Nuclear Iran

JumpingFrog said:
Is their a viable military solution to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
How can we be so sure that IRAN is developing Nuclear Weapons.

They are developing their nation and they want to use Nuclear energy for producing cheap electricity. USA has 104 power plants for this job.

The problem is that Americans do not trust Iranians because of them being hardliners.
 
Pres. Bush just said on BBC World that he is not ruling out a future military intervention.

Do you think the US still has the added ooomph to take on Iran considering their current situaton in Iraq?
 
JumpingFrog said:
Pres. Bush just said on BBC World that he is not ruling out a future military intervention.

Do you think the US still has the added ooomph to take on Iran considering their current situaton in Iraq?
Click to expand...

We have 12 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and multiple large airforce bases in Iraq. We've got enough free assets to cripple Iran even without ground pounders if such a decision was deemed in our National interest.
 
Whispering Death said:
JumpingFrog said:
Pres. Bush just said on BBC World that he is not ruling out a future military intervention.

Do you think the US still has the added ooomph to take on Iran considering their current situaton in Iraq?
Click to expand...

We have 12 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and multiple large airforce bases in Iraq. We've got enough free assets to cripple Iran even without ground pounders if such a decision was deemed in our National interest.
Click to expand...
IRAN has ballistic Missiles that are much better then SCUD Missiles of IRAQ and these Missile will become a major problem for US bases in IRAQ and also the US cannot afford to avoid IRAQ in case of conflict in IRAN.

Also that their would be no European Allies like in case of IRAQ and US forces will have to battle with a fresh and experienced military of IRAN who have studied the GULF WAR and also the current WAR and that means a more drastic challenge.

If you are opting for this option then prepare for a long and bloody conflict until US withdraws from both nations.
 
TBA_PAKI said:
Whispering Death said:
JumpingFrog said:
Pres. Bush just said on BBC World that he is not ruling out a future military intervention.

Do you think the US still has the added ooomph to take on Iran considering their current situaton in Iraq?
Click to expand...

We have 12 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and multiple large airforce bases in Iraq. We've got enough free assets to cripple Iran even without ground pounders if such a decision was deemed in our National interest.
Click to expand...
IRAN has ballistic Missiles that are much better then SCUD Missiles of IRAQ and these Missile will become a major problem for US bases in IRAQ and also the US cannot afford to avoid IRAQ in case of conflict in IRAN.

Also that their would be no European Allies like in case of IRAQ and US forces will have to battle with a fresh and experienced military of IRAN who have studied the GULF WAR and also the current WAR and that means a more drastic challenge.

If you are opting for this option then prepare for a long and bloody conflict until US withdraws from both nations.
Click to expand...

And how do they plan to deal with our heavy armor, gunships, ect.. they would have to devert to unconventional tactics just like Iraq.

Thoughout history every enemy has fear the U.S. Japan feared the "Sleeping Dragon", the NVA and VC found out you can't fight the U.S. in conventional ways, thats why most enemies have fought in unconventional tactics.

Besides our contigancy plan is if we are hit with cehmiclas, nukes, or bio weaposn we hit the enemy with a nuclear strike. Land, Sea and Air.
 
TBA_PAKI said:
JumpingFrog said:
The problem is that Americans do not trust Iranians because of them being hardliners.
Click to expand...

It's not just the Americans. France & Germany, amongst others, also don't trust Iran's motives and remember how strongly France oppossed the US over Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Click to expand...
 
Cadet Seaman said:
TBA_PAKI said:
Whispering Death said:
JumpingFrog said:
Pres. Bush just said on BBC World that he is not ruling out a future military intervention.

Do you think the US still has the added ooomph to take on Iran considering their current situaton in Iraq?
Click to expand...

We have 12 Nimitz class aircraft carriers and multiple large airforce bases in Iraq. We've got enough free assets to cripple Iran even without ground pounders if such a decision was deemed in our National interest.
Click to expand...
IRAN has ballistic Missiles that are much better then SCUD Missiles of IRAQ and these Missile will become a major problem for US bases in IRAQ and also the US cannot afford to avoid IRAQ in case of conflict in IRAN.

Also that their would be no European Allies like in case of IRAQ and US forces will have to battle with a fresh and experienced military of IRAN who have studied the GULF WAR and also the current WAR and that means a more drastic challenge.

If you are opting for this option then prepare for a long and bloody conflict until US withdraws from both nations.
Click to expand...

And how do they plan to deal with our heavy armor, gunships, ect.. they would have to devert to unconventional tactics just like Iraq.

Thoughout history every enemy has fear the U.S. Japan feared the "Sleeping Dragon", the NVA and VC found out you can't fight the U.S. in conventional ways, thats why most enemies have fought in unconventional tactics.

Besides our contigancy plan is if we are hit with cehmiclas, nukes, or bio weaposn we hit the enemy with a nuclear strike. Land, Sea and Air.
Click to expand...
IRAN has no Nuclear Weapons and that option gets ruled out easily and if it has some then their would be no talk of conflict.

Use of Ballistic Missiles as conventional weapons is not a provocative case for a Nuclear War. But the problem is that these are weapons of fear for the troops on ground. Stationary US forces in IRAQ and on border regions would face a grave danger from these weapons.

Plus the US will have to commit much more soldiers then it did in case of IRAQ, if they want to get a sweeping victory.

IRAN is a big country and geographically very ideal for gurreilla warfare and Iranians are not starved like Iraqis and there do not exist such ethnic diversities like in the case of IRAQ.

The occupation process would take much more time compared to the 21 days in IRAQ. The conventional battle would be a success for US forces but death toll would be high and then cost of maintaining the occupation of such big country would be enormous and not to forget that massive resistance program that Mullah's will originate.

Just because we dont live in IRAN does not means that they have not been preparing for this ultimate situation.

Iranian leader already said that his armed forces have made the necessary preparations for the in-evitable situation if it develops. You have to keep this thing in mind.
 
You're missing what I'm saying. The US has the free assets to pummel Iran from the air. We have 12 aircraft carriers, and a number of large bases on Iran's boarders. This is in addition to Israel's assets and the assets of Europen countries that are much more likely to get involved in Iran than they where in Iraq because they have been taking the lead with Iran, not America.

I am not at all saying that in 6 months Iran will be levelled. I also agree that a ground invasion of Iran by American troops is unlikely in the next 2 years, but I have enumerated for you all the assets that are very free and very able to decimate Iran.

America won the war in Yugoslavia without putting a single Abrams tank on the ground and even if Iran won't capituate from air power alone it certainly gives a huge deterant to building nukes and if an air war is going on, it makes is very very difficult to enrich uranium while bombs blow up everything bigger than a 2-story house.
 
Whispering Death said:
You're missing what I'm saying. The US has the free assets to pummel Iran from the air. We have 12 aircraft carriers, and a number of large bases on Iran's boarders. This is in addition to Israel's assets and the assets of Europen countries that are much more likely to get involved in Iran than they where in Iraq because they have been taking the lead with Iran, not America.

I am not at all saying that in 6 months Iran will be levelled. I also agree that a ground invasion of Iran by American troops is unlikely in the next 2 years, but I have enumerated for you all the assets that are very free and very able to decimate Iran.

America won the war in Yugoslavia without putting a single Abrams tank on the ground and even if Iran won't capituate from air power alone it certainly gives a huge deterant to building nukes and if an air war is going on, it makes is very very difficult to enrich uranium while bombs blow up everything bigger than a 2-story house.
Click to expand...


I agree, USA doesent need any ground troops to criple Iran, you can just bomb there Nuke site to**** without any ground troops, you can just use few cruise missiles, and if Iran will counter-attack lets say to Iraq, then all the countrys are going to help Iraq, like some european countrys and Israel.
 
Snauhi said:
Whispering Death said:
You're missing what I'm saying. The US has the free assets to pummel Iran from the air. We have 12 aircraft carriers, and a number of large bases on Iran's boarders. This is in addition to Israel's assets and the assets of Europen countries that are much more likely to get involved in Iran than they where in Iraq because they have been taking the lead with Iran, not America.

I am not at all saying that in 6 months Iran will be levelled. I also agree that a ground invasion of Iran by American troops is unlikely in the next 2 years, but I have enumerated for you all the assets that are very free and very able to decimate Iran.

America won the war in Yugoslavia without putting a single Abrams tank on the ground and even if Iran won't capituate from air power alone it certainly gives a huge deterant to building nukes and if an air war is going on, it makes is very very difficult to enrich uranium while bombs blow up everything bigger than a 2-story house.
Click to expand...


I agree, USA doesent need any ground troops to criple Iran, you can just bomb there Nuke site to**** without any ground troops, you can just use few cruise missiles, and if Iran will counter-attack lets say to Iraq, then all the countrys are going to help Iraq, like some european countrys and Israel.
Click to expand...

And it doesn't have to stop at the nuke sites. Airfields, bunkers, government buildings, electirity plants, houses of the rulers' family members, domiciles of the extremist imans, rows of tanks, TV stations, sanitation facilities.

If you invade it you don't have to fix what you break and that's what makes airpower such a threat in modern times for issues like this.
 
Maybe the americans can just bomb the nuclear facilities of iran so not bringing civilians into it( correct me if iam wrong but didnt isreal do something similar?).
 
i have no knowledge of nulcear phsics or anything but i imagine bombing a nuclear reactor would be VERy dangerous
 
ill be damed if i know said:
Maybe the americans can just bomb the nuclear facilities of iran so not bringing civilians into it( correct me if iam wrong but didnt isreal do something similar?).
Click to expand...

Well, it stands to reason that Iran learned from the Iraq incident. Analysts believe that the Iranian nuclear program is split up in the multiple sections in multiple buildings all working in tamdem. So if you get 1/2 of the buildings they've still got 1/2 their program in 100% good condition.

And if we couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, how likely are we really to find all of the sites in Iran?

That's the problem we're facing right now.
 
Snauhi said:
Whispering Death said:
You're missing what I'm saying. The US has the free assets to pummel Iran from the air. We have 12 aircraft carriers, and a number of large bases on Iran's boarders. This is in addition to Israel's assets and the assets of Europen countries that are much more likely to get involved in Iran than they where in Iraq because they have been taking the lead with Iran, not America.

I am not at all saying that in 6 months Iran will be levelled. I also agree that a ground invasion of Iran by American troops is unlikely in the next 2 years, but I have enumerated for you all the assets that are very free and very able to decimate Iran.

America won the war in Yugoslavia without putting a single Abrams tank on the ground and even if Iran won't capituate from air power alone it certainly gives a huge deterant to building nukes and if an air war is going on, it makes is very very difficult to enrich uranium while bombs blow up everything bigger than a 2-story house.
Click to expand...


I agree, USA doesent need any ground troops to criple Iran, you can just bomb there Nuke site to**** without any ground troops, you can just use few cruise missiles, and if Iran will counter-attack lets say to Iraq, then all the countrys are going to help Iraq, like some european countrys and Israel.
Click to expand...

some European countries?...probably, but without Germany, Schroeder has already denounced Bush for considering a military option against Iran.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top