They wouldn't even get close to the UK, due to our navy.
Iran Vs UK
- Thread starter steveedster
- Start date
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
skadistic
Caomhanach
Iran has very little refining capacity and import almost all of their gas. Stopping refined gas from going in halt the military.
Captain2
ಠ_ృ
The days of Britain calling the shots for Canada are over, if Canada was to join it would be because it has its own reason, not because the British are going
Xanikk999
History junkie
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
No because Harper is sucking up to Bush. Personally I think that Iran will be much worse than Iraq.
Captain2
ಠ_ృ
yeah it would be worse...
however, Harper does stand up to Bush, America claimed our northern passage and Harper turned him down flat
I have yet to see him do anything to suck up to Bush
however, Harper does stand up to Bush, America claimed our northern passage and Harper turned him down flat
I have yet to see him do anything to suck up to Bush
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
Are you projecting?
"The reason they are Commonwealths", as you (entirely non-retardedly
) put it, is nothing to do with military alliances.
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
I'll have a pint.
You've been watching too much rambo.
You say that but the SAS's track record is unparalleled, it wouldn't be the first time they've done this. I think it's not beyond the realms of possibility, and it's certainly not as stupid an option as war, or overt military attacks. But then I think this will be resolved after a bit of sabre rattling anyway.
Look at the stats for Afghanistan, seems like an easy victory no? try telling that to the Russians, or us for that matter. Overt war is a waste of money, resources and life and we're too thinly spread to even consider it anyway, any idea that we should is naive, and ignores current and past history.
steveedster
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 75
Hi guys I think we are getting a little off the point here with alliences etc. forget the 'real world' for a second and lets say it was just UK vs Iran in a pitch battle. I think myself the UK would easily control both the sea and the air, plus would win a land war tho this would obviously be a lot harder. occupation however would not happen and would make Iraq look like a tea party.
nivi
Call me Ishmael
Yeah i'd realy like to see how the SAS manages to free prisoners from a top security installation. Things of this nature have occured (operation entebbe/yonatan), but not on something so secure.
Do you thing Afghanistan is a victory? Not yet, the terrorists are just biding thier time, and imagine if the russians supplied them with strela missiles?
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Well in a great battle royale on the plains of Mesopotamia, there's no question the Brits'd mop the floor with the Iranians. If they wanted to, I'm sure the RN could wage a sustained air campaign and pound Iran all it wanted, but don't count on any sort of occupation.
That's the rub, you can conquer: but hold? It's been shown time and time again in the ME, that it's just not viable to expect to. Thus my cynicism, show me where it worked in modern times.
Afghanistan is a terrible place to fight, and I think it's ultimately unwinnable. I'd be pleased to see it otherwise, it's a country that deserves peace and a stable governement, but sadly with all the rival factions, the only way it will achieve it is without outside input. Sad but true.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The first thing that would happen is that the nations whose troops are in Western Afghanistan would go from having a very easy ride to something of a nightmare.
Cruse and stand-off missile strikes for a while. Iran has a serious air-defence infrstructure the UK wouldnt be able to stomp all over in a day or two. At a guess naval and air defence in the south and oil refining in the north would be priority targets. Localised air-superiority in the south would be achieved, but not the kind of air-impunity of the Gulf Wars. The Iranians would hit back against the fleet and ground forces around Basra - I would forsee some naval casualties but the Iran ground forces being the weak link in the chain.
As much as attacking over open terrain would play into the hands of the UK, the kind of numbers the Iranains could bring to bare could prove a problem. Unless the UK had time for serious redepleyment I would see them being forced to fall back. While doubtless they would make the Iranians pay for their advances when armies are forced to fall back there are always instances of personel isolated, lost and so forth.
Eventually Iran's oil would run out and they would become immobilised and the UK wold be able to bomb them into submission. The UK would not have the numbers to force a general ground offensive.
The UK's abilty to launch raids from almost any area of Iran's borders would (be used to) force the Iranians to garrison in deapth all of their strategic infrastructure, and similarly devide their air-defence. Mitigating their numerical superiority via the strategic superiorty/ superiority of inatiative.
Their only real hope would be a lightening attack on the exposed UK assets in southern Iraq. Truth be told even if they did capture a couple of hundred UK troops it would probably harden public resolve and excuse the leveling of Tehran.
Not that it's going to pan out anything like this.
Cruse and stand-off missile strikes for a while. Iran has a serious air-defence infrstructure the UK wouldnt be able to stomp all over in a day or two. At a guess naval and air defence in the south and oil refining in the north would be priority targets. Localised air-superiority in the south would be achieved, but not the kind of air-impunity of the Gulf Wars. The Iranians would hit back against the fleet and ground forces around Basra - I would forsee some naval casualties but the Iran ground forces being the weak link in the chain.
As much as attacking over open terrain would play into the hands of the UK, the kind of numbers the Iranains could bring to bare could prove a problem. Unless the UK had time for serious redepleyment I would see them being forced to fall back. While doubtless they would make the Iranians pay for their advances when armies are forced to fall back there are always instances of personel isolated, lost and so forth.
Eventually Iran's oil would run out and they would become immobilised and the UK wold be able to bomb them into submission. The UK would not have the numbers to force a general ground offensive.
The UK's abilty to launch raids from almost any area of Iran's borders would (be used to) force the Iranians to garrison in deapth all of their strategic infrastructure, and similarly devide their air-defence. Mitigating their numerical superiority via the strategic superiorty/ superiority of inatiative.
Their only real hope would be a lightening attack on the exposed UK assets in southern Iraq. Truth be told even if they did capture a couple of hundred UK troops it would probably harden public resolve and excuse the leveling of Tehran.
Not that it's going to pan out anything like this.
scipian
Czar
I doubt the UK could actually conquer Iraq by itself but they could do some crippling raids. Other than that, i have absolutely no idea.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Thinking about it more...
Iran would have to rush the 7k UK troops in southern Iraq. They would outnumber them 20 or 30:1. Since there are too many personel to evacuate in time but too few to defend the position there would be a very real chance of the UK using a tactical nuke.
Each of the Trident subs has one missile that has its multi-target high yeald warheads replaced with a lone tactical warhead. Massed tanks storming across the uninhabited desert at the indefencible and unevacuatable thousands is just the sort of scenario they were designed for.
Awful thought.
Iran would have to rush the 7k UK troops in southern Iraq. They would outnumber them 20 or 30:1. Since there are too many personel to evacuate in time but too few to defend the position there would be a very real chance of the UK using a tactical nuke.
Each of the Trident subs has one missile that has its multi-target high yeald warheads replaced with a lone tactical warhead. Massed tanks storming across the uninhabited desert at the indefencible and unevacuatable thousands is just the sort of scenario they were designed for.
Awful thought.
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
Many of you seem to be thinking of nation building. We are trying to build Iraq. That is where the problem lies.
Can the UK take Iran? Easily. Would it be able to occupy it passively like the US is doing in Iraq? Of course not.
If you are going to occupy a hostile country you need to rule with an iron fist for as long as it takes to take out the enemy. If you try to turn it into a circle jerk overnight you are going to get serious problems.
Can the UK take Iran? Easily. Would it be able to occupy it passively like the US is doing in Iraq? Of course not.
If you are going to occupy a hostile country you need to rule with an iron fist for as long as it takes to take out the enemy. If you try to turn it into a circle jerk overnight you are going to get serious problems.
boarder
King
I dont really know enough about about uks military assets to comment, however I would not be overestimating how easy it would be as Iran has been preparing for air strikes for a long time and isnt just going to sit there while the bombs drop.
In saying that I think if it was the UK v Iran and the UK used this as a excuse to wipe out Irans nuclear facilities then I think it could be better for everyone involved (US and Israel) as they would get what they wanted without the overly huge risk of Shahabas raining down on them and Sunbursts destroying there naval assets.
In saying that I think if it was the UK v Iran and the UK used this as a excuse to wipe out Irans nuclear facilities then I think it could be better for everyone involved (US and Israel) as they would get what they wanted without the overly huge risk of Shahabas raining down on them and Sunbursts destroying there naval assets.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
At first we have to see what happens. Ahmedinedschad made a crucial mistake by kidnapping the British sailors (btw why in hell no one fired on the Iranians?!?). He is underestimating Britain. Just now negotaitions are under way, but Blair made already an ultimatum of a few days. He did not say what and when something will happen. However I do not think it will last more than a week from now.
What will happen then? I think it will come to a liberation action and perhaps to some air strikes on some vulneable targets for Iran. The question is, what Ahmedinedschad will do then. He has some good propaganda cards. Göring was right, when he said, even if a people is against a war you have to build up a danger and say you were attacked. And you have no problems then. So I think he can mobilize more. But what can he do? Obviously he can give the order for more attacks in Israel and Iraq. If he decides to attack Iraq, or better the Allied troops there, the Allied forces there would be in trouble. Only the US air force would be able to hold the lines. Remember the Iranians have over one million men under weapons. But that would mean a large scale war.
Germany would have problems to side the US and British side actively if Iraq only is attacked. If Afghanistan is also attacked that would be also a casus belli for Germany.
But how far does Ahmedinedschad go?
Adler
What will happen then? I think it will come to a liberation action and perhaps to some air strikes on some vulneable targets for Iran. The question is, what Ahmedinedschad will do then. He has some good propaganda cards. Göring was right, when he said, even if a people is against a war you have to build up a danger and say you were attacked. And you have no problems then. So I think he can mobilize more. But what can he do? Obviously he can give the order for more attacks in Israel and Iraq. If he decides to attack Iraq, or better the Allied troops there, the Allied forces there would be in trouble. Only the US air force would be able to hold the lines. Remember the Iranians have over one million men under weapons. But that would mean a large scale war.
Germany would have problems to side the US and British side actively if Iraq only is attacked. If Afghanistan is also attacked that would be also a casus belli for Germany.
But how far does Ahmedinedschad go?
Adler
Similar threads
