War Game Shows Dangers of Attacking Iran

some guys here are a joke

you can never talk about Iraq and Afghanistan conflict as wars

massacre would be a better word

reply to post by COOL HAND

I could have sworn that the invasion of Panama took less time than that.

Laugh out loud do you really liken the invasion of Iran to the Invasion of our own Canal Zone to arrest a suspected drug smuggler.

Technically though since Noriega is still here in Prison in Miami its an ongoing operation! It does utilize U.S. Personnel and tax payer dollars by the way.

Poor guy is in legal limbo his sentence is up but no one here, there or anywhere is willing to take him.

Just say no to drugs boys and girls.

Nice try!

[edit on 23/2/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by jackflap
Well, whatever we call it, I would like to have the money that it costs to produce and deploy just one of these. I could probably feed a small country with that kind of money.

I am not sure in this case, since the MOAB was mostly a COTS program.

You could always cut funding from other sources. A strong military with the ability to reach out and touch someone anywhere in the world is not something I would be willing to cut back on.

[edit on 23/2/10 by COOL HAND]

M.O.A.B massive ordinance air burst. What is an air burst going to do to a buried bunker? They are now used mostly to demoralize the enemy,or on large concentrations of said enemy.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Laugh out loud do you really liken the invasion of Iran to the Invasion of our own Canal Zone to arrest a suspected drug smuggler.

No, but you said:

About our shortest engagement was the First Gulf War

which was not our shortest engagment.

Technically though since Noriega is still here in Prison in Miami its an ongoing operation! It does utilize U.S. Personnel and tax payer dollars by the way.

No, the operation was completed when we withdrew forces from Panama.

Poor guy is in legal limbo his sentence is up but no one here, there or anywhere is willing to take him.

Plenty of people are willing to take him, but he is still listed as a Prisoner of War by the US.

Originally posted by JMech
M.O.A.B massive ordinance air burst. What is an air burst going to do to a buried bunker? They are now used mostly to demoralize the enemy,or on large concentrations of said enemy.

Depending on the construction of the bunker, an air blast weapon would be the ideal choice. It would turn every piece of the bunker into shrapnel and ensure nothing survives it.

Originally posted by jackflap

As far as them being used as a bunker buster, I believe what they do is modify them and call them earthquake bombs. Just in case anyone was interested.

So...

Were they used as Bunker busters or not?

I'm confused. So far nothing I've read here shows that.


WTF?

From the good folks at Raytheon...we have this

Western intelligence sources, as well as media drawing on European sources, described deeply buried Iraqi bunkers designed each to house 1,200 troops with provisions for up to 1 month underground. These bunker complexes were buried 30 to 50 feet below ground, comprising many interconnected 8 ft internal diameter reinforced concrete tubes. A typical complex would use a single main corridor tube or ”spine”, with multiple tubes attached at right angles on either side of the spine. Living quarters, kitchens, sick bays, armouries and C3 areas could be accommodated. Entrance was via a hardened chamber, leading to a staircase down to an NBC decontamination chamber, which coupled to the spine of the bunker via a heavy blast door. A two foot thick slab of reinforced concrete was installed immediately above the tubular structures of the bunker. Any conventional bomb which might penetrate the 50 feet of soil would expend its blast against this slab. Some reports suggested that up to forty such bunkers existed in the vicinity of Baghdad, to provide Saddam with the means of concealing up to several infantry divisions of loyal (rather than elite) Republican Guards and a large proportion of his critical command and control facilities.

By the end of October, USAF Lt.Gen Thomas Ferguson, the Commander of Systems Command Aeronautical Systems Division, directed the Eglin AFB based ASD Development Planning group to explore alternatives, and produce some long term planning options for hard target weapons.

Eleven options were considered, a Dense Penetrator version of the BLU-109, an Upscaled BLU-109, Tandem Release of Mk.84 and BLU-109, a new Hardened Structure Munition, a Hard Target Ordnance Technology (HTOT) munition, an Unmanned Hypersonic Vehicle, and Advanced Cruise Missile, a modified BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, a drone B-727/B-737, an Earth Penetrating Weapon and an advanced Kinetic Energy Penetrator System. The first of these, a further hardened BLU-109 derivative, was to use a new warhead and existing seeker and tailkit, and to be dropped from existing aircraft to provide 60

Raytheon GBU-28 Bunker Buster

This lengthy article will explain that yes indeed a modified BLU-82 Daisy Cutter was one of a few different weapons used as Bunker Busters while the Air Force was hurridly developing the GBU-28 which is the Bunker Buster of choice today.

By the way the First Gulf War was on the cusp of the Internet.

Contrary to popular belief History is still History even when there is no copy and paste version of it.

reply to post by COOL HAND

You could always cut funding from other sources. A strong military with the ability to reach out and touch someone anywhere in the world is not something I would be willing to cut back on.

In all actuality it is precisely where we need to cut funding from. It is what got us into this mess in the first place. Just think of the amount of resources that go into projects like the B-2 and other fancy killing systems. Those resources, in my opinion, would be better used to help nations feed their public and would foment a better foreign relations policy that is ass backward at the present time and has always been.

Is there a huge risk involved with invading Iran? You better believe it and the people who are pushing for it know how it will be played out. We the people will be in the very same position we are now and even worse off. The PTB will have their resources and plunder and we will have gotten what we wanted. To take care of that crazy regime and its military once and for all. The smoke will clear and we will see the results.

Our situation will not change and they will have even more ammunition for making us feel guilty about the whole affair.

Any well built bunker made with reinforced concrete, buried deep, like Saddam's or Hitler's would easliy survive a direct hit by one of these.

Originally posted by JMech
Any well built bunker made with reinforced concrete, buried deep, like Saddam's or Hitler's would easliy survive a direct hit by one of these.

In fact they survived everything we threw at them including the weapon we developed at a lightenings pace that is now our current Bunker Buster.

The air war in the First Gulf War started with us having no Bunker Buster which is why initially they experimented with a few next best things.

There weren't any hard targets in Vietnam or Korea so we hadn't developed one, and in World War II except for the Atomic Bombs at the end we pretty much just dropped 500 pound bombs in carpet bombing raids.

The First Gulf War was the first time in our modern aviation warfare history we needed a serious bunker buster.

We still need a more serious bunker buster which is why we are still working on one!

Well, back to the topic, although, Iraq will have a role in this conflict if it indeed happens? These war games have been going on for as long as there has been war. It is a means to size up an opponent as boxers do at the weigh in. However, are the findings in this study plausible? From what I have read, it seems to make sense. I know in an instant Israel attacks Iran, they will mobilize their proxy army Hezbollah to attack Israel as they had done in 2006. With the current rhetoric of the Obama Administration, they are going to trying smoothing things over if Israel attacks without prior consent by the US. They have done it before. As a matter fact, they blew up Saddam Hussein's nuclear plant Osirak to the surprise of the world community, including the US.

en.wikipedia.org...-9

So, the scenario sounds very textbook to me, and I see Iran launching missiles at Israel in the event of an attack by them or the US. Then, Hezbollah will be given the green-light to attack. Followed by the Iranians mining the Straight of Hormuz to disrupt Western oil supplies. Attacks on US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan would commence. Air strikes by the US, troop formations on the southern Iraq boarder and western Afghanistan. Military facilities and diplomatic missions put on high alert around the globe, as precaution to Iranian sleeper cells attacking. You know escalation, followed by more escalation

One point of interest from the article, the study didn't mention how China and Russia would react to an attack on their business partner Iran? To me those are the wild cards of this military engagement, because we really have no idea what they will do. One thing is for certain, a conflict with Iran would be a very costly for all involved in loss of life and resources. To many players have a significant interest in how this thing is going to shake out. It could very well lead to a world war and a nuclear exchange. On another note, here is a video from the British Cold War film "Threads." Listen to news reports and what country is involved in the emerging world conflict.



A little bit of life imitating art?





[edit on 23-2-2010 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Eleven options were considered, a Dense Penetrator version of the BLU-109, an Upscaled BLU-109, Tandem Release of Mk.84 and BLU-109, a new Hardened Structure Munition, a Hard Target Ordnance Technology (HTOT) munition, an Unmanned Hypersonic Vehicle, and Advanced Cruise Missile, a modified BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, a drone B-727/B-737, an Earth Penetrating Weapon and an advanced Kinetic Energy Penetrator System. The first of these, a further hardened BLU-109 derivative, was to use a new warhead and existing seeker and tailkit, and to be dropped from existing aircraft to provide 60

This lengthy article will explain that yes indeed a modified BLU-82 Daisy Cutter was one of a few different weapons used as Bunker Busters while the Air Force was hurridly developing the GBU-28 which is the Bunker Buster of choice today.

Go back and reread what it says. It says that they condsidered it, not developed and used it.

Is that the only piece of evidence that you have that Daisy Cutters were used as a bunker buster? Please tell me you are basing your opinion off something more than that.

By the way the First Gulf War was on the cusp of the Internet.

Contrary to popular belief History is still History even when there is no copy and paste version of it.

Can I ask what is the point of these little ramblings you have in your posts? What does the Gulf War being on the cusp of the internet have to do with this discussion?

Are you ever going to answer my question about your credentials?

reply to post by Jakes51

Al-Quds Al-Arabi Editor: If Israel Attacks Iran, Syria Is Likely to Fire Tens of Thousands of Missiles at Israel, Some with Chemical and Biological Warheads 'Abd Al-Bari 'Atwan, editor of the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote in a February 13 editorial that if Israel attacks Iran, Syria is likely to respond with a brutal attack against it: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that his country is a 'nuclear nation'... and that it can enrich uranium to above 80%, exposes the real aim of Iran's nuclear program – that is, to produce nuclear warheads. In a phone conversation with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, he demanded that Syria wage war against Israel and eliminate this country if it launches an attack in the region (on Iran). In my view, this is the most important development, particularly in light of the fact that Ahmadinejad's demand comes at a time of stepped-up preparations for war by Israel...

www.memri.org...

Let's not forget Syria Jakes. They too are itching to jump into things, from what I can gather.

reply to post by COOL HAND


Once again regarding Panama you seem to miss two important things.

One is that we already had a heavy military presence in the Canal Zone and continued to right on through 2000 when by treaty we gave it back.

Two the only purpose of the invasion was a Police Action to arrest Noriega.

In reality it was just another day in Panama that in sum total remained under U.S. Military occupation for approximately 86 years!

But if you consider 86 years quick!

Originally posted by JMech
Any well built bunker made with reinforced concrete, buried deep, like Saddam's or Hitler's would easliy survive a direct hit by one of these.

Just like the hardened french aircraft shelters in Iraq that we took out with LGBs? Might want to look up the legal case that is still on going about that because the French guarnteed them against destruction. Or so I have heard.

Please, they have yet to make a bunker that cannot be destroyed provided you use a reinforced weapon.

reply to post by COOL HAND

Go back and reread what it says. It says that they condsidered it, not developed and used it.

Is that the only piece of evidence that you have that Daisy Cutters were used as a bunker buster? Please tell me you are basing your opinion off something more than that.

For the memory challenged, and those two young I actually watched the whole war on TV.

It's how I knew it was used in the Gulf War and in what various capacities.

If you had seen it and remembered it there was a month and a half where they tried everything but Barbie Dolls on those bunkers.

I have more than made my case.

Thanks for posting.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Once again regarding Panama you seem to miss two important things.

One is that we already had a heavy military presence in the Canal Zone and continued to right on through 2000 when by treaty we gave it back.

Then why did we have to send the 82nd down there to parachute in? If we had such a large presence (we didn't) we could have accomplished the mission without them having to fly down there.

Two the only purpose of the invasion was a Police Action to arrest Noriega.

Wow, so wrong I am not going to get into a debate with you on that one. The capture of Noriega was only one of a couple of reasons we went in there. You might want to look into attacks on Americans that were ocurring in greater frequency prior to the attack itself.

In reality it was just another day in Panama that in sum total remained under U.S. Military occupation for approximately 86 years!

But if you consider 86 years quick!

Tell that to the families of the 23 military members who died there. Bet it was just another sunny day for them as well.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


The page says it waas considered it doesnt say that it was realy actualy used in Iraq thouh.


www.ausairpower.net...

It was however clearly evident that the minimum 10 week timescale would mean that none would be available by the 15th January, 1991, deadline, the time at which war was likely to start.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by Mek-Tech]

reply to post by COOL HAND

Tell that to the families of the 23 military members who died there. Bet it was just another sunny day for them as well.

Actually they were more than willing to dive into the fray. I was in the military at that time and believe me, they couldn't wait to go. They knew the dangers but that is what they train for. Given the choice to go or deploy they wouldn't let anything take them away from that action. Sunny day, you bet.

Edited to add that the families are always going to mourn their losses but the men who were deployed knew what they were getting into and how it could effect their families.




[edit on 23-2-2010 by jackflap]