DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**merloermfgj** · 11-03-2007, 02:20 AM

Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit.

True. We know "where" to hit in general, meaning we know all possible loacations, but admittedly do not know WHICH of them are active. The problem is the depth and the sheer number of the targets.

The Iranians have been savvy in their creation of their underground/bunker development locations. There is possibly (figured) at least 7 dummy locations to every legitimate target.

Out satellites have pinpointed every underground chamber within Iran. The only thing it cannot do is determine EXACTLY what is in each one.

They take the size, the traffic, the security of each site, and combine it with the physical intel that is received, and they make the best decision they can.

The problem is that the only way to be sure is to hit EVERY one with some of the most sophisticated and expensive explosive devices ever built. The cost would dwarf the air-war prior to DS1 and Iraq.

And to top it off, the ONLY way to be SURE that the air strikes did the damage we need to do, is to get PHYSICAL eyes on the target.

That takes a huge operation of either SFODA's, SEALS, or other special operations uunits.....OR.....it takes an invasion in the aftremath.

Now, for an invasion:

Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win.

While I am as pessimistic in general as you are, it is false to say that it is not feasible. You have to understand that it has already been made clear that if a strike on Iran were to take place, there would be no occupation or nation-building.

So, if the invasion is to take place, then not only would we have to take out the purported Nuke sites with iar strikes, but we would have to pound their military infrastructure as well, making it the longest, largest, and perhaps most difficult air-strike mission in history.

Then, an invasion would have to be staggeringly overwhelming. More so than Iraq. While I am a novice (I never planned operations larger than Platoon-size, but was in the military for 20+ years total, and in the largest military actions of the times), I would guess that it would take about 400,000 troops minimum to correctly do the job, and to prevent another Iraq.

Then, there could be NO OCCUPATION. There could be NO NATION-BUILDING.

None.

And there are no plans for that.

I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high,

Yes. It would be risky. War is.

Casualties? More than the initial invasion of Iraq, but not as many as your post seems to convey you believe.

and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off.

Perhaps for you.

I don't think there is any question at all.

11-03-2007, 02:20 AM	#8
merloermfgj Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit. True. We know "where" to hit in general, meaning we know all possible loacations, but admittedly do not know WHICH of them are active. The problem is the depth and the sheer number of the targets. The Iranians have been savvy in their creation of their underground/bunker development locations. There is possibly (figured) at least 7 dummy locations to every legitimate target. Out satellites have pinpointed every underground chamber within Iran. The only thing it cannot do is determine EXACTLY what is in each one. They take the size, the traffic, the security of each site, and combine it with the physical intel that is received, and they make the best decision they can. The problem is that the only way to be sure is to hit EVERY one with some of the most sophisticated and expensive explosive devices ever built. The cost would dwarf the air-war prior to DS1 and Iraq. And to top it off, the ONLY way to be SURE that the air strikes did the damage we need to do, is to get PHYSICAL eyes on the target. That takes a huge operation of either SFODA's, SEALS, or other special operations uunits.....OR.....it takes an invasion in the aftremath. Now, for an invasion: Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win. While I am as pessimistic in general as you are, it is false to say that it is not feasible. You have to understand that it has already been made clear that if a strike on Iran were to take place, there would be no occupation or nation-building. So, if the invasion is to take place, then not only would we have to take out the purported Nuke sites with iar strikes, but we would have to pound their military infrastructure as well, making it the longest, largest, and perhaps most difficult air-strike mission in history. Then, an invasion would have to be staggeringly overwhelming. More so than Iraq. While I am a novice (I never planned operations larger than Platoon-size, but was in the military for 20+ years total, and in the largest military actions of the times), I would guess that it would take about 400,000 troops minimum to correctly do the job, and to prevent another Iraq. Then, there could be NO OCCUPATION. There could be NO NATION-BUILDING. None. And there are no plans for that. I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high, Yes. It would be risky. War is. Casualties? More than the initial invasion of Iraq, but not as many as your post seems to convey you believe. and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off. Perhaps for you. I don't think there is any question at all.
	Quote