What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US

[Ming]

Re: Re: Re: What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US

Originally posted by Calc II
then why even invest them in the first place? That sounds like an extreme inefficiency.

They bought them to use on other nations... not against a suprerior force

Because the Iraqis are hopelessly outnumbered as well as being outclassed - add the Syrians and Iranians into the Jihad mix and things even up a bit

The Syrians and Iranians would be equally outclassed as well. The Arab world learned that lesson the last time they thought they had somebody outnumbered.

If I remember correctly, Isreal didn't lose a single plane

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We airlifted in a mechanized brigade a few days ago - the first time anyone in the world has ever done so. We kept Berlin supplied by air over half a century ago.

You'd have to keep that up around the clock through potentially hostile airspace - I'd say those transports would be relatively easy to knock out...

IF the Iranians got squirrely, the first thing we'd do is take out their silkworms.

Well if I was in charge, I'dve fired them off in a huge surprise attack before then...

If they persisted, we might teach them a lesson by removing all that oil infrastructure from places like Bandar Abbas, Bandar e Lengeh, Kharg Island, Bushehr, etc. Hard to sustain a war effort when you're a semi-pariah nation without an economy.

Where there's a will there's a way...

We'd also make an accomodation with the House of Saud, or it's successor and open up more transport corridors.

What if the Wahhabi population of Saudi overthrew the Royal Family in an Al-Qaeda led popular revolution caught up by the religious fervour of the Jihad against the Great Satan - now you've got those pesky Saudis to deal with as well...

Unlike Die Grosse Hermann, we can supply our armies by air.

Yes when it's not being tested to breaking point...

If it even looked close to that, which it never would, we have other options and methods that could be brought to the table. And do you think anyone, anywhere would have the balls to stop us?

And so it would come full circle - the US using WoMD on nations it is trying to disarm of WoMD lest they use them...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


You'd have to keep that up around the clock through potentially hostile airspace - I'd say those transports would be relatively easy to knock out...

Hostile airspace presumes there are enemy aircraft and competent pilots to operate them. We'd dispose of that issue inside a week, moving transports all the while.

Well if I was in charge, I'dve fired them off in a huge surprise attack before then...

You'd have to have targets to fire them at. What I'm saying is that if we expected sustained seaborne supply to be necessary (we have months of supply already in Kuwait, and it's not like there's going to be a shortage of oil there ), we'd clear a corridor for those ships to move through, before they arrived.

What if the Wahhabi population of Saudi overthrew the Royal Family in an Al-Qaeda led popular revolution caught up by the religious fervour of the Jihad against the Great Satan - now you've got those pesky Saudis to deal with as well...

There's not enough of them to get worked about, but hey, if they wanted to join the party, we'd get them closer to Allah too.

And so it would come full circle - the US using WoMD on nations it is trying to disarm of WoMD lest they use them...

That's only if the other people got uppity and lucky.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hostile airspace presumes there are enemy aircraft and competent pilots to operate them. We'd dispose of that issue inside a week, moving transports all the while.

All of them? That didn't happen to the Iraqis in GWI, why should it happen now? What about SAMs?

You'd have to have targets to fire them at. What I'm saying is that if we expected sustained seaborne supply to be necessary (we have months of supply already in Kuwait, and it's not like there's going to be a shortage of oil there ), we'd clear a corridor for those ships to move through, before they arrived.

Well, there's plenty of ships in the gulf, why not fire them all off in one go at those? You're saying there are no miscellaneous ships travelling through Hormuz...

There's not enough of them to get worked about, but hey, if they wanted to join the party, we'd get them closer to Allah too.

Oh? I thought that most of the population were Wahhabis (80%+) - sounds like an awful lot of people with unhealthy attitudes to westerners in their country to my mind...

That's only if the other people got uppity and lucky.

That was the general idea...

[Zero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US

Originally posted by Ming


They bought them to use on other nations... not against a suprerior force

Oh I know. But I cnat imagine a scenario in which Iraq wouldnt fight with US being involved in some way.

I think there's too much "" in this thread. Its starting to annoy me.

Everyone is winking at each other!

[Lancer]

Calc, don't ask, don't tell.

[MOBIUS]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if: Syria and Iran launch a pre-emptive strike against the US

Originally posted by Calc II


Oh I know. But I cnat imagine a scenario in which Iraq wouldnt fight with US being involved in some way.

I think there's too much "" in this thread. Its starting to annoy me.

Everyone is winking at each other!

I tell you what's starting to annoy me - that goddamned 'pockets of resistance' comment I keep hearing all the time!

They should do a video of every time it has been said and by every person - I swear they'd have a 5 min tape...

[ThePantaloonDog]

I also think once the dust settles, Iraq will become fundy too - it's only secular mainly because of Saddam and the Ba'ath party. Most Iraqis are Shia, which would be a huge power shift from the Sunnis, which would bring it into line with Iran...

One thing to remeber about the Shi'ites in Iraq was that they supported Saddam in his war with Iran. A lot can change in 10 years (like bombing your people) but the Shi'ites probably don't feel any kinship with the Iranians.

Honestly I see Iraq going into Afghanistan mode with a "government" in Baghdad and the rest owned by local warlords. If Syria and Iran are smart they'll make see if they can make the American's life a living hell in Iraq and then step in to take control.

[Ben Kenobi]

Calc:

Thats what we need in this war. Lots of surprises. This war is going too "according to plan" IMO.

Be careful what you wish for..

[Zero]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Calc:


Be careful what you wish for..

Actually expecting surprises and anticipating for it is the best. At least you wont be caught with ur pants down. Besides me saying this is in no way similar to our military failing. We can be surprised and successful w/o casualty at the same time. (Ever dodged a flying object that you didnt anticipate coming at you?)

I just want the excitement.

I tell you what's starting to annoy me - that goddamned 'pockets of resistance' comment I keep hearing all the time!

They should do a video of every time it has been said and by every person - I swear they'd have a 5 min tape...

Play the everytime X happens, drink game. Its fun and Im guesing with this one it will be a great party. (who says you cant party with CNN being the focus of the party? )

[Ben Kenobi]

You would be willing to live with massively unpleasant surprises?

Suppose Hussein has a small nuke, and ends up nuking US forces invading Baghdad?

Better everything go to plan, than have unexpected problems.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by obiwan18
You would be willing to live with massively unpleasant surprises?

Suppose Hussein has a small nuke, and ends up nuking US forces invading Baghdad?

Better everything go to plan, than have unexpected problems.

He's just saying that cos he's safe at home playing armchair general...

I'd like to see him say that if he were a grunt just ordered to suit up because his unit was under attack from nerve gas...

[spiritof1202]

"Give us new missiles"


The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in many dogfights between Syrian and Israeli jet fighters.

In the end, the Syrians lost over 80 planes and had a number of SAM batteries knocked out, while the Israelis lost no planes.

Sometime later, the Syrian Defense Minister was shopping for weapons in Moscow.

His host, the Soviet Defense Minister, was embarrassed about the scorecard from Lebanon.

He told his Syrian guest, "Take anything you want - our best tanks, rifles, or surface-to-air missiles."

"No, no - you don't understand!" the Syrian replied. "Last time you gave us surface-to-air missiles. This time we need surface-to-*jet* missiles!"

[Az]

actually, the problem hardly was the machinery. It was the human material operating them. When the soviets operated their own jets, and SAMs, Israel actually had to fight for air superiority.

[MOBIUS]

Maybe the Syrians should have launched that pre-emptive strike after all?