Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 69

Thread: Hypothetical Military Action against Iran

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote 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!!

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote 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.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote 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, at 12:18.

  4. #34
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

  5. #35
    Patron
    Join Date
    06 Dec 09
    Posts
    165
    Quote 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..

    Quote 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, at 15:55.

  6. #36
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

  7. #37
    Patron
    Join Date
    06 Dec 09
    Posts
    165
    Quote 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..

  8. #38
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

  9. #39
    Patron
    Join Date
    06 Dec 09
    Posts
    165
    Quote 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, at 19:03.

  10. #40
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    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.

  11. #41
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    15,869
    Quote 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?
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote 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.

  13. #43
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote 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.

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,060
    Quote 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.

  15. #45
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    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, at 00:31.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Russian analysis: War of words replaces military action
    By Parihaka in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18 Aug 08,, 16:06
  2. Stopping Iran:Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands
    By Shadowsided in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11 May 08,, 01:58
  3. UK's Brown won't rule out military action in Iran
    By Kansas Bear in forum International Politics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26 Jul 07,, 11:13
  4. Military action against Iran would backfire on Israel, report warns
    By Ray in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Apr 07,, 08:17
  5. Khomeini kin seeks action on Iran
    By freedom44 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Jul 04,, 22:04

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •