Day One - The War with Iran
- Thread starter FreeAsia2000
- Start date
crazyinsane105 said:
I don't think the Sunburns can fit in the torpedo tubes of the Kilo SSK's.
The strike on Iran will be very different, the US is not alone in this. I don't think invasion is a possibility. Probably just air strikes, spec ops raids, etc. No ground will be taken in th long term.
IDonT said:
US isn't alone? Well, there is Israel, but who else? No other country is willing to attack Iran.
IDonT said:
Highly doubtful the EU will actually go to war with Iran. Most of Europe is dead agianst Iraq and many US allies in Europe lost much power in their government because of the Iraq war. Attacking Iran is out of the question because I doubt Europe's public will take anymore. Unless there is viable UN proof that Iran is building a bomb (and unfortunately, there isn't), then I don't see the EU taking any action at all.
Furthermore, let's say the EU does help in attacking Iran. Remember what happened in France two months ago? Many of Europe's Muslims are very angry with their European governments. The last thing Europe wants is Hezbollah radicalizing European Muslims to carry out terrorist attacks.
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
i dont think the gas issue is going to be that light. a cut off from venezuela aloen would make it 200$ a gallon, so gas must be 500$ a gallon for motorists. this would halt almost 95% of u.s domestic motor traffic. no one could go anywhere. supplies couldnt be shipped. thousands of cars are immobile. with no one able to commute to work(unless they lived close to their work places), an economic crises would set in on top of all that occuring from the war. iran would be much more expensive as iraq to fight in.
crazyinsane105 said:
I don't want to get too political but if you look at the diplomatic dialogue, it is actually UK, France, and Germany that is taking the lead in this. The US is just taking the back seat. IN fact, Russia is taking a more active role than the US. They were the ones who advocated that Uranium enrichment should occur in their territory, a plan that EU and US liked but Iran ultimately rejected.
Then there was that well timed (or ill timed depending on your point of view) rhetoric about wiping out Israel from the map. It did not help their cause of using nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Don't get me wrong, the US will still provide the bulk of the forces arrayed against Iran. Only this time UK, France, and Germany is standing with them. Once IEAE refers Iran to the UN, so will the UN.
PiSigma
"the engineer"
there's always britain that wants to help US control the middle east. and japan might just use "humanitarian aid" as an excuse. but then again, japan have huge oil interests in Iran already, so they might object. france and germany might be taking the lead in negotiations.. but once it comes down to fighting, they might back out, especially with the large muslim population in france, and recent riots. i doubt the french and german government is in a strong position to sent troops.
FreeAsia2000 said:
It's not realistic.
If the US only needs to destroy Iranian nuclear research facility, it can do so with stand off weapons/LACM's and without Israeli AF and "mini nukes". Alternatively, if Israeli AF was performing the strike, the US might provide covert aid, but not paticipate directly.
There's no reason to risk conventional aircraft when USAF has stealth bombers and Tomahawks that can be used for precision strikes. If Iran choose to respond by attacking Kuwati/Saudi tankers, then the Arab governments would be siding with the US and not Iran.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
drunkhomer said:
Good article.
I think Iran has been following a policy of the three 'M's
1. Mines
2. Missiles
3. Martyrs
The Iranian airforce wouldn't stand a chance in any engagement against USAF for the next 20 years at least so the Iranians have followed the right policy in building up their missile inventory.
How effective would a barrage of mobile missiles be against any American attempted invasion?
Last edited: