Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypothetical Military Action against Iran

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by chanjyj View Post
    What exactly is the motive of any military action in this hypothetical scenario if there is no end to it? Going to cost a bomb (sic), raise oil prices - for nothing?
    That is what this is all meant to be - to control oil prices and maintain the dollar. Otherwise how else can the international price of the dollar remain high.

    The US GDP growth rate of the past 5 years is as under:-
    -2008 = 1.7%
    - 2009 = -3.5%
    - 2010 = 3%
    - 2011 = 2.5%
    - 2012 = 4.1%

    Being the international mode of exchange, the high dollar rates bleed the emerging economies to remain a viable currency.
    The only way this can happen is when a war histeria is created over oil producing countries.

    There in no way that the US can prevent Iran from going nuclear, it could not do anything to North Korea and it can do very little to Iran. But the US can benifit from the oil "crisis" created as a result of the halabalo over the whole affair, the Sheiks in the gulf emirates are happy and the US dollar remains high and gives the US economy some breathing space to recover.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
      Attacking underground facilities is now easy. Way too easy. Thermobarics and airshafts do wonders in depriving O2 and heat ventallation.
      Sir, I am sure many of us aware that a bunker is no longer as safe it sounds. I was referring to you suggested Linebacker campaign which in my opinion would be a great folly. Firstly the very reason for starting a campaign is the existence of nuclear weapons - possibly missiles. The first priority then must be to stop these weapons being used. If one is used, against Israel for example, would Obama be able to stop them replying in kind? Possibly he would but there again he may not be able to so the first priority has to be stop this happening. The second immediate priority at the outset is to keep the Gulf sea lanes open. A third immediate priority, which happens before the air campaign starts is the protection of the Baku - Tiblisi pipeline. Only once the immediate priorities, which deal primarily with Iran's ability to retaliate, are taken care of can the destruction of the bunkers begin.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lemontree View Post
        That is what this is all meant to be - to control oil prices and maintain the dollar. Otherwise how else can the international price of the dollar remain high.

        The US GDP growth rate of the past 5 years is as under:-
        -2008 = 1.7%
        - 2009 = -3.5%
        - 2010 = 3%
        - 2011 = 2.5%
        - 2012 = 4.1%

        Being the international mode of exchange, the high dollar rates bleed the emerging economies to remain a viable currency.
        The only way this can happen is when a war histeria is created over oil producing countries.

        There in no way that the US can prevent Iran from going nuclear, it could not do anything to North Korea and it can do very little to Iran. But the US can benifit from the oil "crisis" created as a result of the halabalo over the whole affair, the Sheiks in the gulf emirates are happy and the US dollar remains high and gives the US economy some breathing space to recover.
        Sir, the sanctions put on Iran and stoppage of usual payment routes is actually forcing them to accept RMBs and Rupees in exchange for their oil. How does that fit in? And international oil prices were increasing long before the Iran crisis started. And it doesn't seem to have affected them very much.

        I am still convinced that the whole reason for the US not wanting Iran to get nukes, is to pre-empt the Arabs from getting an excuse to get their own nukes. It is a lot easier for the Arabs (especially SA) to get their hands on finished nukes from pakistan, so it might not be possible to stop them if they really want to get some. The Arabs are US allies as well, so bombing them is not an option. Bombing Iran is. And if that wasn't enough, the idiotic Iranian leadership painted a bullseye on themselves by threatening Israel.
        Last edited by Firestorm; 25 Feb 13,, 13:18.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by snapper View Post
          Sir, I am sure many of us aware that a bunker is no longer as safe it sounds. I was referring to you suggested Linebacker campaign which in my opinion would be a great folly. Firstly the very reason for starting a campaign is the existence of nuclear weapons - possibly missiles. The first priority then must be to stop these weapons being used. If one is used, against Israel for example, would Obama be able to stop them replying in kind? Possibly he would but there again he may not be able to so the first priority has to be stop this happening. The second immediate priority at the outset is to keep the Gulf sea lanes open. A third immediate priority, which happens before the air campaign starts is the protection of the Baku - Tiblisi pipeline. Only once the immediate priorities, which deal primarily with Iran's ability to retaliate, are taken care of can the destruction of the bunkers begin.
          LINEBACKER campaigns were meant to collapse infrastructure supporting the NVA's war in the South. The same idea holds here. Rebuilding supplies, spare parts, even food and water would have a hard time reaching the nuclear forces.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
            I am still convinced that the whole reason for the US not wanting Iran to get nukes, is to pre-empt the Arabs from getting an excuse to get their own nukes. It is a lot easier for the Arabs (especially SA) to get their hands on finished nukes from pakistan, so it might not be possible to stop them if they really want to get some. The Arabs are US allies as well, so bombing them is not an option. Bombing Iran is. And if that wasn't enough, the idiotic Iranian leadership painted a bullseye on themselves by threatening Israel.
            I don't buy it. First, the Arabs are "allies" now, but that can change fast. Secondly, I don't think bombing Iran is a serious option, partly because there's no will to do so and partly because they could make better, more natural allies in the future than the golf emirates.
            The Iranian leadership are playing what cards they have masterfully, and threatening Israel is more for domestic/proxi consumption then anything serious, in my opinion..

            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Who said anything about regime change? What do you think a LINEBACKER campaign would do Iran's power grid and subsequent nuclear weapons program?
            Great harm or permanent shut down, but sir, how would that prevent them from threatening the straits or the oil terminals in SA? Without a regime change they will remain a perpetual threat to those, even if they lose the nuclear program

            Edited for second answer and spelling
            Last edited by Dante; 25 Feb 13,, 16:55.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dante View Post
              Great harm or permanent shut down, but sir, how would that prevent them from threatening the straits or the oil terminals in SA? Without a regime change they will remain a perpetual threat to those, even if they lose the nuclear program
              The LINEBACKER campaigns collapsed the Vietnamese economy, requiring massive influx of funds and especially rice from both China and the USSR. Iran has no such friends.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                The LINEBACKER campaigns collapsed the Vietnamese economy, requiring massive influx of funds and especially rice from both China and the USSR. Iran has no such friends.
                No it doesn't, but what it does is the ability to strike the world's oil supply, something Vietnam lacked.
                A campaign like that might destroy the Iranian economy, and they might throw in the towel, but what if they don't? Explosives and people willing to use them will be plenty available, and so will the targets. A single year of constant threats and attacks on the oil route would harm the international economy to a depression level, at which point NATO either falls back, kills them in mas, or invades. Falling back or starving them won't be politically acceptable, so that leaves option three..

                I hope I don't seem like defending Iranian actions or preaching here, but in regards to Iran I have never seen a realistic solution that doesn't center either around them quitting or invading and imposing a regime change. And I'm not betting they will quit..

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Dante View Post
                  I hope I don't seem like defending Iranian actions or preaching here, but in regards to Iran I have never seen a realistic solution that doesn't center either around them quitting or invading and imposing a regime change. And I'm not betting they will quit..
                  No, but they will be knocked out. Without spare parts and fuel in demand by both military and civilian needs, Iranian abilities to carry a prolong campaign is seriously in doubt. That the Iranians will hit back is a given, and it will be a given that some blows will be hard and will hurt ... but the Iranians lack the wind to do more than that.

                  Even Vietnam needed to buy time with the peace negotiation to rebuild her armies with Chinese rice and Soviet money. We're not going to give Iran that luxury.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    No, but they will be knocked out. Without spare parts and fuel in demand by both military and civilian needs, Iranian abilities to carry a prolong campaign is seriously in doubt. That the Iranians will hit back is a given, and it will be a given that some blows will be hard and will hurt ... but the Iranians lack the wind to do more than that.

                    Even Vietnam needed to buy time with the peace negotiation to rebuild her armies with Chinese rice and Soviet money. We're not going to give Iran that luxury.
                    I understand you're view sir and it's a terrifying one for the Iranians. Were I disagree is in the need for them to have a functional army or economy in order to put a SCUD in a oil terminal or a mine in front of a tanker every month or so, and that's all it takes. If I were a Iranian general I would have plans upon plans and adequate weapons stashed all around, just to do that and force NATO's hand. Hell, even some guys ready to die and some sympathetic terminal workers are enough to put a dent in oil production..
                    Last edited by Dante; 25 Feb 13,, 20:03.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Terror attacks? We will have to absorb them just like we did with the Somali pirates. In the scheme of things though, it is an annoyance, not a threat.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dante View Post
                        I understand you're view sir and it's a terrifying one for the Iranians. Were I disagree is in the need for them to have a functional army or economy in order to put a SCUD in a oil terminal or a mine in front of a tanker every month or so, and that's all it takes. If I were a Iranian general I would have plans upon plans and adequate weapons stashed all around, just to do that and force NATO's hand. Hell, even some guys ready to die and some sympathetic terminal workers are enough to put a dent in oil production..
                        Are you not familiar with the "Tanker War" of the Eighties?
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          LINEBACKER campaigns were meant to collapse infrastructure supporting the NVA's war in the South. The same idea holds here. Rebuilding supplies, spare parts, even food and water would have a hard time reaching the nuclear forces.
                          Sir, infrastructure collapse is a secondary priority.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by snapper View Post
                            Sir, infrastructure collapse is a secondary priority.
                            No, it's not. It's part of the logistics supporting the nuclear forces which makes it a primary objective.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              No, it's not. It's part of the logistics supporting the nuclear forces which makes it a primary objective.
                              Sir with respect I beg to differ; once the weapons are destroyed re-supply of food or fuel to those who operated them is possible but must be a secondary concern in the scenario we are speaking of. There is no point resupplying units that are no longer effective. If given a targeting option between weapon or logistical support of weapon weapon comes first.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                You're not understanding. We must also destroy the nuclear forces' abilities to repair its own damages and rebuild its forces, ie new command posts and targeting procedures with whatever survives. Those are not secondary targets.

                                We may or may not take out the nuke but we sure as hell would make sure we take out the launch pad and anything that could repair the launch pad and also anything that could use that launch pad, including the C4 elements.
                                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 26 Feb 13,, 01:31.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X