I was poking around on the Iranian military forums (its my daily dose of much needed comedy sometimes). Anyway figured I'd share one of the more entertaining posting with you all
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=2641&page=4
" How do you sink an American Aircraft-Carrier ?
U731
My thinking goes a lot along the same lines. I think pre-emptive attack could even be seen as justified, seeing how US has threatened to nuke Iran, and is publicly engaging them with commando teams and sponsoring terrorism (M.E.K.) in their country. There have been several attacks, with victims, already in Iran.
A pre-emptive attack, on Iran's terms and at their time of choosing, on the US airbases and carrier fleets in the area would be their best defence, if conflict, looking at the inevitability of it, is their chosen fate anyway. Nothing good comes out of *****-footing around it. Iran's going to war, unless US gets a regime change first. There's no changing that fact with this US administration.
The 40 000 suicide attackers Iran has now could be put to a devastating use in a surprise attack. If Iran let's US have the first strike (already has, in a away, with US commandoes setting bombs and doing preparatory sabotage in the country) and initiative, the advantages attainable with such suicide attackers withers a lot, and may be outright irrelevant, as they will likely end up as nothing but more gun-fodder.
Also, seeing how casualties are the main US concern, I would put chemical warfare to a good use against US bases in Iraq and elsewhere. It's not like Iran has anything to lose anyway. Regime change has been clearly stated as the long term US policy goal in Iran, and current US regime can't see beyond violent means of achieving such goals. Bush has even stated that liberating Iran is going to be his legacy. That gives Iran a year or two at maximum, at best. And I think it's going to be sooner rather than later, in fact as soon as a convenient excuse for US attacks can be arranged either via Gladios type terrorism or arranging another "Pearl Harbor" which they can blame Iran for and perhaps reinstate the draft.
Admitting to the reality of the situation, the resources, the evolving situation and the trends for the future should be the first base for gaining victory in any battle. Someone might consider quoting Sun Tzu at this point, but I think I'll just say that living in denial won't help bring about victory. Iran clearly has a choice to be either the active operator and act in their own self defence, or be the one being operated and acted on. Saddam chose the latter path and we all see what it brought him - a place in the US dog house. In Ahmadinejad's place I personally would choose differently. Even if death is all our fate, there is something to be said for the way in which we choose to face it, and how history will tell our name."
Some highlights from their current ideas to actually sink a carrier are:
- use chemical weapons
- use a mass attack of suicide boats and their mini subs
- long range anti-ship missiles
- use a nuclear weapon
I may have missed a few, the thread is hilarious.
I agree with the theory pre-empitive strike is the best way for Iran to be militarily effective against the US. Of coarse that would also touch the very tiny line between military wisdom and political stupidity.
On that note, the USS Enterprise will be in the Persian Gulf this summer. If Iran was to be militarily successful in performing a surprise attack and sinking the 5,500 crewed USS Enterprise, doing what Japan could not do during WW II by declaring war against the US in a way that sends a clear message.... then follow that up with the use of chemical weapons, I could see Iran running around proclaiming themselves as being a world military power. I could even see potential short term celebration of Iran throughout the Arab world.
That celebration wouldn't last long though, because predicting the US response to that kind of attack is to predict a scale of military backlash in terms of firepower not seen on the planet in ancient or modern history.
The difference between you and I though is I potentially see a scenario similar to what I described above as potentially happening this summer, but I doubt you see it that way. All things considered, if Iran is going to do something to make a statement of military power in the Middle East, it is about hitting the right target in the right place at the right time. Any ship named the USS Enterprise in the middle east fits two of those criteria, the only remaining issue would be timing.
Just throwing around a wild theory. Enjoy!
What would happen if they used NBC warfare in a pre-emptive strike on an American target (military and/or civilian)? As Sniper said, these guys have not a damn clue as to the firepower possessed by the US military. They are used to seeing on Al-Jazeera American infantrymen on the ground fighting it out with rifles and grenades. That's restraint on our part, not the inability to level the city. Use WMD at their own peril. It would not be pretty for them.
Gunnut,
Iran fought with Iraq for almost 10 years and it was a stalemate, with advantage Iran. I dont think Iranians could forget what happened to the bulk of Iraqi fighting force during GW-I and GW-II. They are stupid, but not that stupid
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!
Perhaps you are right. That was probably just some internet warrior chest thumping routine.
Advantage was Iraq's and the advantage was all propaganda.Originally Posted by Jay
They were stupid enough to attack the USN.I dont think Iranians could forget what happened to the bulk of Iraqi fighting force during GW-I and GW-II. They are stupid, but not that stupid
Chimo
Which brings us to the obvious question, Colonel- are they stupid enough to do it twice?
I almost hope they are- it would really simplify matters.
Then again, I don't really want war with Iran. I think it's unnecessary. Let'em reform themselves.
That picture you posted on the other thread was hilarious, though. My first thought was "Persian Village People".
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
The Iranians like the rest of us are open to revisionism. The Iranian Hostage Crisis was a high point (didn't occurred to them to remember that they chickened out when Reagan came to power). They were the ones who sue for peace in the Iran-Iraq but now only remember that it was the Iraqis who offerred terms. They even forgot that the Iranian Revolution had nothing to do with the Ayatollah Khomeni who only came back AFTER all the hard work was done and a very tiny percentage of that work was in his name.
Chimo
I'm wondering, how the hell does the Pasdaran expect to get these 40 000 Suicide attackers anywhere near US Military bases? Are they expecting the Americans to not wonder why there is a massive Iranian Military buildup on the Iraqi border?
Sir,
I'll just type in what I read before. Militarily Iraq won the war with a superior army with newer soviet weaponry. Iran was seriously lagging in almost every dept. But the areas they claimed, which they fought for in the war is still with Iran, so they did not acheive their objectives, which mean they lost the game, right?
Also I read that during tanker war, Iraq started out by hitting neutral ships, first being USS Stark and only after that Iran started attacking merchant navy. It targetted mostly Kuwaiti ships after which they operated under US flag and Iran never initiated a direct confrontation on US ships. They never fired missiles on USN and they didnt directly conduct bombing raids on USN.
Most of my understanding came from here,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../iran-iraq.htm
Last edited by Jay; 20 Apr 06, at 03:37.
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!
Bah...details, don't bother them with details.
Also don't overlook the author and military strategist calling for chemical weapons to be used on US bases in Iraq and other places. You don't suppose that his list of targets would include Baghdad's Green Zone, or Southern iraq, where the Iraqi Shia who might side with Iran are concentrated?
Last time I checked US Soldiers had a healthy supply of ABC suits and gear. While the locals ranging from Riverbend, to Jalal Talabani, on through to Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi Militia do not have much in the way of chemical weapon protection.
Can we all say the words "Arc Light"? With modern boomsticks? Yikes.
-dale
Much like the Korean War, everybody ended up where they started. The Iraqis started the war and during the middle of the war, had to retreat and even got counter-invaded by the Iranians who got to the gates of Basra at one point.
When the war ended, it was the Iranians who called for peace mainly because of Iranian fears of chemical anhilation while their own stockpiles have not been built up.
Since it was the Iranians who blinked, the Iraqis claimed victory but looking over the battlefield, it was hardly a decisive military victory.
They tried but were sunk.
Chimo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: