Wars in Serbia, Libya and Iraq tends to tell us what the Russian systems can do. Did it saved them from being bombed constantly? Don't know why Putin is involved in this conversation. Its not like Russia helped save Serbia from being bombed.
Iran's military chief says ready for war with US, Israel
- Thread starter $@rJen
- Start date
Wars in Serbia, Libya and Iraq tends to tell us what the Russian systems can do. Did it saved them from being bombed constantly? Don't know why Putin is involved in this conversation. Its not like Russia helped save Serbia from being bombed.
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
They make "Ready for War" announcements like this almost every year...not news.
November 2011
Iran 'ready for war': Tehran will retaliate if Israel and the West attack nuclear plants | Mail Online
2006
Iran 'Ready for War,' But Seeks Peace: Envoy | Europe | DW.DE | 17.04.2006
North Korea has also made almost yearly "Ready for War" announcements for the last 50 years.
November 2011
Iran 'ready for war': Tehran will retaliate if Israel and the West attack nuclear plants | Mail Online
2006
Iran 'Ready for War,' But Seeks Peace: Envoy | Europe | DW.DE | 17.04.2006
North Korea has also made almost yearly "Ready for War" announcements for the last 50 years.
hussain0216
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 21,096
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Look, in order to attack iran, the first thing the USA needs is a base, this base has to be out of range of the thousands of missiles iran has.
No country in close range would want to be that base because regardless of the difference in ability, iran has developed a number of missiles and knowing the threat have prepared themselves for atleast the last decade.. so iran is not like iraq or libya it has options to retaliate.
This alone limits the chances of success of any action against Iran.
A ground invasion is out of the question, we have to stop thinking the U.S/NATO is some sort of military power from the year 2550, war on the ground is hell, its messy and brutal and iran has too big a population with too many forces with good enough equipment to make a ground invasion feesable
So the only remaining option would be air campaign but with all factors considered and with irans ability to hit back its just not a great option.
Israel cant even consider any action,, far too many obstacles
M.AsfandYar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,707
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You really are an arrogant one
ResurgentIran
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,813
- Reaction score
- -4
Indeed.
If US launched a ground invasion and actually attempt to occupy Iran, they would find themselves in a situation like Vietnam.
Actually, maybe even worse.
Iranians are very skilled gerilla fighters. I think we also have to take into account the ideology of Shiism and martyrdom, couple that with Iranian nationalism.
Meaning self-sacrifice and mass casualties would be accepted among Iranians, if it meant expelling the enemy from its lands.
The US knows no worse enemy than that and simply can not win against such an enemy.
Iran is 80 million nation state with difficult terrain (very mountainous country). Invasion and occupation is out of the question for the US, and Iran knows it well.
If they bomb Irans nuclear infrastructure, Iran will go even deeper underground, expell IAEA (the only intelligence on the ground right now) and probably weaponize. At which point the US would be forced to make a choice between occupation or accepting Iran with nuclear weapons. Probably choosing the latter option.
Also, given Irans strategic position and missile arsenal, we dont know the catastrophic consequences a US intiated war against Iran could have on the global economy.
This is why I sharply believe "all options on the table" is empty rhetoric, and that Iran and US will come to some sort of understanding.
Which would be that Iran would not build nuclear weapons, but at the same time US is forced to accept that Iran is going to have enrichment and full control of the nuclear fuel cycle, ie Iran would have a latent nuclear weapons capability.
The final talks will probably be about negotiating how long the "break-out" time would be, should Iran decide (hypothetically) to dash for the bomb.
Last edited:
Hack-Hook
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 19,448
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
how can we gave up something that is not in our possession ?
anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Why would US have the choice between occupation and accepting Iran with Nuclear weapon?
Why can't they simply bomb your nuclear infrastructure and when you rebuilds, come back and bomb it again; pretty much what they did with Iraq between 1991 and 2004? a rinse and repeat solution!
Even if they decide upon ground attack, guerrilla tactics could only be applied if an invading army tries to hold it's ground and govern. What if they conduct lightning strikes with massed armor supported by gunships and A 10 warthogs obliterating everything in their path which is their usual methodology of attack and withdraws after destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure?
How many times Iran could afford to build it's nuclear infrastructure?
Gazprom
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 843
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
Iran needs to be careful
hussain0216
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 21,096
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
Where will they come from, where is the base for the U.S attack and why wouldnt iran with all its missiles hit that base
Which country will allow the U.S to base its forces on its land then face the incoming iranian missiles
Last edited:
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
As far as your history is nothing but a crap full of invasions, wars, using Wmds against civilians, military coups, military threats against sovereign countries; your politicians' little brain can not comprehend humanitarian logic and language used by many nations throughout history, therefore someone gotta take the lead in telling them their current position in a easy way that be understandable for them.
You can not expect a sovereign country to remain silent while you are threatening it by saying that "All options are on the table" over and over even whilst you are in the middle of a diplomatic long term negotiation.
Top Iranian military official warns Kerry against attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities
The chief commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned the United States yesterday that if it attacked the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities, it would blow back in America’s face.
Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari was responding to a statement by Secretary of State John Kerry made on Thursday to Al Arabiya that if Iran does not abide by the interim Geneva agreement with the 5+1 world powers reached in Geneva, “the military option of the United States is ready and prepared to do what it would have to do.”
“Mr. Kerry!” Jafari replied. “Know that a direct conflict with America is the strongest dream of the faithful and revolutionary men around the world. Your threats to revolutionary Islam are the best opportunity. Muslim leaders for years have been preparing us for a decisive battle. I think it’s unlikely that your wise men would allow America to be placed on one side of this decisive battle and take the ridiculous military option from the table into action.”
Claiming that America’s days of superiority are over because of budget deficits and broken policies, Jafari warned Kerry of a massive retaliation from its proxies if Iran is attacked.
“If you don’t have the ability to understand the military and security issues, ask your experienced analysts if America can truly withstand the devastating consequences of a military action,” he said. “Do you know how many thousands of revolutionary Muslims at the heart of the Islamic revolutionary groups around the world are awaiting for you to take this [military] option from the table into action?” Jafari asked. “If you don’t know, think a bit or research it.”
Iran and the 5+1 world powers, the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany, reached an interim agreement in Geneva in November over the regime’s illicit nuclear program. Under the six-month agreement, Iran, in return for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, will keep much of its nuclear infrastructure, is limited to enriching uranium at the 5 percent level for six months, will convert its highly enriched uranium of 20 percent to harmless oxide, and will allow more intrusive inspections of its nuclear plants by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be limited to only agreed-on facilities.
“In case [Iranian] officials witness any violation or an effort to disregard our country’s inalienable nuclear rights by the West and America taking advantage of the [Geneva] agreement with their interpretation of it, they should consider the agreement annulled with full authority,” Jafari had warned after the interim agreement was reached.
The regime’s president, Hassan Rouhani, in an interview with Fareed Zakaria on CNN, gave the same message that nuclear technology was Iran’s inalienable right. “It is a part of our national pride, and nuclear technology has become indigenous. … And recently, we have managed to secure very considerable prowess with regards to the fabrication of centrifuges.” Rouhani added that “not under any circumstances” would Iran destroy any of its existing centrifuges.
Read more
anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
US has aircraft carrier and each carrier has more firepower than whole of Iran's Armed forces ( all services ). They also have base in Bahrain and Kuwait. Also US has a fairly developed missile defense system.
hussain0216
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 21,096
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
^ if Bahrain and Kuwait allow the U.S to hit iran then its a act of war, irans offensive capabilities will then target those states.
Like I said you cant compare the Iran to U.S in terms of technology but irans missile arsenal is vast and growing and has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of ability.
The same goes for any other regional state, NO STATE would be foolish enough to allow the U.S.A to use their territory to attack iran, then sit and watch iran fire back at their cities and states.. iran also isnt going anywhere and will be filled with revenge against any state that does such a thing.
U.S aircraft are indeed capable, but once again where would they work from, what is their base how much force can they bring to the shores of iran and how many targets can they hit.
The iranians have a variety of anti-ship missiles and the iranian navy has come up with a variety of strategies to hit the U.S navy
The bottom line is this, its too hard to hit iran, its too big, its got too many assets, it can cause too many problems and the negatives out weigh the positives, the positives themselves are hard to achive
Once again, if they could attack iran, they would already have done so..
Like I said you cant compare the Iran to U.S in terms of technology but irans missile arsenal is vast and growing and has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of ability.
The same goes for any other regional state, NO STATE would be foolish enough to allow the U.S.A to use their territory to attack iran, then sit and watch iran fire back at their cities and states.. iran also isnt going anywhere and will be filled with revenge against any state that does such a thing.
U.S aircraft are indeed capable, but once again where would they work from, what is their base how much force can they bring to the shores of iran and how many targets can they hit.
The iranians have a variety of anti-ship missiles and the iranian navy has come up with a variety of strategies to hit the U.S navy
The bottom line is this, its too hard to hit iran, its too big, its got too many assets, it can cause too many problems and the negatives out weigh the positives, the positives themselves are hard to achive
Once again, if they could attack iran, they would already have done so..
PeaceGen
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,889
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
true, but rest assured that it's only a mask of mine, one of my many masks that I employ to see where the kinks in the idealogical armors of very-foolish people who i truly don't want to see suffer any more than a little temporary confusion during a move towards 'strictly non-violent jihad'.
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
Millennium Challenge 2002
Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East with many evidences pointing at Iran being the "Red"-side.
Exercise action
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.
After the wargame was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore. Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered that the location of Red Force units to be revealed.
This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming American victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted".
Exercise action
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.
After the wargame was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore. Van Riper also claimed that exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue Force, and that they also ordered Red Force not to use certain weapons systems against Blue Force and even ordered that the location of Red Force units to be revealed.
This led to accusations that the war game had turned from an honest, open free play test of America's war-fighting capabilities into a rigidly controlled and scripted exercise intended to end in an overwhelming American victory, alleging that "$250 million was wasted".
Similar threads
