Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Iran Attack Scenario: A Catastrophe

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

David DeBatto
June 24, 2008

"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)

"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)

We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess – Iran.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

If we invade Iran this year it will be done using hundreds of sorties by carrier based aircraft already stationed in the Persian Gulf and from land based aircraft located in Iraq and Qatar. They will strike the known nuclear facilities located in and around Tehran and the rest of the country as well as bases containing major units of the Iranian military, anti-aircraft installations and units of the Revolutionary Guard (a separate and potent Iranian para-military organization).

Will this military action stop Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not. It will probably not even destroy all of their nuclear research facilities, the most sensitive of which are known to be underground, protected by tons of earth and reinforced concrete and steel designed to survive almost all attacks using conventional munitions. The Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will most likely survive as well, although they will suffer significant casualties and major bases and command centers will undoubtedly be destroyed. However, since Iran has both a functioning Air Force, Navy (including submarines) and modern anti-aircraft capabilities, U.S. fighter-bombers will suffer casualties as well. This will not be a "Cake Walk" as with the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Iraqi Army simply melted away and the Iraqi Air Force never even launched a single aircraft.

Not even close.

If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.

That’s just the opening act.

Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran’s newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.

The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country’s nuclear arsenal under their wings.

Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.

The day after the invasion Wall Street (and to a lesser extent, Tokyo, London and Frankfurt) acts as it always does in an international crisis – irrational speculative and spot buying reaches fever pitch and sends the cost of oil skyrocketing. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iran, the price of oil goes to $200.00 - $300.00 dollars a barrel on the open market. If the war is not resolved in a few weeks, that price could rise even higher. This will send the price of gasoline at the pump in this country to $8.00-$10.00 per gallon immediately and subsequently to even higher unthinkable levels.

If that happens, this country shuts down. Most Americans are not be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly die in the winter for lack of heat. There are food riots across the country. A barter system takes the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest builds.

The police are unable to contain the violence and are themselves victims of the same crisis as the rest of the population. Civilian rule dissolves and Martial Law is declared under provisions approved under the Patriot Act. Regular U.S. Army and Marine troops patrol the streets. The federal government apparatus is moved to an unknown but secure location. The United States descends into chaos and becomes a third world country. Its time as the lone superpower is over.

It doesn’t get any worse than this.

Then the first Israeli bomber drops its nuclear payload on Tehran.

Posted by: halo001

OMG, that is one of the most well thought out senarios I have ever read, I have to thank you for posting that, as it shows the little effects not thought of by many, such as the involvement of Syria, I believe that Isael will nuke too, but I believe that America will do more to protect Israel, being that it is among the smallest nations in the world, and that is the reason that it is allowed to have nukes.

Something has to be done about Iran, though I doubt that Americas troops are streched too bad, I too agree that this will be more of an Air battle, America can call 1 Million in reserves if needed, I know we have less than 150,000 in Iraq and less than 30,000 in Afganistan, small compared to the 16 million total that served in World War 2.

If we were to do like in WWII and commit to a total war we may again prosper from the many that serve and the money spent, or the opposite may happen, either way, we had far less people in America in WWII, I beleive if it came to it, We could wipe them off the face of the face of the Earth with just numbers, we could easily surpass 25-30 million troops this time around, but that does not matter, I would hate nothing else than for another war, either way, this is just speculation and opinion, but something has to be done.

Posted by: fossten

We aren't doing Israel any favors by being in the middle of this mess, constantly brokering doomed-to-fail peace deals. Best if we just stay out of it and let Israel handle her business. She has enough firepower to wipe out ALL her enemies, and that's saying something. And they know it, too. The fact that she doesn't just shows her benevolence, not only towards them, but towards us.

And Geno, I do take issue with the diagnosis of the Iraq war. It's going so well right now there's strong talk that we'll be getting out of there starting in December.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

And Geno, I do take issue with the diagnosis of the Iraq war. It's going so well right now there's strong talk that we'll be getting out of there starting in December.

Your so funny, you little dreamer.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

Your so funny, you little dreamer.

Well, I was being serious. I know things can still go wrong, but I don't hear the Dems griping anymore, and news coverage has all but dried up. That's a strong sign for me.

I have conflicting views on this. Overall, I believe we could have avoided going into Iraq (hindsight), but leaving now would have dire consequences. Best that we finish the job and then get the hell out.

Posted by: ONEBADMK8

I was being sarcastic because we will be there until our kids our in College at least.

Posted by: halo001

Thing is, if they would take the leash off the military and just let them do their job without thinking about how the rest of the world feels, the war would have been over.

My brother said that while he was over there, the Iraqis could sit with an RPG and so long as they weren't pointing it at you, or shooting at you, you couldn't do anything. That is total crap, if it weren't for the fear of prison, most of our guys would have ignored the rules of engagement and got the job done faster, it isn't like Vietnam, where they destroyed potential threats in the search and destroy missions, now they have to wait for an immediate threat. But you could be dead by the time that is determined.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEBADMK8

I was being sarcastic because we will be there until our kids our in College at least.

You may be right. Are you saying we'll still have 100k+ troops there, or just have some sort of presence?

Posted by: halo001

I think we'll be a presence for sometime, but the terrorist are starting to get desperate, they are using female suicide bombers, a role traditionally reserved for men, since they view women to be worth less than farm animals, and as nothing but "breeding machines", it is close to the end, it is more of a war of attrition, "wait until the American's short attention span catches something else, like Iran, and they'll leave us alone", sort of deal. What do you think ONEBADMK8?

Posted by: Joeychgo

We have a reputation of staying places for long time. i.e. South Korea. Hopefully, we wont have a large presence, but I would guess 25-30k troops max.

Just to point out... Saddam, who had the 4th largest military in the world, couldnt take out Iran, and he had a million man army. We are struggling to maintain 150k troops in Iraq now - where would we get the army to invade Iran? And before you start speculating, look at a map of Iran's topography. Not the best place to fight a war.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

We have a reputation of staying places for long time. i.e. South Korea. Hopefully, we wont have a large presence, but I would guess 25-30k troops max.

Just to point out... Saddam, who had the 4th largest military in the world, couldnt take out Iran, and he had a million man army. We are struggling to maintain 150k troops in Iraq now - where would we get the army to invade Iran? And before you start speculating, look at a map of Iran's topography. Not the best place to fight a war.

Joey, do you have Alzheimer's? Seriously, you've tried to point this exact same thing out before, and I've thoroughly answered it. All we need to do is take out their nuclear capability. We don't need to invade. Is that starting to ring a bell? Not only that, but I just said let the Israelis do it. They have no desire to invade either, only to bomb the nukes.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Yes, I understand that. I just dont agree that it will end there. I can imagine Iran rolling into IRAQ after such a bombing attack and going after our troops there. Then what do we do? We would likely invade Iran. Now we have a full scale war.

My thought is that Iran is not likely to just accept such an attack and not retaliate.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

That's a very short sighted outlook. There are many options. Remember, in the Korean War China invaded North Korea and we fought them to a standstill, but we didn't invade China.

Easiest thing to do, assuming Iran is STUPID enough to invade Iraq (which I don't think they are), is set a trap for their military and wipe it out inside Iraqi soil. Then what will they do? Keep this in mind, Joey, our tech is so far above theirs they don't have a prayer. Remember we defeated Saddam's army in just a few days of actual fighting. Mostly we used Tomahawks, Predator drones to scout artillery targets, and fighter bombers. All the Republican Guard could do was hide or die.

This would not be a full scale war. It would be a full scale slaughter. Remember that Iran can't even beat Israel in a heads-up war, and they know it. You really think they'll take on the Americans? Puh-leeze. The only chance they have is to keep paying for terrorists and hope Obama gets elected.

Posted by: halo001

Seriously, Isreal was able to fend off Egypt and Syria at the same time, while getting bombed from Lebanon, their ground troops are some of the most effective in the world, Iran would have to have some major forces, or Chuck Norris on their side.

Posted by: glanga

There is no way that's the only Iran attack scenario and by no means is that official. The government would never release the actual strategic forcastings until after we were to bomb them if we ever do. That has to be the bleakest outlook I've ever seen, that's worse than the VietNam war and you could probably replace Iran with Iraq in that article and had it been written 6 years ago would probably be just as credible.

Albiet we should back off and let Israel handle it themselves. Their ROEs and techniques make us look like fairies so they can more than handle it.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I bet Bush and Rumsfeld thought the same thing pre Iraq invasion....

You HAVE to assume and anticipate all possibilities and plan for them. Had we not gone into Iraq, I wouldnt be worried. But where would we get the troops for a ground invasion of Iran if we needed to do that? And if we did, what about Iraq and Afghanastan? At the same time, does North Korea decide we're stretched thin and try to reinvade the south? Does Syria get involved? How do other arab countries respond? What about Pakastian?. I can do this forever.

My point, It's not necessarily as simple as the US flying a few stealths over to drop a few bombs. It would definately be better if Isreal did it. But I'm sure you can see me point. We went into Iraq without a strong plan for many of the possibilities, and thats how we got into the troubles we did. I dont want that to happen again.

Posted by: fossten

Iraq was different in that we didn't already hold a piece of land; i.e. a staging area from which to launch campaigns, and a place to defend. Iran is now caught between a hammer and an anvil, us and Israel. They know that their only hope lies in either Obama or getting a nuke. The fact is that the actual ground conflict with Iraq was short and decisive, Joey. It's the occupation that has been the problem.

If we don't occupy Iran, there's no real issue there. Even if we have to invade, we go in, kill their nuclear industry, and walk out. That's the strong play. I hope like you that we've learned our lesson about occupying. I don't think the Israelis want to occupy either.

Syria doesn't dare get involved. I don't think they own any weapons hot enough to light a match. And don't forget we already have troops in South Korea.

I agree we weren't prepared for the trouble with occupying Iraq, but we have learned from that. I don't think we'll make the same mistakes again.

Posted by: YouthKwest

I thought that this scenario was copy and pasted from a gaming site promoting the next first-person shooter game.

Now don't I feel stoopid.

Posted by: halo001

The Isrealis really just want the Arab nations to leave them alone, the land was given to them buy the U.N., leave them alone, stop shooting random rockets over the border and trying to invade them every two seconds.

MPAA:Read this exciting weblog:Secured Loan:Direct TV:MPAA