SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!! (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=84526)

Re: The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

Regime change? Fine with me.
With U.S. support? Fine with me.

US can't do it anymore. Not enough manpower. Right now they are on the limit. They only way they can actually do more is to start nuking countries out of their existance.

Iran with Nuclear weapon is very very bad for US first and foremost, because they will be told to pack and go from the Gulf. Israel will be in BIG danger. if they use military to supress Iran they have no way out - they need to come in full worse and anihilate Middle East around Israel becaue otherwise - there will be a full time war on US by arab nations. If some idiot says Bomb Iran I hope noone will listen. It has to be done through Diplomacy, after all the USSR has been defeated through economic means, a nuclear power that could sink the whole NA into the ocean, yet never did it. If US keeps playing the intimidation game they won't go anywhere, as this new Iran president seems very much sick of the US. Perhaps new mediation is needed, that excludes the US.

Not enough manpower?

Just use the Airforce and the Navy. They aren't doing anything important at the moment like the Army. Remember "Shock and Awe"... that didn't require thousands of infantry. Just bomb them, it's that simple. If you are right and Iranians are intelligent and educated then they won't be hanging around outside reactor sites while the bombing is in progress. And no children should be working to purify weapons grade plutonium so that won't be a problem either.

As for their SAM systems, you play too much Lock On. They are crud and could be neutralised in about an hour with a concerted effort.

I am not overly worried about their "huge" fleet of dangerous submarines (3). They probably don't know how to use them as the instructions will be in Russian and all that singing underwater 5 times a day would be easy to pick up on sonar.

I agree with you in that there is not enough manpower for a regime change, so just fortify the boarder a bit.

The most important thing is to stop a nation of terrorists getting nukiller weapons. We must act now before it's too late.

@ Type941 & Jace11:
Don't mention Iran and nuclear weapons with Skybird around. I said the other day that Iran might have a nuclear capacity in a few years from now and he got very angry with me. Not before 2020 is the word!

Bomb the USA, it has nukes :roll:

LOL

Re: The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

When I wrote

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

Regime change? Fine with me.
With U.S. support? Fine with me.
Through a military attack? No thanks, the initiative must come from the people, support should come when they ask for it...
In the meantime the US should try to win the trust of progressive and reform-minded Iranians.

I ment with U.S. support the whole scale from information trhough diplomatic action up til undercover or deniable support. I guess something else won't do in Iran.

I did not discuss the problem of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. I feel that the combined carrot and stick approach by the U.S. and E.U. is at leats delaying the devellopment of the Iranian nuclear capacity. Iran will be in big trouble if it faces E.U. sanctions. It was important that the U.S. and the E.U. made up for its differences after the re-election of President Bush. Of course it was only Schroeder who warned the U.S. not to attack Iran without there being the slightest reason for such a warning other than his own re-election campaign retorical demands.
Of course, nobody took him for serious anymore in the international political arena.

I also must say that I find U.S. foreign policy more concise and better directed under Rice than under Powell.

hell if its just nuke bomb china india pakistan north korea russia britain america and anyone else who has a nuclear capibility oh and germany

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

It was not me but the London Institute for strategic Studies and a late-August or early-September-document to the UN saying so, basing on conclusions that were made independently from each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitain

cant just fly or sail into iran do you think they wont fight back ?

Of course they'll fight back, but that doesn't mean they can win.

Quote:

iran has a very good SAM systerm and air defence systerm

Eh? not really:

Quote:

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

GlobalSecurity.org[/url]]By the mid-1990s Iran reportedly had small numbers of Chinese SA-2s, along with SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs. Total holdings seem to include 30 Improved Hawk fire units (12 battalions/150+ launchers), 45-60 SA-2 and HQ-2J/23 (CSA-1 Chinese equivalents of the SA-2) launchers. Some sources claim that Iran might have 25 SA-6 launchers, but other sources are doubtful. There are reports of the transfer of eight SA-6 launchers to Iran from Russia in 1995/1996. In January 1996 US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Redd said had recently added Russian-built SA/6 missile defense systems.

In 1997 the Iranian Air Defense forces declared the Almaz S-200 Angara (SA-5 'Gammon') low-to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) operational. The missile has a comparatively modest acceleration rate, and relies on its small wings for maneuverability. Furthermore, the mechanically steered radars used by the SA-5 are vulnerable to saturation by decoys. Sources disagree on the number deployed, with some claiming four batteries, while others claim ten. Another source reports that the Air Force had three Soviet-made long-range SA-5 units, with a total of 10-15 launchers -- enough for six sites.

There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia [but as of late 2004 no deliveries had taken place]. In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system. In March 2001 there were reports tha the Russians are close to cutting a deal with Iran on advanced missiles. Itar-Tass reported that Iran would soon close the deal on the Russian Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and the S-300 surface-to-air missiles. After this report, there were no subsequent reports of Iranian interest in the SA-10.

There is no dispositive source of information on Iranian air defense deployment. Key SAM-defended areas include Tehran and centers involved in nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Iran appears to have deployed the SA-5 batteries to defend Tehran, major ports, and oil facilities, providing long-range medium-to-high altitude coverage of vital coastal installations. The I-Hawk and SA-2 batteries are reportedly located around Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island, Bushehr, Bandar Khomeini, Ahwaz, Dezful, Kermanshah, Hamadan, and Tabriz, providing point defense for key bases and facilities. Some of these sites lack sufficient missile launchers to be fully effective.

Iran imported surveillance radars from the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. The radar can detect targets up to 300 km away and is now part of Iran's air defense system. But even with China's help, Iran's air defenses remained porous, perhaps on par with Iraqi capabilities demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf war. The launchers are scattered too widely prevent relatively rapid suppression. Iran lacks the low altitude radar coverage, overlapping radar network, command and control integration, sensors, and resistance to jamming and electronic countermeasures needed for an effective air defense net. The defenses operate a point defense mode. .

Note the bolded part. Basically, I don't see any reason Iran's IADS would be any harder to deal with than Iraq's was in '91.

Before the Gulf War, Iraq had the best IADS in the world in terms of concentration and integration (though most of it's SAMs were older than the best available at the time), yet it was still dismantled within days. Due to the size of Iran and how thinly their systems are spread out, it would take longer to supress the individual SAM sites, but the command & control nodes would still be taken out early in the operation, greatly reducing the effectivenss of those sites.

Quote:

not only that they have three submarine which could pose a great threat to any ship or submarine nearin the coast

A threat that would be dealt with. It's a little known fact that Russia actually sold the acoustic signatuire of thse boats to the USA to make them easier to find. This was done to appease the Americans, who threw a fit over the sale.

Quote:

over fly it with B52 and drop bombs those B52's would bearly make it home if at all those slow bombers would fall victim to the masses and masses of air defence missiles come to think of it so would many planes.

More like B-2s, which Iran would be completely unable to intercept. Such B-2 sorties would probably include that new 30,000lb superheavy penetrator bomb the USAF is working on, to take out the "superbunkers" at the Natanz and Eshafan facilities. If B-52s are used, they will be employed purely as stand-off cruise missile platforms like they were against Serbia in '99.

Please note that I am not advocating bombing Iran's nuclear sites; the political backlash would be far more trouble than the potential benefits of the strike are worth. All I am saying is that it the US has the wherewithal to accomplish this feat if it so desired.

The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

It was not me but the London Institute for strategic Studies and a late-August or early-September-document to the UN saying so, basing on conclusions that were made independently from each other.

The reports were not made by you, the attack on me was...

Alright, there is SO much nonsense here that it's going to be tough to separate it from few sound reasons.

In fact there's only one - terrorists must be prevented from getting nuclear bombs.

Jace - are you 12? Are you gonna pick up the rifle if the time comes and you have to be going to Iran? I seriously doubt, I see you sitting same place instead behind a keyboard and telling the army where to hit the the targets, since obviously you've played just about right amount of Lock On.

personaly id send at least a dozen air strikes in first to nutrelise air and ground threats these strikes will be carried out by ground aircraft some where in some forign land

then id send in a few destroyers and frigates along with a cruiser and a submarine to sweep the area for naval vessels and submarines

then i would move the most important part the carrier group in to a sutible possition preferably out of range of land based ASM missile that ive missed and conduct air strikes on targets of value

then while still conducting air strikes id move my force to three points of a landing stage and unload them also while they are being unloaded i shall give them constant air support and they will be protected by some frigates

id then once the army is on land switch from air strikes to recon and close air protection using the aircraft from the carrier to protect my troops on the ground

then id ask for my troops make a beech head and secure a landing area once secured

then comes the tanks and heavy artilary move them up the beeches to support the ground troops while still giving air support

always give air support untill the battle won

that is my idea of how it should be done and how i would do it

you forget protecting Israel. Because that's where all the retaliation will go.

Oh. Once you get to the cities capitan, you will have poor men in towels on their heads begging for food and shelter, waving american flags and kissing soldiers, and at night, of the go with sniper rifles, rpgs, and on and on. And US has to control a territory now that's like what - France+Germany? Forget about it.

no because the isrealies would be doing thier own border control but if they did need re inforcing some ground planes from germany could make it in there also some british units

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitain

no because the isrealies would be doing thier own border control but if they did need re inforcing some ground planes from germany could make it in there also some british units

that only answers part of my question. ;)