Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

[Baff1 0]

Where green = Third world.

As you say definitions vary.

Iran has the best maritime defenses in the world?

No it doesn't.

It has a couple of diesal submarines some speed boats some mines and some silkworms.

The most dangerous of these are the silkworms with a 90 mile range they could close the gulf. But not for long.

Likewise the mines could also be used to close the shipping lanes, but again, not for long.

The Silkworms are dangerous because they can be moved or hidden from the air.

The rest is cannon fodder.

The U.S. has the best maritime defences in the world or arguably the Russians.

Iran is a third world country. They haven't got dick all.

Logistical support of a U.S. airstrike on Iran would prove very easy, they have 13 aircraft carriers and airbases in Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait and Uzbekistan, plus access to more in Oman and Israel if they needed more.

The B52's can even fly direct from the U.S.

An attack on Iran would result in almost no loses whatsover. Probably none.

I agree that many of Iran's targets are hardened.

Those facilities that a JDAM cannot destroy, must still connect to the surface somewhere.

Those connections can all be destroyed.

This is one reason why I suggest a 3 day air campaign won't bring home the bacon. It's a big place and there are a lot of well defended targets.

I suspect sustained raids will be required to degrade the hardest of their targets.

America has two weak spots vs Iran.

The economic effects of oil prices form the closing of the gulf, and the vulnerability of U.S. troops to Iranian infiltration in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iranians are already attacking them, air supperiority over Iran might actually help limit Iranian resupply.

Either way the opportunity to hit back at a campaign that has already begun is an advantage not a disadvantage.

And with Iraq essentially not producing oil anyway, if the gulf is every going to get closed at anytime in the next 50 years, now is a better time than most.

[simba 0]

iran naval force

I thought they had the sunburn but it seems they don't.

[Messiah 2]

Baff, before you go quoting wikipedia images in an attempt to substantiate your arguments, perhaps take a moment to check the date said map was created.

that map is a cold war era map of what was perceived to be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd world. That would mean it is at the very least 17 years old. Note how the 1st world is capatalist, the 2nd communist and the 3rd everything else? It would therefore be prudent to assume this is a western perception of the three worlds. I'm sure a communist era version would be rather different.

The three worlds at any rate are subjective, open to interpretation and are rather ambiguous. It's an antiquated term that we've not quite got rid of yet.

[Mike Hawk 0]

Too OT for OT.

[Baff1 0]

That's right Messiah that is the cold war definition of third world according to Wikipedia.

There are many different definitions of third world, ranging from trade partners to cold war alliance also including wealth and industrial development status.

The key to this particular discussion however is military capability. So I think a Cold War map cuts closest to the mustard.

On the shown map the blue and the red coloured nations have all the serious firepower. The rest are what Churchill described as "The Pygmies".

[Messiah 2]

militarily then it would of course then depend on their equipment, logisitics, training, yada yada yada - you get the idea

a slight confusion arises in your use of the third world then, because personally I've never heard it used in such a context. The three worlds are/were usually used in relation to development, not militay power. One could argue that the two could go hand in hand, but I don't think the size of a nation's army is accounted for when deciding how developed it is (if it is, then pardon my ramblings, but I'm desperately trying to recall my A level/GCSE/god knows how long ago lessons on it )

like someone said before, it's all rather hypothetical - Untill a conflict arises, one can only really offer opinions on outcomes. Iran could suprise us all and greet american invaders at the borders with flowers, and Ahmadinejad wearing a pair of pink speedos.

unlikely, but anything can happen

if we are then to use your map to now represent military power in reference to the three worlds, I would be rather less inclined to compare and group together Iran's military with that of some pacific atol of 300 people, as would I not leave the Russians as a second world. Whilst , say, the british may perhaps have slightly more modern equipment, I'd dare say that the Russian military could quite happily remove our island nation from the face of the earth. Would that not, then, mean that Russian second world is on par with the british first world?

the map is therefore floored in its simplification of world situations. It doesn't take into account current alliances, political climates, world opinion etc etc.

[Baff1 0]

I use the term third world to demonstrate the wealth, industrial, technological and military gap between Iran and the U.S.

Even if the Iranians were the best trained forces in history, they simply don't have the numbers or the equipment.

They do not have the sheer volume of equipment and military capability to withstand a U.S. air assault, neither do they have the technology, or the infrastructure capability to resupply when all their primary assets get destroyed on the first day.

In the military sense of that map, first second and third world are alliances. With the big players all in blue and red and all all the pygmies in green.

The Atol, is third world aligned. Which means either aligned to "third way" nations such as India or Libyia or Iran or unalligned to either Western or Eastern Blocs.

While Iran is clearly a military giant compared to your pacific atol, they are both still minnows compared to either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.

Iran's military might is closer to that atol, than it is to the U.S.

[Messiah 2]

fair enough, and also because I fear we're straying a little too far off the point (my fault it would appear) we should probably leave it there in terms of definition.

at any rate, as has been previously discussed, the likelihood of such an action is rather slim without an aggressive act on the part of the Iranians (although It is yet to be determined if their nuclear potential is enough of a perceived threat of aggression)

and thats not forgetting of course the current stretch of american forces in other deployments.

[Baff1 0]

My money is down. I've bet on airstrikes.

I don't see the west losing it's oil dependancy with in the next two years.

I cannot see how diplomacy will convince the Iranians to publically and convincingly abandon their nuclear program, (if I was in their position, I wouldn't, and even if I did the Yanks would never believe it) and I don't think Bush has anything left to lose in terms of world opinion or domestic political capital.

I don't think that U.S. public in anyway likes Iranians.

If he says they are about to make (nuclear) WMD, they will buy it.

If he says they have promised to nuke Israel, they will buy it.

If he says they all beat up their wives, they will buy it.

I don't see Iran getting any military reprimands for their aggression.

In my opinion they feel we are weak because we don't militarily respond and they have the stated intention of taking advantage or that weakness to usurp our positions in the Middle East.

I don't see any reason why they will feel the need to reign themselves in at all.

Until it's too late.

An inevitable clash of civilisations.

[churnedfortaste 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

IRGC would come under paramilitary i'm guessing

[Gunney 0]

I call that dailykos article BS imo. If it is true, then that Navy LSO is going to be in a whole world of trouble if they find out who it is. and lol@ the writer of that article, according to her most people in the US military are apolitical and trigger happy people.

[Sennacherib 0]

My money is down. I've bet on airstrikes.

I don't see the west losing it's oil dependancy with in the next two years.

I cannot see how diplomacy will convince the Iranians to publically and convincingly abandon their nuclear program, (if I was in their position, I wouldn't, and even if I did the Yanks would never believe it) and I don't think Bush has anything left to lose in terms of world opinion or domestic political capital.

I don't think that U.S. public in anyway likes Iranians.

If he says they are about to make (nuclear) WMD, they will buy it.

If he says they have promised to nuke Israel, they will buy it.

If he says they all beat up their wives, they will buy it.

I don't see Iran getting any military reprimands for their aggression.

In my opinion they feel we are weak because we don't militarily respond and they have the stated intention of taking advantage or that weakness to usurp our positions in the Middle East.

I don't see any reason why they will feel the need to reign themselves in at all.

Until it's too late.

An inevitable clash of civilisations.

Quote[/b] ]to usurp our positions in the Middle East

lol, the occidentals have also ursurped these positions.

Quote[/b] ]An inevitable clash of civilisations.

no, an inevitable clash of economic interests. USA don't care about the nukes.

they need oil for the future.

that's all.

Iranian authorities are not stupid. they won't use never their bombs (if one day, they get some)

Quote[/b] ]I don't think that U.S. public in anyway likes Iranians.

they don't know anything about the other cultures or peoples (Irak is a good example).

I would not be astonished

[W0lle 1048]

Too OT for OT.

If we need a new moderator joining the team we will let you know.

Until then, let the moderators decide what is OT and what not.

Thanks.

[JdB 151]

Iran feels threatened from all sides (Americans in Iraq to the West, Afghanistan to the East, Saudi Arabia in the South and the possible placement of US bases in the former Sovjet sattelite states to the North, as well as Israel in the West). The only chance for Iran to save it's behind from being invaded for what ever resource is to have a nuclear deterant.

This might actually stabilise the region, since no one will dare to mess with Iran, while Iran will not dare risk open conflict with the US, and the US/Israel won't risk attacking Iran anymore.

No matter how extreme Iran's regime gets, they will never be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons against Israel, as they know both the Israelis and the US will nuke it back to the stone age. Kind of like the Cold War, no open war, massive defence expendatures (arms manufacturers happy). Just some big mouths from time to time that has a much smaller risk of turning into war.

[Baff1 0]

I agree, but that changes very little, they don't like Iranians.

They won't give the president a hard time for ordering any killed.

I think it's also true to say that the Iranians all know equally as little about the Americans they are happy to hear about die.

But even if both sides were imaculately educated about eachother, even if all involved had attained enlightenment. The basic problem still remains.

There isn't enough oil for everyone.

Who do you want to get it?

The USA does care about about nukes.

The Iranian military is capable of closing the gulf.

Leaving the U.S. (amongst others) open to economic blackmail.

However, if it does so, the U.S. will simply take away Irans military capability to do so. (In an estimated 3 days apperently).

Unless Iran has nukes.

In which case Iran can still use it's current naval forces to close the gulf and blackmail the U.S. (amongst others), but this time, the U.S. cannot take away their military ability to do so without fear of massive retaliation.

With nukes Iran can sink the U.S. fleet, destroy any neighbouring airbases, destroy the oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi, obliterate America's 2nd largest foreign marketplace of Berlin.... and generally dominate and invade it's neighbours without serious fear of reprisal.

Remember that oil is not only a question of economics, but also military capability.

I do however feel that you mention "economics" like it's a dirty word.

Like it isn't a good enough reason to go to war.

As if somehow you associate money with evil, not personal freedom, not food, not medecine, not shelter or warm clothing, not life expectancy or the number of children you can support.

This is the sort of attitude I expect from students or people who live on state benefits.

People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

Make no mistake, money is life.

There are only limited resources to support life on this planet.

There can never be enough for everyone. It doesn't work like that.

Cultures will collide.

Iran want's what we have got, and it is bent on force to take it.

Rolling over won't stop them. Neither will it bring peace.

For those dependant on middle eastern oil, it is a simple choice, fight now while the odds are in favour and there is little chance of retaliation, or fight later when the odds are terrible and the price to pay massive.

[scary 0]

Iran has the best maritime defenses in the world?

No it doesn't.

It has a couple of diesal submarines some speed boats some mines and some silkworms.

The most dangerous of these are the silkworms with a 90 mile range they could close the gulf. But not for long.

Likewise the mines could also be used to close the shipping lanes, but again, not for long.

The Silkworms are dangerous because they can be moved or hidden from the air.

The rest is cannon fodder.

I take it you've not been involved in a study of Iranian military capabilities or the planning of military action against Iran?

Iran has D/E Kilos, one of the quietest boats in service, equiped with Hoots, the fastest torpedo in service - this is in addition to their own build midget, minelaying and SDV boats. Iran has no need for SSNs as it doesn't require extended submergence. Iranian Kilos have penetrated the US fleet in the Gulf on numerous occasions.

Iran's surface fleet includes large quantities of missile craft, semi-submersible attack craft, fast attack craft and speedboats with crew-served weapons, all suitable for swarm attacks.

Iranian Noors(Saccade) are as good as US Harpoons, Kowsars are incredibly difficult to track and intercept and Moskits(Sunburn) are probably the best AShM in service and were specifically designed to beat Aegis. Iran has large quantities of each, far more than the USN can effectively deal with.

Quote[/b] ]The U.S. has the best maritime defences in the world or arguably the Russians.

Iran is a third world country. They haven't got dick all.

You clearly don't understand the difference between 'maritime defence' and 'blue-water navy'.

In a recent war-game conducted by the US, simulating an attack on Iran, the USN/USMC lost half their fleet, with 16 major war vessels on the seabed, 5 of the 6 amphibious assault ships were lost, as were numerous carriers and large cruisers - and 20,000 KIA. These war-games are notoriously slanted toward US victory and they only included known Iranian equipment.

The USN is woefully inadequate at ASW and MW and is absolutely reliant on allied navies for the provision of both. The VMF is a hodge-podge mix, primarily of death-traps, with a huge lack of support infrastructure and not enough money for fuel. There hasn't been an exceptional navy in the world since the 50s/60s before NATO re-allignment divided responsibilities - PLAN may develop one ever the next 20 years unless other nations try to compete.

Quote[/b] ]Logistical support of a U.S. airstrike on Iran would prove very easy, they have 13 aircraft carriers and airbases in Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait and Uzbekistan, plus access to more in Oman and Israel if they needed more.

The B52's can even fly direct from the U.S.

Which shows how little knowledge you have of strike operations. US carriers aren't going anywhere near Iran unless the AShM threat etc. is eliminated. Flying from other countries would require their permission, which would be unlikely considering potential Iranian retaliation, and long-range strategic bombers would be sitting ducks to the IRIAF without fighter escorts.

Quote[/b] ]An attack on Iran would result in almost no loses whatsover. Probably none.

This is why uninformed civvies shouldn't plan military operations.

Quote[/b] ]I agree that many of Iran's targets are hardened.

Those facilities that a JDAM cannot destroy, must still connect to the surface somewhere. Those connections can all be destroyed.

And repaired within a week at substantially less cost than a splashed B-52/F-117.

I thought they had the sunburn but it seems they don't.

They do - and are probably in the process of developing their own version.

The best thing to do with Iran would be to leave them alone, then the population would vote for someone slightly less nuts than Ahmadinejad. But that would let loose a Euro oil bourse on the world and the US wouldn't like that.

[JdB 151]

This is the sort of attitude I expect from students or people who live on state benefits.

People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

Greed and religion cause most of the conflicts around the world, not happyness, food or proper education.

Just because there is a price to pay for living doesn't mean you need to take away someone elses life because you want to pay €0,01 less for any resource. That only creates the atmosphere for future conflicts, making for a vicious circle of endless revenge.

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember that oil is not only a question of economics, but also military capability.

I do however feel that you mention "economics" like it's a dirty word.

Like it isn't a good enough reason to go to war.

As if somehow you associate money with evil, not personal freedom, not food, not medecine, not shelter or warm clothing, not life expectancy or the number of children you can support.

This is the sort of attitude I expect from students or people who live on state benefits.

People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

Make no mistake, money is life.

There are only limited resources to support life on this planet.

There can never be enough for everyone. It doesn't work like that.

Cultures will collide.

first, you don't know, my way of life. second, no economic interests are not a good reason to kill a lot of people.

Quote[/b] ]Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

no, the life is simple. mankind make it complicated, with a lot of stupidities.

Quote[/b] ]money is life.

this is YOUR point of view, good luck for the future.

Quote[/b] ]People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

you seem to have lived a lot of things.

you knew the hunger

i have lived that even if i lived in an occidental country. and even to eat during this period, I would not have killed anybody. NO economic interests are not a good reason.

life is more precious than oil, cars, a flag.

so please ....

[Baff1 0]

It's not a blue water navy, those submarines all operate in shallow waters. They can probably been seen from the air.

There aren't very many of them and being diesal they have to surface often. I'd take a reasonable bet that the U.s. navy has the exact location of all of them.

Also a rocket powered torpedo won't sink an aeroplane.

All of Irans surface vessels are 100% vulnerable to airstrike.

Silkworm has a range of 90 km, an F 18 Hornet 360 miles.

Carrier beats Silkworm.

Aegis, won't be used. (Not much point since they don't actually work).

US carriers have a strike range of 360 miles. They won't be entering the gulf until any Silkworm threat and mine threat is cleared. They will be able to operate at the top end of the gulf.

But then they don't have to. The U.S. has access to much better static airstrips in all the countries surrounding Iran. Carriers are just a part of the airforces available for deployment.

B52 will be free to operate in Iran the moment it's tiny outdated airforce is destroyed. So realistically speaking, within an hour of the first second of the first strike.

Although they also have stand off capability weapon systems like Tomahawks which can be laucnhed from 600 miles away.

I would suggest to you, that since the American's have been practising with war games, that they may not send in their assault ships first come the real thing. In fact they may not send in any assault ships at all for an airstrike. (They can't fly!

The Iranians can close the gulf. They have the equipment. What they can't do is keep it closed for long. Sooner or later they will find all the silkworms, sink all the subs and sweep all the mines.

Sooner is my bet.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember that oil is not only a question of economics, but also military capability.

I do however feel that you mention "economics" like it's a dirty word.

Like it isn't a good enough reason to go to war.

As if somehow you associate money with evil, not personal freedom, not food, not medecine, not shelter or warm clothing, not life expectancy or the number of children you can support.

This is the sort of attitude I expect from students or people who live on state benefits.

People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

Make no mistake, money is life.

There are only limited resources to support life on this planet.

There can never be enough for everyone. It doesn't work like that.

Cultures will collide.

first, you don't know, my way of life. second, no economic interests are not a good reason to kill a lot of people.

Quote[/b] ]Life comes at a price and if you can't pay it, you can't keep it.

no, the life is simple. mankind make it complicated, with a lot of stupidities.

Quote[/b] ]money is life.

this is YOUR point of view, good luck for the future.

Quote[/b] ]People who have never experienced poverty and don't recognise the overiding importance of avoiding it.

you seem to have lived a lot of things.

 

you knew the hunger

i have lived that even if i live in an occidental country. and even to eat during this period, I would not have killed anybody. NO economic interests are not a good reason.

life is more precious than oil, cars, a flag.

so please ....

I know that you use money to buy food.

I know that without money to buy food you will die.

That's your way of life.

That's all of our ways of life.

I know that much about you, and you know that much about me.

What is the biggest killer on the planet.

Poverty or war?

You may live well in a rich country, and have never needed for anything, but you should understand where that money comes from.

The food you eat someone else in the world, someone starving, does not.

Make your choice.

You may not wish to fight to escape poverty or fight to keep your loved ones out of poverty, or you mistake never having personally needed to, for it not ever being necessary.

I cannot think of a higher prinicple than defending your people. A more more honorable pursuit.

One way or another, at some time or other in history, someone in your nation, united under your flag, has fought so that you haven't had to.

One day someone will have to do so again.

Western countries didn't get like this by accident.

And when my 90 year old father, struck by heart attack is being driven to hospital, his life will be no more precious than the oil powered car that he is riding in. Or the flag that pays for the hospital and the doctors that await him.

My greed, my economic bullying, will save his life.

That same greed which will kill an Iranian will save someone I love.

[Sennacherib 0]

I leave you with your certainty. good luck for the future. that is not gained with such a state of mind

[Baff1 0]

Go travelling if you can Dante.

Visit somewhere where food and oil and cars aren't all taken for granted.

[Spokesperson 0]

I doubt the US has the military capacity needed to maintain wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran at the same time. And then we've got the free-market opponents in Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea who don't want to let US companies (=power to decide) in.

[SEAL84 0]

Best solution: get the hell out of the Middle East.

We're wasting time, money, and young men and women on a war we didn't need to fight in the first place. If we leave Iran alone, we won't radicalize their population and prompt Mr. Windbreaker (he does wear a lot of those, sorta like Georgie actually...) to beef up his military and pursue nuclear weapons. They'll continue supplying the Iraq insurgency but the simple solution to that problem is for our 'leaders' to stop kidding themselves and withdraw. Iran will never be a friend but if we refrain from poking them with a sharp stick I think they'll be content to limit their attacks on us to the verbal variety.

Attacking Iran, fortunately, is nearly impossible since we're spread too thin, have downsized our military, and have by several accounts sent so much equipment and ammunition to Iraq that there's literally none left anywhere else. ANG units have been leaving their gear there for the next units for years and a buddy of mine recently showed me a report that US law enforcement agencies are having trouble getting enough ammo to even train because they're using so much in Iraq.

edit: ammo shortage

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070817/D8R2UKLG0.html

reporting contributed by the Associated Press.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

The only time I envision a US strike on Iran is when Iran achieves the power to build nuclear weapons. I remember a quote from a movie whose title I can't recall right now but it said: "I don't fear the man that has 10 nuclear weapons, I fear the man that has only one." Let's not forget that Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism and also is fostering unrest in Iraq, combine those factors with nuclear power and the world will be faced with a very scary scenario indeed, because the next strike in NY or Washington DC may not be from simple airliners or even promoted by Al Qaeda... it may very well be soon a memory erased by a giant mushroom cloud of radioactive fire. Sanctions aren't working against Iran, and I doubt they will. Of course, history has hardened Iran against the U.S., they have their reasons to hate America, but they're affecting the whole world with terrorism, even Europe which they consider more friendly. To be frank, the whole world wouldn't give a rat about what's happening in the Middle East if it weren't so dependant on oil, so I sure hope the world changes so that such radicals can be left alone, once and for all. The best thing to happen would be for all armed forces not belonging to anywhere in the Middle East to pull out when the world is no longer dependant on its oil, letting the Shias fight the Sunnis for all they care - if they are determined to destroying each other, who are we to stop them? And Afghanistan could easily be solved - get all the good people out of that barren piece of land whose only green scenery is drug industry, and nuke that place to oblivion, every inch of the country. Surely there are still enough nukes to go around to perform that task. I wonder if even the Taliban will want to be in Afghanistan after that...