Carrier groups headed toward Iran?

Denny

How does one go about buying stock in CNN?

Dreamtwister · Fission Joined: Feb 06, 2006 Posts: 2093

ALBY

My eyes bleed every time I read about military matters on this board.

Our carriers outdated ? Hardly.

While the wisdom of attacking Iran is debatable, our ABILITY TO DO SO should not be questioned.

The Van Ripper scenario ? Well, Iran doesn't have a van Ripper. The last war they fought was not very impressive in terms of tactics. Human waves I think. They don't have a seasoned officer corps and a trained general leadership that thinks in terms of modern military tactics. Trying to understand our tactics and technology would be akin to them trying to take a drink from a firehose.

If they go on the offensive, bushwack a carrier and score (which they are technically capable of doing) , they will roast in plutonium hellfire. Does anyone seriously doubt this ?

So they are left to react to the USN in the event we decide to attack. In modern warfare, the initiative is everything. We would attack at the time and place of our choosing. Probably at night and probably beginning with a massive cruise missle and stealth bomber attack on communications infrastructure and command and control facilities. Iran would be plunged into darkness, and silence... it's military assets cut off from one another.

We'd fill the air with jamming aircraft and attack jets. Missile sites are easy to hide until the radar is switched on. And you'd need the radar on for a little bit to develop the targeting solution. In that time, you'd have anti radiation missiles coming right back down those radar beams and eliminating the Iranian radars. Pot shots with Scuds are one thing. But targeting a moving carrier in the gulf (30Knots) is another.

With a couple carrier groups, the firepower would be overwhelming. I'm pretty certain that after a thousand sorties or so, there would be no targets left in Iran.

I agree putting a carrier in the Gulf is an unecessary risk, as they can do all this from the Indian ocean. I also agree that invading that country is a non starter, although we could achieve a pure military victory with probably 10 brigades if we go 'weapons free'.

But please. These shiites better suited for suicide bombing and rock throwing than fighting a modern military conflict. Just like an olympic boxer would whip your ass in a fight, the Navy would have their way with Iran in any way shape or form they choose. If you think otherwise, then you are letting your ideology interfere with the reasoning part of your brain.

Twilight · Expert Joined: Mar 02, 2007 Posts: 2971 Location: UK

The problem with the above is the Iranians know it already. They would not be fighting that war. They would be fighting the "undermining the stability of Pakistan" kind of war, or "whispering a few words in the ears of certain people in Iraq" kind of war, or "blasting the Gulf with guerrilla artillery for the next twenty years" kind of war, or "creating a Hezbollah in Algeria and switching off the lights in Europe" kind of war. And they would not have to begin immediately either, nor would the effects be revealed until years after everyone else assumed the West's war was successful. For all we know they have the groundwork laid as a hedge, just like a portion of our taxes is spent making sure we have traps of our own set, as all nations are entitled to do for lack of agreement to the contrary.

This is all more tedious table-top wargaming. Every single contribution. The US and UK kicked Iraq's ass at $20 oil. Did they kick Iraq's ass? No they didn't. At $120 oil, turns out that ass-kicking never happened. That's the only calculation that matters. So if the US hammers Iran flat in a thousand sorties (uh, Kosovo was more than 10x that and the Serb army withdrew intact) and LNG tankers stop sailing from Algeria to Spain, Portugal and the UK, will that hammering have taken place? No, it will not have done. Once you grasp this, you need never leaf through a copy of Jane's again.
_________________
"The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump and they're waiting to see what the Congress will do." - George W Bush

Starvid

Starvid

Tyler_JC

I am bookmarking this thread.

On January 21, the day after our next president is inaugurated and Iran remains invasion-free, reading this thread will be a good laugh.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1003

During the Iran Iraq war a group of Iraqi exiles were formed into a military unit, this unit was called the Badr Brigade. When they returned to Iraq in 2003 they were formed into special police comandos (as per the El Salvidor option implemented my Negroponte) and remained loyal to the SCIRI (now called SIIC). After Al Malakis poorly performed penetration into Basra in April a large number of soldiers loyal to Moqtada were dismissed and there places filled with Badr Orginisation (as it is now called) members.

SIIC is the closest non Kurdish ally to the US in Iraq. Badr, its militia, now forms a keystone of the Iraqi army. A significant portion of them fought for Iran during the Iran Iraq war.

America has about 170 000 troops in Iraq. It would not take orders from Ali Kahmeneni for them to turn on the US, attacking Iran would provoke them on there own.

Attacking Iran is lunacy of the order of Barbarossa or the charge of the Light Brigade.

The likely consaquencies I can forsee of an American bombing of Iran.....
-Loss of Iraq, driven out with heavy casualties.
-Hezb'Allah taking over Lebanon.
-Riots and possible topling of the monarchy in Jordan.
-Riots and possible toppling of Mubarik in Egypt. Muslim brotherhood in charge.
-Riots in the UAE, low possibility of loss of Bahrain.
-Riots in Pakistan. Low possibility of Islamist coup by army officers. God knows where that would lead.
-Demonstrations in Turkey. Possible pro American army coup. Probible hardning of anti Americanism within the government.
-The break up of Nato would be within the realms of possibility although not likely.
-Riots in Nigeria. Potential but unlikely military coup. All out intercomunial war possible but unlikely.
-Riots in Indonesia.
-UK facing mass demonstrations. Anti US sentiment very very high. No loss of government but a swing to the lib dems makes a hung parliment in two years time with an anti American bias.

I cant believe I am almost praying for the 'wisdom' of Henry Kissenger.

Dreamtwister · Fission Joined: Feb 06, 2006 Posts: 2093

Ferretlover

idiom

The U.S. certainly does not have a no first use policy. They don't even have a 'wait tillwe are at war' policy.

They have a 'They have Oil and we can justify a nuke in the Press' policy.

ALBY

The tactics by which the Iranians would sink a carrier are well known. They'd ambush the strike group with a massive barrage of ASM's and attempt to overwhelm the fleet air defense.

Lets say they succeed ? What next ? Remember the Maine ? Maybe. I'm thinking they might want to consult with Native Americans for an idea of just what our country is capable of when we are just a little bit pissed off and scared. Attacking our conventional basis for projecting force will be the perfect pretext for nuking their persian asses. Don't doubt it for a minute. What is the alternative ? do nothing ? Invade ? Move another carrier into range ? Not without an EMP first.

Nobody should take any solace in the fact that these low intenisty conflicts have taken the form of the US politely suffering IED's and suicide bombing. In reality, this type of conflict is very mild compared to what we've engaged in historically. Thats why it's called 'low intesity'. If we start losing major surface vessels or combat brigades, the gloves are coming off and you'll see death on a scale that will make WW II look like a garden party. Nobody should underestimate our ability or will to do so. we have 150,000 combat hardened troops and all their gear in the ME. The greatest concentration of military power in the history of the world.

5000 dead sailors would open up a can of whupass that you would absolutely not be able to put the lid back on. we'd rip into iran like a monkey on a cupcake. those hezbollah fukers in lebanon, they's see a different side of the israeli's next time around. don't be so sure the iraqi shia, majority ARAB, would not be glad to see their persian rivals take a beating. they would. the emirates, the saudi's ? ruthless dictatorships. im not worried about dissent and their ARAB elites might make some good kabuki about their shia rivals getting their dicks knocked in the dirt, but not any great fuss really. besides, the iranians will likely retaliate against abeqaiq and ras tanurah anyway, enraging the saudi's and arabs. the pakis ? they're coming unglued anyhow and when they do us special forces will snatch their nukes. they better hope we succeed, because the alternative is a barrage of indian nukes. the paki army knows where their bread is buttered. same with the turks. Nato is already dead, it died in afghanistan and europes future along with it.

and i don't disagree that attacking iran is bad policy. but nevertheless, we can and probably will do it.

ALBY

PS

Since nobody has ever attacked, much less sunk a super carrier, I'd like to suggest to you all that the news of their demise is perhaps, a wee bit premature.

we can project force and nobody else can. don't think for a minute that is not a huge advantage.

also, the hand wringers have severly overstimated the capabilities of the persians. and underestimated ours. this has been expressed to me by lifelong friends who are called 'chief' and 'colonel' by their subordinates.