|
i mean yeah after those battles it turned into guerilla warfare but that's because the us military demonstrated its habit of giving groups of armed dudes standing in groups short-yet-exciting lives with extreme prejudice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw&t=185s most of the conventional fighting was factional in iraq or in the case of afghanistan taliban vs. afghan army because the last dudes dumb enough to try that poo poo against the americans were turned into blackened chunks 15 years ago
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Hezbollah proved the IDF isn't invulnerable and Iran could do the same to the US military, in which case that's basically the end of American empire even if we win. You could resurrect the Second World, even if only as a security coalition, and the US would be permanently checked as a global force.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
I'm dumb but to me it seems like the Iranians could never win a conventional war but they could bloody us badly enough it would start looking bad?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I'm dumb but to me it seems like the Iranians could never win a conventional war but they could bloody us badly enough it would start looking bad? they probably couldn't stop a ground occupation of Tehran as long as the US was willing to throw enough lives at it, but it would be costly and if domestic resistance to all those losses wouldn't be enough to sink the war politically, the US would absolutely lose the occupation
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
another guerrilla insurgency or urban shitshow wouldnt knock US military hegemony down, it would take our toys getting knocked out. as long as the US can just park off someone’s coast and launch airstrikes without getting hit back, that’s what we can always fall back on
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
I keep thinking about the UKs experience in the Falklands and if there is some hypersonic Exocet style missile out there that our old big rear end boats are vulnerable to
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
personally im glad for bolton. he set himself a goal and he's striving to achieve it. 2019 is the year of positivity.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
I don't know about the Iranian chances of sinking an American carrier per se, but they've got the best chance of even pulling it off since, like ... Japan
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:personally im glad for bolton. he set himself a goal and he's striving to achieve it. 2019 is the year of positivity. More than half of congress would support a war with iran, though id love to be proven wrong
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:all this strikes me as very bush derangement syndrome-y To the ignorant Western observer Iran might seem just another third-world Arab country with a "regime", but that's completely wrong. First of all, they're Persian! Iran is Afghanistan-style terrain, 5x the size of Iraq, and double the population. It's a country with a very strong national identity and a modern history of fighting against foreign oppressors - the veterans of the Revolutionary War and the Iraq Invasion are still alive today, and you'll find none of the tribal divisions that the US has taken advantage of in its past 20 years of military adventurism in the Middle East. They actually have an ideology behind their country (surviving at all costs for the sake of Shia Islam), unlike the situation in Iraq where Saddam was ostensibly Baathist or whatever but had lost any capacity for a great national mission, and was just a run-of-the-mill corrupt strongman dictator and everyone knew it - especially his army. And for anyone in Iran who cares about their country's greater geopolitical and ideological objectives, their government has been flexing for the past 15 years. They are satisfied with their leadership. Iran also possesses a modern military, and the Revolutionary Guard is a hardened force with as much institutional experience as the US in urban and asymmetrical warfare, who would be fighting in their home turf. Mobilized, the US possesses the Air and Naval assets to more or less secure Iranian airspace, but an Iraq-style overmatch is actually literally impossible, and the successful prosecution of any ground invasion would require the deployment of the bulk of the US military along with significant allied contributions, the latter which just aren't there because none of America's allies want to poke that hornet's nest for no reason. Or at all, really.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
it's also worth noting that Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq have generally outmatched American/Gulf proxies despite a significant disparity in funding and military hardware.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
How long will it take to capture Washington DC? 2 days Will Trump be killed? Yes Total American civillian casualties: 500 dead Total military casualties America: 3000 dead Total military casualties Iran: 15 dead Will the US army regulars hold the lines? No Will the Marines fight to the end? No Will chem/bio weapons be used on invading troops?: Yes Will Trump launch attacks on Puerto Rico? Yes Will Trump launch attacks on Cuba? No -If yes; will Cuba retaliate harshly? Yes Will Trump sacrifice Washington DC (gas/nuke it)? No Will Puerto Rico make a grab for independence? Yes Will Israel do anything silly like try for land? Yes Will Trump burn the natural gas fields? Yes How long will Iran be occupying the United States? ~15 years Will the Great Satan war catalyze increased terrorism in Iran?No In the long run, will this war be good or bad for the world? Good THS has issued a correction as of 02:22 on May 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Over Easy posted:I keep thinking about the UKs experience in the Falklands and if there is some hypersonic Exocet style missile out there that our old big rear end boats are vulnerable to The Iranians have a ton of anti-shipping missiles. Most are older types purchased from Russia and China, but they're certainly adequate for sinking tankers. I wouldn't be sure about their reliability vs USN warships, as the latter tend to have a lot of electronic warfare capability and active countermeasures, but I wouldn't fully discount the Iranian arsenal either especially in large volleys. There's persistent but unverified (as far as my own quick research on the subject has found) rumors that the Iranians possess some Moskits, which are also an older design, but compared to an Exocet are much faster (Mach 2.2 vs Mach 0.92) and carry a substantially heavier warhead (660 lbs vs 360 lbs).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
It's very unlikely Iran can sink an American carrier. But you don't need to sink a carrier to render it inoperable, either.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 02:32
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:More than half of congress would support a war with iran, though id love to be proven wrong I think the key to that is whether it's a ground war or not. As it stands now, I don't think the results of a vote on an air war with Iran would be meaningfully different than the Yemen resolution, i.e. McConnell would wrangle enough votes to block a veto override but it would probably still pass. If it came down to ground troops, I think enough Republicans would switch votes to override a veto, not because of some moral objection to forever war, but because invading Iran is a losing proposition and they'll be afraid enough of the political consequences to grow a spine.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:they'll be afraid enough of the political consequences to grow a spine. hm
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I think the key to that is whether it's a ground war or not. As it stands now, I don't think the results of a vote on an air war with Iran would be meaningfully different than the Yemen resolution, i.e. McConnell would wrangle enough votes to block a veto override but it would probably still pass. Except there have been much bigger and greater lobbys arguing for war with Iran than there ever were for supporting the war in yemen.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Except there have been much bigger and greater lobbys arguing for war with Iran than there ever were for supporting the war in yemen. Fair point, though I think air war is the sweet spot for those lobbies. Our last Mideast war(s) going south swept out a whole bunch of Republicans and there's very little political risk to an air war.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
we should definitely demand congressional approval for the war in iran, which they will definitely approve
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
ScrubLeague posted:we should definitely demand congressional approval for the war in iran, which they will definitely approve They've already given it, back in 2003. The question is whether they've got the votes to revoke the AUMF, which they do not.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
THS posted:How long will it take to capture Washington DC? 2 days inshallah, azizam
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
Addamere posted:The U.S. military is far from invincible, but it is one of the few militaries in the world with combat-experienced troops, commanders, logistics, etc. As far as militaries go, we have one of the better ones. More important than the actual personnel and materiel here is the institutional knowledge and ability to project power. We've got a wonderful track record of winning military conflicts but then having no idea how to govern the areas we conquer and bleeding while occupying foreign soil. So we can expect more of that, only perhaps the military campaign may be lengthened and of course the body count on all sides will be higher because Iran is far more defensible, hardened, and prepared to meet our invasion forces. It would certainly be the riskiest fight the US picked since Vietnam. Actually no, not at all. Vietnam didn't matter except for China and the USSR who ended up close to a shooting war over their win. The US can't just keep lobbing missles over the horizon, because that wouldn't stop Iran from indefinitely closing the straight. For anything further we have to guess at the tech. Are Carriers really as vulnerable to balistic missles as rumor has it? Conversely how useful are the anti missle batteries like Iron Dome? Is stealth tech as garbage as it seems? What about the Russian anti air batteries? Depending on how this shakes out I could see US carrier groups on the ocean floor and the total destruction of Saudi, because they need very big and easy to hit desalination plants to get water to the 30 million people who live in their otherwise useless desert. And a significant part of the people making the country run are resentful foreigners who will certainly not wait around to die for MBS. Even the absolute baseline scenario is the worst oil crisis since the 70ies. I wouldn't put much stock into "Iranian proxies". The Yemen connection is flimsy and mostly serves as an excuse for the Saudis' raging incompetence. Hezbollah is real, but focused on Israel and who cares about Israel at that point? I also don't really see the EU doing anything. European resistance has amounted to grumbling and foot-dragging at the worst and unless they literally nuke Teheran I don't see that changing. Outside of maybe Corbyn's Labour there just is no political force that really could channel wide spread public revulsion into actual outcomes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 13:15
|
|
|
I'm gonna douse some water on the silkworm masturbation by pointing out that immediately post-collapse the russians and us did a wargame where the russians exercised their plans to sink a carrier group, the idea being massive, overwhelming swarms of missiles with a divergence of time on target of 1 minute. that is, the launches are arranged such that the missiles would be coming from all angles and they'd all hit within a minute of each other. in theory, this'd overwhelm the group's defenses and you end up with a bunch of dead boats. unfortunately for the russians, the iranians, and this thread AEGIS is real and strong and not your friend and it can fairly easily deal with missile spam. the *actual* threat is iran's kilo class submarines, because even the 80s vintage kilo is incredibly quiet, it being a diesel doesn't matter in the gulf, and the usn's anti-sub capabilities went to poo poo immediately post cold war because of budget cuts and retooling to fight operation worthless dirt forever
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkAmesExiled/status/1129059648445792262
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I'm gonna douse some water on the silkworm masturbation by pointing out that immediately post-collapse the russians and us did a wargame where the russians exercised their plans to sink a carrier group, the idea being massive, overwhelming swarms of missiles with a divergence of time on target of 1 minute. that is, the launches are arranged such that the missiles would be coming from all angles and they'd all hit within a minute of each other. in theory, this'd overwhelm the group's defenses and you end up with a bunch of dead boats. unfortunately for the russians, the iranians, and this thread AEGIS is real and strong and not your friend and it can fairly easily deal with missile spam. i mean, who really knows though? its all theoretical until the missiles are fired, and additionally we know that war games are often far more political than truthful you point stands, and isn't bad, i just don't think "they ran a highly publicized simulation and yup it turns out america is as invincible as it says it is" is a definitive conclusion
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
i hope iran does some cool terrorisms in the us if we go to war with them
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Dumb q: have Iran or its allies ever been responsible for an attack on US soil
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Dumb q: have Iran or its allies ever been responsible for an attack on US soil Didn't Iran used to be a US ally? If so then yes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
I exist and this dismays me.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Addamere posted:Didn't Iran used to be a US ally? If so then yes. Iran was an American ally until 1979, when they got rid of the monarch that overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953 through a US-backed coup.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I'm dumb but to me it seems like the Iranians could never win a conventional war but they could bloody us badly enough it would start looking bad? it depends on what you mean by "win". iranian troops aren't going to be marching through the streets of Washington DC no matter what happens. but could Iran hold us off long enough or do enough damage to force us to give up? that depends on a lot of things but i think a war with Iran would veer a lot closer to "Russo-Japanese War" territory than "Spanish-American War" territory. a war triggered largely by the elites without much interest from the general population over poo poo no one really cares about, followed by an utterly humiliating military defeat against an enemy we've long regarded as inferior, providing ample ammunition for a highly unstable political situation to escalate to the point that the elites need to end the war so they can focus their resources on quieting the domestic shitstorm on top of that, although Iran is distant from the US mainland, it's quite close to a number of things that the US elites would dearly hate to see attacked. they could cause a lot more damage to US imperial interests than turn-of-the-century Japan could to Russia
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:the *actual* threat is iran's kilo class submarines, because even the 80s vintage kilo is incredibly quiet, it being a diesel doesn't matter in the gulf, and the usn's anti-sub capabilities went to poo poo immediately post cold war because of budget cuts and retooling to fight operation worthless dirt forever I doubt Iranian subs can sink a US carrier. The Navy took the USS America out to sea and tried to sink her with underwater attacks for four weeks in 2005 until they just scuttled her. https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1129087022637944832?s=19 Pretty wild that one can ask, "Can President Trump stop the Trump Administration from waging war on Iran?" and not sound that crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:I doubt Iranian subs can sink a US carrier. The Navy took the USS America out to sea and tried to sink her with underwater attacks for four weeks in 2005 until they just scuttled her. how does madman theory work when the man is clearly actually mad?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I'm gonna douse some water on the silkworm masturbation by pointing out that immediately post-collapse the russians and us did a wargame where the russians exercised their plans to sink a carrier group, the idea being massive, overwhelming swarms of missiles with a divergence of time on target of 1 minute. that is, the launches are arranged such that the missiles would be coming from all angles and they'd all hit within a minute of each other. in theory, this'd overwhelm the group's defenses and you end up with a bunch of dead boats. unfortunately for the russians, the iranians, and this thread AEGIS is real and strong and not your friend and it can fairly easily deal with missile spam. Not to be rude but I don't think a war game from the early 90's proves much given the advancements in anti-ship missiles since.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:I'm gonna douse some water on the silkworm masturbation by pointing out that immediately post-collapse the russians and us did a wargame where the russians exercised their plans to sink a carrier group, the idea being massive, overwhelming swarms of missiles with a divergence of time on target of 1 minute. that is, the launches are arranged such that the missiles would be coming from all angles and they'd all hit within a minute of each other. in theory, this'd overwhelm the group's defenses and you end up with a bunch of dead boats. unfortunately for the russians, the iranians, and this thread AEGIS is real and strong and not your friend and it can fairly easily deal with missile spam. That's why I said it's a question. We just don't know how this convential war stuff will perform. Not that I really think they will go at it this time. The propaganda just feels weak and the volume is lacking. But then the new guys are pretty dumb and the old guys have been bad at this stuff since the eighties. And then there is the Saudi - Qatar split, so a lot of the think tank and journalism money pulls in different directions now.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
it's hard to have a sober grasp of if there's going to be war, because it seems insanely dumb or unprepared or ill timed but then if you know anything about history, you know that doesn't mean it won't happen
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
That and anti-missile systems (particularly ship-borne ones) are about as real and reliable as "stealth" battleships. They're a great way to sucker the american taxpayer out of money but they've never really been proven on the battlefield and there's alot of justified skepticism regarding their practical application.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:It made the evening network news in the US lol this motherfucker really is doing the think tank circuit. who's ready for internationally recognized interim shah reza pahlavi? https://twitter.com/PahlaviReza/status/1128767910980222980
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2019 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
 https://twitter.com/MaryamSaleh/status/1129384912002404352
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2019 03:51
|
|
