Iran Captures British Forces
-
It might not be so impossible. Might be a re-run of Afghanistan, with a bit more fireworks.Originally posted by OldBird69:Not a feasible option. Why?
1. If US or UK whack Iran, must do it to ensure all the nuclear & missile research and storage facilities completely destroyed (not just go in and rescue hostages). A superficial attack will result in ballistic missile attacks by Iran, or attacks by the Iraqi Shias allied with Iran on US/UK forces in Iraq, perhaps even missile strike on Israel from Iran or Hezbullah in Lebanon (which risks a much wider Arab-Israeli war). Also, many Iranian nuclear labs are either in residential neighbourhoods (ie. collateral damage, international outrage on the attackers) or too deep underground even for the latest "bunker busters" bombs.
2. Lack of political will. Blair's govt will face political revolt by his own Labour govt, even if if it is over 15 UK sailors, unless there are no other options for their release. US Congress is now Democrat-controlled, no stomach for another war after what has happened in Iraq.
3. The Brits have under 5000 soldiers in Iraq - not enough for any large-scale operation. US Forces (130,000) are severely depleted in Iraq theatre, most units, like retired Gen. McCaffrey said, at breaking point (under 50% op readiness). Air war alone is not enough to get rid of Iran's nuclear & missile programmes, boots on the ground are seriously needed to ensure Iran won't have nuclear weapons in 10 years. An invasion and possibly occupation is required. And Iran is not like Iraq in GW2 - they haven't been weakened and revenues from recent high oil prices have allowed them to go on a shopping spree for Russian arms lately. An attack/invasion will require hundreds of thousands of troops (and very high casualties) that US cannot handle right now.
4. Gulf states like UAE and Bahrain will not allow USAF to stage attacks on Iran from their bases, which means planes may be limited to Navy carrier-borne aicraft or from distant Europe (limited number of flights due to air-refueling requirements).
1. The US has deployed more PAC-3 batteries to the region. Last article I saw was approximately 200 batteries. Hopefully, they may prevent an effective counter-strike?
2. Politics, well thats not really my game. But if the Brit government are convinced of the necessity and gains of the war, it'll be a shoot first, ask questions later. Thats what happened in GW2. With Sailors in Iranian hands... I think they will shoot.
3. There are rebel factions in Iran that need opportunities to move in and topple the current government. These Iranian rebels, formerly considered terrorists organizations were allowed refuge in Iraq by the Americans. Iran already has a lot of problems on their own handling these buggers, and yes, they used terrorist attacks (car bombs etc) IN IRAN itself.
4. Which is why the Command officer of CENTCOM, is now a swabbie. What does a Navy officer know about fighting insurgency in the streets of Iraq? Nothing. This change of leadership in CENTCOM may indicate that the US is planning a Navy-centered operation in the region. The current CENTCOM was one of the recognized officers who were involved in the air campaign in the Balkans as well. -
If a missile goes flying in israel's way..
expect them to react? -
Not sure about the American's ability to hold Israel back. But I think they will not do so at the moment.Originally posted by Pitot:If a missile goes flying in israel's way..
expect them to react?
They should be more worried abt the Lebanese front.. -
there have been alot of talks abt the plans that israel have with their deepstrike n SOFs...
i am sure they have plans already. It only takes something to trigger it. -
its not going to be that easy to come up with a SOP as the sailor are Teharan. The only way is to blow off all their Oil facilities and nuke facilities. Than you can take out all their Ego....
-
Sorry, double post.
-
Good points, Shotgun, and I can't say I disagree with them. I just hope Adm Fallon (new CENTCOM commander), if he decides to attack, thinks it over very thoroughly.Originally posted by Shotgun:It might not be so impossible. Might be a re-run of Afghanistan, with a bit more fireworks.
1. The US has deployed more PAC-3 batteries to the region. Last article I saw was approximately 200 batteries. Hopefully, they may prevent an effective counter-strike?
2. Politics, well thats not really my game. But if the Brit government are convinced of the necessity and gains of the war, it'll be a shoot first, ask questions later. Thats what happened in GW2. With Sailors in Iranian hands... I think they will shoot.
3. There are rebel factions in Iran that need opportunities to move in and topple the current government. These Iranian rebels, formerly considered terrorists organizations were allowed refuge in Iraq by the Americans. Iran already has a lot of problems on their own handling these buggers, and yes, they used terrorist attacks (car bombs etc) IN IRAN itself.
4. Which is why the Command officer of CENTCOM, is now a swabbie. What does a Navy officer know about fighting insurgency in the streets of Iraq? Nothing. This change of leadership in CENTCOM may indicate that the US is planning a Navy-centered operation in the region. The current CENTCOM was one of the recognized officers who were involved in the air campaign in the Balkans as well.
I have some concerns, though:
The PAC-3 Patriot is still unproven in battle - there will be serious repercussions if they don't work. Iran may decide to fire missiles at every Sunni country in the neighbourhood + at Israel.
The rebel factions in Iran seem (to me) a way less capable force than the Northern Alliance or Karzai in Afghanistan. And Iran has an organised military, far stronger than Taliban. If US is aiming for 'regime change' Afghan-style, I foresee a lot of problems.
I agree having a navy man running CENTCOM does not make sense unless the Pentagon is considering a strike by the USN.
If US is thinking of conducting an air war based mainly on carrier-based assets, I think the current 2 carriers in the theatre, even with the support of B-2 (in US) and B-52 (in Diego Garcia), which do not need air-refuelling, is not enough and may not be sustainable for long. The NATO strike on Serbia a few years back, the only successful air-only campaign, was a multi-nation effort with a lot more aircraft and support. I don't know which NATO/Arab countries (aside from the Brits) are willing to support a strike even by just providing use of their bases (at risk of an iranian backlash), making it difficult to impossible to use USAF assets in UK, Germany or Italy.
Currently both sides (US/UK vs Iran) don't seem to want to talk to resolve this quietly, which makes an escalation to use of force more likely. -
of coz these british soldiers will get captured lah.
imagine if let's say indonesian soldier illegally came into singapore water, what you think our coast police will do to them.
If the british or american soldiers want to be safe, then stay in their homeland, don't go to other people's country and find excuse to attack them. -
If Iran really gets whacked, Hizbullah won't be getting much support since Iran will be trying to save their own behinds. Don't think Hizbullah can really do much without Iran financial and military aid.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Not sure about the American's ability to hold Israel back. But I think they will not do so at the moment.
They should be more worried abt the Lebanese front..
With a free rein and without the US/UK kpkb them, I am sure that Israel will inflict much more harm on Hizbullah and would be a great time to severely weaken them.
Maybe no arab country will allow the US to use their airbase but I guess you all forget that they can have Airbases in IRAQ! Just next door. No Arab country will dare support Iran anyway and probably will only be too happy to see them fall. Iran is so isolated that if they use tactical nukes on them, no one will be complaining too much. -
Any latest updates?
-
The subject would not be if iran get "whacked" as i sees it. It would be a regional war, this new war would have nothing to do with IRAQ but who get total control of the Gulf, whoever control of the Gulf control the flow of oil.Originally posted by jianfish9:If Iran really gets whacked, Hizbullah won't be getting much support since Iran will be trying to save their own behinds. Don't think Hizbullah can really do much without Iran financial and military aid.
With a free rein and without the US/UK kpkb them, I am sure that Israel will inflict much more harm on Hizbullah and would be a great time to severely weaken them.
Maybe no arab country will allow the US to use their airbase but I guess you all forget that they can have Airbases in IRAQ! Just next door. No Arab country will dare support Iran anyway and probably will only be too happy to see them fall. Iran is so isolated that if they use tactical nukes on them, no one will be complaining too much. -
Bahrain, Qatar,Kuwait and the UAE have agreed to let America use their airbases in any conflict. These nations have a stake in ensuring the region is not destabilised by a raving mad Iranian state.Originally posted by jianfish9:If Iran really gets whacked, Hizbullah won't be getting much support since Iran will be trying to save their own behinds. Don't think Hizbullah can really do much without Iran financial and military aid.
With a free rein and without the US/UK kpkb them, I am sure that Israel will inflict much more harm on Hizbullah and would be a great time to severely weaken them.
Maybe no arab country will allow the US to use their airbase but I guess you all forget that they can have Airbases in IRAQ! Just next door. No Arab country will dare support Iran anyway and probably will only be too happy to see them fall. Iran is so isolated that if they use tactical nukes on them, no one will be complaining too much. -
Let's see, how does one make Iran "raving mad"?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Bahrain, Qatar,Kuwait and the UAE have agreed to let America use their airbases in any conflict. These nations have a stake in ensuring the region is not destabilised by a raving mad Iranian state.
Oh, how about provoking and attacking them? That would make them fit the description of "raving mad" wouldn't it?
All due respects, guys (and LaserLordz), I feel that we are being led to another "WMD" dinner and dance.
Is it so hard to believe that US & UK are looking for an excuse to get Iranian oil?
If you were Iranian, sitting on oil fields - with 2 agressive vehemently anti-Iran western powers now living next door in Iraq - you'd want a nuclear bomb, too, wouldn't you?
If nothing else, just to keep these "raving mad" western powers at bay.
They've invaded and occupied Iraq based on some flimsy excuse and look set to stay.
It's not that difficult for Iranians to imagine that they are the next domino to fall.
I'm all for nuclear disarmament and all that, but if we keep letting US/UK invade sovereign nations - especially Islamic ones - on one pretext or another, real shxt is gonna hit the fan and no one will benefit. -
All for the crude oil
Crude oil is expensive than blood
-
Lets see hmm, we have to choose between:
a) Oil hungry Western powers
b) Radical, isloated arab nation getting WMDs...
Come to think of it, even if oil wasn't an issue... I'm not entirely sure if Iran would hesitate to use WMDs on whoever annoys them, especially given the current radical mindset of its leaders.
So which is the lesser of the two evils? -
Time for MI-6 to send in 007 into Iran!
"Bond, James Bond. Now my Aston Martin will be too obvious and will attract unwanted attention, how now?" -
I think you have hit the nail on the head. I'd choose the first, at least it's more predictable with the way they work.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Lets see hmm, we have to choose between:
a) Oil hungry Western powers
b) Radical, isloated arab nation getting WMDs...
Come to think of it, even if oil wasn't an issue... I'm not entirely sure if Iran would hesitate to use WMDs on whoever annoys them, especially given the current radical mindset of its leaders.
So which is the lesser of the two evils?
Sure, it may offend many people, but we do rely a fair bit on the western powers to run the globe, and as long as our alignment is not against globalisation and not turning fundamentalist, we should be in pretty good stead.Let's see, which is better for Singapore? American control of oil or a Euro-based oil market controlled by Iran and other nations who want to go their own way, like Venezuela & Bolivia?
It's not possible in the coming years to play all sides of the chessboard, this is what our government should realise. We can try to bridge different teams, but if the climate is not healthy, perhaps we should be more guarded. -
A few years ago, Bush n Blair told us to choose between:Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Lets see hmm, we have to choose between:
a) Oil hungry Western powers
b) Radical, isloated arab nation getting WMDs...
Come to think of it, even if oil wasn't an issue... I'm not entirely sure if Iran would hesitate to use WMDs on whoever annoys them, especially given the current radical mindset of its leaders.
So which is the lesser of the two evils?
a) Oil hungry Western powers
b) Radical, isloated arab nation - i.e. IRAQ - in possession of WMDs...
Of course, then we found out Iraq didn't have any WMD.
But that's not important, after all, during the invasion and its aftermath, only several thousands lost their lives, people we don't really care for anyway...
What makes you so certain Iran will use WMD on "whoever annoys them"? Because Bush n Blair said so?
Besides, Iran doesn't yet have a nuclear bomb. You can't punish someone just because you think they are going to commit a murder. Or does it not matter? -
Well, if Iran had played by their rules, things would not have come to such a head. She may have tried to wiggle her way out of this "supposed" US/UK axis of invaders, but at the same time, her blatant kidnapping of the sailors does not put her in good stead.Originally posted by moca:Let's see, how does one make Iran "raving mad"?
Oh, how about provoking and attacking them? That would make them fit the description of "raving mad" wouldn't it?
All due respects, guys (and LaserLordz), I feel that we are being led to another "WMD" dinner and dance.
Is it so hard to believe that US & UK are looking for an excuse to get Iranian oil?
If you were Iranian, sitting on oil fields - with 2 agressive vehemently anti-Iran western powers now living next door in Iraq - you'd want a nuclear bomb, too, wouldn't you?
If nothing else, just to keep these "raving mad" western powers at bay.
They've invaded and occupied Iraq based on some flimsy excuse and look set to stay.
It's not that difficult for Iranians to imagine that they are the next domino to fall.
I'm all for nuclear disarmament and all that, but if we keep letting US/UK invade sovereign nations - especially Islamic ones - on one pretext or another, real shxt is gonna hit the fan and no one will benefit.
You kidnap people twice, what will stop you from doing more?
I support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, but she did sign the NPT and that comes with conditions. It's not nice to demand the cake and eat it too. By showing the world that she's willing to stop enrichment, it will make her case stronger.
Right now, I'm not that sympathetic to a state who wants to play the international law card, yet refuses to toe the line when demanded, by no less a unanimous vote by the Security Council to halt such activities. -
Well, sick as I am of the neo-cons' actions, the possibility of a Middle East that does not play the world's rules is not that cheery too..Originally posted by moca:Besies, Iran doesn't yet have a nuclear bomb. You can't punish someone just because you think they are going to commit a murder. Or does it not matter?
I guess we all have our own opinions, mine's just a bit more pro-American because I believe that it is in our interest that the American-dominated world order not be threatened by potentially explosive oil-rich Arab states. -
I agree with taking steps to curtail Iran]s potential to make nuclear bombs.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well, if Iran had played by their rules, things would not have come to such a head. She may have tried to wiggle her way out of this "supposed" US/UK axis of invaders, but at the same time, her blatant kidnapping of the sailors does not put her in good stead.
You kidnap people twice, what will stop you from doing more?
I support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, but she did sign the NPT and that comes with conditions. It's not nice to demand the cake and eat it too. By showing the world that she's willing to stop enrichment, it will make her case stronger.
Right now, I'm not that sympathetic to a state who wants to play the international law card, yet refuses to toe the line when demanded, by no less a unanimous vote by the Security Council to halt such activities.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY SUCH DEVICES, in my opinion.
I just think that Western imperialism running amok is also a bad thing. And I disagree that we have to choose either one. The world is not always one extreme or the other. You have tp realise the ulerior motives involved and then consider if you would still support such behaviour.
As to kidnapping, I have with me a Feb issue of TIME magazine which reported the kipnapping of Iranian diplomats in Iraq by US-led Iraqi govt. troops. So it is not as if the allies are innocent. -
I agree, I agree.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Well, sick as I am of the neo-cons' actions, the possibility of a Middle East that does not play the world's rules is not that cheery too..
I guess we all have our own opinions, mine's just a bit more pro-American because I believe that it is in our interest that the American-dominated world order not be threatened by potentially explosive oil-rich Arab states.
But this is Bush.
Do most Americans want to invade Iran? -
Well, the Iranian diplomats have not been shown to be innocent. Iran has no place in influencing Iraq's future in such a furtive manner. Granted, some media spin may have been applied, but similarly, it could be true as well.Originally posted by moca:I agree with taking steps to curtail Iran]s potential to make nuclear bombs.
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE ANY SUCH DEVICES, in my opinion.
I just think that Western imperialism running amok is also a bad thing. And I disagree that we have to choose either one. The world is not always one extreme or the other. You have tp realise the ulerior motives involved and then consider if you would still support such behaviour.
As to kidnapping, I have with me a Feb issue of TIME magazine which reported the kipnapping of Iranian diplomats in Iraq by US-led Iraqi govt. troops. So it is not as if the allies are innocent.
It's different if they offer official assistance, but since we don't have much details on that case, let's not pass judgement yet.
The world may not be one extreme or the other, but realistically, I don't think there is a luxury of a centrist path for the time being.. it's not looking good.. -
Haha. Guess we have to pin our hopes on Congress till 08. If Bush and his cronies want to acheive their dominance of the ME by naked force, that's when the fireworks will start.Originally posted by moca:I agree, I agree.
But this is Bush.
Do most Americans want to invade Iran?
I'd not be surprised if there will be resignations in the Pentagon. -
Just a shot in the dark. I guess we may not see an outright regime change in Iran like what the US did with the Northern Alliance. What I THINK they hope is to de-stabilise Iran sufficiently so thatOriginally posted by OldBird69:Good points, Shotgun, and I can't say I disagree with them. I just hope Adm Fallon (new CENTCOM commander), if he decides to attack, thinks it over very thoroughly.
I have some concerns, though:
The PAC-3 Patriot is still unproven in battle - there will be serious repercussions if they don't work. Iran may decide to fire missiles at every Sunni country in the neighbourhood + at Israel.
The rebel factions in Iran seem (to me) a way less capable force than the Northern Alliance or Karzai in Afghanistan. And Iran has an organised military, far stronger than Taliban. If US is aiming for 'regime change' Afghan-style, I foresee a lot of problems.
I agree having a navy man running CENTCOM does not make sense unless the Pentagon is considering a strike by the USN.
If US is thinking of conducting an air war based mainly on carrier-based assets, I think the current 2 carriers in the theatre, even with the support of B-2 (in US) and B-52 (in Diego Garcia), which do not need air-refuelling, is not enough and may not be sustainable for long. The NATO strike on Serbia a few years back, the only successful air-only campaign, was a multi-nation effort with a lot more aircraft and support. I don't know which NATO/Arab countries (aside from the Brits) are willing to support a strike even by just providing use of their bases (at risk of an iranian backlash), making it difficult to impossible to use USAF assets in UK, Germany or Italy.
Currently both sides (US/UK vs Iran) don't seem to want to talk to resolve this quietly, which makes an escalation to use of force more likely.
1. It cannot threaten Iraq directly.
2. Cannot cohesively build up WMDs.
However, I cannot see how a military strike on Iran would aid in easing the violence in Iraq.
But at the very least, Iran would not be able to exert influence over fledgling Iraq with its military or WMDs. They must avoid a shiite vs sunni open season in Iraq.
It maybe true that fixed wing asset build up in the region does not seem to match to what was seen in Allied Force. However, I doubt this will be an Allied Force Rerun, where a President was literally bombed into submission.
If a war does break out, it will be a showcase of network centric warfare and information dominance using the latest UAVs, Satellites, Stand off weaponry and the latest GPS/INS munitions.
Latest rumors I saw on the net was that there was at least 1 converted SSGN. Combine that with the number of TLAMs each US warship can carry, there is A LOT of existing firepower to provide the necessary shock and awe in the first strike.
Perhaps it might be wise to keep the minimize the amount of European involvement. With exception to the Germans who still have excellent interoperability with the Yanks.
I'll still try to keep the faith in the PAC-3 given its latest upgrades and developments. Its been a long time since a patriot was launched against a missile. They may have improved. =D