If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Dont kid yourself, Iran couldnt flatten Israel, let alone the United States.
One battalion of US tanks with air support could decimate the entire Iranian army.
No nukes for Iran, the mad mullahs must not get their hands on nuclear weapons.
Why not?
*COUGH* What happened last time the US decided to pick on little ol' Iran?
and why should america have them...you constantly avoid answering these questions coming out with weird unfounded bullshit...bush has been in office for just over 4 years and he's invaded 2 countries and you're happy enough for him to have nukes...now that is truly mad :shocking: :shocking: :shocking:
Lets face it, Iran is not Iraq, they have an Army, a good one. The yanks while good have proven that they aren't the best, and have shot far to many of their own to be acceptable. Perhaps the Iranians will jsut hide for a bit and let the US guys decimate their own?
Plus the Iranians are fanatical and well trained. And if Iraqi's with RPG's can take out Apache's, well...
Sorry, you're talking bollocks. The Iranian Army is large, but it lacks modern equipment and its doctrine is based on mass use of infantry and is suspectible to its CC&C being taken out. If it was better than the Iraqi's - how come it didn't slaughter them during the Iran-Iraq war.
Its got no decent airforce or SAMs and would be unable to stop the USAF romaing at will.
The reason British and US armies (and most others) use SAMs is that you've got to be lucky to hit a flying object with an RPG and even if you hit it you need to be even luckier to bring it down.
Even the blue on blue has been exxagerrated. In WW2 blue on blue losses were about 30% of casualties - its only now that the media focus on them.
I agree the spams aren't the best... they do come second after the British though
Iran wouldn't fall easily. It might be outdated equipment, but what era was the jet plane that got the first A2A kill in Gulf War one made? 1960's. And it got away, more to the point.
Before the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi army was something like the 5th most powerful in the world, I beleive? When titans clash, its always chaos.
So jsut how outdated are the Iranian Apache helicopters? We have MiG-29's (Still formidable, can take on an F/A-18 and win) and F-14's too. The T-72 is still an able tank. While not as good as an Abrams or Challenger, it is still a viable main battle tank.
Also, think that Iran's navy could sink oil tankers and cut of oils supplies out of the Area for a good while. That would hardly be good, would it? They could soon arm the Shi'ite with really devastating weapons in Iraq if they chose. Think of the damage the US's credability would take, and Iraq would no longer be a stronghold where they could place forces.
Its all in the Tactics. Iran wouldn't immediatley oppose a US incursion in a big way. They would get in alright, the supplies wouldn't make it far behind them, mind. Once your in and cut off... Well, 'nuff said. I know Iran isn't gonig to stomp on the US militray straight away. It wouldn't be cake walk like Iraq though. They would end up in much of a stalemate if anything.
Oh, and an RPG to the tail rotor.. well, Helicopter's down. Obviously planes etc are pointless firing at, but a chopper can be done.
But a stinger is far better
Guerilla warfare has never won a war on its own (in Vietnam the real killing was done by the NVA with the VC in a secondary role). We can assume that if the US goes in its willing to take casualties (unlike Somalia - which they did think was going to be a cake walk) - so the guerillas to win need to take control of the ground. The troubke is if they take control of the ground they will be wiped out by artillery and airstrikes. They can't win and the best they can do is cause some political embarrassment to the US and perhaps every now and then launch a 'spectalcular'
The Iranians simply don't have the air control to deal with Stealth aircraft. OK they might get lucky and take down a few US aircraft, but not enough. Added to this they have no realistic defence against Surface to surface Missilies which are taking out their command and control. By the time any T-72s even got to within striking range of US forces there command would have been so seriously degraded that whilst they might be able to take out a few US tanks, they'd be unable to launch a co-ordinated assault (GW1, for example).
However the bigger problem is spares, the Iranians just don't have them. They have a lot of equipment which basically can't move or would have to be cannabalised to get the rest in any condition. lack of spares has also a knock-on effect on the amount of training you can do.
A lucky shot from an RPG will take down an Apache - but you have to launch a lot of RPGs first, and in doing so loose a lot of men. And even then a properly co-ordinated assault means the Apache's are protected from ground fire by the ground troops and in turn blast the ground troops in.
There would be casualties amongst the US, but not enough to stop them if they had the political will. Of course, whether they have the political will is another matter...
Did I put we have MiG-29's? My bad! I meant they... x(
Thing wqith combating Guerilla's is, when you want to they blend into the background. Hence you end up killing Civilians. And yes, when they take towns they do end up loosing them, in alot of situations. Don't assume Guerilla warfare has never one on its own, Revolutions use it. But this isn't a Revlolution. Guerilla warfare is a good defensive tool though to back you up.
The Iranians have their own Surface to Surface Missiles too... They ain't to bad, but they aren't grand either. Their a darn sight better than the SCUDS, mind. But SCUDS are cool.
Air power will decimate alot of their ground units which aren't hidden or protected, granted. The Iranian airfore should manage to get a few kills in though, its hardly bad.
It'll be a mess. A big mess. The US will have to attack with ground and air together, unlike Iraq, where the Apache's jsut went in, killed it all, and the ground guys cleared up any remaining chaps. They'll do it at a cost. And they had better watch their backs, or they'll get trapped in the middle.
And don't forget, the Iranians probably won't surrender like the Iraqi's did. The US might be technologically superior, but that often doesn't win wars. It might end up like Korea...
Then once the Iranians have been downgraded enough the US ground forces go in against and weakened oppossition and clear up units which haven't recieved either supplies or orders for days.
With their main forces destroyed I think many (but not all of the Iranians) will turn out not to be fundamentalists and whilst there may be guerilla war for a while it will struggle to get enough popular support to last more than three/four years.
No doubt the US would suffer losses I just don't think they'd be catastrophic.
That said no matter what happens there's still some member of the poor bloody infantry having to do the mopping up whilst the poor bloody infantry on the other side is in a foxhole shooting at them.
Yes, it does. The US army today is light years ahead of the Iranian one, much more so than the it was in 1970 against the NVA.
If the US was to attack Iran the war would be fought on the plains with the Iranian army and tank battalions are no match for cruise missles, apache helicopters and digital warfare.
And we must remember that post 9/11 the US is willing to take casualties, remember, they were attacked first.
so i guess now you've widened the target from al quaeda to the whole of the middle east? moron........in my opinion america is surprised by how much resistance they are still getting in iraq, it's no picnic out there, im pretty sure saddam is no idiot and helped to instigate the guerilla warfare.........if bush and co have the guts to go into iran as well human casualties will soar, they will really have to fool the public into believing all those deaths are necessary.........maybe that is possible, i dunno americans are easily led...........and anyways iran have pretty much said if the u.s. touches them they will attack israel de facto, the two are like siamese twins.......and they have china and russia on their side, with trade and military alliances they are not going to step back and let america do this surely...........
I think destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities is the most likely possibility should diplomacy fail.
i don't think it's that clear cut.......if u.s. or israel makes a move to strike nuclear capabilities, i do believe iran will attack israel, who will then retaliate........they're not gonna lie down and take it, would you?.......lol if someone decided to strike our nuclear capabilities do you think britain would lie on their arse?......iran are under-rated, in terms of firepower, ability, and alliances........
If Technology won wars we would all be marching under the Swastika. Nazi Germany was lightyears ahead of everyone else, bloody impressive technology. Litterally. But determination won in the end.
Why does everyone think the whole Middle East is run by Al Quedia? Honestly, your the kind of Idiots Bush loves! The only link between Iraq and Al Quedia would be... they both have an I, A, and Q in them.
Lets let Iran get WMD's. Then the US will leave it alone and not interfere in another countries business again, for no reason. Notice now they've left N.Korea alnoe since they got nukes, eh? :yes:
Kim Jong-il is the only beneficiary of being left alone, while the north koreans starve, live in a totalitarian state with no free press and no semblance of democracy.
The humanitarian arguments for intervention are compelling. North Korea's nuclear capability unfortunately means that North Korea (and the starving, suffering North Koreans) will remain "free" from intervention.
If you want Iran to have WMD's, you don't believe in non-proliferation. Everyone should have nukes! An arms race is not what the middle-east needs, it needs peace and diplomacy. Iran has 40% of its population under the poverty line, and it wants to pour who-knows how much money in building underground blahblahblah Israeli-missile proof nonsense!
The likelihood of Iran being invaded with or without "nucular" weapons is vanishingly small, Iran doesn't want those weapons to defend itself but to threaten Israel. Why anyone would want a theocratic islamofascist state like Iran threatening anyone with anything is beyond understanding.
But what matters is creating an extraordinarily dangerous nuclear standoff in the middle-east, one country called a "suicide state" the other a "one bomb country".
thats rubbish, i believe in non-proliferation for all or none..........what gives countries with nukes the right to tell others they can't have them.......why don't they set an example? i realise this will never happen.......and so do iran.
someone should tell israel that, they are the biggest weapon hoarders in the region.....
- their military expenditure is twice that of iran's.........they are ranked about the 6th most powerful military nation in the world (after u.s., russia, china, u.k., and india), mainly thanks to america, who have given around $134,000,000,000 in financial aid since 1949, a lot of which has gone to increase military might.....so much for wanting stability in the middle east......my arse.
- they are one of the few countries that refuse to sign and ratify the BWC or the NPT, and bars international inspections..........they still haven't ratified the CWC.....iran have
- have a look at israel's WMD capability, and then have a look at iran's........
and then ask yourself who is the warmongering nation? israel is defiant in its intent to stockpile to the roof, and this is causing the instability......duvdevan answer me what gives them the right to tell iran to dismantle or that they will strike iran's nuclear capability?.....
more rubbish, the nuclear deterrent is the most effective this is fact.........don't you think a more accurate statement would be to say they feel threatened by the u.s. and israel.........? maybe they wouldn't feel the urge to acquire nukes if bush wasn't constantly on about them and his axis of evil crap........iran aren't stupid they can hear the noises too.
And even if did attack Israel, Iraq did the same in GW1. Without nukes the damage is lightly to be slight (and the whole point of attacking Iran is to stop them going nuclear) and Israel will be quite happy not to retaliate as its not in interests to do so.
That said my feeling is Iran is playing a dangerous game of bluff - shortly it will agree to dismantle its nuclear programme in return for for other US technology which it needs more (in oil extraction and agriculture primarily) and other concessions from the US>
Why do you think that is? Perhaps because the Arabs have tried to wipe their country off the map multiple times?
Not at all, but as the US has set itself against WMD for rogue states the public will not flinch from a fight.
Unfortunately for the neo-cons, the escalating US army casualties and the never-ending chaos Iraq remains, with no withdrawal in sight for an already stretched US army, means an invasion of Iran is not an option, from both a political and military point of view. The best they can hope for now is the launch of a few dozen cruise missiles from a safe distance against Iran's nuclear installations.
Not that Israel broke a whole bunch of treaties, invaded Palestine and slaughtered civilians? Oh no, never! Why is that Ignored? Because they are good freinds with the US of A.
The US had declared war not on rouge nations or WMD's, but nations with Oil. If it were a war on Rouge nations, N.Korea would be a democracy by now. They are the biggest rouge nation threat violating human rights the most. FFS, they are testing chemical weapons on civilians. And they have nukes. Even China is worried about them.
40% of the population is below the poverety line? Trade embago's by the US don't help. They are nothing but a way of starving out a nation. Im glad to see Cuba fighting her's, and carrying on regardless. :thumb: Why is that declared a threat anyone? Why does the US think Cuba will invade it? Poor Cuba.
why not staRT manufacturing millions of them and selling them off the counter ...how about angola ...turkey ...the isle of man?
everythings gone tits up since i was your kind of ages ..
we wanted all nukes gone ...now ...some of you believe that cos the big boys and bullies have got them ...the little guys should have them!
do you not see how dumb and stupid and retarded nd unbalanced some of you are becoming?
more cameras ...can't hunt ...can't smoke ...can't protest ...more nukes ...
what a sad sad state of affairs.
i pressume those who think the likes of iran should have nukes ...pray the power brokers and indecision makers in these countries are brighter than themselves.
I personally feel no one should be allowed nukes, but i would rather everyone was on a level playing field because as devoted as a lot of fundamentalists are in the middle-east, I am much more terrified of the power the american people entrust to George Bush
(You also have to remeber that the entire world is affected by the leadership of this superstate). Maybe if America hadn't launched two illegal wars this century I might feel differently butr how can anyone say that the middle east is unhinged yet claim there is nthing wrong in america???
How is this fair that they should then decide other countries cant have nukes! (The only way to ensure defence against a nuclear attack from the countries in possesion of nukes!)
the idea of vast opposing forces acting as each others deterrent is sheer insanity!
the west are vicious imperialists,we know that...but don't forget that you will be seen as one of them in war......the playstation will have to go for a start!
you would have to fight to protect your way of life...no chance to tell your side of the story.
i to wish that nuclear weapons did'nt exist,but they do! and we have to be realistic imo.
And what about all the innocent civilians that will be seen as evil Al Quedia?
I agree!