The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Dionysus
Oh come on, you have to see beyond official diplomatic positions. That's what politics is all about. When placed in an extreme scenario such as WW3, countries such as China and NK would pretty rapidly align themselves with Iran.


Erm...there would be no WW3, unless they did so. Diplomatic positions be damned, it is in neither of their interests to do so. Iran would be on its own if it was attacked, save from muslim support, namely groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah, and Syria. Syria would not enter war in the defence of Iran, as it would be obliterated. This leaves only terrorist support from Iran, which would wreck havoc on American forces in the region, but no WW3.
A ground invasion of Iran would be near disastrous for America, so naturally Bush wants to do it. Seriously though, it's not going to happen.
Reply 82
_jackofdiamonds
A ground invasion of Iran would be near disastrous for America, so naturally Bush wants to do it. Seriously though, it's not going to happen.


No, I'd say a ground invasion is unlikely - surely even Bush can see that it would be suicidal. If they can't even beat guerilla fighters in Iraq, they'd really struggle against the Iranians. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they commence airstrikes though.
Reply 83
Dionysus
No, I'd say a ground invasion is unlikely - surely even Bush can see that it would be suicidal. If they can't even beat guerilla fighters in Iraq, they'd really struggle against the Iranians. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they commence airstrikes though.


It's a completely different scenario.

The U.S. Army is a conventional army - the strongest in the world - but it is not suited towards fighting the war in Iraq - but fighting in Iran would, at start, be a completely different matter.
The U.S. Army would win any conventional battle against the Iranians, but would then struggle to rebuild the country after crushing the government and leaving a hostile, disbanded army, which will adopt very similar tactics found now in Iraq. (Just as in Iraq - Saddam's forces were crushed with ease, and look at the situation now).
Reply 84
gurk
It's a completely different scenario.

The U.S. Army is a conventional army - the strongest in the world - but it is not suited towards fighting the war in Iraq - but fighting in Iran would, at start, be a completely different matter.
The U.S. Army would win any conventional battle against the Iranians, but would then struggle to rebuild the country after crushing the government and leaving a hostile, disbanded army, which will adopt very similar tactics found now in Iraq. (Just as in Iraq - Saddam's forces were crushed with ease, and look at the situation now).


Well I agree that the US is hopeless against guerilla fighters in general (just look at Vietnam. The VK were so agile that they ended up making the Americans shoot each other more often than not) but I think you might be underestimating Iran's army nonetheless. They are a very different proposition to Iraq. The Iranian army is vast, well trained and well equipped.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/

Whilst the US would eventually win, it would require a very significant effort, involving the mobilisation of probably the biggest army the Americans have ever used. There is no way the US economy is in a fit state for that, and public opinion of the Bush administration within the US is positively acidic.
Reply 85
Dionysus
Well I agree that the US is hopeless against guerilla fighters in general (just look at Vietnam. The VK were so agile that they ended up making the Americans shoot each other more often than not) but I think you might be underestimating Iran's army nonetheless. They are a very different proposition to Iraq.


It's not just the U.S. - generally, large armies struggle against enemies adopting guerilla warfare strategies.

I don't know. The U.S. is certain to engage in extensive bombing of military infrastructure before heading in with ground troops, so the Iranians will be disadvantaged from the start. But I don't know - i'm not exactly a military expert.
Reply 86
gurk
And then what do you do? Just wander off, job done? Sure, it could bomb Iran, but then it would get its armies in Afghanistan & Iraq massacred, while also losing any public or political support from the rest of the world.
The Iranians possess an array of conventional weaponry able to hit Israel, too. It would not surprise me if they had have chemical and biological weapons stored somewhere as well.


Let me just say that I am not advocating it, just playing devil's advocate, but many senior figures in the American government are.

Dionysus

And hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iranian civilian casualties. It would also trigger a declaration of war on every western nation with forces in the middle east, leading to an Iranian invasion of Iraq.


According to the Americans and British, Iran is already doing a huge amount to support the insurgency in Iraq.

Dionysus
America would also become isolated from world politics, and quite possibly viewed as a rogue state in the same way that Nazi Germany was. The fact is that the US has no legitimate reason to attack Iran whatsoever. Thus far they haven't even cooked up some story about 45 minutes to the destruction of the west. The closest they've got is this nonsense about Iran trying to build a nuclear bomb, despite the fact that Iran entirely lacks the ability to do so. Iran has a fairly brutal regime which abuses human rights, but then so does Texas. They certainly pose no threat to western sovereignty at present.


I think it's wrong to compare Iran to Texas on the issue of human rights, to be honest. As for Iran being lacking the ability to develop a nuclear bomb, it is far more advanced than Iraq was and they managed to credibly build a case that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction as well as doing a variety of other things, such as being a threat to the peace of the region, supporting terrorism, not giving its people freedom - all things which Iran could be accused of as well.
samba
I'd rank it as 'very unlikely' to 'no'

If the US carries out sustained airstrikes against Iran, Iran will attempt to hit Israel. If Iran hits Israel with a special which causes significant damage, Israel would respond with action nobody wants to see.

I was thinking the same. They might have let Saddam off in the Gulf War but I'd imagine Iran would be firing far more sophisticated rockets.
Reply 88
all this for the sake of "testing" their new military technologies and what their capable of... aside from the political hindsight
Reply 89
gurk
China and Russia withdrew political support for Iran a whiles ago.

North Korea, although on close terms with Iran is sandwiched between the largest, and 6th largest armies in the world, while its army, although large, does not match China, the US, or South Korea in terms of the modernity of its equipment. It can offer no real support.

etc.. means that you've ran out of countries.


Yeh, these army's being on FRIENDLY terms with Iran. You are right about that it not being modern, but as it DID create nuclear weopens there is a large chance it could have sold some of its remaining stocks to Iran thus proving useful if nuclear war were to occur.

However, I re-evaluated my list after I wrote it and took N.K out of the picture.
Reply 90
gurk
It's a completely different scenario.

The U.S. Army is a conventional army - the strongest in the world - but it is not suited towards fighting the war in Iraq - but fighting in Iran would, at start, be a completely different matter.
The U.S. Army would win any conventional battle against the Iranians, but would then struggle to rebuild the country after crushing the government and leaving a hostile, disbanded army, which will adopt very similar tactics found now in Iraq. (Just as in Iraq - Saddam's forces were crushed with ease, and look at the situation now).


Israeli army is also conventional, they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.
Reply 91
Dionysus


Whilst the US would eventually win, it would require a very significant effort, involving the mobilisation of probably the biggest army the Americans have ever used. There is no way the US economy is in a fit state for that, and public opinion of the Bush administration within the US is positively acidic.


War tends to bolster the economy - those billions being spent on the Iraq war? All spent on either wages to Americans, or defence contracts to American companies.
Reply 92
Fire Star
Israeli army is also conventional, they got their asses handed to them by Hezbollah.


And your point is?

Fire Star
where is proof of all this, and secondly i changed what i put in my post long ago.


Proof? I'm stating facts. Look them up if you so desire.

China & Russia supported economic sanctions on Iran by the Security Council, and are currently drafting harsher ones - Which, by the way, is the way Iran will have its nuclear project crippled. The Iranian economy is in no fit state to have strong sanctions imposed on it - Ahmadinejad will lose ALL support, and so will his nuclear program.
Reply 93
samba
I'd rank it as 'very unlikely' to 'no'

If the US carries out sustained airstrikes against Iran, Iran will attempt to hit Israel. If Iran hits Israel with a special which causes significant damage, Israel would respond with action nobody wants to see.


Why would Israel use nuclear weapons in response to an attack of conventional missiles?

Why wouldn't it respond by bombing Iran with conventional weapons rather than nuclear?
Reply 94
gurk
And your point is?


My point is clear. The Iranian army is much more powerful and advanced than Israel, and if Hezbollah can effectively counter Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon then how Iran would go about things is self explanatory.

Did you know Israel is backed by the USA militarily?

China & Russia supported economic sanctions on Iran


Could you please provide a link?

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=741fe5033506d5e033adacd9bbc29069

Iran, for its part, already has a favorable trade balance with both India and China, and is ready to deal further with them despite American attempts to frustrate these relationships.
Reply 95
Agamemnon


According to the Americans and British, Iran is already doing a huge amount to support the insurgency in Iraq.


There really have presented no evidence, though. It is possible, indeed likely, that Iranian elements are operating within Iraq. That does not constitute Iran supporting the insurgency. Nobody has proven that any of these people are government-sponsored.



As for Iran being lacking the ability to develop a nuclear bomb, it is far more advanced than Iraq was and they managed to credibly build a case that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction


That doesn't change the fact that it was a lie. They certainly never managed to pull the wool over my eyes. People are not going to be fooled twice by the same government.


as well as doing a variety of other things, such as being a threat to the peace of the region

It's less of a threat to peace than Israel, which actively engages in military action in the region, thus ending the 'peace'.

supporting terrorism


Show me a scrap of evidence.

not giving its people freedom .


Yes I agree with that one, but since when did the US pick its targets based on democratic records? They actively support dictatorships around the world, and actively oppose democratically elected political elements in several places, not least Palestine.
Reply 96
Surely with an army the size of americas, they could start a war in any part of the world, with anyone, within a day? All they have to do is send the long range missiles and planes over there?
Reply 97
BluesMan
Surely with an army the size of americas, they could start a war in any part of the world, with anyone, within a day? All they have to do is send the long range missiles and planes over there?


They can have troops on the ground anywhere on earth in 1.5 days, according to their own statistics. Didn't seem to prevent them taking about a week to get to New Orleans, though, did it?
Reply 98
BluesMan
Surely with an army the size of americas, they could start a war in any part of the world, with anyone, within a day? All they have to do is send the long range missiles and planes over there?


They can and cant. Otherwise Afghani resistance would now be destroyed, instead of evolving and creating more damage to NATO than before the invasion. American and British forces cannot handle the insurgency, so call in NATO to help them.

All planes can do is topple things, and if a country has a modern air-defence system then the planes will be toppled themselves.

Also, how would the USA face a country like China or Russia?
Reply 99
BluesMan
Surely with an army the size of americas, they could start a war in any part of the world, with anyone, within a day? All they have to do is send the long range missiles and planes over there?


Yes, no conventional millitary is a match for the American millitary. However, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, when it comes to defeating opponents who use guerilla tactics it is much more difficult.

Latest

Trending

Trending