1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

So, who's next: Iran or North Korea?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by joespaniel, Mar 9, 2003.

  1. Mongoloid Cow

    Mongoloid Cow Great Khan

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    2,816
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    Anyone ever thought that it would better if the leaders slogged it out in a boxing ring, last one standing wins the war. Then George Winky B. can go pick a fight with whoever he wants after Saddam is finished off. At least soldiers aren't sent off to die, the old f*rts pulling the strings run the risks themselves. I don't really care anymore. War in Iran would be catastrophic. War in North Korea would be catastrophic. I doubt even that GWB is stupid enough to start a war with either, but if he did he'll lose a lot of international respect for the USA for the long term. As the sole superpower, the US should be advocating world order, peace, prosperity and order instead of trying to start wars and using blackmail to try and get the UN and the rest of the world on side. "We'll invade Iraq whether or not you pass this resolution, so pass it or we'll just invade and you'll be weak and unnecessary" is no way to set an example of how other countries can operate.
     
  2. ellie

    ellie Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    uk
    quote
    _____________
    Anyone ever thought that it would better if the leaders slogged it out in a boxing ring, last one standing wins the war.
    ______________

    hehe great idea, britain can send either prescott @likes to swing his fists@ or paddy ashdown (was in the special boat service and royal marines.)

    I hope that this inevitable war is the last. But do you really think iran, korea, etc will follow within the next few years?
     
  3. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    I do not think we will have a war with Iran, nor should we.

    Iran is very likely to become democratic on it's own, someday soon.

    The thread title was sarcastic, not a real question. However, I still believe that a serious dialogue needs to be opened with Iran's ruling power (the Ayatollah, not the impotent Parliment).

    The more nations that accuire nuclear weapons, the more likely there will be a nuclear war. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of world leaders, military strategists, The UN, the IAEA...
     
  4. Simon Darkshade

    Simon Darkshade Mysterious City of Gold

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    10,275
    Location:
    Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
    1.) Quite true, and all the more reason to deal with them in some appropriate manner.

    2.) Your analysis of the equipment and capabilities of the Iranian military seems to be rather at odds with a whole host of sources on the matter.
    One has never heard or read anything on their airforce having advanced Su-27 variant aircraft in plentiful quantitie. Some few Flankers, perhaps, but nothing in unmanagable numbers.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce-equipment.htm

    The above suggests a somewhat different situation, and there is also information pertaining to the virtual inoperable status of the Iranian F-14s, and their numbers being 10-20.
    Whilst Iran has requested $3 billion worth of aircraft (50 Su-27 and 75 Su-39), these are not operational or delivered, as such. As to whether these sales, and other sales of Russian equipment to radical countries, it is a political question
    Combined with a definite gap in technological capabilities, electronic warfare, the US advantage with AWACS, not to mention stealth planes and the 'legs' of air-to-air refueling, and we start to get a more realistic and accurate picture of the mismatched correlation of forces.
    The USAF and allies trashed an arguably more capable opponent in 1990/91, and have only improved since then.

    On the matter of their navy, it is fairly good in terms of the Gulf states, but cannot be mentioned in the same breath as the USN. To say it could inflict quite some damage depends upon everything going right for them, and spectacular failures of US equipment and command.

    Their army is not quite equipped with the most modern Russian equipment as ye characterize it, and not T-90s. India is looking at T-90s; Iran is not. And although they are of reasonable numbers, that is no object as US and allied forces have demonstrated on a consistent basis.

    Thus, the conventional forces of Iran can be beaten by the US counterparts without an inordinate level of difficulty.
    Problems? If they employ unconventional methods, such as mass missile attack to swamp defensive systems, and particularly the use of mines in the Straits of Hormuz, as well as use of WMD and terrorist groups.

    With the presence of US forces in the region after the defeat of Iraq, there will be quite the host there - 1st Armored, 1st Cavalry, 101st Air Assault, 3rd Infantry (Mech), 4th Infantry (Mech), the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and large elements of the 1st Infantry (Mech) and the 82nd Airborne. A large force of Marines with phibs. British forces, including an armored division, special forces, and air mobile troops. 5, 6 or even 7 Carrier Battle Groups, carrying several wings of Super Hornets by that stage. Unspecified other numbers of SSNs.
    Fighter, fighter bomber and bomb wings, including stealth aircraft.

    This could handle Iran if called to do so. What one sees as more likely is their presence being used as ever so subtle pressure on the Iranians to play nicely along with international scrutiny and inspectors, which will possibly occur. There will definitely be big pressure on Iran over its nuclear program. Whether this comes to conflict remains to be seen; if they can be disarmed peacefully, all well and good. But it is far better to confront the matter now, rather than to let it fester. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    As for North Korea, they are a problem that should also be addressed. The 2nd Infantry (Mech) are there, and the 25th Infantry (Light) could be airlifted in to link up with prepositioned equipment, but after that, the cupboard is quite dry, with forces in the Middle East, and the 10th Mountain being another light division for a contigency where heavies are more suited. The war plans for such a contigency include 5-6 divisions, Marines, and 5+ CVBGs. This would involve a significant shift of forces from their positions around Iraq, and such a shift of heavy forces into South Korea would in all likelihood lead to a preemptive NK attack.
    If things start to get hairy there, then it would be definitely in US interests to attack preemptively, and spoil the NK capabilities and hold them while heavies are bought in by sea, and Marines for an amphibious landing to turn their flank.

    As such, I can't see there being any major move against either nation until after Iraq is dealt with. Both are situations that require serious attention, and if necessary, the overwhelming application of force.
    If two major regional conflicts were to erupt at once, it would really stretch the US.

    If matters can be resolved peacefully, great. If they cannot, then swift, terrible and bloody war must be made.
     
  5. ellie

    ellie Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    uk
    quote
    ________
    As such, I can't see there being any major move against either nation until after Iraq is dealt with. Both are situations that require serious attention, and if necessary, the overwhelming application of force.
    ___________

    So, what conditions would have to be met to justify actions against iran and n.korea.

    Would the status quo give sufficient reason ?

    Ellie
     
  6. Tassadar

    Tassadar Master

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,171
    Bush maybe secretly plan to attack iran or NK, because he think irak war will be easy and short. But it wont. They will face strong city warfare and guerrila warfare. USA will never be able to operate oil field in occupied irak, guerrila will target those easy startegic ressource.

    All US navy is concentrated in persic golf so what happen if a nuke is launch into water ? no more aircraft carrier and then USA adventages go down pretty fast. Both iran and NK can do that.

    So i realy think US army wont go to far, wait until next election and Bush will be kick out. Democrate will try to repair all the damage done by Bush.
     
  7. thestonesfan

    thestonesfan A Client of Ron Kuby

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,549
    Location:
    Iowa
    It's refreshing that you know the situation so well.

    The soldiers are already surrendering.
     
  8. Simon Darkshade

    Simon Darkshade Mysterious City of Gold

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    10,275
    Location:
    Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
    Each matter should be viewed on its merits, and the status quo is not static.

    Given the forces in the region, if Iran's WMD program is considered a threat, then these forces should be used to bring pressure upon the Iranian regime to allow in inspectors, and to cooperate with them fully.
    The record of the Iranian regime for supporting terrorist organizations makes their possession of nuclear weapons a rather concerning one, particularly when combined with their long range missiles (courtesy of NK)
    If they do not allow in inspectors, then other steps should be taken as appropriate. It makes sense to deal with a potential threat when you are doing so just next door.

    As for North Korea, they must cease their bellicose actions, and open up their facilities to international inspection, as well as destroying an present nuclear capability. This is rather more unlikely than Iranian cooperation, given the rather unsteady personality of Kim Jong Il.
    A diplomatic solution should be pursued, but not by giving in to the North Koreans, and not by signing a non-aggression pact under nuclear blackmail. All steps towards a peaceful resolution should be taken, but measures to act if this cannot be achieved should be prepared.

    As said above, if signs of NK preparation for hostile action are detected, then an pre-emptive spoiling attack is an absolute necessity. To observe the niceties of a bygone era and let them do their worst before responding would have rather nasty consequences. This preemption would involve air strikes against their command facilities, major military targets, their reactor and suspected weapons sites, transport hubs, their rather outdated air force and air defence capabilities, and importantly, their long range artillery on the border.
    This should be combined with naval action, and artillery and rocket attacks on NK positions; if they are allowed to fight according to their plan, things will get messy. If they are not allowed to fight according to plan, then the predictions of doom and massive loss of allied life will not come to pass.

    It has been decided by the US and its allies that the mixture of fundamentalist international terrorism, and rogue states possessed of WMD and missiles is a dangerous one. This is an era when none can challenge the strength of the US, and it should take advantage of this to deal with these festering problems through the exercise of their dominance. North Korea and Iran would certainly be better off under liberal democratic regimes, and if this can be achieved peacefully, through engagement, then all efforts should be focused on this.
    In the case of NK, this is less likely; there is a greater likelihood of conflict there than in Iran. But if it comes to conflict, then it must be prosecuted swiftly and terribly, without concern for protests.
     
  9. Simon Darkshade

    Simon Darkshade Mysterious City of Gold

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2001
    Messages:
    10,275
    Location:
    Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
    Indeed. Some do follow the example of AJP Taylor, and never let the truth get in the way of a good story. :D
     
  10. Tassadar

    Tassadar Master

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,171
    They are not surrendering at all, for now they cannot do anything against phase 1 , i.e. massive missile launch by USA, but they are well prepare in phase 2 and 3, i.e. terrestial assault and occupation.

    I will bet anything that USA wont be able to occupied irak more than 2 year ( casuality from guerila and reelection will kick Goerge War Bush), next USA leader will retreat and civil war will happened in irak.

    I will be here to remember that to you in 2 year.
     
  11. ellie

    ellie Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    uk
    I think a large portion of the soldiers in iraq will surrender.
    Perhaps not the @elite@ soldiers we keep reading about.

    The question is, will UK and US forces allow themselves to be drawn into a fight within the city.

    Technological advantages are less important in that situation and it could result in high casualties. Of course you could just bomb the city to hell, but the civilian casualties could cause outrage in both the US and other countries.

    I dont know if the american public would have the stomach for a drawn out conflict with heavy casualties?.

    In the UK i think blair will almost certainly be thrown out and the troops brought home if something goes drastically wrong (assuming we actually go to war).

    WRT to iran/nk etc well, i hope war can be avoided.

    Ellie
     
  12. thestonesfan

    thestonesfan A Client of Ron Kuby

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    7,549
    Location:
    Iowa
    Please, remember it to me 2 year from now. :rolleyes:

    Anyway, how do you know they are well prepared? Are you just hoping they are, so more Americans die? What is your great source of military intel?
     
  13. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    B2 bombers redeploying from Missouri, I thought the B2 normally flew their missions from the USA, refuelled in midair dropped their bombs and returned home.

    Do they deploy the B2 in forward bases?
     
  14. Ancient Grudge

    Ancient Grudge Its all in this life

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,306
    Location:
    (S)hatfield,England
    then why dont they enfoce them elsewhere as well...............

    but if the U.N i against such a war then they U.S cant go underneath the banner of the U.N
     
  15. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    Perhaps the B2 aren't redeploying...

    *
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/international/middleeast/13CND-IRAQ.html
    U.S. Raises Prospect of Abandoning Effort for U.N. Vote

    ...Secretary of State Colin L. Powell even suggested that Washington might simply drop its push for a vote altogether...

    ..."The options remain — go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote," Secretary Powell told a Congressional committee...

    ...For the last week, President Bush insisted that Friday was the iron-fast deadline for a decision, and that the United States would call for a vote by then no matter what the vote count appeared to be...
    *
     
  16. Sayounara

    Sayounara King

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2002
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Eastern Canada
    They will be using nukes against China:( if they do target it:( And than the bad europeans (EU!) are gonna come sneak-invaded the US!
     
  17. EzInKy

    EzInKy Excentric

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,887
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I like to surf around and read other country's newspapers to get some insight into their thinking. You think our tabloids are bad, some of theirs read just like that post.
     
  18. EzInKy

    EzInKy Excentric

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,887
    Location:
    Kentucky
    One at a time would be far more prudent.

    The other big one for the area is Resolution 242. What do you think it will take to get Arab nations to recognize Israels right to exist and guarantee it's security from attacks from their lands?
     
  19. Ribannah

    Ribannah Fighter Druid

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,449
    Location:
    Castle Gobs
    This is really not a big issue anymore.
    In the long run, Arabia needs Israel's irrigation / terraforming technology, and Israel needs trade with their neighbours.
     
  20. EzInKy

    EzInKy Excentric

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,887
    Location:
    Kentucky
    My mistake then...I thought it was the most cited resolution relating to the strife in the region.
     

Share This Page