CDZ Could the USA defeat Iran?

[Mac1958]

Military invasion. No usage of tactical nuclear weapons in this scenario.

I have yet to hear a good argument that the US could militarily defeat Iran. Iran has half a million active duty personnel, with a sizable portion modernized. A large reserve is available, and there are many powerful tribes within Iran that would ally with the ruling government.

Sure, there is air and naval superiority. Bombardment is costly in both money, equipment, and life. As we saw in the recent conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, excessive air and naval power had the ferocity of gnats.

One thing to factor into answering this question would be rules of engagement.

If we're going to enter another asymmetrical war - where we're playing fair and the other guys aren't - then it may be best to strongly consider other options.

Obviously, it's easy to imagine that Trump would hamstring his leaders and troops less than someone else might.
.

 

[Onyx]

If we're going to enter another asymmetrical war - where we're playing fair and the other guys aren't - then it may be best to strongly consider other options.
.

The United States didn't play fair in the last "wars." In Afghanistan in particular, US troops were greater terrors than even the Taliban.

I assume 'fair' means not targetting civilians by the way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyways, I'll just point out that the US military has flashy equipment, but it is terrible in reality. The pentagon orders excessively expensive equipment with limited practical usage, which is usually inferior to that of other countries. Most military equipment manafactured in the US is a joke.

Said no knowledgeable person, ever.

 

[Onyx]

Said no knowledgeable person, ever.

Oh cool, more non-substantive arguments from M14 Shooter.

What I said is 100% accuarate. I know the propaganda that has been brainwashed into your head says otherwise, but that is the truth. The state of equipment is so bad, that the US congress has ordered several programs in the past to replace it with foreign equipment. The service rifle, military vehicles, aircraft, ect.

 

[FA_Q2]

Having actually used that equipment and been in and around equipment of other nations I can tell that you have no practical experience in what you are talking about.

 

[Onyx]

Having actually used that equipment and been in and around equipment of other nations I can tell that you have no practical experience in what you are talking about.

So it isn't true that congress ordered a contest to replace the M4 with a foreign service rifle? It isn't true that there is a faction in the pentagon want to replace the M1 Abrams with a lighter and more mobile equivalent. It isn't true that other nations fighter aircraft cost a fraction of US aircraft, yet are vastly superior? It isn't true that Russian submarine technology is decades ahead of the United States?

Your experience firing pea shooters at the local gunstore means jackshit. Educate yourself.

 

[Yarddog]

Military invasion. No usage of tactical nuclear weapons in this scenario.

I have yet to hear a good argument that the US could militarily defeat Iran. Iran has half a million active duty personnel, with a sizable portion modernized. A large reserve is available, and there are many powerful tribes within Iran that would ally with the ruling government.

Sure, there is air and naval superiority. Bombardment is costly in both money, equipment, and life. As we saw in the recent conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, excessive air and naval power had the ferocity of gnats.

I'm not sure why we would want to do this, but sure, we could win over a long period of time after we implemented the draft and went through some rebuilding of our conventional forces.It would be extremely costly in lives though obviously.

 

[Onyx]

I'm not sure why we would want to do this, but sure, we could win over a long period of time after we implemented the draft and went through some rebuilding of our conventional forces.It would be extremely costly in lives though obviously.

Hypothetically if the US had unlimited manpower and a blank check, it could win a war with Iran after about a decade or two. That is not the case though.

Iran will always have more manpower than the United States within their own country. The United States does not have a technological edge. Iran can almost sustain a fully modernized military and keep it armed. They have tactical ballistic missiles which can take down an entire aircraft carrier off their coast. The US advantage in naval and air power is simply not enough to overcome the tremendous odds.

I simply do not see a realistic victory scenario for the United States. Perhaps if the US had a full military assistance from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would put several hundred thousand soldiers at both of Iran's flanks, and then a military coalition led by the US could launch an assault on Ishafan from the Persian Gulf. The US could definitely not invade Iran by themselves though, and even with allies it would still be deadly and the chances would be slim.

 

[Yarddog]

I'm not sure why we would want to do this, but sure, we could win over a long period of time after we implemented the draft and went through some rebuilding of our conventional forces.It would be extremely costly in lives though obviously.

Hypothetically if the US had unlimited manpower and a blank check, it could win a war with Iran after about a decade or two. That is not the case though.

Iran will always have more manpower than the United States within their own country. The United States does not have a technological edge. Iran can almost sustain a fully modernized military and keep it armed. They have tactical ballistic missiles which can take down an entire aircraft carrier off their coast. The US advantage in naval and air power is simply not enough to overcome the tremendous odds.

I simply do not see a realistic victory scenario for the United States. Perhaps if the US had a full military assistance from Iraq and Afghanistan, which would put several hundred thousand soldiers at both of Iran's flanks, and then a military coalition led by the US could launch an assault on Ishafan from the Persian Gulf. The US could definitely not invade Iran by themselves though, and even with allies it would still be deadly and the chances would be slim.

OK, well again, I don't see any reason why physically invading Iran would make any sense. I'm not sure at what point we would say we achieved victory. Hopefully we are through with the nation building for quite a while but,..

If i was to say we had a chance it would go back to what we did to Germany in WW2 who was technologically superior to us. First we would use that navy and airforce your talking about to destroy theirs, so that they can not reach our mainland. When Germany ran out of fuel their Armored division became nothing more than something to plant daisies in. We would have to do the same thing by bombing all their refineries. Every major city and all of their manufacturing capability. They would run out of fuel and the ability to replace lost military vehicles, meanwhile we would out manufacture them. It would come with a tremendous loss of civilian lives in Iran though. I dont believe we would have the political will or unity to ever fight a war like that again.

 

[Onyx]

If i was to say we had a chance it would go back to what we did to Germany in WW2 who was technologically superior to us. First we would use that navy and airforce your talking about to destroy theirs, so that they can not reach our mainland. When Germany ran out of fuel their Armored division became nothing more than something to plant daisies in. We would have to do the same thing by bombing all their refineries. Every major city and all of their manufacturing capability. They would run out of fuel and the ability to replace lost military vehicles, meanwhile we would out manufacture them. It would come with a tremendous loss of civilian lives in Iran though. I dont believe we would have the political will or unity to ever fight a war like that again.

The effectiveness of airpower and tactical bombing campaigns has been brought into question in recent years. It worked great in Iraq, where the land is open and flat, and the military possessed virtually no AA defenses. It doesn't work so well in mountainous and forested country like Iran, which does have a complex network of aerial defenses.

Anti-air techology has come a long way since WW2. The Iranian army also has hundreds of long range ballistic missiles which it can use to obliterate any airbase nears its borders. The US airforce would dwindle under high costs and loss of aircraft. Their effectiveness would be limited to raids off the Persian Gulf, causing no real damage. They certainly wouldn't be bombing unopposed like they did in Iraq.

Look at the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. They use modern US aircraft equipped with US bombs, and many of their pilots and officers were trained by Americans. They might as well be dropped potatoes.

 

[Yarddog]

If i was to say we had a chance it would go back to what we did to Germany in WW2 who was technologically superior to us. First we would use that navy and airforce your talking about to destroy theirs, so that they can not reach our mainland. When Germany ran out of fuel their Armored division became nothing more than something to plant daisies in. We would have to do the same thing by bombing all their refineries. Every major city and all of their manufacturing capability. They would run out of fuel and the ability to replace lost military vehicles, meanwhile we would out manufacture them. It would come with a tremendous loss of civilian lives in Iran though. I dont believe we would have the political will or unity to ever fight a war like that again.

The effectiveness of airpower and tactical bombing campaigns has been brought into question in recent years. It worked great in Iraq, where the land is open and flat, and the military possessed virtually no AA defenses. It doesn't work so well in mountainous and forested country like Iran, which does have a complex network of aerial defenses.

Anti-air techology has come a long way since WW2. The Iranian army also has hundreds of long range ballistic missiles which it can use to obliterate any airbase nears its borders. The US airforce would dwindle under high costs and loss of aircraft. Their effectiveness would be limited to raids off the Persian Gulf, causing no real damage. They certainly wouldn't be bombing unopposed like they did in Iraq.

Look at the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. They use modern US aircraft equipped with US bombs, and many of their pilots and officers were trained by Americans. They might as well be dropped potatoes.

well, I gave my best thought but im not a military expert. I guess I would leave this up to the better experts on the board. I do think however that the US would have the edge in Tactical strategy as we have had much more experience in Modern Warfare than they do. The other edge we may have would be when it comes to adapting and creating new weapons systems while at war. I know we were able to do this in WW2. I dont think the Iranians are as creative a society and that would be a minus in the long term

 

[Onyx]

I do think however that the US would have the edge in Tactical strategy as we have had much more experience in Modern Warfare than they do.

The US hasn't fought a conventional war since 1953 (Korean War). The Iranians fought a conventional war with Iraq (back when it was strong) from 1980-1988.

A war with Iran would be conventional. It wouldn't be against lightly armed militiamen and guerrillas like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

The other edge we may have would be when it comes to adapting and creating new weapons systems while at war.

I agree, but so do other countries with close relationships to Iran. Russia for example.

For example, during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the CIA supplied the Mujaheddin with a revolutionary new weapon - The FIM-92 Stinger. Of course, this is a kind of moot point since it is reliant on theoretical innovations.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If we can help it we need to stay out of any war with Iran.


Could we defeat it? Yes...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Said no knowledgeable person, ever.

Oh cool, more non-substantive arguments from M14 Shooter.

Says he who posted nothing but his unsubstantiated and unsupportable opinion.

What I said is 100% accurate.

Feel free to provide proof.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not sure why we would want to do this, but sure, we could win over a long period of time after we implemented the draft and went through some rebuilding of our conventional forces.It would be extremely costly in lives though obviously.

Hypothetically if the US had unlimited manpower and a blank check, it could win a war with Iran after about a decade or two. That is not the case though.

More unsupportable opinion.

Iran will always have more manpower than the United States within their own country.

The destruction of the Iranian economy and its ability to wage war requires few, if any, regular forces on Iranian soil.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The United States could certainly defeat Iran in a conventional war. But what then? How would we control it? Very difficult to predict possible outcomes; Iraq being case in point.

 

[Staidhup]

The real question is why would America invade Iran? Then the most important question is who will be willing the sacrifice our brave men and woman in uniform to fight a ground war against a medieval feudalistic country composed of religious zealots and Camel jockeys?

 

[sakinago]

Military invasion. No usage of tactical nuclear weapons in this scenario.

I have yet to hear a good argument that the US could militarily defeat Iran. Iran has half a million active duty personnel, with a sizable portion modernized. A large reserve is available, and there are many powerful tribes within Iran that would ally with the ruling government.

Sure, there is air and naval superiority. Bombardment is costly in both money, equipment, and life. As we saw in the recent conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, excessive air and naval power had the ferocity of gnats.

Back in the 90s, saddam had the 4th largest army in the world (I believe). It was relatively modern army compared to the rest of the world...How long did desert storm last??

 

[Onyx]

Back in the 90s, saddam had the 4th largest army in the world (I believe). It was relatively modern army compared to the rest of the world...How long did desert storm last??

That's false. Iraq had a large army, but it was insanely weak and ineffective after getting their asses handed to them by Iraq just several years prior.

Iraq always had bad leadership, bad equipment, no production, disloyal men, and never fully understood combined arms doctrine, since their military always had huge gaps in it.

 

[irosie91]

Back in the 90s, saddam had the 4th largest army in the world (I believe). It was relatively modern army compared to the rest of the world...How long did desert storm last??

That's false. Iraq had a large army, but it was insanely weak and ineffective after getting their asses handed to them by Iraq just several years prior.

Iraq always had bad leadership, bad equipment, no production, disloyal men, and never fully understood combined arms doctrine, since their military always had huge gaps in it.

the alliance between Iran, Russia, Syria and the entire world of Shiites-----in whatever countries they are harbored which is just about everywhere albeit in
small numbers thruout the non-Iranian muslim world DOES constitute a considerable and POWERFUL enemy. How it pans out BLOOOD wise
is in some ways determined by what alliances the Shiite moiety can develope with the Baathise scum in the sunni world -----or even an unlikely alliance with
Turkey. I have no idea how china would react