Iran

Where to go for and post Political chatter and gossip, including Government screw ups, Military covert operations, top secret files, anything related to Government.
User avatar
Kwiep
Field Marshal Von Uber Tazmaniac
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Iran

Post: # 86200Post Kwiep
Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:48 pm

So I have this (slightly morbid) fascination with military history and tactics. Yesterday I was reading up on some cold war stuff and another book of wich I don't know exactly wich war it was about and I had this discussion with one of my housemates.

Just for sake of discussion, WHAT IF the US or the UK decides they're getting a bit tired with Iran and their nuclear program and decide to run some tomahawks (non nuclear ones) in some important buildings (to the nuclear programm that is), maybe not even bothering to invade the nation at all, just "putting stones on the tracks" towards iranian nukes.
- iran won't destabalise to become any more a safehaven to terrorists or something then it already is
- I think there might be enough popular support to pull it off, both in the US/UK and allied nations. Hell the flexing the muscles might in fact appeal to alot of people and otherwise Bush is doing his last term anyway.
- no allied nation will do any real repercution towards allies however much they may disagree
- rivalling nations might get angry, but what can they do really? Start a war on the US/UK?
- if russia or china start throwing shit it is because they were already (planning on) doing so anyway, I don't see any real interests for them in iran being bombed

Now just as a disclaimer, I'm not for bombing the shit out of anything, but just for the sake of argument. With the whole Iraq thing alot of people already decided to not like the US, so what the hell, if they dislike you already you might aswell not care entirely and get it over with. Now it's a bit of "we want to be liked, so we won't bomb anything for a while." Throw the dice people! I'm already indoctrinated with the -totally unfounded and probably incorrect- idea Iran is a mess anyway.

I almost sound like fox, what's with that!


Double Dutch

User avatar
Panama Red
I come Unseen
Posts: 5469
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:14 am

Post: # 86201Post Panama Red
Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:02 pm

- if russia or china start throwing shit it is because they were already (planning on) doing so anyway, I don't see any real interests for them in iran being bombed
These two, well China most likely would throw a coniption fit as they get most of their oil from Iran, so the trick would be to do it before opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese wouldn't dare try anything for fear of being boycotted (shades of 1980 and the Soviet Union).

The only folks that might get upset and your right they are already upset, so in for a nickle in for a dollar.... :wink:
Image

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 86203Post Egaladeist
Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:11 pm

First...good to see ya!
just for sake of discussion, WHAT IF the US or the UK decides they're getting a bit tired with Iran and their nuclear program and decide to run some tomahawks (non nuclear ones) in some important buildings (to the nuclear programm that is), maybe not even bothering to invade the nation at all, just "putting stones on the tracks" towards iranian nukes.
Nothing would happen in that scenario...Israel has done just that several times in their recent history.

User avatar
SirDice
I've posted HOW many
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:59 am
Are you a Spammer: No
Location: Netherlands

Post: # 86230Post SirDice
Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 pm

That whole region has been a hotbed of conflict even longer than I've lived. I can only remember the real first Persian Gulf War, the Iran-Iraq conflict.
And of course the Russians in Afghanistan. I'll bet the ruskies are sneakily enjoying the whole US involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan.. Been there, done that..
Oliver's Law:
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

alleyCat
I type, therefore I am
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:24 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post: # 86251Post alleyCat
Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:16 am

Sorry this all screams 'not in my backyard' from the 'allied' world...

The US/UK might get away with it in the short term, but as soon as another superpower appears and is deemed to be more reliable/less erratic, you would see everyone wanting to support them over any gung-ho 'superpower'.

I guess from my perspective the "not wanting to upset allies" should really be 'doing the right thing'.

User avatar
Kwiep
Field Marshal Von Uber Tazmaniac
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 86257Post Kwiep
Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:55 am

Egaladeist wrote:First...good to see ya!

-snip-

Nothing would happen in that scenario...Israel has done just that several times in their recent history.
Thanks!

And thanks for summarizing a two hour discussion with mah friend :p.
Sorry this all screams 'not in my backyard' from the 'allied' world...

The US/UK might get away with it in the short term, but as soon as another superpower appears and is deemed to be more reliable/less erratic, you would see everyone wanting to support them over any gung-ho 'superpower'.

I guess from my perspective the "not wanting to upset allies" should really be 'doing the right thing'.
Maybe a little background is in order. Alot of people I know believe the US/UK is stretching their military resources and their popular support in their current campaigns. I however think my friends underestimate them on both subjects. Alot of em even go as far as thinking Iran might get away with nukes.

I think we can boil down the "right thing" to powerplant good, weapons bad. So in my "what if" we skip the political games and are presented with the "fact" (blurry satelite images and the like, you know the drill) Iran is building the nukes. I think the US/UK won't or shouldn't have to hasitate about doing something about it. They will not have the popular support for a full invasion due to Iraq. Blowing up the plants ONLY however will cause minimal colleteral damage and piss off alot less people then an invasion. And it's cheaper for us. And the navy can do it, wich I think is minimally occupied with Iraq and thus very available to do some fighting.

Alot of my friends think I'm wrong and I think most Iranians think I'm wrong. So I think them Iranians might just do the stupid thing sometime and put my theory to the test.
Double Dutch

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 86259Post Egaladeist
Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:56 am

:D

When Israel destroyed the French built nuclear reactor in Iraq in the early 80's ( remember...this was well before the US had secured any support in the Arab world and long before the first Gulf Coalition )...a few Iraqis and a Frenchman died in the attack...

the result of this attack was minimal to moderate outrage and no sanctions...from anyone, including France, who was probably the most vocal...

now...with the US having gained Arab military support, as a result of the first Gulf Coalition...the question is:

Would the US have a harder or easier time with bombing Iran than Israel had in the 80's bombing Iraq ?

By comparison...it'd be a walk in the park. ;)

Today...that Israeli attack is considered to have been the single most important event in the success of the latter US Gulf Wars...and instead of being criticized for that attack...they are now being praised for having done it.
Blowing up the plants ONLY however will cause minimal collateral damage and piss off alot less people then an invasion.
So...given history and the new political light of US Arab relations...I would absolutely agree that a pre-emptive strike would be a relatively easy alternative. ;)

User avatar
|3lack|ce
Let's play Global Thermonuclear War!
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Podunk Texas

Post: # 86281Post |3lack|ce
Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:24 pm

I propose we just nuke those little desert nations and make giant glass parking lots for the newest WalMart Megacenter. We've perfected slant-drilling, so petrol won't be an issue.

NON-Disclaimer: I firmly support the policy of 'Do unto them quickly before they get the chance to do unto you.'

Editorial: Those bastards in Iran have been a thorn in our sides since Jimmy Carter and the Ayatollah got their rocks off playing games with a few innocent (or not so innocent as the case may be) civilian contractors. These people as a whole HATE us, there is no 'great coalition' anymore, nor was there truly one during Desert Storm (Gee. Would YOUR allies threaten to stab YOU in the arse if you invaded Baghdad?). It's high time we whipped the hell out of ALL of 'em from the eastern side of the Red Sea all the way to the Pacific - we can divvy up with the UK and Germany on the land expansion rights.
The one thing a customer service specialist can never teach is 'being nice.'

User avatar
Harry
Site Admin
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: UK :-)
Contact:

Post: # 86291Post Harry
Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:26 pm

If they did launch tomahawks at Iran's nuclear effort the number of insurgents in Iraq would increase 10 fold.....the last thing the allies need right now is an openly hostile country right next door to Iraq.....
Drugs have taught an entire generation of kids the metric system..

TAZ's better half: http://www.theadminzone.com/

User avatar
Kwiep
Field Marshal Von Uber Tazmaniac
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 86329Post Kwiep
Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:31 pm

nokia wrote:If they did launch tomahawks at Iran's nuclear effort the number of insurgents in Iraq would increase 10 fold.....the last thing the allies need right now is an openly hostile country right next door to Iraq.....
Even in that case, 10 times the insurgents and a nations military are alot easier to target then the sneaky bunch that's creeping arround Iraq now. I think the current military force can take on alot more people. It's the fact they have to watch so ferking many places at the same time that requires the large number of troops, not the actual number of enemies.

I might be wrong on that though. Going on a limb a little bit there. I do know the US/UK is superior in "classic" warfare. It's the guerilla stuff that's hard. An increased number of enemies might make em easier to fight.
Double Dutch

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 86333Post Egaladeist
Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:17 pm

Going on a limb a little bit there. I do know the US/UK is superior in "classic" warfare. It's the guerilla stuff that's hard. An increased number of enemies might make em easier to fight.
That would be the case...no modern nation in modern times has been successful fighting a guerrilla resistance force...even in WW2 the Germans couldn't stop the Resistance movement in France...Americans in Vietnam...the Russians in Afghanistan...etc...

it's like a war on drugs...or a war on poverty...you can't win a war that's un-winable...in a Utopian sense, it would be...but human nature being what it is...

it's a lost cause before it even begins. ;)

Guerrilla warfare always creates a quagmire.

User avatar
Harry
Site Admin
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: UK :-)
Contact:

Post: # 86337Post Harry
Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:48 pm

I would have to disagree. Northern Ireland was fought as a guerrilla war campaign for neigh on 30 years.

Iraq is different from Northern Ireland but not by a great extent and many of the tactics used in Ireland are used in Iraq.(Even the soft armoured snatch land rovers that were designed specifically for Ireland have been deployed out there) The British Army are the best in the world at countering guerrilla tactics as we have had to learn the hard way over the past three decades - solders from all over the world are trained in guerrilla tactics by the British because of their experience.


The insurgents from Iran would probably still be the sneaky mother fuckers that are coming into Iraq now...if we bomb Iraq we will just encourage more of the little bastards to pick up the fight...
Drugs have taught an entire generation of kids the metric system..

TAZ's better half: http://www.theadminzone.com/

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 86339Post Egaladeist
Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:57 pm

I would have to disagree. Northern Ireland was fought as a guerrilla war campaign for neigh on 30 years.
That example just furthers my point ;) ...the IRA were never defeated. ;)

User avatar
Harry
Site Admin
Posts: 6784
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: UK :-)
Contact:

Post: # 86340Post Harry
Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:05 pm

They were 'decapitated' though - now-a-days their abilities are very insignificant to what they were as little as 5 years ago- they are not even considered a serious threat anymore hence troop levels in NI are extremely low. The troops there now are based there as a normal garrison and do not patrol the streets anymore - that is left to the normal police.

So maybe in the litteral sence of the word, no they have not been defeated, but to all intents and purposes yes they have.
Last edited by Harry on Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Drugs have taught an entire generation of kids the metric system..

TAZ's better half: http://www.theadminzone.com/

User avatar
Egaladeist
I am the Eg man : Coo Coo Ca Choo
Posts: 18908
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 1:02 am
Location: Canada

Post: # 86344Post Egaladeist
Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:32 pm

They were 'decapitated' though
In a sense...actually they were asked to disband in 2002 to further peace negotiations...in 2002 they refused...a cease-fire was accepted on July 19th, 2007 that went into effect on July 20th...provided they were granted access to the negotiations in Sept 2007. ;)

Guerrilla warfare can't be won through battles/war because you can't shoot an ideology...you can't bomb a principle...whether that's religious or political or extremism ...to defeat guerrilla warfare you need to win through words. ;)

Post Reply