• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Discussions --Lead Up to Talks & US Military Intervention Against Iran Nuclear Facilities Threatened When Talks Fail

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spyglass said:
Yes, and no. You can also build a nuke that fits in a small truck, and you can drive it into any populated area you want. Enough shielding, and bribes at border crossings into a European country… park the truck. Set the timer, then quietly leave and go back to where you came from.

Even if the yield was suboptimal, and the truck didn’t make it to the target, they could still detonate. A nuke going off anywhere in the world due to terrorists would be that black swan event everyone has been talking about.

The issue is Europe has no ocean to protect them. Most major roads/cities connect to all other major roads/cities.
Click to expand...
ya iv seen sims about this subject.
 
Gargolu said:
thats just the start, i think its called shock and awe.
Click to expand...
While it is the beginning of shock and awe. Until we start seeing deployments of large number of soldiers and armor I think we can rule out invasion.

Based on what we have seen this is likely just what it seems. A pre deployment of air and naval resources to signal tactical strikes against Irans nuclear and weapons sites.
And if need be an actual striking those sites.

While I have said if a nation thinks they need nukes, then they might consider that.
In the spirit or nations right to make strategic decisions that are necessary for themselves.

I also support our nation in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. I see no long term benefit to peace or stability or our interest. By allowing a nation that implements sharia law and works to spread it.
Or one that continues to support terrorist activities against Israel while most of the nations in the region are working to normalize relations with Israel.

Or lastly one that has a ruling group who adhere to apocalyptic doctrine of the return of a Mahdi and the conquering of the world for Islam.
 
OReid said:
While it is the beginning of shock and awe. Until we start seeing deployments of large number of soldiers and armor I think we can rule out invasion.
Click to expand...
There are no indications anyone is preparing for a ground invasion of Iran (which would be an absolutely massive war, dwarfing Desert Storm and even the current Russia/Ukraine conflict).

Trump is about to discover what many before him have discovered: strategic bombing campaigns reliably fail unless supported by a ground invasion, or at least a credible threat of one.
 
Socom7 said:
strategic bombing campaigns reliably fail unless supported by a ground invasion, or at least a credible threat of one.
Click to expand...
The stated goal isn’t to overthrow the government of Iran though it’s to destroy their nuclear weapons production infrastructure. Which is a hard goal but is more achievable through a bombing campaign than a regime change would be.
 
Snowfall said:
Which is a hard goal but is more achievable through a bombing campaign than a regime change would be.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This goal can be achieved without the need for ground troops. A full scale invasion of Iran is nearly, if not entirely, impossible due to its geography alone, not to mention the immense logistical and human costs.

If Afghanistan was difficult, Iran would be far worse. Its terrain is among the most naturally fortified in the world, rivaled only by places like Mongolia or perhaps Taiwan, where geography makes a successful ground invasion nearly unthinkable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snowfall said:
The stated goal isn’t to overthrow the government of Iran though it’s to destroy their nuclear weapons production infrastructure. Which is a hard goal but is more achievable through a bombing campaign than a regime change would be.
Click to expand...
Iran is a big place, and the US cannot play whack-a-mole with their nuclear program forever. Besides, they now know they're in the crosshairs, and are certainly taking precautions. They also have powerful sponsors in Moscow and Beijing. If the mullahs don't go for a deal with Trump, it means they feel confident they can weather this out.

It's not that I don't support action to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I just don't think this air campaign is at all likely to succeed.
 
Snowfall said:
The stated goal isn’t to overthrow the government of Iran though it’s to destroy their nuclear weapons production infrastructure. Which is a hard goal but is more achievable through a bombing campaign than a regime change would be.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether I agree that a ground invasion is necessary, the reality on the ground is clear the assets, firepower, and logistical movements in place do not indicate any ground action whatsoever. This is purely a "shock and awe" campaign designed for swift, precision strikes, backed by enough air defense to counter whatever Iran or its allies might throw at the U.S. or Israel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Socom7 said:
CNN notes the six B-2s currently at DG probably represent the entirety of the deployable fleet of the aircraft.

"I assume there are one or two at home for training and another few standing nuclear alert. Rest in maintenance." - Peter Layton, former RAAF pilot and now visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute.

Only 21 B-2 airframes have ever been built.

Source
Click to expand...
So, half the active fleet is at Diego. Wow.

Hope we have a few B-21’s being rushed into service.

Edit - Actually we have three airworthy B-21’s that are currently flying. They are due to convert to mission capable status at the conclusion of flight testing. Interesting. I’m sure knowing the Donald… he’s gonna wanna play with some toys…
 
Last edited:
For those interested - here is a rather informative infographic about what the role of the B-2 may be, and what the attack might look like in general.

 
Socom7 said:
There are no indications anyone is preparing for a ground invasion of Iran (which would be an absolutely massive war, dwarfing Desert Storm and even the current Russia/Ukraine conflict).

Trump is about to discover what many before him have discovered: strategic bombing campaigns reliably fail unless supported by a ground invasion, or at least a credible threat of one.
Click to expand...
Is not a campaign to force them to capitulate, withdrawal or regime change.

It’s a punitive strike which have an excellent historic record of failing to hit or find the targets. (You are correct)

Those strikes that do engage their targets destroy, remove and/or deprive assets from a belligerent. Air power having become excellent at this task with the USA being a master of that art.
 
Spyglass said:
Biblical may not describe what is to come.
Click to expand...
It's still only six aircraft, though. Plus one CSG on location, and another enroute. Israel will probably join in, but the Arab states that host US bases have made it clear that they won't allow use of those bases to launch strikes on Iran. Jordan/Iraq have also publicly denied overflight rights.

Yeah, that's a lot of kaboom potential, but I wouldn't exactly call it "biblical". Unless the US goes nuclear, but I'm rating the odds of that as near-zero, at least in a first-use scenario.
 
Gargolu said:
1 every week? maybe?
Click to expand...
They are on an emergency ward plan which enables them to bypass best practices and safety protocols. Closing taxi ways and moving tactical aircraft to long taxiways due in order to allow for profound short term basing.

One aircraft skidding on a runway and sliding off just a few meters into the grass could costs BILLIONS of dollars in damages. This had to have required a major numbered commander to sign off on this (3 or 4 stars)

It is absolutely and totally unsustainable. Also the aircraft sitting out will require a wash and who knows (and would possibly say here) non specific repairs of various coatings and surfaces to maintain full stealth.

So the biggest ships blocking the most will need to be moved back into the hangers before they fly. The big ships that are in the hangers that are blocked the most need to get to the runways first….. ( aside: Sheesh I’m glad that’s not my management plan)
 
Last edited:
Socom7 said:
It's still only six aircraft, though. Plus one CSG on location, and another enroute. Israel will probably join in, but the Arab states that host US bases have made it clear that they won't allow use of those bases to launch strikes on Iran. Jordan/Iraq have also publicly denied overflight rights.

Yeah, that's a lot of kaboom potential, but I wouldn't exactly call it "biblical". Unless the US goes nuclear, but I'm rating the odds of that as near-zero, at least in a first-use scenario.
Click to expand...
It’s just not “Six” ac. You are looking here while the bulk of the forces, by far, are *here*.

The Bones (a mnemonic B One) are supersonic and don’t need to be forward deployed. There are a great many B-52’s and a couple of others that haven’t been discussed.

Calling this a campaign seems like a miss. I would go with War* and the * being aerials only
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom