing the Pacific anytime soon, but that doesn't mean they can't do serious damage to, umm, everyone, even if the Marines are marching on Tehran.

Definitely, this isn't a vacuum, I'm just saying that Iran is not even on the same playing field as the USA is all. Iran can cause all sorts of headaches, many of which is due to their strategic location with the current events going on. I'm just saying that their military has no realistic chance against whatever the US decided to do to them.

The US will not be marching on Tehran anytime soon.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Gee, which world leader has had him military invade two countries and is now eyeballing a third? Which wrold leader is acting more like Hitler than any other? Who is going to stop Bush and his neo-conservative brown shirts?

Honestly, neither of them has any relevant comparables to Adolph Hitler. You could make a case for Hussein, but Bush and the new Iranian president are not Hitleresque. Throwing that into the conversation just charges it with more emotion. That results in much less logic.

Do you have links to the US officials saying they are willing to use nuclear weapons?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Nice link Captain, but it sort of doesn't come off as a scientific approach to anything. This line made me laugh.

"Another reason to worry is Russia's apparent intent to continue close economic ties with Iran and the resulting transfer of its technology to this Islamic state run by fanatics and others who are apparently just plain nuts."

Color me crazy, but WTF is the difference netween an Islamist theocracy run by a fanatic and a Christian theicracy run by a fanatic? Ahmadinejad hasn't come out and said that God told him to wipe the Israelis off the globe, he said that out of his own hubris. That makes him arrogant and dangerous. Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. He not only displays a huge amount of hubris, but also admits to hearing voices. That makes him fanatical AND displaying psychosis. Which state is run by a fanatic and which one is apparently just plain nuts?

Granted its not scientific, and there is a bit of personal opinion in there is laughable. However I've always thought that the concept of the superfast torpedo is a flawed argument at best. The reason for the success of something like a mark 48 torpedo is that its slightly faster then the flank speed of a advanced submarine at a little over 59 knots, has a large fuel supply so it can run for several minutes, and it has a good guidance package. The problem with the torpedo that we're talking about here is that its a dumb fire weapon and on a sub, where you have to manually reload every war shot, if you don't get the drop on your target, or you miss, your suddenly running at flank speed and not facing your opponent, plus firing a torpedo like this at flank speed, you stand a good chance of the torpedo going unstable upon entry into the water which can damage your torpedo tube or worse yet blowing the front off of your sub.

This weapon would work well against a slower target like a Aircraft carrier, but the chances of a 30 year old Kilo class diesel sub getting inside of the inner picket of a Carrier Battle Group undetected. We'll Lanny, you have a better chance of sleeping with Cameron Diaz.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They would only have to destroy the delivery method.

I don't know jack about weapons, so maybe you can enlighten me - how is it easier to find the proverbial rocket launcher instead of the rocket? Aside from that, the delivery method might be you or me carrying a suitcase

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Depends on the type of warfare utilized. If I were the Iranians I'd force the Americans into small unit engagements. I'd use the homefield to my advantage and draw the Americans into a war of attrition, which the Americans will lose in short order. The American military is stretched so thin and is so short or armaments right now that if you divide and conquor you could beat the big bad Americans. As long as you keep the airforce involvment to a minimum (minimizing targets, lots of mobile SAMs, etc.) the American advantage is removed. As well, if you can eliminate the carriers (sub attacks and mines) and their refueling wings, you can limit the effectiveness of the air power. This was a huge weakness for Iraq in 1991. They had no navy to counteract the Americans and the US got to sit off the coast and fire tomahawks all day. Keep the birds out of the air, and you could do very well against the Americans. Air power and sea power gives the Americans an advantage no one can compete with. Get the grunts on the ground and its a different story.

This was along the grounds of what I was saying before. The U.S. Military seems to have trouble with pockets of resistance and insurgancies because they like the Russian's are never willing to go beyond the line thats not defined by these groups. The Russian's tried for years in Chechnia (sp?), and while they leveled cities with Artillary they were never willing to go into the cities with insurgancy issues and wipe out the population, same with the American's in Iraq. Don't mis-understand me, but the reason why there were few reports of rebellions in ancient wartime was because the victorious army usually went into the villages of thier defeated foe, killed the population including woman and children and dogs, and then moved on without an enemy standing behind them. That can't be done in a civilized world which is a good thing. but as long as there are rules to warfare, there will always be problems with small pockets of enemies.

Again on the other stuff, its easier said then done Lanny, you can talk about using concentrations of SAM's but Saddam had the most complicated Russian built mobile SAM network in the history of modern militarys, but the American's swept it aside in a week. You can talk about using subs and mines against American Carrier groups, but because of the U.S. technological edge, its impossible to get within 100 miles of a U.S. carrier without being detected. Defeating American's in a military vs military is an impossible task. Now where I agree with you is the failure of the American army in dealing with small insurgancy groups that can move among civilians, and attack your softer logistics components. A lot of this happened because of the death of the effective us of air cavalry units, and because while the American's are in love with special operations units, which have never been effectively used.

Not disagreeing with you, but I think its going to be harder for Iran then people think.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

One of the reasons that they are havign such a hard time now is because so many of Iraq's army deserted.

I beg your pardon? The first thing the Americans did was to disband the 400,000 man army (oh, and not disarm them). Then they did not properly guard the munnitions dumps. The gave the insurgency all the time in the world to recuit well trained individuals and then gave them a chance to arm themselves to the teeth. If the Americans had been smart they would have retained the military and turned them into the police. Instead they are now on the other side fighting the guys who fired them.

I;'m stating in a military conflict, there is no military that can square off with the US in traditional combat. None.

How about Russia or the EU or the aforementioned Chinese? We know the Vietnamese know how to kick American ass, so you're wrong there already. With the Russian economy strengthening again they are again a force to be dealt with. "Misunderestimating" the Russians would be a very stupid thing to do. And you are aware that the EU is considering their own alliance that would see NATO go the way of the dodo, putting the United States on its own (with its lapdog Britian). The Americans are so over-rated because they keep going around the globe and kicking sand in the face of the 98 pound weaklings. I would love to see America go toe-to-toe with someone who has a real military, not a bunch of guys that were herding sheep a year prior to "the war". America has become too reliant on technology and are soft from using that technology against forces with 1960's technology. It would be interesting to see them go up against a country with advanced avionics platforms and a navy similar to theirs.

What we are seeing in Iraq right now is an insurgency of sorts, not a classic military engagement.

Gee, now who would have guessed that someone would have learned from the past and figured out to beat the Americans? You mean dragging the Americans into a Vietnam-esque engagement was the wrong thing to do? You mean the Iraqis should have just lined up and let the Americans play the game they like to and shoot them at will? Dumb Iraqis!!! Whodathunk that they would be stupid enough to draw the Americans into the country and start picking them off one-unit-one like the Vietnamese did? Not only are them Iraqis dumb, but they play dirty!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Granted its not scientific, and there is a bit of personal opinion in there is laughable. However I've always thought that the concept of the superfast torpedo is a flawed argument at best. The reason for the success of something like a mark 48 torpedo is that its slightly faster then the flank speed of a advanced submarine at a little over 59 knots, has a large fuel supply so it can run for several minutes, and it has a good guidance package. The problem with the torpedo that we're talking about here is that its a dumb fire weapon and on a sub, where you have to manually reload every war shot, if you don't get the drop on your target, or you miss, your suddenly running at flank speed and not facing your opponent, plus firing a torpedo like this at flank speed, you stand a good chance of the torpedo going unstable upon entry into the water which can damage your torpedo tube or worse yet blowing the front off of your sub.

This weapon would work well against a slower target like a Aircraft carrier, but the chances of a 30 year old Kilo class diesel sub getting inside of the inner picket of a Carrier Battle Group undetected. We'll Lanny, you have a better chance of sleeping with Cameron Diaz.

I know exactly what you mean. The "rumor" smelled like BS to me too. I'm a techno-geek when it comes to the military too and love reading about the new technologies as the rumors leak on the net and in Janes each year. But the likelihood of this super torpedo doesn't make much sense. The principle behind it makes some sense (that's how they get ballistic missiles into the air from subs) but I don't see that working for a long range weapon like a torpedo. I would think it would requie and incredible amount of gas to keep the slipstream in the water all the way to the target, which would make the weapon massive in size.

I would think that if the Iranians were going to try and torpedo a carrier they would go deep and silent and sit on the bottom, waiting for the carrier group to come over them. Then they would rise to torpedo depth and blow their load, hoping the got a shot in befor getting blown out of the water. Obviously a suicide mission, but one that I'm sure their military would take if they could sink a carrier or battleship.

I never under-estimate a cornered animal. They know they have nothing to lose and don't mind going if they can ttry and ake you with them.

[liamenator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I never under-estimate a cornered animal. They know they have nothing to lose and don't mind going if they can ttry and ake you with them.

There you have it Lanny.. that is why the decision to drop the bomb in 1945 was the right, and more humane one.

Japan WAS the cornered animal!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Honestly, neither of them has any relevant comparables to Adolph Hitler. You could make a case for Hussein, but Bush and the new Iranian president are not Hitleresque. Throwing that into the conversation just charges it with more emotion. That results in much less logic.

Do you have links to the US officials saying they are willing to use nuclear weapons?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li.../jp3_12fc2.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001053_pf.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...&articleId=999

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-25.htm

There you go. Links for all ideologies. From the horses asses themselves (for all the neo-cons), from the Post (for the intellectuals), from global research (for the conservatives) and from common dreams (for the liberals). Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by liamenator

There you have it Lanny.. that is why the decision to drop the bomb in 1945 was the right, and more humane one.

Japan WAS the cornered animal!!!

Yes, the Black Knight was a real threat in "The Holy Grail" after Arthur has lopped off a couple of legs and arms.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, the Black Knight was a real threat in "The Holy Grail" after Arthur has lopped off a couple of legs and arms.

It was just a flesh wound Lanny. Everyone knows that.

Thanks for the links, looking now.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Oh, this again.

I thought you had administration officials spouting off about using nukes. Threatening, etc.

This is nothing more than an updated protocol for nuclear operations. They've had one for 65 years. Old news.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Old news.

Okay, is this recent enough for you?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...ess/index.html

"When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option [nuclear weapons use], what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan."

The White House is dictating military strategy again.

"So when they looked at the underground facility in Iran -- as I said, this place, the main place is 75 hard feet underground, the only way you can tell the White House for sure, folks, you have to use a tac[tical] nuke.
But that isn't what they were -- they were just giving the range. But it's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] in an uproar."

Is that enough to make you nervous? The White House is again driving the military and making them do what THEY don't want to do.

[tjinaz]

It's true. Canada > CANAM Games. Canadian Basic Infantry are trained to have the same skill set that US Army Rangers have.

Out of curiosity have any of you been in the military either Canadian or American?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Out of curiosity have any of you been in the military either Canadian or American?

Yes - Canadian

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yes - Canadian

PPCLI?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Okay, is this recent enough for you?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/...ess/index.html

"When the JCS, the Joint Chiefs, and the planners wanted to walk back that option [nuclear weapons use], what happened is about three or four weeks ago, the White House, people in the White House, in the Oval Office, the vice president's office, said, no, let's keep it in the plan."

The White House is dictating military strategy again.

"So when they looked at the underground facility in Iran -- as I said, this place, the main place is 75 hard feet underground, the only way you can tell the White House for sure, folks, you have to use a tac[tical] nuke.
But that isn't what they were -- they were just giving the range. But it's the fact that the White House wouldn't let it go that has got the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] in an uproar."

Is that enough to make you nervous? The White House is again driving the military and making them do what THEY don't want to do.

But they aren't DOING anything. They are developing contingencies. There's a difference.

The White House has always been heavily involved in developiing military contingencies and military 'doctrine of the day'.

Besides, that's not what I meant by 'old news' anyway. I thought that you were telling me that officials were spouting off about using nukes, as in verbal threats or allusions.

I just misunderstood you.

For the record, I'm pretty much ready for Nov 2008. I've pretty much had it with Bush at this point. His second term has been extremely disappointing to me thus far, and I see no reason why that would turn around. I still wouldn't have voted for Kerry, knowing what I know now, but I didn't expect this either.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

What did you expect Dis?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

What did you expect Dis?

Something positive. Lower fuel prices for sure.

I once said that I thought Bush had surrounded himself with quality people. People who could do their jobs and do them well. That's now starting to prove false with the incompetence of Rumsfeld and the Katrina fiasco. Losing Colin Powell hurt me, though his replacement is excellent IMO, but who replaced her? It was a huge net loss.

He's now made cuts in federal financial aid for college students which is just wrong IMO.

You're probably laughing because you think I'm stupid, but none of what I am saying is what Bush haters have been clammoring on about for the last 6 years.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Something positive. Lower fuel prices for sure.

I once said that I thought Bush had surrounded himself with quality people. People who could do their jobs and do them well. That's now starting to prove false with the incompetence of Rumsfeld and the Katrina fiasco. Losing Colin Powell hurt me, though his replacement is excellent IMO, but who replaced her? It was a huge net loss.

He's now made cuts in federal financial aid for college students which is just wrong IMO.

You're probably laughing because you think I'm stupid, but none of what I am saying is what Bush haters have been clammoring on about for the last 6 years.

No Dis, I wouldn't do that. When ever my wife and I talk politics (quite often) I always think of you and what you're thinking after placing so much faith in Bush. Its sad how bad a president he has been, how he has taken the country in a direction on issues that normally Republicans would be howling about, yet he is still supported because of the fringe issues that his people have managed to turn into issues that win elections and support. The legacy the Bish administration is going to leave behind is something that Americans will be dealing with for the next 40 years. When you consider all the damage he and his people have done to this country, all the money they have drained out of the coffers, and the mess that foreign policy is in, the next several presidents will be behind the eightball. The infrastructure in the country is in sad shape, social security is bankrupty, medicare is a disaster, the military is a shambles and no one is joining up, the environment is on the brink, the deficit is at $10,000,000,000,000, the country is polarized and the majority of the world hates America. How far away is that from what Bill Clinton left the Bush administration? How far is that from 10/01/01 when the whole world was behind America? Sadly, the Democraps couldn't bring these issues to the table during an election. Makes you wonder where we're going?

I don't want to hijack this, but what would you think of a Biden/Obama ticket?