• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Has Iran reached the "immunity threshold"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get this idea that once the Iranian military is kaput, all resistance will become futile. That sure did not happen if Afghanistan or Iraq. As individual small Guerrilla war insurgencies form up rapidly and can find many places to hide in a large country. Then what gives you the idea an fanatical Iranian rebel is going to take suicide runs at US Navy ships armed to the teeth, when they will instead target oil tankers.
This has always been a hard lesson for you, but once more for the hell of it. There is no conceivable realistic scenario that you could provide that would result in the US launching an attack comparable to Afghanistan or Iraq. We would own their airspace in short order allowing attacks at our leisure.
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
47
91
Its time to bring back the MAD doctrine, basically tell N. Korea, Iran and any other yahoos out there that we are holding ALL of them responsible if any nuclear device goes off ANY WHERE. They'll complain and call us Satan but the nukes would be locked down tight.
that's funny.

N. Korea, Iran and any other yahoos out there say "come at be bro" and the US backs off.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
This has always been a hard lesson for you, but once more for the hell of it. There is no conceivable realistic scenario that you could provide that would result in the US launching an attack comparable to Afghanistan or Iraq. We would own their airspace in short order allowing attacks at our leisure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all due respects to you Haybasusa, its always been hard for you to take off your rose colored glasses. You may not be alone, William MacNamera, Donald Dumsfeld, and Leon Pinhead could not conceive that we could possibly fail to control an insurgency given our air superiority.

Or we could flash back 220 years back when flying was not invented yet and realize the Brits and their mighty army could not conceive of losing to the rag tag militias of the American colonists.

It all looks good on paper for the militarily superior force, all they have to do is get the inferior force to come out and play fair their game. In that big set piece battle, as the superior weight of British Canons and firepower will annihilate the American rebels in one single battle. That is always the game plan for the Superior force, as you Haybasusa, seeming buy into that fantasy hook line and sinker.

In the real world it seldom if ever works out that way, as George Washington, the father of our country, was way too smart to play the British game.

And now Hayabusa, you assume the Iranians will play the USA game. Or the Afghans will play the Nato game.

Maybe Haybasusa, it long past time for you to learn, people are people are people all over the world. Lack of high tech technology does not mean they are dumb. They are just intelligent as us and more motivated as they fighting for their homeland.

If I were an Iranian, I would not have to think very hard, to figure out ways to shut the Persian Gulf down for months and years. When Iran has the technology to instantly make Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwait docking facilities into blazing wrecks. Meanwhile all those Iranian weapons caches can be turned over to every rag tag terrorist group attacking Israel, it might take a few months to implement, but then the anti-Israeli terrorist can become the hunters and not the hunted.

I hope you grow a brain Haybasusa, and feel far less froggie, Because attacking Iran is about the most stupid and dangerous thing I can conceive of.
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
47
91
Leaving Afghanistan EVER, is a victory for terrorism, because even once you leave and the nation is 2 generations into democracy, the terrorists will come down from the mountains and take control. We will do what it takes, because we are Americans, we win.
hold on. your 2 wars against us (brits) were won because of the French (them helping you and the tiny french dude marching through europe the 2nd time). you were part of a team in WW1, joined in late in WW2 (and most of the fighting iirc was by the Russians), you lost in korea ,vietnam, iraq (twice) are still losing in afghanistan and prey tell how is the war on drugs going?

America only ever beat the mexicans i think - and they were shooting guns in the air and jumping around like yosemite sam. maybe you can count the indians. but then again you should have won that - gun beats spear.

as prodigy said earlier - no way are you messing with china or russia. you don't have the balls. you only fight wars in other peoples countries - not against countries that can hit you back
 

tommo123

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2005
2,617
47
91
If I were an Iranian, I would not have to think very hard, to figure out ways to shut the Persian Gulf down for months and years. When Iran has the technology to instantly make Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwait docking facilities into blazing wrecks. Meanwhile all those Iranian weapons caches can be turned over to every rag tag terrorist group attacking Israel, it might take a few months to implement, but then the anti-Israeli terrorist can become the hunters and not the hunted.
dude, all they'd have to do is get a load of ships in there, mine the area quick and scuttle the ships. would take ages to clean that up with the mines there.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,842
325
126
Well as a matter of fact, Iran is far from being a defenseless paper Tiger like Iraq circa 2003. Its why Afghanistan was going to be so easy to conquer.
Which is why the invasion of Iraq was ill-fated to begin with by religious fanatics in Bush & Co.

It would have been much beneficial to leave Iran and Iraq in conflict and tension for the balance of power in the region, and take advantage of such for the U.S. and Israel's interests. Now all those against U.S.' power (China, Russia, or even France) have a single nation to get behind with.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, I know.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all due respects to you Haybasusa, its always been hard for you to take off your rose colored glasses. You may not be alone, William MacNamera, Donald Dumsfeld, and Leon Pinhead could not conceive that we could possibly fail to control an insurgency given our air superiority.

Or we could flash back 220 years back when flying was not invented yet and realize the Brits and their mighty army could not conceive of losing to the rag tag militias of the American colonists.

It all looks good on paper for the militarily superior force, all they have to do is get the inferior force to come out and play fair their game. In that big set piece battle, as the superior weight of British Canons and firepower will annihilate the American rebels in one single battle. That is always the game plan for the Superior force, as you Haybasusa, seeming buy into that fantasy hook line and sinker.

In the real world it seldom if ever works out that way, as George Washington, the father of our country, was way too smart to play the British game.

And now Hayabusa, you assume the Iranians will play the USA game. Or the Afghans will play the Nato game.

Maybe Haybasusa, it long past time for you to learn, people are people are people all over the world. Lack of high tech technology does not mean they are dumb. They are just intelligent as us and more motivated as they fighting for their homeland.

If I were an Iranian, I would not have to think very hard, to figure out ways to shut the Persian Gulf down for months and years. When Iran has the technology to instantly make Saudi, Iraqi, and Kuwait docking facilities into blazing wrecks. Meanwhile all those Iranian weapons caches can be turned over to every rag tag terrorist group attacking Israel, it might take a few months to implement, but then the anti-Israeli terrorist can become the hunters and not the hunted.

I hope you grow a brain Haybasusa, and feel far less froggie, Because attacking Iran is about the most stupid and dangerous thing I can conceive of.

Interesting. I've been correct in evaluation and prediction in almost every situation while the reverse for you is also true. Why is it then that I am the one which needs the brain? You mention the Bush administration. When did I say they handled things properly? Never.

Then there's your strange American Revolutionary War analogy. The situation, goals, terrain, technology, virtually every thing is different. The Brits had to come to a nation where enemies knew how to hide, how to hit and when to run. They had no options. We do. We don't have to invade. We don't have to occupy. If the mighty Iranian government decides to attack the worlds oil the only military capability they will retain is the ability to beat up the Vienna Boys Choir- maybe. One thing you would know if you understood how the world works in this regard is that the best trained, best equipped, most situationally aware force wins. Perhaps to your dismay obama is unlikely to be as stunningly incompetent as his predecessor. Options range from a demonstration of power to containment to devastating Iran's forces with limited engagement on the ground. The very real possibility exists of leaving Iran utterly defenseless and just walk away, leaving it to the tender mercies of their neighbors, the Saudis and others.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,155
14,363
136
Interesting. I've been correct in evaluation and prediction in almost every situation while the reverse for you is also true. Why is it then that I am the one which needs the brain? You mention the Bush administration. When did I say they handled things properly? Never.

Then there's your strange American Revolutionary War analogy. The situation, goals, terrain, technology, virtually every thing is different. The Brits had to come to a nation where enemies knew how to hide, how to hit and when to run. They had no options. We do. We don't have to invade. We don't have to occupy. If the mighty Iranian government decides to attack the worlds oil the only military capability they will retain is the ability to beat up the Vienna Boys Choir- maybe. One thing you would know if you understood how the world works in this regard is that the best trained, best equipped, most situationally aware force wins. Perhaps to your dismay obama is unlikely to be as stunningly incompetent as his predecessor. Options range from a demonstration of power to containment to devastating Iran's forces with limited engagement on the ground. The very real possibility exists of leaving Iran utterly defenseless and just walk away, leaving it to the tender mercies of their neighbors, the Saudis and others.
I do love the irrational chest-thumping. It's really quite amusing, in a not-funny way.

First off, the US would be fools to allow Israel to attack. The whole focus would shift to Israel, with enormous sympathy for Iran from other nations in the region. In a non nuclear scenario, Israel would bankrupt herself trying to sustain the kind of attacks required to subdue Iran, if they're even remotely capable of doing that at all.

Meanwhile, the US lacks the shock value of 9/11 to conflate the issues, and therefore the political will to do so, not to mention a very strong lack of support from the rest of the world.

Iran is no pushover, being much larger, wealthier & better positioned strategically than Iraq, no to mention that they have friends who'll rapidly provide them with advanced AA equipment, if only to reality test the stuff, cripple US efforts at hegemony.

Iran also has an ace in the hole in their hardened Fordow facility, not to mention the ability to make Afghanistan a lot more uncomfortable than it already is, foment unrest in Kurdistan (already with strong economic ties to Iran), so forth & so on.

I think US policymakers have been bluffing all along, and that Iran has correctly played it as such. Not even the Bushistas were stupid enough to attack, which should tell us something, something important...

Notice how the raving has subsided? The saber rattling ceased? The US position modified to accommodate enrichment of fuel grade uranium? Desperate fearmongering on the part of the Netanyahu govt, not followed by more from the US?

There's a deal being made, quietly, I suspect, because apparently a lot of important people realize that the consequences of attacking Iran are incalculable, therefore making it un-doable for people who take the time to rub their grey cells together. It's been that way all along.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Well Haybasusa, you may be a legend in your own mind, you may think I only criticized the GWB administration, but that don't fly either when Leon Pinhead and William MacNamera are not exactly GWB&co idiots.

But point granted, as Haybasusa somehow maintains, "One thing you would know if you understood how the world works in this regard is that the best trained, best equipped, most situationally aware force wins." Gee, Haybasusa, I wonder if you understand anything about the definition of winning? Did we win in Vietnam? Did we win in Iraq at the mere cost of two Trillion dollars plus plus plus. Are we winning in Afghanistan after 10 years when the Taliban can beat the shit out of Nato but not the Vienna boys choir?

Then Haybabusa, IMHO, wins the stooge of the millennium award for saying, "The very real possibility exists of leaving Iran utterly defenseless and just walk away." When a country in anarchy and chaos will always become a terrorist playground. And will then go on to destabilize every one of their neighbors. And become the next 911 terrorist country just like Afghanistan.

Are we winning yet Haybasusa, surely quagmires are cheaper by the dozen. As the USA and its military will have fun fun fun, until the Chinese quit lending us money.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Win the battle is easy. As I previously stated, there is no need to occupy Iran.

LL wants to change the country by putting boots on the ground. this is the scenario that he espouses to challenge military logic to create a failure.

we have the air power and targeting capability to make the Iranian forces worthless.
There is no need to take over the country. Let the people do that.

This is a lesson that the American public has learned is not needed; we suck at nation building when it is a nation that does not want to be rebuilt.

And congrats, tommo123 is now a clone of military revisionism just like you.

Separate out the military win from the political retreat/solution
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,155
14,363
136
Win the battle is easy. As I previously stated, there is no need to occupy Iran.

LL wants to change the country by putting boots on the ground. this is the scenario that he espouses to challenge military logic to create a failure.

we have the air power and targeting capability to make the Iranian forces worthless.
There is no need to take over the country. Let the people do that.

This is a lesson that the American public has learned is not needed; we suck at nation building when it is a nation that does not want to be rebuilt.

And congrats, tommo123 is now a clone of military revisionism just like you.

Separate out the military win from the political retreat/solution
Exquisitely delusional in a perpetual war sort of way.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,953
240
106
Win the battle is easy. As I previously stated, there is no need to occupy Iran.

LL wants to change the country by putting boots on the ground. this is the scenario that he espouses to challenge military logic to create a failure.

we have the air power and targeting capability to make the Iranian forces worthless.
There is no need to take over the country. Let the people do that.

This is a lesson that the American public has learned is not needed; we suck at nation building when it is a nation that does not want to be rebuilt.

And congrats, tommo123 is now a clone of military revisionism just like you.

Separate out the military win from the political retreat/solution
Problem is taking out the army and leaving the country in chaos won't be good for stability in the region.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Problem is taking out the army and leaving the country in chaos won't be good for stability in the region.
No need to take out the army; just remove them as a thread.

the Revolutionary Guard, the Naval forces and missile commands are the ares that need to be targeted.


That removes the offensive capability.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
350
126
in Civ 5, I'd nuke Tehran, then move in the mechanized infantry to finish em off.
Civ 5, AKA Obama's second term or Romney's first term.

Since Ron Paul won't be getting elected I'm about 90% positive we will be going to war with Iran, and if that means also China and Russia also join, then it's WW3, and the final victory for democracy.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
No war with Iran, why the fuck can't we be allies with the Persians? Srsly? Pretty sure we have the means to make this relationship work, it's more like we don't want to because we've never grown up out of high school.
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
350
126
No war with Iran, why the fuck can't we be allies with the Persians? Srsly? Pretty sure we have the means to make this relationship work, it's more like we don't want to because we've never grown up out of high school.
If it was strictly business, it would work just fine, they'd be happy to take our money for their oil, but we have taken sides in the region's religious turmoil.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
Win the battle is easy. As I previously stated, there is no need to occupy Iran.

LL wants to change the country by putting boots on the ground. this is the scenario that he espouses to challenge military logic to create a failure.

we have the air power and targeting capability to make the Iranian forces worthless.
There is no need to take over the country. Let the people do that.

This is a lesson that the American public has learned is not needed; we suck at nation building when it is a nation that does not want to be rebuilt.

And congrats, tommo123 is now a clone of military revisionism just like you.

Separate out the military win from the political retreat/solution
LL insists on dwelling on the unrelated and inapplicable. He focuses on occupations when there is no need. What he pointedly ignores is the success of the initial phase i.e., the elimination of organized military resistance. Since occupation is to be avoided, the thing he keeps citing as failure. He apparently has not thought about the fact that if we take such an action it will have been because of a serious trigger. Depending on circumstance there is that potential for crippling Iran, but again occupation with the goal if nation building would be the least likely scenario, because as you and I and those who plan know, it would be a futile attempt and in any case not needed or desired.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,155
14,363
136
LL insists on dwelling on the unrelated and inapplicable. He focuses on occupations when there is no need. What he pointedly ignores is the success of the initial phase i.e., the elimination of organized military resistance. Since occupation is to be avoided, the thing he keeps citing as failure. He apparently has not thought about the fact that if we take such an action it will have been because of a serious trigger. Depending on circumstance there is that potential for crippling Iran, but again occupation with the goal if nation building would be the least likely scenario, because as you and I and those who plan know, it would be a futile attempt and in any case not needed or desired.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

There will be no "serious trigger". Iran has played her hand extremely well, and there's no reason to think that they'll do otherwise. Despite all the posing and posturing, they reached the immunity threshold some while back with their facility at Fordow & with the results of their own research. Whether that's viewed as legal or not is immaterial- it remains insufficient reason for attack.

It's a very big place, strategically located, whose citizens would see any attack on their very popular nuclear energy program as cause for total war. It'd be the Iranian equivalent of 9/11.

We also need to recognize that international support for us will be nil, given that the price of crude will explode before the first US bomb falls, modern communications being what they are. And the price will stay up there, so long as a state of hostilities exists. Given Iranian temperament, that'd be a very long time.

Like I said- perpetual war, something the US has never done well, at all.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
You really have no idea what you're talking about.

There will be no "serious trigger". Iran has played her hand extremely well, and there's no reason to think that they'll do otherwise. Despite all the posing and posturing, they reached the immunity threshold some while back with their facility at Fordow & with the results of their own research. Whether that's viewed as legal or not is immaterial- it remains insufficient reason for attack.

It's a very big place, strategically located, whose citizens would see any attack on their very popular nuclear energy program as cause for total war. It'd be the Iranian equivalent of 9/11.

We also need to recognize that international support for us will be nil, given that the price of crude will explode before the first US bomb falls, modern communications being what they are. And the price will stay up there, so long as a state of hostilities exists. Given Iranian temperament, that'd be a very long time.

Like I said- perpetual war, something the US has never done well, at all.
Yeah I do know. You aren't paying attention. My first response was regarding LL's comment about blowing up oil tankers. Most people would call that provocative. You didn't see me saying that we're just going to attack. What you didn't get is if the US attacks it will be in response to some action by Iran. That would be a trigger. If Iran doesn't engage in something to cause an armed conflict then thats that. If Iran behaves then your objections are moot. If on the other hand something were to happen where we used force of arms then that means something serious indeed, and the world as a while will likely get it. It will be the non Bush era US vs a distinctly inferior force. When there is no substantial organized force what will they do next, whine and use harsh language?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY