Uk military prepares for iran attack!

Scroll to see replies

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.

Might as well say if China allied with space aliens. Russia will not be fighting NATO because Putin's fortune derive from trade with the west. An extremely unlikely scenario, Russia uses NATO distraction to recapture its former satallites, but will not attack the west. A "greater Iran" is a serious threat to Moscow, it is the Chinese that are mostly pushing Iran to the finish line, Russia simply just wants to make life uncomfortable for the west not see their defeat.

Original post by DH-Biker

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.

The problem with your scenario is that China does not have many resources of its own. It is mostly imported and the high seas are where the allies dominate. In addition many of the nations that do export these resources are firmly in western clutches. Iron to China comes from Australia for example. The Imperial Japanese Navy could not defeat the Americans and they were much, much more evenly matched than the pathetic Chinese fleet is. A rusty 1970s hull used for its carrier? The USA has a dozen top of the range carriers with a new generation coming online.

Chinese shipping arrives through some very narrow straights that are easy for superior navies to control. Quite frankly, if China stuck its nose out the USA could just choke it to death. China will politically implode before any armies march over Asia. Also China cannot send armies into the regions you seem to think they can because they're shut in by bottlenecks in every direction west. There is a reason why China is the size it is today and why India is not chinese. You cannot march great armies through these passes and if China tried it would be a sitting duck for allied aerial forces.

Original post by DH-Biker

I'm afraid in the past numbers have often superseded tech.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:

The Russian tanks were superior.

Most German armor losses were occuring due to attrition and weather. Russian tanks did not have this huge loss rate in the mud and winter because they were built with wider tracks etc. Russia had the better tanks, it's no good having a slightly bigger main gun if the other tank has a 10 times better chance of getting through the winter. Russian tech was actually superior in several areas, although German units were of higher quality.

Original post by DH-Biker

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.

The difference was Russian units in WW II could close with the enemy. Germans might of had superior units overall but at least the Russians could get in range to fire back. I do not believe that men armed with AKs can even get within range of a modern army in a total war scenario. The only reason the Taliban can achieve it is because we're playing by strict legal restrictions and trying to build up Afghanistan.

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.

Sorry simply not possible. Would also be better if Russia remained neutral so that Chinese units didn't enter Siberia.

Original post by DH-Biker

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.

China is a dangerous nation but you seriously over-state it. It has no power projection beyond its immediate neighbours and it will have to accept whatever happens in Iran happens in Iran. It is so economically dependent and the ruling party so dependent on the economy, that it cannot do what you seem to think it can.

Reply 41

morris743

War is always a great way of sorting the economic system out....

Iranians will pay for the west's greed.

Reply 42

Keckers

Once again Keynesian economics will end up reliant on a war to rebuild economies. What a surprise.

Chances are though that Israel will do the main legwork in any assault on Iran.

Reply 43

michael321

Original post by DH-Biker

Isn't all this a bit Cold War? I thought STAR-WARS was Reagan's space-based baby which was ill-conceived and never got off the ground? I know the US is working on its missile defence systems at the moment, but they're far from reliable and is it not still meeting resistance from Russia et al when it comes to placing these defences in Eastern Europe?

Reply 44

michael321

Original post by morris743

War is always a great way of sorting the economic system out....

Iranians will pay for the west's greed.

You won't be able to go on about "the West's greed" if Ahmadinejad decides that Allah told him to press the big red button. Call me an oil-grabbing neo-Con lunatic, but I'd say that nuclear weapons are a particularly dangerous thing when they are in the hands of the unelected head of an authoritarian theocracy.

I'd rather it didn't come to it, but a well-aimed missile strike at Iran's nuclear facilities would solve a lot of problems, at least in the short-run.

Reply 45

DH-Biker

Original post by michael321

Oh, no no, I meant if it had been working, and had been advanced to modern standard. Not if it was the Cold War era of tech. :smile:

But yes, they still haven't managed to set up missile-defenses on the European continent. As I said, the UK and other Nations within the EU have bought Russian AB Systems, which are in my opinion much more reliable then the GMD that Bush put forth along the America's coast-lines and central line.

Reply 46

C_B_C

Original post by Akuma

Why should our people die protecting israel when they wont listen to us when we ask them to stop going too far in their treatment of palestine? Its about time our help came with the condition of them not exacerbating the situation with white phosphorus and the like.

Since when does morality and politics have anything to do with eachother?

Reply 47

michael321

Original post by DH-Biker

Oh, no no, I meant if it had been working, and had been advanced to modern standard. Not if it was the Cold War era of tech. :smile:

So could the USA withstand a missile attack from Iran? Let's assume that it hasn't acquired MIRVs yet, and is just using ten, simultaneously launched, single-warhead missiles.

Reply 48

abc:)

Oh God please no :facepalm:

Reply 49

morris743

Nah. I've reassessed the possibilities. The US will cry wolf on China's ass and start something big with them. What's a man to do when he's got no money left?

Reply 50

CyclopsRock

Israel are like Milwall. Everyone hates them and they don't give a ****. Which is good for us, really - they're an alarm. They have the means to do anything we could do, and a lot more (thanks to their proximity). They also have the most to lose by Iran developing threats, and most likely the most... significant intelligence network in that area of the world. All that considered, if they haven't attacked Iran yet, I don't think we need to worry just yet.

Reply 51

C_B_C

As much as I'd enjoy seeing Iran's government being dismantled, I'm afraid I have the feeling that this isn't actually going to lead to another conflict in the near future.
The MoD's statement is just being used as a bit of a threat: a message for Iran to behave itself.
I doubt the UK, or any members of NATO including the US, will be willing to get involved in another conflict at the moment.

This, sadly, might be a sign that we'll soon need to find a solution to the situation in Afghanistan.
If, at any point, some conflict were to escalate in a matter of months, having a large portion of our military stuck in Afghanistan may lead to dissaster. Our involvement in Lybia, which wasn't much, was enough to put strain on the RAF. A situation with Iran would probably lead us to quickly withdrawing from Afghan, and effectively ****ing up the country.

I think it's comming towards the time to make a deal in the Taliban's favour. :frown:

Reply 52

C_B_C

What this could lead to is a conflict between the powerful Iran and the NATO supported Israel.
Especially if Israel decides to pull off something similar to what they did to Iraq's nuclear facilities 30 years ago.

Reply 53

DH-Biker

Original post by michael321

So could the USA withstand a missile attack from Iran? Let's assume that it hasn't acquired MIRVs yet, and is just using ten, simultaneously launched, single-warhead missiles.

Relying solely on the GMD system, I wouldn't say so, no. The tracking systems for the weapon is arguably the best in the world, but even it can't hit the target more then 70% of the time.

It fires a large projectile from a rocket system within a certain range. The rocket will put it up to a certain distance, then it'll fire it from the warhead nose. However, it requires direct conjunction between the targeting systems on the ground, and the systems within the missile itself.

As you can imagine, factors such as connectivity, windage, weather, atmospheric conditions, etc. all factor into the equation, and even with what equates to a 7,000mbs connectivity speed, it can't equalize all the time with 100% efficiency. That, and they stupidly decided to control the whole system from one location.

That presents two problems; a much larger chance of it being destroyed and the signal must reach from Washington DC to the GMD stations. The furthest being California/Texas way. Even the closest, which is housed just outside DC, the response time for targeting was still 10 seconds. That sounds quick, but if we assume the ICBM's are traveling at mach 2... Suddenly they are covering a couple of miles within ten seconds, and it must constantly adjust with conversation between the signal station and the GMD Station... The furthest took like three minutes to connect and acquire a target... It just isn't efficient.

So no, with ten targets, relying solely on the GMD stations alone more then a few would get through. I'd estimate six of the ten would get through the wall, especially if fired at the same place, or along a "line" across the USA. If they were spread for different cities (the most likely scenario), I'd still only put it at 7/10, maybe 8 at a push? Lose any City and suddenly the situation seems a lot bleaker.

However, they'd use all the assets available to them. And with that, I'd safely bet a 10 out of 10 success rate.

Stick one MIRV in that group, ensure a division of its warheads within the same proximity of another ICBM decoy, and you'll see a 100% success rate in the nuclear attack. They can't differentiate between a real and a decoy, and they need manually reloaded after each shot with a 20-foot missile. Its not a subtle system. It works, quite well, but against that American cities wouldn't come out well.

At the furthest distance, it would be almost impossible to

Reply 54

chrislpp

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.

Yea, but throw Russia into that equation headed by Putin and UK will just be a no-mans land in an extremely hostile situation.

Reply 55

Aeolus

Original post by morris743

War is always a great way of sorting the economic system out....

Iranians will pay for the west's greed.

Could yo elaborate on how exactly a war of this sort, which would cost trillions of dollars will help sort the economy out? I'm a bit confused is all. :colondollar:

Reply 56

JonathanNorth

Original post by DH-Biker

We don't have the means?

I hope you aren't suggesting we don't have the military means...

Political means, I'd be surprised if we didn't have those too. Since when was a war not conducted without full support from the wider, international community?

Pretty sure Libya had wide political support. But I don't think Iran would get the same treatment. Unless it actually launch a nuclear missile or ICBM at another country. However I don't think that is likely.

I'm sorry, but Israel looks to be the only country that wants to get involved militarily. The US doesn't want to get involved that much, so my guess would be is that they would only supply intelligence information. - Perhaps along with the British. So I really do doubt you'll see any British missiles being fired into Iran.

Reply 57

Llamageddon

Original post by Akuma

It's fairly obvious that the west would annihilate any and every opponent in such a conflict, but equally obvious that this would benefit nobody and that Iran really isn't that important. China are being frankly quite stupid considering given how much an Iranian nuclear weapon would destabilise other nations nearby that they also get oil from.

Reply 58

Llamageddon

Original post by Aeolus

Could yo elaborate on how exactly a war of this sort, which would cost trillions of dollars will help sort the economy out? I'm a bit confused is all. :colondollar:

aggregate demand :getmecoat: