7 replies to this topic

[Reno]

I was playing out a hypothetical scenario. If the US did go to war with Iran, what would be the most efficient way to disable the government and destroy military hot spots? There is a small yield nuclear warhead called a neutron bombs which were created during the cold war to pierce armored tanks and installations. Supposedly the radiation had a short half-life and would dissipate fairly quickly. After taking out the military and government there would of course need to be something to take control.

That's an all out military option. I imagine you could probably use some sort of destabilizing path. Any large biological attack would cripple the nation and most likely take out anyone of consequence. It might even be hailed in their religion as punishment from God. I know, of coarse that would be genocide, but still we're talking about overall scenarios here. Spies have been known to destabilize nations before, but most often that doesn't really work. Spies end up assassinating someone and someone else just as bad just takes their place.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Edited by bobscrachy, 28 September 2009 - 08:36 AM.

[caston]

Dude,

Why don't you spend a few weeks in Iran just to get a feel for the place speak to a few people that live there and decide if you think the US should still invade it.


In the meantime you can watch this Reese Erlich video:

[cribbon]

For the US to start another war right now is almost unthinkable, those guys cant even afford the wars they are fighting now and they sure as hell aint winning them either. There is no way to fight something like that, if you want a stable region you cant have it militarized - it just doesnt work. As soon as the military goes away there will just be a military coup to get in control over the goverment and then the state is back to what is whas even before it became occupied by foreign forces - but with a loss of lifes, money and hope.

They should send in the swede again (hans blix), he was right after all, iraq didnt have any weapons. But most smart people knew that even before he got in there. It just wouldnt make sense for a state like Iraq to have those weapons, becouse foreign forces would go in to make sure the oil keeps coming. The same goes for Iran, and the opposite for North Korea - there's no incentive to get control over the area and thus it has been neglected.

Besides, it wouldnt be good for the Iranians if the US went in there guns blasting ... first of all everyone already hates America there, and if the US go in they would just prove what pigs they are. It's no wonder why most of this planet dislikes US, you just dont give a shit about other peoples opinion. Or well, to be more precise, your goverment doesnt, but neither does few goverments worldwide anyway.
Still though, point being, there is no support for US to go in there.

My personal opinion - let Iran get their nukes. People always say that in a democratic world people must have the same basic rights. Well, that basic right should go for countries as a whole too. If it is okay for some countries to posess nuclear weapons it should be so for all countries - end of story.

[Reno]

I was using the US and Iran as an example. The question was more geared toward removing a rogue state. That's why the thread is named as it is. Although, now that i look at it i see i misspelled rogue.

You two are looking at this question from a political position. If I wanted to know the political fallout to a third US invasion i would go ask this question in the political section.

Edited by bobscrachy, 30 September 2009 - 02:42 AM.

[niner]

I was using the US and Iran as an example. The question was more geared toward removing a rogue state. That's why the thread is named as it is. Although, now that i look at it i see i misspelled rogue.

You two are looking at this question from a political position. If I wanted to know the political fallout to a third US invasion i would go ask this question in the political section.

It's pretty hard to avoid politics when you are talking about invading another country. That's an inherently political operation. The neutron bomb that you mentioned was actually designed to only kill living things, by the creation of a large neutron flux, while not destroying physical infrastructure. Some relatively short time after the blast, we could theoretically come in and get all their weapons, plasma TVs and toasters, with only the rotting carcasses of people, cats, dogs, and wildlife to contend with. Awesome idea, huh?

I think the most effective way to deal with rogue states is to contain them and try to flip them to a non-rogue status. Rogue-ness is mostly a function of leadership. If you can find a way to remove support of the people for their leaders, that would probably be a start. Sanctions are the present method of choice, with a mixed record of success. Libya good, Iraq bad...

A failed state is a different story, and might be easier to deal with. The represent a different threat, since there is no powerful central entity to do things like design and build nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

I know this is about rogue states in general, and not specifically Iran, but since you brought it up, I will note that despite claims by some that they could have "a bomb" in as little as a year (which I consider to be on the verge of, if not exactly fear mongering), that is a far cry from having a deliverable weapon. It's relatively easy to make a large, heavy uranium bomb. It is much much harder to make a bomb small enough to put on a missile with decent range. I'm sure that a great fear is a smuggled bomb, but we have the technology to spot radioactive signatures at a distance, so countermeasures for such devices exist. I don't believe that the Iranian leadership is insane, despite Ahmedinejad's insane-sounding rhetoric. He doesn't run the country. If they managed to build a bomb and use it against a western nation, they can count on the destruction of their nation, and they are surely aware of that. They have another game in mind. Ahmadinejad is speaking to a more local audience.

ps: I fixed the spelling error in the title.

[caston]

But be careful it's we that are the the barbarians. The revolt against the English speaking imperialist world may be a massive and popular movement (including people from within) rather than being the action of a few rouge states. Think of the war of independence but fought across all world borders and on a much wider scale.

[Reno]

Sanctions normally work by removing a countries ability to do business with the rest of the world. Since no country can truly prosper being 100% economically independent, in theory the countries people have an incentive to change their government.

The problem is that it is just an incentive. If the ruling government has a strong enough control over a country then sanctions serve only to galvanize the country's population against the world authority. It may weaken the country a bit financially, but it doesn't do much militarily. What we're seeing today is countries rushing to gain a nuclear deterrent in order to bargain for a better economic position.

That's world politics though.

Edited by bobscrachy, 30 September 2009 - 06:29 AM.

[Rational Madman]

I was playing out a hypothetical scenario. If the US did go to war with Iran, what would be the most efficient way to disable the government and destroy military hot spots? There is a small yield nuclear warhead called a neutron bombs which were created during the cold war to pierce armored tanks and installations. Supposedly the radiation had a short half-life and would dissipate fairly quickly. After taking out the military and government there would of course need to be something to take control.

That's an all out military option. I imagine you could probably use some sort of destabilizing path. Any large biological attack would cripple the nation and most likely take out anyone of consequence. It might even be hailed in their religion as punishment from God. I know, of coarse that would be genocide, but still we're talking about overall scenarios here. Spies have been known to destabilize nations before, but most often that doesn't really work. Spies end up assassinating someone and someone else just as bad just takes their place.

Anyone else have any ideas?

The likely war game scenario that the Pentagon has planned would entail a sustained bombing campaign for several weeks, with an emphasis on mechanized forces, Revolutionary Guards facilities, armed forces facilities, surface vessels, long-range aircraft capable of deploying heavy munitions, armed formations, ballistic missiles, air defense sites, nuclear facilities, facilities housing chemical weapons, command and control centers, radar surveillance sites, key components of the power grid, and the locations of leaders deemed critical for organizing a retaliatory response. Most likely, the attack would be preceded by a sophisticated cyber attack to cripple their preparedness, extensive psychological operations to damage morale, and an attempt to enlist amenable members of the government or opposition. Either following or during the air campaign, limited ground force incursions would likely be authorized to secure or eliminate strategic targets---such as high value individuals, border facilities, oil fields, or fuel storage facilities. Since Iran is certain to activate proxy groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a contingency, a limited campaign (perhaps in concert with allied governments) would probably to be initiated against these targets. Surface vessels based in Bahrain and the Mediterranean would also be certainly dispatched to secure shipping lanes like the Strait of Hormuz, military personnel at all bases in the region would be put on alert (or in some cases, tasked with protecting strategic facilities of the host governments), and allied governments would be inclined to declare martial law---detaining all suspected Iranian sympathizers. With the likely event of the target state not conceding as a result of this campaign, ground forces would be quickly built up in the region, and prepared for a seaborne invasion from Qatar, or a ground invasion from either Iraq, Turkey, or Kuwait---but probably a two to three pronged assault.

Edited by Rol82, 28 October 2010 - 02:00 PM.