CDZ Could the USA defeat Iran?

[FA_Q2]

Capitulation

If capitulation of the existing power structure is the goal here then yes, the USA could win a war with Iran rather easily. This would, of course, make things worse for the USA in general though.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is your actual argument that the US forces could even establish a foothold within Iran? Modern conventional warfare has not been fought by the US for 63 years. Provided Americans actually established a beachead, there would be a trench stuffed with Iranians armed to the teeth every 2 inches.

Quite simply it is next to impossible , and there are no actual arguments otherwise besides propagated delusions that the US military is invincible.

This form of warfare no longer exists. There are no trenches because modern weaponry is do damn accurate. Anyone facing off with an actual US ground force would find themselves vaporized by artillery or air power.

 

[Onyx]

This form of warfare no longer exists. There are no trenches because modern weaponry is do damn accurate. Anyone facing off with an actual US ground force would find themselves vaporized by artillery or air power.

That's uneducated bullshit, from an uneducated bullshitter. Of course trench warfare still exists. Artillery and airpower just reinforce its necessity in conventional warfare. Every example of conventional warfare in the 20th and 21st century has featured trench warfare to a degree.

Air superiority has limited effectiveness without strong forces on the ground, as the past 100 years have demonstrated. Artillery is the king of the battlefield, but it adheres to the same combined arms doctrine that airpower does.

 

[Onyx]

If capitulation of the existing power structure is the goal here then yes, the USA could win a war with Iran rather easily. This would, of course, make things worse for the USA in general though.

That's just conjecture. There is no logical argument for that position that does not ultimately stem from baseless propaganda. Educate yourself.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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.

How long did it take Iraq to surrender?

Don't give me the Wikipedia line about years. How long from from the initial invasion till the fall of the government.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Onyx]

How long did it take Iraq to surrender?

What's the relevance? The Iraqi army was full of irregular militia forces by 2003 that were unloyal and severely under equipped. They didn't even have any form of aerial defense measure, which was absolutely pathetic.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

How long did it take Iraq to surrender?

What's the relevance? The Iraqi army was full of irregular militia forces by 2003 that were unloyal and severely under equipped. They didn't even have any form of aerial defense measure, which was absolutely pathetic.

The relevance is that we would win the initial conflict/war in a matter of days or weeks.

Occupation takes decades to change the core values of a country.

Unless you want us to do as they did in the Middle Ages and put all to the sword.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Onyx]

The relevance is that we would win the initial conflict.

Baseless conjecture. Just because you buy into some well established propaganda, does not make it true.

Anyone who has studied the basic fundamentals of military science knows that it would be no cake walk, with the logical position being that it is near impossible.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Baseless conjecture. Just because you buy into some well established propaganda, does not make it true.

Anyone who has studied the basic fundamentals of military science knows that it would be no cake walk, with the logical position being that it is near impossible.

Tell that to Afghanistan and Iraq who were fighting unseasoned troops.

After the initial conflict/war that topples the government it would take decades to rebuild if we destroy anything of military significance and then leave.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[FA_Q2]

The relevance is that we would win the initial conflict.

Baseless conjecture. Just because you buy into some well established propaganda, does not make it true.

Anyone who has studied the basic fundamentals of military science knows that it would be no cake walk, with the logical position being that it is near impossible.

Actually, your supposition that we would lose with your definition of winning is utter conjecture as it is based on nothing. All you have is personal insults to back it up calling everyone else uneducated.

I am quite educated on the topic - I have been in war. Something that I think you have no experience in at all. Trench warfare was not reinforced by modern tech and to say so is supremely ignorant of the type of asymmetrical warfare that a conflict with Iran would represent. He brings up actual fact - a war with a ME nation that was considered to be quite powerful in that area of the world. They were, until we utterly dismantled their government, the premier power in opposition to Iran.

The equipment and supplies available to the Iran military has zero chance of competing with the US equipment on any scale. Troops are useless unless you can both give them cover from the air and support them with armor neither or which Iran has any hope of utilizing in an altercation to us.

 

[Onyx]

Actually, your supposition that we would lose with your definition of winning is utter conjecture as it is based on nothing. All you have is personal insults to back it up calling everyone else uneducated.

Try again. The Iranian military can mobilize more fighting troops than the entire US military active duty personnel with little effort. A large portion of their military is already modernized. Much of their technology rivals and even surpasses that of the US. Airpower and naval power are insignifigant. On the defensive, the US losers do not stand a change.

I am quite educated on the topic - I have been in war.

Nope, you are absolutely uneducated. You haven't been to war. Not a real one.

How many untrained milltiamen did you kill, soldierboy? Zero?

Trench warfare was not reinforced by modern tech and to say so is supremely ignorant of the type of asymmetrical warfare that a conflict with Iran would represent.

Ignorance exemplified. A war with Iran would not be asymmetrical. It would be conventional.

He brings up actual fact - a war with a ME nation that was considered to be quite powerful in that area of the world.

By who? Iraq only had the slightest bit of power before the Iran-Iraq war, which it got its ass kicked in miserably. If anyone considered them to be powerful afterwards, they are idiots.

The equipment and supplies available to the Iran military has zero chance of competing with the US equipment on any scale.

Not true. They have access to modernized and advanced new generation equipment. It is not available to the entire Iranian army, but to a large portion of it nonetheless.

Troops are useless unless you can both give them cover from the air and support them with armor neither or which Iran has any hope of utilizing in an altercation to us.

Combined arms is important, and Iran has a fully diverse military. It has been proven in dozens of modern conflicts that excessive air superiority alone is not enough to stop ground offensives, and the US only has air superiority in a conflict with Iran.

Educate yourself.

 

[FA_Q2]

Actually, your supposition that we would lose with your definition of winning is utter conjecture as it is based on nothing. All you have is personal insults to back it up calling everyone else uneducated.

Try again. The Iranian military can mobilize more fighting troops than the entire US military active duty personnel with little effort. A large portion of their military is already modernized. Much of their technology rivals and even surpasses that of the US. Airpower and naval power are insignifigant. On the defensive, the US losers do not stand a change.

I am quite educated on the topic - I have been in war.

Nope, you are absolutely uneducated. You haven't been to war. Not a real one.

How many untrained milltiamen did you kill, soldierboy? Zero?

Trench warfare was not reinforced by modern tech and to say so is supremely ignorant of the type of asymmetrical warfare that a conflict with Iran would represent.

Ignorance exemplified. A war with Iran would not be asymmetrical. It would be conventional.

He brings up actual fact - a war with a ME nation that was considered to be quite powerful in that area of the world.

By who? Iraq only had the slightest bit of power before the Iran-Iraq war, which it got its ass kicked in miserably. If anyone considered them to be powerful afterwards, they are idiots.

The equipment and supplies available to the Iran military has zero chance of competing with the US equipment on any scale.

Not true. They have access to modernized and advanced new generation equipment. It is not available to the entire Iranian army, but to a large portion of it nonetheless.

Troops are useless unless you can both give them cover from the air and support them with armor neither or which Iran has any hope of utilizing in an altercation to us.

Combined arms is important, and Iran has a fully diverse military. It has been proven in dozens of modern conflicts that excessive air superiority alone is not enough to stop ground offensives, and the US only has air superiority in a conflict with Iran.

Educate yourself.

You do not even know what asymmetrical war means, do you?

And, again, you continue to call others ignorant. Why do you even post here in the CDZ when you are only interested in insults?

 

[Onyx]

You do not even know what asymmetrical war means, do you?

I do indeed, and a war with Iran would not be asymmetrical. To think otherwise is uneducated.

They have a conventional military, with modernized equipment and well trained troops. In what possible way would a war with Iran be asymmetric?

And, again, you continue to call others ignorant. Why do you even post here in the CDZ when you are only interested in insults?

Stop deflecting and start reading.

 

[FA_Q2]

You do not even know what asymmetrical war means, do you?

I do indeed, and a war with Iran would not be asymmetrical. To think otherwise is uneducated.

They have a conventional military, with modernized equipment and well trained troops. In what possible way would a war with Iran be asymmetric?

And, again, you continue to call others ignorant. Why do you even post here in the CDZ when you are only interested in insults?

Stop deflecting and start reading.

The technological level is not even close let alone the capabilities between the two. You keep mentioning Iran having a conventional military. That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be an asymmetrical conflict.


I have not deflected at all - this is the first post that you have done that does not include personal insults.

 

[Onyx]

The technological level is not even close let alone the capabilities between the two. You keep mentioning Iran having a conventional military. That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be an asymmetrical conflict.

Two conventional militaries fight a conventional war. Perhaps you are the one that does not understand asymmetrical warfare.

Iran has full access to modernized and advanced technology. A large portion, but not all, of the Iranian military is modernized. Modernized tanks, modernized aircraft, modernized service rifles, modernized naval ships, modernized artillery, ect.

They also manufacture much of their own equipment.

Modern:

Modern:

Modern:

Modern (I didn't even make the goddamn missle argument):

Modern:

I have not deflected at all - this is the first post that you have done that does not include personal insults.

You are still carrying on with this petty nonsense? Typical.

 

[FA_Q2]

The technological level is not even close let alone the capabilities between the two. You keep mentioning Iran having a conventional military. That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be an asymmetrical conflict.

Two conventional militaries fight a conventional war. Perhaps you are the one that does not understand asymmetrical warfare.

Iran has full access to modernized and advanced technology. A large portion, but not all, of the Iranian military is modernized. Modernized tanks, modernized aircraft, modernized service rifles, modernized naval ships, modernized artillery, ect.

They also manufacture much of their own equipment.

Modern:

Modern:

Modern:

Modern (I didn't even make the goddamn missle argument):

Modern:

I have not deflected at all - this is the first post that you have done that does not include personal insults.

You are still carrying on with this petty nonsense? Typical.

Capabilities of the equipment in question is not determined by pictures or looks.

They do not have a single stealth aircraft and do not have the capability to detect our stealth aircraft. That fact alone makes any ability to combat US aircraft almost impossible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The US can, unquestionably, destroy Iran's capacity to make war, as well as Iran's economy.
Most of this it can do without landing conventional forces on Iranian soil.

 

[Picaro]

How old are you?

Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time.

We would be in Tehran under a week.

.

Iraq had a joke of a military. Sheer numbers mean very little.

If you truly believe that the US could defeat the Iranian military in a week, then you are beyond naive. Where did you study military theory? You people are completely delusional on the realities of 4th generation warfare.

This post is beyond naive and demonstrates no clue at all about '4th generation warfare', whatever that means, sounds like some slogan from a propaganda blog.

The Iranian military is junk; the U.S. can neutralize Iran within hours, if not days, without ever setting one boot across its border. It couldn't even defeat Iraq, a country maybe a quarter of its size, nor can it do much against the Kurds or anybody else. That's why it relies on cowardly terrorist gangs to conduct proxy wars against its neighbors, and has no 'big stick' to wag around. This has nothing to do with '4th generation warfare' of believing anybody is 'invincible', that's just some pseudo-intellectual psychobabble, probably peddled by Brookings or some other 'think tank' writing up spin for a client with an interest in selling the public some nonsense 'talking point' or other.

What we're seeing in the ME is just another Sunni vs. Shia murder for hire festival, and it will soon go away as both sides grind themselves into hamburger; they do it all the time when there are no weak neighbors to invade and butcher, they turn to butchering each other. Same shit, different day. The 'Caliphate' bandits haven't been a real threat to the West in 400 years, and they never will be.

 

[HenryBHough]

Today, in 2016, America COULD defeat Iran but WOULD not. That all changes on January 20, 2017 so let's hope the OP hasn't triggered a war hurry-up quick.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The technological level is not even close let alone the capabilities between the two. You keep mentioning Iran having a conventional military. That has nothing to do with the fact that it would be an asymmetrical conflict.

Two conventional militaries fight a conventional war. Perhaps you are the one that does not understand asymmetrical warfare.

Iran has full access to modernized and advanced technology. A large portion, but not all, of the Iranian military is modernized. Modernized tanks, modernized aircraft, modernized service rifles, modernized naval ships, modernized artillery, ect.

They also manufacture much of their own equipment.

Modern:

Modern:

Modern:

Modern (I didn't even make the goddamn missle argument):

Modern:

I have not deflected at all - this is the first post that you have done that does not include personal insults.

You are still carrying on with this petty nonsense? Typical.

Lmfao talk about delusional...


You seriously think Iran could last more then a week against the U.S. military ?


Bwahahahahahahahaha...


Their air defense would be destroyed in a few hours, their pilots would run for the hills..the only thing left would be suicide bombers...


They would probably use children like they did against Iraq.


.