The Student Room Group

Uk military prepares for iran attack!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
It shouldn't be as bad as Afghanistan. Fingers crossed it will just be a conventional war - go in, win, install a government that is friendlier, go home. Rather than having to stick around fighting those who can't take the fact they lost. Then again that is the Arab way, so who knows?!
Reply 21
Original post by Aj12
Really? I know there is a lot of research down that way but I did't think there were good reliable systems in place yet


Ahh, admittedly if we had the same levels of anti-ICBM warfare kits that we're currently researching, it would be pointless to even think of launching one. If we'd had America's STAR-WARS system, we'd know about a launch as soon as the first coordinate was placed into the tracking system.

However, we still have two systems in operation that can quell a potential strike once the ICBM is airborne. One is the A35 ABS (Anti-Ballistic System) which was purchased off the Russians. And the second is the GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) in America. Both could have up to a 70% success rate of destroying ICBMs launched against Europe and America, the respective systems are in the respective continents.

Furthermore, many Naval Vessels such as the USS Shiloh are equipped with RIM-161 ABS rockets. Now granted, these only have a 30% success rate, but fire enough of them, and the chances are that they will destroy an enemy ICBM.

Israel also has its own defense systems, and given its proximity could use these to a much greater effect. The Arrow Missile is an ABS and the "Iron Dome" are the two currently operational systems. A third system, "David's Sling" is currently still in development. But with this situation brewing, its production is likely to have been sped up.

The Royal Navy's Type-45 Destroyers are armed with Aster 15 and 30 missiles, as well as the Sea-Viper. And France is currently developing the Aster 30 MkII.

Finally, there's the modified Jumbo 747 (I forget its name) which uses a laser to destroy the tracking system. And there have also been confirmed tests in which fighter-aircraft have successfully tracked and destroyed in-flight dummy ICBMs. The rocket system that propels them still provides a huge heat-signature, easily enough to be acquirable to most of today's Air-to-Air missiles. The tests themselves used the Sparrow missile, and if this proves to be repeatedly successful event after more tests, we would have an anti-ICBM system capable of keeping pace and successfully being able to seek and destroy airborne ICBMs.

The main problem would be MIRVs, which separate into (usually) half a dozen different warheads. Granted, the aforementioned systems are designed to destroy the weapons before they reach the stage in which they separate, but there's currently only one even remotely working system on the planet designed to work against such threats: The LG1-118A Peacekeeper. Its test, had the nuclear warheads been live, would've successfully made 25 Hiroshima-style blasts up in the atmosphere to destroy a wave of incoming MIRV/ICBM systems. However, defense experts agree that the MIRV has made every ABS system currently in full time operation economically ineffective, and practically non-workable. Thankfully, the MIRV systems are hard to create, and I would highly doubt Iran possess the technology or parts to create even one system, let alone enough to force the invading forces into submission.
Reply 22
Should we start stockpiling?
Reply 23

How do these anti-ICBM systems work? :holmes:

Surely if the UK , US , India , ( maybe) Pakistan and other allies form together and target thier weapons at Iran (maybe China and Russia if they get involved) then we have wiped them out no?

I think I am wrong in thinking that you just send a bomb onto the nuclear facility , government building or military HQ right?
Reply 24
Could've seen this coming years ago, what do you expect from imperialist nations? :rolleyes:

EDIT: thanks for the neg :lol:
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 25
Original post by DH-Biker
xxx.


Hmm, thanks for the detailed response. Still it seems like a lot is left to chance. 70% is not an odd I want to play when there is a 30% chance of complete destruction.
Reply 26
Original post by Akuma
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/crude-oil-us-sanctions-against-iran-and-chinas-call-for-ww-iii-44134-3-1.html

Seems china is talking tough on the issue. If they think they could fight ww3 with the us theyre delusional. They only just got an aircraft carrier and as I pointed out in another thread, in terms of force projection, cant compete with us let alone the us.


I'm afraid you're wrong there.

Were China to fully begin military operations on a global scale, there is nothing that could hold them back. America's military might is beyond super-power, but technology doesn't win a battle. China's vast numbers and the ability to move vast amounts of equipment, supplies and ammunition behind the advancing forces would see a catastrophic war.

Throw a supportive Russia and Iran into the mix, and leave us with Israel, much of NATO and ourselves, we'd be walked over. America, as I said, is the dominant superpower in terms of military might on this planet. However, should China be pushed and prodded enough to initiate a full-blown war, in which it would certainly begin a state of drafting every able bodied person, and then use the rest to create vast droves of equipment, America just couldn't compete.

America's forces are by no means small. The USMC is the smallest of America's fighting forces, and they still outnumber our combined military force, but China could draft millions upon millions of men and would have the ability to arm them all. Remember, there's an AK47 for every 11 people on the planet. And considering the entirety of China's dedicate armed forces utilize the Type-95 Rifle among others, they could arm every single civilian they draft in with arguably the best assault rifle in the world, magazines aplenty, food and water and send them out.
Reply 27
Original post by Agent Smirnoff
How do these anti-ICBM systems work? :holmes:

Surely if the UK , US , India , ( maybe) Pakistan and other allies form together and target thier weapons at Iran (maybe China and Russia if they get involved) then we have wiped them out no?

I think I am wrong in thinking that you just send a bomb onto the nuclear facility , government building or military HQ right?


It depends on the system. Most use a second explosion (so another rocket) to destroy the main body of the ICBM. You can't detonate a nuclear warhead with an explosion, it doesn't work that way, so they aren't concerned about throwing large explosions at it. Even if it doesn't fully destroy the whole ICBM, it certainly wont be flying anywhere, and thus its usefulness is simply non-existent afterwards.

Others use a solid round, such as the American GMD. It fires a large projectile at it and just blows a hole through it. Once again, the ICBM is no longer able to operate.

Finally, the American's 747 uses a laser to fry the targeting systems. It just drops from the sky after that.

Most systems can only acclaim to be around 30-40% effective at best. Which isn't ideal, but the principal of "fire-enough-at-it-and-hope-for-the-best" still works effectively here.

Iran can't stand against America and the UK in a conventional war. If we had the help of the nations you named, then we'd crush them even more so. But we'd have to go in and fully root out any lasting military forces.

Even without dedicated leadership, I would wager that NCOs and remaining Officers could still organize effective guerilla-war type actions against the invading forces. An ambush of anti-armour and anti-infantry weaponry would destroy a convoy, and that's something we can't be seen to lose. So we'd send in forces to dig out and destroy the remaining military-capable enemy combatants. Thankfully, we have the technology to do that, though I'd imagine it would return to an Afghan-like state of trying to get the enemy out of their holes, and that takes time, money, resources and most importantly, lives.
Depends on the US, Pakistan and China I think. China generally opposes the US influence in the east, if China agrees to help Iran by providing missiles and general weapons, then the west would have a hard time trying to invade Iran. The only viable option would be to cut off Iran completely from China, only after that can the west consider a successful attack.

The recent "accident" by Nato killing Pakistan troops, could have been to provoke a aggressive response against the US by Pakistan. If Pakistan retaliated, then the US would be able to secure strategic points in Pakistan, hence cutting off Iran from China. I think Pakistan chose the wise option by telling US to gtfo.

But it's just my theory :smile:
Reply 29
Original post by DH-Biker
I'm afraid you're wrong there.

Were China to fully begin military operations on a global scale, there is nothing that could hold them back. America's military might is beyond super-power, but technology doesn't win a battle. China's vast numbers and the ability to move vast amounts of equipment, supplies and ammunition behind the advancing forces would see a catastrophic war.

Throw a supportive Russia and Iran into the mix, and leave us with Israel, much of NATO and ourselves, we'd be walked over. America, as I said, is the dominant superpower in terms of military might on this planet. However, should China be pushed and prodded enough to initiate a full-blown war, in which it would certainly begin a state of drafting every able bodied person, and then use the rest to create vast droves of equipment, America just couldn't compete.

America's forces are by no means small. The USMC is the smallest of America's fighting forces, and they still outnumber our combined military force, but China could draft millions upon millions of men and would have the ability to arm them all. Remember, there's an AK47 for every 11 people on the planet. And considering the entirety of China's dedicate armed forces utilize the Type-95 Rifle among others, they could arm every single civilian they draft in with arguably the best assault rifle in the world, magazines aplenty, food and water and send them out.


There is your problem though, China does not have the ability to move those men. And judging from their military expansion programs they are focusing on negating American advantages and keeping them out of certain areas but they are not gearing up for a direct confrontation with the US. China seems pretty focused on their own spheres of influence, rather than challenging America. I'd be shocked if we saw a direct war between them.

Your also assuming that the Chinese would be able to convince there people to fight. China's economy may well be heading for trouble and the state is becoming more and more jittery about dissent and what the masses think. Throw in the strain of a war and the whole thing may collapse.

I don't know about the numbers vs tech debate, I'm not really sure if thrown against a reasonable sized well equipped force numbers will win.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 30
Original post by Aj12
Hmm, thanks for the detailed response. Still it seems like a lot is left to chance. 70% is not an odd I want to play when there is a 30% chance of complete destruction.


Absolutely, and this is the issue. Those are the most effective systems, and sadly 70% is probably the best we're ever going to achieve.

Thankfully, though, these systems span in huge "webs" across America and much of Europe. And that's a 70% success rate from one ABS system within that web. Combine them together, and it raises to 140%, 230%, 300% etc. :tongue:

However, I agree. 70% is still far too much left to chance. These systems do cooperate, but they are too far apart for my liking. An effective AB system to me would utilize everything we have that could possibly damage or destroy an ICBM and I'd create a wall that would hopefully increase that percentage enough to ensure nothing could pass.

Unfortunately, they fly quite quickly. I'm not sure the response time of our aircraft or AB systems, but I'd bet that an ICBM from Iran would reach Europe a lot quicker.
Reply 31
Original post by DH-Biker
I'm afraid you're wrong there.

Were China to fully begin military operations on a global scale, there is nothing that could hold them back. America's military might is beyond super-power, but technology doesn't win a battle. China's vast numbers and the ability to move vast amounts of equipment, supplies and ammunition behind the advancing forces would see a catastrophic war.

Throw a supportive Russia and Iran into the mix, and leave us with Israel, much of NATO and ourselves, we'd be walked over. America, as I said, is the dominant superpower in terms of military might on this planet. However, should China be pushed and prodded enough to initiate a full-blown war, in which it would certainly begin a state of drafting every able bodied person, and then use the rest to create vast droves of equipment, America just couldn't compete.

America's forces are by no means small. The USMC is the smallest of America's fighting forces, and they still outnumber our combined military force, but China could draft millions upon millions of men and would have the ability to arm them all. Remember, there's an AK47 for every 11 people on the planet. And considering the entirety of China's dedicate armed forces utilize the Type-95 Rifle among others, they could arm every single civilian they draft in with arguably the best assault rifle in the world, magazines aplenty, food and water and send them out.



WW3 won't be won by men with rifles.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 32
Original post by DH-Biker
It depends on the system. Most use a second explosion (so another rocket) to destroy the main body of the ICBM. You can't detonate a nuclear warhead with an explosion, it doesn't work that way, so they aren't concerned about throwing large explosions at it. Even if it doesn't fully destroy the whole ICBM, it certainly wont be flying anywhere, and thus its usefulness is simply non-existent afterwards.

Others use a solid round, such as the American GMD. It fires a large projectile at it and just blows a hole through it. Once again, the ICBM is no longer able to operate.

Finally, the American's 747 uses a laser to fry the targeting systems. It just drops from the sky after that.

Most systems can only acclaim to be around 30-40% effective at best. Which isn't ideal, but the principal of "fire-enough-at-it-and-hope-for-the-best" still works effectively here.

Iran can't stand against America and the UK in a conventional war. If we had the help of the nations you named, then we'd crush them even more so. But we'd have to go in and fully root out any lasting military forces.

Even without dedicated leadership, I would wager that NCOs and remaining Officers could still organize effective guerilla-war type actions against the invading forces. An ambush of anti-armour and anti-infantry weaponry would destroy a convoy, and that's something we can't be seen to lose. So we'd send in forces to dig out and destroy the remaining military-capable enemy combatants. Thankfully, we have the technology to do that, though I'd imagine it would return to an Afghan-like state of trying to get the enemy out of their holes, and that takes time, money, resources and most importantly, lives.


Oh I see. :holmes:

Thanks. :smile:

Hopefully it won't escalate into a war. I bet Dave is feeling pretty stupid for scrapping half of our missiles and armed forces? :rolleyes:

I wonder if they will introduce conscription etc..... if it gets really bad? :erm: I say strike and destroy thier parliament/senate building and the president/PM house when **** seems to happen. Maybe a wave of assasinations on key people in Iran perhaps? :holmes:
Reply 33
Original post by Aj12
There is your problem though, China does not have the ability to move those men. And judging from their military expansion programs they are focusing on negating American advantages and keeping them out of certain areas but they are not gearing up for a direct confrontation with the US. China seems pretty focused on their own spheres of influence, rather than challenging America. I'd be shocked if we saw a direct war between them.

Your also assuming that the Chinese would be able to convince there people to fight. China's economy may well be heading for trouble and the state is becoming more and more jittery about dissent and what the masses think. Throw in the strain of a war and the whole thing may collapse.

I don't know about the numbers vs tech debate, I'm not really sure if thrown against a reasonable sized well equipped force numbers will win.


China doesn't have the ability to move all those men over to America. I was writing under the assumption that China would react to a war with Iran. In a world-wide situation, I'd still stand by a Chinese victory only if allied with Russia and Iran.

But yes, it was written in a completely hypothetical manner, assuming China had been pushed into the corner so much it had no other choice. The chances of it actually happening are remote, but it was just as a potential situation.

I'm afraid in the past numbers have often superseded tech. Sun Tzu famously wrote that with the right factors, a small force could defeat a large one. I'd agree, most of the time. However, look back to the Russian retaliation against Germany. Stalingrad was only one on the backs of the snipers and the fact that the Political Commissars were willing to throw thousands of men at German lines until they simply ran out of ammo or were overrun. The Germans had arguably the best tech of WWII, but look at how well that did them when they didn't have the numbers. :dontknow:

Its essentially the same principal. Granted, the German's didn't have access to B-52 carpet bombing, or targeting systems that could pick out every armoured vehicle within a 20 mile radius and put a missile inside it. But with the numbers, I'd say it would still be quite the victory.

And its not to say China doesn't have its own tech.

But yes, moving such numbers across to America on its own would be the ultimate challenge. Against Europe, though, China has the ability to cross almost all of Asia to almost all of Europe and the Middle East between. And we have nothing on these continents that could stand against them, unless Russia took up arms against them alongside us.

Eventually, if China managed to control Europe, moving men across the Pacific/Atlantic would only take a few hundred large container ships. Given China's navy and air-force could keep a more-then-adequate watch over the forces as they crossed, and going by the impression much of America's main oversees force would've been on one of the three aforementioned continents during this little scenario, I doubt America could hold.

Again, this is entirely unlikely. And as you say, internal politics would restrict much of it. But under the impression that China simply had no other choice, well, you don't corner a tiger. :tongue:
Original post by DH-Biker
I'm afraid you're wrong there.

Were China to fully begin military operations on a global scale, there is nothing that could hold them back. America's military might is beyond super-power, but technology doesn't win a battle. China's vast numbers and the ability to move vast amounts of equipment, supplies and ammunition behind the advancing forces would see a catastrophic war.

Throw a supportive Russia and Iran into the mix, and leave us with Israel, much of NATO and ourselves, we'd be walked over. America, as I said, is the dominant superpower in terms of military might on this planet. However, should China be pushed and prodded enough to initiate a full-blown war, in which it would certainly begin a state of drafting every able bodied person, and then use the rest to create vast droves of equipment, America just couldn't compete.

America's forces are by no means small. The USMC is the smallest of America's fighting forces, and they still outnumber our combined military force, but China could draft millions upon millions of men and would have the ability to arm them all. Remember, there's an AK47 for every 11 people on the planet. And considering the entirety of China's dedicate armed forces utilize the Type-95 Rifle among others, they could arm every single civilian they draft in with arguably the best assault rifle in the world, magazines aplenty, food and water and send them out.


Im not convinced. Blokes with ak47's are nothing in the face of the unrestrained power of the us and allies. Technology does win a battle. And how exactly are they going to "send them out"? Send them fighting their way to iran in the style of germanys advance towards moscow?
Reply 35
Just thought I'd point out that...

Considering all UK diplomats are no longer in Iran then....
Kinda makes the whole process of going to war a bit easier :tongue:
Original post by DH-Biker

But yes, moving such numbers across to America on its own would be the ultimate challenge. Against Europe, though, China has the ability to cross almost all of Asia to almost all of Europe and the Middle East between. And we have nothing on these continents that could stand against them, unless Russia took up arms against them alongside us.


You cant just march an army across a continent. As soon as they were away from a civilian area theyd be blown to smithereens by missiles from submarines against which rifles would be no use.
Original post by Greig_R
What does everybody think about the possibility of going to war with Iran?The US are making moves encouraging a very likely chance of war!

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear

Do you think it will happen?
Do you think it should happen?

Discuss...


Plans and attacks are not the same thing. Not even close. There were many a plans for war between the UK and USA pre ww2, none of which happened.
I plan for fire drills, doesn't mean someone is going to start a fire...
Better to plan that to not.

I dont think war is needed though, step up sanctions like we have done in North Korea, destroy their economy. Iran has enough issues with its own people, without getting into a fight with the rest of the world.
They have always been 'pissy' with the UK - Its just another war of words.

Original post by JonathanNorth
Mark my words. No other country will attack Iran except for Israel, with perhaps military support in terms of intelligence from the US/UK. The UK does not have the means to carry out an attack on Iran. - Forget the fact that the US/UK/NATO would never get the support from the international community to carry out an attack. Israel? They can do what they want.


I agree with you on Isreal.
Yet we most defiantly do have the means to carry out an attack on Iran. If we dont, what makes you think Isreal does?
Reply 38
I'll reiterate what many have said, it's a contingency plan...

Like the US apparently having a contingency plan against an alien invasion...

Quick Reply