|
Yea I don't think you actually are using the right metrics. Yea if we sent literally everything we have that can make someone die over to Iran at once we could pretty much turn them into a smoking crater with a broken 'NOW ENTERING IRAN' sign in front of it but that's...not how actual war works? We have one carrier group (maybe two? Didn't we just move one with a couple B-52s over?) in the region, Iran has...Iran...it's their house. They can absolutely sink our poo poo and turn it into a game of us having to figure out which one of our friends will ruin their future in the region by letting us stage there, and spoiler alert all we have is Iraq and Saudi who could do that and those guys won't be happy getting drawn in to a bloody war and becoming a major target too. Iran, meanwhile, can just swat our poo poo and launch attacks on our poo poo all day.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Yea I don't think you actually are using the right metrics. Yea if we sent literally everything we have that can make someone die over to Iran at once we could pretty much turn them into a smoking crater with a broken 'NOW ENTERING IRAN' sign in front of it but that's...not how actual war works? We have one carrier group (maybe two? Didn't we just move one with a couple B-52s over?) in the region, Iran has...Iran...it's their house. They can absolutely sink our poo poo and turn it into a game of us having to figure out which one of our friends will ruin their future in the region by letting us stage there, and spoiler alert all we have is Iraq and Saudi who could do that and those guys won't be happy getting drawn in to a bloody war and becoming a major target too. Iran, meanwhile, can just swat our poo poo and launch attacks on our poo poo all day. The US always rotates carrier groups into maintenance, as one comes out of maintenance another will start heading back, that's just the MO with them. You say this is impossible but look what the US did to Iraq and Afghanistan. This is literally SOP for american intervention. It's currently being done in Yemen as we speak, literally to a t: famine is being enforced and humanitarian institutions are being actively and deliberately destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Yea I don't think you actually are using the right metrics. Yea if we sent literally everything we have that can make someone die over to Iran at once we could pretty much turn them into a smoking crater with a broken 'NOW ENTERING IRAN' sign in front of it but that's...not how actual war works? We have one carrier group (maybe two? Didn't we just move one with a couple B-52s over?) in the region, Iran has...Iran...it's their house. They can absolutely sink our poo poo and turn it into a game of us having to figure out which one of our friends will ruin their future in the region by letting us stage there, and spoiler alert all we have is Iraq and Saudi who could do that and those guys won't be happy getting drawn in to a bloody war and becoming a major target too. Iran, meanwhile, can just swat our poo poo and launch attacks on our poo poo all day. I'm pretty sure any attempt to launch from Iraq would create another insurgency, to say nothing of the fact that the government probably wouldn't let us in in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The US always rotates carrier groups into maintenance, as one comes out of maintenance another will start heading back, that's just the MO with them. https://news.usni.org/2018/09/26/aircraft-carrier-deployments-25-year-low This is not actually true! Because of the intense demands of the Iraq War and over a decade of nonstop conflict there is a major “maintenance gap” affecting the carrier force and dramatically reducing American ability to project power for the next several years at least. There are, of course, analogous problems throughout the rest of the armed forces (like the Army having to reduce it’s recruitment targets again and again)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Flip Yr Wig posted:I'm pretty sure any attempt to launch from Iraq would create another insurgency, to say nothing of the fact that the government probably wouldn't let us in in the first place. well yea, even the Saudis wouldn't let us do it, I'm just saying those are literally the only even possible options, everyone else is 'don't bother even asking'. Herstory Begins Now posted:The US always rotates carrier groups into maintenance, as one comes out of maintenance another will start heading back, that's just the MO with them. Iraq and Afghanistan were not in anywhere near the position Iran is in to defend itself, come on. That's like saying I should sign onto UFC because I beat up a homeless guy who I had already spent a decade slowly poisoning. Yemen was even in a worse situation and had the added power of the Saudis loving them up too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
The only group capable of taking over administration of the country is the IRA. Iran benefits from a pre-empite decisive strike against america, Which means america will launch a pre-pre-emptive strike. When Iran paraded soldiers around they set off a large portion of JCS to destroy at all costdm
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:I repeat: what would even be defined as "victory" in such a conflict? Killing the Ayatollah and anyone who was dumb enough to appoint themselves the new Supreme Leader. It'd be a Crusade and treated as such. It's easily the costliest war we could choose to fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:well yea, even the Saudis wouldn't let us do it, I'm just saying those are literally the only even possible options, everyone else is 'don't bother even asking'. I mean you can click my post history if you want to see posts I wrote about how the US basically will get its poo poo pushed in if they try to invade Iran back when this thread was on a 'iran is literally powerless against the US kick' but the imbalance of power between the US offensive capability and Irans defensive capabilities is extremely one-sided. The US just can't occupy Iran. loving up air and naval defenses, military assets, military cnc, radar sites, and crippling society by blowing up vital civilian facilities is literally what they are specialized and purpose built for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I don’t think the US public would accept Vietnam level casualties in an era of social media. They'll never be able to bring back the draft. Unless we get invaded by aliens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I mean you can click my post history if you want to see posts I wrote about how the US basically will get its poo poo pushed in if they try to invade Iran back when this thread was on a 'iran is literally powerless against the US kick' but the imbalance of power between the US offensive capability and Irans defensive capabilities is extremely one-sided. The US just can't occupy Iran. loving up air and naval defenses, military assets, military cnc, radar sites, and crippling society by blowing up vital civilian facilities is literally what they are specialized and purpose built for. i feel like after reading/listening/watching the iran iraq war. invading iran could end in operation downfall levels of horror and i can't understand how these chickenhawk morons keep looking at this and thinking it would be an easy win. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i feel like after reading/listening/watching the iran iraq war. invading iran could end in operation downfall levels of horror and i can't understand how these chickenhawk morons keep looking at this and thinking it would be an easy win. I don’t see how anyone is arguing it’s easy just that it’s possible yet at a extremely high cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Question, Iranians are dumb illiterate goat herders with no other resources than the oil they can't sell, so their military is puny and would be crushed instantly. Also the Houthis are dumb illiterate goat herders with no resources except the qat they munch constantly, so the recent attack against a Saudi oil thingamajig that has impressed everyone by its efficiency can only have been done by the Iranians. Herstory Begins Now posted:The salient point wrt Iran is that the US has the ability to blow Iran's economy and infrastructure literally into the stoneage and then to sanction all the supplies necessary ot rebuild and by doing so kill an absolute fuckton of people and destroy Iran's stability and quality of life for a generation or two, eg comparable to what happened in Afghanistan. The possibility of the US going bull in a china shop in Iran is a lot scarier than the US launching some ill-fated regime change invasion effort in Iran. Like the US killed half a million Iraqi kids by blowing up infrastructure and then applying harsh sanctions, deaths from all the conflict and sectarian poo poo in the 2nd Iraq war never came close to the insane scale and raw brutality of the sanctions. Yes, "genocide" is a win condition the USA can achieve in Iran. It is also the win condition they can have. So unless the USA clearly set their goal as "genociding millions of Iranians through a brutal military campaign of annihilation", they will lose any conflict against Iran. It's the same poo poo as in Afghanistan (about which Trump recently declared that he was thinking of genocide as an achievable victory), it's the same poo poo as in Vietnam, and it's the same poo poo as in Iraq. Americans play loving video games, they think they're in Sid Meier's Civilization or something, they think they can just go through the tech tree faster than the other countries, build up a giant army, and then automatically win everything because they've got the biggest numbers. And that's why American strategic thinking is complete bullshit, and that's why America hasn't won any war since WW2. If you don't set genocide as your victory condition, you'll lose. You'll lose just like in Iraq, where you set your win condition as "establish American puppet state and take all the oil" and the only outcome you achieved was "exhaust American military forces nearly to the breaking point while turning Iraq into a puppet state of Iran". Go to war with Iran, you'll succeed at ruining Iran, you'll succeed at murdering millions, but you won't succeed at anything besides death and destruction. I can guarantee you one thing: whatever the outcome of the war, it'll be deeply, thoroughly detrimental to American interests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:loving up air and naval defenses, military assets, military cnc, radar sites, and crippling society by blowing up vital civilian facilities is literally what they are specialized and purpose built for. The US military does not currently possess the logistical capacity to do this to Iran, either. With the assets in place the best they can do ATM is contest and likely win control over the Strait. At a cost. To actually cripple Iran, without allied assistance, would require abandoning other theaters in order to muster the forces necessary. And again, there would be a cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Iranians are dumb illiterate goat herders with no other resources than the oil they can't sell, so their military is puny and would be crushed instantly.  forgive me for asking a completely if somewhat naive question but I guess it’s cooler to be snide than help someone who’s trying to understand worldwide politics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I don’t see how anyone is arguing it’s easy just that it’s possible yet at a extremely high cost. i didnt mean anyone here. i mean the various ghouls like cotten and graham and poo poo. the guys who think we will "kick down the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse" type poo poo. i feel that the US would win the war. but it would be a loving horror show. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Just curious, is there a real difference between a suicide drone and a cruise missile?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:Just curious, is there a real difference between a suicide drone and a cruise missile? Speed and loiter times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
pro starcraft loser posted:Just curious, is there a real difference between a suicide drone and a cruise missile? Autonomous vs human-guided operation? Possible reattack or recovery in case of a failed or aborted attack? The Quds-1 and Soumar keep getting called drones, but at least the latter was based on the Kh-55, and there's clearly a degree of convergent evolution going on with, say, the BGM-109 Tomahawk or even the V-1. To a public affairs spokesdroid and the general public they're functionally interchangeable, except the good guys have cruise missiles and the bad guys have suicide drones.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i didnt mean anyone here. i mean the various ghouls like cotten and graham and poo poo. the guys who think we will "kick down the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse" type poo poo. i feel that the US would win the war. but it would be a loving horror show. I think Graham knows internally that war would be a disaster but is just rattling along with the rest of the neoconservatives to keep his job. Cotton is freaking deluded and doesn’t care or believes that a war would be worth the cost even if it’s extraordinary high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I think Graham knows internally that war would be a disaster but is just rattling along with the rest of the neoconservatives to keep his job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
I feel like even if an awful war did happen Cotton would likely get re-elected. Ughhhhh. That thought makes me want to puke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Pertinent reminder time that in the leaked diplomatic cables, KSA was 100% angling for a war with Iran, they just were trying to ensure that it was American boots on the ground. Ironically of the three countries that would love a conflict, none of them outside of the most rabid hawk wings have any interest in putting their own troops on the ground in Iran. IMO the 'targeted strikes' plus sanctions poo poo is a terrifying possibility, but something substantial would have to change for anyone to serious advance the ground invasion poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
I'm scared that people in the US military and the current administration have looked at the Iranian protests against the IRI government over the past decade and decided they can come in with military force and inspire a successful internal revolt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:19
|
|
|
Isn't half the population of Iran under 30 or something? US is gonna use that to its advantage. A lot of Iranians are tired of the ayatollah spending loads of money on proxy groups while most cannot get decent jobs and poo poo. With sanctions people are gonna have enough.
Less Claypool fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Sep 19, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I think Graham knows internally that war would be a disaster but is just rattling along with the rest of the neoconservatives to keep his job. i think graham is deluded enough to believe it would be an easy fight. he just doesn't have anything to lose from a horrible war so he doesn't care. Herstory Begins Now posted:Pertinent reminder time that in the leaked diplomatic cables, KSA was 100% angling for a war with Iran, they just were trying to ensure that it was American boots on the ground. Ironically of the three countries that would love a conflict, none of them outside of the most rabid hawk wings have any interest in putting their own troops on the ground in Iran. IMO the 'targeted strikes' plus sanctions poo poo is a terrifying possibility, but something substantial would have to change for anyone to serious advance the ground invasion poo poo i mean a dark part of me would be fine with the KSA feeding itself dick first into the meat grinder in iran. the obvious issues is that thousands upon thousands innocents will die. like you(i believe) have said, they would already be trying to invade if they wern't losing hard in yemen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
Lets then discuss targeted strikes. I agree this is a plausible event, unlike invasion which is very unlikely. So, what would the US hit? Well Iran's nuclear facilities are an obvious target. Also stuff like military bases/airfields, ports, oil refineries, and offshore oil rigs. If we take as an example what Trump did in Syria -hitting an airfield to pretty minimal effect- then any of these targets could be chosen. Trump would declare victory, Iran would signal defiance, and honestly that may be that. Assad didn't respond, and Iran hasn't responded against Israel hitting Iranian targets in Syria. Iran has many avenues of escalation if it did want to respond, including through its numerous proxies in the region. If the US took it upon itself to really damage Iran, well that gets tricky. Iran's nuclear program has been built over several decades with the assumption that someone was going to try and bomb it. They're spread out across the country; some are built under mountains, have AA defenses, and likely decoys. This wouldn't be like the time Israel bombed the Osiris reactor in Iraq, back in the 80s, or a similar operation in Syria in the 00s I think. It would take a big, concerted effort just to hit every site, let alone effectively destroy each site.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean a dark part of me would be fine with the KSA feeding itself dick first into the meat grinder in iran. the obvious issues is that thousands upon thousands innocents will die. like you(i believe) have said, they would already be trying to invade if they wern't losing hard in yemen. I would laugh really hard if they destroyed MBS 500 million super yacht.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Less Claypool posted:I would laugh really hard if they destroyed MBS 500 million super yacht. Oh man that's the perfect target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I'm scared that people in the US military and the current administration have looked at the Iranian protests against the IRI government over the past decade and decided they can come in with military force and inspire a successful internal revolt. I think most citizens dislike their own governments naturally but dislike invaders even more and would fight rather than rebel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
Less Claypool posted:I would laugh really hard if they destroyed MBS 500 million super yacht. gently caress I wish WE would bomb it
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
TasogareNoKagi posted:Autonomous vs human-guided operation? Possible reattack or recovery in case of a failed or aborted attack? I think drones are cheaper because they integrate a higher proportion of civilian tech, whereas missiles are 100% custom developed and built.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Obama didn't get congressional support for overthrowing the Libyan regime, so there's a hell of a lot Trump could do without going to Congress. That was under UN authorization, which supersedes need for congressional authorization, due to the various UN treaties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
i think whats confusing the issue is that there were small cruise missiles AND more conventional 'suicide drones' in the attack. like the winged drones look like they could do a lot of things other than being missiles, where as the long tubular missile-like drone is pretty clearly a cruise missile, just small.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:Killing the Ayatollah and anyone who was dumb enough to appoint themselves the new Supreme Leader. It'd be a Crusade and treated as such. It's easily the costliest war we could choose to fight. Please don't ban this poster for voicing their thoughts. I still hope that a peaceful solution can be had between Iran and the infidels. Seriously though, Trump probably isn't going to do much because such would require real action and consequences and the man is ultimately a coward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I think most citizens dislike their own governments naturally but dislike invaders even more and would fight rather than rebel. I mean just looking at the modern history of Iran shows that pretty clearly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:I mean just looking at the modern history of Iran shows that pretty clearly. But none of this matters to neoconservatives even if they knew that history because they believe in American exceptionalism such as evangelicals Christians like Mike Pompeo. Ugh, the 2020 elections can’t come soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
So are we (the USA) going to war? I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Edgar posted:So are we (the USA) going to war? I hope not. I jumped once I saw Bolton left but issue like North Korea just kick the can down the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
All Iran would need to do to "win" this conflict is hit the desalination plants of the Gulf states and KSA to create a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands would die of thirst in a few days, causing mass civil unrest and panic. I doubt all those millions of If you don't think that's possible I have some Aramco shares to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:All Iran would need to do to "win" this conflict is hit the desalination plants of the Gulf states and KSA to create a humanitarian crisis where hundreds of thousands would die of thirst in a few days, causing mass civil unrest and panic. I doubt all those millions of imagine what an explosion of 100x the magnitude would have done. Also Gas prices went up 50 cents in the last day. at least for me
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2019 06:34
|
|