Theroadlesstravelled Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 In under a week the US have killed Soleiman and all but killed Iran's nuclear deal with no repercussions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pack Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 4 hours ago, Detournement said: . You can't win wars with bombs. It really, really fucking helps though. America would very quickly establish naval and air superiority, there armour is light years ahead of Iran, there's absolutely nothing to suggest Iran would win in an armed conflict. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arabdownunder Posted January 9, 2020 Share Posted January 9, 2020 5 minutes ago, Grant228 said: It really, really fucking helps though. America would very quickly establish naval and air superiority, there armour is light years ahead of Iran, there's absolutely nothing to suggest Iran would win in an armed conflict. The point is that although they would win the fight, establishing a stable, popularly supported, pro-US regime would be impossible. I might give you a hiding on Ruel St but it doesn't mean I'll live happily ever after with yer maw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 15 minutes ago, Grant228 said: It really, really fucking helps though. America would very quickly establish naval and air superiority, there armour is light years ahead of Iran, there's absolutely nothing to suggest Iran would win in an armed conflict. The US usually keep their high value equipment well away from the battlefield, not so easy to do in the Persian Gulf. Last time they tried wargaming it they didn't do too well. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ Of course they would eventually prevail, but at a cost, and if they weren't prepared to occupy and rebuild with maybe half a million troops, what would they have gained? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The US usually keep their high value equipment well away from the battlefield, not so easy to do in the Persian Gulf. Last time they tried wargaming it they didn't do too well. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ Your using an excercise from 18 years ago? And you're being serious? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 27 minutes ago, Grant228 said: It really, really fucking helps though. America would very quickly establish naval and air superiority, there armour is light years ahead of Iran, there's absolutely nothing to suggest Iran would win in an armed conflict. These advantages didn't help them in Vietnam, and Iran has a similar geography in that it's not very traversable in the main. When you couple this with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq all being majority Shia, US supply lines would be very vulnerable to guerrilla warfare. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Grant228 said: Your using an excercise from 18 years ago? And you're being serious? How's Afghanistan going? Nearly finished yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, sjc said: These advantages didn't help them in Vietnam Yes, that conflict from 50 years ago had allot of bearing on how America, and any nation would act in a conflict, technology hasn't moved on at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, Grant228 said: Yes, that conflict from 50 years ago had allot of bearing on how America, and any nation would act in a conflict, technology hasn't moved on at all. The point I was making is that they would still need to put boots on the ground into a Country, actually a Region, fully united in their hatred for the US. Conventional armies don't win guerrilla wars. Even the US wouldn't nuke Iran. They would lose the little Political support they had if they did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, Grant228 said: Yes, that conflict from 50 years ago had allot of bearing on how America, and any nation would act in a conflict, technology hasn't moved on at all. They invaded Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago and are currently negotiating with the Taliban for an "honourable" withdrawal. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Sums it up here. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/09/donald-trump-rant-iran-dying-empire-nato 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Just now, welshbairn said: They invaded Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago and are currently negotiating with the Taliban for an "honourable" withdrawal. Did they lose 20,000 on the first wave in that war? 4 minutes ago, sjc said: The point I was making is that they would still need to put boots on the ground into a Country, actually a Region, fully united in their hatred for the US. Conventional armies don't win guerrilla wars. Even the US wouldn't nuke Iran. They would lose the little Political support they had if they did. The only way America puts boots on the ground in Iran is if they're fighting a conventional war against the Iranian armed forces, for that to happen they'd either need circumstances similar to the first gulf War or they'd need to dupe the public into believing that Iran are about to nuke the USA, again in this instance they'd go in against the Iranian armed forces, if Iraq and Afghanistan has taught anyone,anything about the middle East is that it's pointless to get bogged down in a conflict where there isn't a situation where it's considered a "win", in both the afore mentioned circumstances there would likely be a pretty large coalition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Grant228 said: Did they lose 20,000 on the first wave in that war? The only way America puts boots on the ground in Iran is if they're fighting a conventional war against the Iranian armed forces, for that to happen they'd either need circumstances similar to the first gulf War or they'd need to dupe the public into believing that Iran are about to nuke the USA, again in this instance they'd go in against the Iranian armed forces, if Iraq and Afghanistan has taught anyone,anything about the middle East is that it's pointless to get bogged down in a conflict where there isn't a situation where it's considered a "win", in both the afore mentioned circumstances there would likely be a pretty large coalition. So what would bombing the shit out of Iran achieve exactly? It wouldn't change the Country Politically. If anything, it would strengthen their (the Ayatollahs) hold Politically. If the US wants to bring about regime change they'd need to put boots on the ground. Iran, like Vietnam did, knows that they couldn't win a conventional war with the US so would engage in guerrilla warfare all across Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran itself. This should terrify the American army. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Grant228 said: Did they lose 20,000 on the first wave in that war? They didn't have naval and army bases within range of advanced missiles in that war. I'm not saying it would go like the wargame, just that the penalty would be greater than the prize, yet another Middle East quagmire to waste more trillions on with their very expensive high tech bombs. Britain had the technological advantage in Basra and Helmund and got chased out with their tail between their legs. Edited January 10, 2020 by welshbairn 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, welshbairn said: They didn't have naval and army bases within range of advanced missiles in that war. I'm not saying it would go like the wargame, just that the penalty would be greater than the prize, yet another Middle East quagmire to waste more trillions on with their very expensive high tech bombs. Britain had the technological advantage in Basra and Helmund and got chased out with their tail between their legs. That's very much the plan for some people...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 Mass Media - Evidence suggests that an Iranian missile brought down the Ukrainian passenger plane. Social Media - Trump’s vicious and unprovoked attack on Iran forced them to retaliate and in the process mistakenly hit a plane. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Theroadlesstravelled said: Mass Media - Evidence suggests that an Iranian missile brought down the Ukrainian passenger plane. Social Media - Trump’s vicious and unprovoked attack on Iran forced them to retaliate and in the process mistakenly hit a plane. You say that like the main stream media are some sort of bastians of truth telling. Douma gas attack for prime example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 8 hours ago, welshbairn said: The US usually keep their high value equipment well away from the battlefield, not so easy to do in the Persian Gulf. Last time they tried wargaming it they didn't do too well. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millennium-challenge-qassem-soleimani/ Of course they would eventually prevail, but at a cost, and if they weren't prepared to occupy and rebuild with maybe half a million troops, what would they have gained? Russia and China are developing and testing hypersonic missiles, the US are ahead with their Hypersonic Missiles programme, (at Mach 20), which can be launched from submarines based outside the gulf. The payload can be conventional warhead or nuclear in all cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.