Iran and Related Geopolitical Defense Issues

[StingrayOZ]

Looks like Iran is going to conduct a nuclear test, or at least that is what the Israelis are claiming.

Cookies must be enabled | The Australian

Im sure this will make the Israeli's nervous, I'm sure lots of other nations as well (UAE, US etc). The real question is how far along are they in there program. Enough to create a nuclear explosion, or are they ready to test a launch-able device. They would have the missile know how, if they can get efficiency and enrichment right they would certainly be able to launch it.

 

[Feanor]

Indeed - but that is war on a completely different scale from what was proposed. That's a conventional strategic bombing campaign.

What rip proposed was seizing an island just off the Iranian coast, in the Strait of Hormuz, to use as a base to keep the Iranians from interfering with shipping. The all-out war you suggest would render that completely irrelevant. It's utterly disproportionate in both scope & cost, & cost-ineffective. It's like spending a million dollars hunting down every potential car thief in town to protect an old Lada.

Maybe you're hunting down every car thief in town to make a point? Don't mess with my Lada? And maybe you're not hunting down every car thief, but just the ones belonging to a certain criminal group to send a message to all the other ones? Perhaps that they need to pay taxes on stolen cars, and not steal cars from the wrong people?

 

[My2Cents]

I wish that you had read my post more carefully. I stipulated that after the island is taken, that all of the civilians be transferred to the Iranian mainland so they would be out of the line of fire, to put an additional burden upon the Iranian government’s resources, and to spread discontent within Iran population, with no civilians to worry about you do not have to identify individuals. That is the entire point. If it moves shoot it. Which you can get away with just because it is an island.

Landing them on the mainland will be fun, how do you propose to do it? And what do you do when they keep trying to return, shoot the families?

As for the lone gunman battle plain that you propose, if the perimeter is large enough, and the land mines and other traps numerous enough, it will only be an occasional inconvenience to operations not attrition warfare, far easier that the operations that go on every day in Afghanistan.

Fine, lets flesh out this garrison.

• Since the snipers will be targeting your patrols if they can get ashore, that means the perimeter is the entire island, or about 174 miles. Assume 12 men per mile (24 hour a day observation and patrols), and that is about 2,100 infantry + 1200 in reserve and 2 x 400 for close protection of your bases, +60% for support and logistics, total about 11,000 Army men. Add another 2000 Air Force personnel for the aircraft. Add another 2000 engineers and 6,000 support personnel during the construction phase, about 2 years.
• Mines – Assuming that the mine belt is 100’ thick with on a 10’ spacing that is about 1 million mines. Since these are for long term deployment they will all have to be hand placed and buried, lots of opportunities for snipers. It should be noted that minefields are for stopping mass attacks, not infiltrators, that is why the perimeter will have to be heavily patrolled.
• Logistics – No deep harbors, so you will have to lighter everything in. Actually, you would anyway because you are in missile range and ships are big targets when tied up to quay side for a GPS guided missile. Say 1,000 tons per day for the troops and another 1000 tons per day for the Air Force. Assume an additional 20,000 tons per day during the construction phase. At 300 tons per lighter and 2 trips per day that’s doable but it will generate a significant number of your casualties, if the Iranians can keep up production of GPS guided missiles, by targeting probable unloading areas on Qeshm.
• Rotation – This will be combat zone with probably a dozen rocket strikes per day and one or more infiltrators. Personnel will become quickly build up stressed and fatigued and have to home after 6 months or so, for 2 years off. So this base is effectively tying up about 70,000 personnel.

To begin with Katyusha rockets and all like weapons are so inaccurate that they are only useful, to the extent that they are useful at all is to attack large population areas. They are only weapons to frightening civilians unless you can fire hundreds at a time.

Sure, probably only 1 in 100 will hit anything worthwhile, but that does not mean that they have to all be fired in a mass launch. A casualty here, a casualty there, and all the time the stress and fatigue build up in your troops. Kill only an average of 3 men per day and that is nearly 1,200/year. And this can, and will, go on for years.
:duel

 

[swerve]

Maybe you're hunting down every car thief in town to make a point? Don't mess with my Lada? And maybe you're not hunting down every car thief, but just the ones belonging to a certain criminal group to send a message to all the other ones? Perhaps that they need to pay taxes on stolen cars, and not steal cars from the wrong people?

Different argument from that which rip raised. Let's rephrase that a bit, since my analogy was poor. What you proposed was akin to spending a million dollars to hunt down & kill the bloke who's trying to hassle you into giving him back the old Lada you stole from him (after he gave you the finger & shouted threats when you overtook him), & all his relatives & friends. Insane overreaction.

Please don't pretend that you can justify destroying Iran in order to prevent Iranians harassing you while you occupy a part of their country, which is what this discussion is about.

 

[Feanor]

Different argument from that which rip raised. Let's rephrase that a bit, since my analogy was poor. What you proposed was akin to spending a million dollars to hunt down & kill the bloke who's trying to hassle you into giving him back the old Lada you stole from him (after he gave you the finger & shouted threats when you overtook him), & all his relatives & friends. Insane overreaction.

Please don't pretend that you can justify destroying Iran in order to prevent Iranians harassing you while you occupy a part of their country, which is what this discussion is about.

Oh no no, I'm not defending rip's argument, I'm more or less thinking out loud on a variation of what I proposed earlier, in terms of dismantling the Iranian military. At the end of the day, if you destroy their military infrastructure, even if they manage to finish developing the a-bomb, they won't be able to deploy it effectively.

My2cents, the USMC deploys for 7 months with in-between period of less then a year. The army does year-long deployments. I'm not sure why you're proposing a 6 month deployment with 2 years off... just a little criticism of your calculations.

 

[My2Cents]

My2cents, the USMC deploys for 7 months with in-between period of less then a year. The army does year-long deployments. I'm not sure why you're proposing a 6 month deployment with 2 years off... just a little criticism of your calculations.

It is my understanding that Congress is pushing for that, but I may have misremembered.

 

[NICO]

Sorry but I still haven't heard a valid reason for US to invade Qushm Island. I can't figure out if the argument is to trap the USA, some way for the US to control the Straits or if USA becomes a thorn for Iran and saps it's military into some form of attrition warfare. Or maybe it's the other way around? I don't understand the arguments here.

Anyways, it is obvious to me that Iran doesn't care all that much for Queshm and the island as they haven't done much in terms of military preparations. If you bother to look at Google Earth, you don't need a Master Degree in imagery interpretation to realize that Iran has invested some time, money and resources in military preparations in Siri, Lesser and Greater Tunb. Virtually nothing in Qushm island is defended, if it was so strategic and important, why would Iran want to lose it in the first place?

 

[My2Cents]

Sorry but I still haven't heard a valid reason for US to invade Qushm Island. I can't figure out if the argument is to trap the USA, some way for the US to control the Straits or if USA becomes a thorn for Iran and saps it's military into some form of attrition warfare. Or maybe it's the other way around? I don't understand the arguments here.

Actually I think you are doing quite well. At least you understand the problem.

Anyways, it is obvious to me that Iran doesn't care all that much for Queshm and the island as they haven't done much in terms of military preparations. If you bother to look at Google Earth, you don't need a Master Degree in imagery interpretation to realize that Iran has invested some time, money and resources in military preparations in Siri, Lesser and Greater Tunb. Virtually nothing in Qushm island is defended, if it was so strategic and important, why would Iran want to lose it in the first place?

Lesser and Greater Tunb are disputed territory that have been alternately occupied by Iran and the UAE for centuries, so there will be garrisons present at least part of the time.

Siri has an active oil field and is undergoing further development, so there is an obvious need to protect it from an involuntary change in ownership.

Qeshm doesn’t need the protection from Iran’s neighbors. It is recognized as Iranian territory for all recorded history, given it is less than 2 miles offshore through shallow water. The population is much greater (114,000 vs a few hundred on the other 3), making an invasion much less likely to succeed (attacks on the Tunb’s used only a company or less of troops). And the close proximity allows an overwhelming counterattack versus any of the Gulf powers.

 

[swerve]

Sorry but I still haven't heard a valid reason for US to invade Qushm Island. I can't figure out if the argument is to trap the USA, some way for the US to control the Straits or if USA becomes a thorn for Iran and saps it's military into some form of attrition warfare. Or maybe it's the other way around? I don't understand the arguments here.

M2cents covered the second part of your question fully, IMO, so I'll just give my opinion on this part.

I can see why you're confused. The original proposal from rip, as I remember it (I can't be bothered to go back) was that it would be a good idea for the USA to have a base very near the Strait of Hormuz, in order to control the strait. He suggested that Qeshm would be a good site for this base, because it is very close to the strait, & has plenty of room & suitable terrain for air bases. He reckoned that its proximity to major Iranian ports was a bonus, enabling interdiction of them with artillery. He proposed evicting the entire civilian population to allow making the island a free fire zone, to simplify its defence.

The counter-arguments are that -
1) It isn't as close to any major ports as he reckons. Only one small port is within artillery range.
2) It's large, & very close to the Iranian coast (2 km at the closest point, & only 3-4 km for most of 100km), making it difficult & expensive to defend.
2a) Preventing major assaults would be relatively easy, but would need the presence of significant forces.
2b) Preventing infiltrators would be much more difficult, & would need a lot of money to be spent, & a lot of boots on the ground. Some would probably get through anyway.
2c) Preventing harassing fire by artillery rockets would probably be impossible, as the entire island is within range of the mainland.

Iran would thus be able to make the operation of a base very expensive, & cause a steady trickle of casualties. This makes Queshm a poor location for a base. If one is desirable, it'd be better to place it on a more remote island, which would be immune from harassing fire & relatively easy to defend from infiltrators. There are a couple available, e.g. Siri, or Abu Musa (which, BTW, the UAE claims as its territory, & which was administered as such under British rule until 1971). These islands are better defended, but have far fewer inhabitants, & are more physically remote.

Traditionally, the populations of these islands, like many Iranian coastal towns & villages, have been Arab.

 

[PCShogun]

M2cents covered the second part of your question fully, IMO, so I'll just give my opinion on this part.

I can see why you're confused. The original proposal from rip, as I remember it (I can't be bothered to go back) was that it would be a good idea for the USA to have a base very near the Strait of Hormuz, in order to control the strait. He suggested that Qeshm would be a good site for this base, because it is very close to the strait, & has plenty of room & suitable terrain for air bases. He reckoned that its proximity to major Iranian ports was a bonus, enabling interdiction of them with artillery. He proposed evicting the entire civilian population to allow making the island a free fire zone, to simplify its defence.

The counter-arguments are that -
1) It isn't as close to any major ports as he reckons. Only one small port is within artillery range.
2) It's large, & very close to the Iranian coast (2 km at the closest point, & only 3-4 km for most of 100km), making it difficult & expensive to defend.
2a) Preventing major assaults would be relatively easy, but would need the presence of significant forces.
2b) Preventing infiltrators would be much more difficult, & would need a lot of money to be spent, & a lot of boots on the ground. Some would probably get through anyway.
2c) Preventing harassing fire by artillery rockets would probably be impossible, as the entire island is within range of the mainland.

Iran would thus be able to make the operation of a base very expensive, & cause a steady trickle of casualties. This makes Queshm a poor location for a base. If one is desirable, it'd be better to place it on a more remote island, which would be immune from harassing fire & relatively easy to defend from infiltrators. There are a couple available, e.g. Siri, or Abu Musa (which, BTW, the UAE claims as its territory, & which was administered as such under British rule until 1971). These islands are better defended, but have far fewer inhabitants, & are more physically remote.

Traditionally, the populations of these islands, like many Iranian coastal towns & villages, have been Arab.

Good reasons, all. I would pick the fact that we would not want to put a base within artillery range of the enemy. The Iranians have 170mm mobile (6.6inch) guns with a 60km range that they got from North Korea. As some points on this island are only 2KM from the Iranian mainland, they would be well within range of this large mobile artillery piece. A 155mm howitzer in the U.S. arsenal with an excalibur round has about a 40km range.

Why would the U.S. need to have a static defense position when keeping it mobile would also keep it from being easy attacked?

 

[henaselakesan]

Hi. If you are not going to be civil or add anything worthwhile to the discussion you will not last long here. There is no need to call anyone "worthless".

 

[rip]

Landing them on the mainland will be fun, how do you propose to do it? And what do you do when they keep trying to return, shoot the families?

Fine, lets flesh out this garrison.

• Since the snipers will be targeting your patrols if they can get ashore, that means the perimeter is the entire island, or about 174 miles. Assume 12 men per mile (24 hour a day observation and patrols), and that is about 2,100 infantry + 1200 in reserve and 2 x 400 for close protection of your bases, +60% for support and logistics, total about 11,000 Army men. Add another 2000 Air Force personnel for the aircraft. Add another 2000 engineers and 6,000 support personnel during the construction phase, about 2 years.
• Mines – Assuming that the mine belt is 100’ thick with on a 10’ spacing that is about 1 million mines. Since these are for long term deployment they will all have to be hand placed and buried, lots of opportunities for snipers. It should be noted that minefields are for stopping mass attacks, not infiltrators, that is why the perimeter will have to be heavily patrolled.
• Logistics – No deep harbors, so you will have to lighter everything in. Actually, you would anyway because you are in missile range and ships are big targets when tied up to quay side for a GPS guided missile. Say 1,000 tons per day for the troops and another 1000 tons per day for the Air Force. Assume an additional 20,000 tons per day during the construction phase. At 300 tons per lighter and 2 trips per day that’s doable but it will generate a significant number of your casualties, if the Iranians can keep up production of GPS guided missiles, by targeting probable unloading areas on Qeshm.
• Rotation – This will be combat zone with probably a dozen rocket strikes per day and one or more infiltrators. Personnel will become quickly build up stressed and fatigued and have to home after 6 months or so, for 2 years off. So this base is effectively tying up about 70,000 personnel.

Sure, probably only 1 in 100 will hit anything worthwhile, but that does not mean that they have to all be fired in a mass launch. A casualty here, a casualty there, and all the time the stress and fatigue build up in your troops. Kill only an average of 3 men per day and that is nearly 1,200/year. And this can, and will, go on for years.
:duel

I am beginning to see your confusion. The Idea is not to occupy the entire island but to deny all of its effective uses to Iran. Its major line of defense will be that it is an island and to get on the island you must travel by water which is much easier to patrol than is land. Sure they will still be able to sneak in a few people at a time but not in great numbers, they will have no large or heavy equipment to give them striking power, no line of supply to sustain whatever numbers they succeed in infiltrating and they will always open to detection and indiscriminate bombardment. Trying to control every inch would be a waste of resources when it is not necessary to safe guard the shipping lanes and control all Iranian costal traffic, at will with just air power. If your intention was to invade Iran to solve the problem you would bypass the island. It is of its self it is not important. I proposed a plain we all know the current US government has the power but not have the decisiveness to implement, as the fastest, cheapest, and most effective long term solution of the problem which does not require invading Iran proper, with all that unnecessary loss of life.

True, I admit I am guilty of just defending my plan which is nothing butt ego on my part I guess, my apology to the board for that but at least I am defending it with logic. You too are guilty, guilty of being exclusively fixated on the military practices as we have seen then recently. Practices where nation building was the goal with civilian populations could not be removed because there was no place to put them. This is different and because it is different you can use very different tactics with far fewer restrictions that play to your natural strengths. Tactics used as punitive actions against a nation state to dissuade it from a specific behavior that is within their ability to control are very different than COIN. History is full of examples from building forts with relatively small garrisons just to control mountain passes or trade routs without the perceived need to control all of the territory around it, but made only to deny its use to others which a far easier task.

Your response to my plan is that they will sacrifice dozens of their own people’s lives and unknown amount of equipment to just kill one US solder at a time and this will make the US then retreat. Well that surly denote the fanatic’s mind set well enough I will grant you, but honestly which do you thing they will run out of first, money or fanatics? As to firing thousands of rockets over time and assuming that their economy going to make them magically when they will have more than enough trouble keeping their people fed and tightly under their control at the same time is not a given.

 

[henaselakesan]

Hi. If you are not going to be civil or add anything worthwhile to the discussion you will not last long here. There is no need to call anyone "worthless".

Hi.Your right to free speech, I've ignored.I was upset this purpose you.You should not edit my words Mykdyd.I decided to talk peace with Btvnym:wah

 

[swerve]

I am beginning to see your confusion. The Idea is not to occupy the entire island but to deny all of its effective uses to Iran. Its major line of defense will be that it is an island and to get on the island you must travel by water which is much easier to patrol than is land. Sure they will still be able to sneak in a few people at a time but not in great numbers, they will have no large or heavy equipment to give them striking power, no line of supply to sustain whatever numbers they succeed in infiltrating and they will always open to detection and indiscriminate bombardment. Trying to control every inch would be a waste of resources when it is not necessary to safe guard the shipping lanes and control all Iranian costal traffic, at will with just air power.

But you can do all of the useful parts of this without putting a single US soldier within range of the Iranian shore! That's the whole point. All the things you say can be achieved with possession of this island can be done more easily by other means. You don't need to occupy it, deport >100000 people, & build bases, all while mixing it with the Iranians close up.

Yes, water is easier to patrol than land. But patrolling a long narrow stretch of water next to a hostile shore is vastly harder than patrolling a much smaller patch a long way from that shore. And if you don't occupy the entire island, you'll have to patrol a perimeter on the island, as well as that narrow, shallow, strait.

You've shut up about your original plan to build air bases. Was that because you accepted our arguments about the folly of basing aircraft within range of enemy artillery?

As for denying the use of the island to Iran - why? Why this island, & not the rest of the coast?

Your arguments aren't consistent. They mostly look like attempts to justify an idea, rather than explanations of the need which will be met by the proposed action. That's the wrong way round. First comes the requirement, then the means to meet it.

As to firing thousands of rockets over time and assuming that their economy going to make them magically when they will have more than enough trouble keeping their people fed and tightly under their control at the same time is not a given.

They probably have hundreds of thousands in stock. They've given tens of thousands to Hezbollah. They're just artillery rockets, not sophisticated missiles. Pretty cheap, & easily affordable for a country which makes (for example) 1.5 million cars a year. A few of those rockets probably have GPS or some other guidance.

 

[rip]

But you can do all of the useful parts of this without putting a single US soldier within range of the Iranian shore! That's the whole point. All the things you say can be achieved with possession of this island can be done more easily by other means. You don't need to occupy it, deport >100000 people, & build bases, all while mixing it with the Iranians close up.

Yes, water is easier to patrol than land. But patrolling a long narrow stretch of water next to a hostile shore is vastly harder than patrolling a much smaller patch a long way from that shore. And if you don't occupy the entire island, you'll have to patrol a perimeter on the island, as well as that narrow, shallow, strait.

You've shut up about your original plan to build air bases. Was that because you accepted our arguments about the folly of basing aircraft within range of enemy artillery?

As for denying the use of the island to Iran - why? Why this island, & not the rest of the coast?

Your arguments aren't consistent. They mostly look like attempts to justify an idea, rather than explanations of the need which will be met by the proposed action. That's the wrong way round. First comes the requirement, then the means to meet it.


They probably have hundreds of thousands in stock. They've given tens of thousands to Hezbollah. They're just artillery rockets, not sophisticated missiles. Pretty cheap, & easily affordable for a country which makes (for example) 1.5 million cars a year. A few of those rockets probably have GPS or some other guidance.

First it is not my intention to insult anyone. What possible good could that do for anybody? I only wish to debate a point of view without personal feelings coming into play. I cannot see where I have insulted anyone but in case I am wrong, I now apologize.

It is true that you can, as you put it, “do all of the useful parts of this without putting a single US soldier within range of the Iranian shore!”, but would that really solve the problem in the long term? So what if you win round one if in only means that at a time and place of their choosing and for reasons you can only guess, there is a round two and a round three and a round four. Think of all of the effort required to always be on alert and to be ready for whatever they try next without acquiring any fixed advantages of your own. Using your reasoning, they can try and try again to control traffic in the gulf with military force and they have very little to lose as a result, even if they completely fail. They could only lose what they were willing to sacrifice in the attack in the first place. Only creating more hero’s for their propaganda machine.

I did not give up on air bases on the island as you have assumed but I did not think I had to repeat every element of my plan with every comment I make. And what makes you think that any air bases in the area cannot be brought under attack by guides missiles as they exist today? Does that make all air bases obsolete because they can be attacked?

One of the differences we have between us and it is a big one, is that I think that military force, if it must be used at all, is that it is used to settle the issue once and for all so that people can then go back to living in peace instead of always being in a constant state of low grade warfare. Otherwise human life is lost and nothing is gained from that terrible loss. This is a mental bias on my part I will freely admit.

As long as Iran’s government has all of the choices and faces no political costs they are not going to change their behavior which I believe is the goal of the economic sanctions. A continues low level of conflict serves their needs and goals very well because they can use it to consolidate their internal political power. There is at present no reason for them to change their behavior because they are not being hurt enough to weaken their political hold on the country but only just enough to strengthen it.

Anyway I will not comment any further up on my military plan because, as I said the current US government doesn’t have the resolve to use it. So if you must continue to argue that it couldn’t work I will not respond on that issue again but that doesn’t mean I agree.

 

[Feanor]

Hi.Your right to free speech, I've ignored.I was upset this purpose you.You should not edit my words Mykdyd.I decided to talk peace with Btvnym:wah

There is no freedom of speech. This is a private forum. Your participation here is a privilege not a right. Either you will follow the rules and behave yourself in the manner expected, or your stay here will be very brief.

 

[Justin93]

Hello,

First post on this site. I love it, lots of very good information on here. I have attempted to find information about how close a hostile boat, like an Iran speed boat, would have to get to a US boat to trigger something? I read an article that last week, Iran speed boats "harassed" two of our boats. One of them coming within 700 yards. In both incidents, they wouldn't respond to any communication coming from the US vessels.


Thanks in advance!

 

[Feanor]

Hello,

First post on this site. I love it, lots of very good information on here. I have attempted to find information about how close a hostile boat, like an Iran speed boat, would have to get to a US boat to trigger something? I read an article that last week, Iran speed boats "harassed" two of our boats. One of them coming within 700 yards. In both incidents, they wouldn't respond to any communication coming from the US vessels.


Thanks in advance!

To trigger something? Like what? To register on the ships sensors? Or to get fired on? In peace time it could get quite close without any real problems. At the end of the day, you're not going to fire on another countries boat without provocation. Just like those Russian maritime patrol planes taking pics 200 feet from the deck of USN carriers. In wartime they wouldn't be able to get anywhere near that close.

 

[peterAustralia]

I have not read every post in this thread, that being said, I would like to make one small point

Should the US bomb Iran, or should the US invade an Island of Iran, then Iran is probably going to take that as an act of war.

What happens in 2 years or so, if the war is still ongoing and Iran succeeds in making 4 or 5 a-bombs. First they test one underground, so the world knows where they stand.

Next Iran wants an end to the war and an end to sanctions, otherwise is goes further. What happens is Iran smuggles a few a-bombs into US cities via Canada, Mexico, semi-submersible rendevousing with a fishing boat. A container is a container ship that docks in a US port. What happens if they lob a long range artillery shell into a US military base in Kuwait? Ever heard of nuclear artillery?

All these things are not purely military matters to stop, they are intelligence matters. A suitcase bomb is the size of a suitcase. Think you can stop all of them? The US is trying to stop drugs getting into its country, how much do they stop, maybe half? maybe less.

I was watching the TV show cops the other day. There was a Mexican caught trying to get into the US. Big deal you say. But the thing is that he had a job and a family in teh US. It had been so easy for him to travel back and forth, that he would regulary go visit his family in Mexico before coming back across the border. They would wait for a day with lots of fog, the helicopters couldn't see anything, sure the ground patrols get a few, but how many ..60 percent?

What happens is Iranians fly a cessna across the border and drop a suitcase a-bomb at night into a lake, to be collected weeks or months later. Think you are likely to stop that? Iranians are going to blend into the populace of the US a lot better than North Koreans, simply via their looks. No doubt they would be exceptionally well trained. Years of training for one single mission, infiltrate the US and carry out your instructions.

How many years have we heard stories of Columbians running semi-submersibles to meet small boats off the US coast, Crewed be 3 or 4, but these days unmanned and programmed by GPS. They were running for years before they even interdicted the first one.

What happens if the bomb is on a sailing yacht, that meets with a fishing boat 15 miles out to sea at night, with good intelligence you might stop it, militarily is very very difficult. Are you going to search every yacht sailing to the US at 200 miles out?

There are more ways of deploying an a-bomb that via an ICBM.

You might be able to stop most of them, but in no ways are you going to stop them all. Hey the Iranians might be nice, they might just use their suitcase bomb to blow up a fleet base, or NSA headquarters, and not detonate it in the middle of Manhattan.

What is your stop for that? The only shot you have in your locker is say to the Iranians, if you detonate an a-bomb we will nuke you all. What are you going to do, kill 75 million people? What happens next? Any Iranian agents will no doubt use their dozen a-bombs and blow up a dozen cities, After that no problem, they dont have any a-bombs left.... hey no big deal.

My point is that if you bomb Iran, that is an act of war. If you declare war on someone you cant expect them to play nice.

 

[rip]

I have not read every post in this thread, that being said, I would like to make one small point

Should the US bomb Iran, or should the US invade an Island of Iran, then Iran is probably going to take that as an act of war.

What happens in 2 years or so, if the war is still ongoing and Iran succeeds in making 4 or 5 a-bombs. First they test one underground, so the world knows where they stand.

Next Iran wants an end to the war and an end to sanctions, otherwise is goes further. What happens is Iran smuggles a few a-bombs into US cities via Canada, Mexico, semi-submersible rendevousing with a fishing boat. A container is a container ship that docks in a US port. What happens if they lob a long range artillery shell into a US military base in Kuwait? Ever heard of nuclear artillery?

All these things are not purely military matters to stop, they are intelligence matters. A suitcase bomb is the size of a suitcase. Think you can stop all of them? The US is trying to stop drugs getting into its country, how much do they stop, maybe half? maybe less.

I was watching the TV show cops the other day. There was a Mexican caught trying to get into the US. Big deal you say. But the thing is that he had a job and a family in teh US. It had been so easy for him to travel back and forth, that he would regulary go visit his family in Mexico before coming back across the border. They would wait for a day with lots of fog, the helicopters couldn't see anything, sure the ground patrols get a few, but how many ..60 percent?

What happens is Iranians fly a cessna across the border and drop a suitcase a-bomb at night into a lake, to be collected weeks or months later. Think you are likely to stop that? Iranians are going to blend into the populace of the US a lot better than North Koreans, simply via their looks. No doubt they would be exceptionally well trained. Years of training for one single mission, infiltrate the US and carry out your instructions.

How many years have we heard stories of Columbians running semi-submersibles to meet small boats off the US coast, Crewed be 3 or 4, but these days unmanned and programmed by GPS. They were running for years before they even interdicted the first one.

What happens if the bomb is on a sailing yacht, that meets with a fishing boat 15 miles out to sea at night, with good intelligence you might stop it, militarily is very very difficult. Are you going to search every yacht sailing to the US at 200 miles out?

There are more ways of deploying an a-bomb that via an ICBM.

You might be able to stop most of them, but in no ways are you going to stop them all. Hey the Iranians might be nice, they might just use their suitcase bomb to blow up a fleet base, or NSA headquarters, and not detonate it in the middle of Manhattan.

What is your stop for that? The only shot you have in your locker is say to the Iranians, if you detonate an a-bomb we will nuke you all. What are you going to do, kill 75 million people? What happens next? Any Iranian agents will no doubt use their dozen a-bombs and blow up a dozen cities, After that no problem, they dont have any a-bombs left.... hey no big deal.

My point is that if you bomb Iran, that is an act of war. If you declare war on someone you cant expect them to play nice.

All of the conversation about bombing Iran or invading an island off its cost was first predicated up on the real possibility that Iran had first tried, with the use of military force, to close the Strait of Hormuz to the free passage of all commercial commerce. An action which would be considered a very hostile act and to be equivalent to an act of war aimed at a large part of the world.

It would be such an action if it happened it would require a military response of some kind. We were discussing how best to respond if they did. Something which Iran has threatened to do publicly because it does not like the growing economic restrictions placed upon it by some members of the international community. I hope that clarifies at least some of your questions.

Buy you are right there is the possibility of this problem going beyond this level of conflict to an even higher one. The aim of the internal community is to prevent that and the method they have so far chosen to use in an effort to dissuade Iran’s current behavior is with sanctions instead of direct military strikes. If the Iran government is determined to bright about a military conflict they will eventually succeed. It one take one to start a fight.

There is always a threshold that will bring war though exactly where that threshold is, has started more than one war that was not intended by the parity that crossed that threshold. And there is also no grantee that sanctions will even work or that the international community will succeed in convincing the government of Iran from producing nuclear weapons.

What everybody is afraid of and so justifies all of this speculation is that rightly or wrongly many believe that once Iran gets them they will use them and them….

As to why so many people believe this I will leave you to your own research.