Reasons why an all-out war against Iran is unlikely

[Auson + 123]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“Not to mention the black ops from their supporting military.”

What is this comment supposed to refer to?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6843469/Five-British-Special-Forces-troops-wounded-Yemen-advising-Saudi-Arabia-campaign.html

[nsdp + 449]

Doug, I don't know what you are smoking but I will have some.  I have glaucoma and rashes from having too much fun in the sun in SE Asia.  Right now if what the USAF Chief of Staff says is right we only have 6 B-1B's that can deploy.  The Army has two brigades out twenty some that are first tier readiness and ready to deploy.  The Marines have enough that are first tier ready for a couple of amphibs. Supply is drawn down low enough  that we cannot support two divisions with bullets and beans for more than 45 days.  The only aviation units with a high degree of readiness are the Marine units flying the AH-1Z. KC-46 is not operational because the software that guides the boom for refueling is buggy. F-35 is less than 40% operational on any day and is maintenance hog. F-22 is not really any better in sustained operations. What percentage of air wings in the Air Force, Navy and Marines are  combat ready on any given day?   I guarantee you don't know.  My MOS was  4808 which means I commanded a section of heavy field maintenance  for army and marine combat vehicles in I Corps.   Our combat readiness then  was reflected in the high casualties in 1968 and 1969.

Troops these days have more deployments  and equipment is in sorrier shape than what I dealt with in Nam. 18 Years of steady deployment and the surges have taken the guts out of our armed forces.  Every unit except the submarine force is a hollow shell.  We are very lucky Russia is in worse shape than we are and have not had cash to rebuild.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

@nsdp I’m not quite sure which one of my previous posts you are in disagreement with. Are you saying that the US has no operational weapons systems capable of attacking the Iranian Command & Control infrastructure?

I agree that our front line capabilities have been stretched thin and over deployed, which is why I said boots on the ground are unnecessary. I was thinking a more ‘over the horizon’ approach.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:14 AM, Auson said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6843469/Five-British-Special-Forces-troops-wounded-Yemen-advising-Saudi-Arabia-campaign.html

What does this have to do with the Saudi air defense situation?

[Guest]

On 10/2/2019 at 12:09 PM, Auson said:

Day Trader,

Your probably not far from the truth although the sellers do send people to train them how to use such weapons.

Haha was just joking, just seems they have no idea how to use any of this stuff, as I believe they have the 3rd biggest defence spending in the world, and by the sounds of some people here these drones or whatever coulda been put together by a kid with a bit of know-how. 

Plus I always have Jabbar's thread title in my head... ''defence systems were facing the wrong way!!! MBS must fire defence minister!! Oh, MBS is defence minister. Nevermind''. They just seem utterly clueless and full of shit if I'm honest. But hey, Pompeo will say ''Iran bad'' and hopefully USA fight for MBS right..? Then he can concentrate on his BS IPO... Yawn. 

And yep trading been going good cheers. Just riding waves through the day, catching nice tops and bottoms in Gold, GBP/USD, Dow, etc. Not actually traded Oil for a week or so.

Edited October 5, 2019 by Guest

[nsdp + 449]

Doug, what I am saying is what every active duty maintenance officer I know will tell you.  We don't have the working equipment to do a strike without substantial casualties on our part.   First, you won't be able to sustain an attack with B-1B's or B-52's from the US.  Our air refueling fleet has one class (KC-46) that can't refuel a long range strike.  The KC-135's have very restricted areas they can operate.   I suggest you find on youtube the story a bout how much effort the RAF had to put into landing one bomb on the runway at Port Stanley in the Falklands in 1982.  They started with eleven Valiants refueling five Valiant tankers and one victor with the bombs, Then 3 Valiants refueled the Victor and two Valiants.  Then one valiant split its cargo between the other Valiant and the Victor and the last Valiant refueled the Victor before it went to Port Stanley.  Then they had to reverse the relay home.   In case you didn't know it, the Brits have lost basing rights at Diego Garcia so no tankers in the Indian Ocean any more, And you no longer have overflight privileges for tankers over Egypt, Cypress and Turkey.  How do you get to Iran, over fly Russia? So any flights in are ONE WAY missions for the B-1B and B-52.  B-2's, F-15E's can't carry the big bomb needed to penetrate the Cheyenne Mountain type  command center and S-300's have proven to be very effective against the F/A-18 and the F-35 has less payload than the Hornet. It would be like the battle of Britain , German air crews shot down were lost for the war, British pilots flew again as soon as they got back to their squadron.  Air crew losses are why Germany lost the battle of Britian.

You can base out of Australia and run a taker relay of 5-11 tankers per bomber.  The Iranians will know exactly when  the air craft will arrive. You can't hide that concentration and  would have to refuel in India's air space and given the Indian Air Force success against out F-22's that is not a great idea.  India's pilots are very bit as capable as ours.   Iran is also India's largest supplier of crude.

So tell me Doug, just how are you going to get a meaningful attack on Iranian Command and Control together.  The greatest ordinance in the world is useless if you can't put it on target.

Edited October 6, 2019 by nsdp
forgot something.

[Guest]

On 10/4/2019 at 3:45 AM, nsdp said:

Doug, I don't know what you are smoking but I will have some. 

This is an opener and a half.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Why are we discussing the possibility of a US instigated war vs Iran when the real threat is an Israeli war against Iran? 

There's no f-ing way the Israelis are going to tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons.  If Iran continues its enrichment program, Israel will strike.  This is 100% guaranteed.  

And since Iran has spread its centrifuges in multiple different locations, Israel will have to strike in multiple locations, which is a much bigger deal than the strike Israel launched against Saddam in the 80s. Also, Saddam doesn't have Hezbollah to retaliate with, which is another reason why an Israeli strike on Iran is much more likely to lead to full scale war.  

Edited October 6, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

Doug, what I am saying is what every active duty maintenance officer I know will tell you.  We don't have the working equipment to do a strike without substantial casualties on our part.   First, you won't be able to sustain an attack with B-1B's or B-52's from the US.  Our air refueling fleet has one class (KC-46) that can't refuel a long range strike.  The KC-135's have very restricted areas they can operate.   I suggest you find on youtube the story a bout how much effort the RAF had to put into landing one bomb on the runway at Port Stanley in the Falklands in 1982.  They started with eleven Valiants refueling five Valiant tankers and one victor with the bombs, Then 3 Valiants refueled the Victor and two Valiants.  Then one valiant split its cargo between the other Valiant and the Victor and the last Valiant refueled the Victor before it went to Port Stanley.  Then they had to reverse the relay home.   In case you didn't know it, the Brits have lost basing rights at Diego Garcia so no tankers in the Indian Ocean any more, And you no longer have overflight privileges for tankers over Egypt, Cypress and Turkey.  How do you get to Iran, over fly Russia? So any flights in are ONE WAY missions for the B-1B and B-52.  B-2's, F-15E's can't carry the big bomb needed to penetrate the Cheyenne Mountain type  command center and S-300's have proven to be very effective against the F/A-18 and the F-35 has less payload than the Hornet. It would be like the battle of Britain , German air crews shot down were lost for the war, British pilots flew again as soon as they got back to their squadron.  Air crew losses are why Germany lost the battle of Britian.

You can base out of Australia and run a taker relay of 5-11 tankers per bomber.  The Iranians will know exactly when  the air craft will arrive. You can't hide that concentration and  would have to refuel in India's air space and given the Indian Air Force success against out F-22's that is not a great idea.  India's pilots are very bit as capable as ours.   Iran is also India's largest supplier of crude.

So tell me Doug, just how are you going to get a meaningful attack on Iranian Command and Control together.  The greatest ordinance in the world is useless if you can't put it on target.

You are basing everything on air power! What about naval assets such as sub or ship launched cruise missiles to take out the C&C, or to take out the known air defense capabilities opening the way to air strikes?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the American military has no options when it comes to Iran?

[Zhong Lu + 845]

But is it shareable? Also, even if you take out the CnC, so what? The Taliban is still fighting even after many of their heads have been eliminated.  

Edited October 6, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

What do you mean by ‘shareable’?

Are you comparing the Taliban command set up with that of Iran? Does the Taliban field submarines, jet fighters, a complex air defense system and surface naval assets? These systems depend on a C&C system to remain effective.

Your comparison defies logic.

[nsdp + 449]

Doug, unless you go nuclear, subs and surface cruise missiles have less than 750kg of explosive.  That would not even chip the paint on Natanz or the command bunkers.  Even the heaviest ordinance for the F/A-18E is not going to do significant damage and you would lose a major portion of your strike force since they can't be at four places at once.  Remember the RAF had their greatest success against the Luftwaffe picking off planes on the way home. Same applied to Luftwaffe air defense against the 8th Air Force and the Bomber Command.  Even P-51D's tended to be defenseless seeing they only carried 20 seconds of ammo and most if not all had been spent before they went home or pilots strafed targets leaving them ammo less. .  You also denude your carrier of air defense (think Coral Sea).   Iranians are not dumb; they went to school on what we did to Saddam Hussein's facilities when al Sadr gave them accesss.  Remember that the Iranians have the Mig-25 and the Russian version of the AARAM and our old Phoenix missiles for the F-14 . Mig 25 is one of only two aircraft capable of making an intercept(radar lock) on the SR-71, the setup has to be perfect and the crew asleep.  The Swedes did it repeatedly with the Viggen when SR-71's over flew the Baltic.   Interceptors don't go for the fighters.  They go for the tankers using look down shoot down missiles and that way you kill both the fighter (no gas to get home) and the tanker (eliminating future strike capability).   A tanker's got a choice. Commit suicide and try to refuel the strike aircraft (75% chance of losing both)  or run for home (25% tanker losses 100% strike aircraft losses).

You assumption that we could do any significant damage to their command  and control is about as sound as Westmoreland's "we can see the light a the end of the tunnel" speech in Jan. 1968. He grossly overrated our abilities and NLFweakness.

Edited October 6, 2019 by nsdp

[nsdp + 449]

16 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Why are we discussing the possibility of a US instigated war vs Iran when the real threat is an Israeli war against Iran? 

There's no f-ing way the Israelis are going to tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons.  If Iran continues its enrichment program, Israel will strike.  This is 100% guaranteed.  

And since Iran has spread its centrifuges in multiple different locations, Israel will have to strike in multiple locations, which is a much bigger deal than the strike Israel launched against Saddam in the 80s. Also, Saddam doesn't have Hezbollah to retaliate with, which is another reason why an Israeli strike on Iran is much more likely to lead to full scale war.  

Israel has even less strike capacity(nothing with a 50,000lb + payload much less 100,000lb) against Iran than the US has unless they go nuclear.  The aircraft they have don't have the legs to get to Iran without refueling on the way in, which Iranian radar on the Zagros mountains will see, and on the way home which Mig 25's could easily destroy before the strike aircraft refuel.   Most of israel's tankers are KC-130 turboprops which wear a big bullseye on them.   So Iran has to be totally asleep or Israel has to violate Turkish and Russian airspace.   How are you going to get ordinance heavy enough to do damage to Iran's military there.   Iran has enough enriched uranium to make several of what is called a " dirty bomb" which would make Israel unlivable for 50+ years.  Remember Chernobyl did not explode; it vented radionuclieds to the environment.  Also Pakistan next door does have the bomb  with fusion enhanced fission  which would lay waste to Israel.

 It would not be a full scale war it would be Armageddon.  Think US/Soviet Union/Cuba in October 1962.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Ok I'm going to give you an upvote because you obviously know a bit about this, but at the same time I'm calling BS.  There's no way you would know of Israel's strike capabilities because you're not in the Israeli military and whatever capabilities Israel has they'll keep classified.  

[Guest]

hahah love it, ''upvote but bullshit''

[PeterfromCalgary + 60]

During the Iran Iraq war Iran sent used human waves to fight the Iraq.  Basically waves and waves of mostly children would rush the front lines to make way for the more experienced soldiers.

How would you keep public support for a war when the other side uses children on the front lines?  Pictures of dead children on every news website and TV news would kill support for a war.

Edited October 7, 2019 by PeterfromCalgary

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Ok I'm going to give you an upvote because you obviously know a bit about this, but at the same time I'm calling BS.  There's no way you would know of Israel's strike capabilities because you're not in the Israeli military and whatever capabilities Israel has they'll keep classified.  

The same could be said for his evaluation of current American capabilities. By his own admission he was active military in the late 60’s and bringing up the SR-71 shows this mind set.

He seems convinced that the US can not possibly prosecute an effective attack against Iran. I have a much different OPINION.

Keep in mind that neither one of us has any idea of what current weapon systems the US has at it’s disposal or, for that matter, the current readiness of US forces. This information is NOT published.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

8 hours ago, nsdp said:

Doug, unless you go nuclear, subs and surface cruise missiles have less than 750kg of explosive. 

.... They all have internal navigation good to within less than a meter...  🏆   As was proven many times as the missiles flew DOWN chimney's eliminating Iraq's ability to generate power and no, the accuracy has not gotten worse in the proceeding 30, uh hem, 30!!! years. 

You line them up and hit the same place time after time after time in a few seconds.  The worlds most expensive drill, but it would work.  There is ZERO need to send ANY bombers or aircraft into IRAN.  Just fire missiles and let them dig straight down to the processing facilities.  Now there are geopolitical reasons NOT to do so, but practical reasons?  No. 

Destruction is easy.  Changing minds/hearts of someone to STOP doing what they are doing and do what you wish is an ENTIRELY different kettle of fish. 

Pakistan with the "bomb" dear friend is SUNNI, not SHIA and are aligned with S. Arabia and likewise will not give IRAN the bomb. 

Dear friend, put down the WWII/Vietnam nonsense other than Clausterwitz's and Sun Tzu's annals of war which hold true no matter what era you fight in as how Humanity functions has not changed.  Sincerely, someone living in the present, not the past.

[frankfurter + 562]

8 hours ago, nsdp said:

Doug, unless you go nuclear, subs and surface cruise missiles have less than 750kg of explosive.  That would not even chip the paint on Natanz or the command bunkers.  Even the heaviest ordinance for the F/A-18E is not going to do significant damage and you would lose a major portion of your strike force since they can't be at four places at once.  Remember the RAF had their greatest success against the Luftwaffe picking off planes on the way home. Same applied to Luftwaffe air defense against the 8th Air Force and the Bomber Command.  Even P-51D's tended to be defenseless seeing they only carried 20 seconds of ammo and most if not all had been spent before they went home or pilots strafed targets leaving them ammo less. .  You also denude your carrier of air defense (think Coral Sea).   Iranians are not dumb; they went to school on what we did to Saddam Hussein's facilities when al Sadr gave them accesss.  Remember that the Iranians have the Mig-25 and the Russian version of the AARAM and our old Phoenix missiles for the F-14 . Mig 25 is one of only two aircraft capable of making an intercept(radar lock) on the SR-71, the setup has to be perfect and the crew asleep.  The Swedes did it repeatedly with the Viggen when SR-71's over flew the Baltic.   Interceptors don't go for the fighters.  They go for the tankers using look down shoot down missiles and that way you kill both the fighter (no gas to get home) and the tanker (eliminating future strike capability).   A tanker's got a choice. Commit suicide and try to refuel the strike aircraft (75% chance of losing both)  or run for home (25% tanker losses 100% strike aircraft losses).

You assumption that we could do any significant damage to their command  and control is about as sound as Westmoreland's "we can see the light a the end of the tunnel" speech in Jan. 1968. He grossly overrated our abilities and NLFweakness.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.  "unless you go nuclear". aye, there's the rub. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

750 kg of high explosive is nothing to sneeze at!

[nsdp + 449]

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

.... They all have internal navigation good to within less than a meter...  🏆   As was proven many times as the missiles flew DOWN chimney's eliminating Iraq's ability to generate power and no, the accuracy has not gotten worse in the proceeding 30, uh hem, 30!!! years. 

You line them up and hit the same place time after time after time in a few seconds.  The worlds most expensive drill, but it would work.  There is ZERO need to send ANY bombers or aircraft into IRAN.  Just fire missiles and let them dig straight down to the processing facilities.  Now there are geopolitical reasons NOT to do so, but practical reasons?  No. 

Destruction is easy.  Changing minds/hearts of someone to STOP doing what they are doing and do what you wish is an ENTIRELY different kettle of fish. 

Pakistan with the "bomb" dear friend is SUNNI, not SHIA and are aligned with S. Arabia and likewise will not give IRAN the bomb. 

Dear friend, put down the WWII/Vietnam nonsense other than Clausterwitz's and Sun Tzu's annals of war which hold true no matter what era you fight in as how Humanity functions has not changed.  Sincerely, someone living in the present, not the past.

 

23 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

.... They all have internal navigation good to within less than a meter...  🏆   As was proven many times as the missiles flew DOWN chimney's eliminating Iraq's ability to generate power and no, the accuracy has not gotten worse in the proceeding 30, uh hem, 30!!! years. 

You line them up and hit the same place time after time after time in a few seconds.  The worlds most expensive drill, but it would work.  There is ZERO need to send ANY bombers or aircraft into IRAN.  Just fire missiles and let them dig straight down to the processing facilities.  Now there are geopolitical reasons NOT to do so, but practical reasons?  No. 

Destruction is easy.  Changing minds/hearts of someone to STOP doing what they are doing and do what you wish is an ENTIRELY different kettle of fish. 

Pakistan with the "bomb" dear friend is SUNNI, not SHIA and are aligned with S. Arabia and likewise will not give IRAN the bomb. 

Dear friend, put down the WWII/Vietnam nonsense other than Clausterwitz's and Sun Tzu's annals of war which hold true no matter what era you fight in as how Humanity functions has not changed.  Sincerely, someone living in the present, not the past.

First off Pakistani Sunnis are Barelvi Sunni which center on Barelvi India not Wahabbi Sunni as in Mecca Saudi Arabia. those two don't really get along. Sunni vs Shia is an intra family quarrel. Israel is an outsider and a common foe.  Second Iran supplies Pakistan with nearly all of its POL needs. Fact of life is Pakistan's refineries are designed to run Iranian crude.  Do you know how much work is needed to change crude slates?    Third, "In January 2004, the Pakistani government summoned A Q Khan for a debriefing on his active role in nuclear weapons technology proliferation in other countries "  

Your  time after time approach was tried in WWII on the Schildesche viaduct " During World War II it was badly damaged on 14 March 1945 by a Grand Slam bomb dropped by a No. 617 Squadron RAF Avro Lancaster, after 54 attacks by smaller bombs failed to destroy it. "  Missiles will be stopped cold when they hit the concrete.  The German U-Boat pens at Saint Nazaire are the model for stopping that kind of attack.