(06-19-2019, 02:27 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: There are a quite a few problems with using rockets in combat.

First, they are hard to manage and have a tendency to blow up or malfunction on launch unless handled quite precisely and somewhat delicately. The Iranians use rockets that are based upon former Soviet models that they captured from Iraq or acquired from Russia or China. Based upon these models, they have branched out to create some of their own designs (primarily variations meant to increase range). The original designs of the Soviet models were fairly solid and reliable for the users. But Iran has made alterations, including changes to the rocket fuels due to their inability to obtain certain ingredients. We discovered this from some of the SCUD rockets Iran had provided to the Houthis in Yemen and which were fired towards the Saudis. While the Americans were crowing about Patriot missiles shooting down the SCUDs, it was later realized that many of the missiles malfunctioned or even prematurely exploded due to changes made by the Iranians.

The next problem with rockets is accuracy. If your target is a city or a military base and you aren't particular about where it lands so much, that isn't much of a problem. Rockets work great for that purpose. If your target is a mobile military target such as troops in the field, caravans, fleets, etc., then you have big problems. You have to have the capability to find and track the target. It is not so easy to find and track military targets. They generally don't want 'the bad guys' to be able to do that. Satellite imagery can help, if you have satellites. I'm not sure that the Iranians have any satellites. If they do, I'm pretty sure they do not possess a network that can provide 24/7 recon over their country, the ability to produce high resolution images and the ability to download those images from satellites. Barring that, the next method is aerial recon. There is a problem with that for the Iranians, however. We own the skies. Anywhere in the world- We own the skies. While the Iranians appear to have an air defense network which is superior to what we saw in Iraq, we will still own the air and will reduce most of their air defenses within a matter of days. The lifespan of any Iranian aircraft (manned or unmanned) is probably shorter than that of a fly. So, aerial reconnaissance is really not an option for them. That leaves only visual ground recon by either forward observers or agents. These observers  are somewhat reliable at providing data on a target at one place in time, less reliable with a mobile target over time. Also, they need to communicate this data. Expect that pretty much all communication networks in the country will be reduced within 48 to 72 hours (that is also something we do, and why we like to have air superiority). Additionally, all radio and telecom traffic will be jammed by EA-6B Prowlers or AWACS (or whatever the modern equivalent is - those planes are from like 40 years ago). In short, it is gonna be real problematic for them to figure out where our guys are in order to fire rockets at them. They would probably be better off just burying the rocket warheads under major roads and remote detonating them when a convoy passes over.

(06-19-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Iraq didn't have WMDs.

Let me try to explain something to you that COL Jessup tried to do.

In the Military you follow orders and sometimes you do so without question. That is why as a leader when you can you explain your reasoning, methodology, and motivation for your decision to your subordinates. So when the situation dictates you follow/give orders without questions these orders are followed because hopefully you've established enough trust that they believe in your decision. So YES, often I followed orders without question.

But as COL Jessup said: We follow words such as honor, code, discipline, oath, and obedience.  We follow these because we serve in a field that you have the luxury of being ignorant toward and use them as punchlines and slurs on Social Media. But unlike COL Jessup I don't want you to pick up as rifle because i doubt you know which is the dangerous end.

(06-19-2019, 12:21 PM)Dill Wrote: There are some who might read this caution and hear you saying the US military could not defeat Iran's conventional forces! LOL

Sometimes we get into quagmires because generals tell their civilian superiors that the military option would be a cakewalk. Send in a Marine division. That will tip the balance of forces in favor of the US.  No? Then bomb North Vietnam. Light at the end of the tunnel. Not working?  Then drop more tonnage on Cambodia than all of WWII. Still not there? If only we could have invaded the North, and then China!
But Congress says no! Lacks the will to carry the fight to their territory. 

That hasn't happened so much since Vietnam.  My current worry is civilian authority overruling the military for exactly the reasons you say. Or maybe worse in the case of the current administration, since the goal seems to be to push Iran to attack some vaguely defined US interest so we can respond to their "aggression." 

We can defeat their conventional forces though. Same military that fought Saddam back in the 80s. Nothing to worry about if it comes to war.

(06-19-2019, 12:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as COL Jessup said: We follow words such as honor, code, discipline, oath, and obedience.  We follow these because we serve in a field that you have the luxury of being ignorant toward

(06-19-2019, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it just me or is people using a movie character to defend/explain real life action in the military kind of odd/scary?

Especially when it was a character that was the bad guy in the movie. 

(06-19-2019, 02:36 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: One good thing about Iran, the population is not nearly as divided between different sects and and tribes as Iraq or Afghanistan which would fight amongst themselves and try to become autonomous.

But the bad thing is that the vast majority of the population will despise us as occupiers. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, there won't be factions we can cozy up to and play against the rest (i.e. Kurds, Afghani tribes, etc.). There would be a large and organized underground movement to force us out, the likes of which we have not seen since the Viet Cong. And because of the size and topography of the country we could not even hope to weed them all out. I don't believe that we could nation-build there. No matter how many troops we used. And I suspect we would need Vietnam levels of troops (100,000+) stationed there just to occupy. That would bankrupt us eventually.

(06-19-2019, 02:36 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I envision that an occupation would be something akin to Afghanistan where we try to secure Tehran and some other cities and supply routes through the country, and then try to "win the hearts and minds" of the population through the urban populations. I don't know, maybe we try and build a new Studio 54 in downtown Tehran and restart where we left off in 1979, eh.

But we would still need to secure the borders, particularly the border with Iraq, in order to keep weaponry and troops from free-flowing back and forth (like Afghanistan). That means a lot of far-flung outposts in the hinterlands of the country. And those are susceptible to attack from guerilla forces. And, like Vietnam, some of those would be overrun. We didn't lose any major battles in Vietnam, but small units (even up to company size) and outposts were overrun somewhat regularly. That, combined with supply line ambushes which have become so common in Iraq and Afghanistan would mean massive casualties... lots of body bags.

(06-19-2019, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it just me or is people using a movie character to defend/explain real life action in the military kind of odd/scary?

Especially when it was a character that was the bad guy in the movie. 

(06-19-2019, 03:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, Christ.  I just read the interim Secretary of Defense is stepping down and we're getting an interim to the interim Secretary of the Defense.

LOL.  It's like Trump's administrators are getting battlefield promotions obviously without the bump in pay. I guess this is the plan to offset his deficit?

(06-19-2019, 03:15 PM)Dill Wrote: How many movies have YOU been in Dino?

You have no idea what it is like eating your breakfast 300 yds from a fictional Cuban Machine gun nest.
Probably no one in your family does either.

Sounds like you are saying the US military could not defeat Iran's. 

(06-19-2019, 01:40 PM)Dill Wrote: Couple points and questions to develop this further. First is about what happens BEFORE all communications networks are reduced. What sort of casualties might the US be expected to take? Seems to me that, in contrast to prep for Iraq and Afghanistan, US strategists are focused on their anti-access and areal denial capabilities. They would have to take out buried sites, some as deep as 500 meters.

Quote:Second, the converse of the accuracy problem is that missiles are hard to stop. Some of Iran's rockets, like the Emad, which has a 2000 km range, are supposedly able to hit within 30 meters of a target or explode over them. That would be with a 750 kg payload. Don't these also have internal radar guidance?  If four or five of these strike US ships, no one will care if 5 malfunctioned before striking and 4 were taken out by air defense.

I read somewhere that Iranians might swarm US naval vessels with hundreds of old missiles, exhausting defense measures, then follow that with a wave of guided missiles.  But you think they would be unable to track targets? They do have lots of drones. One followed one of our aircraft carriers for 25 minutes without being detected. And they have friends with satellites to the north and east, don't they? Could they plausibly get access?

Quote:Third, about "owning the skies."  We certainly do over Afghanistan. But we don't over Syria. How would US aircraft fare over SAM-studded Iran?

Quote:Fourth, in addition to taking out their air defenses, there is also a navy to worry about, with some 30+ submarines with homing torpedoes and a couple capable of firing missiles from undersea. Planning for asymmetic warfare against an opponent they presume would overwhelm their surface navy quickly, they have developed an array of smaller target ships and submarines to exact heavy pre-landing costs on the potential invader.  Can the US track and target their submarines sufficiently well to take them out before they damage US ships?

Quote:If I am the Iranian leadership, I know my goal is not to "defeat" the US military, but to exact a cost for defeat that the US would be unwilling to pay. 
Do you think they could do that, given their current forces?

(06-17-2019, 04:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Iran is always supporting these rebel groups that are fighting against Sunni opposition around the world.

(06-17-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Another thing I have not mentioned in previous posts on this thread is the our current Iran policy will allow us to call any attack on an ally by someone we deem an Iranian proxy as an attack on US interests which must be "answered"--this includes a Hamas or Hezbollah rocket into Israel or a Houthi attack on Saudi Forces in Yemen or a mortar landing in the Emerald City.

(06-17-2019, 08:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, as I mentioned above, Iran is a regional power with proxies, something neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were. It has great power to destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan all over again. Send a few more units in there too?  Japan, Germany and other allies would be squealling as the oil flow constricted.

(06-19-2019, 05:23 AM)Dill Wrote: neither Iraq nor the Taliban had thousands of rockets which could reach ships and other targets 2,000 km away, with the potential to inflict horrendous damage on US forces before they even arrive.  Nor did either have the potential to expand the conflict to 4-5 other countries. 

(06-19-2019, 11:33 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:  I also believe an invasion of Iran would result in another proxy war like Iraq for us and Afghanistan for USSR. Saudi Arabia will use Iraq as a proxy vs. Iran. While Russia (Putin) will use Syria to prop up Iran to use against America the way America used Afghanistan in the 1980s vs USSR. All while fomenting the Sunni-Shia schism to add a dash of sectarianism which will breathe new life into ISIS or an ISIS like organization. A proxy war, an insurgency, and a sectarian civil war combined must be a war hawks wet dream. 

(06-19-2019, 03:03 PM)Dill Wrote: A final consideration through all phases would be the effect of an unnecessary war beyond just Iran and the US, i.e., on the regional and global system of international relations. What might the costs and gains be there? First it is hard to see that armed conflict with Iran would be limited to Iran and the Persian Gulf. Second, what opportunities would regional and global players see in the conflict, not all of them our friends? 

(06-19-2019, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not ignorant of anything.  My dad was in the Army.  Both my nephews were in the marines.  One of them was stationed on the Peleliu in the Gulf during the Gulf War and saw some really nasty shit in East Timor  I also have friends who have served in the military.  There is no deep dark secret about what you do.

(06-19-2019, 03:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Esper. Good news for Rayethon.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/06/19/mark-esper-is-acting-defense-secretary-will-trump-make-it-permanent/

(06-19-2019, 02:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is it just me or is people using a movie character to defend/explain real life action in the military kind of odd/scary?

Especially when it was a character that was the bad guy in the movie. 

(06-19-2019, 04:33 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Twice named one of the top corporate lobbyists by The Hill. At least we're draining the swamp.

To recap: new interim to the interim Secretary of Defense while the interim Deputy Secretary of Defense continues his job as comptroller, and we can expect an interim Secretary of the Army.

Oh, cool. We have an interim Secretary of the Air Force, too.

(06-19-2019, 04:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, and no real conversations about how all of these "acting" staff in positions that require Senate confirmation is undermining Senate authority. I wonder why that is.

(06-19-2019, 05:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Obviously there's some SoD stuff I'm missing. Didn't the interim step down because of accusations on an affair?